We have a Very Special Men And Women of Few Words edition of Dear ShitFerBrains for you today, because due to some odd alignment of the planets this week, we didn't receive a single long, painful screed that ranged over everything from Benghazi to water fluoridation. Just a lot of staccato bursts of derp. And so the question must be asked: Is our trolls learning? Hahahaha, who are we kidding, of course not (As always, all spelling, spacing, and punctuation is reproduced verbatim).

We'd like to start by congratulating "uRaSheep," who listed their email as "sheep@sheep.sheep," for this concise yet devastating rebuttal of our COINTELPRO AgitProp FalseFlag Lies about the Gathering of the Militia Loons in southwest Oregon to join a nonexistent standoff with Jackbooted Federal Thugs who have so far made the standoff awfully frustrating by not actually showing up to stand off with anyone.

Hahaha this article is funny! Such a blatantly biased article will only be taken seriously by the sheepiest of the sheep. Baaaaaaa

We think he's trying to make a point of some kind, but darned if we know what it is. Still, it's an excuse to throw in a Randy Newman song, so life is good:

Our piece on the Walmart pharmacist in Georgia who refused to fill a prescription to help a woman who'd suffered a miscarriage (because deeply held religious beliefs) elicited this style complaint from "John":

I think the writer missed a few cusswords in this article. The more cusswords you use; the more important the article must be.

Egad, that piece must have just been Chock Full of Gratuitous Cussin'! So we checked: 5 instances of "fuck," and one "bullshit." Out of what MS Word tells us were 942 words. So John, we think we see your point: Evan really did miss a whole bunch of cuss words, with only 2 of the Carlin 7 making it into the piece. We will obviously need to have a word with him about this shit piss cunty motherfucking asshole tits fuckery.

While we didn't receive any longform idiocy, we did get a whole bunch of short bursts of TRVTH from someone calling herself "Zosha123" about how climate change is all a lie, because the lying liars keep lying. Does it even matter which article her comments replied to? Not to Zosha123, who we suspect says this stuff whenever she sees "global warming" or "CO2" in an article title. Here's a sampling; see if YOU can find the subtle flaw in Zosha123's logic:

• "Deniers and believers" need to force science to end this debate to SAVE THE PLANET and say they are more than 97% sure. It's been 34 years of climate action failure. What choice do we have?
• Is science 97% sure the planet isn't flat?Name one CO2 scientist that says they are not allowed to be more than 97% certain?We as liberals are exaggerating vague science just to hissy fit hate conservatives but history is asking who's the real fear mongering neocon?
• I'm serious. Science NEVER agreed beyond 97% certainty and have failed for 34 years to SAVE THE PLANET. We don't have to believe in this misery.
• If science isn't "ALLOWED" to more than 97% certain then what CO2 scientist has ever said that?No matter how much you fear mongering "believers" hate conservatives, it's still been 34 years of global denial and climate action failure.
• Seriously? WE as peace loving progressive "believers" tell our kids science doesn't need to say it's more than 97% certain they are doomed but WE can?

And then there's this, which leaves us truly confused about where Zosha123 falls in the political spectrum of Stupid:

Our NOT WANTING science to be more than 97% certain for a deadly global crisis is doing to us what Bush and his false wars did for the neocons.Exaggeration is fear mongering in the history books; *Occupywallstreet now does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by trust worthy politicians.

Leaving aside the minor detail that Occupy Wall Street never had a "list of demands" -- remember the complaints that it was a meaningless movement without one? -- we guess Zosha123's saying that climate change has to be a hoax because of proposals for carbon markets? We aren't even 1 percent certain what she's getting at.

Also, somewhere in there Zosha123 managed a single comment that didn't mention that ridiculous "97% certain" bit, which leads us to think she must have copy-pasted it from someone else:

Life is good; the smoggy 70’s are gone.

We have such little smog now that "smog levels" no longer even measure smog; they measure conditions that "could" lead to being able to measure any smog. That's why "Alerts", "Advisories", "Watches" and "Be Kind to Air Days" are only predictions that smog "could be" measured within the next 36 hours. And if that happens its called a; "Smog Warning" or real smog. Now for a decade and a half we have had no real detectable or more accurately; "meaningful" smog levels at all.

-We are living longer than ever before.

-Fracking and clean combustion means almost endless fossil fuel supplies.

We ran part of that through the Google and found it all over the place, mostly from someone who seems to be Zosha123 also too, albeit with a male profile pic this time. Still, it's an important point: Smog is no longer a problem, so why are you making such a fuss about CO2 and global warming? Also, we've virtually eradicated polio in North America, so why is everyone so upset about measles outbreaks? We've learned our lesson -- we just bought a new battery, so there's no way we're going to believe that we need to get the brakes fixed.

We got a whole bunch of comments from an unreconstructed racist who posted under several different usernames but had a distinct personal style that made us figure that -- just maybe -- despite the different accounts and IP addresses, they were all from one person. See if you can guess what the tipoff was! This turd was especially weird since he (we'll assume) started complaining about all the sympathy and attention we were giving to Eric Harris -- the guy who had the bad taste to go and get shot to death by a 73-year-old unqualified cop wannabe -- the day before before we even published our first story on that event. He got started in last week's ShitFerBrains (appropriately enough), replying to a comment about the 2016 elections with:

LOL at the knigger that got shot in Tulsa, I see you like to defend drug dealers and people that sell illegal firearms.To bad this dont happen everyday,

Then, when someone said "You seem nice," we got this:

I see you are still dreaming about sucking the dead knegros penis LOL. Face it he was a drug dealer and a scum bag illegal guns dealer. GREAT that this knigger is dead,!

Elsewhere, in a discussion of "Sandy L," the commenter who was far smarter and happier and politer than any liberal in existence -- sad to say, she hasn't yet followed through on her promise to sue us for libel by quoting her -- our intrepid Aryan superhero posted, under a different userID,

Dang kneegrow, you are still whining about the spook getting killed in Tulsa? LOL

Heck, by the time he showed up in actual stories about the shooting -- under at least two more fake names -- it was almost anticlimactic, since now he was on topic. Still, it was awfully knice of him to include that stylistic quirk, so it wasn't knecessary to work very hard at identifying his sockpuppets. Also, too, someone's having a criminal record is apparently all that's needed to justify killing them-- good to know!

But back to our Persons Of Few Words. Our story about the 8th-grader whose class photo had the word "Feminist" photoshopped out inspired "DreamOutLoud" to share this perfectly reasonable equivalent example:

this is just as stupid as those who would get rid of Redskins.

At first we thought this was a complaint about the attempt to change the name of the Washington DC foot-the-ball team to something less racist-y, but we guess maybe this person was complaining that some school somewhere photoshopped that team's logo out of a class photo? A quick bit of searching didn't find any news stories about that having happened, but we suppose maybe it could have, somewhere? Either way, it's nice to know that DreamOutLoud thinks that "feminist" is roughly equivalent to a racial slur.

Our piece on serious presidential candidate Marco Rubio got this reply from "RubyRedd," who managed to pack an impressive amount of stupid into just three sentences:

Better than Hillary's you tube video announcement. But I'm sure you love the old bag who got 4 Americans murdered in Bengazi and said "what difference did it make". She's not only old she's a liar and has no new ideas.

The story on the Michigan auto mechanic who won't service any gay people (or their cars) because Jesus said the end of his dipstick would fall off upset poor "Allen Watkins," who also posts a surprising number of comments to articles all over the web to let the world know "I've never heard of this person, so I don't care." But he has heard of the homosexuals, and he does not care for them, no sir, he does not:

You're joking: I thought everyone was "down" with the homosexuals. There actually exists a person who has yet to be converted?? Why its so hip, so cool!! Especially when you drag your shit covered dick out of some fag's ass. That must be the coolest, the "coronilla" as the Mexicans say. mmmmmm.

And finally, a couple of notes from "Joe," one of Yr Dok Zoom's neighbors in Boise.*  Joe just wants us to know that it's perfectly OK that Idaho is willing to wreck its child-support enforcement system for the sake of saving the state from Sharia Law. In response to someone who asked "What IS it with these people and international treaties? Are we never to cooperate with any other nation about anything?" Joe replied that America doesn't need to recognize any other stupid countries anyway:

Move to a socialist country. I prefer sovereignty.

He also identified the REAL reason that stupid liberals would even care about a bill that would put enforcing child support ahead of saving us from Islam:

Liberals will vote for anything that has "children" in the name. Damn the unintended consequences.

Besides, he knows the real problem has nothing to do with divorce or child support. As he explains, it's all the damned licentious hoors:

Degenerate women who would rather kill a baby than carry it is the problem. No one forced them to get pregnant 99% of the time.

Also, in what we guess was intended to reply to someone else but was posted as a freestanding comment (Disqus lets us see the threads comments came from, so we Know Things), Joe just wanted to let us know that he is a far better human being than whoever he thought he was replying to:

Why don't you. I have a big family and successful life. You're just another unhappy, atheist liberal piece of shit.

If only we knew what "Why don't you" was a reply to. Maybe it had something to do with a rolling donut. Maybe it had something to do with the moooooooon.

* Joe includes the city in his email, and we checked the IP address. Happily, while the posts are indeed from the City of Trees, they aren't coming from inside the house.