|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Page to retire after 2005
best news I've heard in years
crit PRO |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Page to retire after 2005
Once again, I find disappointment. Once again, I find no satisfaction. Once
again, I find that most law-abiding citizens disapprove of Princess Crit Pro's methods. With this letter, I hope to bring fresh leadership and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy. But first, I would like to make the following introductory remark: Those of us who are too lazy or disinterested to present another paradigm in opposition to Crit's chauvinistic, vulgar animadversions have no right to complain when he and his dupes infringe upon our most important constitutional rights. Crit's bestial attempt to construct a creative response to my previous letter was absolutely pitiful. Really, Crit, stringing together a bunch of solecistic insults and seemingly random babble is hardly effective. It simply proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's possible that in the blink of an eye, he will pull out all stops in his nefarious drive to trick our children into adopting unconventional, disapproved-of opinions and ways of life. However, I cannot speculate about that possibility here because I need to devote more space to a description of how Crit's warnings are geared toward the continuation of social stratification under the rubric of "tradition". Funny, that was the same term that his underlings once used to conduct business in a featherbrained, imprudent way. Crit fails to consider the consequences of his vaporings. But don't take my word for it; ask any dodgy, complacent malefactor you happen to meet. I don't mean to scare you, but he has warned us that one of these days, stroppy cult leaders will shred the basic compact between the people and their government. If you think about it, you'll realize that his warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that he may be reasonably cunning with words. However, he is completely sordid with everything else. I heard through the grapevine that Crit is off his trolley. Whether or not this rumor is true, he just keeps on saying, "I don't give a [expletive deleted] about you. I just want to increase people's stress and aggression." I've never bothered Crit. Yet Crit wants to insult my intelligence. Whatever happened to "live and let live"? Crit wants to advocate his rodomontades amid a hue and cry as prissy as it is bitter. But what if the tables were turned? How would Crit like that? I am making a pretty serious accusation here. I am accusing him of planning to convert our children to cultural zombies in a mass of unthinking and easily herded proletarian cattle. And I don't want anyone to think that I am basing my accusation only on the fact that his reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth, but only impetuous answers, disdainful resolutions to conflicts. While perhaps offensive to some readers, only a direct quote can fully convey the headstrong nature and content of Crit's apologues: "Attention, proxies! Your orders are to pursue a twofold credo of obscurantism and exhibitionism, and to do so at any cost." Even when the facts don't fit, Crit sometimes tries to use them anyway. He still maintains, for instance, that people prefer "cultural integrity" and "multicultural sensitivity" to health, food, safety, and the opportunity to choose their own course through life. What's interesting is that if I were a complete sap, I'd believe Crit's line that censorship could benefit us. Unfortunately for him, I realize that if Crit believes that his invectives are all sweetness and light, then it's obvious why he thinks that anyone who resists him deserves to be crushed. All I can tell you is what matters to me: He appears to have found a new tool to use to help him create some sadistic, pseudo-psychological profile of me to discredit my opinions. That tool is ageism, and if you watch him wield it, you'll surely see why knowledge is the key that unlocks the shackles of bondage. That's why it's important for you to know that Crit thinks I'm trying to say that space aliens are out to lay eggs in our innards or ooze their alien hell-slime all over us. Wait! I just heard something. Oh, never mind; it's just the sound of the point zooming way over Crit's head. Crit claims to be supportive of my plan to fight the warped, distorted, misshapen, unwholesome monstrosity that his undertakings have become. Don't trust him, though; he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Before you know it, he'll terrorize our youngsters. Not only that, but if I wanted to brainwash and manipulate a large segment of the population, I would convince them that we can stop fascism merely by permitting government officials entrée into private homes to search for pertinacious boeotians. In fact, that's exactly what Crit does as part of his quest to confuse the catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian government in our minds. This is equivalent to saying that I like to speak of Crit as "ornery". That's a reasonable term to use, I feel, but let's now try to understand it a little better. For starters, he has never gotten ahead because of his hard work or innovative ideas. Rather, all of his successes are due to kickbacks, bribes, black market double-dealing, outright thuggery, and unsavory political intrigue. It would be a crying shame to let the worst sorts of antihumanist mob bosses I've ever seen tap into the national resurgence of overt plagiarism. Now, I could go off on that point alone, but he is like a giant octopus sprawling its slimy length over city, state, and nation. Like the octopus of real life, Crit operates under cover of self-created screen. He seizes in his long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers, and every agency created for the public protection. He doesn't care about freedom, as he can neither eat it nor put it in the bank. It's just a word to him. I have often maintained that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Unfortunately, when dealing with Crit and his vassals, that claim assumes facts not in evidence. So let me claim instead that I can reword my point as follows. Crit has more understanding of beer and milk regulations than of farsighted plans for the future. If he thinks that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel then maybe he should lay off the wacky tobaccy. Crit has -- not once, but several times -- been able to concentrate all the wealth of the world into his own hands without anyone stopping him. How long can that go on? As long as his blockish dissertations are kept on life support. That's why we have to pull the plug on them and seek some structure in which the cacophony introduced by his ploys might be systematized, reconciled, and made rational. He maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around him. There's a word for that: libel. Crit claims that illiberal poltroons should be fêted at wine-and-cheese fund-raisers. I think that the absurdities within that claim speak for themselves, although I should add that the poisonous wine of anarchism had been distilled long before Crit entered the scene. Crit is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity. He contends that the Earth is flat and that, therefore, newspapers should report only on items he agrees with. This bizarre pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. For example, it convinces delusional leeches (as distinct from the intolerant paper-pushers who prefer to chirrup while hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel. In reality, contrariwise, there are some basic biological realities of the world in which we live. These realities are doubtless regrettable, but they are unalterable. If Crit finds them intolerable and unthinkable, the only thing that I can suggest is that he try to flag down a flying saucer and take passage for some other solar system, possibly one in which the residents are oblivious to the fact that it is immature and stupid of Crit to influence the attitudes of dominant culture towards any environment or activity that is predominantly snarky. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to issue a call to conscience and reason, and that's why I say that he presents himself as a disinterested classicist lamenting the infusion of politically motivated methods of pedagogy and analysis into higher education. Crit is eloquent in his denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors amoral hippies. And here we have the ultimate irony, because even when Crit isn't lying, he's using facts, emphasizing facts, bearing down on facts, sliding off facts, quietly ignoring facts, and, above all, interpreting facts in a way that will enable him to help the most catty apostates you'll ever see back up their prejudices with "scientific" proof. It is deeply unfortunate that I hate it when evil parvenus like Crit go on with such vigor about subjects they don't even know about, since it's easy for Crit to declaim my proposals. But when is he going to provide an alternative proposal of his own? This can be answered most easily by stating that when I was younger, I wanted to respond to his arguments. I still want to do that, but now I realize that one of his buddies once said, "National-security interests can and should be sidestepped whenever Crit's personal interests are at stake." 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 I am not fooled by Crit's dishonest and eristic rhetoric. I therefore gladly accept the responsibility of notifying others that like a verbal magician, Crit knows how to lie without appearing to be lying, how to bury secrets in mountains of garbage-speak. In a recent essay, Crit stated that two wrongs make a right. Since the arguments he made in the rest of his essay are based in part on that assumption, he should be aware that it just isn't true. Not only that, but my general thesis is that his bruta fulmina are not an abstract problem. They have very concrete, immediate, and unpleasant consequences. For instance, his reports all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- 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. I'll talk a lot more about that later, but first let me finish my general thesis: A central point of his belief systems is the notion that children don't need as much psychological attentiveness, protection, and obedience training as the treasured household pet. Perhaps Crit should take some new data into account and revisit that notion. I think he'd find that he is trying to declare a national emergency, round up everyone who disagrees with him, and put them in concentration camps. His mission? To inject even more fear and divisiveness into political campaigns. Although the moral absolutist position is well represented by social and political activists and indeed influences legislators and policy makers, Crit accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does he suspect I'm narrow-minded because I refuse to accept his claim that he is a spokesman for God? If so, then I guess I'm as narrow-minded as I could possibly be. Plainly stated, Crit keeps telling everyone within earshot that superstition is no less credible than proven scientific principles. I'm guessing that Crit read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources generally indicate that he occasionally writes letters accusing me and my friends of being crass, deplorable porn stars. These letters are typically couched in gutter language (which is doubtless the language in which he habitually thinks) and serve no purpose other than to convince me that I recently heard him tell a bunch of people that he's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text. If one could get a Ph.D. in Immoralism, Crit would be the first in line to have one. Sorry for babbling so much, but there are lessons to be learned from history. "crit PRO" wrote in message oups.com... best news I've heard in years crit PRO |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Page to retire after 2005
Joe King wrote: Once again, I find disappointment. Once again, I find no satisfaction. Once again, I find that most law-abiding citizens disapprove of Princess Crit Pro's methods. With this letter, I hope to bring fresh leadership and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy. But first, I would liketo make the following introductory remark: Those of us who are too lazy or disinterested to present another paradigm in opposition to Crit's chauvinistic, vulgar animadversions have no right to complain when he and his dupes infringe upon our most important constitutional rights. Crit's bestial attempt to construct a creative response to my previous letter was absolutely pitiful. Really, Crit, stringing together a bunch of solecistic insults and seemingly random babble is hardly effective. It simply proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's possible that in the blink of an eye, he will pull out all stops in his nefarious drive to trick our children into adopting unconventional, disapproved-of opinions and ways of life. However, I cannot speculate about that possibility here because I need to devote more space to a description of how Crit's warnings are geared toward the continuation of social stratification under the rubric of "tradition". Funny, that was the same term that his underlings once used to conduct business in a featherbrained, imprudent way. Crit fails to consider the consequences of his vaporings. But don't take my word for it; ask any dodgy, complacent malefactor you happen to meet. I don't mean to scare you, but he has warned us that one of these days, stroppy cult leaders will shred the basic compact between the people and their government. If you think about it, you'll realize that his warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that he may be reasonably cunning with words. However, he is completely sordid with everything else. I heard through the grapevine that Crit is off his trolley. Whether or not this rumor is true, he just keepson saying, "I don't give a [expletive deleted] about you. I just want to increase people's stress and aggression." I've never bothered Crit. Yet Crit wants to insult my intelligence. Whatever happened to "live and let live"? Crit wants to advocate his rodomontades amid a hue and cry as prissy as it is bitter. But what if the tables were turned? How would Crit like that? I am making a pretty serious accusation here. I am accusing him of planningto convert our children to cultural zombies in a mass of unthinking and easily herded proletarian cattle. And I don't want anyone to think that I am basing my accusation only on the fact that his reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth, but only impetuous answers, disdainful resolutions to conflicts. While perhaps offensive to some readers, only a direct quote can fully convey the headstrong nature and content of Crit's apologues: "Attention, proxies! Your orders are to pursue a twofold credo of obscurantism and exhibitionism, and to do so at any cost." Even when the facts don't fit, Crit sometimes tries to use them anyway. He still maintains, for instance, that people prefer "cultural integrity" and "multicultural sensitivity" to health, food, safety, and the opportunity to choose their own course through life. What's interesting is that if I were a complete sap, I'd believe Crit's line that censorship could benefit us. Unfortunately for him, I realize that if Crit believes that his invectives are all sweetness and light, then it's obvious why he thinks that anyone who resists him deserves to be crushed. All I can tell you is what matters to me: He appears to have found a new tool to use to help him create some sadistic, pseudo-psychological profile of me to discredit my opinions. That tool is ageism, and if you watch him wield it, you'll surely see why knowledge is the key that unlocks the shackles of bondage. That's why it's important for you to know that Crit thinks I'm trying to say that space aliens are out to lay eggs in our innards or ooze their alien hell-slime all over us. Wait! I just heard something. Oh, never mind; it's just the sound of the point zooming way over Crit's head. Crit claims to be supportive of my plan to fight the warped, distorted, misshapen, unwholesome monstrosity that his undertakings have become. Don't trust him, though; he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Before you know it, he'll terrorize our youngsters. Not only that, but if I wanted to brainwash and manipulate a large segment of the population, I would convince them that we can stop fascism merely by permitting government officials entrée into private homes to search for pertinacious boeotians. In fact, that's exactly what Crit does as part of his quest to confuse the catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian government in our minds. This is equivalent to saying that I like to speak of Crit as "ornery". That's a reasonable term to use, I feel, but let's now try to understand it a little better. For starters, he has never gotten ahead because of his hard work or innovative ideas. Rather, all of his successes are due to kickbacks, bribes, black market double-dealing, outright thuggery, and unsavory political intrigue. It would be a crying shame to let the worst sorts of antihumanist mob bosses I've ever seen tap into the national resurgence of overt plagiarism. Now, I could go off on that point alone, but he is likea giant octopus sprawling its slimy length over city, state, and nation. Like the octopus of real life, Crit operates under cover of self-created screen. He seizes in his long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers, and every agency created for the public protection. He doesn't care about freedom, as he can neither eat it nor put it in the bank. It's just a word to him. I have often maintained that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Unfortunately, when dealing with Crit and his vassals, that claim assumes facts not in evidence. So let me claim instead that I can reword my pointas follows. Crit has more understanding of beer and milk regulations than of farsighted plans for the future. If he thinks that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel then maybe he should lay off the wacky tobaccy. Crit has -- not once, but several times -- been able to concentrate all the wealth of the world into his own hands without anyone stopping him. How long can that go on? As long as his blockish dissertations are kept on life support. That's why we have to pull the plug on them and seek some structure in which the cacophony introduced by his ploys might be systematized, reconciled, and made rational. He maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around him. There's a word for that: libel. Crit claims that illiberal poltroons should be fêted at wine-and-cheese fund-raisers. I think that the absurdities within that claim speak for themselves, although I should add that the poisonous wine of anarchism had been distilled long before Crit entered the scene. Crit is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity. He contends that the Earth is flat and that, therefore, newspapers should report only on items he agrees with. This bizarre pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. For example, it convinces delusional leeches (as distinct from the intolerant paper-pushers who prefer to chirrup while hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel. In reality, contrariwise, there are some basic biological realities of the world in which we live. These realities are doubtless regrettable, but they are unalterable. If Crit finds them intolerable and unthinkable, the only thing that I can suggest is that he try to flag down a flying saucer and take passage for some other solar system, possibly one in which the residents are oblivious to the fact that it is immature and stupid of Crit to influence the attitudes of dominant culture towards any environment or activity that is predominantly snarky.It would be mature and intelligent, however, to issue a call to conscience and reason, and that's why I say that he presents himself as a disinterested classicist lamenting the infusion of politically motivated methods of pedagogy and analysis into higher education. Crit is eloquent in his denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors amoral hippies. And here we have the ultimate irony, because even when Crit isn't lying, he's using facts, emphasizing facts, bearing down on facts, sliding off facts, quietly ignoring facts, and, above all, interpreting facts in a way that will enable him to help the most catty apostates you'll ever see back up their prejudices with "scientific" proof. It is deeply unfortunate that I hate it when evil parvenus like Crit go on with such vigor about subjects they don't even know about, since it's easy for Crit to declaim my proposals. But when is he going to provide an alternative proposal of his own? This can be answered most easily by stating that when I was younger, I wanted to respond to his arguments. I still want to do that, but now I realize that one of his buddies once said, "National-security interests can and should be sidestepped whenever Crit's personal interests are at stake." Now that's pretty funny, of course, butI didn't include that quote just to make you laugh. I included it to convince you that I am not fooled by Crit's dishonest and eristic rhetoric. I therefore gladly accept the responsibility of notifying others that like a verbal magician, Crit knows how to lie without appearing to be lying, howto bury secrets in mountains of garbage-speak. In a recent essay, Crit stated that two wrongs make a right. Since the arguments he made in the rest of his essay are based in part on that assumption, he should be aware that it just isn't true. Not only that, but my general thesis is that his bruta fulmina are not an abstract problem. They have very concrete, immediate, and unpleasant consequences. For instance, his reports all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- 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. I'll talk a lot more about that later, but first let me finish my general thesis: A central point of his belief systems is the notion that children don't need as much psychological attentiveness, protection, and obedience training as the treasured household pet. Perhaps Crit should take some new data into account and revisit that notion. I think he'd find that he is trying to declare a national emergency, round up everyone who disagrees with him, and put them in concentration camps. His mission? To inject even more fear and divisiveness into political campaigns. Although the moral absolutist position is well represented by social and political activists and indeed influences legislators and policy makers, Crit accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does he suspect I'm narrow-minded because I refuse to accept his claim that he is a spokesman for God? If so, then I guess I'm as narrow-minded as I could possibly be. Plainly stated, Crit keeps telling everyone within earshot that superstition is no less credible than proven scientific principles. I'm guessing that Crit read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources generally indicate that he occasionally writes letters accusing me and my friends of being crass, deplorable porn stars. These letters are typically couched in gutter language (which is doubtless the language in which he habitually thinks) and serve no purpose other than to convince me that I recently heard him tell a bunch of people that he's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text. If one could get a Ph.D. in Immoralism, Crit would be the first in line to have one. Sorry for babbling so much, but there are lessons to be learned from history. I can't believe that you took so much time to write that, that I took so much time to read that, and that CP understood more than 1/3 of the words let alone the concepts and nuances. Bill C |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Page to retire after 2005
Bill C wrote:
Joe King wrote: I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text I can't believe that you took so much time to write that, that I took so much time to read that Then write a complaint http://www.pakin.org/complaint/ -- E. Dronkert |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Page to retire after 2005
Ewoud Dronkert wrote: Bill C wrote: Joe King wrote: I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text I can't believe that you took so much time to write that, that I took so much time to read that Then write a complaint http://www.pakin.org/complaint/ -- E. Dronkert LOL! Thanks, that would explain a whole lot. I knew people couldn't really be that stupid, lazy yes, stupid no. Bill C |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Page to retire after 2005
On 21 Nov 2005 13:48:14 -0800, "Bill C"
wrote: Ewoud Dronkert wrote: Bill C wrote: Joe King wrote: I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text I can't believe that you took so much time to write that, that I took so much time to read that Then write a complaint http://www.pakin.org/complaint/ -- E. Dronkert LOL! Thanks, that would explain a whole lot. I knew people couldn't really be that stupid, lazy yes, stupid no. Bill C Now if you can explain why anyone would put all that energy into the pseudo-Rich Pinto blog - of interest to maybe three or four people in the civilized world - we've just about got a wrap. We'll just pass on the nutcases that keep popping up with that other feud. At least when my wife says I'm crazy, I can tell her I'm just a mainstream case, and not on the lunatic fringe. Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Page to retire after 2005
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
At least when my wife says I'm crazy, I can tell her I'm just a mainstream case, and not on the lunatic fringe. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...0a01b3fa7bf962 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Page to retire after 2005
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 09:34:21 +0200, Donald Munro
wrote: Curtis L. Russell wrote: At least when my wife says I'm crazy, I can tell her I'm just a mainstream case, and not on the lunatic fringe. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...0a01b3fa7bf962 And people want all of us to vote. Even the little voices... Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Page to retire after 2005
Bill C says...
I can't believe that you took so much time to write that, that I took so much time to read that, And you tell me that I have too much time on my hands... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
140th place garners extensive media coverage. | crit PRO | Racing | 1 | March 7th 05 02:44 AM |
140th place garners extensive media coverage. | crit PRO | Racing | 0 | March 6th 05 11:02 PM |
UCI World Cup Women's Cycling 2005 March 6, 2005 | brucepool.com | Unicycling | 2 | March 6th 05 07:41 AM |
Unimeet 26th February 2005 | [email protected] | Unicycling | 0 | February 17th 05 02:31 PM |
read this boring Page......the "I's" have it. | cross PRO | Racing | 9 | January 17th 05 06:41 AM |