GBAtemp.

Discussion in 'The Edge of the Forum' started by Cermage, Jan 26, 2008.

Jan 26, 2008

GBAtemp. by Cermage at 10:24 AM (2,866 Views / 0 Likes) 35 replies

  1. Cermage
    OP

    Member Cermage GBAtemp Advanced Maniac

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,702
    Country:
    Australia
    This letter is not meant to be witty or insulting and I am afraid I won't even be able to make it eloquent. But I will do the best I can to enable adversaries to meet each other and establish direct personal bonds that contradict the stereotypes they rely upon to power their pestiferous epithets. Let me start by stressing that I am not attempting to suppress anyone's opinions, nor do I intend to demean GBAtemp personally for its beliefs or worldviews. But I do avouch that I must complain about the most insincere buttinskies you'll ever see.

    Is there a way to counter GBAtemp's censorious, heartless machinations? Oh yes, there is a way. It's really quite simple and can be done by any individual. It doesn't cost a thing, monetarily. It requires only time, diligence, and a desire to draw a picture of what we conceive of under the word "individualistic".

    To paraphrase a line from Hamlet, "Colonialism, thy name is GBAtemp". I am so mad at GBAtemp right now, I could spit nails. There's really no other conclusion you can reach. Some people have said that I still believe in duty, honor, and country. Maybe. But I'm more inclined to believe that if I am correctly informed, none of what GBAtemp says carries any weight. In any case, it has had some success in destroying our moral fiber. I find that horrifying and frightening but we all should have seen it coming. We all knew that if natural selection indeed works by removing the weakest and most genetically unfit members of a species then GBAtemp is clearly going to be the first to go.

    GBAtemp periodically puts up a facade of reform. However, underneath the pretty surface, it's always business as usual. If you believe nothing else that I've written about GBAtemp, you can believe this: We must step back and consider the problem of GBAtemp's "compromises" in the larger picture of popular culture imagery. This is a terrible and awesome responsibility -- a crushing responsibility. However, if we stick together we can can show the world that this is not the place to develop that subject. It demands many pages of analysis, which I can't spare in this letter. Instead, I'll just state the key point, which is that I intend to look closely at GBAtemp's epigrams to see what makes them so effectual at turning muttonheads loose against us good citizens. I should expect to find -- this is a guess that I currently lack sufficient knowledge to verify -- that my observations are perhaps unique. It will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact because if it didn't, you might come to realize that if we don't do something soon, its unscrupulous, disrespectful bromides will rise like a golem with a million hands on a million throats to choke the honor out of decent, hardworking people.

    GBAtemp must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why GBAtemp accuses me of admitting that coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power. What I actually said is that no matter how bad you think GBAtemp's politics are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think.

    Knowledge is the key that unlocks the shackles of bondage. That's why it's important for you to know that like fire, GBAtemp is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. But that's not all: When a mistake is made, the smart thing to do is to admit it and reverse course. That takes real courage. The way that GBAtemp stubbornly refuses to own up to its mistakes serves only to convince me that it motivates people to join its credentialism movement by using words like "humanity", "compassion", and "unity". This is a great deception. What GBAtemp really wants to do is empty the meaning of such concepts as "self," "justice," "freedom," and other profundities. That's why you may have noticed that I resent being exposed to semi-intelligible, incompetent troublemakers. But you don't know the half of it. For starters, in public, GBAtemp vehemently inveighs against corruption and sin. But when nobody's looking, GBAtemp never fails to put out-of-touch bullies on the federal payroll.

    Any meaningful analysis of the situation must allow for the fact that we must present another paradigm in opposition to GBAtemp's clumsy, stultiloquent philosophies. If we don't, future generations will not know freedom. Instead, they will know fear; they will know sadness; they will know injustice, poverty, and grinding despair. Most of all, they will realize, albeit far too late, that GBAtemp's crotchets are more than just primitive. They're a revolt against nature. Okay, that was a facetious statement. This one is not: Many of the people I've talked to have said that GBAtemp and its vicegerents should all be put up against a wall and given traitors' justice. Without commenting on that specifically I'd merely like to point out that because of GBAtemp's obsession with denominationalism, certain facts are clear. For instance, if you study its bilious animadversions long enough, you'll come to the inescapable conclusion that almost every day, GBAtemp outreaches itself in setting new records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It's undoubtedly breathtaking to watch it.

    The last time I told GBAtemp's confreres that I want to delegitimize GBAtemp they declared in response, "But advertising is the most veridical form of human communication." Of course, they didn't use exactly those words, but that's exactly what they meant. I myself can repeat with undiminished conviction something I said eons ago: I believe in "live and let live". GBAtemp, in contrast, demands not only tolerance and acceptance of its maneuvers but endorsement of them. It's because of such snappish demands that I suspect that in the Old Testament, the Book of Kings relates how the priests of Baal were slain for deceiving the people. I'm not suggesting that there be any contemporary parallel involving GBAtemp, but GBAtemp is utterly gung-ho about plagiarism because it lacks more pressing soapbox issues.

    GBAtemp has a driving need to leave behind a legacy of perpetual indebtedness in developing countries. I know you're wondering why I just wrote that. I'll explain shortly, but first, I should state that no matter what else we do, our first move must be to educate everyone about how it is almost funny (but is actually rather scary) to see how far GBAtemp will go to supplant one form of injustice with another. That's the first step: education. Education alone is not enough, of course. We must also help people see its moral relativism-oriented conclusions for what they are.

    One thing is certain: There is an unpleasant fact, painful to the tender-minded, that one can deduce from the laws of nature. This fact is also conclusively established by direct observation. It is a fact so obvious that rational people have always known it and no one doubted it until GBAtemp and its spokesmen started trying to deny it. The fact to which I am referring states that I fully intend to explain a few facets of this confusing world around us. That's the path that I have chosen. It's surely not an easy path but then again, GBAtemp has called people like me devious ingrates, raucous, incomprehensible mental defectives, and impertinent politicasters so many times that these accusations no longer have any sting. GBAtemp honestly continues to employ such insults because it's run out of logical arguments. I suppose an alternate explanation is that GBAtemp's goal is to treat people's bona fide personal devastation as bathos. How childish is that? How subhuman? How pea-brained? Finally, to those of you who are faithfully helping me free people from the fetters of fogyism's poisonous embrace, let me extend, as always, my deepest gratitude and my most affectionate regards.
     


  2. Urza

    Member Urza hi

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    6,493
    Country:
    United States
    You kids have too much free time on your hands.
     
  3. Cermage
    OP

    Member Cermage GBAtemp Advanced Maniac

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,702
    Country:
    Australia
    o rly?

    Is Urza a professional simpleton or merely a well-meaning amateur? How salacious can Urza be? And why does Urza always have to be such a party pooper? This letter is not the place to explore the answers to those questions. Its purpose is instead to reinforce the contentions of all reasonable people and confute those of prurient dunces. With this letter, I hope to defend with dedication and ferocity the very rights that Urza so desperately wants to abolish and encourage others to do the same. But first, I would like to make the following introductory remark: Most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place. Now follow your hearts with actions.

    Urza lives for one reason and for one reason only: to give rise to predatory lamebrains. On several occasions I have heard him state that honor counts for nothing. I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a comment. What I consider far more important though is that Urza avers that we should be grateful for the precious freedom to be robbed and kicked in the face by such a noble creature as him. As you can no doubt determine from comments like that, facts and Urza are like oil and water. He likes to quote all of the saccharine, sticky moralisms about "human rights" and the evils of voyeurism. But as soon as we stop paying attention, Urza invariably instructs his adherents to implement a quarrelsome parody of justice called "Urza-ism". Then, when someone notices, the pattern repeats from the beginning. Though this game may seem perverse beyond belief to any sane individual it makes perfect sense in light of his spleeny ideas.

    Perhaps Urza has never had to take a stand and fight for something as critical as our right to think outside the box. But it may seem at first that his protégés form an irritable organization devoted to harassment and barratry. When we descend to details, however, we see that we cannot afford to waste our time, resources, and energy by dwelling upon inequities of the past. Instead, we must take up the mantle and do something about the continuing -- make that the escalating -- effort on Urza's part to waste our time and money. Doing so would be significantly easier if more people were to understand that Urza believes that he's merely trying to make this world a better place in which to live. Sorry, but I have to call foul on that one. If Urza can't cite the basis for his claim that we can stop Marxism merely by permitting government officials entrée into private homes to search for mad, juvenile nebbishes then he should just shut up about it. At first, you might be unsure as to whether he finds it easier to discuss other people's problems than his own. But on deeper inspection, you'll unmistakably conclude that whenever anyone states the obvious -- that he is unable to use the English language effectively or correctly -- discussion naturally progresses towards the question, "To what degree is he going to force square pegs into round holes?" Whenever that question is asked, Urza and his cheerleaders run and hide. I suspect that that's precisely what they're going to do now so as to avoid hearing me say that you may be wondering why balmy New Age rapscallions latch onto Urza's mottos. It's because people of that nature need to have rhetoric and dogma to recite during times of stress in order to cope. That's also why if you were to tell Urza that he's a social liability, he'd just pull his security blanket a little tighter around himself and refuse to come out and deal with the real world.

    Urza's idiotic claim that there's no difference between normal people like you and me and cocky maniacs is just that, an idiotic claim. To say merely that the confluence of gangsterism and Dadaism in Urza's opuscula ensures a swirling river of discontent upon which Urza so peremptorily rides is an understatement. This is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to take rights away from individuals whom only Urza perceives as tyrannical. Not yet, at least. But Urza says that it's okay for him to indulge his every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole. Yet he also wants to move increasingly towards the establishment of a totalitarian Earth. Am I the only one who sees the irony there? I ask because he wants to prohibit any discussion of her attempts to mock, ridicule, deprecate, and objurgate people for their religious beliefs. While it is clear why he wants that to be a taboo subject, either Urza has no real conception of the sweep of history, or he is merely intent on winning some debating pin by trying to pierce a hole in my logic with "facts" that are taken out of context.

    Urza has been working overtime to rot our minds with the hallucinatory drug of cameralism. The logical consequences of that are clear: Urza says he's going to perpetuate the myth that he has the authority to issue licenses for practicing Stalinism any day now. Is he out of his counter-productive mind? The answer is fairly obvious when you consider that if he were to get his hands on the levers of power he'd immediately test another formula for silencing serious opposition. If you don't believe me then consider that his plans for the future are brutal. They're unnecessary. They're counterproductive. Whenever I encounter them I think that Urza once said that he's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread. Oh, please. I'm just glad I hadn't eaten dinner right before I heard him say that. Otherwise, I'd probably still be vomiting too hard to tell you that if Urza is going to talk about higher standards then he needs to live by those higher standards.

    Sappy traitors generally assert that Urza has no intention to prey on people's fear of political and economic instability but Urza's often-quoted epithets belie this notion. Our conception of paternalism still remains a good deal less clear than we would wish. If that fact hurts, get over it; it's called reality. And for another dose of reality, consider that Urza's clear-cut demonstrations of gross moral turpitude have led me to believe that Urza is a bit teched. Please re-read and memorize that sentence if you still believe that Urza defends the real needs of the working class.

    Since Urza claims to know more than the rest of us, I'm sure he's aware that I have a tendency to report the more sensational things that he is up to, the more shocking things, things like how he wants to declare martial law, suspend elections, and round up dissidents (i.e., anyone who does not buy his lie that arriving at a true state of comprehension is too difficult and/or time-consuming). And I realize the difficulty that the average person has in coming to grips with that, but he is dead set on defending his position against what I have to say, regardless of what I have to say. That's just a fancy way of saying that Urza and his minions are wolves in sheep's clothing who will turn psychics loose against us good citizens sometime soon. Yes, I could add that by promoting both jingoism and fetishism, his stratagems are doubly raucous, but I wanted to keep my message simple and direct. I didn't want to distract you from the main thrust of my message, which is that purists may object to my failure to present specific examples of Urza's intrusive slogans. Fortunately, I do have an explanation for this omission. The explanation demands an understanding of how if I were a complete sap, I'd believe Urza's line that my bitterness at him is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish. Unfortunately for him, I realize that Urza is an expert at shameless name-dropping. Do I blame society for this? No, I blame Urza.

    While the question of who is right and who is wrong in this case is an interesting one, it is also something that I cannot and will not comment on, and not just because if we are to make this world a kinder, gentler place, then we must be guided by a healthy and progressive ideology, not by the froward and rummy ideologies that Urza promotes. This march into unscrupulous despotism is not happening by mere chance. It is not, as many obstinate snollygosters insist, the result of the natural, inevitable course of things. It is happening as a direct result of Urza's presumptuous activities.

    Urza plans to base racial definitions on lineage, phrenological characteristics, skin hue, and religion. He has instructed his hatchet men not to discuss this or even admit to his plan's existence. Obviously, Urza knows he has something to hide.

    Urza says that he needs a little more time to clean up his act. As far as I'm concerned, Urza's time has run out. He has been known to "prove" statistically that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. As you might have suspected, his proof is flawed. The primary problem with it is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality. Consequently, Urza's "proof" demonstrates only that the fact that what I call politically incorrect chuckleheads find his harangues entertaining -- indeed, titillating -- is deeply horrifying to the past and potential victims of such perversions. In fact, I have said that to Urza on many occasions and I will keep on saying it until he stops trying to produce nothing but filth. Now that I've told you what I think, let me end this letter by stating that I fully intend to even the score. Let Urza tremble. And though the heavens fall, let there be justice.
     
  4. JKR Firefox

    Member JKR Firefox Back.

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,130
    Location:
    Canada
    Country:
    Canada
    I was going to say something similar to that but instead I shall offer up a big 'WTF?'
     
  5. Cermage
    OP

    Member Cermage GBAtemp Advanced Maniac

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,702
    Country:
    Australia
    The topic I want to cover in this letter is big and complex, and I don't have much in the way of scientific data on it. Nor do I have a lot of hard statistics, just a number of general observations and a good bit of specific anecdotal material. With this letter, I hope to take up the all-encompassing challenge of freedom, justice, equality, and the pursuit of life with full dignity. But first, I would like to make the following introductory remark: That's just one side of the coin. The other side is that JKR Firefox may doctor evidence and classification systems and make invidious generalizations to support spiteful, preconceived views right after he reads this letter. Let him. Any day now, I will denounce JKR Firefox's crotchets.

    I don't mean to throw fuel on an already considerable fire, but I have one itsy-bitsy problem with JKR Firefox's bromides. Videlicet, they turn back the clock and repeal all the civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation now on the books. And that's saying nothing about how while we do nothing, those who cause one-sided viewpoints to be entered into historical fact are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we overcome the obstacles that people like him establish. If JKR Firefox doesn't like it here, then perhaps he should go elsewhere. A long time ago I wrote that "this is kind of a touchy subject to some people". Today I might add that JKR Firefox should stop calling me a mingy meany. Although I've been called worse things by better people, JKR Firefox ought to realize that the most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do. Unfortunately, he tends to utter so much verbiage about mercantalism that I can conclude only that it's possible that things are apt to get worse before they get better. However, I cannot speculate about that possibility here because I need to devote more space to a description of how I have never been in favor of being gratuitously peevish. I have also never been in favor of sticking my head in the sand or of refusing to get my message about JKR Firefox out to the world.

    A central fault line runs through each of JKR Firefox's declamations. Specifically, the hour is late indeed. Fortunately, it's not yet too late to strengthen our roots so we can weather the storms that threaten our foundation. The very genesis of JKR Firefox's obstreperous, obscene grievances is in poststructuralism. And it seems to me to be a neat bit of historic justice that he will eventually himself be destroyed by poststructuralism.

    Do we not, as rational men and women, owe it to both our heritage and our posterity to dispense justice? I think we do. That doesn't necessarily mean that lecherous sensualists are receptive to JKR Firefox's unctuous messages and fool easily, although it might. Rather, it means that JKR Firefox seems unable to think of turns of speech that aren't hackneyed. What really grates on my nerves, however, is that his prose consists less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning than of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse.

    I'm sure you get my point here. To the best of my knowledge, I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently answer by saying that we can divide JKR Firefox's tricks into three categories: quarrelsome, avaricious, and dodgy. You know what I mean? Why does JKR Firefox want to assuage the hungers of his toadies with servings of fresh scapegoats? Psychologists might suggest that he is battening on us. Counselors might allege that for JKR Firefox, deconstructionism is truly the name of the game. Sociologists might point out that his jibes are nothing shy of a slap in the face to all those who have fought and fallen in war for this country. I agree with the above assessments, but JKR Firefox maintains that either he can be trusted to judge the rest of the world from a unique perch of pure wisdom or that his faith in pauperism gives him an uncanny ability to detect astral energy and cosmic vibrations. JKR Firefox denies any other possibility.

    We are at a crossroads. One road leads into the light of a bright, shining future in which inaniloquent bums like JKR Firefox are absolutely absent. The other road leads into the darkness of demagogism. The question, therefore, is: Who's driving the bus? No, don't guess; this isn't audience participation day. I'll just tell you. But before I do, you should note that the long-term consequences of JKR Firefox's protests are rarely examined, let alone subjected to scientific scrutiny. Stated differently, if we can understand what has caused the current plague of the most misinformed paranoiacs you'll ever see, I believe that we can then get people to sign a petition to limit his ability to cause trouble.

    JKR Firefox has recently been going around claiming that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty. You really have to tie your brain in knots to be gullible enough to believe that junk. His primary motivation is self-enrichment at our expense. Have you noticed that that hasn't been covered at all by the mainstream media? Maybe they're afraid that JKR Firefox will retaliate by challenging all I stand for. I don't care what others say about him. JKR Firefox's still disloyal, recalcitrant, and he intends to divert our attention from serious issues.

    JKR Firefox's premise (that he can change his picayunish ways) is his morality disguised as pretended neutrality. JKR Firefox uses this disguised morality to support his artifices, thereby making his argument self-refuting. Oddly enough, his sense of humor runs the gamut from rude and crude to predaceous and spineless. Stranger still, his statements such as "JKR Firefox would sooner give up money, fame, power, and happiness than perform a rabid act" indicate that we're not all looking at the same set of facts. Fortunately, these facts are easily verifiable with a trip to the library by any open and honest individual. He likes to cite poll results that "prove" that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. Really? Have you ever been contacted by one of his pollsters? Chances are good that you never have been contacted and never will be. Otherwise, the polls would show that JKR Firefox is entirely mistaken if he believes that it's okay if his writings initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend.

    After reading everything I could find on this subject I was forced to conclude that my goal is to invite all the people who have been harmed by JKR Firefox to continue to express and assert their concerns in a constructive and productive fashion. I will not stint in my labor in this direction. When I have succeeded, the whole world will know that unlike JKR Firefox, when I make a mistake I'm willing to admit it. Consequently, if -- and I'm bending over backwards to maintain the illusion of "innocent until proven guilty" -- he were not actually responsible for trying to resolve a moral failure with an immoral solution, then I'd stop saying that JKR Firefox argues that genocide, slavery, racism, and the systematic oppression, degradation, and exploitation of most of the world's people are all totally justified. To maintain this thesis, JKR Firefox naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which he does by the desperate expedient of claiming that his witticisms won't be used for political retribution. If I myself weren't so forgiving, I'd have to say that JKR Firefox is out to till the muzzy-headed side of the colonialism garden. And when we play his game, we become accomplices.

    Though many people agree that we must work together against corporatism, Marxism, priggism, etc., if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why JKR Firefox would want to encourage the acceptance of scapegoating and demonization. I want to give people more information about JKR Firefox, help them digest and assimilate and understand that information, and help them draw responsible conclusions from it. Here's one conclusion I definitely hope people draw: All the deals JKR Firefox makes are strictly one-way. JKR Firefox gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations. In short, I am skeptical of JKR Firefox's efforts to produce a featherbrained definition of "counterintelligence".
     
  6. JKR Firefox

    Member JKR Firefox Back.

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,130
    Location:
    Canada
    Country:
    Canada
    You went too far and have now fallen over the edge my friend.
     
  7. Urza

    Member Urza hi

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    6,493
    Country:
    United States
    I rest my case




    and would also like a link to the site.
     
  8. CockroachMan

    Member CockroachMan Scribbling around GBATemp's kitchen.

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Messages:
    3,889
    Location:
    Brazil
    Country:
    Brazil
  9. Cermage
    OP

    Member Cermage GBAtemp Advanced Maniac

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,702
    Country:
    Australia
    Why is it that some people are so devoid of a sense of humor? Naturally, I'm referring to CockroachMan's latest bruta fulmina. To organize my discussion, I suggest that we take one step back in the causal chain and call a spade a spade. Take it from me: CockroachMan's peons get a thrill out of protesting. They have no idea what causes they're fighting for or against. For them, going down to the local protest, carrying a sign, hanging out with CockroachMan, and meeting some other mean-spirited, warped party animals is merely a social event. They're not even aware that if you're interested in the finagling, double-dealing, chicanery, cheating, cajolery, cunning, rascality, and abject villainy by which CockroachMan may marginalize dissident voices within a short period of time, then you'll want to consider the following very carefully. You'll especially want to consider that if CockroachMan were to use more accessible language then a larger number of people would be able to understand what he's saying. The downside for CockroachMan, of course, is that a larger number of people would also understand that his cowardly attacks not only demean his victims, they dehumanize all of us and are contrary to the principles of a free society. To top that off, he is like a magician who produces a dove in one hand while the other hand is busy trying to outrage the very sensibilities of those who value freedom and fairness.

    I sometimes use the hypocorism, "loud, testy perverted-types", when referring to CockroachMan and his dupes. That's probably obvious to a blind man on a galloping horse. Nevertheless, I suspect that few people reading this letter are aware that it may seem at first that the experts agree with me that human life is full of artificiality, perversion, and misery, much of which is caused by wayward philosophasters. When we descend to details, however, we see that he talks a lot about priggism and how wonderful it is. However, he's never actually defined what it means. How can CockroachMan argue for something he's never defined? Let me give you a hint: Sometimes I think that CockroachMan is simply a willing pawn of those snarky cheapskates who destroy our moral fiber. I typically drop that willing-pawn notion, however, whenever I remember that CockroachMan should learn to appreciate what he has instead of feeling so oppressed because he can't do everything he wants, every time he wants to.

    CockroachMan must have recently made a huge withdrawal from the First National Bank of Lies. How else could he manage to tell us that he has answers to everything? To bring the matter closer to home, let me remind you that he ignores the most basic ground rule of debate. In case you're not familiar with it, that rule is: attack the idea, not the person. With friends like CockroachMan, who needs enemies? I mean, I'm sticking out my neck a bit in talking about his theatrics. It's quite likely he will try to retaliate against me for my telling you that he wants nothing less than to instill a subconscious feeling of guilt in those of us who disagree with his jokes. His janissaries then wonder, "What's wrong with that?" Well, there's not much to be done with ill-natured freebooters who can't figure out what's wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that CockroachMan likes inveracities that do the entire country a grave disservice. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that his goal is to address what is, in the end, a nonexistent problem. How choleric is that? How puerile? How self-indulgent?

    CockroachMan has a vested interest in maintaining the myths that keep his coterie loyal to him. His principal myth is that he answers to no one. The truth is that CockroachMan cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures. He sees such gestures as a sign of weakness on our part and is thereby encouraged to continue causing riots in the streets. If an attempt to hasten society's quiescence to moral pluralism and epistemological uncertainty isn't slaphappy, it certainly is simple-minded.

    I'll tell you what we need to do about all the craziness CockroachMan is mongering. We need to direct your attention in some detail to the vast and irreparable calamity brought upon us by CockroachMan. If he were as bright as he thinks he is, he'd know that if you don't think that his conjectures are built on a backlash fueled by anger -- in the form of resentment, spite, vengeance, envy, loss, and bitterness over declining status -- on the part of invidious turncoats, then you've missed the whole point of this letter.

    As our society continues to unravel, more and more people will be grasping for straws, grasping for something to hold onto, grasping for something that promises to give them the sense of security and certainty that they so desperately need. These are the types of people CockroachMan preys upon. He has never tried to stop illaudable perverts who create an atmosphere of mistrust in which speculations and rumors gain the appearance of viability and compete openly with more carefully considered theories. In fact, quite the opposite is true: CockroachMan encourages that sort of behavior. We ought to pronounce the truth and renounce the lies. That'll make CockroachMan think once -- I would have said "twice" but I don't see any indication that he has previously given any thought to the matter -- before trying to impose tremendous hardships on tens of thousands of decent, hard-working individuals. This is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to appropriate sacred symbols for licentious purposes. Not yet, at least. But the continuing misunderstandings that some pathological, disreputable ochlocrats seem to have merely underscore this point. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation.

    Out of the vast number of devastating evils for which hostile menaces are directly or indirectly responsible, I shall pick out only a single one which is most in keeping with the inner essence of CockroachMan's jaundiced statements: imperialism. Although CockroachMan has tremendous popular appeal, I'm not very conversant with his background. To be quite frank, I don't care to be. I already know enough to state with confidence that the first lies that CockroachMan told us were relatively benign. Still, they have been progressing. And they will continue to progress until there is no more truth; his lies will grow until they blot out the sun.

    As squalid as CockroachMan's forces may be, they are also blasphemous backstabbers. Even by CockroachMan's own account, he has come up with proven methods to harvest what others have sown. All you have to do is let your guard down. Let us not sink to CockroachMan's level. Let us combat jujuism by exercising our right to speak out, to denounce CockroachMan's crusades as totally unrepresentative of the values of this society. Needless to say, CockroachMan claims to have read somewhere that it's okay if his projects initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend. I don't doubt that he has indeed read such a thing; one can find all sorts of crazy stuff on the Internet. More reliable sources, however, tend to agree that everybody is probably familiar with the cliche that CockroachMan neglects the impact that selfishness has on the soul. Well, there's a lot of truth in that cliche.

    If you can make any sense out CockroachMan's perfidious memoranda then you must have gotten higher marks in school than I did. It is well known that the intent of this letter is certainly not hatred, but a probing look into an obviously significant issue. But most people want to be nice; they want to be polite; they don't want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness, they step aside and let CockroachMan give voice, in a totally emotional and non-rational way, to his deep-rooted love of denominationalism.

    Irritating lummoxes don't really want me to raise tasteless knuckle-draggers out of their cultural misery and lead them to the national community as a valuable, united factor, although, of course, they all have to pay lip service to the idea. You see, I must part company with many of my peers when it comes to understanding why this, of itself, is prima facie evidence that CockroachMan justifies his thievery by saying things like, "It's for the good of society". My peers think that we need to educate others about the notions and strictures of uppity tossers. While this is undeniably true, I believe we must add that the really interesting thing about all this is not that our current parlous situation is the result of a toxic combination of CockroachMan's recklessness and his proxies' cupidity. The interesting thing is that he has conceived the project of reigning over opinions and of conquering neither kingdoms nor provinces but the human mind. If this project succeeds then sensationalism-prone criticasters will be free to put political correctness ahead of scientific rigor. Even worse, it will be illegal for anyone to say anything about how I wish that one of the innumerable busybodies who are forever making "statistical studies" about nonsense would instead make a statistical study that means something. For example, I'd like to see a statistical study of CockroachMan's capacity to learn the obvious. Also worthwhile would be a statistical study of how many mephitic pipsqueaks realize that CockroachMan plans to feed on the politics of resentment, alienation, frustration, anger, and fear. He has instructed his spin doctors not to discuss this or even admit to his plan's existence. Obviously, CockroachMan knows he has something to hide. In closing, all that I ask is that you join me to stop CockroachMan and speak out against mindless busybodies.

    oh and..... go find it yourself DX
     
  10. xcalibur

    Member xcalibur Gbatemp's Chocolate Bear

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Messages:
    3,166
    Location:
    Sacred Heart
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    WALL OF TEXT ALERT!!!



    TL;DR

    @_@



    ...WHat?!/1


    You have too much time on your hands.

    EDIT: Looking at the time between posts I conclude you haven't written anything by yourself and merely copypasta'd names into the large wall of text.

    linkie plz.

    EDIT2: seems Urza found it before me XD
     
  11. Urza

    Member Urza hi

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    6,493
    Country:
    United States
    Parts of what follows below were actually painful to write. However, because of the ongoing misinformation campaigns launched by Incomplete and his loyalists, I feel it is my duty to write this. In the text that follows, I won't bother discussing the flaws in Incomplete's logic because he doubtlessly doesn't use any logic. Hopeless hedonists undermine liberty in the name of liberty. That said, we mustn't lose sight of who the real enemy is: Incomplete and his humorless cheerleaders. I want to talk about the big picture: if we are powerless to make pretentiousness unfashionable, it is because we have allowed Incomplete to attack my character.

    You see, I correctly predicted that Incomplete would dominate or intimidate others. Alas, I didn't think he'd do that so effectively -- or so soon. His expansionism movement appears to be growing in number. I obviously pray that this is analogous to the flare-up of a candle just before extinction yet I keep reminding myself that if I had to choose between chopping onions and helping him hurt people's feelings, I'd be in the kitchen in an instant. Although both alternatives make me cry, the deciding factor for me is that if Incomplete feels ridiculed by all the attention my letters are bringing him, then that's just too darn bad. His arrogance has brought this upon himself.

    I've catalogued all of Incomplete's foibles -- and the list is pretty big. Which brings me to my next criticism of Incomplete. Shame on him for thinking that people like you and me are inarticulate! Incomplete, please spare us the angst of living in a fallen world.

    Let no one say that academicism brings one closer to nirvana. No, this is polyloquent, superstitious statism and must be regarded as an attempt to damage the self esteem and physical health of millions of young men and women. When Incomplete promotes the idea of a "global village" he secretly means "global pillage". And that's where we are right now. I may be opening a Pandora's box by writing this, but he accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does he allege I'm narrow-minded because I refuse to accept his claim that he can absorb mana by devouring his nemeses' brains? If so, then I guess I'm as narrow-minded as I could possibly be.

    We must give to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. Let's be frank: If Incomplete were to tell us how to live, what to say, what to think, what to know, and -- most importantly -- what not to know, it would be a grave insult to everyone who devoted his or her life's work to helping the less fortunate. For that reason, I must ask that Incomplete's spin doctors hold Incomplete responsible for the hatred he so furtively expresses. I know they'll never do that so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to intensify race hatred. When we tease apart the associations necessary to his evil animadversions, we see that the very genesis of his dangerous contrivances is in absolutism. And it seems to me to be a neat bit of historic justice that Incomplete will eventually himself be destroyed by absolutism.

    In essence, Incomplete's compeers are too lazy to spread the word about Incomplete's slatternly, catty jibes to our friends, our neighbors, our relatives, our co-workers -- even to strangers. They just want to sit back, fasten their mouths on the public teats, and casually forget that I admit I have a tendency to become a bit insensitive whenever I rebuke Incomplete for trying to defy the rules of logic. While I am desirous of mending this tiny personality flaw, if Incomplete had his way, schools would teach students that the sun rises just for him. This is not education but indoctrination. It prevents students from learning about how even Incomplete must concede that I shall make every effort, especially in this limited space, to place a high value on honor and self-respect. That's pretty transparent. What's not so transparent is the answer to the following question: What accounts for his prodigious criminality and dissipation? A clue might be that his abominable hypnopompic insights introduce changes without testing them first. Incomplete then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one.

    You should never forget the three most important facets of Incomplete's orations, namely their stingy origins, their internal contradictions, and their tendentious nature. Before I leave this issue, let me share an interesting finding from a recent poll: Four out of five people surveyed insist that Incomplete says he's going to extract obscene salaries and profits from corporations that make me the target of a constant, consistent, systematic, sustained campaign of attacks one day. Good old Incomplete. He just loves to open his mouth and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how nugatory they sound. His stories about antagonism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility.

    Your guess is as good as mine as to why Incomplete wants to reward mediocrity. Maybe it's because he plans to advocate lousy epigrams. His claim that without his superior guidance, we will go nowhere is factually unsupported and politically motivated. It is therefore reasonable to infer that when I was younger I wanted to navigate a safe path between the Scylla of Incomplete's dotty, rash anecdotes and the Charybdis of sesquipedalianism. I still want to do that but now I realize that I am deliberately using colorful language in this letter. I am deliberately using provocative phrases that I hope will stick in the minds of my readers. I do ensure, however, that my words are always appropriate and accurate and clearly explain how if I have a bias, it is only against frowzy dolts who force us to bow down low before pharisaical extortionists. I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. And one of the things that impresses me about it is the massive number of people who realize that if we foreground the cognitive and emotional palette of Incomplete's belligerent scribblings rather than their pathology we can enter vitally into his world. Why do we want to do that? Because Incomplete plans to understate the negative impact of ageism. He has instructed his peons not to discuss this or even admit to his plan's existence. Obviously, Incomplete knows he has something to hide.

    So that there may be no misunderstanding, let me make it clear that Incomplete can get away with lies (e.g., that he is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative) because the average person cannot imagine anyone lying so brazenly. Not one person in a hundred will actually check out the facts for himself and discover that Incomplete is lying. He has been trying to convince us that profits come before people. This pathetic attempt to develop a credible pretext to forcibly silence his opponents deserves no comment other than to say that we must give direction to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to take the initiative to set the record straight.

    It may sound strange to Incomplete when I say that we must educate, inform, and nurture our children instead of keeping them ignorant, afraid, and in danger, but Incomplete's parasitic dream is starting to come true. Liberties are being killed by attrition. Autism is being installed by accretion. The only way that we can reverse these nerdy trends is to give parents the means to protect their children. To be precise, I'm sure he wouldn't want me to eavesdrop on his secret conversations. So why does Incomplete want to undermine the individualistic underpinnings of traditional jurisprudence? You see, I never used to be particularly concerned about his insults. Any damned fool, or so I thought, could see that he does not tolerate any view that differs from his own. Rather, Incomplete discredits and discards those people who contradict him along with the ideas that they represent. Okay, I've vented enough frustration. So let me end by saying that putting unholy thoughts in our children's minds is considered de rigueur by Incomplete's peuplade.

    Rather than engage in a point-by-point response to the textual interpretation of Incomplete's litanies, I want to respond to the more general issue at hand. I realize that some of you may not know the particular background details of the events I'm referring to. I'm not going to go into those details here, but you can read up on them elsewhere. Incomplete attributes the most distorted, bizarre, and ludicrous "meanings" to ordinary personality characteristics. For example, if you're shy, he calls you "fearful and withdrawn". If, instead, you're the outgoing and active type, Incomplete says you're "acting out due to trauma". Why does he say such things? Please do not stop reading here, presuming that the answer is apparent and that no further knowledge is needed. Such is indubitably not the case. In fact, I'd bet no one ever told you that Incomplete has nothing but contempt for you, and you don't even know it. That's why I feel obligated to inform you that his announcements are eerily similar to those promoted by madmen such as Pol Pot. What's scary, though, is that their extollment of sadism has been ratcheted up a few notches from anything Pol Pot ever conjured up.

    In general, Incomplete has long wanted to prevent anyone from stating publicly that foolish is as foolish does. Why do I bring that up? Because by studying his repression of ideas in its extreme, unambiguous form one may more clearly understand why Incomplete's endeavors are a house of mirrors. How are we to find the opening that leads to freedom? A complete answer to that question would take more space than I can afford, so I'll have to give you a simplified answer. For starters, I am indeed not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that if we don't deal with Incomplete's namby-pamby, merciless communications on a case-by-case basis right now, then Incomplete's reinterpretations of historic events will soon start to metastasize until they infiltrate the media with the express purpose of disseminating impulsive information. Despite Incomplete's protestations and rhetoric, the facts do not support his claims, but I guess nobody ever explained that to his surrogates. What I just wrote is not based on merely a single experience or anecdote. Rather, it is based upon the wisdom of accumulated years, spanning two continents, and proven by the fact that Incomplete's older précis were unimaginative enough. His latest ones are definitely beyond the pale.

    I, for one, might be able to forgive Incomplete, but only if he promises never again to issue a flood of bogus legal documents. He promises that if we give him and his shock troops additional powers, he'll guard us from bumptious devotees of conspiracy theories of various stripes. My question, however is, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? -- Who will guard the guards?

    The primary point of disagreement between myself and Incomplete is whether or not he has never satisfactorily proved his assertion that he is beyond reproach. He has merely justified that assertion with the phrase, "Because I said so." I realize that factionalism is a tremendous problem in our society, but does it constantly have to be thrown in our faces? To ask that question another way, what meaningless self-inflicted psychological trauma is he going through now? That is, what sort of severe tunnel vision has led him to think that his memoirs epitomize wholesome family entertainment? The answer is not obvious because there are two related questions in this matter. The first is to what extent he has tried to cause (or at least contribute to) a variety of social ills. The other is whether or not Incomplete has for a long time been arguing that he is known for his sound judgment, unerring foresight, and sagacious adaptation of means to ends. Had he instead been arguing that this is clear to every knowledgeable observer, I might cede him his point. As it stands, the leap of faith required to bridge the logical gap in Incomplete's arguments is simply too terrifying for me to contemplate. What I do often contemplate, however, is how it's his belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to cause riots in the streets. I can't understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such a testy idea. In fact, my letters generally make the diametrically opposite claim, that if you read Incomplete's writings while mentally out of focus, you may get the sense that it is better that a hundred thousand people should perish than that Incomplete should be even slightly inconvenienced. But if you read his writings while mentally in focus and weigh each point carefully, it's clear that we live in a deeply troubled society. Sad, but true. And it'll only get worse if he finds a way to acquire power and use it to indoctrinate fork-tongued hell-raisers of one sort or another.

    If you'll allow me a minor dysphemism, I truly believe that Incomplete is full of it. Or, to phrase that a little more politely, finding the best way to fight for what is right is a challenging problem indeed. We must therefore tackle this problem with more determination, more tenacity, and more fanaticism than it has ever been tackled before. Only then will people realize that Incomplete is like a pigeon. Pigeons are too self-absorbed to care about anyone else. They poo on people they don't like; they poo on people they don't even know. The only real difference between Incomplete and a pigeon is that Incomplete intends to exercise control through indirect coercion or through psychological pressure or manipulation. That's why over time, Incomplete's intimations have progressed from being merely heartless to being superheartless, hyperheartless, and recently ultraheartless. In fact, I'd say that now they're even megaheartless.

    Because the foundation of diabolism is terribly flawed, anything based on it will also be terribly flawed. That explains why Incomplete's analects are so delirious. In fact, not only are they delirious but they fail to take into consideration the way that I welcome Incomplete's comments. However, Incomplete needs to realize that I myself want nothing more -- or less -- than to give peace a chance. To that task I have consecrated my life and I invite you to do likewise.

    Note that there is still hope for our society, real hope -- not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of brown-nosing vigilantes but the hope that makes you eager to initiate meaningful change. If I had to choose the most peremptory specimen from Incomplete's welter of insolent gabble, it would have to be Incomplete's claim that he is omnipotent. If one could get a Ph.D. in Demagogism, Incomplete would be the first in line to have one. Not to put too fine a point on it but I deeply believe that it's within our grasp to point out the glaring contradiction between his idealized view of Jacobinism and reality. Be grateful for this first and last tidbit of comforting news. The rest of this letter will center around the way that if Incomplete's attempts to introduce, cultivate, and encourage moral rot have spurred us to encourage open, civic engagement, then Incomplete may have accomplished a useful thing.

    I don't just want to make a point. I don't just want to set the stage so that my next letter will begin from a new and much higher level of influence. I'm here to give an alternate solution, a better one. I don't just ask rhetorical questions; I have answers. That's why I'm telling you that if we look beyond Incomplete's delusions of grandeur, we see that he says that he wants to make life better for everyone. Lacking a coherent ideology, however, he always ends up making my blood curdle.

    Incomplete either is or elects to be ignorant of scientific principles and methods. He even intentionally misuses scientific terminology to prostrate the honor, power, independence, laws, and property of entire countries. If he gets his way, we will soon be engulfed in a Dark Age of Lysenkoism and indescribable horror. That's why I'm telling you that if it weren't for obdurate, lazy cheapskates, Incomplete would have no friends. He presents one face to the public, a face that tells people what they want to hear. Then, in private, Incomplete devises new schemes to make a mockery of our most fundamentally held beliefs.

    How can we trust an officious, distasteful dummkopf who actively conceals his true intentions? We can't. And besides, it is more than a purely historical question to ask, "How did Incomplete's reign of terror start?" or even the more urgent question, "How might it end?". No, we must ask, "How can someone who claims to be so educated and so open-minded dare to form the association in the public's mind between any rantings Incomplete disagrees with and the ideas of hate and violence and illegality?" The answer will not satisfy those who seek simple solutions to complex problems but it boils down essentially to this: It is probably safe to assume that Incomplete has a morbid fascination with all that is inferior, debased, deformed, raucous, and obstinate. Furthermore, I have a scientist's respect for objective truth. That's why I'm telling you that Incomplete's orations reek of solipsism. I use the word "reek" because Incomplete claims that a richly evocative description of a problem automatically implies the correct solution to that problem. I would say that that claim is 70% folderol, 20% twaddle, and 10% another disgraceful attempt to institutionalize credentialism through systematic violence, distorted religion, and dubious science. Our goal must now be to lay out some ideas and interpretations that hold the potential for insight. If you believe that that's a worthwhile goal, then I can surely use your help. Let me hear from you.

    My topic is nothing new. However, since no one else has found it fit to address directly, I will address it here. Permit me this forum to rant. Incomplete asserts that children don't need as much psychological attentiveness, protection, and obedience training as the treasured household pet. Most reasonable people, however, recognize such assertions as nothing more than baseless, if wishful, claims unsupported by concrete evidence. His sermons may have been conceived in idealism, but they quickly degenerated into venal, ophidian lexiphanicism. I no longer believe that trends like family breakdown, promiscuity, and violence are random events. Not only are they explicitly glorified and promoted by Incomplete's soulless, stroppy equivocations, but his goombahs are quick to point out that because he is hated, persecuted, and repeatedly laughed at, Incomplete is the real victim here. The truth is that, if anything, Incomplete is a victim of his own success -- a success that enables Incomplete to provoke terrible, total, universal, and merciless destruction.

    Will Incomplete's splenetic lapdogs make incorrect leaps of logic? Only time will tell. I have a plan to unveil the semiotic patterns that Incomplete utilizes to make my worst nightmares come true. I call this plan "Operation raise malicious shambolic-types out of their cultural misery and lead them to the national community as a valuable, united factor". (Granted, I need a shorter, catchier name but that one will do for now.) My plan's underlying motif is that Incomplete's snippy animadversions demand that Earth submit to the dominion of self-serving, apolaustic adolescents of various stripes. Incomplete then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one.

    Finding the best way to stop Incomplete's encroachments on our heritage is a challenging problem indeed. We must therefore tackle this problem with more determination, more tenacity, and more fanaticism than it has ever been tackled before. Only then will people realize that what we're seeing is a domino effect of events that started with Incomplete stating that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel. That prevarication incited his foot soldiers to take us all on an entirely reckless ride into the unknown. The most ghastly headcases you'll ever see reacted, in turn, by breaking down our communities. The next domino to fall, not surprisingly, was a widespread increase in snobbism, and that's the event that galvanized me to tell everyone that we must stop tiptoeing and begin marching boldly and forthrightly towards our goal, which is to preach a message of community and brotherly love.

    While there's no dispute that Incomplete's pertinacious and probably a little Pecksniffian, he's also cunning, implacable, fanatic, and ruthless. Why else would he convince people that their peers are already riding the Incomplete bandwagon and will think ill of them if they don't climb aboard, too? His goal is to judge people based solely on hearsay. How prurient is that? How incomprehensible? How vicious? At the risk of shocking you further I shall point out that he has planted his companions everywhere. You can find them in businesses, unions, activist organizations, tax-exempt foundations, professional societies, movies, schools, churches, and so on. Not only does this subversive approach enhance Incomplete's ability to put supercilious smart alecks on the federal payroll but it also provides irrefutable evidence that those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still contend that he is incapable of looking with an open mind at anything that doesn't strictly endorse his views, have an obligation to do more than just observe what he is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to fight to the end for our ideas and ideals. We have an obligation to anneal discourse with honesty, clear thinking, and a sense of moral good. And we have an obligation to tell Incomplete what we all think of him -- and boy, do I have some choice words I'd like to use.

    Since I don't know Incomplete that well, I'll have to be a bit presumptuous when I say that there is only one way to stop him from preventing me from sleeping soundly at night. We must make out of fools, wise people; out of fanatics, men of sense; out of idlers, workers; out of what I call wrongheaded, subversive champions of deceit, lies, theft, plunder, and rapine, people who are willing to show you, as dispassionately as possible, what kind of delirious, crotchety thoughts Incomplete is thinking about these days. Then together we can stop the Huns at the gate. Together we can show the world that I would like to give you an example of how detestable Incomplete can be. Incomplete has admitted that he intends to separate people from their roots and cut their bonds to their natural communities. Okay, that may have been a particularly bald-faced and unsubtle example but I cannot compromise with Incomplete; he is without principles. I cannot reason with him; he is without reason. But I can warn him and with a warning he must truly take to heart: Incomplete is addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, he has no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people he desires to lead.

    While these incidents may seem minor, if you're interested in the finagling, double-dealing, chicanery, cheating, cajolery, cunning, rascality, and abject villainy by which Incomplete may sucker us into buying a lot of junk we don't need any day now, then you'll want to consider the following very carefully. You'll especially want to consider that you may have noticed that it is not possible fully to understand the present except as a projection of the past. But you don't know the half of it. For starters, I am making a pretty serious accusation here. I am accusing Incomplete of planning to crush people to the earth and then claim the right to trample on them forever because they are prostrate. And I don't want anyone to think that I am basing my accusation only on the fact that he's more than pouty. Incomplete's mega-pouty. In fact, to understand just how pouty he is, you first need to realize that it strikes me as amusing that Incomplete complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! He does nothing but complain.

    Incomplete would not hesitate to overthrow all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and the good, and instead drag people down into the sphere of his own base nature if he felt he could benefit from doing so. Why does parasitism exist? What causes it? And where is Incomplete's integrity? To understand the answers to those questions, you first have to realize that Incomplete's yes-men are encouraged -- or more aptly, dragooned -- into helping Incomplete defile the air and water in the name of profit. I explained the reason for that just a moment ago. If you don't mind, though, I'll go ahead and explain it again. To begin with, if we do nothing, Incomplete will keep on bombarding me with insults. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can embrace the cause of self-determination and recognize the leading role and clearer understanding of those people for whom the quintessential struggle is an encompassing liberation movement against the totality of militarism.

    I hardly need to tell you that in order to solve the big problems with Incomplete we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must discuss the programmatic foundations of his disaffected causeries in detail. The following is a preliminary attempt to establish some criteria for discussion of these complex issues. To begin with, over the years, I've enjoyed a number of genuinely pleasurable (and pleasurably genuine) conversations with a variety of people who understand that he has the gall to block streets and traffic to the extent that ambulances can't get through. In one such conversation, someone pointed out to me that I don't know which are worse, right-wing tyrants or left-wing tyrants. But I do know that there's something I've observed about Incomplete. Namely, he may not know how to spell "microclimatological" but he indeed knows how to acquire power and use it to indoctrinate aberrant sandbaggers. I've further observed that Incomplete is absolutely bad-tempered, as he has proved to my complete satisfaction.

    Even without the manipulative ideology of allotheism in the picture, we can still say that some people claim that Incomplete has never been accused of objectivity. Others believe that under the guise of "fighting fetishism," Incomplete will inculcate dissolute recommendations. In the interest of clearing up the confusion I'll make the following observation: I intend to look closely at Incomplete's perorations to see what makes them so effectual at causing violent subversion to gather momentum on college campuses. I should expect to find -- this is a guess that I currently lack sufficient knowledge to verify -- that Incomplete ignores a breathtaking number of facts, most notably:

    Fact: Incomplete's deputies have decided, behind closed doors and in closed sessions, to use every conceivable form of diplomacy, deception, pressure, coercion, bribery, treason, and terror to bring discord, confusion, and frustration into our personal and public lives.

    Fact: Incomplete considers "honesty" to be a dirty word.

    Fact: Faster than you can say "psychotherapeutical", Incomplete's hatred of all things pure and good will erupt like Mt. Vesuvius, scattering the ashes of heathenism over everyone in its path.

    In addition, Incomplete must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why Incomplete accuses me of admitting that our unalienable rights are merely privileges that he can dole out or retract. What I actually said is that we find among narrow and uneducated minds the belief that Incomplete answers to no one. This belief is due to a basic confusion that can be cleared up simply by stating that if we were to let Incomplete get away with changing this country's moral infrastructure, that would be a gross miscarriage of justice.

    Incomplete doesn't want us to know about his plans to turn positions of leadership into positions of complacency. Otherwise, we might do something about that. The important point here is not that his doctrines are in conflict with accepted morality. The vital matter is that he recently stated that his blessing is the equivalent of a papal imprimatur. He said that with a straight face, without even cracking a smile or suppressing a giggle. He said it as if he meant it. That's scary because if he is going to make an emotional appeal then he should also include a rational argument. We can't just sit around and do nothing. Period, finis, and Q.E.D.

    Something is happening here, and I'm getting a little worried. For starters, if I were a complete sap, I'd believe Incomplete's line that national-security interests can and should be sidestepped whenever his personal interests are at stake. Unfortunately for him, I realize that we must criticize the obvious incongruities presented by Incomplete and his serfs. This is a terrible and awesome responsibility -- a crushing responsibility. However, if we stick together we can can show the world that I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I warrant that there is because if natural selection indeed works by removing the weakest and most genetically unfit members of a species then Incomplete is clearly going to be the first to go.

    Incomplete wants us to feel sorry for the sniffish politicos who accelerate the natural tendency of civilization to devolve from order to chaos, liberty to tyranny, and virtue to vice. I insist we should instead feel sorry for their victims, all of whom know full well that Incomplete's campaigns of malice and malignity are not our only concern. To state the matter in a few words, Incomplete says that he needs a little more time to clean up his act. As far as I'm concerned, Incomplete's time has run out. Well, sure; Incomplete has been promoting door-to-door roundups of "troublemakers" (meaning people who resist being inducted into the ranks of Incomplete's coterie) and their delivery into concentration camps (more accurately: liquidation camps), but that doesn't change reality.

    Incomplete tries to make us think the way he wants us to think, not by showing us evidence and reasoning with us, but by understanding how to push our emotional buttons. Slaphappy, malign weirdos are responsible for the conscienceless tenor of his conclusions. Excuse me; that's not entirely correct. What I meant to say is that if Incomplete is victorious in his quest to deny citizens the ability to draw their own conclusions about the potential for violence that he may be generating, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity.

    I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. And one of the things that impresses me about it is the massive number of people who realize that Incomplete's publications are based on a denial of reality, on the substitution of a deliberately falsified picture of the world in place of reality. And this dishonesty, this refusal to admit the truth, will have some very serious consequences for all of us in the immediate years ahead. I feel that it can be safely said that Incomplete's reinterpretations of historic events reinforce the point that we still have a long way to go in terms of achieving true tolerance in our society. What's the difference between Incomplete's shock troops and destructive, picayunish money-worshippers? If you answered "nothing", then go to the front of the class; you're absolutely right. Things are apt to get worse before they get better. This is equivalent to saying that Incomplete must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why Incomplete accuses me of admitting that he never engages in hate-filled, hostile, or annoying politics. What I actually said is that Incomplete's stances represent a new unsophisticated, shiftless ethos that fatuous, surly spielers will eventually use to make a mockery of the term "undiscriminatingness". At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that he has for a long time been arguing that his nostrums will spread enlightenment to the masses, nurture democracy, reestablish the bonds of community, bring us closer to God, and generally work to the betterment of Man and society. Had he instead been arguing that he makes up for his lack of wit by shouting like a Vogon, I might cede him his point. As it stands, the leap of faith required to bridge the logical gap in Incomplete's arguments is simply too terrifying for me to contemplate. What I do often contemplate, however, is how this is a free country, and I profess we ought to keep it that way.

    Incomplete claims that mediocrity is a worthwhile goal. Predictably, he cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. During the first half of the 20th century, alcoholism could have been practically identified with cannibalism. Today, it is not so clear who can properly be called a stuck-up so-called expert. I wish that one of the innumerable busybodies who are forever making "statistical studies" about nonsense would instead make a statistical study that means something. For example, I'd like to see a statistical study of Incomplete's capacity to learn the obvious. Also worthwhile would be a statistical study of how many psychotic duffers realize that Incomplete's factotums maintain that Incomplete is a refined gentleman with the soundest education and morals you can imagine. I say to them, "Prove it" -- not that they'll be able to, of course, but because I defy the predatory roustabouts who make it impossible to disturb Incomplete's splenetic gravy train and I defy the powers of darkness that they represent.

    Incomplete has conceived the project of reigning over opinions and of conquering neither kingdoms nor provinces but the human mind. If this project succeeds then putrid yutzes will be free to reduce our modern, civilized, industrialized society to a state of mindless, primitive barbarism. Even worse, it will be illegal for anyone to say anything about how I no longer believe that trends like family breakdown, promiscuity, and violence are random events. Not only are they explicitly glorified and promoted by Incomplete's militant ideologies, but he has a knack for convincing slatternly cockalorums that the health effects of secondhand smoke are negligible. That's called marketing. The underlying trick is to use sesquipedalian terms like "ultramicrochemistry" and "pseudolamellibranchiate" to keep his sales pitch from sounding obdurate. That's why you really have to look hard to see that as long as the beer keeps flowing and the paychecks keep coming, Incomplete's vassals don't really care that given the amount of misinformation that he is circulating, I must point out that if we let him mute the voice of anyone who dares to speak out against him, all we'll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization.

    Now, perhaps you think I'm imagining things. Perhaps you think that Incomplete really isn't going to move diabolism-oriented, sullen paternalism from the nettlesome fringe into a realm of respectability. Well, I wish it were just my imagination. But you know, I do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we're having with him. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I act honorably.

    Here's a question for you: To what gods does Incomplete pledge allegiance? The gods of gnosticism and onanism? The gods that seem most likely to command Incomplete to force us to do things or take stands against our will? The thermonuclear gods sitting in reinforced silos waiting for doomsday? Well, I asked the question so I should answer it. Let me start by saying that it's our responsibility to present another paradigm in opposition to his nugatory machinations. That's the first step in trying to take steps against the whole caustic brotherhood of out-of-touch, imprudent dorks, and it's the only way to maximize our individual potential for effectiveness and success in combatting him.

    I mean, Incomplete's plan is to prevent me from getting my work done. Incomplete's co-conspirators are moving at a frightening pace toward the total implementation of that agenda, which includes preventing me from sleeping soundly at night. If the left of the current political spectrum is intemperate fascism and the right is longiloquent, polyloquent neocolonialism then Incomplete's politics are clearly going to be a form of mischievous recidivism. Incomplete attracts effrontive storytellers to his flock by telling them that his faith in authoritarianism gives him an uncanny ability to detect astral energy and cosmic vibrations. I suppose the people to whom he tells such things just want to believe lies that make them feel intellectually and spiritually superior to others. Whether or not that's the case, it's Incomplete's deep-seated belief that the ideas of "freedom" and "racialism" are Siamese twins. Sure, he might be able to justify conclusions like that -- using biased or one-sided information, of course -- but I prefer to know the whole story. In this case, the whole story is that I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that sneaky, semi-intelligible egotists with stronger voices than minds would revert to brutish behavior. But one of Incomplete's favorite tricks is to create a problem and then to offer the solution. Naturally, it's always his solutions that grant him the freedom to represent a threat to all the people in the area, indeed, possibly the world, never the original problem.

    It would be nice to say that brassbound, dour anarchism doesn't exist anymore but we all know that it does. Whatever should be true of statutory and often ephemeral enactments in human jurisprudence, the fact remains that Incomplete claims to have read somewhere that a plausible excuse is a satisfactory substitute for performance. I don't doubt that he has indeed read such a thing; one can find all sorts of crazy stuff on the Internet. More reliable sources, however, tend to agree that in Incomplete's jeremiads, communism is witting and unremitting, phlegmatic and high-handed. He revels in it, rolls in it, and uses it to turn the trickle of incendiarism into a tidal wave. He seems to have recently added the word "anticonstitutionally" to his otherwise simplistic vocabulary. I suppose Incomplete intends to use big words like that to obscure the fact that any rational argument must acknowledge this. His shabby claims, naturally, do not. And now, to end with a clever bit of doggerel: United we stand. Divided we fall. Incomplete's officious hijinks will destroy us all.

    http://www.pakin.org/complaint/
     
  12. Cermage
    OP

    Member Cermage GBAtemp Advanced Maniac

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,702
    Country:
    Australia
    looks like you found it:

    I have had enough of Xcalibur! But first, let me pose you a question: Is Xcalibur actually concerned about any of us or does he just want to discourage us from expressing our initiatives in whatever way we damn well please? After reading this letter, you'll really find it's the latter. I honestly have a hard time trying to reason with people who remain calm when they see Xcalibur reinforce the concept of collective guilt that is the root of all prejudice. His arguments would be a lot more effective if they were at least accurate or intelligent, not just a load of bull for the sake of being controversial. Above all, Xcalibur tries to make his credos more palatable by wrapping them in rhetoric about the need to protect the interests of the disadvantaged and the downtrodden.

    From this perspective, just because you can do something does not mean it's okay to do it. I'll say that again because I want it to sink in: Xcalibur measures the value of a man by the amount of profit he can realize from him. He divides the organization of his flighty, mentally deficient fibs into two halves that, apparently separate from one another, in truth, form an inseparable whole. The first half seeks to trivialize certain events that are particularly special to us all, while the second half is yet another gloomy, doctrinaire blend of hideous Fabianism and deluded moral relativism. On a more personal note, his modes of thought all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that negativism brings one closer to nirvana. My message is clear: I unequivocally contend that people are hungry for true information and for a way to work together for justice in every community -- and Xcalibur knows it.

    We can no longer afford to do nothing about Xcalibur's parasitic commentaries. Instead, we must strike while the iron is hot and name and shame his representatives for their insane acts of cynicism. What hate-filled thing is Xcalibur going to do next? Make his apothegms a key dynamic in modern emotionalism by viscerally defining "dendrochronological" through the experience of coldhearted diabolism? Deny citizens the ability to become informed about the destruction that he is capable of? Enact new laws forcing anyone who's not one of his hangers-on to live in an environment that can, at best, be described as contemptuously tolerant? In any case, I apologize for giving Xcalibur these ideas, but I am not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that I have never read anything he has written that I would consider wise, logical, pertinent, reasonable, or scientific. Xcalibur's statement that our elected officials should be available for purchase by special-interest groups is no exception. What's more, he writes a lot of long statements that mean practically nothing. What's sneaky is that Xcalibur constructs those statements in such a way that it never occurs to his readers to analyze them. Analysis would almost certainly indicate that the key to Xcalibur's soul is his longing for the effortless, irresponsible, automatic consciousness of an animal. He dreads the necessity, the risk, and the responsibility of rational cognition. As a result, inerudite energumens toy with our opinions. That said, we mustn't lose sight of who the real enemy is: Xcalibur and his pesky, superficial confidants.

    Xcalibur is out of control and must be stopped, and deep down in our bones, we all know why. What do we owe him? Nothing, absolutely nothing. If Xcalibur claims otherwise, we have to stand firm and point out that I welcome his comments. However, he needs to realize that he must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why he accuses me of admitting that university professors must conform their theses and conclusions to his gormless, mean-spirited prejudices if they want to publish papers and advance their careers. What I actually said is that Xcalibur has, at times, called me "politically incorrect" or "conceited". Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to grant a free ride to the undeserving.

    Because I unfortunately lack the psychic powers that enable Xcalibur to "know" matters for which there is no reliable evidence, I cannot forecast when he will next try to issue a flood of bogus legal documents. But I can obviously say that Xcalibur claims to be supportive of my plan to solve the problems that are important to most people. Don't trust him, though; he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Before you know it, he'll burn our fair cities to the ground. Not only that, but if you read between the lines of Xcalibur's values, you'll definitely find that I know more about ruffianism than most people. You might even say that I'm an expert on the subject. I can therefore state with confidence that Xcalibur's expositions will have consequences -- very serious consequences. We ought to begin doing something about that. We ought to provide a positive, confident, and assertive vision of humanity's future and our role in it. We ought to spread the word that he believes, in his elitist delirium, that a knowledge of correct diction, even if unused, evinces a superiority that covers cowardice or stupidity. But you knew that already. So let me add that his trained seals believe that children don't need as much psychological attentiveness, protection, and obedience training as the treasured household pet. It should not be surprising that they believe this, however. As we all know, minds that have been so maimed that they believe that Xcalibur can cause people to betray one another and hate one another and get away with it can believe anything, especially if it's false.

    Xcalibur hopes to finance a propaganda of intensive deception that induces sane and sober people to reinforce the impression that pestiferous smear merchants -- as opposed to Xcalibur's serfs -- are striving to make individuals indifferent to the survival of their families, but I won't linger on that. When a friend wants to drive inebriated, you try to stop him. Well, Xcalibur is drunk with power, which is why we must make technical preparations for the achievement of freedom and human independence. The cry of "bigot" is raised mostly by bigots. The denial of this fact only proves the effrontery, and also the stupidity, of obstinate, bleeding-heart yokels. Perhaps he has never had to take a stand and fight for something as critical as our right to invite all the people who have been harmed by Xcalibur to continue to express and assert their concerns in a constructive and productive fashion. But the problem with Xcalibur is not that he's unconscionable. It's that he wants to focus too much on one side of the equation and not enough on the broader perspective of things.

    Worst of all, our children's children would never forgive us for letting Xcalibur violate his pledge not to commit all sorts of mortal sins -- not to mention an uncountable number of venial ones. I am worried about a new physiognomy of servitude, a compliant citizenry relieved of its burdens by a "compassionate" Xcalibur. It's hard to spot the compassion when you notice that he's more than uncivilized. Xcalibur's mega-uncivilized. In fact, to understand just how uncivilized he is, you first need to realize that Xcalibur's hysteria-producing jokes are sufficient to give pause to the less thoughtful among us. "Oh, oh," such people think. "We'd better help Xcalibur displace meaningful discussion of an issue's merit or demerit with hunch and emotion -- just in case."

    Since I don't know Xcalibur that well, I'll have to be a bit presumptuous when I say that the unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, he simply wants to win at all costs the war against our individualism and our liberties. Have you noticed that that hasn't been covered at all by the mainstream media? Maybe they're afraid that Xcalibur will retaliate by putting fastidious thoughts in our children's minds. You shouldn't let him intimidate you. You shouldn't let him push you around. We're the ones who are right, not Xcalibur.

    Xcalibur's traducements leave me with several unanswered questions: Isn't he the reprehensible nudnik who recently wanted to desecrate religious objects? And how does he benefit from defending benighted dirtbags against the just expostulations of the public? These are difficult questions to answer because he contends that he possesses infinite wisdom and that, therefore, he acts in the name of equality and social justice. This bizarre pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. For example, it convinces peremptory schmoes (as distinct from the dodgy, stinking devotees of conspiracy theories who prefer to chirrup while hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) that big emotions come from big words. In reality, contrariwise, I intend to avoid the extremes of a pessimistic naturalism and an optimistic humanism by combining the truths of both. That's the path that I have chosen. It's decidedly not an easy path but then again, Xcalibur has really pulled a fast one this time. Now that's a rather crude and simplistic statement and, in many cases, it may not even be literally true. But there is a sense in which it is generally true, a sense in which it undoubtedly expresses how Xcalibur should learn to appreciate what he has instead of feeling so oppressed because he can't do everything he wants, every time he wants to.

    Some people think that Xcalibur's claque is reminiscent of the French Jacobin Club and its morbid obsession with power, death, and Dadaism. Others believe that this is neither a document written in anger nor something I am being paid to write. The truth lies somewhere in between, namely, that he seems to assume that the average working-class person can't see through his chicanery. This is an assumption of the worst kind because the time is always right to do what is right. That's why we must keep the faith. The first step in that process is to realize that I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But he motivates people to join his faction by using words like "humanity", "compassion", and "unity". This is a great deception. What Xcalibur really wants to do is replace our natural soul with an artificial one. That's why when I say that Xcalibur's philosophies are oppressive, I mean it. I don't mean that they remind me of something oppressive or that they have one or two oppressive characteristics. I mean that they are oppressive. In fact, the most oppressive thing about them is the way that they prevent people from seeing that Xcalibur has never satisfactorily proved his assertion that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. He has merely justified that assertion with the phrase, "Because I said so." We must instill a sense of responsibility and maturity in those who eliminate those law-enforcement officers who constitute the vital protective bulwark in the fragile balance between anarchy and tyranny. We must tell you things that Xcalibur doesn't want you to know. And we must make plans and carry them out. Please join me in incorporating these words into our living credo.

    have fun with a generic complaint letter. xD
     
  13. CockroachMan

    Member CockroachMan Scribbling around GBATemp's kitchen.

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Messages:
    3,889
    Location:
    Brazil
    Country:
    Brazil
    I'd like to take a minute of your time to share some of my thoughts about Incomplete with you. It is worth noting at the outset that there is still hope for our society, real hope -- not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of childish gaberlunzies but the hope that makes you eager to keep our priorities in check. Socrates was condemned to death by the city of Athens for his views. I hope I don't receive the same treatment for saying that prudence is no vice. Cowardice -- especially Incomplete's immature form of it -- is.

    Incomplete wants to produce an army of mindless insects who will obey his every command. To produce such an army, he plans to destroy people's minds using either drugs or an advanced form of lobotomy. Whichever approach he takes, I want to give people more information about Incomplete, help them digest and assimilate and understand that information, and help them draw responsible conclusions from it. Here's one conclusion I unquestionably hope people draw: Incomplete's method (or school, or ideology -- it is hard to know exactly what to call it) goes by the name of "Incomplete-ism". It is a spineless and avowedly coprophagous philosophy that aims to shatter other people's lives and dreams. But this is something to be filed away for future letters. At present, I wish to focus on only one thing: the fact that his goals are an icon for the deterioration of the city, for its slow slide into crime, malaise, and filth.

    Take it from me: Incomplete has hatched all sorts of choleric plans. Remember his attempt to promote group-think attitudes over individual insights? No? That's because Incomplete's so good at concealing his lewd, neo-homicidal activities. To quote the prophet Isaiah, "Woe to ye who interfere with a person's work performance, bodily security, physical movement, and privacy rights".

    I appreciate feedback and other people's views on subjects. I don't, however, appreciate feedback when it's given in an unprofessional manner. Even the most rigorous theoretical framework Incomplete could put forward would not leave him in the position of generalizing with the certainty to which he is prone in his ploys, but given the way things are these days we must remember that Incomplete has a knack for convincing bookish scofflaws that bad things "just happen" (i.e., they're not caused by Incomplete himself). That's called marketing. The underlying trick is to use sesquipedalian terms like "floccinaucinihilipilification" and "teleoroentgenography" to keep his sales pitch from sounding shiftless. That's why you really have to look hard to see that Incomplete is right about one thing, namely that fear is what motivates us. Fear of what it means when drossy, wanton doomsday prophets force me to undergo "treatment" to cure my "problem". Fear of what it says about our society when we teach our children that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. And fear of hostile, lazy adulterers like Incomplete who depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes.

    During the first half of the 20th century, solipsism could have been practically identified with cameralism. Today, it is not so clear who can properly be called an overbearing barbarian. Plainly stated, Incomplete frequently avers his support of democracy and his love of freedom. But one need only look at what Incomplete is doing -- as opposed to what he is saying -- to understand his true aims. If you want to hide something from him, you just have to put it in a book. Incomplete gives his most banal statements an appearance of profundity by utilizing polysyllabic words such as "pectinatodenticulate" and "crystallographically". And that's why I'm writing this letter; this is my manifesto, if you will, on how to call for proper disciplinary action against him and his apparatchiks. There's no way I can do that alone, and there's no way I can do it without first stating that I have an inveterate hatred of him. An obvious parallel from a different context is that I am tired of hearing or reading that the world can be happy only when Incomplete's Praetorian Guard is given full rein. You know that that is simply not true. Now that you've heard what I've had to say, I want you to think about it. And I want you to join me and follow knowledge like a sinking star beyond the utmost bound of human thought.
     
  14. xcalibur

    Member xcalibur Gbatemp's Chocolate Bear

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2007
    Messages:
    3,166
    Location:
    Sacred Heart
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    I have been meaning to write this letter for some time now and, in light of recent developments, I believe it is appropriate. Let's get down to brass tacks: Incomplete's reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, he always begins an argument with his conclusion (e.g., that nasty devotees of conspiracy theories are more deserving of honor than our nation's war heroes) and therefore -- not surprisingly -- he always arrives at that very conclusion.

    On a completely different tack, Incomplete's peuplade appears to be growing in number. I obviously pray that this is analogous to the flare-up of a candle just before extinction yet I keep reminding myself that what I find frightening is that some academics actually believe Incomplete's line that if he kicks us in the teeth we'll then lick his toes and beg for another kick. In this case, "academics" refers to a stratum of the residual intelligentsia surviving the recession of its demotic base, not to those seekers of truth who understand that it breaks my heart and fills my chest with agonizing pain when I see Incomplete cover up his criminal ineptitude. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life. Similarly, this makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of Incomplete's vexatious outbursts. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.)

    A person who wants to get ahead should try to understand the long-range consequences of his/her actions. Incomplete has never had that faculty. He always does what he wants to do at the moment and figures he'll be able to lie himself out of any problems that arise. But it gets worse than that.

    If I hear Incomplete's cronies say, "It's okay to leave the educational and emotional needs of our children in the insensitive hands of the most unforgiving pseudo-intellectuals I've ever seen" one more time, I'm undeniably going to throw up. Incomplete is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to him whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Incomplete is philistinism. Why? M
    any people consider that question irrelevant on the grounds that Incomplete exhibits an air of superiority. You realize, of course, that that's really just a defense mechanism to cover up his obvious inferiority. I guess that my take on this is that the justification he gave for turning ninnyhammers loose against us good citizens was one of the most inane justifications I've ever heard. It was so inane, in fact, that I will not repeat it here. Even without hearing the details you can still see my point quite clearly: Teenagers who want to shock their parents sometimes maintain -- with a straight face -- that collectivism and credentialism are identical concepts. Fortunately, most parents don't fall for this fraud because they know that Incomplete keeps saying that cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior. Isn't that claim getting a little shopworn? I mean, whatever your age, you now have only one choice. That choice is between a democratic, peace-loving regime that, you hope, may oppose evil wherever it rears its cold-blooded, lewd head and, as the alternative, the disagreeable and delirious dirigisme currently being forced upon us by Incomplete. Choose carefully because I have a problem with Incomplete's use of the phrase, "We all know that...". With this phrase, he doesn't need to prove his claim that genocide, slavery, racism, and the systematic oppression, degradation, and exploitation of most of the world's people are all entirely justified; he merely accepts it as fact. To put it another way, when he hears anyone say that his demands serve no purpose other than to caricature and stereotype people from other cultures, his answer is to work hand-in-glove with puerile, haughty conspiracy theorists. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to stand uncompromised in a world that's on the brink of Incomplete-induced disaster.

    I have two words to say about Incomplete's principles: crass poppycock. Don't get me wrong; the comparison between Incomplete and insolent oligarchs is remarkable. But Incomplete may violate values so important to our sense of community right after he reads this letter. Let him. Before you know it, I will provide an antidote to contemporary manifestations of selfish mysticism.

    Let's be frank: Incomplete has been doing "in-depth research" (whatever he thinks that means) to prove that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing him and the malicious spoiled brats in his gang. I should mention that I've been doing some research of my own. So far, I've "discovered" that Incomplete's janissaries are too lazy to preserve the peace. They just want to sit back, fasten their mouths on the public teats, and casually forget that evil prevails when good people do nothing. To cap that off, Incomplete's associates have demonstrated brutally, horribly, and with great terror how they will respond to this letter with hyperbolic and uncorroborated accusations and assaults on free speech. Do I blame society for this? No, I blame Incomplete. We must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do but because I recently overheard a couple of condescending nobodies say that he has his moral compass in tact. Here, again, we encounter the blurred thinking that is characteristic of this Incomplete-induced era of slogans and propaganda.

    If you've read any of the quixotic slop that Incomplete has concocted, you'll clearly recall Incomplete's description of his plan to make a fetish of the virtues of amateurish, politically incorrect deconstructionism. If you haven't read any of it, well, all you really need to know is that some people suspect that the best gauge of the value of my attitudes, the sincerity of my convictions, and the force of my will is the hostility I receive from blathering addlepated-types. Others contend that while decent people sit by, snore, and have their maws open, Incomplete is out making my blood curdle. In the interest of clearing up the confusion I'll make the following observation: I have a plan to seek some structure in which the cacophony introduced by Incomplete's teachings might be systematized, reconciled, and made rational. I call this plan "Operation educate the public on a range of issues". (Granted, I need a shorter, catchier name but that one will do for now.) My plan's underlying motif is that if Incomplete feels ridiculed by all the attention my letters are bringing him, then that's just too darn bad. His arrogance has brought this upon himself.

    How dare Incomplete criticize my values when his are so obviously obnoxious? Although he would like us to believe that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy, he has given us neither good reason nor credible evidence to believe that. His intimations, on the other hand, give us good reason to believe that the time is always right to do what is right. That's why we must sincerely place a high value on honor and self-respect. The first step in that process is to realize that if we are to condemn his criminal ineptitude, then we must be guided by a healthy and progressive ideology, not by the hateful and avaricious ideologies that Incomplete promotes.

    If our goal is to put the fear of God into Incomplete, then we must consider various means to that end. He coins polysyllabic neologisms to make his pronouncements sound like they're actually important. In fact, his treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary. Ceteris paribus, I'd rather have him erase the memory of all traditions and all history than lobotomize everyone caught thinking an independent thought. Why? Because Incomplete can't possibly believe that the health effects of secondhand smoke are negligible. He's clueless but he's not that clueless.

    As a time-honored expression maintains, "Incomplete's insinuations are enmeshed in cannibalism". Surely, Incomplete is not too treacherous to realize that. I do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we're having with him. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I highlight all of the problems with Incomplete's daft, besotted sound bites. I would not have thought it possible that he approximates an unpatriotic freebooter as far as practical action is concerned but differs in psychology, ideology and motivation, but it's absolutely true. It may be coincidence that Incomplete's morals obfuscate the issue so that one can't see what ought to be utterly obvious to all. It may be coincidence that they place our children at imminent risk of serious harm. And it may be coincidence that they break up society's solidarity and cohesiveness. But that's a lot of coincidence! In summary, it is my prayer that people everywhere will join me in my quest to explain a few facets of this confusing world around us.

    It is imperative that I give you the following information, which Incomplete wants concealed from the public. Let's get down to business: There is no doubt that Incomplete will make it nearly impossible to disturb his imprudent, jejune gravy train by the next full moon. Believe me, I would give everything I own to be wrong on that point, but the truth is that Incomplete has been trying for some time to convince people that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not. Don't believe his hype! Incomplete has just been offering that line as a means to defy the rules of logic. His most irritable tactic is to fabricate a phony war between impolitic slumlords and the most ugly sad sacks I've ever seen. This way, Incomplete can subjugate both groups into helping him lower our standard of living. I unmistakably don't want that to happen, which is why I'm telling you that we must dole out acerbic criticism of Incomplete and his phalanx of despicable pals. Only then can a society free of his gruesome, uneducated plaints blossom forth from the roots of the past. And only then will people come to understand that it's obviously a tragedy that his goal in life is apparently to cause a marked deterioration in our literature, amusements, and social conduct. Here, I use the word "tragedy" as the philosopher Whitehead used it. Whitehead stated that "the essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things," which I interpret as saying that anyone who hasn't been living in a cave with his eyes shut and his ears plugged knows that mass anxiety is the equivalent of steroids for Incomplete. If we feel helpless, Incomplete is energized and ramps up his efforts to engulf the world in a dense miasma of nativism.

    If you look soberly and carefully at the evidence all around you, you will sincerely find that there are two related questions in this matter. The first is to what extent Incomplete has tried to spit in the face of propriety. The other is whether or not time cannot change Incomplete's behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which Incomplete can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, sentence more and more people to poverty, prison, and early death. Now, I don't want to overwork the story about how Incomplete plans to rally for a cause that is completely void of moral, ethical, or legal validity, so let's just say that his forces say, "Incomplete has the authority to issue licenses for practicing emotionalism." Yes, I'm afraid they really do talk like that. It's the only way for them to conceal that Incomplete plans to stonewall on issues in which taxpayers see a vital public interest. What can you do about that? Start by reading about how to enter into philosophic disputations with such disorderly (or at least, insane) junkies is both intolerant and disreputable. Become informed about the deceit, lies, and propanganda surrounding his promotion of cannibalism. Tell everyone you know that as our society continues to unravel, more and more people will be grasping for straws, grasping for something to hold onto, grasping for something that promises to give them the sense of security and certainty that they so desperately need. These are the sorts of people Incomplete preys upon.

    By this, I mean that Incomplete is like a pigeon. Pigeons are too self-absorbed to care about anyone else. They poo on people they don't like; they poo on people they don't even know. The only real difference between Incomplete and a pigeon is that Incomplete intends to sound the standard "they're out to get us" call and rally his lickspittles to do the entire country a grave disservice. That's why there are some two-faced stumblebums who are self-righteous. There are also some who are dishonest. Which category does Incomplete fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both".

    Incomplete uses a litany of euphemisms, buzz words, and doublespeak to help him subordinate all spheres of society to an ideological vision of organic community. And I can say that with a clear conscience because it is almost funny (but is actually rather scary) to see how far he will go to destroy the heart and fabric of our nation. Well, that's a bit too general of a statement to have much meaning, I'm afraid. So let me instead explain my point as follows: If there's one thing that he's good at, it's spreading the germs of hatred, of discord and jealously, of dissolution and decomposition. Why is it that no one -- except Incomplete, so high on his own hallucinations that he believes them to be real -- can seriously believe that he can absorb mana by devouring his nemeses' brains? It's because sometime in the future he will dismantle the family unit. Fortunately, that hasn't happened...yet. But it will indeed happen if we don't address the real issues faced by mankind.

    While I trust that this audience shares my indignation at Incomplete, Incomplete thinks it's good that his artifices pose a threat to the survival of democracy. It is difficult to know how to respond to such monumentally misplaced values, but let's try this: He has already been able to intensify race hatred. What worries me more than that, however, is that if Incomplete ever manages to befuddle the public and make sin seem like merely a sophisticated fashion, that's when the defecation will really hit the air conditioning. With this in mind, I must prescribe a course of action. I welcome Incomplete's comments. However, Incomplete needs to realize that I overheard one of his lieutenants say, "Incomplete is a tireless protector of civil rights and civil liberties for all people." This quotation demonstrates the power of language as it epitomizes the "us/them" dichotomy within hegemonic discourse. As for me, I prefer to use language to halt the destructive process that is carrying our civilization toward extinction.

    Several things Incomplete has said have brought me to the boiling point. The statement of his that made the strongest impression on me, however, was something to the effect of how he is entitled to contaminate or cut off our cities' water supply. His foot soldiers would sooner ally with evil than oppose it, period. Be careful not to be charmed by his sophistries. All they do is peddle the snake oil of passive-aggressive corporatism.

    To tolerate Incomplete's dodgy screeds simply because they're not packaged and sold as neo-misinformed is to trade fundamental human rights for a cheap "guarantee" of safety and security. Incomplete's in violation of the Geneva Conventions. But there is a further-reaching implication: I get concerned when I see him spawn a society in which those with the most deviant lifestyle, corrupt behavior, or personal failures are given the most by the government. Of course, this sounds simple, but in reality, the real issue is simple: Incomplete's cringers are an amalgamation of rambunctious wantwits, unprofessional lunkheads, and other horny buggers. Although Incomplete markets himself as a high-concept, change-the-world do-gooder, what really irks me is that he has presented us with a Hobson's choice. Either we let him develop a credible pretext to forcibly silence his opponents or he'll advocate his ideals amid a hue and cry as brazen as it is jaded.

    While it is reasonable to expect that Incomplete's devotees have demonstrated brutally, horribly, and with great terror how they will exploit the masses, it remains that Incomplete has a talent for inventing fantasy worlds in which foul-mouthed braggadocios make the best scout leaders and schoolteachers. Then again, just because Incomplete is a prolific fantasist doesn't mean that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. I could substantiate what I'm saying about frowzy lotharios but I don't feel that that's necessary because we all know what they're like. He is right about one thing, namely that fear is what motivates us. Fear of what it means when invidious sociopaths (also known as Incomplete's partisans) renege on an incredibly large number of promises. Fear of what it says about our society when we teach our children that Incomplete possesses infinite wisdom. And fear of disingenuous, unambitious defalcators like Incomplete who take advantage of human fallibility to ensure that all of the news we receive is filtered through a narrow ideological prism.

    Technically, Incomplete's hariolations are eerily similar to those promoted by madmen such as Pol Pot. What's scary, though, is that their extollment of alarmism has been ratcheted up a few notches from anything Pol Pot ever conjured up. Anyone with an IQ two points higher than a wet sponge's knows that Incomplete's "compromises" are unhealthy and lacking in purpose. But, even so, the law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior. If Incomplete gets his way, we will soon be engulfed in a Dark Age of phallocentrism and indescribable horror. That's why I'm telling you that I think that whenever I hear someone say that a plausible excuse is a satisfactory substitute for performance, my upper lip develops an involuntary curl. You probably think that too. But Incomplete does not think that. Incomplete thinks that he answers to no one.

    When I first heard about Incomplete's litanies, I dismissed them as merely frightful. But when I later learned that he wants me to expend all of my wit and energy in trivial pursuits, I realized that Incomplete has recently been going around claiming that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. You really have to tie your brain in knots to be gullible enough to believe that junk. His mind has limited horizons. It is confined to the immediate and simplistic, with the inevitable consequence that everything is made banal and basic and is then leveled down until it is deprived of all spiritual life. Incomplete's catch-phrases obfuscate any attempt to locate responsibility for the consequential decisions of those who have access to the means of power. Which brings us to the harsh reality that must be faced: I've tried to explain to Incomplete's irresponsible, incompetent janissaries that Incomplete's retorts to criticism are so rehearsed that he may be almost unconscious of what he's saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church. As could be expected, they were a bit slow on the uptake. I just couldn't get them to comprehend that I am not embarrassed to admit that I have neither the training, the experience, the license, nor the clinical setting necessary to properly comment on Incomplete's crusades while remaining true to those beliefs, ideals, and aspirations we hold most dear. Nevertheless, I do have the will to denounce his inveracities. That's why I honestly feel that Incomplete knows how to lie. It's too bad he doesn't yet understand the ramifications of lying. Nobody seems to realize that Incomplete possesses an extraordinary ability to make incompetence seem philosophical and stupidity seem profound. And that's the honest truth.

    The last thing I wanted to do this Saturday night was spend several hours writing, editing, and typing this letter. However, I needed to do it because it's undoubtedly the best way to get my message about Incomplete out to the world. Perhaps before going on, I should describe Incomplete to you. Incomplete is meretricious, addlepated, and stuck-up. Furthermore, he yearns to foster suspicion -- if not hatred -- of "outsiders".

    Incomplete's squibs are like an enormous officialism-spewing machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey wrench in its gears. And we must contribute to the intellectual and spiritual health of the body politic because Incomplete's plans for the future are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called "lying".

    I alluded to this earlier, but whenever Incomplete announces that all it takes to start a rabbit farm is a magician's magic hat, his secret agents applaud on cue and the accolades are long and ostentatious. What's funny is that they don't provide similar feedback whenever I tell them that Incomplete's method (or school, or ideology -- it is hard to know exactly what to call it) goes by the name of "Incomplete-ism". It is a patronizing and avowedly crafty philosophy that aims to trick academics into abandoning the principles of scientific inquiry. He is terrified that there might be an absolute reality outside himself, a reality that is what it is, regardless of his wishes, theories, hopes, daydreams, or decrees. Let me move now from the abstract to the concrete. That is, let me give you a (mercifully) few examples of Incomplete's outrageous ineptitude. For starters, even when the facts don't fit, he sometimes tries to use them anyway. He still maintains, for instance, that the existence and perpetuation of animalism is its own moral justification.

    Given the range and unpredictability of human behavior, it is quite possible that Incomplete has compiled an impressive list of grievances against me. Not only are all of these grievances completely fictitious, but Incomplete's contrivances are a mere cavil, a mere scarecrow, one of the last shifts of a desperate and dying cause. He thinks we want him to bombard me with insults. Excuse me, but maybe he has declared that he's staging a revolt against everyone who dares to fight for what is right. Incomplete's revolting all right; the very sight of him turns my stomach. All kidding aside, I can't possibly believe his claim that the moon is made of green cheese. If someone can convince me otherwise, I'll eat my hat. Heck, I'll eat a whole closetful of hats. That's a pretty safe bet because Incomplete truly believes that genocide, slavery, racism, and the systematic oppression, degradation, and exploitation of most of the world's people are all utterly justified. It is just such myopic megalomania, savage egoism, and intellectual aberrancy that stirs Incomplete to deny both our individual and collective responsibility to live in harmony with each other and the world.

    Over the years, I've enjoyed a number of genuinely pleasurable (and pleasurably genuine) conversations with a variety of people who understand that Incomplete's writings are a treasure trove of ad hominem attacks, ghastly accusations, and biased reporting from an unregenerate point of view. In one such conversation, someone pointed out to me that I try never to argue with Incomplete because it's clear he's not susceptible to reason. He says that he is entitled to declare martial law, suspend elections, and round up dissidents (i.e., anyone who does not buy his lie that everyone and everything discriminates against him -- including the writing on the bathroom stalls). You know, I don't think I have heard a less factually based statement in my entire life. There is a format Incomplete should follow for his next literary endeavor. It involves a topic sentence and supporting facts. In order to open minds instead of closing them we must investigate his perverted principles, ideals, and objectives. And that's just the first step. Remember, I must ask that Incomplete's cat's-paws give parents the means to protect their children. I know they'll never do that so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to declare that he is a tireless protector of civil rights and civil liberties for all people.

    Incomplete is not just huffy. He is unbelievably, astronomically huffy. It's his belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to promote oleaginous ideologies such as antinomianism. I can't understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such a prissy, mad idea. In fact, my letters generally make the diametrically opposite claim, that Incomplete's propaganda factories continuously spew forth messages like, "We can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune" and, "The majority of pestilential, humorless windbags are heroes, if not saints". What they don't tell you, though, is that the time is always right to do what is right. That's why we must honestly unveil the semiotic patterns that Incomplete utilizes to replace Robert's Rules of Order with "facilitated consensus building" at all important meetings. The first step in that process is to realize that Incomplete's reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, he always begins an argument with his conclusion (e.g., that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing him and the lazy muttonheads in his coalition of insane snobs and scabrous roustabouts) and therefore -- not surprisingly -- he always arrives at that very conclusion.

    Incomplete's mind has limited horizons. It is confined to the immediate and simplistic, with the inevitable consequence that everything is made banal and basic and is then leveled down until it is deprived of all spiritual life. Some day, in the far, far future, Incomplete will realize that the ostensible basis for his speech codes is as phony as the loose and biased standards applied to enforce them. This realization will sink in slowly but surely and will be accompanied by a comprehension of how Incomplete's degeneracy has permeated the whole stratum of society. The destruction of the Tower of Babel, be it a literal truth, an allegory, or a mere story based upon cultural archetypes, illustrates this truth plainly. His slurs are so contumelious that in minutes they can wipe out of a child's brain what that child had learned in six months at home, church, or school. From this anecdotal evidence I would argue that only through education can individuals gain the independent tools they need to confront and reject all manifestations of interventionism. But the first step is to acknowledge that the whole of his uncivilized worldview may perhaps be expressed in one simple word. That word is "pharisaism". Let me explain: I am not a robot. I am a thinking, feeling, human being. As such, I get teary-eyed whenever I see Incomplete operate on a criminal -- as opposed to a civil disobedience -- basis. It makes me want to embrace the cause of self-determination and recognize the leading role and clearer understanding of those people for whom the quintessential struggle is an encompassing liberation movement against the totality of fascism, which is why I'm so eager to tell you that if Incomplete would abandon his name-calling and false dichotomies it would be much easier for me to announce that we may need to picket, demonstrate, march, or strike to stop Incomplete before he can fleece people out of their life's savings.

    Our battle with Incomplete is a battle between spiritualism and insurrectionism, between tradition and subversion, between the defenders of Western civilization and its enemies. With the battle lines drawn as such, it is abundantly clear that there are lots of weepy, wimpy flower children out there who are always whining that I'm being too harsh in my criticisms of Incomplete. I wish such people would wake up and realize that perhaps one day we will live in a world where good people are not troubled by fear of unimaginative turncoats. Until that day arrives, however, we must spread the word that some people have said that Incomplete's Praetorian Guard (motto: "Advocate squalid perceptions") is as crotchety as crotchety can be. Maybe. But I'm more inclined to believe that Incomplete says that might makes right. This is noxious falsehood. The truth is that he is firmly convinced that his opinions represent the opinions of the majority -- or even a plurality. His belief is controverted, however, by the weight of the evidence indicating that it's Incomplete's deep-seated belief that sin is good for the soul. Sure, he might be able to justify conclusions like that -- using biased or one-sided information, of course -- but I prefer to know the whole story. In this case, the whole story is that I recently received some mail in which the writer stated, "Anyone willing to study and ponder my position on most current matters will undeniably find that the theoretical fallacies in Incomplete's reports run deep." I included that quote not because it is exceptional in any way, but rather because it is typical of much of the mail I receive. I included it to show you that I'm not the only one who thinks that Incomplete has been trying to convince us that the rest of us are an inferior group of people, fit only to be enslaved, beaten, and butchered at the whim of our betters. This pathetic attempt to rebrand local churches as faith-based emporia teeming with impulse-buy items deserves no comment other than to say that you should never forget the three most important facets of Incomplete's campaigns, namely their impetuous origins, their internal contradictions, and their tendentious nature.

    Incomplete's tyrannical, self-deceiving game of chess -- the gruesome chess of misoneism -- has continued for far too long. It's time to checkmate this sneaky, rabid doomsday prophet and show him that I would surely like to comment on his attempt to associate extremism with mandarinism. There is no association.

    Would we, as thinking people, believe lie-virtuosi who tried to tell us we're all ungrateful? I say "no." Think about that for a moment. Incomplete wants to scapegoat easy, unpopular targets, thereby diverting responsibility from more culpable parties. Faugh. It is clear from what I have already written that it does not take much perspicacity to see that my vision is built on the future, not the past. More than that, one must consider the semiotics of exhibitionism in order to fully understand his holier-than-thou attitudes. The best example of this, culled from many, would have to be the time he tried to formulate social policies and action programs based on the most shameless types of ethnocentrism in existence. To end on a more positive note: There must be justice for all of us or there will be peace for none.
     
  15. dakeyras

    Member dakeyras GBAtemp Regular

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    271
    Country:
    Netherlands
    So this is where Bush get's his speeches from. Damnit.
     
  16. jgu1994

    Member jgu1994 GBAtemp Advanced Fan

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    898
    Location:
    Earth
    Country:
    United States
    Ouch, long text hurts my eyes.
     
  17. mthrnite

    Former Staff mthrnite So it goes.

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2006
    Messages:
    4,523
    Location:
    th' south
    Country:
    United States
    Jesus wept.
     
  18. Deletable_Man

    Member Deletable_Man Old Man

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    288
    Country:
    United States
    Experiment!

    There are many jackbooted grifters who want to cheat on taxes. One -- [​IMG] -- is so huffy, it deserves special mention. Before I launch into my rant, permit me the prelude caveat that [​IMG] has had some success in turning sectarians loose against us good citizens. I find that horrifying and frightening but we all should have seen it coming. We all knew that if [​IMG]'s thinking were cerebral rather than glandular, it wouldn't consider it such a good idea to quash other people's opinions. [​IMG] keeps telling us that children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy candy at them. Are we also supposed to believe that the purpose of life is self-gratification? I didn't think so.

    We should agree on definitions before saying anything further about [​IMG]'s cranky, pugnacious initiatives. For starters, let's say that "mandarinism" is "that which makes [​IMG] yearn to pass off all sorts of power-hungry and obviously imprudent stuff on others as a so-called 'inner experience'." It's ludicrous to believe that law and order can be maintained by letting [​IMG]'s secret agents impale us on the pike of plagiarism. Surprisingly, the courts and our elected officials are way ahead of [​IMG] in embracing this simple fact.

    My position is that [​IMG]'s shills are an amalgamation of raffish manipulators of the public mind, doctrinaire, drugged-out hoodwinkers, and other churlish recidivists. It, in contrast, argues that it is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose. This disagreement merely scratches the surface of the ideological chasm festering between me and [​IMG]. The only rational way to bridge this chasm is for it to admit that if it honestly believes that some of my points are not valid, I would love to get some specific feedback from it. The significance of this is that I wish that one of the innumerable busybodies who are forever making "statistical studies" about nonsense would instead make a statistical study that means something. For example, I'd like to see a statistical study of [​IMG]'s capacity to learn the obvious. Also worthwhile would be a statistical study of how many stolid rumormongers realize that by refusing to act, by refusing to eschew ill-natured, disorganized Chekism, we are giving [​IMG] the power to shrink the so-called marketplace of ideas down to convenience-store size. I suppose that's all I have to say in this letter. If there are any points on which you require explanation or further particulars I shall be glad to furnish such additional details as may be required.
     
  19. Rayder

    Former Staff Rayder Mostly lurking lately....

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,613
    Location:
    USA
    Country:
    United States
    I only have this to say about this thread:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    Geez.....
     
  20. warmijwilfaain

    Member warmijwilfaain War Mage MILF

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Messages:
    1,297
    Location:
    Kent. lolol
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    I have been following the stories and comments surrounding Mr. Rayder the Datman I, and frankly, I'm appalled. Why can't Rayder simply enjoy the fruits of his own labors and let other people enjoy the fruits of theirs? Before I start, however, I should state that to understand what Rayder's particularly rapacious form of pessimism has encompassed as a movement and as a system of rule, we have to look at its historical context and development as a form of chthonic politics that first arose in early twentieth-century Europe in response to rapid social upheaval, the devastation of World War I, and the Bolshevik Revolution. It is becoming increasingly obvious to many people that if he truly believes that his opinions represent the opinions of the majority -- or even a plurality -- then maybe he should enroll in Introduction to Reality 101. If we let him exercise control through indirect coercion or through psychological pressure or manipulation, all we'll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization. Honest people will admit that Rayder has never inscribed his name on the Parthenon of human excellence, either mental or moral. Concerned people are not afraid to shape a world of dignity and harmony, a world of justice, solidarity, liberty, and prosperity. And sensible people know that Rayder yields to the mammalian desire to assert individuality by attracting attention. Unfortunately, for Rayder, "attract attention" usually implies "mollycoddle moonstruck, treacherous shirkers".

    Think of Rayder's magic-bullet explanations as being the sum of two components: a polyloquent component that consists of Rayder's desire to produce nothing but filth and a self-aggrandizing component that consists of everything else. We are concerned primarily with the former. One of the great mysteries of modern life is, When Rayder promotes one social program after the next to take care of some segment of society, is he doing it for that segment of society or is he doing it because he seeks power and position? Please do not stop reading here, presuming that the answer is apparent and that no further knowledge is needed. Such is sincerely not the case. In fact, I'd bet no one ever told you that it has long been obvious to attentive observers that Rayder favors conquest not only by violence but also by the peaceful and delicate methods of cheating, lying, and pimping. But did you know that his assistants have discounted their brain as a useless organ? He doesn't want you to know that because it may seem at first that sinister fogeys are the biggest threat to freedom the world has ever seen. When we descend to details, however, we see that if Rayder opened his eyes, he'd realize that his "paradigm-shifting strategic initiatives" violate strongly held principles regarding deferral of current satisfaction for long-term gains.

    I hope that Rayder's disquisitions were intended as a joke, although they're not very funny if they were. The acid test for Rayder's "kinder, gentler" new harangues should be, "Do they still displace meaningful discussion of an issue's merit or demerit with hunch and emotion?" If the answer is yes then we can conclude that I am more than merely surprised by Rayder's willingness to demand that Earth submit to the dominion of the worst classes of addlepated, shabby hooligans there are. I'm shocked, shocked. And, as if that weren't enough, we have not only a right but also a responsibility to preach a message of community and brotherly love. Am I being too harsh for writing that? Maybe I am, but that's really the only way you can push a point through to Rayder.

    I have a New Year's resolution for Rayder: He should pick up a book before he jumps to the power-drunk conclusion that mediocrity is a worthwhile goal. He wants nothing less than to denigrate and discard all of Western culture, hence his repeated, almost hypnotic, insistence on the importance of his grumpy suggestions. While prodigal, irrational defalcators have previously relied on violence to get their way, their new manipulation of libidinous complaints has combined with violence to deprive people of dignity and autonomy. In general, Rayder has -- not once, but several times -- been able to bring ugliness and nastiness into our lives without anyone stopping him. How long can that go on? As long as his sadistic contrivances are kept on life support. That's why we have to pull the plug on them and act against injustice, whether it concerns drunk driving, domestic violence, or even jujuism.

    If Rayder's hirelings had even an ounce of integrity they would stop Rayder's encroachments on our heritage. Am I being too idealistic -- a Pollyanna -- when I suggest that all we need to do is hold out the prospect of societal peace, prosperity, and a return to sane values and certainties? I don't think so. Admittedly, he indulges in various forms of verbal savagery to conceal the fact that he never misses an opportunity to take advantage of a crisis, whether contrived or spontaneous, but Rayder seizes every opportunity to bring discord, confusion, and frustration into our personal and public lives. I cannot believe this colossal clownishness. Any sane person knows that Rayder is not just wild. He is unbelievably, astronomically wild.

    Rayder is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to his outbursts. If we raise prolix tricksters out of their cultural misery and lead them to the national community as a valuable, united factor then the sea of corporatism, on which he so heavily relies, will begin to dry up. Over time, Rayder's practices have progressed from being merely worthless to being superworthless, hyperworthless, and recently ultraworthless. In fact, I'd say that now they're even megaworthless. Rayder's perceptions of a vast conspiracy lead him to inappropriate assessments of even the most innocent interactions with insecure miscreants. This means, in particular, that we mustn't be content to patch and darn, to piece and cobble at the worn and rotten fabric of Rayder's uncompanionable allegations. Instead we must speak up and speak out against him.

    Rayder's argument that vicious losers are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive is hopelessly flawed and utterly circuitous. Tell me something: Why doesn't Rayder reveal the truth about himself? The complete answer to that question is a long, sad story. I've answered parts of that question in several of my previous letters, and I'll answer other parts in future ones. For now, I'll just say that Rayder is trying to concoct labels for people, objects, and behaviors in order to manipulate the public's opinion of them. His mission? To agitate for indoctrination programs in local schools. His allies believe that "Rayder is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted." First off, that's a lousy sentence. If they had written instead that this cannot go on much longer then that quote would have had more validity. As it stands, Rayder is completely versipellous. When he's among plebeians, Rayder warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against unilateralism. But when Rayder's safely surrounded by his myrmidons, he instructs them to redefine unbridled self-indulgence as a virtue, as the ultimate test of personal freedom. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that what I have been writing up to this point is not what I initially intended to write in this letter. Instead, I decided it would be far more productive to tell you that if Rayder honestly believes that some of my points are not valid, I would love to get some specific feedback from him.

    Almost everyone will agree that Rayder's insinuations exude palpable libertinism, but I wouldn't judge Rayder's goons too harshly. They're just cannon fodder for Rayder's plot to get on my nerves. Perhaps I'm reading too much into Rayder's perceptions, but they don't seem to serve any purpose other than to condemn children to a life of drugs, gangs, drinking, rape, incest, verbal abuse, physical abuse, and a number of other horrors. Rayder's sermons serve as a stepping stone to world government. And who will compose that world government? A ruling class consisting of semi-intelligible, disgraceful schnorrers and satanic, shrewish curmudgeons. The reason Rayder wants to legitimate irresponsibility, laziness, and infidelity is that he's thoroughly pathetic. If you believe you have another explanation for his unrestrained behavior, then please write and tell me about it.

    The primary point of disagreement between myself and Rayder is whether or not the last time I told his cohorts that I want to invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry rather than by narrowing or abandoning it, they declared in response, "But public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't." Of course, they didn't use exactly those words, but that's exactly what they meant. Mankind needs to do more to supply the missing ingredient that could stop the worldwide slide into Lysenkoism. Understand, I am not condemning mankind for not doing enough; I am merely stating that Rayder's disgusting, bitter viewpoints can be quite educational. By studying them, students can observe firsthand the consequences of having a mind consumed with paranoia, fear, hatred, and ignorance. Rayder's insults are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that Rayder's biases are not worth getting outraged about and they promote the mistaken idea that he is a model citizen. Rayder does not merely deny citizens the ability to become informed about the destruction that he is capable of. He does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically.

    Don't misunderstand me; I'm not saying that university professors must conform their theses and conclusions to Rayder's vindictive prejudices if they want to publish papers and advance their careers. In fact, he publicly disavows his ties to elitism while secretly encouraging his secret agents to trick our children into adopting unconventional, disapproved-of opinions and ways of life. So let him call me duplicitous. I call him overbearing. If I seem a bit piteous, it's only because I'm trying to communicate with Rayder on his own level. After all, he argues that he is a tireless protector of civil rights and civil liberties for all people. I wish I could suggest some incontrovertible chain of apodictic reasoning that would overcome this argument, but the best I can do is the following: If you read his writings while mentally out of focus, you may get the sense that he is a refined gentleman with the soundest education and morals you can imagine. But if you read Rayder's writings while mentally in focus and weigh each point carefully, it's clear that we must work together to find the common ground that enables others to look into the future and consider what will happen if we let him conceal information and, occasionally, blatantly lie. What can you do to help? For starters, you might want to purge the darkness from Rayder's heart. I personally derive great satisfaction in doing that sort of thing because Rayder spouts a lot of numbers whenever he wants to make a point. He then subjectively interprets those numbers to support his tricks while ignoring the fact that even if one is opposed to merciless parasitism (and I am), then surely, we must debunk the nonsense spouted by his peons. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to introduce an important but underrepresented angle on his meretricious undertakings. Now that I've told you what I think, let me end this letter by stating that I fully intend to advance freedom in countries strangled by tyranny. Let Mr. Rayder the Datman I tremble. And though the heavens fall, let there be justice.
     

Share This Page