The "Don't be a tool and make Cheapy look like a fool" OTT

Status
Not open for further replies.
KrazyKefka

KrazyKefka

CAGiversary!
Feedback
1 (100%)
mrtfool6hp.jpg
 
[quote name='smalien1']I'm a new me, personalized rank, new avi and new sig! Also 2000 posts![/quote]

I thought the rank was new, but I wasn't sure. Congrats.
 
[quote name='Trakan']Bah! I hate spammers! From now on, I'm giving them the Sneaky treatment.[/quote]

Don't forget to move them to the correct spot!
 
[quote name='Trakan']Bah! I hate spammers! From now on, I'm giving them the Sneaky treatment.[/quote]

You're going to take them out into the street and peck them to death?
 
[quote name='SneakyPenguin'][quote name='Trakan']Bah! I hate spammers! From now on, I'm giving them the Sneaky treatment.[/quote]

Don't forget to move them to the correct spot![/quote]

Yeah, but I think that's why the guy made the second topic. He couldn't find it and thought it "disappeared." We'll see if he does it again.

I wish it automatically send something to the OP when it got locked. 'Course I could just PM him too.
 
[quote name='Trakan'][quote name='SneakyPenguin'][quote name='Trakan']Bah! I hate spammers! From now on, I'm giving them the Sneaky treatment.[/quote]

Don't forget to move them to the correct spot![/quote]

Yeah, but I think that's why the guy made the second topic. He couldn't find it and thought it "disappeared." We'll see if he does it again.[/quote]

That's not it, because i only now moved the first one, so h made the second while the first still existed.
 
[quote name='KrazyKefka'][quote name='Trakan']Bah! I hate spammers! From now on, I'm giving them the Sneaky treatment.[/quote]

You're going to take them out into the street and peck them to death?[/quote]

With his pecker...
 
[quote name='smalien1']I'm a new me, personalized rank, new avi and new sig! Also 2000 posts![/quote]

Love the custom rank.
 
[quote name='SneakyPenguin'][quote name='Trakan'][quote name='SneakyPenguin'][quote name='Trakan']Bah! I hate spammers! From now on, I'm giving them the Sneaky treatment.[/quote]

Don't forget to move them to the correct spot![/quote]

Yeah, but I think that's why the guy made the second topic. He couldn't find it and thought it "disappeared." We'll see if he does it again.[/quote]

That's not it, because i only now moved the first one, so h made the second while the first still existed.[/quote]

Ah, okay. I'll just move them right away from now on.
 
[quote name='CrashSpyro123']I loooooove chocolate, cuz it's sooooooo good. But I can't eat any cuz then I'll get fat.[/quote]

But once you get fat, you can eat as much chocolate as you want because you're already fat!
 
[quote name='CrashSpyro123']I loooooove chocolate, cuz it's sooooooo good. But I can't eat any cuz then I'll get fat.[/quote]

Ever hear of a gym, see I eat basically whatever I want, but I make sure to go to the gym every day for at least 40 minutes.
 
[quote name='SneakyPenguin']Bet you won't touch that button bitch.

Check it out

buttonbitch8on.jpg


GAH![/quote]

:rofl:

Even reading it makes me crack up. I was so tempted to tell customers today "Bet you won't touch that button bitch", and kept quoting other videos.
 
[quote name='WhipSmartBanky'][quote name='CrashSpyro123']I loooooove chocolate, cuz it's sooooooo good. But I can't eat any cuz then I'll get fat.[/quote]

But once you get fat, you can eat as much chocolate as you want because you're already fat![/quote]

Hey there are levels of fat you know
Theres Chubby, Husky, Fluffy, Fat and DAM.
 
[quote name='Mr_hockey66']I think I'll go watch troy now. Peace out.


Oh hockey is canceled for the season. Just thought i'd share that.[/quote]

..........you had to remind me, its the one sport I actually enjoy watching on tv.
 
[quote name='Mr_hockey66']I think I'll go watch troy now. Peace out.


Oh hockey is canceled for the season. Just thought i'd share that.[/quote]

:shock: QUOTED'D

Hockey, one of the most anti OTT people, posting in the OTT?!
 
[quote name='Nirvanaguy777'][quote name='WhipSmartBanky'][quote name='CrashSpyro123']I loooooove chocolate, cuz it's sooooooo good. But I can't eat any cuz then I'll get fat.[/quote]

But once you get fat, you can eat as much chocolate as you want because you're already fat![/quote]

Hey there are levels of fat you know
Theres Chubby, Husky, Fluffy, Fat and DAM.[/quote]

Yes, nice, I love FG, too.
 
Are you down with OTT

HEll ya you know me!!!!!


You down with OTT HELL YEA YOU KNOW ME BOYZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


iM NOT aNTI oTT. I said we needed to clam it down not get rid of it.

Im totaly fine now that the deals and ott are split. I don't miss deals and you guys get to have your ott. I think this will work out. Anyways back when it first started I posted here a lot. Then it turned into a jarbled mess and I got sick of it. I don't want to start any fights but some of the stuff had me shakin my head and thats hard to do! But anyways my xl pizzas here and troy is buring in image in my screen so got to go.



Ps. I'll never join the darkside!!!!
 
They changed the Cookie Crisp dog.

THEY CHANGED THE fuckING COOKIE CRISP DOG!!!

Its now a Cookie Crisp wolf. I new something was going down when the cop stopped chasing the dog, but i never expected him to just get taken out...
cookiecrispbowl1225f8wv.jpg

picpcookiecrisp4vm.gif
 
[quote name='Wshakspear']They changed the Cookie Crisp dog.

THEY CHANGED THE shaq-fuing COOKIE CRISP DOG!!!

Its now a Cookie Crisp wolf. I new something was going down when the cop stopped chasing the dog, but i never expected him to just get taken out...
cookiecrispbowl1225f8wv.jpg

[/quote]

:shock:

I just bought some the other day and it still had the dog. That's weird.
 
I guess i should mention that particular box of the wolf is from europe, but i just saw a commercial for the US with it.
 
Why is it that some people are so devoid of a sense of humor? Naturally, I'm referring to OOT's latest manuscripts. First things first: Once you understand OOT's equivocations, 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 OOT confuse, befuddle, and neutralize public opposition. If you agree, read on. I'm sure you get my point here. OOT's policies are precisely the kind of thing that will capitalize on our needs and vulnerabilities before the year is over. So please permit me to appropriate and paraphrase something I once heard: "I, hardheaded cynic that I am, experienced quite an epiphany when I first realized that OOT's shell games have a crippling effect on science and technology."

The central paradox of OOT's grievances, the twist that makes OOT's paroxysms so irresistible to depraved purveyors of malice and hatred, is that these people truly believe that we're supposed to shut up and smile when OOT says subversive, lackadaisical things. As something that enjoys brandishing words like "internationalization" and "incomprehensibility" as a smoke screen to hide its tirades' inherent paradoxes, OOT must definitely be at a loss when someone presents a logical counterargument to its cocky allegations. OOT is trying to lay down diktats that force me to wind up in a straitjacket and locked in a padded cell. Their mission? To authorize, promote, celebrate, and legitimize raving terrorism. If we look beyond OOT's delusions of grandeur, we see that it wants to force people to act in ways far removed from the natural patterns of human behavior. What does it think it is? I mean, I have a dream, a mission, a set path that I would like to travel down. Specifically, my goal is to supply the missing ingredient that could stop the worldwide slide into Jacobinism. Of course, it is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks. Let us not sink to OOT's level. Let us combat antagonism by exercising our right to speak out, to denounce OOT's scribblings as totally unrepresentative of the values of this society.

One does not have to divert our attention from serious issues in order to open minds instead of closing them. It is an irascible person who believes otherwise. I thought it couldn't be done, but, once again, OOT's recommendations have sunk to a new low.

OOT asserts that we should derive moral guidance from its glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented ruses. Most reasonable people, however, recognize such assertions as nothing more than baseless, if wishful, claims unsupported by concrete evidence. OOT's pronouncements sound so noble, but in fact, in these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, OOT claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after getting caught trying to twist my words six ways for Sunday. This claim is an outright lie that is still being circulated by OOT's representatives. The truth is that as long as the beer keeps flowing and the paychecks keep coming, OOT's peons don't really care that teenagers who want to shock their parents sometimes maintain -- with a straight face -- that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash. Fortunately, most parents don't fall for this fraud because they know that unyielding rigidity is just as much a threat to the continuity of things as primitive, muddleheaded expansionism. 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 surely expresses how once one begins thinking about free speech, about morbid vulgarians who use ostracism and public opinion to prevent the airing of views contrary to their own satanic beliefs, one realizes that OOT is not only immoral, but amoral. Even OOT's toadies don't care much for its political objectives; they simply wish to associate with other refractory personæ non gratæ and pervert the course of justice. Please don't misread my words here; if OOT thinks its fibs represent progress, it should rethink its definition of progress.

I have seen what OOT is capable of, and I am afraid. I am very afraid and I am very angry. Hopeless gnosticism is a disgrace to humanity, but it cannot be eliminated by moral lectures or by pious intentions. No, it can be eradicated only if we make a genuine contribution to human society. To tell you the truth, the net effect of OOT's memoirs will be a generation of kids who are unable to read, write, or distinguish good from evil. In fact, I have said that to OOT on many occasions, and I will keep on saying it until it stops trying to erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty. Thought should precede any attempt at intellectual writing. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that OOT will probably never understand why it scares me so much. And it does scare me: Its invectives are scary, its ideals are scary, and most of all, if we don't discuss the programmatic foundations of its piteous strictures in detail right now, then OOT's objectives will soon start to metastasize until they create a climate of intimidation. For one thing, the general public is finally starting to become aware of OOT's duplicity and complicity. But more important, no group has done so much to turn a deaf ear to need and suffering as OOT's confreres. Am I aware of how OOT will react when it reads that last sentence? Yes. Do I care? No, because if I am correctly informed, it should stop caterwauling about what it doesn't understand. In any case, my love for people necessitates that I encourage individuals to come out of their cocoons and flourish. Yes, I face opposition from OOT. However, this is not a reason to quit but to strive harder.

OOT somehow manages to get away with spreading lies (a book of its writings would be a good addition to the Bible), distortions (we ought to worship sleazy, lousy tightwads as folk heroes), and misplaced idealism (the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel). However, when I try to respond in kind, I get censored faster than you can say "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis". In spite of all OOT has done, I must admit I really like the organization. No, just kidding. If there is one thing I have learned, it is this: OOT uses a litany of euphemisms, buzz words, and doublespeak to help it trick academics into abandoning the principles of scientific inquiry. Am I being too harsh for writing that? Maybe I am, but that's really the only way you can push a point through to it. There are some profligate, disaffected autocrats who are overweening. There are also some who are apolaustic. Which category does OOT fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both".

Even without the ugly ideology of stoicism in the picture, we can still say that if I recall correctly, OOT's flunkies' thinking is fenced in by many constraints. Their minds are not free because they dare not be. Let me quote to you from the words of my attorney: "Even OOT's horoscope says it's pernicious." OOT does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when it says that its way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins. OOT can blame me for the influx of loathsome, whiney social outcasts if it makes it feel better, but it won't help its cause any. The facts as I see them simply do not support the false, but widely accepted, notion that governments should have the right to lie to their own subjects or to other governments. Often, the lure of an articulate new pundit, a well-financed attention-getting program, an effective audience generator, hot new "inside" information, or a professionally produced exposé is irresistible to nettlesome wishy-washy-types who want to unleash an unparalleled wave of faddism.

You may not be aware of this, but prudence is no vice. Cowardice -- especially OOT's snooty form of it -- is. How can we expect to challenge OOT's mingy assumptions about merit if we walk right into OOT's trap? We can't, and that's why unlike it, 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" -- OOT were not actually responsible for trying to con us into believing that it never engages in slovenly, puerile, or flagitious politics, then I'd stop saying that I suspect that people are hungry for true information and for a way to work together for justice in every community. It will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact, because if it didn't, you might come to realize that it's its belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to delude and often rob those rendered vulnerable and susceptible to its snares because of poverty, illness, or ignorance. I can't understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such an insufferable, acrimonious idea. In fact, my letters generally make the diametrically opposite claim, that each rung on the ladder of sectarianism is a crisis of some kind. Each crisis supplies an excuse for OOT to put pouty lunkheads on the federal payroll. That is the standard process by which venal renegades deny minorities a cultural voice.

I might be able to forgive OOT, but only if it promises never again to promote a form of government in which religious freedom, racial equality, and individual liberty are severely at risk. Isn't it historically demonstrated that it is legitimate to have misgivings about passive-aggressive mountebanks who abridge our basic civil liberties? I ask, because I know more about scapegoatism than most people. You might even say that I'm an expert on the subject. I can therefore state with confidence that if I hear OOT's secret agents say, "OOT's vices are the only true virtues" one more time, I'm indisputably going to throw up. When OOT tells us that its activities are on the up-and-up, it somehow fails to mention that irrationalism has its stronghold among pugnacious blackguards. It fails to mention that when you least expect it, it will order its chums to rob from the rich but -- unlike Robin Hood -- give to what I call fastidious scrubs. And it fails to mention that I cannot promise not to be angry at it. I do promise, however, to try to keep my anger under control, to keep it from leading me -- as it leads OOT -- to stonewall on issues in which taxpayers see a vital public interest. I frequently wish to tell OOT that it is my contention that it is undeniable by anyone but mephitic creeps that there is an implicit assumption here that we can't just sit around and do nothing. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue.

Just the other day, some of OOT's pesky fans forced a prospectus into my hands as I walked past. The prospectus described OOT's blueprint for a world in which ribald protestors are free to allow federally funded research to mushroom into a scabrous, grossly inefficient system, hampered by fork-tongued drug lords and aberrant, merciless administrators. As I dropped the prospectus onto an overflowing wastebasket, I reflected upon the way that we cannot allow cacodemonic pests to pass unnoticed. So don't feed me any phony baloney about how honor counts for nothing. That's just not true. Who else but OOT would have the brass to make nearby communities victims of environmental degradation and toxic waste dumping? No one. And where does that brass come from? It comes from a sure knowledge that it can retreat into its "victim" status if anyone calls it to account. I close this letter along the same lines it opened on: With all their sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, OOT's apologues are thoroughly iconoclastic.
 
[quote name='Wshakspear']I guess i should mention that particular box of the wolf is from europe, but i just saw a commercial for the US with it.[/quote]

Wasn't it a burglar and a different dog at one time? Before this dog?
 
[quote name='neonglow']Why is it that some people are so devoid of a sense of humor? Naturally, I'm referring to OOT's latest manuscripts. First things first: Once you understand OOT's equivocations, 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 OOT confuse, befuddle, and neutralize public opposition. If you agree, read on. I'm sure you get my point here. OOT's policies are precisely the kind of thing that will capitalize on our needs and vulnerabilities before the year is over. So please permit me to appropriate and paraphrase something I once heard: "I, hardheaded cynic that I am, experienced quite an epiphany when I first realized that OOT's shell games have a crippling effect on science and technology."

The central paradox of OOT's grievances, the twist that makes OOT's paroxysms so irresistible to depraved purveyors of malice and hatred, is that these people truly believe that we're supposed to shut up and smile when OOT says subversive, lackadaisical things. As something that enjoys brandishing words like "internationalization" and "incomprehensibility" as a smoke screen to hide its tirades' inherent paradoxes, OOT must definitely be at a loss when someone presents a logical counterargument to its cocky allegations. OOT is trying to lay down diktats that force me to wind up in a straitjacket and locked in a padded cell. Their mission? To authorize, promote, celebrate, and legitimize raving terrorism. If we look beyond OOT's delusions of grandeur, we see that it wants to force people to act in ways far removed from the natural patterns of human behavior. What does it think it is? I mean, I have a dream, a mission, a set path that I would like to travel down. Specifically, my goal is to supply the missing ingredient that could stop the worldwide slide into Jacobinism. Of course, it is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks. Let us not sink to OOT's level. Let us combat antagonism by exercising our right to speak out, to denounce OOT's scribblings as totally unrepresentative of the values of this society.

One does not have to divert our attention from serious issues in order to open minds instead of closing them. It is an irascible person who believes otherwise. I thought it couldn't be done, but, once again, OOT's recommendations have sunk to a new low.

OOT asserts that we should derive moral guidance from its glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented ruses. Most reasonable people, however, recognize such assertions as nothing more than baseless, if wishful, claims unsupported by concrete evidence. OOT's pronouncements sound so noble, but in fact, in these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, OOT claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after getting caught trying to twist my words six ways for Sunday. This claim is an outright lie that is still being circulated by OOT's representatives. The truth is that as long as the beer keeps flowing and the paychecks keep coming, OOT's peons don't really care that teenagers who want to shock their parents sometimes maintain -- with a straight face -- that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash. Fortunately, most parents don't fall for this fraud because they know that unyielding rigidity is just as much a threat to the continuity of things as primitive, muddleheaded expansionism. 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 surely expresses how once one begins thinking about free speech, about morbid vulgarians who use ostracism and public opinion to prevent the airing of views contrary to their own satanic beliefs, one realizes that OOT is not only immoral, but amoral. Even OOT's toadies don't care much for its political objectives; they simply wish to associate with other refractory personæ non gratæ and pervert the course of justice. Please don't misread my words here; if OOT thinks its fibs represent progress, it should rethink its definition of progress.

I have seen what OOT is capable of, and I am afraid. I am very afraid and I am very angry. Hopeless gnosticism is a disgrace to humanity, but it cannot be eliminated by moral lectures or by pious intentions. No, it can be eradicated only if we make a genuine contribution to human society. To tell you the truth, the net effect of OOT's memoirs will be a generation of kids who are unable to read, write, or distinguish good from evil. In fact, I have said that to OOT on many occasions, and I will keep on saying it until it stops trying to erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty. Thought should precede any attempt at intellectual writing. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that OOT will probably never understand why it scares me so much. And it does scare me: Its invectives are scary, its ideals are scary, and most of all, if we don't discuss the programmatic foundations of its piteous strictures in detail right now, then OOT's objectives will soon start to metastasize until they create a climate of intimidation. For one thing, the general public is finally starting to become aware of OOT's duplicity and complicity. But more important, no group has done so much to turn a deaf ear to need and suffering as OOT's confreres. Am I aware of how OOT will react when it reads that last sentence? Yes. Do I care? No, because if I am correctly informed, it should stop caterwauling about what it doesn't understand. In any case, my love for people necessitates that I encourage individuals to come out of their cocoons and flourish. Yes, I face opposition from OOT. However, this is not a reason to quit but to strive harder.

OOT somehow manages to get away with spreading lies (a book of its writings would be a good addition to the Bible), distortions (we ought to worship sleazy, lousy tightwads as folk heroes), and misplaced idealism (the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel). However, when I try to respond in kind, I get censored faster than you can say "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis". In spite of all OOT has done, I must admit I really like the organization. No, just kidding. If there is one thing I have learned, it is this: OOT uses a litany of euphemisms, buzz words, and doublespeak to help it trick academics into abandoning the principles of scientific inquiry. Am I being too harsh for writing that? Maybe I am, but that's really the only way you can push a point through to it. There are some profligate, disaffected autocrats who are overweening. There are also some who are apolaustic. Which category does OOT fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both".

Even without the ugly ideology of stoicism in the picture, we can still say that if I recall correctly, OOT's flunkies' thinking is fenced in by many constraints. Their minds are not free because they dare not be. Let me quote to you from the words of my attorney: "Even OOT's horoscope says it's pernicious." OOT does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when it says that its way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins. OOT can blame me for the influx of loathsome, whiney social outcasts if it makes it feel better, but it won't help its cause any. The facts as I see them simply do not support the false, but widely accepted, notion that governments should have the right to lie to their own subjects or to other governments. Often, the lure of an articulate new pundit, a well-financed attention-getting program, an effective audience generator, hot new "inside" information, or a professionally produced exposé is irresistible to nettlesome wishy-washy-types who want to unleash an unparalleled wave of faddism.

You may not be aware of this, but prudence is no vice. Cowardice -- especially OOT's snooty form of it -- is. How can we expect to challenge OOT's mingy assumptions about merit if we walk right into OOT's trap? We can't, and that's why unlike it, 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" -- OOT were not actually responsible for trying to con us into believing that it never engages in slovenly, puerile, or flagitious politics, then I'd stop saying that I suspect that people are hungry for true information and for a way to work together for justice in every community. It will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact, because if it didn't, you might come to realize that it's its belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to delude and often rob those rendered vulnerable and susceptible to its snares because of poverty, illness, or ignorance. I can't understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such an insufferable, acrimonious idea. In fact, my letters generally make the diametrically opposite claim, that each rung on the ladder of sectarianism is a crisis of some kind. Each crisis supplies an excuse for OOT to put pouty lunkheads on the federal payroll. That is the standard process by which venal renegades deny minorities a cultural voice.

I might be able to forgive OOT, but only if it promises never again to promote a form of government in which religious freedom, racial equality, and individual liberty are severely at risk. Isn't it historically demonstrated that it is legitimate to have misgivings about passive-aggressive mountebanks who abridge our basic civil liberties? I ask, because I know more about scapegoatism than most people. You might even say that I'm an expert on the subject. I can therefore state with confidence that if I hear OOT's secret agents say, "OOT's vices are the only true virtues" one more time, I'm indisputably going to throw up. When OOT tells us that its activities are on the up-and-up, it somehow fails to mention that irrationalism has its stronghold among pugnacious blackguards. It fails to mention that when you least expect it, it will order its chums to rob from the rich but -- unlike Robin Hood -- give to what I call fastidious scrubs. And it fails to mention that I cannot promise not to be angry at it. I do promise, however, to try to keep my anger under control, to keep it from leading me -- as it leads OOT -- to stonewall on issues in which taxpayers see a vital public interest. I frequently wish to tell OOT that it is my contention that it is undeniable by anyone but mephitic creeps that there is an implicit assumption here that we can't just sit around and do nothing. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue.

Just the other day, some of OOT's pesky fans forced a prospectus into my hands as I walked past. The prospectus described OOT's blueprint for a world in which ribald protestors are free to allow federally funded research to mushroom into a scabrous, grossly inefficient system, hampered by fork-tongued drug lords and aberrant, merciless administrators. As I dropped the prospectus onto an overflowing wastebasket, I reflected upon the way that we cannot allow cacodemonic pests to pass unnoticed. So don't feed me any phony baloney about how honor counts for nothing. That's just not true. Who else but OOT would have the brass to make nearby communities victims of environmental degradation and toxic waste dumping? No one. And where does that brass come from? It comes from a sure knowledge that it can retreat into its "victim" status if anyone calls it to account. I close this letter along the same lines it opened on: With all their sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, OOT's apologues are thoroughly iconoclastic.[/quote]

I'm not reading all that. Summarize or die! :wink:
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']
I'm not reading all that. Summarize or die! :wink:[/quote]

Here's a summary for you:

I could write a very angry letter right now about Sblymnlcrymnl, but I decided instead merely to express some constructive criticism. Let me preface my discussion by quickly reasserting a familiar theme of my previous letters: If I had to choose the most devious specimen from Sblymnlcrymnl's welter of dysfunctional gabble, it would have to be Sblymnlcrymnl's claim that our elected officials should be available for purchase by special-interest groups. As part of his efforts to gain a mainstream following, he publishes the Journal of Ignominious Autism. Included alongside articles discussing history, culture, art, religion, and philosophy are endorsements of his plans to waste natural resources. Perhaps one day we will live in a world where good people are not troubled by fear of libidinous gutter-dwellers. Until that day arrives, however, we must spread the word that Sblymnlcrymnl parrots whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, his ideas will change instantly, like a weathercock.

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. I am sorry to have to put this so bluntly, but this is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to deploy enormous resources in a war of attrition against helpless citizens. Not yet, at least. But there are some simple truths in this world. First, it must be pointed out that poison is countered only by an antidote. Second, Sblymnlcrymnl has deported himself as an enemy of peace and harmony. And finally, my goal is to cast a gimlet eye on Sblymnlcrymnl's communications. I might not be successful at achieving that goal, but I unquestionably do have to try.

What Sblymnlcrymnl is incapable of seeing is that his argument that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel is hopelessly flawed and utterly circuitous. Am I angry? You bet. He claims that everything is happy and fine and good. I would say that that claim is 70% folderol, 20% twaddle, and 10% another haughty attempt to concentrate all the wealth of the world into his own hands. And there you have it. The more pressing news is that some of Sblymnlcrymnl's imprecations raise important questions about future social interactions and their relationship to civil liberties.
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl'][quote name='neonglow']Why is it that some people are so devoid of a sense of humor? Naturally, I'm referring to OOT's latest manuscripts. First things first: Once you understand OOT's equivocations, 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 OOT confuse, befuddle, and neutralize public opposition. If you agree, read on. I'm sure you get my point here. OOT's policies are precisely the kind of thing that will capitalize on our needs and vulnerabilities before the year is over. So please permit me to appropriate and paraphrase something I once heard: "I, hardheaded cynic that I am, experienced quite an epiphany when I first realized that OOT's shell games have a crippling effect on science and technology."

The central paradox of OOT's grievances, the twist that makes OOT's paroxysms so irresistible to depraved purveyors of malice and hatred, is that these people truly believe that we're supposed to shut up and smile when OOT says subversive, lackadaisical things. As something that enjoys brandishing words like "internationalization" and "incomprehensibility" as a smoke screen to hide its tirades' inherent paradoxes, OOT must definitely be at a loss when someone presents a logical counterargument to its cocky allegations. OOT is trying to lay down diktats that force me to wind up in a straitjacket and locked in a padded cell. Their mission? To authorize, promote, celebrate, and legitimize raving terrorism. If we look beyond OOT's delusions of grandeur, we see that it wants to force people to act in ways far removed from the natural patterns of human behavior. What does it think it is? I mean, I have a dream, a mission, a set path that I would like to travel down. Specifically, my goal is to supply the missing ingredient that could stop the worldwide slide into Jacobinism. Of course, it is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks. Let us not sink to OOT's level. Let us combat antagonism by exercising our right to speak out, to denounce OOT's scribblings as totally unrepresentative of the values of this society.

One does not have to divert our attention from serious issues in order to open minds instead of closing them. It is an irascible person who believes otherwise. I thought it couldn't be done, but, once again, OOT's recommendations have sunk to a new low.

OOT asserts that we should derive moral guidance from its glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented ruses. Most reasonable people, however, recognize such assertions as nothing more than baseless, if wishful, claims unsupported by concrete evidence. OOT's pronouncements sound so noble, but in fact, in these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, OOT claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after getting caught trying to twist my words six ways for Sunday. This claim is an outright lie that is still being circulated by OOT's representatives. The truth is that as long as the beer keeps flowing and the paychecks keep coming, OOT's peons don't really care that teenagers who want to shock their parents sometimes maintain -- with a straight face -- that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash. Fortunately, most parents don't fall for this fraud because they know that unyielding rigidity is just as much a threat to the continuity of things as primitive, muddleheaded expansionism. 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 surely expresses how once one begins thinking about free speech, about morbid vulgarians who use ostracism and public opinion to prevent the airing of views contrary to their own satanic beliefs, one realizes that OOT is not only immoral, but amoral. Even OOT's toadies don't care much for its political objectives; they simply wish to associate with other refractory personæ non gratæ and pervert the course of justice. Please don't misread my words here; if OOT thinks its fibs represent progress, it should rethink its definition of progress.

I have seen what OOT is capable of, and I am afraid. I am very afraid and I am very angry. Hopeless gnosticism is a disgrace to humanity, but it cannot be eliminated by moral lectures or by pious intentions. No, it can be eradicated only if we make a genuine contribution to human society. To tell you the truth, the net effect of OOT's memoirs will be a generation of kids who are unable to read, write, or distinguish good from evil. In fact, I have said that to OOT on many occasions, and I will keep on saying it until it stops trying to erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty. Thought should precede any attempt at intellectual writing. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that OOT will probably never understand why it scares me so much. And it does scare me: Its invectives are scary, its ideals are scary, and most of all, if we don't discuss the programmatic foundations of its piteous strictures in detail right now, then OOT's objectives will soon start to metastasize until they create a climate of intimidation. For one thing, the general public is finally starting to become aware of OOT's duplicity and complicity. But more important, no group has done so much to turn a deaf ear to need and suffering as OOT's confreres. Am I aware of how OOT will react when it reads that last sentence? Yes. Do I care? No, because if I am correctly informed, it should stop caterwauling about what it doesn't understand. In any case, my love for people necessitates that I encourage individuals to come out of their cocoons and flourish. Yes, I face opposition from OOT. However, this is not a reason to quit but to strive harder.

OOT somehow manages to get away with spreading lies (a book of its writings would be a good addition to the Bible), distortions (we ought to worship sleazy, lousy tightwads as folk heroes), and misplaced idealism (the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel). However, when I try to respond in kind, I get censored faster than you can say "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis". In spite of all OOT has done, I must admit I really like the organization. No, just kidding. If there is one thing I have learned, it is this: OOT uses a litany of euphemisms, buzz words, and doublespeak to help it trick academics into abandoning the principles of scientific inquiry. Am I being too harsh for writing that? Maybe I am, but that's really the only way you can push a point through to it. There are some profligate, disaffected autocrats who are overweening. There are also some who are apolaustic. Which category does OOT fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both".

Even without the ugly ideology of stoicism in the picture, we can still say that if I recall correctly, OOT's flunkies' thinking is fenced in by many constraints. Their minds are not free because they dare not be. Let me quote to you from the words of my attorney: "Even OOT's horoscope says it's pernicious." OOT does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when it says that its way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins. OOT can blame me for the influx of loathsome, whiney social outcasts if it makes it feel better, but it won't help its cause any. The facts as I see them simply do not support the false, but widely accepted, notion that governments should have the right to lie to their own subjects or to other governments. Often, the lure of an articulate new pundit, a well-financed attention-getting program, an effective audience generator, hot new "inside" information, or a professionally produced exposé is irresistible to nettlesome wishy-washy-types who want to unleash an unparalleled wave of faddism.

You may not be aware of this, but prudence is no vice. Cowardice -- especially OOT's snooty form of it -- is. How can we expect to challenge OOT's mingy assumptions about merit if we walk right into OOT's trap? We can't, and that's why unlike it, 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" -- OOT were not actually responsible for trying to con us into believing that it never engages in slovenly, puerile, or flagitious politics, then I'd stop saying that I suspect that people are hungry for true information and for a way to work together for justice in every community. It will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact, because if it didn't, you might come to realize that it's its belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to delude and often rob those rendered vulnerable and susceptible to its snares because of poverty, illness, or ignorance. I can't understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such an insufferable, acrimonious idea. In fact, my letters generally make the diametrically opposite claim, that each rung on the ladder of sectarianism is a crisis of some kind. Each crisis supplies an excuse for OOT to put pouty lunkheads on the federal payroll. That is the standard process by which venal renegades deny minorities a cultural voice.

I might be able to forgive OOT, but only if it promises never again to promote a form of government in which religious freedom, racial equality, and individual liberty are severely at risk. Isn't it historically demonstrated that it is legitimate to have misgivings about passive-aggressive mountebanks who abridge our basic civil liberties? I ask, because I know more about scapegoatism than most people. You might even say that I'm an expert on the subject. I can therefore state with confidence that if I hear OOT's secret agents say, "OOT's vices are the only true virtues" one more time, I'm indisputably going to throw up. When OOT tells us that its activities are on the up-and-up, it somehow fails to mention that irrationalism has its stronghold among pugnacious blackguards. It fails to mention that when you least expect it, it will order its chums to rob from the rich but -- unlike Robin Hood -- give to what I call fastidious scrubs. And it fails to mention that I cannot promise not to be angry at it. I do promise, however, to try to keep my anger under control, to keep it from leading me -- as it leads OOT -- to stonewall on issues in which taxpayers see a vital public interest. I frequently wish to tell OOT that it is my contention that it is undeniable by anyone but mephitic creeps that there is an implicit assumption here that we can't just sit around and do nothing. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue.

Just the other day, some of OOT's pesky fans forced a prospectus into my hands as I walked past. The prospectus described OOT's blueprint for a world in which ribald protestors are free to allow federally funded research to mushroom into a scabrous, grossly inefficient system, hampered by fork-tongued drug lords and aberrant, merciless administrators. As I dropped the prospectus onto an overflowing wastebasket, I reflected upon the way that we cannot allow cacodemonic pests to pass unnoticed. So don't feed me any phony baloney about how honor counts for nothing. That's just not true. Who else but OOT would have the brass to make nearby communities victims of environmental degradation and toxic waste dumping? No one. And where does that brass come from? It comes from a sure knowledge that it can retreat into its "victim" status if anyone calls it to account. I close this letter along the same lines it opened on: With all their sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, OOT's apologues are thoroughly iconoclastic.[/quote]

I'm not reading all that. Summarize or die! :wink:[/quote]

I skimmed it, I'm afraid it's too generic to offer any real purpose. It would however make a very nice soapbox speech.

So basically this sort of shit should be kept in the Vs. forum, not dragged into the OTT.
 
[quote name='neonglow'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']
I'm not reading all that. Summarize or die! :wink:[/quote]

Here's a summary for you:

I could write a very angry letter right now about Sblymnlcrymnl, but I decided instead merely to express some constructive criticism. Let me preface my discussion by quickly reasserting a familiar theme of my previous letters:. . . :shock:[/quote]

Keep summarizing . . .
 
[quote name='dcfox']
Keep summarizing . . .[/quote]

DCFOX has recently made a number of people very, very angry, including me. However, as anger serves no function in a successful rebuttal, I will simply state objectively that DCFOX should feel ashamed of himself. I want to share this with you because DCFOX and his legatees, who are legion, are, by nature, nit-picky Philistines. Not only can that nature not be changed by window-dressing or persiflage, but DCFOX's actions are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called "lying". To those few who disagree with some of the things I've written, I ask for your tolerance. You might have heard the story that DCFOX once agreed to help us take the initiative to improve the living conditions of the most vulnerable in our society -- the sick, the old, the disabled, the unemployed, and our youth -- all of whose lives are made miserable by DCFOX. No one has located the document in which DCFOX said that. No one has identified when or where DCFOX said that. That's because he never said it. As you might have suspected, the neocolonialism "debate" is not a debate. It is a harangue, a politically motivated, brilliantly publicized, dysfunctional attack on progressive ideas.

We should eschew viperine incendiarism. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.) Let me mention again that DCFOX seems to have a bitter ideological conflict with my statement that he has deported himself as an enemy of peace and harmony. From this anecdotal evidence, I would argue that just because DCFOX and his subordinates don't like being labelled as "denominationalism-oriented weirdos" or "petty, sniffish stool pigeons" doesn't mean the shoe doesn't fit. If he gets his way, none of us will be able to take up the mantle and create and nurture a true spirit of community. Therefore, we must not let him bask in the hectoring shine of post-structuralism.

Still, once you understand DCFOX's platitudes, 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 DCFOX poison the relationship between teacher and student. His intimations are continually evolving into more and more lackadaisical incarnations. Here, I'm not just talking about evolution in a simply Darwinist sense; I'm also talking about how DCFOX's scare tactics are all too often clad in the self-centered garb of fanaticism. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that if DCFOX bites me, I will unquestionably bite back. I am cognizant that anyone who examines the historical development of the last hundred years from the standpoint of this letter will at once understand that DCFOX's secret agents will leave us high and dry as they create problems that our grandchildren will have to live with, but his devotees maintain that "the health effects of secondhand smoke are negligible." First off, that's a lousy sentence. If they had written that enough is enough, then that quote would have had more validity. As it stands, DCFOX is trying to brainwash us. He wants us to believe that it's meretricious to show him how he is as wrong as wrong can be; that's boring; that's not cool. You know what I think of that, don't you? I think that DCFOX maintains a "Big Brother" dossier of personal information about everyone he distrusts, to use as a potential career-ruining weapon. Is your name listed in that dossier? Well, I'm sure DCFOX would rather reap a whirlwind of destroyed marriages, damaged children, and, quite possibly, a globe-wide expression of incurable sexually transmitted diseases than answer that particular question. That's the end of this letter. If I was unable to convince you that DCFOX struts like a god on Mount Olympus, looking down on us mortals below, then you should definitely consider contacting me with your supporting or refuting evidence, opinions, personal stories, etc., so that I can make a better argument in my next letter.
 
Well, I'm sure DCFOX would rather reap a whirlwind of destroyed marriages, damaged children, and, quite possibly, a globe-wide expression of incurable sexually transmitted diseases than answer that particular question
Click to expand...

C'mon that can't be random.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top