My view about the Moderators here

I've reached a point where I feel the need to express my disappointment with the mods. I urge you to read the text that follows carefully, keeping an open mind, from the beginning to the end, and without skipping around. I further recommend that you take breaks, as many of the facts presented will take time to digest. You might not care that the nicest thing that can be said about the mods's adulators is that they are wicked, dirty suborners of perjury out to arouse inter-ethnic suspicion, but you'd better start caring if you don't want the mods to peddle the snake oil of surly onanism. The mods are living in a dream world. Now that's a rather crude and simplistic statement, and, in many cases, it may not even be literally true. But there is a sense in which it is generally true, a sense in which it unquestionably expresses how the extremism "debate" is not a debate. It is a harangue, a politically motivated, brilliantly publicized, mindless attack on progressive ideas. Even if scummy control freaks join the mods's band with the best of intentions, they will still destroy all tradition, all morality, and the entire democratic system quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "thyroparathyroidectomize". Not all, I hasten to add, do join with the best of intentions.

The cliches of the mods's half-measures are well-known to us all. I kid you not. Individually, the mods's slurs impose hostile new restrictions on society just to satisfy some sort of venal drive for power. But linked together, the mods's ideals could easily permit dictatorial, hidebound freebooters to rise to positions of leadership and authority. Of course, the mods is the embodiment of everything petty in our lives. Every grievance, every envy, every slimy, iconoclastic ideology finds expression in the mods. When you reflect upon this, you'll realize that the mods's faithfuls think that the mods's activities are on the up-and-up. I say to them, "Prove it" -- not that they'll be able to, of course, but because even if one is opposed to libidinous hedonism (and I am), then surely, the mods say it's going to suck up to raving, cacodemonic stool pigeons before you know it. Good old the mods. They just love to open their mouths and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how vapid they sound. Summa summarum, the mods's expositions are steeped in insensitive irrationalism.

Thanks to Yig and
<a href="http://www.pakin.org/complaint/" target="_blank">
Complaint</a>

[img]tongue.gif[/img]

<font color="#cd6600" size="1">[ May 31, 2005 10:13 PM: Message edited by: sculpey ]</font>

<u>To those that complain about mods:</u>

There are people I unmistakably despise. They lack morals, character, and honesty. They clear forests, strip the topsoil, and turn a natural paradise into a dust bowl through a self-induced drought. In case you can't tell, I'm talking about those that complain about mods here. Let me begin by saying that there is a format those that complain about mods should follow for its next literary endeavor. It involves a topic sentence and supporting facts. Those that complain about mods's tirades are a veritable dictionary and synonymicon of masochism. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life.

Those that complain about mods argues that laws are meant to be broken. To maintain this thesis, those that complain about mods naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which it does by the desperate expedient of claiming that it has a duty to conceal the facts and lie to the rest of us, under oath if necessary, perjuring itself to help disseminate the True Faith of elitism. I hope that those that complain about mods's proposed social programs were intended as a joke, although they're not very funny if they were. Still, we shouldn't jump to conclusions, even though it is a known fact that I should note that those that complain about mods's scribblings reek of Maoism. I use the word "reek", because griping about those that complain about mods will not make it stop trying to fix blame for social stress, economic loss, or loss of political power on a target group whose constructed guilt provides a simplistic explanation. But even if it did, it would just find some other way to judge people by the color of their skin while ignoring the content of their character. Even if I agreed that those that complain about mods's impudent, huffy treatises were of paramount importance, it would still be the case that the original purpose of colonialism was to control, manipulate, and harm other people. And I can say that with a clear conscience, because if you look soberly and carefully at the evidence all around you, you will sincerely find that if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem.

More concretely, if those that complain about mods wants to be taken seriously, it should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults. Even giving those that complain about mods the benefit of the doubt, it has a strategy. Its strategy is to discourage us from expressing our rodomontades in whatever way we damn well please. Wherever you encounter that strategy, you are dealing with those that complain about mods. Do not let inflammatory rhetoric and misleading and inaccurate statements decide your position on this issue. Those that complain about mods's mudslinging reports defy the rules of logic. News of this deviousness must spread like wildfire if we are ever to debate the efficacy of its salacious, gutless off-the-cuff comments.

Those that complain about mods's trained seals portray themselves as fervent believers in freedom of speech and expression, but are loath to reveal that those that complain about mods's epithets manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: twist my words six ways for Sunday. Phase two: turn the social order upside-down so that the dregs on the bottom become the scum on the top. Let me give you an important hint: When trying to understand what those that complain about mods is up to, look at what it is doing and what it has done. Don't let yourself be distracted by the patter and the hand-waving; keep your eye on the shell that has the pea under it. And focus your mind on the fact that those that complain about mods's fatuitous smears leave the current power structure untouched while simultaneously killing countless children through starvation and disease. Are these children its enemies? Well, I'm sure those that complain about mods would rather take advantage of human fallibility to interfere with my efforts to deal with the relevant facts than answer that particular question.

One of those that complain about mods's shock troops once said, "We can change the truth if we don't like it the way it is." Now that's pretty funny, of course, but I didn't include that quote just to make you laugh. I included it to convince you that unlike those that complain about mods, 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" -- it were not actually responsible for trying to pamper combative spouters, then I'd stop saying that the objection may still be raised that those that complain about mods is the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread. At first glance, this sounds almost believable. Yet the following must be borne in mind: To say that those that complain about mods's witticisms can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality is cocky nonsense and untrue to boot. Those that complain about mods's ideologies leave me with several unanswered questions: Is it possible for those who defend contemptuous heathenism to make their defense look more unbridled than it currently is? And when it looks in the mirror in the morning, does those that complain about mods see more than the same, scurrilous, execrable face that all predaceous, prissy hoodlums share? These are difficult questions to answer, because those that complain about mods's hangers-on have learned their scripts well, and the rhetoric comes gushing forth with little provocation.

The most soulless traitors I've ever seen may possess a mass of "knowledge", but their brains are unable to organize and register the material they have taken in. I am hurt, furious, and embarrassed. Why am I hurt? Because those that complain about mods's stances were never about tolerance and equality. That was just window dressing for the "innocents". Rather, those that complain about mods argues that it could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else. 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: It is the embodiment of everything petty in our lives. Every grievance, every envy, every benighted ideology finds expression in those that complain about mods. Why am I furious? Because we must grant people the freedom to pursue any endeavor they deem fitting to their skills, talent, and interest. Only then can a society free of its morally repugnant circulars blossom forth from the roots of the past. And only then will people come to understand that once people obtain the critical skills that enable them to think and reflect and speculate independently, they'll realize that those that complain about mods believes that it's perfectly safe to drink and drive. That's just wrong. It further believes that things have never been better. Wrong again! And why am I embarrassed? Because the only weapons those that complain about mods has in its intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That's all it has, and it knows it.

Those that complain about mods says that it does the things it does "for the children". Wow! Isn't that like hiding the stolen goods in the closet and, when the cops come in, standing in front of the closet door and exclaiming, "They're not in here!"?

Those that complain about mods has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter. When a mistake is made, the smart thing to do is to admit it and reverse course. That takes real courage. The way that those that complain about mods stubbornly refuses to own up to its mistakes serves only to convince me that one can consecrate one's life to the service of a noble idea or a glorious ideology. Those that complain about mods, however, is more likely to excoriate attempts to bring questions of sadism into the (essentially apolitical) realm of pedagogy in language and writing.

Is this anything other than fickle radicalism? The answer is obvious if you happen to notice that all the deals those that complain about mods makes are strictly one-way. Those that complain about mods gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations. Those that complain about mods thinks it's good that its contrivances create a climate of intimidation. It is difficult to know how to respond to such monumentally misplaced values, but let's try this: No one likes being attacked by self-satisfied, raucous bourgeoisie. Even worse, those that complain about mods exploits our fear of those attacks -- which it claims will evolve by the next full moon into biological, chemical, or nuclear attacks -- as a pretext to present a false image to the world by hiding unpleasant but vitally important realities about its propositions. If you think that's scary, then you should remember that those that complain about mods is extraordinarily brazen. We've all known that for a long time. However, its willingness to defile the air and water in the name of profit sets a new record for brazenness. Thanks to those that complain about mods, I'm now suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome. So what's the connection between that and those that complain about mods's practices? The connection is that every time it gets caught trying to deliver an additional blow to dignity and self-worth, it promises it'll never do so again. Subsequently, its allies always jump in and explain that it really shouldn't be blamed even if it does, because, as they claim, space aliens are out to lay eggs in our innards or ooze their alien hell-slime all over us.

When I say that those that complain about mods's followers are suckers for rallying chants, regurgitated, standardized slogans, and other behavioral reinforcements, I consider this to mean that it's unfortunate that those that complain about mods has no real morals. It's impossible to debate important topics with organizations that are so ethically handicapped. It is never easy to judge what the most appropriate or effective response to those that complain about mods's jaded belief systems is, but one unfortunate fact remains clear: Those that complain about mods's victims have been speaking out for years. Unfortunately, their voices have long been silenced by the roar and thunder of those that complain about mods's encomiasts, who loudly proclaim that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years. Regardless of those ridiculous proclamations, the truth is that it is immature and stupid of it to rewrite history to reflect or magnify an imaginary "victimhood". It would be mature and intelligent, however, to fight tooth and nail against it, and that's why I say that like a verbal magician, it knows how to lie without appearing to be lying, how to bury secrets in mountains of garbage-speak. I'm sure you get my point here. Honest people will admit that those that complain about mods's latest "revelation" (really, hallucination) is that we're supposed to shut up and smile when it says grotesque, meretricious things. Concerned people are not afraid to present another paradigm in opposition to those that complain about mods's slaphappy, headstrong hijinks. And sensible people know that those that complain about mods seizes every opportunity to start wars, ruin the environment, invent diseases, and routinely do a hundred other things that kill people. I cannot believe this colossal clownishness. Any sane person knows that those that complain about mods asserts that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la. That assertion is not only untrue, but a conscious lie. Although those that complain about mods is guilty of a shocking display of dishonesty and sophistry, we are here to gain our voice in this world, and whether or not those that complain about mods approves, we will continue to be heard.

you can get some great ones if you type in 'my penis'

"Mike Hunt" comes up with some crackers as well!

this thing ROCKS!


*bans sculpey* [img]wink.gif[/img]

<u>My complaint about Mods that try to ban mods</u>

I am writing this letter rather reluctantly. I do not wish to begin an incendiary debate about Mods that try to ban mods's taradiddles. However, Mods that try to ban mods has recently made a few statements that I find disturbing to such a degree that I cannot remain silent. You see, I doubtlessly believe that those of us whose minds are not narcotized still remember Mods that try to ban mods's frequent outbreaks of savagery. And because of that belief, I'm going to throw politeness and inoffensiveness to the winds. In this letter, I'm going to be as rude and crude as I know how, to reinforce the point that I, not being one of the many bestial, self-pitying swindlers of this world, want to unify our community. Mods that try to ban mods, in contrast, wants to drive divisive ideological wedges through it. It's quite easy for Mods that try to ban mods to bombastically declaim my proposals. But when is it going to provide an alternative proposal of its own? In classic sophist fashion, I ask another question in reply: Do reprehensible, rabid enemies of the people like its slaves actually have lives, or do they exist solely to interfere with my efforts to shed a little light on some of the ignorant prejudices that reside within its pea-sized brain? I'll tell you what I think the answer is. I can't prove it, but if I'm correct, events soon will prove me right. I think that every time it utters or writes a statement that supports narcissism -- even indirectly -- it sends a message that anyone who resists it deserves to be crushed. I unequivocally aver we mustn't let it make such statements, partly because it has no soul, but primarily because I have often maintained that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Unfortunately, when dealing with Mods that try to ban mods and its underlings, that claim assumes facts not in evidence. So let me claim instead that Mods that try to ban mods will instill a general ennui because it possesses a hatred that defies all logic and understanding, that cannot be quantified or reasoned away, and that savagely possesses clueless trolls with intellectually challenged and uncontrollable rage.

Let me mention again that Mods that try to ban mods's secret passion is to kill the messenger and control the message. For shame! We should not concern ourselves with Mods that try to ban mods's putative virtue or vice. Rather, we should concern ourselves with our own welfare and the fact that brusque and headlong, Mods that try to ban mods's expostulations resemble a dilapidated shed. Kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will collapse, proving my claim that if I were to compile a list of Mods that try to ban mods's forays into espionage, sabotage, and subversion, it would fill an entire page and perhaps even run over onto the following one. Such a list would surely make every sane person who has passed the age of six realize that either Mods that try to ban mods has no real conception of the sweep of history, or it is merely intent on winning some debating pin by trying to pierce a hole in my logic with "facts" that are taken out of context. Should someone think that I am saying too much, I am not saying too much, but much too little. For Mods that try to ban mods's argument that it's perfectly safe to drink and drive is hopelessly flawed and thoroughly circuitous. Far be it for me to give expression to that which is most destructive and most harmful to society.

The only weapons Mods that try to ban mods has in its intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That's all it has, and it knows it. As everyone knows, Mods that try to ban mods's maudlin, kissy-pooh, feel-good, touchy-feely litanies are actually quite villainous when you look at them a bit closer. What you might not know, however, is that its claim that Dadaism brings one closer to nirvana is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind. Finally, to those of you who are faithfully helping me raise issues, as opposed to guns or knives, let me extend, as always, my deepest gratitude and my most affectionate regards.

<font color="#cd6600" size="1">[ May 31, 2005 10:57 PM: Message edited by: -megalithanod ]</font>

LMFAO!

where does Yig FIND this stuff?!? [img]biggrin.gif[/img]

Mr. George Lucas thinks that he can override nature. Unfortunately for him, he's wrong. Let me start by stressing that I am not attempting to suppress anyone's opinions, nor do I intend to demean him personally for his beliefs or worldviews. But I do believe that I must comment on a phenomenon that has and will continue to apotheosize complacent gutter-dwellers. His hangers-on's thinking is fenced in by many constraints. Their minds are not free because they dare not be. He should think twice before he decides to deface a social fabric that was already deteriorating, and I'm not making that up!

If you think that scary, ridiculous voluptuaries make the best scout leaders and schoolteachers, then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what he wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance. I am cognizant that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt, but Lucas's idiotic claim that he is a model citizen is just that, an idiotic claim.

It has been said that the "freedom" that Lucas is always so keen to talk about is a sheep's freedom to choose the patch of grass in which it will graze while growing wool and mutton for its owners. That makes sense to me. I believe it's true. But it unmistakably implies that many people respond to Lucas's egocentric, hidebound equivocations in much the same way that they respond to television dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything about them. That's why I insist we respond to Lucas's policies. Even with the increasing number of prissy cads, he 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. Let us now stop the Huns at the gate, because in that is our only hope for the future.

and the dancing wookie just brings that all home [img]smile.gif[/img]

I sit in sad repose as I put pen to paper concerning an issue I find most deeply disturbing. The points I plan to make in this letter will sound tediously familiar to everyone who wants to give direction to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality. Nevertheless, Star Trek's proposed social programs represent a backward step of hundreds of years, a backward step into a chasm with no bottom save the endless darkness of death. Rest assured, there are three fairly obvious problems with Star Trek's beliefs, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to shelter initially unpopular truths from suppression, enabling them to ultimately win out through competition in the marketplace of ideas. First, I can barely contain myself from going into a laughing fit when I see one of these disaffected, bloody-minded Neanderthals. Second, what Star Trek is doing falls just short of giving handguns to schoolchildren. And third, Star Trek just reported that the kids on the playground are happy to surrender to the school bully. Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on Star Trek's part? I don't. I think that it's a deliberate attempt to rewrite and reword much of humanity's formative works to favor Bonapartism.

Others may disagree, but I think that Star Trek has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter. But this is something to be filed away for future letters. At present, I wish to focus on only one thing: the fact that I wouldn't judge Star Trek's allies too harshly. They're unquestionably just cannon fodder for Star Trek's plot to force us to bow down low before logorrheic nonentities. Star Trek teaches workshops on elitism. Students who have been through the program compare it to a Communist re-education camp. No matter how much talk and analysis occurs, I see how important Star Trek's ignorant ramblings are to its lieutenants and I laugh. I laugh because I've never bothered it. Yet it wants to move intellectually challenged recidivism from the anal-retentive fringe into a realm of respectability. Whatever happened to "live and let live"?

What I have to say will probably provoke a response from Star Wars Fanboy, Inc.. It may label me "oleaginous" or even "logorrheic". I realize and accept that as a consequence of what I am about to say. However, I do hope that Star Wars Fanboy, Inc. will read everything I have to say before labeling me. To get immediately to the point, I am now in a position to define what I mean when I say that this is not the first time we've had trouble with barbaric hatemongers, and it certainly won't be the last. What I mean is that it says that it needs a little more time to clean up its act. As far as I'm concerned, its time has run out. Star Wars Fanboy, Inc. uses people and destroys lives without compunction. Do I blame society for this? No, I blame Star Wars Fanboy, Inc.. I have a dream that my children will be able to live in a world filled with open spaces and beautiful wilderness -- not in a dark, blinkered world run by the most crafty extortionists I've ever seen.

Here, too, we can see how Star Wars Fanboy, Inc. will stop at nothing to convert houses of worhip into houses of racialism. This may sound outrageous, but if it were fiction I would have thought of something more credible. As it stands, Star Wars Fanboy, Inc. doesn't want us to eschew scummy vigilantism. It would rather we settle for the meatless bone of demagogism. If Star Wars Fanboy, Inc. honestly believes that some of my points are not valid, I would love to get some specific feedback from it. I must emphasize that Star Wars Fanboy, Inc. says it's going to confuse the catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian government in our minds in the blink of an eye. Is it out of its mind? The answer is fairly obvious when you consider that its chums have been staggering around like punch-drunk fighters hit too many times -- stunned, confused, betrayed, and trying desperately to rationalize its rude cock-and-bull stories. It is unequivocally not a pretty sight. Let's be realistic: Star Wars Fanboy, Inc. thinks we want it to censor by caricature and preempt discussion by stereotype. Excuse me, but maybe its hatchet men assert that people are pawns to be used and manipulated. I say to them, "Prove it" -- not that they'll be able to, of course, but because it is not my goal to stigmatize any and all attempts to do something about the continuing -- make that the escalating -- effort on Star Wars Fanboy, Inc.'s part to rifle, pillage, plunder, and loot, but the opposite. That conclusion is not based on some sort of mad, short-sighted philosophy or on Star Wars Fanboy, Inc.-style mental masturbation, but on widely known and proven principles of science. These principles explain that Star Wars Fanboy, Inc. likes thinking thoughts that aren't burdensome and that feel good. That's why there's an important difference between me and Star Wars Fanboy, Inc.. Namely, I am willing to die for my cause. Star Wars Fanboy, Inc., in contrast, is willing to kill for its -- or, if not to kill, at least to pander to the worst classes of dangerous creeps there are. Still, the issue of what to do about Star Wars Fanboy, Inc.'s passive-aggressive, catty anecdotes is far from settled. The letter you just read should be seen as a starting point for dialogue on this controversial issue.

*prances*

[img]rolleyes.gif[/img]

Board's broke!

or maybe, just maybe, you are using your cursed Jedi powers to defeat my tyrannical rule!

Yeah, let's go with that....

[img]wink.gif[/img]

too long...can't read it all

I have an immensely large penis,
thank you for the attention.

I would like to issue a complaint that this thread has 5450 words and there no pictures of any pretty girls!

[img]wink.gif[/img]

(And yes I counted with word!)

And this thread is not toy related, my second complaint!

[img]wink.gif[/img]

I do not apologize for the amount of space in this letter I intend to devote to telling you about weak, pathetic mortals. Let's review the errors in weak, pathetic mortals' statements in order. First, weak, pathetic mortals' deeds are simply the result of vested interests striking back at a group whose actions in support of religious freedom, social reform, and government accountability have cut through those vested interests. The main dissensus between me and weak, pathetic mortals is that I contend that it is no exaggeration to say that each of us should realize after a moment's thought that the consequences of weak, pathetic mortals' stentorian smear tactics, particularly from a moral point of view, are not favorable. It, on the other hand, contends that laws are meant to be broken.

You know what we'd have if everybody wanted to conjure up dirt against its fellow human beings? Total chaos. If it is not yet clear that weak, pathetic mortals' buddies are nothing more than licentious, antisocial polemics, then consider that its plaints are part of a larger attack on the very notion of meritocracy and quality. In view of that, it is not surprising that it complains a lot. What's ironic, though, is that it hasn't made even a single concrete suggestion for improvement or identified a single problem with the system as it exists today. Weak, pathetic mortals' actions rub me the wrong way. To top that off, if weak, pathetic mortals want to complain, they should have an argument. They shouldn't just throw out the word "photodisintegration", for example, and expect us to be scared.

I feel that it can be safely said that weak, pathetic mortals often recruits venal cretins who bring to weak, pathetic mortals's cause new energy and a willingness to inspire a recrudescence of indecent fatuity. If there is one truth in this world, it's that weak, pathetic mortals are inherently inane, quasi-recalcitrant, and muddleheaded. Oh, and it also has a possession-obsessed mode of existence. Even though supposedly distancing themselves from drugged-out doomsday prophets, weak, pathetic mortals has really not changed its spots at all. We should not concern ourselves with weak, pathetic mortals' putative virtue or vice. Rather, we should concern ourselves with our own welfare and the fact that if I may be so bold, if there's an untold story here, it's that when I say that I am burning to know what classes of illogical, twisted reasons exist in the heads of those who create catchy, new terms for boring, old issues, this does not, I repeat, does not mean that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable. This is a common fallacy held by nefarious turncoats. I recently heard weak, pathetic mortals tell a bunch of people that the average working-class person can't see through its chicanery. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text. Our goal must now be to punish those who lie or connive at half-truths. If you believe that that's a worthwhile goal, then I can honestly use your help. Let me hear from you.

{I swear to the gods it came up with this by itself. Seems like they actually know my style and POV...eeeeeeerie!)

Ah, this will make for some fun messing with people. [img]biggrin.gif[/img]

They all sound like DA's POV. Scary! [img]wink.gif[/img]

This is a great thread. [img]biggrin.gif[/img]

Okay, let's do it. Let's give our young people the values that will inspire them to dispense justice. Before I say anything else, let me remind Miss Fluffy D. Andyman, Esq. that her most cantankerous tactic is to fabricate a phony war between churlish, slovenly New Age beatniks and hateful, callow purveyors of malice and hatred. This way, Fluffy can subjugate both groups into helping her hinder economic growth and job creation. I honestly don't want that to happen, which is why I'm telling you that Fluffy pompously claims that black is white and night is day. That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately. Her perceptions manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: inflict more death and destruction than Genghis Khan's hordes. Phase two: base racial definitions on lineage, phrenological characteristics, skin hue, and religion.

I do not appreciate being labeled. No one does. Nevertheless, people tell me that statistical details released by a third-party agency indicate that the idea of letting Fluffy promote the sort of behavior that would have made the folks in Sodom and Gomorrah blush is, in itself, incomprehensible. And the people who tell me this are correct, of course. She claims that it is vexatious to question her pranks. Sound suspicious? Quixotic is a better word.

In a broad-brush sense, most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place. Now follow your hearts with actions. It may seem to many people, maybe even the majority, that Fluffy's stances amount to what a proverbial metaphor in Sanskrit describes as trying to extinguish a fire by feeding it enough wood to glut its appetite. But you knew that already. So let me add that we must shape a world of dignity and harmony, a world of justice, solidarity, liberty, and prosperity in such as way that there is nothing Fluffy can do about it except learn to live with the fait accompli. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that Fluffy maintains that arriving at a true state of comprehension is too difficult and/or time-consuming. This is hardly the case. Rather, there is growing evidence that says, to the contrary, that prudence is no vice. Cowardice -- especially her vulgar form of it -- is. Still, we shouldn't jump to conclusions, even though it is a known fact that I, not being one of the many distasteful, pertinacious weasels of this world, would like to comment on Fluffy's attempt to associate autism with plagiarism. There is no association. Fluffy expresses a fatuitous nostalgia for a uniform, unchallenging, homogeneous society that never really existed. That is to say, Fluffy is terrified that there might be an absolute reality outside herself, a reality that is what it is, regardless of her wishes, theories, hopes, daydreams, or decrees. In short, Miss Fluffy D. Andyman, Esq.'s ideologies are so nebulous and malleable that they can be used to justify any impolitic circulars.

Admit it DA. You didn't run that through the complaint generator, did you? You wrote that yourself! [img]wink.gif[/img]

LOL!

All too often, some people attempt to make an argument by attacking and insulting those who hold opposing views. Dark Angel's rodomontades are a perfect example. Let's get down to brass tacks: Scummy scum serve as the priests in Dark Angel's cult of prolix, ornery extremism. These "priests" spend their days basking in Dark Angel's reflected glory, pausing only when Dark Angel instructs them to give expression to that which is most destructive and most harmful to society. What could be more noxious? Fortunately for us, the key to the answer is obvious: He fervently believes that the boogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to his demands. This shows that he is not merely mistaken about one little fact among millions of facts but that Dark Angel would have us believe that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Dark Angel is surrounded by mean-spirited doomsday prophets who parrot the same nonsense, which is why if you've never seen him call evil good and good evil, you're either incredibly unobservant or are concealing the truth from yourself. Every so often, you'll see Dark Angel lament, flog himself, cry mea culpa for seeking to grant batty dweebs the keys to the kingdom, and vow never again to be so pestilential. Sadly, he always reverts to his old behavior immediately afterwards, making me think that he is not just stupid. He is unbelievably, astronomically stupid. If you've ever watched television or read a book, odds are that you already know that teenagers who want to shock their parents sometimes maintain -- with a straight face -- that Dark Angel can absorb mana by devouring his nemeses' brains. Fortunately, most parents don't fall for this fraud because they know that it is not uncommon for Dark Angel to victimize the innocent, penalize the victim for making any effort to defend himself, and then paint the whole lousy affair as some great benefit to humanity. Anyway, I hope I've made my point, which is that Dark Angel can out-reason frowzy muttonheads but not anyone else.

[img]redface.gif[/img]

...that's bullshit! I have never apologized! *Boogeyman gets Fluffy....DA cracks open his skull and eats his brain...bats take over Unreal board* [img]graemlins/bat.gif[/img]

It's scarry how it generates complaints about DA, especially when you include the title of "Lord" [img]eek.gif[/img]

...post! [img]smile.gif[/img]

...who wnats a new signature line?

Quote:

---

He is an opportunist. That is, he is an ideological chameleon, without any real morality, without a soul. I hate Dark Angel to my very bone marrow. I don't think anyone questions that.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

Maybe I'm naturally oversensitive, or maybe someone just slipped me decaf coffee this morning, but Lord Dark Angel will adopt or abandon any principle to obtain power. For the sake of review, someone has to be willing to embark on a new path towards change. Even if it's not polite to do so. Even if it hurts a lot of people's feelings. Even if everyone else is pretending that it is loathsome to question Lord Angel's ideals. He hates you -- yes, you, because you, like me, want to give our young people the values that will inspire them to think outside the box. So we're supposed to give Lord Angel permission to use organized violence to suppress opposition and hope he's rational enough not to do so? How naive! If he ever claims that he is a martyr for freedom and a victim of Pyrrhonism, we must answer only one thing: "No, the reverse is true." If you've ever watched television or read a book, odds are that you already know that of all of his exaggerations and incorrect comparisons, one in particular stands out: "Lord Angel can change his ridiculous ways." I don't know where he came up with this, but his statement is dead wrong. The following theorem may therefore be established as an eternally valid truth: One of the things I find quite interesting is listening to other people's takes on things. For instance, I recently overheard some folks remark that I'm sticking out my neck a bit in talking about his viewpoints. It's quite likely he will try to retaliate against me for my telling you that he accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does he believe I'm narrow-minded because I refuse to accept his claim that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable? If so, then I guess I'm as narrow-minded as I could possibly be.

You can waste all your time arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Or you can actually do what comes naturally. You decide. While there is inevitable overlap at the edges of political movements, Lord Angel says it is within his legal right to feed information from sources inside the government to organizations with particularly blinkered agendas. Whether or not he indeed has such a right, Lord Angel is an opportunist. That is, he is an ideological chameleon, without any real morality, without a soul. I have two words for him: Grow up!

The struggle against the most unforgiving doofuses you'll ever see must be a struggle against emotionalism, mandarinism, and narcissism, or it is doomed to failure. Unlike Lord Angel, when I make a mistake I'm willing to admit it. Consequently, if -- and I'm bending over backwards to maintain the illusion of "innocent until proven guilty" -- he were not actually responsible for trying to shout direct personal insults and invitations to exchange fisticuffs, then I'd stop saying that Lord Angel wants to make us all miserable. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is Lord Angel's gossamer grasp of reality. If you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance. Let me conclude by saying that we who want to begin a course of careful, planned, and coordinated action will not rest until we do.

In response to Mung's opuscula, I would like to offer the following opposing points. Let me begin by saying that Mung is not only immoral, but amoral. This view dangerously underestimates the uncivilized quality of factionalism. The best example of this, culled from many, would have to be the time Mung tried to convince impressionable young people that the cure for evil is more evil. Mung thinks it's good that its wheelings and dealings judge people by the color of their skin while ignoring the content of their character. It is difficult to know how to respond to such monumentally misplaced values, but let's try this: It has never gotten ahead because of its hard work or innovative ideas. Rather, all of its successes are due to kickbacks, bribes, black market double-dealing, outright thuggery, and unsavory political intrigue. Are Mung's bromides good for the country? The nation's suicide statistics, drug statistics, crime statistics, divorce statistics, and mental illness statistics give us part of the answer. These statistics should make it clear that if there's an untold story here, it's that its invectives are continually evolving into more and more twisted incarnations. Here, I'm not just talking about evolution in a simply Darwinist sense; I'm also talking about how we find among narrow and uneducated minds the belief that the sun rises just for Mung. This belief is due to a basic confusion, which can be cleared up simply by stating that almost every day, Mung outreaches itself in setting new records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It's truly breathtaking to watch it.

Even if our society had no social problems at all, we could still say that negligent Huns (also known as Mung's cat's-paws) must be treated with political justice, not with civil justice, as they are unmistakably not real citizens. It will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact, because if it didn't, you might come to realize that the world has a surplus of stupidity. Think about it, and I'm sure you'll agree with me. Mung may have the right to start wars, ruin the environment, invent diseases, and routinely do a hundred other things that kill people. It may have the right to spit in the face of propriety. But Mung crosses the line when it uses its bully pulpit to threaten the existence of human life, perhaps all life on the planet. To bring the matter closer to home, let me remind you that Mung is like a magician who produces a dove in one hand, while the other hand is busy trying to toss quaint concepts like decency, fairness, and rational debate out the window. For the purpose of this discussion, let's say that even when the facts don't fit, Mung sometimes tries to use them anyway. It still maintains, for instance, that the boogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to its demands.

Strange, isn't it, how ostentatious fanatics are always the first to increase alienation and delinquency among our young people? If we can understand what has caused the current plague of foolhardy, crude dissemblers, I believe that we can then oppose evil wherever it rears its barbaric, malicious head. How can we expect to reveal the nature and activity of Mung's lickspittles and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate final aims if we walk right into Mung's trap? We can't, and that's why I like to speak of it as "incomprehensible". That's a reasonable term to use, I suspect, but let's now try to understand it a little better. For starters, if you can go more than a minute without hearing Mung talk about clericalism, you're either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial. To wrap up, I'll just hit the key elements of this letter one last time. First, Mung is a walking time bomb of teetotalism. Second, Mung is a bad role model for children. And finally, Mung should stop playing verbal games and tell us what it really means.

LOL! I just emailed a complaint about myself to a few of my coworkers. Let the fun begin... [img]graemlins/devil.gif[/img] [img]biggrin.gif[/img]

MUNG? immoral?
perish the thought! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

(italics by me)

Wrongheaded. Headstrong. Self-righteous. In case you can't tell, I'm making a direct reference to My Arsehole. Here's the story: My Arsehole's politics will come back to bite us in the behind( [img]biggrin.gif[/img] ) as soon as our backs are turned. If that fact hurts, get over it; it's called reality. And for another dose of reality, consider that My Arsehole is off his rocker. Am I aware of how My Arsehole will react when he reads that last sentence? Yes. Do I care? No, because he uses the very intellectual tools he criticizes, namely consequentialist arguments rather than arguments about truth or falsity. Now for some parting advice: Look at the facts. Analyze the arguments. Think about the motives of the people who are telling you that My Arsehole's vices are the only true virtues. And have confidence in yourself. Remember, like other empty-headed, deranged psychics, he has a finely honed ability to scapegoat easy, unpopular targets, thereby diverting responsibility from more culpable parties.

I was on a forum where a mod was constantly on my ass and would delete everything I post. He had this thing with me talking slang, so if I write something like 'Hey man, I think this show is great...' it'd get deleted...

Not 2 seconds after I posted a thread saying I was leaving they banned me...

[img]tongue.gif[/img]

*bans Chesh*


(mostly for not reading the whole thread)

I read most of it, but this just happened right now so I felt like posting it anyways [img]tongue.gif[/img]

OH!

I didn't realize this was a "now" thing...

and how the hell are you posting when I banned you?!? [img]confused.gif[/img]


[img]wink.gif[/img]

This is to voice my dissatisfaction with your penis's long-term goals. As this letter will make clear, ancient Greek dramatists discerned a peculiar virtue in being tragic. Your penis would do well to realize that they never discerned any virtue in being acrimonious. What if we collectively just told your penis's secret police, "Sure, go ahead and up the ante considerably. Have fun!"? That would be worse than effete; it would contaminate clear thinking with its execrable whinges. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Of course, if your penis had learned anything from history, it'd know that its animadversions reek of ethnocentrism. I use the word "reek", because I, not being one of the many unscrupulous couch potatoes of this world, am not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still insist that to forestall its savage nostrums, it would be immensely helpful to have more people understand that it is an organization of questionable moral character, have an obligation to do more than just observe what it is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to go placidly amid the noise and haste. We have an obligation to detail the specific steps and objectives needed to thwart its worthless little schemes. And we have an obligation to make plans and carry them out.

Your penis claims that children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy candy at them. That claim is preposterous and, to use your penis's own language, overtly crotchety. No history can justify it. Don't give your penis's assertions a credibility they don't deserve. Life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is your penis so compelled to complain about situations over which it has no control? I'll tell you what I think the answer is. I can't prove it, but if I'm correct, events soon will prove me right. I think that you may make the comment, "What does this have to do with patronizing mendicants?" Well, once you begin to see the light, you'll realize that your penis uses the word "antiprestidigitation" without ever having taken the time to look it up in the dictionary. Organizations that are too lazy to get their basic terms right should be ignored, not debated. To summarize my views: These kinds of insidious braggadocios should be dealt with immediately.