The rise of the meebot

There is no place to hide as they are everywhere. In the grocery aisles with Mom, at the mall, at the boardroom on Madison Ave, sports, I’m tellin ya, they are multiplying.

We all know folks like this. They were groomed in the home, practiced the art in kindergarten, fine tuned it in high school, and perfected it in the workplace.  All along, there has also been the aiding and abetting of adults at every turn, who shaped this strange creature from the craft of meebottery.

What is a meebot? It is a person of any gender or age, which views everything and everyone through his own selfishness. It is a person who has a pet, and wants to make it the pet for everyone. It is a person who lacks respect for authority. It is a person with the loudest of voices who has the least to say. It is a person who lacks manners, and it is a little thoughtless machine.

Two adults are talking privately, and the meebot comes around the corner instantly inserting himself into the conversation of HIS choosing, and both parties defer to the shiny and loud ‘guest.’ Yes, he must be seen and heard, now. Me. Me.

HIS conversation arrogance is important, and all fall prey to his schemes.  In the presence of a meebot, none dare say: ‘Do you mind, we are having a conversation.’  The meebot is kind of like a fly at a picnic. He is annoying and everywhere, but harmless. Well kinda sorta.

Two men in a showroom were looking at a motorcycle, discussing baffles and lights, and the meebot pops out of nowhere, telling both men about his baffles and why they should or should not go with a certain ‘air flow system.’

After going on for ten minutes he disappears, and the ‘engineer’ who designed the baffle continues his talk with the vendor. Yeah, kind of embarrassing, but the maker of the system said not a word, but he should have. Me. Me.

It is times like these when the ‘bot’ could have been handed a valuable lesson, and the indifference by they who should have simply said ‘do you mind?’ simply fuels the impropriety, and makes it stronger.

Meebots have never been stood up, hence their rapid ascent to ‘fame.’  I can spot one, yea rather, I can hear one a mile away. Upon visiting the factory Mr and Mrs Botts 7 year old daughter proceeds to the front desk, and usurps herself into a business transaction, and within seconds, she is literally sitting on the lap of luxury. By virtue of her association with Mr. and Mrs. Meebot, she as the baby bot, has all rights to derail a meeting.

You walk away rolling your eyes and scratching your head. Where did this strange-ness come from? Short answer: Meebottery begins when discipline is non-existent or ceases. There is no respect for authority. No absolutes. It’s all the about the great M.E.

I went to work with my Dad when I was 9 or so, and he dropped me off at a guard-house of a facility because no children were allowed inside. He said, ‘I’ll be back for you, stay put.’ Naturally, the 15 minutes seemed like 3 days, I was beside myself, thinking he was lost or forgot me, but the world continued to spin just as it was upon his return.

I learned about authority, patience, discipline, trust, fear, promise, while adults today see these things as weaknesses.  God forbid a man would have to wait 45 seconds until another fellow finishes his conversation before he ‘jumps in.’  Why should an adult teach little Ainsley to say ‘excuse me,’ before putting herself between the conversation of two adults?

Isn’t it proper to ‘give place’ to a 3, 4, or 5-year-old? In a world without authority or manners, than yes, i suppose so, but in a world where there are rules of decency and common sense, then no, the girl can patiently wait. Does it always have to be about ME ME ME?

Some will say, ‘what about the children that the Lord said not to offend?’ I would say: ‘What about them?’ and this point is hardly worth addressing in the context of meebottery.

Enter a spiritual component and you now have a nightmare. A man who dissected a frog will lecture a brain surgeon on how best to remove a tumor, and a man who despises the word of God will chastise Dr. Billy Graham for preaching the gospel incorrectly.  Truly distressing.

Oh yeah, and by the way, some of the greatest men of God were once Meebots. As a matter of fact, they all were     😉

About ColorStorm

Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture, while adding some gracious ferocity.
This entry was posted in Homespun and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to The rise of the meebot

  1. Oh dear, I sure hope all these meebots can’t be described as lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, because that would be downright prophetic 😉

    Liked by 1 person

    • ColorStorm says:

      A fine example of ‘iron sharpening iron.’ Great reference. Well done.

      But we know there is room at the table for the villains eh. It is then a real work of grace to change a meebot to a person worthy of the high call. Fortunately, that’s not our job.

      You probably saw that quote: ‘Be ye fishers of men. You catch em, I’ll clean them.’

      But yes, prophetic, and ever true.


  2. i’m glad you inserted the last line in the post. Lol

    Liked by 1 person

    • ColorStorm says:

      Yes, it was almost a trap, but all things revealed in their time. 😉

      Also, an opportunity for the reader to see what he’s thinking BEFORE he sees the last line.

      tkx for reading

      Liked by 1 person

  3. a gentle iconoclast says:

    ColorStorm, I had to look up meebot. Be kind and tell me what your posts on meebots are about. I get the talk about knowing our place in the world and among others, which should be learned as children, and I’m sorry that I’ve been this kind of brat sometimes, however, I sense that you are saying more than speaking about brattiness.
    Hi, IB, please forgive me for coming to your house and being rude as your guest there. I regret it as far as rudeness to you! Though you know my strong feelings I believe, but it still is wrong that I did this.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ColorStorm says:

      Well Maria, I hope u didn’t find any info on the meebot, as I thought it was my word 😉

      In the context of the past month (s), there have been concerted and what seems like connected assaults on good people.

      The idea of the ‘meebot’ sprang from my post on the flood of Noah, and my disclaimer that ‘I will not argue endlessly’ on a matter that was settled.

      If you read the comments, you can get a sense of why the ensuing posts.

      Liked by 1 person

      • a gentle iconoclast says:

        All I could find with a quick search was that meebot is spyware that looks like something that fights spyware. This is the impression I got at a computer site from someone who was trying to fix this problem.
        Thanks for explaining what you’re doing,

        Liked by 1 person

        • ColorStorm says:


          With the excellent reference by ib22, regarding the character of people nowadays, I could probably narrow a meebot down to ‘the very worst of an unprincipled unbeliever.’

          ‘Boaster, disobedient to parents….etc.’

          Where have you been though, Maria? Haven’t seen ya lately. Happy new year by the way

          Liked by 1 person

        • a gentle iconoclast says:

          Surviving the holidays, visiting with my husband’s Dad (he’s 93), posting some, talking to a good friend. Keeping the faith because He is good!
          Happy new year to you!!


    • tildeb says:

      ColorStorm is attempting to equate a ‘meebot’ with atheists who criticize religious beliefs generally and those of us on this site specifically who have dared to take believers to task for how and what they believe. Many atheists seem to know far more about theologies than some of true believers and the angst caused by this recognition creates a lot cognitive dissonance. That’s uncomfortable, so some try to rework the problem and must turn to fiction. Hence, this post by ColorStorm to empower a false equivalency between atheists and the ‘meebot’.

      Wally specifically was nailed with failing to endorse his religious identity that holds Catholics to be hell bound. He was also criticized for his support for misogyny and the teaching of this ‘virtue’ to children as he pines for the loss in reality of the fictional TV family of the 50s he likes to try to model. Of course, like so many believers, Wally is a very nice fellow with very nice intentions and is very proud of his religious identity. So when he is shown characteristics of that identity he doesn’t like and doesn’t want to own, that he would really prefer to reject for good reasons, he gets petulant that these disagreeable aspects are part of the religious identity he wears and can only make these kinds of comments… as if the vilifying of those who point out this identity problem will magically translate into avoiding the problems inherent in his religious identity.

      ColorStorm has gone along with this charade with this post and thinks the fiction matches the selfish motivations of those who dare think for themselves and who are responsible for the maintenance of their character. The Tone Police would be lost without atheists, donchaknow, because condemning another to Hell for eternal suffering because of their religious identity reflects a very nice, a very polite, a very compassionate and caring and giving and loving kind of person, you see. Not selfish like those terrible atheists acting like spoiled children who disrespect their religious parents… parents like Wally and ColorStorm and Madblog and others in the cheering section who set such good examples.

      It’s really nothing more than another lame attempt by ColorStorm to vilify others through misrepresentation… not that that intentional and repeated undertaking reflects poorly on his character, of course. His piety – like Wally’s – grants him automatic immunity from the charge of Lying For Jesus regardless of the overwhelming evidence that justifies an earned conviction.


      • ColorStorm says:


        Where did Wally ever misrepresent me ever?

        If you are careless of thought as to something so simple, then what does this speak as to your other observations and complaints?

        Also, since you are preaching to your own choir, you may want them to read the very last sentence of the essay here, and once more, your accusations fail to hit the target.

        But if there is something that indicts your conscience, then good, it is a fine thing to be arrested by the true God of heaven and earth. I would covet such attention.


        • tildeb says:

          The point, however, remains that Wally doesn’t like his religious identity to include tenets he doesn’t like… but he maintains the identity nevertheless. (Sort of like being a good Nazi who likes Jews and personally wouldn’t dream of harming a hair belonging to one.)

          And the misrepresentation I talk about has to do with misrepresenting atheists by some group association of characteristics assigned to it – negative, I should clarify – that are not related to many of the individuals who constitute it.

          Yes, I read the last sentence. You often include an escape clause in your writing to avoid responsibility for what you’ve said previously and this is the same tactic. The point is that as long as these ‘villains’ (your word, not mine) come to share your beliefs, then the transition that is shared by all (because we’re all meebots, apparently, until some of us transition out of it according to you) is evidence for amazing grace. Doesn’t alter my points one iota that you’re really talking about atheists and misrepresenting them.


      • Wally Fry says:


        I think a few things need to be clarified. I was not called out for failing to do anything of the sort you stated. Specifically, you stated I failed to hold to my religious identity which holds that Catholics are hell bound. More specifically, the statement was made that Baptists think the Pope is the anti Christ.

        Foremost, there is no “Baptist” identity per se. There are variances among many different Baptist denominations. The one thing that is fairly common is the strong belief in the autonomy of the Local Church. I hate to break it to you, but there is no monolithic Baptist organization. The very thought is rather humorous to tell the truth. We debate among ourselves worse than a gathering or Rabbis LOL.So, I can’t be held to account for failing to uphold a position which does not exist.

        Next, I would never say that any person is Hell bound simply for the Christian denomination they affiliate with. You so misunderstand. In fact, it’s not my place in the world to take on what I might see as issues with some denomination or another. Heck, I have issues with some things the Baptist Church down the road from me teaches. My place in the world is to deal with individuals. I simply share truth with people on a one to one basis. I do believe that certain beliefs, notably the Doctrine of Salvation by Grace through faith, and not of works, is an essential element of salvation through Jesus Christ. If somebody differs on that subject from what I believe Scripture teaches, then we are certainly going to discuss it.

        Next…Pope as anti Christ? That’s absurd for so many reasons I could not cover them all here. Are there folks who would day that? Yep..shame on them too..they should quite worrying about the Pope and worry about their next door neighbor. Are Christians sometimes guilty of misbehavior..yep..nuff said.

        Finally…on ColorStorm? Trust me, if ColorStorm and I had a differing theologically on an issue I thought was key to coming to Jesus Christ for eternal salvation, I would gladly call him out on it. I would no more back down from gross error on his part than I would from error on yours.

        Just sayin.

        Liked by 1 person

      • tildeb says:

        Wally, first off, it wasn’t me but (I think) Ark following this line of reasoning.

        Second of all, the Not A True Scotsman argument isn’t going to work… unless you’re really trying to argue that you think there is no qualitative theological difference between a Baptist and a Catholic and claims about being hell bound for believing the wrong stuff really doesn’t carry much importance (if any) at all … in which case claim deism and be done with all these discrepancies.


        • Wally Fry says:


          Yes, it was Ark. I get what you are saying. But, I stand by what I said. Of course, there are theological differences between what I believe and what others believe. But, nonetheless, there is not a Baptist consensus, trust me.

          I will give you an example. As I said, I see that the Bible teaches salvation by Grace through faith alone…not of works…period. I believe no amount of works save us, and that God is quite capable of doing it himself if we just believe. I also believe that that salvation is secured forever once it’s given. I tell you, there is a Baptist Church down the road from me that is quite legalistic and many folks there think they have to accomplish certain things prior to salvation; it is also taught that, if one messes up, then the process starts over again. The funny thing is, I know people there, and I also know that some of them have it exactly right.

          My point is, why should I jump up and down and rail against the church as a body? I accomplish nothing that way. I have, however taken opportunities to deal with individuals from there.

          It’s almost as if it displeases you that I don’t run around screaming hatred towards the Catholic church. Now, if I did…then the thrashings for being intolerant would start immediately.


        • tildeb says:

          No, as I’ve always maintained, Wally, I think your a very nice person with very good intentions. And you’re right in that who said what isn’t the point other than accuaracy which is the only spirit in which I mentioned it.

          But I think you are falling a wee bit short in why you consider yourself a Baptist compared to not identifying as a Catholic. There really are significant difference to these religious identities and they reside in the acceptance or rejection of the central tenets of each. And one of the central tenets that differentiates the two has to do with who to attain the afterlife because this matters. The Baptists are significantly different from the Catholics in these tenets and you know this to be true. And one of these deals with consequences of not adhering to the faith. You make it seem like this difference is really a non issue whereas you know perfectly well the main consequence is not achieving an afterlife in heaven but to be consigned to hell. Because some of the tenets are incompatible, one of you will not attain heaven according to the religious identity you accept.

          Which one?

          And that’s the point.


        • Wally Fry says:


          Yes…it is a critical issue. I don’t mean to present it as a non issue. I stand by what I believe is the Biblical teaching concerning salvation and how one attains it.

          My only point is that dealing with this issue is an individual thing. I am happy, willing and quite able to share with anyone what I believe The Bible teaches without needing to attack viewpoint en masse.

          For those who profess Christian belief there are two voices…one is the voice of Grace and one is the voice of works. The Bible is absolutely clear about which one is the path to eternal life.(That would be Grace, incidentally.)

          I’m all for open, even vociferous debate on issues if it is appropriate. If a person professing Christian belief suddenly showed up in some forum telling the things they were doing to work their way to Heaven..then I would gladly jump in. I just don’t see the need to start with an assault initially.

          Right is right…wrong is wrong. I believe that and will defend it. But 1 Peter 3:15 contains an important lesson which I try to keep in my heart at all times…and this includes dealing with misguided believers, outright heretic, and atheists as well. In fact, it includes anyone I deal with.

          “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:”

          On other words, be ready to teach the truth, just don’t be a jerk about it.Incidentally, proselytizing does not make me a jerk, as that is my job as well.


      • a gentle iconoclast says:

        tildeb, this is the first time you’ve spoken to me, and me to you. The only answer I have is that my brothers and sisters in the Lord are sinners like me but saved like me. What I’m saying is that Jesus commanded us to love one another, and this is a good thing, and that we all sin and fall way short of His glory. He knows this and loves us still.
        The other thing Jesus commanded us to do was to tell everyone, without showing favoritism, that He died for our sins according to the Scriptures, was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by many alive, and proved to be the Son of God with power through the resurrection from the dead. So I want to tell you in love these things which are true. You need to repent of your sins, as we have, and to put your trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. He cannot lie and is full of mercy and compassion. Warning people of eternal punishment (hell) is merciful and compassionate. He did this and we do this out of love. There are those who talk about these things in a hateful way, but you won’t find that here.

        Liked by 2 people

      • ColorStorm says:

        @ Tildeb

        You said—————Not selfish like those terrible atheists acting like spoiled children who disrespect their religious parents… parents like Wally and ColorStorm and Madblog and others in the cheering section who set such good examples——————————

        I can assure you, this is 100% incorrect as to your inference. The context was a natural upbringing where a child without authority, thinks the world revolves around him.

        And yes, without God, is is equally about MEE. Is it personal? It should be, and this is what Maria earlier confirmed and testified.

        There are many layers of meebottery, like an onion, as was clearly pointed out in the post.

        A woman with a keen eye said that: ‘boasters, the proud, covetousness, lovers of their own selves,’ are simple proofs of the life and times of the meebot, as foretold by the word of God..

        Meebottery is alive and well, and thriving.

        Liked by 2 people

        • tildeb says:

          The context was a natural upbringing where a child without authority, thinks the world revolves around him.

          Oh, I understood that perfectly well.

          And yes, without God, is (sic) is equally about MEE.

          This is your faith-based belief making its presence a determining factor not just in your conclusion but as it! And this is factually wrong.

          There are many layers of meebottery, like an onion, as was clearly pointed out in the post.

          Yes, but that’s simply you flinging this claim everywhere and expecting it to stick to those who do not believe in your god. That’s my criticism, as is the assumption that wherever ‘meebotery’ is is worse today than ever before. Again, a vacuous claim that is true only by presumption. Only by conflating presumption with prophecy can you believe your claims here are true… while nicely smearing atheists along the way as examples of ‘meebotery’. This, to be as honest as it is blunt, bullshit that not just you but some of the ‘greatest men of God’ have flung at non believers. In that sense, is it company you really wish to share? Apparently so.


      • Matthew says:

        “Many atheists seem to know far more about theologies than some of true believers and the angst caused by this recognition creates a lot cognitive dissonance.”

        By definition, no atheist exists. So-called atheists are actually agnostics. Anyway. . . Many agnostics do not know more about theology than theists. Many agnostics, from my many encounters with them, regurgitate same old secularist arguments, which have been debunked numerous times throughout the ages, from other secularists. (So much for “free thinking” by agnostics.)

        You see, Tildeb, you and I follow different religions. (By definition, everything is a religion.) You and I observe the same facts, but we interpret those facts differently from opposing presuppositions and biases. As a side note, by definition, you and I use science, so it is childish to presume that theists do not use, accept, or contribute to science. Many of the renown scientists in history were devoted theists. Everyone uses science. Again just a side note.


        • tildeb says:

          Matthew, when I’m talking about belief in a god, as I was here, I use the term a-theist to describe those who do NOT believe. After all, that’s the target CS was aiming for. We really do exist.

          And no, I do not prescribe to some religion as the term is commonly used. Why you insist I do is idiotic as is your misconstruction that claims I am in any way trying to suggest that ” theists do not use, accept, or contribute to science.” I have never written or said anything like that. But because you obviously missed it the first time around, let me reiterate that people’s religious beliefs themselves do not contribute to science. In fact – and because you’ve unsurprisingly failed to notice the obvious – religious belief itself never ever produces knowledge. Sticking such belief into some scientific endeavor would not change this fact one jot or tittle, which is why scientists – theists and atheist – do not do so and call the product science. There is no need for any god hypothesis when trying to model reality successfully. I hate to be the bearer of such bad news but your dancing really doesn’t cause it to rain.


    • Oh hey, Maria, all is forgiven. I don’t mind dissenting opinions at all. You never have to agree with me 😉

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Wally Fry says:

    Well ColorStorm there you go again. This post proves once again that you are nothing but a bronze age cave dweller stuck in 1950.

    I have done an extensive google search and there is simply no evidence for the existence of meebots. These fictional characters are merely constructs of your obviously traumatized mind. Tell me if you will what horrific event caused you to believe such rubbish?

    Furthermore even though meebots do not exist. is obvious that you are a meebot hater.

    Believe what you will….but please…I implore you….spare the children.

    Liked by 4 people

  5. Citizen Tom says:

    Reblogged this on Citizen Tom and commented:
    Great post! I think ColorStorm may have coined a very worthwhile word.

    Are you a meebot? Am I?

    Liked by 1 person

  6. SLIMJIM says:

    There is a Meeboot that’s within in that we need to mortify constantly!

    Liked by 3 people



  9. Pingback: The rise of the meebot – Citizen Tom

  10. Pingback: WHAT DOES THE WORSHIP OF IDOLS LOOK LIKE? — PART 5 – Citizen Tom

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s