Well ya see, I read a post and I was gonna reply but then there was a knock on the door. It was one of those religious fanatics (not that there?s any thing wrong with that) next thing ya know my dog gets out and bites one of the fanatics right square on the buttocks! He starts yelling and screaming that he is gonna kill that f?ing dog if I don?t do some thing. I (not a religious fanatic) proceed to tell the guy that Jesus would not be proud of that at all. My next door neighbor saw all this going on while he was washing his car. He thought the dog was trying to hump the fantics leg. One thing leads to another so he starts hosing em both down with the hose. Then while all this going on my poor neighbor?s car is just sitting in the sun getting sun spotted to the max..poor guy. Anyways, I have forgot my point now, but I?m sure that there is a lawsuit coming.
- Nov 27, 1999
- 65,400
- 407
- 126
apoppin
Lifer
I will not waste my time criticizing or insulting Prodigy as 1) he is unlikely to change, and 2) Prodigy probably revels in the letters of shock and repulsion that he regularly receives. Instead, I will focus on his pigheaded publications, which, after all, are the things that let down ladders which the imperious, high-handed, and selfish scramble to climb. To begin at the beginning, he is not a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens oppose our human vices wherever they may be found -- arrogance, hatred, jealousy, unfaithfulness, avarice, and so on. Responsible citizens indisputably do not treat anyone who doesn't agree with him to a torrent of vitriol and vilification. I feel this way because if we can understand what has caused the current plague of nugatory yahoos, I believe that we can then get us out of the hammerlock that he is holding us in.
Quite simply, Prodigy maintains that the sun rises just for him. Perhaps it would be best for him to awaken from his delusional narcoleptic fantasyland and observe that he possesses no significant intellectual skills whatsoever and has no interest in erudition. Heck, he can't even spell or define "erudition," much less achieve it. My purpose here is not to empower the oppressed to control their own lives. Well, okay, it is. But I should point out that it's easy for armchair philosophers to theorize about him and about hypothetical solutions to our Prodigy problem. It's an entirely more difficult matter, however, when one considers that there is a format he should follow for his next literary endeavor. It involves a topic sentence and supporting facts. It's directionless for Prodigy to revive the ruinous excess of a bygone era to bounce and blow amidst the ruinous excess of the present era. Or perhaps I should say, it's materialistic.
Call me overbearing if you'd like; I will still do everything in my power to demand a thoughtful analysis and resolution of our problems with Prodigy. Then, I will announce to the world that if Prodigy can give us all a succinct and infallible argument proving that his editorials enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness, I will personally deliver his Nobel Prize for Wild Rhetoric. In the meantime, in asserting that priggism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us, he demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision. Although the themes in his insults are limited, when he says that individual worth is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin, in his mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like he believes he has said something very profound. In the past, people like Prodigy would have been tarred and feathered for trying to separate people from their roots and cut their bonds to their natural communities.
From a purely technical point of view, if he makes fun of me or insults me, I hear it, and it hurts. But I take solace in the fact that I am still able to shed a little light on some of the ignorant prejudices that reside within his pea-sized brain. In general, his rejoinders are corporatism at its worst. Sure, there are exceptions, but the next time he decides to win support by encapsulating frustrations and directing them toward unpopular scapegoats, he should think to himself, cui bono? -- who benefits? Prodigy will borrow money and spend it on programs that enact new laws forcing anyone who's not one of his spin doctors to live in an environment that can, at best, be described as contemptuously tolerant long before he can convert me into one of his expositors. He got a little carried away with his ignominious utterances. But don't take my word for it; ask any filthy rabble-rousers you happen to meet.
(The merits of his sentiments won't be discussed here, because they lack merit.) Verily, we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Prodigy's whiney shell games, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to provide an antidote to contemporary manifestations of crotchety, belligerent voyeurism.) Some people are responsible and others are not. Prodigy falls into the category of "not". I respect his zingers, although he does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when he says that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins.
How can we trust Prodigy if he doesn't trust us? We can't. And besides, just because he and his collaborators don't like being labelled as "hypocritical scamps" or "snippy dummkopfs" doesn't mean the shoe doesn't fit. He claims that society is supposed to be lenient towards the worst classes of satanic authoritarians there are. I contend that the absurdities within that claim speak for themselves, although I should add that the problem with Prodigy is not that he's lecherous. It's that he wants to compromise the things that define us, including integrity, justice, love, and sharing. Believe you me, he commonly appoints ineffective people to important positions. He then ensures that these people stay in those positions, because that makes it easy for him to force us to adopt rigid social roles that compromise our inner code of ethics.
Prodigy says that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding. But then he turns around and says that he has achieved sainthood. You know, you can't have it both ways, Prodigy.
Someone has been giving his brain a very thorough washing, and now Prodigy is trying to do the same to us. He refers to a variety of things using the word "anthropomorphization". Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, he's saying that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. At any rate, I have absolutely no idea why he makes such a big fuss over imperialism. There are far more pressing issues that present themselves and that should be discussed, debated, and solved -- issues such as war, famine, poverty, and homelessness. There is also the lesser issue that when I'm through with Prodigy, he'll think twice before attempting to nail people to trees.
If the only way to make Prodigy's raving recommendations understood, resisted, and made the object of deserved contempt by young and old alike is for me to wind up in a straitjacket and locked in a padded cell, then so be it. It would truly be worth it, because he claims that his decisions are based on reason. Well, I beg to differ. I am, of course, referring to a recent occurrence which is so well-known, it requires no comment, except to add that Prodigy's reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, he always begins an argument with his conclusion (e.g., that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't) and therefore -- not surprisingly -- he always arrives at that very conclusion. Do Prodigy's confreres raise the quality of debate on issues surrounding Prodigy's uncouth publicity stunts? No, that would be the correct and logical thing to do. Instead, they perpetrate acts of the most money-grubbing character.
Although I respect Prodigy's right to free speech just as I respect it for lascivious pompous-types, self-aggrandizing, gruesome kleptomaniacs, and mendacious manipulators of the public mind, his crass, witless prank phone calls wage an odd sort of warfare upon a largely unprepared and unrecognizing public. News of this deviousness must spread like wildfire if we are ever to weaken the critical links in his nexus of unscrupulous, fatuous paternalism. Prodigy's spokesmen all look like Prodigy, think like Prodigy, act like Prodigy, and give rise to neo-birdbrained knuckle-draggers, just like Prodigy does. And all this in the name of -- let me see if I can get their propaganda straight -- brotherhood and service. Ha! Should we blindly trust such soulless boneheads? I can repeat with undiminished conviction something I said eons ago: The last time I told his cat's-paws that I want to burn away social illness, exploitation, and human suffering, they declared in response, "But it's okay for Prodigy to indulge his every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole." Of course, they didn't use exactly those words, but that's exactly what they meant. Let me end by appealing to our collective sense of humanity: Prodigy's stooges merely present their allegations as though they were true, a technique known as a "conclusory" or "Kierkegaardian" leap.
Quite simply, Prodigy maintains that the sun rises just for him. Perhaps it would be best for him to awaken from his delusional narcoleptic fantasyland and observe that he possesses no significant intellectual skills whatsoever and has no interest in erudition. Heck, he can't even spell or define "erudition," much less achieve it. My purpose here is not to empower the oppressed to control their own lives. Well, okay, it is. But I should point out that it's easy for armchair philosophers to theorize about him and about hypothetical solutions to our Prodigy problem. It's an entirely more difficult matter, however, when one considers that there is a format he should follow for his next literary endeavor. It involves a topic sentence and supporting facts. It's directionless for Prodigy to revive the ruinous excess of a bygone era to bounce and blow amidst the ruinous excess of the present era. Or perhaps I should say, it's materialistic.
Call me overbearing if you'd like; I will still do everything in my power to demand a thoughtful analysis and resolution of our problems with Prodigy. Then, I will announce to the world that if Prodigy can give us all a succinct and infallible argument proving that his editorials enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness, I will personally deliver his Nobel Prize for Wild Rhetoric. In the meantime, in asserting that priggism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us, he demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision. Although the themes in his insults are limited, when he says that individual worth is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin, in his mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like he believes he has said something very profound. In the past, people like Prodigy would have been tarred and feathered for trying to separate people from their roots and cut their bonds to their natural communities.
From a purely technical point of view, if he makes fun of me or insults me, I hear it, and it hurts. But I take solace in the fact that I am still able to shed a little light on some of the ignorant prejudices that reside within his pea-sized brain. In general, his rejoinders are corporatism at its worst. Sure, there are exceptions, but the next time he decides to win support by encapsulating frustrations and directing them toward unpopular scapegoats, he should think to himself, cui bono? -- who benefits? Prodigy will borrow money and spend it on programs that enact new laws forcing anyone who's not one of his spin doctors to live in an environment that can, at best, be described as contemptuously tolerant long before he can convert me into one of his expositors. He got a little carried away with his ignominious utterances. But don't take my word for it; ask any filthy rabble-rousers you happen to meet.
(The merits of his sentiments won't be discussed here, because they lack merit.) Verily, we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Prodigy's whiney shell games, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to provide an antidote to contemporary manifestations of crotchety, belligerent voyeurism.) Some people are responsible and others are not. Prodigy falls into the category of "not". I respect his zingers, although he does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when he says that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins.
How can we trust Prodigy if he doesn't trust us? We can't. And besides, just because he and his collaborators don't like being labelled as "hypocritical scamps" or "snippy dummkopfs" doesn't mean the shoe doesn't fit. He claims that society is supposed to be lenient towards the worst classes of satanic authoritarians there are. I contend that the absurdities within that claim speak for themselves, although I should add that the problem with Prodigy is not that he's lecherous. It's that he wants to compromise the things that define us, including integrity, justice, love, and sharing. Believe you me, he commonly appoints ineffective people to important positions. He then ensures that these people stay in those positions, because that makes it easy for him to force us to adopt rigid social roles that compromise our inner code of ethics.
Prodigy says that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding. But then he turns around and says that he has achieved sainthood. You know, you can't have it both ways, Prodigy.
Someone has been giving his brain a very thorough washing, and now Prodigy is trying to do the same to us. He refers to a variety of things using the word "anthropomorphization". Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, he's saying that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. At any rate, I have absolutely no idea why he makes such a big fuss over imperialism. There are far more pressing issues that present themselves and that should be discussed, debated, and solved -- issues such as war, famine, poverty, and homelessness. There is also the lesser issue that when I'm through with Prodigy, he'll think twice before attempting to nail people to trees.
If the only way to make Prodigy's raving recommendations understood, resisted, and made the object of deserved contempt by young and old alike is for me to wind up in a straitjacket and locked in a padded cell, then so be it. It would truly be worth it, because he claims that his decisions are based on reason. Well, I beg to differ. I am, of course, referring to a recent occurrence which is so well-known, it requires no comment, except to add that Prodigy's reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, he always begins an argument with his conclusion (e.g., that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't) and therefore -- not surprisingly -- he always arrives at that very conclusion. Do Prodigy's confreres raise the quality of debate on issues surrounding Prodigy's uncouth publicity stunts? No, that would be the correct and logical thing to do. Instead, they perpetrate acts of the most money-grubbing character.
Although I respect Prodigy's right to free speech just as I respect it for lascivious pompous-types, self-aggrandizing, gruesome kleptomaniacs, and mendacious manipulators of the public mind, his crass, witless prank phone calls wage an odd sort of warfare upon a largely unprepared and unrecognizing public. News of this deviousness must spread like wildfire if we are ever to weaken the critical links in his nexus of unscrupulous, fatuous paternalism. Prodigy's spokesmen all look like Prodigy, think like Prodigy, act like Prodigy, and give rise to neo-birdbrained knuckle-draggers, just like Prodigy does. And all this in the name of -- let me see if I can get their propaganda straight -- brotherhood and service. Ha! Should we blindly trust such soulless boneheads? I can repeat with undiminished conviction something I said eons ago: The last time I told his cat's-paws that I want to burn away social illness, exploitation, and human suffering, they declared in response, "But it's okay for Prodigy to indulge his every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole." Of course, they didn't use exactly those words, but that's exactly what they meant. Let me end by appealing to our collective sense of humanity: Prodigy's stooges merely present their allegations as though they were true, a technique known as a "conclusory" or "Kierkegaardian" leap.
- Nov 27, 1999
- 65,400
- 407
- 126
Supermercado
Diamond Member
- Jan 18, 2002
- 5,893
- 0
- 76
How much longer can we tolerate Prodigy's viperine cock-and-bull stories before the whole country collectively throws up? To what degree is Prodigy going to deface property with racially and sexually derogatory epithets and offensive symbols? And why doesn't he point a critical finger at himself for a change? This letter is not the place to explore the answers to those questions. Its purpose is instead to fight for our freedom of speech. But before I continue, allow me to explain that Prodigy wants to make bigotry respectable. Why he wants that, I don't know, but that's what he wants.
How can we trust mumpish slaves to fashion who actively conceal their true intentions? We can't. And besides, if I hear his hired goons say, "The purpose of life is self-gratification" one more time, I'm honestly going to throw up. Prodigy is too prolix to read the writing on the wall. This writing warns that he would not hesitate to lead people towards iniquity and sin if he felt he could benefit from doing so. He is meretricious, intransigent, contentious, nit-picky, satanic, and catty. Need I go on?
It's unfortunate that Prodigy has no real education. It's impossible to debate important topics with someone who is so mentally handicapped. If the people generally are relying on false information sown by uncompromising Philistines, then correcting that situation becomes a priority for the defense of our nation. Prodigy has endorsed the idea of pusillanimous, noxious pharisaism in a number of very specific ways, arguing, for instance, in favor of his cohorts' decision to distort the facts. Don't be fooled: The fact of the matter is that he is completely mistaken if he believes that a plausible excuse is a satisfactory substitute for performance.
As someone who is working hard to give direction to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality, I must point out that when you tell Prodigy's expositors that the popularity of Prodigy's wisecracks among the most irascible fanatics you'll ever see is a harbinger of beer-guzzling things to come, they begin to get fidgety, and their eyes begin to wander. They really don't care. They have no interest in hearing that he believes that the Eleventh Commandment is, "Thou shalt nourish rancorous, power-hungry ideologies". That's just wrong. He further believes that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. Wrong again! Regardless of the theoretical beauty of the notion that Prodigy will simply continue to cause distress to people he doesn't know, has never seen, and who have done him no harm whatsoever, there is the opposing fact that I and Prodigy part company when it comes to the issue of blackguardism. He feels that the average working-class person can't see through his chicanery, while I think that we must always be looking towards the future while keeping the past in mind. Excuse me; that's not entirely correct. What I meant to say is that an increasing number of people abhor Prodigy's ornery tactics and are looking for alternatives, like the truth. Or, to express that sentiment without all of the emotionally charged lingo, Prodigy has been trying for some time to convince people that my bitterness at him is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish. Don't believe his hype! Prodigy has just been offering that line as a means to impose a particular curriculum, vision of history, and method of pedagogy on our school systems. I have the following to say to the assertion that Prodigy is a model citizen: Baloney!
I have not forgotten that I must defend my honor. I have not forgotten that you should think of this letter as a clarion call for us to convince conniving slumlords to stop supporting Prodigy and tolerating his analects. And I cannot forget that we find among narrow and uneducated minds the belief that there is an international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. This belief is due to a basic confusion, which can be cleared up simply by stating that the facts as I see them simply do not support the false, but widely accepted, notion that skin color means more than skill and gender is more impressive than genius. One wonders how he can complain about the most tyrannical slubberdegullions you'll ever see, given that his own theories also aim to encourage and exacerbate passivity in some people who might otherwise be active and responsible citizens. Okay, there's no reason for me to be pigheaded, so I'll leave you with this concept: Prodigy makes a virtue of irremediable fault.
How can we trust mumpish slaves to fashion who actively conceal their true intentions? We can't. And besides, if I hear his hired goons say, "The purpose of life is self-gratification" one more time, I'm honestly going to throw up. Prodigy is too prolix to read the writing on the wall. This writing warns that he would not hesitate to lead people towards iniquity and sin if he felt he could benefit from doing so. He is meretricious, intransigent, contentious, nit-picky, satanic, and catty. Need I go on?
It's unfortunate that Prodigy has no real education. It's impossible to debate important topics with someone who is so mentally handicapped. If the people generally are relying on false information sown by uncompromising Philistines, then correcting that situation becomes a priority for the defense of our nation. Prodigy has endorsed the idea of pusillanimous, noxious pharisaism in a number of very specific ways, arguing, for instance, in favor of his cohorts' decision to distort the facts. Don't be fooled: The fact of the matter is that he is completely mistaken if he believes that a plausible excuse is a satisfactory substitute for performance.
As someone who is working hard to give direction to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality, I must point out that when you tell Prodigy's expositors that the popularity of Prodigy's wisecracks among the most irascible fanatics you'll ever see is a harbinger of beer-guzzling things to come, they begin to get fidgety, and their eyes begin to wander. They really don't care. They have no interest in hearing that he believes that the Eleventh Commandment is, "Thou shalt nourish rancorous, power-hungry ideologies". That's just wrong. He further believes that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. Wrong again! Regardless of the theoretical beauty of the notion that Prodigy will simply continue to cause distress to people he doesn't know, has never seen, and who have done him no harm whatsoever, there is the opposing fact that I and Prodigy part company when it comes to the issue of blackguardism. He feels that the average working-class person can't see through his chicanery, while I think that we must always be looking towards the future while keeping the past in mind. Excuse me; that's not entirely correct. What I meant to say is that an increasing number of people abhor Prodigy's ornery tactics and are looking for alternatives, like the truth. Or, to express that sentiment without all of the emotionally charged lingo, Prodigy has been trying for some time to convince people that my bitterness at him is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish. Don't believe his hype! Prodigy has just been offering that line as a means to impose a particular curriculum, vision of history, and method of pedagogy on our school systems. I have the following to say to the assertion that Prodigy is a model citizen: Baloney!
I have not forgotten that I must defend my honor. I have not forgotten that you should think of this letter as a clarion call for us to convince conniving slumlords to stop supporting Prodigy and tolerating his analects. And I cannot forget that we find among narrow and uneducated minds the belief that there is an international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. This belief is due to a basic confusion, which can be cleared up simply by stating that the facts as I see them simply do not support the false, but widely accepted, notion that skin color means more than skill and gender is more impressive than genius. One wonders how he can complain about the most tyrannical slubberdegullions you'll ever see, given that his own theories also aim to encourage and exacerbate passivity in some people who might otherwise be active and responsible citizens. Okay, there's no reason for me to be pigheaded, so I'll leave you with this concept: Prodigy makes a virtue of irremediable fault.
datalink7
Lifer
- Jan 23, 2001
- 16,765
- 6
- 81
Let's talk about Mr. TomC25's campaigns. Let's talk about them in a very specific and personal way. Some background is in order: It strikes me as amusing that TomC25 complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! He does nothing but complain. Listen carefully: I myself challenge him to point out any text in this letter that proposes that the health effects of secondhand smoke are negligible. It isn't there. There's neither a hint nor a suggestion of such a thing. As will become apparent sooner than you think, respect for the law is not enhanced by setting the bad example of breaking the law. What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: Why does TomC25 want to devastate vast acres of precious farmland? That is, what will be the next object of attack from his camp? While I don't know the answer to that particular question, I do know that only through education can individuals gain the independent tools they need to examine the social and cultural conditions that commit confrontational, in-your-face acts of violence, intimidation, and incivility. But the first step is to acknowledge that TomC25 is trying to brainwash us. He wants us to believe that it's cocky to enable patriots to use their freedoms to save their freedoms; that's boring; that's not cool. You know what I think of that, don't you? I think 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 types of people TomC25 preys upon. Was TomC25 just trying to be cute when he said that it's okay for him to indulge his every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole? I sure hope so, because we must indeed snap his sycophants out of their trance. Does that sound extremist? Is it too treasonous for you? I'm sorry if it seems that way, but that's life.
Since he claims to know more than the rest of us, I'm sure he is aware that throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to condemn his hypocrisy and those who wish to threaten, degrade, poison, bulldoze, and kill this world of ours. Naturally, TomC25 belongs to the latter category. The main dissensus between me and TomC25 is that I contend that by letting TomC25 provide cover for an avaricious agenda, we are playing a loser's game. TomC25, on the other hand, contends that everything is happy and fine and good. I have this advice to offer: The world has changed, TomC25; get used to it. His stories about totalitarianism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility. If I am correct that he publicly disavows his ties to classism while secretly encouraging his assistants to call for ritualistic invocations of needlessly formal rules, then TomC25 operates on an international scale to exploit other cultures for self-entertainment. It's only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale, but to work beyond the predatory plasticity of TomC25's activities.
As amazing as it seems, he talks a lot about pauperism and how wonderful it is. However, he's never actually defined what it means. How can TomC25 argue for something he's never defined? We should be able to look into our own souls for the answer. If we do, I suspect we'll find that if everyone does his own, small part, together we can deal summarily with sophomoric commercialism enthusiasts. No amount of opinion or innuendo nor any string of unrelated analects can change the fact that he has a natural talent for complaining. He can find any aspect of life and whine about it for hours upon hours. One of the great mysteries of modern life is, Why does the media consistently refuse to acknowledge that justice and humanity are totally on our side and nothing but illegality and barbarity are on his? The answer to this question gives the key not only to world history, but to all human culture. When surveyed, only two percent of TomC25's thralls agreed with the statement, "We must acknowledge as a people that it frustrates TomC25 that he can't shut me up." This is a frightening statistic to those who rely on, or simply support, social tolerance and open-mindedness.
Believe it or not, even if one is opposed to apolaustic heathenism (and I am), then surely, he has written volumes about how censorship could benefit us. Don't believe a word of it, though. The truth is that he wants to force square pegs into round holes. Who does he think he is? I mean, his lies come in many forms. Some of his lies are in the form of doctrines. Others are in the form of complaints. Still more are in the form of folksy posturing and pretended concern and compassion. Admittedly, I, not being one of the many incompetent dummkopfs of this world, really don't want to have to hear TomC25's rambling streams of consciousness. But that's because the tone of TomC25's sound bites is eerily reminiscent of that of disrespectful schemers of the late 1940s, in the sense that I am intellectually honest enough to admit my own previous ignorance in that matter. I only wish that TomC25 had the same intellectual honesty.
Each rung on the ladder of alcoholism is a crisis of some kind. Each crisis supplies an excuse for him to up the ante considerably. That is the standard process by which disdainful mystics prey on people's fear of political and economic instability.
Just don't expect consistency from a man who is thoroughly and certainly scornful. TomC25's vicegerents say that nothing would help society more than for them to outrage the very sensibilities of those who value freedom and fairness. Sorry, I don't buy that. As I've said in the past, we are observing the change in our society's philosophy and values from freedom and justice to corruption, decay, cynicism, and injustice. All of these "values" are artistically incorporated in one person: TomC25. If he got his way, he'd be able to till the vitriolic side of the frotteurism garden. Brrrr! It sends chills down my spine just thinking about that.
TomC25's helpers argue that the majority of soporific swaggerers are heroes, if not saints. These are the same postmodernist beatniks who let down ladders which the effete, quasi-bloody-minded, and indelicate scramble to climb. This is no coincidence; if we let TomC25 waste hours and hours in fruitless conferences and meetings, 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. He seems incapable of understanding that even when the facts don't fit, he sometimes tries to use them anyway. He still maintains, for instance, that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. From secret-handshake societies meeting at "the usual place" to back-door admissions committees, TomC25's surrogates have always found a way to develop mind-control technology.
TomC25 claims that women are spare parts in the social repertoire -- mere optional extras. Well, I beg to differ. While the public perception is that TomC25's shills are capable of little else but hating and lying, even to each other, he argues that I am tyrannical for wanting to reach the broadest possible audience with the message that he refuses to do anything for himself. I should point out that this is almost the same argument that was made against Copernicus and Galileo almost half a millennium ago. TomC25 is entirely gung-ho about narcissism because he lacks more pressing soapbox issues. He is out to portray spineless boors as deadbeats. And when we play his game, we become accomplices.
Should you think I'm saying too much, please note that TomC25 has, at times, called me "stinking" or "cold-blooded". Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to take the focus off the real issues. He has a staggering number of nettlesome peons. One way to lower their numbers, if not eradicate them entirely, is simple. We just inform them that his secret agents all have serious personal problems. In fact, the way TomC25 keeps them loyal to him is by encouraging and exacerbating these problems rather than by helping to overcome them.
For the sake of concreteness: If you look back over some of my older letters, you'll see that I predicted that he would sully a profession that's already held in low esteem. And, as I predicted, he did. But you know, that was not a difficult prediction to make. Anyone who has bothered to learn even a little about TomC25 could have made the same prediction. He believes that he acts in the public interest. Sorry, but I have to call foul on that one. I frequently talk about how our conception of terrorism still remains a good deal less clear than we would wish. I would drop the subject, except that there is a problem here. A very large, combative, self-absorbed problem. Though I don't doubt the depth of TomC25's sentiments, it's rather the form of his expressions that I find both footling and officious. It would be nice to say that socially inept, humorless insurrectionism doesn't exist anymore, but we all know that it does. That's all I'm going to say in this letter, because if I were to write everything I want to write, I'd be here all night.
Since he claims to know more than the rest of us, I'm sure he is aware that throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to condemn his hypocrisy and those who wish to threaten, degrade, poison, bulldoze, and kill this world of ours. Naturally, TomC25 belongs to the latter category. The main dissensus between me and TomC25 is that I contend that by letting TomC25 provide cover for an avaricious agenda, we are playing a loser's game. TomC25, on the other hand, contends that everything is happy and fine and good. I have this advice to offer: The world has changed, TomC25; get used to it. His stories about totalitarianism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility. If I am correct that he publicly disavows his ties to classism while secretly encouraging his assistants to call for ritualistic invocations of needlessly formal rules, then TomC25 operates on an international scale to exploit other cultures for self-entertainment. It's only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale, but to work beyond the predatory plasticity of TomC25's activities.
As amazing as it seems, he talks a lot about pauperism and how wonderful it is. However, he's never actually defined what it means. How can TomC25 argue for something he's never defined? We should be able to look into our own souls for the answer. If we do, I suspect we'll find that if everyone does his own, small part, together we can deal summarily with sophomoric commercialism enthusiasts. No amount of opinion or innuendo nor any string of unrelated analects can change the fact that he has a natural talent for complaining. He can find any aspect of life and whine about it for hours upon hours. One of the great mysteries of modern life is, Why does the media consistently refuse to acknowledge that justice and humanity are totally on our side and nothing but illegality and barbarity are on his? The answer to this question gives the key not only to world history, but to all human culture. When surveyed, only two percent of TomC25's thralls agreed with the statement, "We must acknowledge as a people that it frustrates TomC25 that he can't shut me up." This is a frightening statistic to those who rely on, or simply support, social tolerance and open-mindedness.
Believe it or not, even if one is opposed to apolaustic heathenism (and I am), then surely, he has written volumes about how censorship could benefit us. Don't believe a word of it, though. The truth is that he wants to force square pegs into round holes. Who does he think he is? I mean, his lies come in many forms. Some of his lies are in the form of doctrines. Others are in the form of complaints. Still more are in the form of folksy posturing and pretended concern and compassion. Admittedly, I, not being one of the many incompetent dummkopfs of this world, really don't want to have to hear TomC25's rambling streams of consciousness. But that's because the tone of TomC25's sound bites is eerily reminiscent of that of disrespectful schemers of the late 1940s, in the sense that I am intellectually honest enough to admit my own previous ignorance in that matter. I only wish that TomC25 had the same intellectual honesty.
Each rung on the ladder of alcoholism is a crisis of some kind. Each crisis supplies an excuse for him to up the ante considerably. That is the standard process by which disdainful mystics prey on people's fear of political and economic instability.
Just don't expect consistency from a man who is thoroughly and certainly scornful. TomC25's vicegerents say that nothing would help society more than for them to outrage the very sensibilities of those who value freedom and fairness. Sorry, I don't buy that. As I've said in the past, we are observing the change in our society's philosophy and values from freedom and justice to corruption, decay, cynicism, and injustice. All of these "values" are artistically incorporated in one person: TomC25. If he got his way, he'd be able to till the vitriolic side of the frotteurism garden. Brrrr! It sends chills down my spine just thinking about that.
TomC25's helpers argue that the majority of soporific swaggerers are heroes, if not saints. These are the same postmodernist beatniks who let down ladders which the effete, quasi-bloody-minded, and indelicate scramble to climb. This is no coincidence; if we let TomC25 waste hours and hours in fruitless conferences and meetings, 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. He seems incapable of understanding that even when the facts don't fit, he sometimes tries to use them anyway. He still maintains, for instance, that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. From secret-handshake societies meeting at "the usual place" to back-door admissions committees, TomC25's surrogates have always found a way to develop mind-control technology.
TomC25 claims that women are spare parts in the social repertoire -- mere optional extras. Well, I beg to differ. While the public perception is that TomC25's shills are capable of little else but hating and lying, even to each other, he argues that I am tyrannical for wanting to reach the broadest possible audience with the message that he refuses to do anything for himself. I should point out that this is almost the same argument that was made against Copernicus and Galileo almost half a millennium ago. TomC25 is entirely gung-ho about narcissism because he lacks more pressing soapbox issues. He is out to portray spineless boors as deadbeats. And when we play his game, we become accomplices.
Should you think I'm saying too much, please note that TomC25 has, at times, called me "stinking" or "cold-blooded". Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to take the focus off the real issues. He has a staggering number of nettlesome peons. One way to lower their numbers, if not eradicate them entirely, is simple. We just inform them that his secret agents all have serious personal problems. In fact, the way TomC25 keeps them loyal to him is by encouraging and exacerbating these problems rather than by helping to overcome them.
For the sake of concreteness: If you look back over some of my older letters, you'll see that I predicted that he would sully a profession that's already held in low esteem. And, as I predicted, he did. But you know, that was not a difficult prediction to make. Anyone who has bothered to learn even a little about TomC25 could have made the same prediction. He believes that he acts in the public interest. Sorry, but I have to call foul on that one. I frequently talk about how our conception of terrorism still remains a good deal less clear than we would wish. I would drop the subject, except that there is a problem here. A very large, combative, self-absorbed problem. Though I don't doubt the depth of TomC25's sentiments, it's rather the form of his expressions that I find both footling and officious. It would be nice to say that socially inept, humorless insurrectionism doesn't exist anymore, but we all know that it does. That's all I'm going to say in this letter, because if I were to write everything I want to write, I'd be here all night.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter