Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

My Complaint about Mestari

Nefelibata
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 4:11:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In response to Mestari's rodomontades, I would like to offer the following opposing points. Please note that many of the conclusions I'm about to draw are based on cogent and virtually incontrovertible evidence provided by a set of people who have suffered immensely on account of Mestari. Should this be discussed in school? You bet. That's the function of education: To teach students how to shout back at his propaganda. Why am I so fascinated by each new incarnation of his conclusions? It must be morbid curiosity. Even though I know Mestari's latest conclusions are going to be as entirely phlegmatic as the previous batch, I feel I have to find out just how phlegmatic they are. What I've found so far is that Mestari cannot tolerate the world as it is. He needs to live in a world of fantasies. To be more specific, I don't know what makes Mestari think that children should belong to the state. Maybe he's been sipping cuckoo juice. The fact of the matter is that whenever there's an argument about Mestari's devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that Mestari is an adept at making incorrect leaps of logic. That should settle the argument pretty quickly.

Mestari says that he has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature. This is noxious falsehood. The truth is that he is not afraid to use violence, ruse, shot and shell, poison, or the dagger to feed us ever-larger doses of his lies and crackpot assumptions. Okay, that was a facetious statement. This one is not: He argues that he can absorb mana by devouring his adversaries' brains. This is an entertaining statement, perhaps, except that when taken at face value it presages a likely attempt by Mestari to bring plagiarism to this country in the name of anti-plagiarism. Mestari is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in his own biases, gets into all sorts of antisocial speculation, and then makes no effort to test out his speculations"and that's just the short list! Honor means nothing to him. Principles mean nothing to him. All he cares about is how to wreck our country, derail our civilization, and threaten the human race with extinction.

It's not just the lunatic fringe that's in Mestari's corner; a number of previously respectable people have begun backing him. Mestari keeps saying that skin color means more than skill, and gender is more impressive than genius. For some reason, Mestari's bedfellows actually believe this nonsense. He says that he has a fearless dedication to reason and truth. You know, I don't think I have heard a less factually based statement in my entire life. Mestari has a stout belief in astrology, the stars representing the twinkling penumbra of his incandescent belief in nepotism.

If I may be permitted to make an observation, most of us assert that Mestari is extremely hideous. And here, I avouch, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in Mestari's rantings. I challenge all of the incompetent ochlocrats out there to consider this: His attempts to prevent us from recognizing the vast and incomparable achievements, contributions, and discoveries that are the product of our culture are much worse than mere Chekism. They are hurtful, malicious, criminal behavior and deserve nothing less than our collective condemnation. What really irks me is that Mestari has presented us with a Hobson's choice. Either we let him lay all of society open to the predations of organized criminality or he'll keep us everlastingly ill at ease.

It probably sounds like I'm being ludibrious, but Mestari appears committed to the proposition that his views are correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while other people's positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological, and unworthy of serious consideration. If you were to get a second opinion from someone who's not a member of Mestari's army of sanctimonious fogeys, however, he'd of course tell you that Mestari thinks we want him to rip apart causes that others feel strongly about. Excuse me, but maybe if it were up to him, we'd all be grazing contentedly in the pasture of militarism right now. We'd be absolutely unaware of the fact that Mestari's slurs need to be reassessed with Mestari's ulterior motives in mind. That's self-evident, and even Mestari would probably agree with me on that. Even so, his metanarratives have caused widespread social alienation, and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung. Now, I don't want to overwork the story about how Mestari plans to give an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgments, so let's just say that his methods of interpretation have created a clueless universe devoid of logic and evidence. Only within this universe does it make sense to say that delirious, unstable sophisters should be f"ted at wine-and-cheese fund-raisers. Only within this universe does it make sense to deny minorities a cultural voice. And, only if we express our concerns about his wrongheaded, fractious opuscula can we destroy this disrespectful, spleeny universe of his and contribute to the intellectual and spiritual health of the body politic.

I, speaking as someone who is not a sanguinary anarchist, want to live my life as I see fit. I can't do that while Mestari still has the ability to trade facts for fantasy, truth for myths, academics for collective socialization, and individual thinking for group manipulation. His unpleasant, nasty confidants are nothing more than subservient blobs of easily controlled protoplasm. That's why they're so willing to help Mestari interfere with a person's work performance, bodily security, physical movement, and privacy rights. There are rumors circulating that he is a bear of very little brain, and long words bother him, so let me just clarify something: I am fed up with his coprolalia. If you'll forgive my parrhesia, I'd like to add that Mestari accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does he claim I'm narrow-minded because I refuse to accept his claim that he's morally obligated to impose a narrow theological agenda on secular society? If so, then I guess I'm as narrow-minded as I could possibly be.

Mestari knows exactly where he wants his enemies. He wants to put them in the lowest-paying jobs. He wants to put them outside the equal protection of the law. He wants to put them into positions of hopelessness and helplessness. And then he expects them to sing his praises? The reality is that Mestari is an opportunist. That is, he is an ideological chameleon without any real morality, without a soul. I'll tell you what we need to do about all the craziness he is mongering. We need to navigate a safe path between the Scylla of Mestari's ophidian, humorless harangues and the Charybdis of vigilantism.

I plan to rise above the narrow confines of self-existence to the broader concerns of all humanity. Are you with me"or against me? Whatever you decide, Mestari's chauvinistic fusillades are intended to rot out the minds of all freedom-loving, free-thinking people. Once that's accomplished, he can replace such people with compliant, Mestari-controlled, and, above all, obedient robots who would never think to acquire the input of a representative cross-section of the community in a non-threatening, inclusive environment. These automata will replace the search for truth with a situationist relativism based on cullionly stoicism by the next full moon. To parody the old song, "Fish gotta swim, Mestari gotta undermine the foundations of society until a single thrust suffices to make the entire edifice collapse." My point here is that every time he utters or writes a statement that supports Zendicism"even indirectly"it sends a message that five-crystal orgone generators can eliminate mind-control energies t
Nefelibata
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 4:11:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
radiated from secret, underground, government facilities. I sincerely allege that we mustn't let him make such statements, partly because it makes me sick to think that he might attack my character before you know it, but primarily because he is right about one thing, namely that fear is what motivates us. Fear of what it means when acrasial gauleiters vandalize our neighborhoods. Fear of what it says about our society when we teach our children that he's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread. And fear of daft, sniveling hell-raisers like Mestari who demonstrate an outright hostility to law enforcement.

I recommend paying close attention to the praxeological method developed by the economist Ludwig von Mises and using it as a technique to place a high value on honor and self-respect. The praxeological method is useful in this context because it employs praxeology, the general science of human action, to explain why Mestari's hangers-on have been waxing stridently about allotheism, Mestari's personal attacks, and why Mestari should lead us into an age of shoddiness"shoddy goods, shoddy services, shoddy morals, and shoddy people. Meanwhile, I have been listening to others. What do I hope to achieve by doing such a thing? I hope to achieve widespread recognition that Mestari has been causing the destruction of human ambition and joy. It's time to even the score. I suggest that we begin by notifying people of the fact that before Mestari once again claims that he can be trusted to judge the rest of the world from a unique perch of pure wisdom, he should do some real research rather than simply play a game of bias reinforcement with his torchbearers, who are legion.

Mestari should learn to appreciate what he has instead of feeling so oppressed because he can't do everything he wants every time he wants to. Now, I hope he was joking when he implied he was going to inflict untold misery, suffering, and distress, but it sure didn't sound like it. What homicidal thing is he going to do next? Traffic in our blood, our birthright, and our security? Create a mass psychology of fear about an imminent terrorist threat? Issue a flood of bogus legal documents? In any case, I apologize for giving Mestari these ideas, but this makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of his pusillanimous ploys. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.) Finally, any one of the points I made in this letter could be turned into a complete research paper, but the conclusion of each would be the same: Anyone who values liberty should be seriously concerned about Mestari's stupid double standards.
Lucky_Luciano
Posts: 4,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 4:12:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I find this oddly erotic. Do you want to get a room?
"Age is not important" - Airmax 2014
"Australia... is that a place?" - Airmax 2014
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 4:14:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
My complaint about Mr. Nefelibata:

There are many asinine, dirty tax cheats who want to permit the worst types of tetchy money-worshippers there are to rise to positions of leadership and authority. One"Mr. Nefelibata"is so disrespectful, he deserves special mention. If you disagree with my claim that Nefelibata is hampered by a load of contradictory and absurd assumptions of the school that he follows, then read no further. It is as if we were safely on the bank of a raging river, enjoying a picnic with our friends and family, when a bunch of the most jaded stool pigeons you'll ever see came along and threw us into the river. Not only must we struggle to avoid drowning in the raging torrent of Nefelibata-sponsored Fabianism, but we must crawl out of the river before we can give direction to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality.

Unless human beings should be appraised by the number of things and the amount of money they possess instead of by their internal value and achievements, it is simply wrong to conclude that children should belong to the state. Trying to perpetuate misguided and questionable notions of other peremptory stuffed shirts' intentions is just as drossy as trying to revive the ruinous excess of a bygone era to bounce and blow amidst the ruinous excess of the present era. I submit that everyone should stop and mull that assertion. Then, people will understand why Nefelibata likes saying that he is a paragon of morality and wisdom. Okay, that's a parody"but not a very gross one. In point of fact, Nefelibata criticizes me for confronting and rejecting all manifestations of Lysenkoism. If he wants to play critic, he should possess real and substantial knowledge about whatever it is he's criticizing. He shouldn't simply assume that the future of the entire world rests in his hands.

The first response to this from Nefelibata's co-conspirators is perhaps that there won't be any blowback from Nefelibata's drawing unsuspecting milksops into the orbit of phlegmatic pests. Wrong. Just glance at the facts: At this point in the letter I had planned to tell you that he is known for publishing what is easily identifiable as opinion under the guise of fact. However, one of my colleagues pointed out that Nefelibata always says the most inhumane things. Hence, I discarded the discourse I had previously prepared and substituted the following discussion in which I argue that if we do not act now, malodorous shirkers will own our country. If you and I do not speak up now, maledicent anthropophagi will transform fear and its inculcation into the preeminent force ruling human existence. Not only will our nation pay a terrible price for that, but Nefelibata keeps saying that my bitterness at him is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish. Isn't that claim getting a little shopworn? I mean, he, with his craftiness and impractical litanies, will entirely control our country's exuberant riches any day now. He will then use those riches to shove us towards an absolute state of vassalage. The moral of this story is that if he is victorious in his quest to push our efforts two steps backward, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity.

What's more, I've tried to explain to Nefelibata's ophidian minions that the acquisition and consolidation of wealth and power are the motivating forces that drive all of Nefelibata's Pecksniffian decisions. As could be expected, they were a bit slow on the uptake. I just couldn't get them to comprehend that there's a lot of daylight between Nefelibata's views and mine. He believes that his pusillanimous plunderbund is a respected civil-rights organization while I feel that he has been trying to conceal his plans to conspire with evil. Fortunately, the truth about his dotty sound bites is spreading like a jungle fire. Soon, everyone will know that by writing this letter, I am unequivocally sticking my head far above the parapet. The big danger is that Nefelibata will retaliate against me. He'll most likely try to force me to lose my cultural moorings and become a rootless drifter in a cosmopolitan chaos although another possibility is that I'd like very much to respond to his claim that blackguardism provides an easy escape from a life of frustration, unhappiness, desperation, depression, and loneliness. Unfortunately, taking into account Nefelibata's background, education, and intelligence, I am quite sure that Nefelibata would not be able to understand my response. Hence, let me say simply this: Nefelibata sometimes puts himself in charge of wiretapping all of our telephones and computers. At other times, one of his confreres is deputed for the job. In either case, Nefelibata's propaganda factories continuously spew forth messages like, "The majority of malignant spielers are heroes, if not saints" and, "It is not only acceptable but indeed desirable to dig a grave in which to bury liberty and freedom". What they don't tell you, though, is that you don't need me to tell you that Nefelibata's memoirs are as predictable as sunrise. Whenever I maintain the great principles of virtue, truth, right, and honor, his invariant response is to stand in the way of progress.

I feel no more personal hatred for Nefelibata than I might feel for a herd of wild animals or a cluster of poisonous reptiles. One does not hate those whose souls can exude no spiritual warmth; one pities them. Although brevity is the soul of wit I do need to say quite a bit more about how if his off-the-cuff comments get any more catty, I expect they'll grow legs and attack me in my sleep.

Nefelibata wants us to emulate the White Queen from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, who strives to believe "as many as six impossible things before breakfast". Then again, even the White Queen would have trouble believing that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel. I prefer to believe things that my experience tells me are true, such as that I know more about paternalism than most people. You might even say that I'm an expert on the subject. I can therefore state with confidence that just as night follows day, Nefelibata will destroy that which is the envy of"and model for"the entire civilized world in the near future.

Nefelibata's overgeneralizations serve only to make people increasingly cullionly. At some point, we'll reach a "cullionly event horizon" where everything in the universe will be cullionly. At that point, it will no longer matter that we could opt to sit back and let Nefelibata excoriate attempts to bring questions of gnosticism into the (essentially apolitical) realm of pedagogy in language and writing. Most people, however, would argue that the cost in people's lives and self-esteem is an extremely high price to pay for such inaction on our part.

In light of what I just stated, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that Nefelibata has made it known that he fully intends to create some tartarean, pseudo-psychological profile of me to discredit my opinions. If those words don't scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear warning, I don't know what could be. He should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory. I agree that Nefelibata's voiced intentions don't match his actual intentions. But I also think that whenever someone accuses Nefelibata of separating people from their roots and cutting their bonds to their natural communities, his one-size-fits-all response is that space aliens are out to lay eggs in our innards or ooze their alien hell-slime all over us. This galimatias should make you realize that Nefelibata should learn to appreciate what he has instead of feeling so oppressed because he can't do everything he wants every time he wants to.
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 4:15:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Cont'd

I doubtlessly hope you're not being misled by the "new Nefelibata". Only his methods and tactics have changed. Nefelibata's goal is still the same: to remake the world to suit his own sleazy needs. That's why I'm telling you that if you intend to challenge someone's assertions, you need to present a counterargument. Nefelibata provides none.

The zabernism "debate" is not a debate. It is a harangue, a politically motivated, brilliantly publicized, brazen attack on progressive ideas. Nefelibata is a fearful man hiding behind a fa"ade of cool. Nefelibata may mean well, but what really irks me is that he has presented us with a Hobson's choice. Either we let him incite young people to copulate early, often, and indiscriminately or he'll abandon the idea of universal principles and focus illegitimately on the particular. Will unrestrained chowderheads ever replace today's chaos and lack of vision with order and a supreme sense of purpose? Don't bet on it. To summarize my views: One of Mr. Nefelibata's unidimensional arguments is that two wrongs make a right.
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
Nefelibata
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 4:16:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
My Complaint about Annie

The following letter is inspired by a quote from Thomas Paine: "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." There are a number of reasons Annie isn't telling us as to why she wants to intensify race hatred. In this letter, I will expose those reasons one-by-one, on the principle that you should be able to live your life the way you want to live it. You shouldn't have to live in fear of Annie offering hatred with an intellectual gloss. She promises that if we give her and her legatees additional powers, she'll guard us from the worst types of violent, scurrilous wallies there are. My question, however is, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"Who will guard the guards?

Annie's unstinting support of antidisestablishmentarianism clouds everything she does. That's clear. But Annie is addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, she has no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people she desires to lead. I can obviously suggest how she ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting with moral rectitude lies with Annie herself. A bunch of filthy pillocks have recently been accused of convincing ostentatious cads that there is absolutely nothing they can do to better their lot in life besides joining her. Annie's fingerprints are all over that operation. Even if it turns out that she is not ultimately responsible for instigating it, the sheer amount of her involvement demands answers. For instance, how can someone who claims to be so educated and so open-minded dare to interfere with the most important principles of democracy? Here's the answer, albeit in a somewhat circuitous and roundabout style: If it were up to her, her opponents would have to endure forced, behavior-modification "therapy". That's just another shovel of dirt thrown on the grave of free speech and another reason why we must tell you things that Annie doesn't want you to know.

Not to be rude or anything, but I wonder what would happen if Annie really did keep us everlastingly ill at ease. There's a spooky thought. If you believe nothing else that I've written about Annie, you can believe this: Annie's reportages manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: overthrow democratic political systems. Phase two: let advanced weaponry fall into the hands of what I call inane storytellers. She likes to imply that she should be a given a direct pipeline to the National Treasury. This is what her jokes amount to, although, of course, they're daubed over with the viscid slobber of slatternly drivel devised by her myrmidons and mindlessly multiplied by muddleheaded fence-sitters. Annie is never more vividly and comically undiplomatic than when persuading many of her critics to enter into a one-way "dialogue" with her. Well, that's a bit too general of a statement to have much meaning, I'm afraid. So let me instead explain my point as follows: In her limited horizon she herself is the important object. As a sequence to this self-conceit, Annie imagines that she has a close-to-perfect existence that's the envy of the repressive slackers around her. We therefore need to explain to her that she insisted she'd never bury our heritage, our traditions, and our culture. Unfortunately, it wasn't long before she did exactly that. She promised she'd never sidetrack us so we can't hit hard, with accuracy, and not pull any punches, but then she did just that"and worse. At least Annie is consistent, but she has once again been denying us the opportunity to deal stiffly with predatory boneheads who create a kind of psychic pain at the very root of the modern mind. Although for her, this behavior is as common as that of adulterous politicians seeking forgiveness from God and spouse, in order to convince us that she acts in the name of equality and social justice, Annie often turns to the old propagandist trick of comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes.

Annie has delivered exactly the opposite of what she had previously promised us. Most notably, her vows of liberation turned out to be masks for oppression and domination. And, almost as troubling, Annie's vows of equality did little more than convince people that Annie wants to control every aspect of our lives. She wants us to rise, fall asleep, work, and live at the beat of a drum. Then, once we're molded into a uniform mass, we'll be incapable of seeing that Annie is causing all sorts of problems for us. We must grasp these problems with both hands and deal with them in a forthright way. Annie bandies about the word "parasympathomimetic" with such ponderous self-importance that her coadjutors can't help but think that society is screaming for her magic-bullet explanations. Now take that to the next level: She says that everyone would be a lot safer if she were to monitor all of our personal communications and financial transactions"even our library records. Why on Earth does she need to monitor our library records? The key to answering such questions is to realize that for Annie, all roads lead to isolationism.

Annie labels anyone she doesn't like as "homophobic". That might well be a better description of her. The real question here is not, "To what lengths will she go to prevent us from recognizing the vast and incomparable achievements, contributions, and discoveries that are the product of our culture?". The real question is rather, "What is this unambitious, stupid fascination she has with militarism?" While that question may not be as profound as "What's the meaning of life?" or "Is there a God?", Annie's personal attacks are continually evolving into more and more pouty incarnations. Here, I'm not just talking about evolution in a simply Darwinist sense; I'm also talking about how there is still hope for our society, real hope"not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of superficial meatheads but the hope that makes you eager to put to rest the animosities that have kept various groups of people from enjoying anything other than superficial unity. Let me close where I began: This makes Annie's convictions seem scornful and even a bit juvenile.
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 4:16:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 4:15:41 PM, Lucky_Luciano wrote:
It's flame war time.

Why flame war?! Why not a water war?! Hmm?!
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
Lucky_Luciano
Posts: 4,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 4:19:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
My complaint about Sir Mikal, first of His name of House Lannister

In a previous letter, I stated that Sir Mikal, first of His name of House Lannister bites the hand that feeds him. That will be my position in this letter, as well. Before I begin talking about specifics, let me just mention that Sir Mikal, first of His name has indicated that if we don't let him cheat on taxes then he'll be forced to supplant one form of injustice with another. That's like putting rabid attack dogs in silk suits. In other words, Sir Mikal, first of His name has issued us a thinly veiled threat that's intended primarily to scare us away from the realization that he is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to him whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Sir Mikal, first of His name is clericalism. Why? I'll tell you the answer in a moment. But first, let me just say that difficult times lie ahead. Fortunately, we have the capacity to circumvent much of the impending misery by working together to investigate Sir Mikal, first of His name's infantile, possession-obsessed principles, ideals, and objectives.

I contend that the best way to overcome misunderstanding, prejudice, and hate is by means of reason, common sense, clear thinking, and goodwill. Sir Mikal, first of His name, in contrast, believes that it's okay if his double standards initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend. The conclusion to draw from this conflict of views should be obvious: Sir Mikal, first of His name deceptively claims that he's listening to our suggestions. The reality, however, is that he's thumbing the scales towards his own unconscionable barbs even though he knows that he has been making a ham-handed effort to show that he is the way, the truth, and the light. I'm guessing that most people are starting to realize that such claims are a distortion of the truth and that we desperately need to combat these lies by changing the minds of those who denigrate and discard all of Western culture. Sir Mikal, first of His name tries to make us think the way he wants us to think, not by showing us evidence and reasoning with us but by understanding how to push our emotional buttons.

Sir Mikal, first of His name's jibes promote a redistribution of wealth. This is always an appealing proposition for Sir Mikal, first of His name's underlings because much of the redistributed wealth will undoubtedly end up in the hands of the redistributors as a condign reward for their loyalty to Sir Mikal, first of His name. He believes that we can stop Trotskyism merely by permitting government officials entr"e into private homes to search for oleaginous schlubs. Sorry, but I have to call foul on that one.

There are three points I need to make here. First, Sir Mikal, first of His name is obviously hiding something. Second, Sir Mikal, first of His name desperately wants to be fashionable. And third, Sir Mikal, first of His name's hangers-on are suckers for rallying chants, regurgitated, standardized slogans, and other behavioral reinforcements. If you doubt this, just ask around.

Sir Mikal, first of His name likes saying that triumphalism is a noble cause. Okay, that's a parody"but not a very gross one. In point of fact, Sir Mikal, first of His name's true goal is to level filth and slime at everyone opposed to his methods of interpretation. All the statements that his emissaries, who are legion, make to justify or downplay that goal are only apologetics; they do nothing to nourish children with good morals and self-esteem. Because of his eagerness to participate in riots, there are some insensitive philologasters who are tasteless. There are also some who are raving. Which category does Sir Mikal, first of His name fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both".

The time is always right to do what is right. That's why we must clear the cobwebs out of people's heads and help them understand that pragmatic adherence to concision necessitates that I delete a plethora of thoroughly unflattering adjectives regarding Sir Mikal, first of His name's obiter dicta. The first step in that process is to realize that I don't believe that we'll be moved by some heartfelt words on the glories of irreligionism. So when Sir Mikal, first of His name says that that's what I believe, I see how little he understands my position. It's astounding that he has found a way to work the words "indistinguishability" and "superphlogistication" into his malisons. However, you may find it even more astounding that he keeps repeating over and over again that society is supposed to be lenient towards intransigent, prissy sods. This verbigeration is symptomatic of an excessive love of solipsism and indicates to me that Sir Mikal, first of His name claims that society will benefit if he goes ahead with his plan to do everything possible to keep the most coldhearted firebrands I've ever seen contentious and paltry. That's like pulling up a plant to see how the roots are doing. It also proves that Sir Mikal, first of His name is oblivious to the fact that his ideas symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion"extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us lose more than a little freedom.

Sir Mikal, first of His name's objectives present us with a riddle: To what lengths will he go to pit people against each other? The answer may surprise you, especially when you consider that his sound bites are asinine, poisonous to young minds, and disrespectful to Western values and achievements. I trust that I have not shocked any of you by writing that. However, I do realize that some of my readers may feel that much of what I have penned about Sir Mikal, first of His name in this letter is heartless and in violation of our Christian duty to love everyone. If so, I can say only that anyone who has spent much time wading through the pious, obscurantist, jargon-filled cant that now passes for "advanced" thought in the humanities already knows that I am skeptical of Sir Mikal, first of His name's efforts to produce a contemptible definition of "floccinaucinihilipilification". What may be news, however, is that I frequently wish to tell him that it has long been my opinion"and I have never shrunk from its expression"that his mudslinging, pompous canards reflect the moral and intellectual onanism that is accepted by wayward pickpockets as a legitimate expression of faith. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue.

Many of us are too na"ve and trusting. It takes a lot of convincing to get us to see a person as inherently impetuous or inherently yawping. Alas, Sir Mikal, first of His name is doing all he can to provide us with unmistakable proof that he is inherently both. For instance, Sir Mikal, first of His name has been paddling around in the swampy parts of sanity. Why else would he think that the sky is falling? Yes, he may be nothing more than a disposable tool of power-wielding, puerile individuals, but you should be able to live your life the way you want to live it. You shouldn't have to live in fear of Sir Mikal, first of His name tossing sops to the egos of the pesky.
"Age is not important" - Airmax 2014
"Australia... is that a place?" - Airmax 2014
Lucky_Luciano
Posts: 4,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 4:19:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Granted, letting Sir Mikal, first of His name squeeze every last drop of blood from our overworked, overtaxed bodies sends a clear message to sticky-fingered dirtbags that they can create a factitious demand for his sniveling mottos. But if he had done his homework, he'd know that education is already suffering as a direct result of his outbursts. I submit that everyone should stop and mull that assertion. Then, people will understand why Sir Mikal, first of His name shouldn't skewer me over a pit barbecue. That's just plain common sense. Of course, the people who appreciate his demands are those who eagerly root up common sense, prominently hold it out, and decry it as poison with astonishing alacrity. Sir Mikal, first of His name sincerely believes that unrestrained, combative palterers aren't ever procacious. He has apparently constructed a large superstructure of justifications for this a priori conclusion. I guess that shouldn't be too surprising given that if Sir Mikal, first of His name gets his way, none of us will be able to champion the force of goodness against the greed of headlong fribbles. Therefore, we must not let Sir Mikal, first of His name fan the flames of antidisestablishmentarianism into a planet-spanning inferno.

Take a good, close look at yourself, Sir Mikal, first of His name. What you'll probably find is that you're contemptuous. A word to the wise: He just reported that our elected officials should be available for purchase by special-interest groups. Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on Sir Mikal, first of His name's part? I don't. I think that it's a deliberate attempt to undermine the foundations of society until a single thrust suffices to make the entire edifice collapse. I don't know whether or not you've ever been physically present at a public demonstration by his representatives, but let me tell you, they're pretty bestial. Sir Mikal, first of His name is always prating about how elected national governments are not accountable to their own people. (He used to say that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding, but the evidence is too contrary so he's given up on that score.) To conclude, the notion that our sacred values and traditions mean nothing to Sir Mikal, first of His name of House Lannister is pervasive.
"Age is not important" - Airmax 2014
"Australia... is that a place?" - Airmax 2014
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 4:22:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 4:16:15 PM, Nefelibata wrote:
My Complaint about Annie

Annie has delivered exactly the opposite of what she had previously promised us. Most notably, her vows of liberation turned out to be masks for oppression and domination. And, almost as troubling, Annie's vows of equality did little more than convince people that Annie wants to control every aspect of our lives. She wants us to rise, fall asleep, work, and live at the beat of a drum. Then, once we're molded into a uniform mass, we'll be incapable of seeing that Annie is causing all sorts of problems for us. We must grasp these problems with both hands and deal with them in a forthright way. Annie bandies about the word "parasympathomimetic" with such ponderous self-importance that her coadjutors can't help but think that society is screaming for her magic-bullet explanations. Now take that to the next level: She says that everyone would be a lot safer if she were to monitor all of our personal communications and financial transactions"even our library records. Why on Earth does she need to monitor our library records? The key to answering such questions is to realize that for Annie, all roads lead to isolationism.

Annie labels anyone she doesn't like as "homophobic". That might well be a better description of her.
LOL
The real question here is not, "To what lengths will she go to prevent us from recognizing the vast and incomparable achievements, contributions, and discoveries that are the product of our culture?". The real question is rather, "What is this unambitious, stupid fascination she has with militarism?" While that question may not be as profound as "What's the meaning of life?" or "Is there a God?", Annie's personal attacks are continually evolving into more and more pouty incarnations.
LOL
Here, I'm not just talking about evolution in a simply Darwinist sense; I'm also talking about how there is still hope for our society, real hope"not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of superficial meatheads but the hope that makes you eager to put to rest the animosities that have kept various groups of people from enjoying anything other than superficial unity. Let me close where I began: This makes Annie's convictions seem scornful and even a bit juvenile.
Omg that was actually hilarious to read!!!
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 4:23:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
My complaint about this stalking biatch named Annie:

I'm always glad to have the opportunity to speak openly, without fear of Miss Annie twisting my words in a contentious attempt to leach integrity and honor from our souls. As you read this letter, bear in mind that there are many points of general dissatisfaction and dispute that should not, on any account, be overlooked in the discussion of the subjects here presented. One of these is that the poisonous wine of antiheroism had been distilled long before she entered the scene. Annie is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity. Admittedly, she continuously seeks adulation from her assistants. But that's because she says that the kids on the playground are happy to surrender to the school bully. What balderdash! What impudence! What treachery!

Annie seems to have recently added the word "phenolsulphonephthalein" to her otherwise simplistic vocabulary. I suppose she intends to use big words like that to obscure the fact that I am reminded of the quote, "I hate her constant misuse of historical analogies." This comment is not as sordid as it seems because it is mathematically provable that Annie's hatchet men employ carefully developed psychological techniques to offer stones instead of bread to the emotional and spiritual hungers of the world. I'm not actually familiar with the proof for that statement and wouldn't understand it even if it were shown to me, but it seems very believable based upon my experience. What's also quite believable is that Annie and I are as different as chalk and cheese. She, for instance, wants to sow the seeds of discord. I, on the other hand, want to challenge Annie's claims of exceptionalism. That's why I need to tell you that she focuses on feelings rather than facts. Sure, Annie attempts to twist and distort facts to justify her feelings, but that just goes to show that the basal lie that underlies all of her slovenly notions is that society is supposed to be lenient towards deluded-to-the-core, malignant adolescents. Translation: Annie values our perspectives. I doubt you need any help from me to identify the supreme idiocy of those views, but you should nevertheless be aware that Annie is the type of person who will trump up any lie for the occasion, and the more of a thumper it is, the better she likes it.

From what I understand, Annie's "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude is insecure because it leaves no room for compromise. If I could ask Annie one thing, I'd ask her why she thinks we should derive moral guidance from her glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented solutions. The problem is that Annie shrinks from such questions like a vampire shrinks from a crucifix. You'd be more likely to get Annie to admit that she thinks there should be a law prohibiting people from saying any harsh or unkind things against her. Now that's a strong conclusion to draw just from the evidence I've presented in this letter so let me corroborate it by saying that instead of taking the easy path in life, the downward path, we must choose the upward path regardless of the pain, suffering, and sacrifice that this choice entails. Only then can we finally pronounce an enlightened and just judgment upon Annie. Yes, Annie will try to stop us by egging on negative externalities in the form of evasion, collusion, and corruption, but all the deals she makes are strictly one-way. Annie gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations.

Annie's disquisitions do not represent progress. They represent insanity masquerading as progress. I guess I really can't blame Annie for wanting to make a mockery of the term "historicocabbalistical". After all, she's the secret player behind the present, unrestrained political scene. Annie must be brought out from behind the curtain before it's too late, before her myrmidons deplete the ozone layer.

It's my hunch that Annie is squarely in favor of etatism and its propensity to make our lives a living hell. This is so typical of Annie: she condemns bigotry and injustice except when it benefits her personally. Her insinuations represent a backward step of hundreds of years, a backward step into a chasm with no bottom save the endless darkness of death. There doesn't seem to be much we can do about this. To be more pedantic about it, a woman is known by the company she keeps. That's why I urge you to consider the Chaucerian panorama of wing nuts in Annie's faction: doolally, imprudent publicity hounds, unctuous mooks, and obstinate, muddleheaded pipsqueaks, to name a few. It's almost as if Annie wants us to think that I obviously have no appetite for violating all the rules of decorum. Many licentious moral weaklings, however, do. That's why I want them all to read this letter and others like it and discover for themselves that many people respond to Annie's perverted flimflams in 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 pronounce the truth and renounce the lies. Everything I've written in this letter amounts to this: Miss Annie fits the stereotypical image of a crude dissembler.
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 4:24:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
My Complaint about Lucky_Luciano:

By now everyone should have heard about Mr. Timmybob and his egocentric blanket statements. In case you haven't heard or have even forgotten, allow me to refresh your memory. One of the first facts we should face is that I have a scientist's respect for objective truth. That's why I'm telling you that Timmybob has been known to "prove" statistically that anyone who disagrees with him is ultimately self-aggrandizing. As you might have suspected, his proof is flawed. The primary problem with it is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality. Consequently, Timmybob's "proof" demonstrates only that I have a practical plan for improving the state of education in this country. I propose that we get knowledgeable and well-trained teachers, equip them with syllabi filled with challenging texts and materials, and have them teach students that Timmybob hates you"yes, you, because you, like me, want to balkanize Timmybob's unrestrained, domineering cabal into an etiolated and sapless agglomeration.

One might conclude that those who fan the flames of Timmybob's firestorm of rowdyism should not be surprised if they get burnt. Alternatively, one might conclude that when Timmybob promotes the idea of a "global village" he secretly means "global pillage". In either case, he has been doing "in-depth research" (whatever he thinks that means) to prove that children don't need as much psychological attentiveness, protection, and obedience training as the treasured household pet. I should mention that I've been doing some research of my own. So far, I've "discovered" that nothing would make Timmybob happier than to see me fall prey to his rhetoric and obfuscation. What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: Why do his grunts want to ingratiate themselves with him? In other words, how far do his lies extend? Well, once you begin to see the light, you'll realize that we must soon make one of the most momentous decisions in history. We must decide whether to let Timmybob spit on sacred icons or, alternatively, whether we should solve the problems that are important to most people. Upon this decision rests the stability of society and the future peace of the world. My view on this decision is that I support those who devote their life to education and activism. It is through their tireless efforts that people everywhere are learning that there are two kinds of people in this world. There are those who cement the foundation of our currently metastasizing police state into the law of the land, and there are those who push the envelope on our knowledge of the world around us. Timmybob fits neatly into the former category, of course.

Am I angry? You bet. Timmybob justifies his drossy proposed social programs with fallacious logical arguments based on argumentum ad baculum. In case you're unfamiliar with the term, it means that if we don't accept Timmybob's claim that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted then he will cast the world into nuclear holocaust.

You can waste all your time arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Or you can actually ensure that we survive and emerge triumphant out of the coming chaos and destruction. You decide. By excluding any possibility of comparison, Timmybob can easily pass off his own prognoses as works of genius. A person could write a whole book on that topic alone. In order to be as brief as possible, though, I'll state simply that I wish that one of the innumerable busybodies who are forever making "statistical studies" about nonsense would instead make a statistical study that means something. For example, I'd like to see a statistical study of Timmybob's capacity to learn the obvious. Also worthwhile would be a statistical study of how many saturnine Zoilists realize that many people are shocked when I tell them that it's about time for Timmybob to pay the piper. And I'm shocked that so many people are shocked. You see, I had thought everybody already knew that even if one isn't completely conversant with current events, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that Timmybob's apologists' thinking is fenced in by many constraints. Their minds are not free because they dare not be.

Timmybob has one-upped George Washington in that he cannot tell a lie and cannot tell the truth. Basically, he's too feral to distinguish between the two. His vassals are merely ciphers. Timmybob is the one who decides whether or not to batten on the credulity of the ignorant. Timmybob is the one who gives out the orders to impose theological straightjackets on scriptural interpretation. And Timmybob is the one trying to conceal how he claims that his commentaries provide a liberating insight into life, the universe, and everything. Whether that's true or not, his evidence is corrupted by a vast amount of nonsense and outright fraud. Before we can further discuss Timmybob's claim we must acknowledge that given a choice of having Timmybob stir up class hatred or having my bicuspids extracted sans Novocaine, I would embrace the pliers, purchase some Polident Partials, and call it a day. A final note: Mr. Timmybob is chomping at the bit for a chance to create widespread psychological suffering.
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 4:26:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 4:25:20 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
What's with all these long speeches lately?

Because we have to complain about one another! We're all those kinds of people, you see, that we wish to complain with lengthy speeches to make it more meaningful!
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
Nefelibata
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 4:27:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
My Complaint about LogicalLunatic

Because of Logical Lunatic's attitude I usually don't respond to his ruderies, but this time I'll make an exception. Let me begin by observing that the proverbs of Theognis, like those of Solomon, are observations on human nature, ordinary life, and civil society, with moral reflections on the facts. I quote him as a witness of the fact that Logical has a driving need to seek temporary tactical alliances with ridiculous toughies in order to rule with an iron fist. Let me try to explain what I mean by that in a single sentence: He twists every argument into some sort of "struggle" between two parties. Logical unvaryingly constitutes the underdog party, which is what he claims gives him the right to force me to suffer from stress, frustration, and defeat. His manuscripts are saturated with the argumentative, anal-retentive rhetoric that will unquestionably foment dictatorial forms of political tyranny. (Read as: we're all in this mess together.)

Logical somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that the rule of law should give way to the rule of brutality and bribery. I am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine citizens of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened civilization. As I've said in the past, some people have said that he is controlling and demanding. Maybe. But I'm more inclined to believe that I believe in "live and let live". Logical, in contrast, demands not only tolerance and acceptance of his conclusions but endorsement of them. It's because of such foolhardy demands that I allege that he cribs a good deal of his tactics from various authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: Is he so intransigent as to think that this can go on forever? To rephrase that question, how does he benefit from defending boisterous philosophasters against the just expostulations of the public? The answer should be self-evident so let me just point out that Logical's agents provocateurs honestly don't want us to report as best as possible the facts and circumstances surrounding Logical's sick reinterpretations of historic events. That'd be too much of a threat to demagogism, feudalism, and all of the other vitriolic things they worship. Clearly, they prefer gumming up what were once great ideas.

Having studied Logical's charges and finding them groundless, I must now tell the world that he is more than merely putrid. He's "ber-putrid. In fact, Logical is so putrid that he has stated that children don't need as much psychological attentiveness, protection, and obedience training as the treasured household pet. I find such declaratory statements quite telling. They tell me that if we fail in our task of disseminating as widely as possible all of the information we have regarding Logical's biggety causeries, then he will capitalize on our needs and vulnerabilities.

I just want to say that I've heard of drugged-out things like ultraism and pauperism. But I've also heard of things like nonviolence, higher moralities, and treating all beings as ends in and of themselves"ideas that Logical's ignorant, unthinking, ruthless brain is too small to understand. There is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil people like Logical.

I enjoy the great diversity of humankind, in our food, our dress, our music, our literature, and our forms of spiritual expression. What I don't enjoy are Logical's irritable, spineless writings, which waste our time and money. Anyone"you or I or a Martian who just arrived in a flying saucer"who wants to carry out this matter to the full extent of the law should realize that Logical and his brethren are a bunch of individuals. As you know, individuals are twerps; twerps are dirtbags; dirtbags are scaramouches; and scaramouches all want to concentrate all the wealth of the world into Logical's own hands. The point is that Logical has been dismantling the guard rails that protect society from the litigious elements in its midst. That's just a tiny facet of what all of us will face if we let him blow the whole situation way out of proportion. There's a lot of daylight between Logical's views and mine. He believes that academicism and pessimism are identical concepts while I, for one, suspect that a theme that appears repeatedly in his cop-outs concerns his desire to manufacture outrage at his critics by attributing to them all sorts of ungrateful squibs. Am I being unduly harsh for writing that? I think not. When the religious leaders in Jesus's time were wrong, Jesus denounced them in extremely harsh terms. So why shouldn't I, too, use extremely harsh terms to indicate that Logical's announcements violate the rational, enlightened claims of their own enunciatory modality? To summarize my views: Logical Lunatic's companions are the carrion birds of humanity.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 4:31:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 4:27:39 PM, Nefelibata wrote:
My Complaint about LogicalLunatic

Because of Logical Lunatic's attitude I usually don't respond to his ruderies, but this time I'll make an exception. Let me begin by observing that the proverbs of Theognis, like those of Solomon, are observations on human nature, ordinary life, and civil society, with moral reflections on the facts. I quote him as a witness of the fact that Logical has a driving need to seek temporary tactical alliances with ridiculous toughies in order to rule with an iron fist. Let me try to explain what I mean by that in a single sentence: He twists every argument into some sort of "struggle" between two parties. Logical unvaryingly constitutes the underdog party, which is what he claims gives him the right to force me to suffer from stress, frustration, and defeat. His manuscripts are saturated with the argumentative, anal-retentive rhetoric that will unquestionably foment dictatorial forms of political tyranny. (Read as: we're all in this mess together.)

Logical somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that the rule of law should give way to the rule of brutality and bribery. I am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine citizens of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened civilization. As I've said in the past, some people have said that he is controlling and demanding. Maybe. But I'm more inclined to believe that I believe in "live and let live". Logical, in contrast, demands not only tolerance and acceptance of his conclusions but endorsement of them. It's because of such foolhardy demands that I allege that he cribs a good deal of his tactics from various authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: Is he so intransigent as to think that this can go on forever? To rephrase that question, how does he benefit from defending boisterous philosophasters against the just expostulations of the public? The answer should be self-evident so let me just point out that Logical's agents provocateurs honestly don't want us to report as best as possible the facts and circumstances surrounding Logical's sick reinterpretations of historic events. That'd be too much of a threat to demagogism, feudalism, and all of the other vitriolic things they worship. Clearly, they prefer gumming up what were once great ideas.

Having studied Logical's charges and finding them groundless, I must now tell the world that he is more than merely putrid. He's "ber-putrid. In fact, Logical is so putrid that he has stated that children don't need as much psychological attentiveness, protection, and obedience training as the treasured household pet. I find such declaratory statements quite telling. They tell me that if we fail in our task of disseminating as widely as possible all of the information we have regarding Logical's biggety causeries, then he will capitalize on our needs and vulnerabilities.

I just want to say that I've heard of drugged-out things like ultraism and pauperism. But I've also heard of things like nonviolence, higher moralities, and treating all beings as ends in and of themselves"ideas that Logical's ignorant, unthinking, ruthless brain is too small to understand. There is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil people like Logical.

I enjoy the great diversity of humankind, in our food, our dress, our music, our literature, and our forms of spiritual expression. What I don't enjoy are Logical's irritable, spineless writings, which waste our time and money. Anyone"you or I or a Martian who just arrived in a flying saucer"who wants to carry out this matter to the full extent of the law should realize that Logical and his brethren are a bunch of individuals. As you know, individuals are twerps; twerps are dirtbags; dirtbags are scaramouches; and scaramouches all want to concentrate all the wealth of the world into Logical's own hands. The point is that Logical has been dismantling the guard rails that protect society from the litigious elements in its midst. That's just a tiny facet of what all of us will face if we let him blow the whole situation way out of proportion. There's a lot of daylight between Logical's views and mine. He believes that academicism and pessimism are identical concepts while I, for one, suspect that a theme that appears repeatedly in his cop-outs concerns his desire to manufacture outrage at his critics by attributing to them all sorts of ungrateful squibs. Am I being unduly harsh for writing that? I think not. When the religious leaders in Jesus's time were wrong, Jesus denounced them in extremely harsh terms. So why shouldn't I, too, use extremely harsh terms to indicate that Logical's announcements violate the rational, enlightened claims of their own enunciatory modality? To summarize my views: Logical Lunatic's companions are the carrion birds of humanity.

It sounds like gibberish, really.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 4:31:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
My Complaint about Bubba:

Seldom does an event take place which is such an outrage that the silent majority stands up and demands action. But the silent majority is currently demanding that something be done about Mr. Bubba. Unless you share my view that Bubba's rhetorical posturings are blisteringly mudslinging, there's no need for you to hear me further. Because we have the determination to see the truth prevail, we must never forget that his hangers-on are united by only two things. Want to guess what those are? They're a deep-seated sense of victimization and a burning desire to galvanize the incompetent herd into enthusiastically supporting Bubba's bitter "compromises". Aside from those two things, the members of Bubba's den of thieves have little in common. Surprisingly, some of them even realize that if Bubba manages to take the focus off the real issues, our nation will not endure as a civilization, as a geopolitical entity, or even as a society. Rather, it will exist only as a prison, a prison in which cannibalism-oriented deadheads perpetuate what we all know is a corrupt system.

If the country were overrun by the most supercilious cult leaders you'll ever see, we could expect to observe widespread discrimination in our daily lives"stares from sales clerks, taxis that don't stop, and unwarranted license and registration checks by police. If we can understand what has caused the current plague of ostentatious vandals, I believe that we can then exercise due diligence in discussing the advantages of two-parent families, the essential role of individual and family responsibility, the need for uniform standards of civil behavior, and the primacy of the work ethic. I leave it to more capable and intrepid folks to explore the full ramifications of Bubba's pronouncements. To say anything else would be a lie. Bubba should jettison his rigid, out-of-date, ideological baggage. I state these facts only to give a bit of personal background as to why it's really not bloody-mindedness that compels me to shatter the illusion that I'm too blasphemous to comment on a phenomenon that has and will continue to encourage men to leave their wives, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become antisocial wankers. It's my sense of responsibility to you, the reader.

Bubba's list of sins is long and each one deserves more space than I have here. Therefore, rather than describe each one individually, I'll summarize by stating that we must mobilize the public. We must get people to foster mutual understanding. Bubba does not merely meddle in everyone else's affairs. He does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically. What conclusion should we draw from his obloquies? How about that what we are dealing with here is fashion, politics, and money?

You may detect disapproval and anger in my writing when I state that a Bubba-controlled culture that cheers on Bubba's suppression of nonconformity, dissent, and other unpopular words is every bit as chilling as one that seeks merely to crush any semblance of opposition to his loquacious platitudes. That disapproval and anger exists primarily because Bubba would not hesitate to poison the air, water, and soil if he felt he could benefit from doing so. He maintains that either his way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't or that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash. Bubba denies any other possibility. Some would say that this is a platitude. Would that it were! Rather, it would be wrong to imply that he is involved in some kind of conspiracy to crucify us on the cross of fanaticism. It would be wrong because his programs of Gleichschaltung are far beyond the conspiracy stage. Not only that, but all of his buddies are thieves"idle, envious, and ready to plunder and enslave their weaker neighbors. It's therefore not surprising that Bubba has made it known that he fully intends to abridge our basic civil liberties. If those words don't scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear warning, I don't know what could be.

While everybody believes in something, Bubba's simple faith in obscurantism will declare that women are spare parts in the social repertoire"mere optional extras. Bubba frequently insists that anyone who disagrees with him is a potential terrorist. This lie of his cannot stand the light of day, and a few minutes' reflection will suffice to show how utterly self-deceiving a lie it is. Nonetheless, by writing this letter, I am unmistakably sticking my head far above the parapet. The big danger is that Bubba will retaliate against me. He'll most likely try to force me to hang myself by the neck until dead although another possibility is that he still labors under the outmoded pretense 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. That conclusion is not based on some sort of unforgiving philosophy or on Bubba-style mental masturbation, but on widely known and proven principles of science. These principles explain that it's not the bogeyman that our children need to worry about. It's Bubba. Not only is Bubba more footling and more ignorant than any envisaged bogeyman or bugbear, but if it weren't for Bubba's double standards he would have no standards at all. Hence, it's absolutely a waste of time even to address Bubba's hypocrisy. That's why I'll state merely that his sycophants tend to fall into the mistaken belief that skin color means more than skill, and gender is more impressive than genius, mainly because they live inside a Bubba-generated illusion world and talk only with each other. Now that this letter has come to an end, I hope you walk away from it realizing that Mr. Bubba is hardly the first proponent of impetuous, pretentious radicalism and he is unlikely to be the last.
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
Nefelibata
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 4:32:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
My Complaint about BladeMax

The theme of this letter is not "One difference between Blademax's imperium and other dark forces of anarchy and hatred is that the former intends to heat the cauldron of terror until it boils over into our daily lives." By now, you've already heard countless arguments running in that vein and are probably pretty sick of them. The theme of this letter is "Blademax has worn out his welcome." Here's the story: Some of us have an opportunity to come in contact with peremptory, grumpy prima donnas on a regular basis at work or in school. We, therefore, may be able to gain some insight into the way they think, into their values; we may be able to understand why they want to suborn clumsy, bitter nonentities to cast the world into nuclear holocaust. As another disquieting tidbit the following must be stated: The key to his soul is his longing for the effortless, irresponsible, automatic consciousness of an animal. Blademax dreads the necessity, the risk, and the responsibility of rational cognition. As a result, he is a being who invents nothing, originates nothing, and improves nothing. All Blademax does is dump effluent into creeks, lakes, streams, and rivers.

For those who need very specific examples in order to grasp the significance of Blademax's methods of interpretation, I'll give a very specific example: Think for a moment about the way that Blademax has one-upped George Washington in that he cannot tell a lie and cannot tell the truth. Basically, he's too nutty to distinguish between the two. He must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why Blademax is so desperate to make a cause c"l"bre out of his campaign to send children to die as martyrs for causes that he is unwilling to die for himself; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if Blademax also realized that he is absolutely determined to believe that no one is smart enough to see through his transparent lies, and he's not about to let facts or reason get in his way.

Blademax thinks that 75 million years ago, a galactic tyrant named Xenu solved the overpopulation problem of his 76-planet federation by transporting the excess people to Earth, chaining them to volcanoes, and dropping H-bombs on them. This is a fixed and false (i.e., delusional) belief that will lead to his manipulating everything and everybody in a lustrum or two. I don't know if we can cure Blademax of this untoward belief, but I do know that many people lie. However, Blademax lies with such ease it's troubling.

We must do everything we can to take a proactive, rather than a reactive, stance. Fortunately, punishing those who lie or connive at half-truths is an activity that's right in my wheelhouse. I even know where to begin: by informing people everywhere that if Blademax feels ridiculed by all the attention my letters are bringing him, then that's just too darn bad. His arrogance has brought this upon himself.

Blademax is a heterogeneous conglomeration of everything power-drunk, obstreperous, and pugnacious. I'll say that again because I want it to sink in: Blademax is a master of psychological manipulation. He says that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable. Yet he also wants to befuddle the public and make sin seem like merely a sophisticated fashion. Am I the only one who sees the irony there? I ask because we should not concern ourselves with his putative virtue or vice. Rather, we should concern ourselves with our own welfare and with the fact that all of the bad things that are currently going on are a symptom of Blademax's morally crippled apologues. They are not a cause; they are an effect. In closing, it hardly need be said that the views expressed above are tentative and suggestive. You should now go off and perform a thorough study of your own. Of course, this will be an exercise in futility unless you accept the fundamental premise of this letter, namely that Blademax is not only woefully malevolent but terribly irrational.
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 4:37:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
My Complaint about DDO:

Although I generally believe that the less said about Debate.org, the better, I do feel obligated to say a few things about Debate.org's libidinous teachings. To get right down to it, Debate.org has blood on its hands. Naturally, it pretends to be an innocent lamb who has our best interests at heart. We all know the reality: If Debate.org really had our best interests at heart, it wouldn't create a desolation and call it peace. I feel no shame in writing that it's not necessarily difficult to resolve a number of lingering problems. We can begin simply by speaking out against behavior and speech that is intended to blitz media outlets with faxes and newsletters that highlight the good points of its carnaptious indiscretions. See? I told you it wasn't necessarily difficult. We just need to remember that Debate.org is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in its own biases, gets into all sorts of self-aggrandizing speculation, and then makes no effort to test out its speculations"and that's just the short list!

Debate.org's goombahs have been seen making it virtually impossible to fire incompetent workers. Debate.org claimed it would take responsibility for this linguacious behavior, but in fact it did nothing to fix matters or punish the culprits. This proves that Debate.org may have access to weapons of mass destruction. Then again, I, for one, consider it to be a weapon of mass destruction itself.

According to Debate.org, most people believe that sappy, simple-minded buggers are easily housebroken. Really? Does Debate.org have some sort of mind-reading ability or did it get its information from a less reliable source? Here's the answer, albeit in a somewhat circuitous and roundabout style: People often get the impression that puzzleheaded lie-virtuosi and Debate.org's surrogates are separate entities. Not so. When one catches cold, the other sneezes. As proof, note that I can guarantee the readers of this letter that Debate.org's arguments would be a lot more effective if they were at least accurate or intelligent, not just a load of bull for the sake of being controversial. Although we stand to lose far more than we'll ever gain if we don't drain the swamp of influence-peddling and the system of pay-to-play, when you look back over the text of this letter, it should be clear that I have defeated this pot-valiant, anal-retentive serpent with my words. Just imagine what I could have done with my fire-breathing fists.
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
Nefelibata
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 4:42:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
My Complaint about President Obama:

I apologize for the sarcastic tone of this letter, but I have found it is the only way to vent the ineffable anger that possessed me when I heard Obama say that newspapers should report only on items it agrees with. To address this in a pedantic manner, in the rest of this letter, factual information will be prefaced as such and my own opinions will be clearly stated as opinions. For instance, it is a fact that it has been trying for some time to convince people that it is not only acceptable but indeed desirable to create a system of sectarianism characterized by confidential files, closed courts, gag orders, and statutory immunity. Don't believe its hype! Obama has just been offering that line as a means to spread materialism all over the globe like pigeon droppings over Trafalgar Square.

Many people are convinced that Obama is the high priest of adversarialism. I can't comment on that, but I can say that for some odd reason, it believes that I and others who think it's a boisterous schnook are secretly using etheric attachment cords to drain people's karmic energy. Its unasinous spinmeisters, who believe likewise, also fail to see that I would never take a job working for Obama. Given its obdurate, salacious slurs, who would want to?

I suspect that we should refer to Obama using the sobriquet "Insufferable Obama" because it's so thoroughly insufferable, not to mention ugly. That's probably obvious to a blind man on a galloping horse. Nevertheless, I suspect that few people reading this letter are aware that Obama has warned us that before long, the worst sorts of cantankerous gaberlunzies there are will stifle the voices of those who are simply seeking to be heard. If you think about it, you'll realize that Obama's warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that Obama had promised us liberty, equality, and fraternity. Instead, it gave us tammanyism, recidivism, and parasitism. I suppose we should have seen that coming, especially since if we let Obama progressively narrow the sphere of human freedom, all we'll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization. Given that I intend to keep writing letters like this one until Obama changes its ways, it is presumptively eager to leave behind a legacy of perpetual indebtedness in developing countries.

Curiously, if my own experience has taught me anything, it's that I'm not an irrational person. I'd like nothing more than to extend my hand in friendship to Obama's flunkies and convey my hope that in the days to come we can work together to invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry rather than by narrowing or abandoning it. Unfortunately, knowing them, they'd rather reduce social and cultural awareness to a dictated set of guidelines to follow because that's what Obama wants. Obama wants us to emulate the White Queen from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, who strives to believe "as many as six impossible things before breakfast". Then again, even the White Queen would have trouble believing that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. I prefer to believe things that my experience tells me are true, such as that militarism is dangerous. Obama's unpleasant version of it is doubly so.

We must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that Obama will impose a narrow theological agenda on secular society. And to overcome these fears, we must banish divisiveness. You've heard me say that Obama's thralls are all jealous mattoids. True, that's a cheap shot, but too often they do think and behave in ways that reinforce that image. Perhaps Obama has some sound arguments on its side, but if so, it's keeping them well hidden; all the arguments I've heard from it are thoroughly politically incorrect. Let's conduct a Gedankenexperiment. Suppose we could create a hypothetical population free of nefarious freebooters. Let's assume, furthermore, that Obama were powerless to crush people to the earth and then claim the right to trample on them forever because they are prostrate. In this hypothetical situation, wouldn't we all be free to study the impact on society of its greed, stupidity, hubris, and outright corruption? Let's make this dream a reality. Let's get people to realize that sometimes I think that Obama is simply a willing pawn of those twisted nitwits who pursue a macabre agenda under the guise of false concern for the environment, poverty, civil rights, or whatever. I typically drop that willing-pawn notion, however, whenever I remember that it's Obama's belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to stretch credulity beyond the breaking point. I can't understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such a self-satisfied idea. In fact, my letters generally make the diametrically opposite claim, that in Obama's limited horizon it itself is the important object. As a sequence to this self-conceit, it imagines that it could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else. We therefore need to explain to it that it doesn't want to acknowledge that the things it wants to do are unfair, if not illegal. In fact, Obama would rather block all discussion on the subject. I suppose that's because there is another side to the issue. One should therefore conclude, ipso facto, that Obama's confidants have tried repeatedly to assure me that Obama will eventually tire of its plan to bring about a wonderland of despotism and will then step aside and let us face our problems realistically, get to the root of our problems, and be determined to solve them. When that will happen is unclear"probably sometime between "don't hold your breath" and "beware of flying pigs". Sorry for babbling so much, but Obama should try being a little more open-minded.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 4:43:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 4:31:32 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
My Complaint about Bubba:

Seldom does an event take place which is such an outrage that the silent majority stands up and demands action. But the silent majority is currently demanding that something be done about Mr. Bubba. Unless you share my view that Bubba's rhetorical posturings are blisteringly mudslinging, there's no need for you to hear me further. Because we have the determination to see the truth prevail, we must never forget that his hangers-on are united by only two things. Want to guess what those are? They're a deep-seated sense of victimization and a burning desire to galvanize the incompetent herd into enthusiastically supporting Bubba's bitter "compromises". Aside from those two things, the members of Bubba's den of thieves have little in common. Surprisingly, some of them even realize that if Bubba manages to take the focus off the real issues, our nation will not endure as a civilization, as a geopolitical entity, or even as a society. Rather, it will exist only as a prison, a prison in which cannibalism-oriented deadheads perpetuate what we all know is a corrupt system.

If the country were overrun by the most supercilious cult leaders you'll ever see, we could expect to observe widespread discrimination in our daily lives"stares from sales clerks, taxis that don't stop, and unwarranted license and registration checks by police. If we can understand what has caused the current plague of ostentatious vandals, I believe that we can then exercise due diligence in discussing the advantages of two-parent families, the essential role of individual and family responsibility, the need for uniform standards of civil behavior, and the primacy of the work ethic. I leave it to more capable and intrepid folks to explore the full ramifications of Bubba's pronouncements. To say anything else would be a lie. Bubba should jettison his rigid, out-of-date, ideological baggage. I state these facts only to give a bit of personal background as to why it's really not bloody-mindedness that compels me to shatter the illusion that I'm too blasphemous to comment on a phenomenon that has and will continue to encourage men to leave their wives, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become antisocial wankers. It's my sense of responsibility to you, the reader.

Bubba's list of sins is long and each one deserves more space than I have here. Therefore, rather than describe each one individually, I'll summarize by stating that we must mobilize the public. We must get people to foster mutual understanding. Bubba does not merely meddle in everyone else's affairs. He does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically. What conclusion should we draw from his obloquies? How about that what we are dealing with here is fashion, politics, and money?

You may detect disapproval and anger in my writing when I state that a Bubba-controlled culture that cheers on Bubba's suppression of nonconformity, dissent, and other unpopular words is every bit as chilling as one that seeks merely to crush any semblance of opposition to his loquacious platitudes. That disapproval and anger exists primarily because Bubba would not hesitate to poison the air, water, and soil if he felt he could benefit from doing so. He maintains that either his way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't or that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash. Bubba denies any other possibility. Some would say that this is a platitude. Would that it were! Rather, it would be wrong to imply that he is involved in some kind of conspiracy to crucify us on the cross of fanaticism. It would be wrong because his programs of Gleichschaltung are far beyond the conspiracy stage. Not only that, but all of his buddies are thieves"idle, envious, and ready to plunder and enslave their weaker neighbors. It's therefore not surprising that Bubba has made it known that he fully intends to abridge our basic civil liberties. If those words don't scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear warning, I don't know what could be.

While everybody believes in something, Bubba's simple faith in obscurantism will declare that women are spare parts in the social repertoire"mere optional extras. Bubba frequently insists that anyone who disagrees with him is a potential terrorist. This lie of his cannot stand the light of day, and a few minutes' reflection will suffice to show how utterly self-deceiving a lie it is. Nonetheless, by writing this letter, I am unmistakably sticking my head far above the parapet. The big danger is that Bubba will retaliate against me. He'll most likely try to force me to hang myself by the neck until dead although another possibility is that he still labors under the outmoded pretense 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. That conclusion is not based on some sort of unforgiving philosophy or on Bubba-style mental masturbation, but on widely known and proven principles of science. These principles explain that it's not the bogeyman that our children need to worry about. It's Bubba. Not only is Bubba more footling and more ignorant than any envisaged bogeyman or bugbear, but if it weren't for Bubba's double standards he would have no standards at all. Hence, it's absolutely a waste of time even to address Bubba's hypocrisy. That's why I'll state merely that his sycophants tend to fall into the mistaken belief that skin color means more than skill, and gender is more impressive than genius, mainly because they live inside a Bubba-generated illusion world and talk only with each other. Now that this letter has come to an end, I hope you walk away from it realizing that Mr. Bubba is hardly the first proponent of impetuous, pretentious radicalism and he is unlikely to be the last.

Who's this guy?
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 4:53:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 4:12:47 PM, Lucky_Luciano wrote:
I find this oddly erotic. Do you want to get a room?

Damn it. I should have thought of it.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 4:53:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
My complaint about Yama:

Despite being the single most awesome person here, he does not spread his glory and teaching well enough.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 5:05:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 5:03:06 PM, Nefelibata wrote:
At 8/27/2014 5:01:21 PM, Mikal wrote:
Zaradi why you troll

???

Who's Zaradi?

You made your new username your LOL account.

props bro
Nefelibata
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 5:05:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 5:05:25 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/27/2014 5:03:06 PM, Nefelibata wrote:
At 8/27/2014 5:01:21 PM, Mikal wrote:
Zaradi why you troll

???

Who's Zaradi?

You made your new username your LOL account.

props bro

My Laugh out Loud account? I don't understand...
Mikal
Posts: 11,270
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 5:06:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 5:05:57 PM, Nefelibata wrote:
At 8/27/2014 5:05:25 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 8/27/2014 5:03:06 PM, Nefelibata wrote:
At 8/27/2014 5:01:21 PM, Mikal wrote:
Zaradi why you troll

???

Who's Zaradi?

You made your new username your LOL account.

props bro

My Laugh out Loud account? I don't understand...

the troll is real