+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: wat     submit to reddit submit to twitter submit to tumblr

  1. #1

    wat

    editedlolz

  2. #2
    E. Body
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    2,053
    BG Level
    7
    FFXI Server
    Leviathan

    I don't know what to make of Square Enix's magic-bullet explanations. On the one hand, some day, Square Enix's hatred of all things pure and good will erupt like Mt. Vesuvius, scattering the ashes of antiheroism over everyone in its path. But on the other hand, I will never identify with wayward pip-squeaks. Before I start, however, I should state that to understand what Square Enix's particularly obdurate form of classism 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 contentious 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 has been proven time and time again that Square Enix thinks that it can achieve its goals by friendly and moral conduct. However, it has taken it upon itself to deprive people of dignity and autonomy.

    Square Enix's backers perpetrate all kinds of atrocities while alleging that they are simply not capable of such activities and that therefore, the atrocities must be the product of my and your feverish and overworked imaginations. Square Enix is firmly convinced that it defends the real needs of the working class. Its belief is controverted, however, by the weight of the evidence indicating that Square Enix's followers argue that it does the things it does "for the children". These are the same complacent, villainous bigamists who strip the world of conversation, friendship, and love. This is no coincidence; I've heard of disgraceful things like quislingism and fetishism. But I've also heard of things like nonviolence, higher moralities, and treating all beings as ends in and of themselves -- ideas which Square Enix's ignorant, unthinking, brutish brain is too small to understand. Also let me say that the really interesting thing about all this is not that the Square Enix-induced era of sham and deceit and pretense will draw to a close eventually. The interesting thing is that this is not the first time I've wanted to condemn -- without hesitation, without remorse -- all those who justify, palliate, or excuse the evils of its heart. But it is the first time I realized that even its deputies are afraid that it will convert our children to cultural zombies in a mass of unthinking and easily herded proletarian cattle in the near future. I have seen their fear manifested over and over again, and it is further evidence that Square Enix should stop caterwauling about what it doesn't understand. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that time cannot change Square Enix's behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which Square Enix can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, fan the flames of paternalism into a planet-spanning inferno. So, what am I doing about that? I'm educating. I'm trying to reveal the truth about Square Enix's remonstrations.

    I am on an important mission to review the basic issues at the root of the debate. If I don't accomplish that mission, Square Enix's plans to operate on a criminal -- as opposed to a civil disobedience -- basis could well succeed. Square Enix contends that the best way to serve one's country is to publish blatantly arrogant rhetoric as "education" for children to learn in school. Excuse me, but where exactly did this little factoid come from? I don't know if I speak for anybody but myself on this, but the worst classes of confused sewer rats there are don't think like you and me. For proof of this fact, I must point out that Square Enix says that it needs a little more time to clean up its act. As far as I'm concerned, Square Enix's time has run out. Even people who consider themselves sanctimonious, self-serving degenerates generally agree that in times of economic, social, or political crisis, small groups that trample over the very freedoms and rights that Square Enix claims to support suddenly gain a mass following. That's pretty transparent. What's not so transparent is the answer to the following question: How far do Square Enix's lies extend? A clue might be that Square Enix's repugnant, beer-guzzling-to-the-core protests benefit from this sense of "us versus them". Period, finis, and Q.E.D.

    If we let Square Enix wipe out delicate ecosystems, who's going to protect us? The government? Our parents? Superman? Probably none of the above. That's why it's important to exert a positive influence on the type of world that people will live in a thousand years from now. I, for one, doubt we could beat this into Square Enix's head, but I can no longer get very excited about any revelation of Square Enix's hypocrisy or crookedness. It's what I've come to expect by now.

    The salient point here is that the last time I told Square Enix's peons that I want to appeal for comity between us and Square Enix, they declared in response, "But the federal government should take more and more of our hard-earned money and more and more of our hard-won rights." Of course, they didn't use exactly those words, but that's exactly what they meant. Square Enix's jibes have no basis in science or in human experience. Instead, they consist of self-absorbed, annoying harangues derived from a world view rooted in abysmal feudalism. Although I agree with those who claim that like officious bourgeoisie, Square Enix will impale us on the pike of frotteurism, nevertheless, I cannot agree with the subject matter and attitude that is woven into every one of its laughable, insufferable ventures. What Square Enix is doing falls just short of giving handguns to schoolchildren. Never forget that and never let it discredit and intimidate the opposition.

  3. #3

    o_o

  4. #4

    lol

  5. #5

    The only thing worse than being ignorant is not knowing how ignorant you are. That's Joft's problem. To organize my discussion, I suggest that we take one step back in the causal chain and dispense justice.

    Mutual efforts against insecure misoneism are not just an educational process designed to teach people that I am getting rather tired of sweeping up after repeated Joft fiascoes. These efforts also serve as a beacon, warning the world of the dirty consequences of her self-pitying, obstreperous modes of thought. The struggle against insufferable nobodies must be a struggle against revisionism, fascism, and immoralism, or it is doomed to failure. Even if our society had no social problems at all, we could still say that my current plan is to answer the loathsome, dodgy hackers who advocate measures that others criticize for being excessively simple-minded. Yes, Joft will draw upon the most powerful fires of Hell to tear that plan asunder, but if a cogent, logical argument entered her brain, no doubt a concussion would result. I fear that, over time, her undertakings will be seen as uncontested fact, because many people are afraid to lay out some ideas and interpretations that hold the potential for insight. Joft's remarks have merged with conformism in several interesting ways. Both spring from the same kind of reality-denying mentality. Both represent heaven as hell and, conversely, the most wretched life as paradise. And both censor any incomplicitous declamations.

    Once you understand Joft's effusions, you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting Joft twist the truth.

    If her apple-polishers had even an ounce of integrity, they would debunk the nonsense spouted by Joft's cringers. Here's an idea: Instead of giving Joft the ability to arouse inter-ethnic suspicion, why don't we express our concerns about her dotty complaints? If we do, we'll then be able to oppose her and all she stands for. I am not trying to save the world -- I gave up that pursuit a long time ago. But I am trying to feed the starving, house the homeless, cure the sick, and still find wonder and awe in the sunrise and the moonlight. Not only have what I call belligerent perverts decided to glorify their vituperations by dressing them up as moral and righteous prerogatives, but their solutions are being debated as though they were actually reasonable. I have a soft spot for impetuous rascals: a bog not too far from here.

    Others have stated it much more eloquently than I, but Joft is laughing up her sleeve at us. The best example of this, culled from many, would have to be the time Joft tried to produce nothing but filth. Even if audacious whiners join her band with the best of intentions, they will still show a clear lack of respect not just for those brave souls who fought and died for what they believed in, but also for you, the readers of this letter, any day now. Not all, I hasten to add, do join with the best of intentions. She doesn't want us to know about her plans to overthrow all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and the good, and instead drag people down into the sphere of her own base nature. Otherwise, we might do something about that. Joft has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to consign most of us to the role of her servants or slaves. On all of these occasions, I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that it is not news that her remonstrations stink. What speaks volumes, though, is 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 Joft is reluctant to resolve problems. She always just looks the other way and hopes no one will notice that she is not only immoral, but amoral. Now that this letter has come to an end, I really hope you walk away from it realizing that authority without wisdom is mere noise against the music of eternity.

    <_<

  6. #6
    90ANG/45MEX IMO
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    909
    BG Level
    5

    When I began writing this letter, I had the notion that I would write about something positive and optimistic instead of going on about how cantankerous Square Enix is. Unfortunately, I couldn't think of anything particularly positive to write about. So, instead, I'll just tell you that everything Square Enix writes is unreadably desultory. Instead of focusing on why I challenge Square Enix to tell me what, if anything, in this letter is not completely truthful, I would like to remind people that I must part company with many of my peers when it comes to understanding why Square Enix's commentaries smack of mercantalism. My peers think that Square Enix, using every conceivable means for its purpose, is determined to inflict more death and destruction than Genghis Khan's hordes. While this is unmistakably true, I maintain we must add that this is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about its venal behavior, but about the way that its subalterns are currently in the streets, burning, robbing, and looting. That's pretty transparent. What's not so transparent is the answer to the following question: Will peeling back the onion of its execrable objectives cause it to shed tears or will it merely enhance its desire to represent heaven as hell and, conversely, the most wretched life as paradise? A clue might be that its accusations have served as a powerful weapon with which addlepated carousers can bombard me with insults. I always catch hell whenever I say something like that, so let me assure you that I want to give people more information about Square Enix, help them digest and assimilate and understand that information, and help them draw responsible conclusions from it. Here's one conclusion I honestly hope people draw: Square Enix coins polysyllabic neologisms to make its pronouncements sound like they're actually important. In fact, its treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary. I may not believe that it's perfectly safe to drink and drive, but I indeed do suspect that unlike it, I stand for progression, not regression. So don't feed me any phony baloney about how trees cause more pollution than automobiles do. That's just not true. Irritable pamphleteers who mete out harsh and arbitrary punishment against Square Enix's adversaries until they're intimidated into a benumbed, neutralized, impotent, and non-functioning mass might not recognize the incongruities in Square Enix's bons mots, but the tone of Square Enix's lamentations is eerily reminiscent of that of slimy incubi of the late 1940s, in the sense that if we don't remove the Square Enix threat now, it will bite us in our backside by the end of the decade.

    I am offended by the way Square Enix talks down to me, and I'm not making that up! To those readers who believe that a knowledge of correct diction, even if unused, evinces a superiority that covers cowardice or stupidity, you have not been paying attention. Square Enix's wisecracks are precisely the kind of thing that will hand over the country to gormless benighted-types any day now. The same holds true for directionless sententious-types. The problem, as I see it, is not a question of who the ideologues of this society are, but rather that I urge you to join me in my quest to fight perverted nymphomaniacs. But that's not all: Not only does it compromise the free and open nature of public discourse, but it then commands its deputies, "Go, and do thou likewise." It is pointless to fret about the damage already caused by Square Enix's primitive manifestos. The past cannot be changed. We must cope with the present if we hope to affect our future and denounce Square Enix's campaigns.


    Funny thing is, I truly kind of feel this way.

  7. #7
    Puppetmaster
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    56
    BG Level
    2

    >.>

    My complaint about Gravy

    As much as some people may disagree with the following observations, I stand firmly by them. Before examining the present situation, however, it is important that I go placidly amid the noise and haste. It's a well-known fact that Gravy ducks the issue of communism by using words and phrases so vague and subject to interpretation that they have no true meaning at all. It's an equally well-known fact that he has a driving need to grant lousy crooks the keys to the kingdom. When logic puts these two facts together, the necessary result is an understanding that he might misdirect our efforts into fighting each other rather than into understanding the nature and endurance of wily jujuism some day. What are we to do then? Place blinders over our eyes and hope we don't see the horrible outcome?

    While this country still has far to go before people are truly judged on the content of their character, if we don't set the record straight right now, then Gravy's ploys will soon start to metastasize until they deny citizens the ability to become informed about the destruction that Gravy is capable of. We'll know soon enough just how closed-minded these classes of goof-offs can be, but that's really beside the point. I myself am convinced that there will be a strong effort on his part to impale us on the pike of colonialism within a short period of time. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that the first lies that Gravy 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.

    If the past is any indication of the future, he will once again attempt to manipulate public understanding of obstructionism. I am certain that if I asked the next person I meet if he would want Gravy to make us the helpless puppets of our demographic labels, he would say no. Yet we all stand idly by while Gravy claims that voyeurism is a viable and vital objective for our nation's educational institutions. Many people are shocked when I tell them that his hypocrisy comes out when he denies that he surrounds himself with distasteful worrywarts. And I'm shocked that so many people are shocked. You see, I had thought everybody already knew that he says that we can change the truth if we don't like it the way it is. That's his unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely obstreperous and surly lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by Gravy's comrades.

    Worst of all, our children's children would never forgive us for letting Gravy break down the industrial-technological system. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Of course, if Gravy had learned anything from history, he'd know that it's a pity that two thousand years after Christ, the voices of hidebound rakes like him can still be heard, worse still that they're listened to, and worst of all that anyone believes them. Whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to break the neck of his policy of interventionism once and for all. Gravy's statements have merged with nativism in several interesting ways. Both spring from the same kind of reality-denying mentality. Both undermine liberty in the name of liberty. And both detach individuals from traditional sources of strength and identity -- family, class, private associations. We need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with Gravy. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that many of our present-day sufferings are the consequence of the wild relationship between Gravy and the most disagreeable manipulators of the public mind you'll ever see. Am I aware of how Gravy will react when he reads that last sentence? Yes. Do I care? No, because unlike him, 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" -- Gravy were not actually responsible for trying to prevent me from sleeping soundly at night, then I'd stop saying that I am making a pretty serious accusation here. I am accusing Gravy of planning to skewer me over a pit barbecue. And I don't want anyone to think that I am basing my accusation only on the fact that I have to wonder where he got the idea that it is my view that he is a martyr for freedom and a victim of absenteeism. This sits hard with me, because it is simply not true, and I've never written anything to imply that it is.

    Gravy likes policies that put what I call noxious, ribald slackers on the federal payroll. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that the next time he decides to inaugurate an era of combative, bloody-minded Dadaism, he should think to himself, cui bono? -- who benefits? Having said that, let me add that it's easy enough to hate him any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that he is up to, things that ought to make a real Gravy-hater out of you. First off, we've all heard him yammer and whine about how he's being scapegoated again, the poor dear. We must focus on the major economic, social, and political forces that provide the setting for the expression of a hate-filled-to-the-core agenda. 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 prudence is no vice. Cowardice -- especially Gravy's disingenuous form of it -- is.

    Something that I have heard repeated several times from various sources -- a sort of "tag line" for Gravy -- is, "We should go out and assuage the hungers of Gravy's hangers-on with servings of fresh scapegoats. And when we're done with that, we'll all crush the remaining vestiges of democracy throughout the world." This is not a direct quote, nor have I heard it from Gravy's lips directly, but several sources have paraphrased the content to me in near-enough ways that I feel fairly confident it actually was said. And to be honest, I have no trouble believing it.

    Some people think I'm exaggerating when I say that his underlings are the worst that humanity has to offer. But I'm not exaggerating; if anything, I'm understating the situation. He has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to spam the Internet with childish junk e-mail. On all of these occasions, I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that if you've read this far, then you probably either agree with me or are on the way to agreeing with me. Every time Gravy utters or writes a statement that supports autism -- even indirectly -- it sends a message that the purpose of life is self-gratification. I maintain we mustn't let him make such statements, partly because if his hired goons get their way, society as we know it will cease to exist, but primarily because he had promised us liberty, equality, and fraternity. Instead, Gravy gave us insurrectionism, irreligionism, and misoneism. I suppose we should have seen that coming, especially since a central fault line runs through each of Gravy's drug-induced ravings. Specifically, Gravy will do everything in his power to make people weak and dependent. No wonder corruption is endemic to our society; Gravy leads me to believe that he is ultra-spiteful. If you doubt this, just ask around. As I have indicated, even Gravy's bedfellows are afraid that Gravy will create a climate in which it will be assumed that our achievements reflect not individual worth, talent, or skill, but special consideration in a matter of days. I have seen their fear manifested over and over again, and it is further evidence that Gravy has announced his intentions to encourage every sort of indiscipline and degeneracy in the name of freedom. While doing so may earn Gravy a gold star from the mush-for-brains McCarthyism crowd, if you read his writings while mentally out of focus, you may get the sense that individual worth is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. But if you read Gravy's writings while mentally in focus and weigh each point carefully, it's clear that his long-term goals are not our only concern. To state the matter in a few words, I doubtlessly dislike him. Likes or dislikes, however, are irrelevant to observed facts, such as that when a friend wants to drive inebriated, you try to stop him. Well, Gravy is drunk with power, which is why we must find the inner strength to tell you things that he doesn't want you to know. Gravy obviously didn't have to pass an intelligence test to get to where he is today, because his knowledge of how things work is completely off the mark. First of all, 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 by allowing him to usher in the rule of the Antichrist and the apocalyptic end times, we are allowing him to play puppet master.

    Even his horoscope says he's bestial. An equal but opposite observation is that he wants nothing less than to compromise the free and open nature of public discourse, hence his repeated, almost hypnotic, insistence on the importance of his bleeding-heart, biased rantings. Just look at the bill of fare served up in recent movies and television programs, and you will hardly be able to deny that I welcome Gravy's comments. However, Gravy needs to realize that he wants to impair the practice of democracy. Why he wants that, I don't know, but that's what he wants. While I agree with others' assessment that corruption, lying, and hypocrisy are the fundaments of his belief systems, still, his conclusions are not pedantic treatises expressing theories or extravaganzas dealing in fables or fancies. They are substantial, sober outpourings from the very soul of pessimism.

    You know what I mean? Of course, I'm generalizing a little here. But that's only because Gravy's claim that laws are meant to be broken is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind. If you can go more than a minute without hearing Gravy talk about antagonism, you're either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial. His views are way off base. I've said that before and I've said it often, but perhaps I haven't been concrete enough or specific enough, so now I'll try to remedy those shortcomings. I'll try to be a lot more specific and concrete when I explain that in order to identify, challenge, defy, disrupt, and, finally, destroy the institutions that require schoolchildren to be taught that he is a model citizen, we must guide the world into an age of peace, justice, and solidarity. And that's just the first step. Remember, it is immature and stupid of Gravy to grasp at straws, trying to find increasingly dastardly ways to palm off our present situation as the compelling ground for worldwide faddism. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to give our propaganda fighters an instrument that is very much needed at this time, and that's why I say that paltry, virulent maggots serve as the priests in his cult of subhuman stoicism. These "priests" spend their days basking in Gravy's reflected glory, pausing only when Gravy instructs them to devise self-indulgent scams to get money for nothing. What could be more dirty? People often ask me that question. It's a difficult question to answer, however, because the querist generally wants a simple, concise answer. He doesn't want to hear a long, drawn-out explanation about how a central point of Gravy's belief systems is the notion that it's inappropriate to teach children right from wrong. Perhaps he should take some new data into account and revisit that notion. I think he'd find that he is fluent in the sinful patois of fascism. That's the current situation, and if you have any doubt about the reality of it, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to what's been happening in the world. 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 I can no longer get very excited about any revelation of Gravy's hypocrisy or crookedness. It's what I've come to expect by now.

    I cannot promise not to be angry at Gravy. I do promise, however, to try to keep my anger under control, to keep it from leading me -- as it leads Gravy -- to crush the will of all individuals who have expressed political and intellectual opposition to his claims. He wants me to stop trying to stand up and fight for our heritage, traditions, and values. Instead, he'd rather I die a slow and painful death. Sorry, but I don't accept defeat that easily. Gravy believes that it is not only acceptable, but indeed desirable, to drag everything that is truly great into the gutter. That's just wrong. He further believes that the only way to expand one's mind is with drugs -- or maybe even chocolate. Wrong again! My eventual goal for this letter is to give Gravy a rhadamanthine warning not to judge people by the color of their skin while ignoring the content of their character. I'm counting on you for your support.

  8. #8

    EM PEE KAY ENDO!

    To respond to all of Lord Endo N Otme V's expostulations would take up too much room and time. I would like to address the most short-sighted ones, though. I want to share this with you because Lord Otme's announcements are like an enormous frotteurism-spewing machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey wrench in its gears. And we must kick butt and take names, because Lord Otme pompously claims that divine ichor flows through his veins. That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately. His dupes often reverse the normal process of interpretation. That is, they value the unsaid over the said, the obscure over the clear. The foregoing greatly simplifies the real situation, but it does indicate in a rough, general way that Lord Otme is the type of person that turns up his nose at people like you and me. I guess that's because we haven't the faintest notion about the things that really matter, such as why it would be good for him to scupper my initiative to avoid the extremes of a pessimistic naturalism and an optimistic humanism by combining the truths of both. He is too feeble-minded to read the writing on the wall. This writing warns that he has gotten away with so much for so long that he's lost all sense of caution, all sense of limits. If you think about it, only a man without any sense of limits could desire to detach individuals from traditional sources of strength and identity -- family, class, private associations. Lord Otme's idiotic claim that granting him complete control over our lives is as important as breathing air is just that, an idiotic claim.

    For all intents and purposes, I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I think that there is, because there are two related questions in this matter. The first is to what extent Lord Otme has tried to erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty. The other is whether or not when I'm through with Lord Otme, he'll think twice before attempting to transform our society into an anal-retentive war machine. If I weren't so forgiving, I'd have to say that this is not the first time I've wanted to supply the missing ingredient that could stop the worldwide slide into negativism. But it is the first time I realized that he just keeps on saying, "I don't give a [expletive deleted] about you. I just want to devise officious scams to get money for nothing." Lord Otme has been known to say that the average working-class person can't see through his chicanery. That notion is so self-centered, I hardly know where to begin refuting it. His victims have been speaking out for years. Unfortunately, their voices have long been silenced by the roar and thunder of Lord Otme's followers, who loudly proclaim that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. Regardless of those out-of-touch proclamations, the truth is that he thinks that laws are meant to be broken. However, by letting him prevent me from sleeping soundly at night, we are playing a loser's game.

    The next time Lord Otme decides to turn the social order upside-down so that the dregs on the bottom become the scum on the top, he should think to himself, cui bono? -- who benefits? Some will say I exaggerate, but, actually, I'm being quite lenient. I didn't mention, for example, that when people say that bigotry and hate are alive and well, they're right. And Lord Otme is to blame. In plain, simple-to-understand English, all of his platitudes are based on the premise that every word that leaves his mouth is teeming with useful information. That's clear. But he insists that he would sooner give up money, fame, power, and happiness than perform a manipulative act. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands he perpetrates. Lord Otme complains a lot. What's ironic, though, is that he hasn't made even a single concrete suggestion for improvement or identified a single problem with the system as it exists today.

    I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that he has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to force us to experience the full spectrum of the Endo N Otme Rainbow of Snobbism. On all of these occasions, I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that in a recent essay, he stated that the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to thrust all of us into scenarios rife with personal animosities and petty resentments. Since the arguments he made in the rest of his essay are based in part on that assumption, he should be aware that it just isn't true. Not only that, but he insists that bad things "just happen" (i.e., they're not caused by Lord Otme himself). This is a rather strong notion from someone who knows so little about the subject. I believe that it can be safely said that Lord Otme engages in pietistic babble that nauseates even some of my more religious friends. If, today, the urge of his war-soul can prompt him to crush the remaining vestiges of democracy throughout the world, then imagine, if you can, how that same soul will express itself through the thousandfold-more-prodigal Lord Otme of tomorrow. Astute observers have known for years that his argument that he knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli is hopelessly flawed and totally circuitous.

    I repeat: That's just one side of the coin. The other side is that if Fate desired that he make a correct application of what he had read about corporatism, it would have to indicate title and page number, since the splenetic fool would otherwise never in all his life find the correct place. But since Fate does not do this, inasmuch as I disagree with his accusations and find his ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet his speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines. If you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance. If we let Lord Otme portray the most mindless duffers you'll ever see as dunces, 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.

    It's astounding that he has found a way to work the words "barothermohygrograph" and "counterrevolutionize" into his half-measures. However, you may find it even more astounding that a great many of us don't want him to burn books. But we feel a prodigious societal pressure to smile, to be nice, and not to object to his profligate, morally crippled fibs. Lord Otme combines greed and blood lust into a single persona, and everyone with half a brain understands that. Fortunately, most people understand that to believe that censorship could benefit us is to deceive ourselves. Having already explained that we are being insidiously, conspiratorially, and treasonously led by deception, by bribery, by coercion, and by fear to commit confrontational, in-your-face acts of violence, intimidation, and incivility, let me now state that Lord Otme should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory. I'm not the first to mention that even when he isn't lying, he's using facts, emphasizing facts, bearing down on facts, sliding off facts, quietly ignoring facts, and, above all, interpreting facts in a way that will enable him to deny citizens the ability to become informed about the destruction that he is capable of.

    You should think of this letter as a clarion call for us to reveal the nature and activity of Lord Otme's lapdogs and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate final aims. I know because I have experienced that personally. I don't mean to scare you, but I feel that Lord Otme has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. He obviously has none, or he wouldn't foster demagogism at every opportunity. On a similar note, if you ever ask him to do something, you can bet that your request will get lost in the shuffle, unaddressed, ignored, and rebuffed. Do we not, as rational men and women, owe it to both our heritage and our posterity to seek some structure in which the cacophony introduced by Lord Otme's subliminal psywar campaigns might be systematized, reconciled, and made rational? I think we do.

    Lord Otme claims that we're supposed to shut up and smile when he says moonstruck things. Predictably, he cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. I wonder what would happen if he really did cause the destruction of human ambition and joy. There's a spooky thought. This in mind, I would like to indicate in a rough and approximate way the two ungrateful tendencies that I believe are the main driving force of modern materialism. We must tell it like it is. Only then can a society free of his daft grievances blossom forth from the roots of the past. And only then will people come to understand that I want to make this clear, so that those who do not understand deeper messages embedded within sarcastic irony -- and you know who I'm referring to -- can process my point.

    The largest problem, however, is that if a cogent, logical argument entered Lord Otme's brain, no doubt a concussion would result. I can easily see Lord Otme performing the following temperamental acts. First, he will leave behind a legacy of perpetual indebtedness in developing countries. Then, he will put political correctness ahead of scientific rigor. I do not profess to know how likely is the eventuality I have outlined, but it is a distinct possibility to be kept in mind. How can he live with himself, knowing that he feeds on our goodwill like worms feed on buried corpses? There is widespread agreement in asking that question, but there is great disagreement in answering it.

    Given this context, we need to return to the idea that motivated this letter: Were he alive today, Hideki Tojo would be his most trustworthy ally. I can see Tojo joining forces with Lord Otme to help him break the mind and spirit, castrate the character, and kill the career of anyone whose ideas he deems to be froward. Show me where it says he has the right to pass off all sorts of blinkered and obviously incomprehensible stuff on others as a so-called "inner experience". The acid test for his "kinder, gentler" new protests should be, "Do they still outrage the very sensibilities of those who value freedom and fairness?" If the answer is yes, then we can conclude that I recently overheard a couple of unpleasant, conniving wackos say that we should all bear the brunt of Lord Otme's actions. Here, again, we encounter the blurred thinking that is characteristic of this Lord Otme-induced era of slogans and propaganda. I will let his record speak for itself. And here, I insist, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in his conjectures. Summa summarum, I see myself as a link in the endless chain of generations, with an inescapable responsibility to restore the world back to its original balance

  9. #9
    Banned.

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    367
    BG Level
    4

    a

  10. #10

    Love, i just pretended i wrote the whole thing and sent it to a friend.

  11. #11
    CoP Dynamis
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    263
    BG Level
    4

    There are many problems with PlayOnline's undertakings. The one that's the most blatant, and the one that I will limit my discussion to, is related to its overt support of escapism. What follows is a call to action for those of us who care -- a large enough number to advance a clear, credible, and effective vision for dealing with our present dilemma and its most offensive manifestations. Every time PlayOnline tells its yes-men that it is entitled to suborn oleaginous hucksters to convert houses of worhip into houses of separatism, their eyes roll into the backs of their heads as they become mindless receptacles of unsubstantiated information, which they accept without question. To borrow the immortal words of a certain, well-known authority figure, "The most believable explanation for many of the destructive trends in politics, economics, morality, and other key areas over the past two years is that a secretive, incredibly parasitic, well-organized movement has been striving relentlessly to leave behind a wake of stupid reaction." PlayOnline keeps telling us that the Universe belongs to it by right. Are we also supposed to believe that hanging out with nugatory, disruptive schemers is a wonderful, culturally enriching experience? I didn't think so.

    What that means, simply put, is that PlayOnline's obiter dicta may have been conceived in idealism, but they quickly degenerated into mingy priggism. PlayOnline's collaborators tend to fall into the mistaken belief that the most valuable skill one can have is to be able to lie convincingly, mainly because they live inside a PlayOnline-generated illusion-world and talk only with each other. PlayOnline's positions reek of vigilantism. I use the word "reek", because it's easy for us to shake our heads at PlayOnline's foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should protect our peace, privacy, and safety. It's easy for us to say, "I am chagrined but resigned when I witness the indifference to the fundamentals of language that PlayOnline displays." The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because I feel that writing this letter is like celestial navigation. Before directional instruments were invented, sailors navigated the seas by fixing their compass on the North Star. But 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 PlayOnline 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. This seems so obvious, I am amazed there is even any discussion about it. PlayOnline can't possibly believe that it's inappropriate to teach children right from wrong. It's stupid, but it's not that stupid.

    PlayOnline has never gotten ahead because of its hard work or innovative ideas. Rather, all of PlayOnline's successes are due to kickbacks, bribes, black market double-dealing, outright thuggery, and unsavory political intrigue. PlayOnline ignores a breathtaking number of facts, most notably:

    Fact: PlayOnline has never been able to assimilate and accept the humane ideals, civilized aims, and social aspirations of its peers.

    Fact: PlayOnline is immovably entrenched in its neurotic philosophical positions.

    Fact: PlayOnline wouldn't know a new idea if it hit it over the head.

    In addition, PlayOnline says that it needs a little more time to clean up its act. As far as I'm concerned, PlayOnline's time has run out.

    PlayOnline's possession-obsessed personal attacks convince me of only one thing: that the blatant ignorance and social maladjustment of PlayOnline's ploys will convince people that their peers are already riding the PlayOnline bandwagon and will think ill of them if they don't climb aboard, too, within a short period of time. I know you're wondering why I just wrote that. I'll explain shortly, but first, I should state that when I say that PlayOnline personifies our nation's short attention span and penchant for apathy, this does not, I repeat, does not mean that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel. This is a common fallacy held by careless doofuses. If you ask PlayOnline if it's true that its suggestions are unrealistic, you'll just get a lot of foot-shuffling and downcast eyes in response. It is apparent to me that if we let PlayOnline give expression to that which is most destructive and most harmful to society, then greed, corruption, and credentialism will characterize the government. Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens. And lies and deceit will be the stock and trade of the media and educational institutions.

    In spite of all PlayOnline has done, I must admit I really like the organization. No, just kidding. If impertinent self-proclaimed arbiters of taste and standards really believed in equality, they wouldn't put an unsavory spin on important issues. It's a pity. Documents written by PlayOnline's expositors typically include the line, "PlayOnline's pronouncements are Holy Writ", in large, 30-point type, as if the size of the font gives weight to the words. In reality, all that that fancy formatting really does is underscore the fact that PlayOnline wants us to think of it as a do-gooder. Keep in mind, though, that it wants to "do good" with other people's money and often with other people's lives. If PlayOnline really wanted to be a do-gooder, it could start by admitting that I frequently talk about how it tries to humiliate its opponents rather than win their understanding. I would drop the subject, except that when its disquisitions are challenged, it stages an outpouring of phony emotion in order to look good to the public, and everyone with half a brain understands that.

    One of the enduring effects of PlayOnline's tricks is surely the way they will demand that loyalty to duplicitous scroungers supersedes personal loyalty. There are two reasons which induce me to submit PlayOnline's double standards to a special examination: 1) The trouble with such contemptuous, pertinacious purveyors of malice and hatred is that they intend to inflict more death and destruction than Genghis Khan's hordes, and 2) ever since PlayOnline began its quest to beat plowshares into swords, it has been denying with its lips what it has been doing with its hands. I must admit that the second point, in particular, sometimes fills me with anxious concern. Never mind that PlayOnline's lieutenants merely present their allegations as though they were true, a technique known as a "conclusory" or "Kierkegaardian" leap. What's really important is that the more we give PlayOnline, the more it wants. If you doubt this, just ask around. PlayOnline may have access to weapons of mass destruction. Then again, I, for one, consider it to be a weapon of mass destruction itself.

    PlayOnline contends that it is the most recent incarnation of the Buddha. Excuse me, but where exactly did this little factoid come from? If PlayOnline would abandon its name-calling and false dichotomies, it would be much easier for me to seek some structure in which the cacophony introduced by PlayOnline's endeavors might be systematized, reconciled, and made rational.

    Sadly, in once sense, PlayOnline is correct. If we let it show a clear lack of respect not just for those brave souls who fought and died for what they believed in, but also for you, the readers of this letter, then I will decidedly be forced to fall into the trap of thinking that the best way to serve one's country is to destroy the values, methods, and goals of traditional humanistic study. I imagine that PlayOnline does not merely distort the facts. It does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically. I will never identify with worthless sluggards. Of course, this sounds simple, but in reality, the real issue is simple: It has a hair-trigger temper.

    I may not believe that we should all bear the brunt of PlayOnline's actions, but I really do insist that I have to laugh when it says that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. Where in the world did it get that idea? Not only does that idea contain absolutely no substance whatsoever, but the cry of "bigot" is raised mostly by bigots. I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, challenge it to point out any text in this letter that proposes that its outbursts prevent smallpox. It isn't there. There's neither a hint nor a suggestion of such a thing. If PlayOnline can one day incite young people to copulate early, often, and indiscriminately, then the long descent into night is sure to follow. Now, I'm going to be honest here. It doesn't do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of PlayOnline's screeds in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must give PlayOnline a rhadamanthine warning not to deploy enormous resources in a war of attrition against helpless citizens.

    PlayOnline's cajoleries sound so noble, but in fact, if a new Dark Age is about to descend upon us -- as many believe it will -- it will be the result of PlayOnline's warnings. That's pretty transparent. What's not so transparent is the answer to the following question: How long shall there continue fatuitous freaks to vend and callous drongos to gulp so low a piece of elitism as PlayOnline's shenanigans? A clue might be that if I recall correctly, PlayOnline is right about one thing, namely that fear is what motivates us. Fear of what it means when lascivious psychics influence the attitudes of dominant culture towards any environment or activity that is predominantly perfidious. Fear of what it says about our society when we teach our children that PlayOnline's way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't. And fear of inimical spoilsports like PlayOnline who squeeze every last drop of blood from our overworked, overtaxed bodies. I can unquestionably suggest how PlayOnline ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting with moral rectitude lies with PlayOnline itself. One final point: PlayOnline has been working overtime to call for a return to that which wasn't particularly good in the first place.

  12. #12
    Sea Torques
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    741
    BG Level
    5
    FFXI Server
    Leviathan

    lol, heres one for yoi darkvalentine

    My complaint about Ms. Dark S Valentine, Jr.

    Be forewarned: In this letter, I will be as harsh as truth and as uncompromising as justice. First, the misinformation: Ms. Dark S Valentine, Jr. suggests that the laws of nature don't apply to her. Where the heck did she come up with that? It is only when one has an answer to that question is it possible to make sense of her canards, because you should not ask, "What exactly is the principle that rationalizes her goofy exegeses?", but rather, "Whatever happened to her sense of humanity?". The latter question is the better one to ask, because a central point of her belief systems is the notion that it's okay to jawbone aimlessly. Perhaps Ms. Valentine should take some new data into account and revisit that notion. I think she'd find that if you intend to challenge someone's assertions, you need to present a counterargument. She provides none. I, for one, surely want to talk about the big picture: on the issue of feudalism, Ms. Valentine is wrong again. Sure, violence, mayhem, and insanity are the inevitable consequences of her pleas. But Ms. Valentine is driving me nuts. I can't take it anymore!

    Behold what a nice, thick, fat lie it is when she denies ever having strived to fortify a social correctness that restricts experience and defines success with narrow boundaries. Whether or not you realize this, Ms. Valentine argues that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. 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: Her press releases are indistinguishable from the ones she condemns. More than that, I'm sure she wouldn't want me to eavesdrop on her secret conversations. So why does Ms. Valentine want to paint people of different races and cultures as power-drunk alien forces undermining the coherent national will? The answer may surprise you, especially when you consider that if she wants to be taken seriously, she should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults.

    Ms. Valentine's understrappers often reverse the normal process of interpretation. That is, they value the unsaid over the said, the obscure over the clear. Ms. Valentine's grievances are a mere cavil, a mere scarecrow, one of the last shifts of a desperate and dying cause. No matter what else we do, our first move must be to educate everyone about how I'm indisputably afraid of the most semi-intelligible shysters you'll ever see. That's the first step: education. Education alone is not enough, of course. We must also break the neck of Ms. Valentine's policy of heathenism once and for all.

    Even without the prolix ideology of commercialism in the picture, we can still say that I truly wouldn't want to scrap the notion of national sovereignty. I would, on the other hand, love to make the world safe for democracy. But, hey, I'm already doing that with this letter. I would certainly like to comment on Ms. Valentine's attempt to associate careerism with classism. There is no association.

    At the risk of repeating myself, I must reiterate that ancient Greek dramatists discerned a peculiar virtue in being tragic. Ms. Valentine would do well to realize that they never discerned any virtue in being perverted. We no longer have the luxury of indulging in universalist, altruistic principles that, no matter how noble they may appear, have enabled mean-spirited finks to deprive individuals of the right to stand up and fight for our heritage, traditions, and values. It's possible that she doesn't realize this because she has been ingrained with so much of McCarthyism's propaganda. If that's the case, I recommend that we teach the worst sorts of caustic stool pigeons there are about tolerance. When I first became aware of Ms. Valentine's covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how the picture I am presenting need not be confined to Ms. Valentine's ballyhoos. It applies to everything she says and does. Where are the solid statistics that prove that we ought to worship what I call racialism-oriented, obtrusive nebbishes as folk heroes? I've never seen any. Yet, her wisecracks are uncalled for. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that her intent is to prevent us from asking questions. Ms. Valentine doesn't want the details checked. She doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts she presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of her "facts" are false. I think I've dished it out to Ms. Dark S Valentine, Jr. as best as I can in this letter. I hope you now understand why I say that her mandarin prose has always appealed to what I call destructive radicals.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  13. #13

    My complaint about Hot Pants

    There are some comments I need to make regarding Hot Pants. Before I say anything else, let me remind Pants that he wants to let the most hopeless bourgeoisie I've ever seen serve as our overlords. Personally, I don't want that. Personally, I prefer freedom. If you also prefer freedom, then you should be working with me to inculcate in the reader an inquisitive spirit and a skepticism about beliefs that Pants's cringers take for granted. To inform you of the grounds upon which I base my expostulations, I offer the following. He is not just stupid. He is unbelievably, astronomically stupid. I hope that Pants's punishment fits his crime, and every intellectually honest person knows it. For heaven's sake, Pants never stops boasting about his generous contributions to charitable causes. As far as I can tell, however, his claimed magnanimousness is utterly chimerical and, furthermore, Pants accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does he suspect I'm narrow-minded because I refuse to accept his claim that space aliens are out to lay eggs in our innards or ooze their alien hell-slime all over us? If so, then I guess I'm as narrow-minded as I could possibly be.

    His ideas 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 a matter of days. Pants really shouldn't make conditions far worse than could ever have been the case without his inimical efforts. That's just common sense. Of course, the people who appreciate his grievances are those who eagerly root up common sense, prominently hold it out, and decry it as poison with astonishing alacrity.

    The fact is, after hearing about his odious attempts to play fast and loose with the truth, I was saddened. I was saddened that he has lowered himself to this level. By toning down his hijinks, many more people are exposed to Pants's ghastly message, convinced by his passion, and seduced by his simplistic answers to complex social problems. I can't stress this enough, but Pants likes to compare his protests to those that shaped this nation. The comparison, however, doesn't hold up beyond some uselessly broad, superficial similarities that are so vague and pointless, it's not even worth summarizing them. Daily, the truth is being impressed upon us that he asserts that 75 million years ago, a galactic tyrant named Xenu solved the overpopulation problem of his 76-planet federation by transporting the excess people to Earth, chaining them to volcanoes, and dropping H-bombs on them. That assertion is not only untrue, but a conscious lie. Now let's have some fun and examine a few of Pants's more ridiculous statements. First, Pants said that negativism brings one closer to nirvana. That's rather presumptuous, isn't it? Later on, he claimed that this is the best of all possible worlds and that he is the best of all possible people. What this really means is that he wants to trivialize certain events that are particularly special to us all. The only way out of Hot Pants's rat maze is to clarify and correct some of the inaccuracies present in his stances. It's that simple.

  14. #14

    Re: lol, heres one for yoi darkvalentine

    Quote Originally Posted by raginbull
    My complaint about Ms. Dark S Valentine, Jr.

    Be forewarned: In this letter, I will be as harsh as truth and as uncompromising as justice. First, the misinformation: Ms. Dark S Valentine, Jr. suggests that the laws of nature don't apply to her. Where the heck did she come up with that? It is only when one has an answer to that question is it possible to make sense of her canards, because you should not ask, "What exactly is the principle that rationalizes her goofy exegeses?", but rather, "Whatever happened to her sense of humanity?". The latter question is the better one to ask, because a central point of her belief systems is the notion that it's okay to jawbone aimlessly. Perhaps Ms. Valentine should take some new data into account and revisit that notion. I think she'd find that if you intend to challenge someone's assertions, you need to present a counterargument. She provides none. I, for one, surely want to talk about the big picture: on the issue of feudalism, Ms. Valentine is wrong again. Sure, violence, mayhem, and insanity are the inevitable consequences of her pleas. But Ms. Valentine is driving me nuts. I can't take it anymore!

    Behold what a nice, thick, fat lie it is when she denies ever having strived to fortify a social correctness that restricts experience and defines success with narrow boundaries. Whether or not you realize this, Ms. Valentine argues that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. 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: Her press releases are indistinguishable from the ones she condemns. More than that, I'm sure she wouldn't want me to eavesdrop on her secret conversations. So why does Ms. Valentine want to paint people of different races and cultures as power-drunk alien forces undermining the coherent national will? The answer may surprise you, especially when you consider that if she wants to be taken seriously, she should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults.

    Ms. Valentine's understrappers often reverse the normal process of interpretation. That is, they value the unsaid over the said, the obscure over the clear. Ms. Valentine's grievances are a mere cavil, a mere scarecrow, one of the last shifts of a desperate and dying cause. No matter what else we do, our first move must be to educate everyone about how I'm indisputably afraid of the most semi-intelligible shysters you'll ever see. That's the first step: education. Education alone is not enough, of course. We must also break the neck of Ms. Valentine's policy of heathenism once and for all.

    Even without the prolix ideology of commercialism in the picture, we can still say that I truly wouldn't want to scrap the notion of national sovereignty. I would, on the other hand, love to make the world safe for democracy. But, hey, I'm already doing that with this letter. I would certainly like to comment on Ms. Valentine's attempt to associate careerism with classism. There is no association.

    At the risk of repeating myself, I must reiterate that ancient Greek dramatists discerned a peculiar virtue in being tragic. Ms. Valentine would do well to realize that they never discerned any virtue in being perverted. We no longer have the luxury of indulging in universalist, altruistic principles that, no matter how noble they may appear, have enabled mean-spirited finks to deprive individuals of the right to stand up and fight for our heritage, traditions, and values. It's possible that she doesn't realize this because she has been ingrained with so much of McCarthyism's propaganda. If that's the case, I recommend that we teach the worst sorts of caustic stool pigeons there are about tolerance. When I first became aware of Ms. Valentine's covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how the picture I am presenting need not be confined to Ms. Valentine's ballyhoos. It applies to everything she says and does. Where are the solid statistics that prove that we ought to worship what I call racialism-oriented, obtrusive nebbishes as folk heroes? I've never seen any. Yet, her wisecracks are uncalled for. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that her intent is to prevent us from asking questions. Ms. Valentine doesn't want the details checked. She doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts she presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of her "facts" are false. I think I've dished it out to Ms. Dark S Valentine, Jr. as best as I can in this letter. I hope you now understand why I say that her mandarin prose has always appealed to what I call destructive radicals.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    wth i dont even know u damn DV haters........

  15. #15
    Sea Torques
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    719
    BG Level
    5

    what the fuck?


  16. #16

    I'm always glad to have the opportunity to speak openly, without fear of Romero and his giant genitals twisting my words in a phlegmatic attempt to take away our sense of community and leave us morally adrift. Before I start, however, I should state that to understand what its particularly odious form of egotism 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 sophomoric 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 disgraceful that, with a wink and a smile, Romero and his giant genitals has signified its approval of blinkered, offensive pikers who create some licentious, pseudo-psychological profile of me to discredit my opinions. I don't mean to scare you, but if Romero and his giant genitals were as bright as it thinks it is, it'd know that when it says that we're supposed to shut up and smile when it says grotty things, in its mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like it believes it has said something very profound. Romero and his giant genitals's outbursts represent a backward step of hundreds of years, a backward step into a chasm with no bottom save the endless darkness of death. I repeat: What Romero and his giant genitals is doing is not an innocent, recreational sort of thing. It is a criminal activity, it is an immoral activity, it is a socially destructive activity, and it is a profoundly perverted activity.

    Once one begins thinking about free speech, about conniving cheapskates who use ostracism and public opinion to prevent the airing of views contrary to their own vulgar beliefs, one realizes that if you ever ask Romero and his giant genitals to do something, you can bet that your request will get lost in the shuffle, unaddressed, ignored, and rebuffed. You may balk at this, but Romero and his giant genitals will condone illegal activities because it possesses a hatred that defies all logic and understanding, that cannot be quantified or reasoned away, and that savagely possesses uncouth, lewd louts with gormless and uncontrollable rage. If Romero and his giant genitals can give us all a succinct and infallible argument proving that it holds a universal license that allows it to place sappy big-mouths at the top of the social hierarchy, I will personally deliver its Nobel Prize for Abominable Rhetoric. In the meantime, if Romero and his giant genitals can one day calumniate helpless Luddites, then the long descent into night is sure to follow. Romero and his giant genitals's premise (that we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune) is its morality disguised as pretended neutrality. Romero and his giant genitals uses this disguised morality to support its conclusions, thereby making its argument self-refuting.

    Is there anyone else out there who's noticed that Romero and his giant genitals is -- and I say this with no intended disrespect -- impertinent? I ask because the facts as I see them simply do not support the false, but widely accepted, notion that those who disagree with it should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve. In closing this letter, let me point out that I would be remiss if I didn't remind you that Romero and his giant genitals loves everybody so much, it wants to rip out the guts of everybody who doesn't love everybody as much as it does.

Quick Reply Quick Reply

  • Decrease Size
    Increase Size
  • Remove Text Formatting
  • Insert Link Insert Image Insert Video
  • Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
  • Insert NSFW Tag
  • Insert Spoiler Tag

Similar Threads

  1. wat
    By Demetrio$ in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 2005-08-08, 22:31
  2. wat
    By Demetrio$ in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 2005-06-15, 23:37
  3. wat
    By Demetrio$ in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2005-04-20, 11:29
  4. wat
    By Demetrio$ in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 2005-04-19, 14:58