Tolkien - not good for you
DevilScream
note first of all that Tolkien's epithets are based on hate. Hate,
ethnocentrism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life.
If I didn't think he would shame my name, I wouldn't say that one of the
great mysteries of modern life is, Why doesn't he point a critical finger at
himself for a change? I once asked Tolkien that question -- I am still
waiting for an answer. In the meantime, let me point out that almost every
day, Tolkien outreaches himself in setting new records for arrogance,
deceit, and greed. It's indisputably breathtaking to watch him. Sometimes it
seems nit-picky demented-types are like a farmer who, in the spring, would
work the ground, plant seeds, fertilize, and cultivate the ground for a
period of time. And then, perhaps, he decides to go off to Hawaii and have a
good time and forget the reason he planted the crop in the first place.
Well, a farmer wouldn't do that. But Tolkien would replace the search for
truth with a situationist relativism based on meddlesome communism if he got
the chance.
As one commentator put it, if you read his writings while mentally out of
focus, you may get the sense that this is the best of all possible worlds
and that he is the best of all possible people. But if you read Tolkien's
writings while mentally in focus and weigh each point carefully, it's clear
that his subordinates are too lazy to acknowledge that if his shock troops
get their way, society as we know it will cease to exist. They just want to
sit back, fasten their mouths on the public teats, and casually forget that
Tolkien keeps saying that anyone who disagrees with him is ultimately
empty-headed. For some reason, Tolkien's lackeys actually believe this
nonsense. Tolkien's intolerance for those assumed to hold different value
systems from his is so great, so mentally debilitating, so handicapping to
his thought processes that if you've read this far, then you probably either
agree with me or are on the way to agreeing with me. Let me give you an
important hint: When trying to understand what Tolkien is up to, look at
what he is doing and what he has done. Don't let yourself be distracted by
the patter and the hand-waving; keep your eye on the shell that has the pea
under it. And focus your mind on the fact that I am reminded of the quote,
"He never acts out of motives that might seem credible or even
understandable to the rest of humanity." This comment is not as stuck-up as
it seems, because I could go on in this same vein for hours. It's that
simple. Finally, whatever your thoughts or feelings about J.R.R. Tolkien
are, I urge you to help me suggest the kind of politics and policies that
are needed to restore good sense to this important debate.
stark
> [snip funny-message/trolling-drivel]
Look. Its a form troll!
I was gonna replace "[J. R. R.] Tolkien" with "[George W.] Bush", but I
figure you can do that in your heads.
Try also with:
The Pope
Kofi Annan
The Crocodile Hunter
Emmeril Lugosi
Terry Brooks
Tiger Woods
The fun never ends!
--
0111001101110100011000010111001001101011
daisie
"stark" <at_n...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ajtutq$1dvc25$6...@ID-146807.news.dfncis.de...
LOL!!!!!!!!
haleysdaddy
> > [snip funny-message/trolling-drivel]
>
> Look. Its a form troll!
>
> I was gonna replace "[J. R. R.] Tolkien" with "[George W.] Bush", but I
> figure you can do that in your heads.
>
> Try also with:
>
> The Pope
> Kofi Annan
> The Crocodile Hunter
> Emmeril Lugosi
> Terry Brooks
> Tiger Woods
>
> The fun never ends!
Wait. You mean this isn't serious? I just burned all my Tolkien books.
Shoot, that was an expensive mistake.
Ross
David Salo
> I would like to stop J.R.R. Tolkien's encroachments on our heritage. Let us
> note first of all that Tolkien's epithets are based on hate. Hate,
> ethnocentrism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life.
Horus!! Where have you been? Why have you changed your handle?
UFAT misses you!
DS
Michael O'Neill
{empty headed dirge}
<burp!>
Pardon?
M.
JRStern
<alza...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I would like to stop J.R.R. Tolkien's encroachments on our heritage.
OK, where's the generator for this bilge? It looks different than
this one:
Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator
http://hugin.sigusr1.org/~pakin/complaint
But on the other hand, if you keep clicking on Pakin's generator, it
has a pretty impressive variation, so maybe it was from here?
My complaint about Sauron
The only thing worse than being ignorant is not knowing how ignorant
you are. That's Sauron's problem. As a preliminary, I want to find the
common ground that enables others to fight the warped, distorted,
misshapen, unwholesome monstrosity that Sauron's plans for the future
have become. For those of you who don't know, he has been deluding
people into believing that pernicious slobs are more deserving of
honor than our nation's war heroes. Don't let him delude you, too.
Yes, you heard me right; he is incapable of handling an adult emotion
or a universal concept without first reducing it to something
impudent, silly, disorderly, and probably clumsy. The best example of
this, culled from many, would have to be the time he tried to blend
together isolationism and gnosticism in a train wreck of monumental
proportions.
Quite simply, we must overcome the fears that beset us every day of
our lives. We must overcome the fear that Sauron will burn books. And
to overcome these fears, we must stop defending the shiftless status
quo and, instead, implement a bold, new agenda for change. I guess
what I really mean to say is that his motto is "never forgive and
never forget". But there's the rub; I, hardheaded cynic that I am,
wonder what would happen if he really did turn once-flourishing
neighborhoods into zones of violence, decay, and moral disregard.
There's a spooky thought.
I just want to perform noble deeds. That's why I propose, argue,
cajole, plead, wheedle, and joke about ways to make the world safe for
democracy. Sauron claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after
getting caught trying to create an unwelcome climate for those of us
who are striving to carve solutions that are neither disagreeable nor
semi-intelligible. This claim is an outright lie that is still being
circulated by Sauron's vassals. The truth is that Sauron has two
imperatives. The first is to seek temporary tactical alliances with
stinking pseudo-intellectuals in order to blame those who have no
power to change the current direction of events. The second imperative
is to funnel significant amounts of money to invidious lummoxes. His
shills are capable of little else but hating and lying, even to each
other. Which brings me to my next criticism of Sauron. Here's the
heart of the matter: He frequently avers his support of democracy and
his love of freedom. But one need only look at what he is doing -- as
opposed to what he is saying -- to understand his true aims. I could
be wrong about any or all of this, but at the moment, the above fits
what I know of history, people, and current conditions. If anyone sees
anything wrong or has some new facts or theories on this, I'd love to
hear about them.
--
Here's one generated from the corporate complaints:
My complaint about Sauron
I can only hope the readers of this letter are as outraged as I am at
Sauron. But first, I'm going to jump ahead a bit and talk in general
terms about how Sauron's understrappers believe that those rights and
protections which give us voice in a democratic society are the cause
of solecism and social chaos and must be thwarted or dismantled. Then,
I'll back up and fill in some of the details. Okay, so to start with
the general stuff, I challenge Sauron to point out any text in this
letter that proposes that going through the motions of working is the
same as working. It isn't there. There's neither a hint nor a
suggestion of such a thing. I find that some of Sauron's choices of
words in its subliminal psywar campaigns would not have been mine. For
example, I would have substituted "egocentric" for
"chlamydobacteriaceae" and "primitive" for
"methylenedioxymethamphetamine." If Sauron bites me, I will bite back.
For those of you out there who don't know what I'm talking about, let
me give you a quick explanation: if one believes statements like,
"Divine ichor flows through Sauron's veins," one is, in effect,
supporting muddleheaded con artists.
Sauron talks loudly about family values and personal responsibility,
but when it comes to backing up those words with actions, all it does
is dilute the nation's sense of common purpose and shared sacrifice.
As a general rule, when one examines the ramifications of letting
Sauron demonize my family and friends, one finds a preponderance of
evidence leading to the conclusion that it can't fool me. I've met
scurrilous degenerates before, so I know that Sauron will probably
never understand why it scares me so much. And it does scare me: Its
morals are scary, its ideas are scary, and most of all, some people
think it's a bit extreme of me to do what comes naturally -- a bit
over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is
that Sauron is reluctant to resolve problems. It always just looks the
other way and hopes no one will notice that it's easy for armchair
philosophers to theorize about it and about hypothetical solutions to
our Sauron problem. It's an entirely more difficult matter, however,
when one considers that last summer, I attempted what I knew would be
a hopeless task. I tried to convince Sauron that the world would be a
much better place to live if it stopped trying to break our country's
national and patriotic backbone and make it ripe for the slave's yoke
of international sensationalism. As I expected, Sauron was utterly
unconvinced. The longer we delay action, the harder it will be to give
direction to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and
morality. Of that I am certain, because Sauron wants us to believe
that we can solve all of our problems by giving it lots of money. We
might as well toss that money down a well, because we'll never see it
again. What we will see, however, is that Sauron wants all of us to
believe that human life is expendable. That's why it sponsors
brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government,
brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and
sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news
media. We must reach the broadest possible audience with the message
that Sauron's satraps believe a conspiracy of foolish lounge lizards
control banking, foreign policy, and the media. Our children depend on
that. Let me leave you with one last thought: Sauron's assumptions are
matched in their untenability only by the arrogant fervor with which
they are held.
--
J.
DevilScream
That's indeed the generator I used. I suspect that lots of trolls use it.
So, if this piece of 'trolling' seems familiar, it's very possible that
others have used it too. I'm not a troll per se. I just found this today,
and thought it would be fun to see what responses I would get. Yes, I know
it's trolling, but.. oh well..
I have nothing against Tolkien at all. I loved the LotR movie; it was a
fantastic experience to see it in the cinema. I'm not a real Tolkien fan
though (haven't been bothered to read the books, except for Bilbo which I
read many years ago). So excuse me for my intrusion, no harm meant. :)
Myself, lame as I probably seem, I thought it was really funny. ;)
daisie
"DevilScream" <alza...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cix89.1996$C6....@news1.bredband.com...
Thanks,
daisie
David Salo
<alza...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://hugin.sigusr1.org/~pakin/complaint
Hm, quite useful!
...
Apparently, I cannot compromise with Mr. Roghater; he is without
principles. I cannot reason with him; he is without reason. But I can
warn him, and with a warning he must unequivocally take to heart: Mr.
Roghater is an opportunist. That is, he is an ideological chameleon,
without any real morality, without a soul. I believe I have finally
figured out what makes people like him start wars, ruin the
environment, invent diseases, and routinely do a hundred other things
that kill people. It appears to be a combination of an overactive mind,
lack of common sense, assurance of one's own moral propriety, and a
total lack of exposure to the real world. If one needs a sign that Mr.
Roghater is mendacious, consider that if he continues to "solve" all
our problems by talking them to death, crime will escalate as schools
deteriorate, corruption increases, and quality of life plummets.
...
Mr. Roghater can back up his ideals only with empty, inflammatory
rhetoric, the very thing he vacuously accuses his opponents of using.
Of course, this sounds simple, but in reality, the real issue is
simple: Mr. Roghater wants to impede the free flow of information, even
though, for most people, this desire is neither necessary nor
instinctive. It is quite common today to hear people express themselves
as follows: "Nearly all of the assumptions and statements made by Mr.
Roghater and his functionaries are completely, absolutely, and totally
wrong." I hope I haven't bored you by writing an entire letter about
Mr. Pseudonymus Roghater, Esq.. Still, this letter was the best way to
explain to you that all Mr. Roghater cares about is money.
BaronjosefR
makes me wonder what Tolkein would be doing right now if her were alive:
probably scratching at the inside of his coffin.
Troels Forchhammer
> "stark" <at_n...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ajtutq$1dvc25$6...@ID-146807.news.dfncis.de...
> > In article <4Tu89.1983$i7....@news2.bredband.com>, DevilScream wrote:
> > > [snip funny-message/trolling-drivel]
> >
> > Look. Its a form troll!
> >
> Wait. You mean this isn't serious? I just burned all my Tolkien books.
> Shoot, that was an expensive mistake.
LO-Really-L!
I just hope you won't have to do anything disreputable to earn enough
to replace them - eh ... wait a minute - maybe I should rephrase that -
after all I wouldn't like for you to think that I am trying to convince you
of my definition of 'disreputable' that would be the same as "saying that
anyone who disagrees with [me] is ultimately empty-headed."
<g>
--
Troels Forchhammer
Please reply to (t.f...@mail.dk)
This isn't right. This isn't even wrong.
Wolfgang Pauli, on a paper submitted by a physicist colleague
(Thus speaks the quantum physicist)
»»-----Maeglin--->
Hey....leave Emeril outta this. Pork fat rules!! ;)
换-----Maeglin--->
JRStern
<alza...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>http://hugin.sigusr1.org/~pakin/complaint
>
>That's indeed the generator I used.
Well, you got a good one, I clicked up a dozen or so and didn't see
your version.
If you need a short paper for your pomo litcrit class, try:
http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/
But if you want to apply it to JRRT, you'll have to do your own
substitution.
J.
--
Postdialectic capitalist theory and capitalist subsemiotic theory
P. Paul Reicher
Department of Sociolinguistics, University of Michigan
Jean-Michel Q. C. de Selby
Department of Semiotics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
1. Neodialectic capitalist theory and predialectic deconstruction
The characteristic theme of the works of Gibson is the failure, and
subsequent meaninglessness, of cultural class. The primary theme of
Scuglia's[1] analysis of predialectic deconstruction is the bridge
between sexual identity and class. Thus, in Idoru, Gibson analyses
postdialectic capitalist theory; in Virtual Light, although, he denies
predialectic deconstruction.
"Society is part of the failure of consciousness," says Bataille.
Sartre uses the term 'neomaterial deconstructivist theory' to denote a
self-supporting paradox. Therefore, Parry[2] implies that the works of
Gibson are empowering.
The characteristic theme of the works of Gibson is the role of the
reader as writer. Thus, Marx uses the term 'capitalist subsemiotic
theory' to denote a mythopoetical totality.
The subject is contextualised into a postdialectic capitalist theory
that includes language as a paradox. But if predialectic
deconstruction holds, we have to choose between postdialectic
capitalist theory and postdialectic structuralist theory. Sartre
suggests the use of predialectic deconstruction to challenge sexism.
It could be said that an abundance of narratives concerning
postdialectic capitalist theory exist.
The subject is interpolated into a neocultural paradigm of narrative
that includes narrativity as a reality. Therefore, the main theme of
Buxton's[3] essay on postdialectic capitalist theory is the collapse
of deconstructivist sexual identity.
2. Realities of paradigm
The primary theme of the works of Gibson is a subcultural totality.
Marx uses the term 'predialectic deconstruction' to denote the
failure, and subsequent absurdity, of modernist class. However,
Lyotard promotes the use of capitalist subsemiotic theory to analyse
and modify reality.
"Class is fundamentally used in the service of hierarchy," says
Sontag. The example of postdialectic capitalist theory intrinsic to
Gibson's All Tomorrow's Parties emerges again in Virtual Light,
although in a more mythopoetical sense. In a sense, Lacan uses the
term 'predialectic deconstruction' to denote the difference between
art and class.
The premise of capitalist subsemiotic theory states that consensus is
a product of the masses, but only if Derrida's analysis of
postdialectic capitalist theory is valid; otherwise, we can assume
that the goal of the reader is deconstruction. However, the subject is
contextualised into a predialectic deconstruction that includes
narrativity as a reality.
Lacan suggests the use of the neocapitalist paradigm of reality to
deconstruct sexism. It could be said that Lyotard uses the term
'predialectic deconstruction' to denote not destructuralism, as
constructivist theory suggests, but subdestructuralism.
The characteristic theme of Wilson's[4] model of postdialectic
capitalist theory is the bridge between sexual identity and class.
Thus, Baudrillard uses the term 'capitalist subsemiotic theory' to
denote a dialectic paradox.
3. Lyotardist narrative and neomodern socialism
"Art is part of the dialectic of consciousness," says Sartre; however,
according to Hanfkopf[5] , it is not so much art that is part of the
dialectic of consciousness, but rather the paradigm of art. A number
of discourses concerning the role of the observer as participant may
be found. But postdialectic capitalist theory suggests that class,
surprisingly, has significance.
The subject is interpolated into a neomodern socialism that includes
narrativity as a whole. However, Pickett[6] implies that we have to
choose between postdialectic capitalist theory and semioticist
deconstruction.
An abundance of narratives concerning capitalist subsemiotic theory
exist. It could be said that in Dubliners, Joyce analyses postcultural
theory; in A Portrait of the Artist As a Young Man, however, he
deconstructs postdialectic capitalist theory. If Foucaultist power
relations holds, we have to choose between postdialectic capitalist
theory and deconstructive neodialectic theory. However, Sontag uses
the term 'semioticist Marxism' to denote the difference between
culture and class.
4. Discourses of absurdity
In the works of Joyce, a predominant concept is the distinction
between closing and opening. Cameron[7] holds that we have to choose
between neomodern socialism and pretextual materialism. But the
subject is contextualised into a capitalist subsemiotic theory that
includes art as a paradox.
If one examines the capitalist paradigm of context, one is faced with
a choice: either reject neomodern socialism or conclude that reality
serves to marginalize the proletariat. Bataille's analysis of
postdialectic capitalist theory states that the Constitution is
capable of truth, but only if truth is equal to culture; if that is
not the case, class has intrinsic meaning. It could be said that if
capitalist subsemiotic theory holds, the works of Burroughs are
modernistic.
The main theme of the works of Burroughs is the failure, and some
would say the genre, of subdialectic society. Thus, the subject is
interpolated into a postdialectic capitalist theory that includes
language as a totality.
Any number of theories concerning a mythopoetical reality may be
discovered. However, in Queer, Burroughs examines capitalist
construction; in Port of Saints, although, he deconstructs neomodern
socialism. Many theories concerning capitalist subsemiotic theory
exist. But Sartre uses the term 'postdialectic capitalist theory' to
denote the bridge between class and society.
McElwaine[8] implies that we have to choose between neomodern
socialism and Lyotardist narrative. However, a number of theories
concerning the role of the artist as observer may be found.
5. Postdialectic capitalist theory and the constructivist paradigm of
consensus
The characteristic theme of Sargeant's[9] essay on capitalist
subsemiotic theory is the common ground between sexual identity and
class. If Lacanist obscurity holds, we have to choose between
postdialectic capitalist theory and structuralist postcultural theory.
Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a constructivist
paradigm of consensus that includes consciousness as a whole.
"Society is impossible," says Baudrillard. The creation/destruction
distinction prevalent in Burroughs's Queer is also evident in The Soft
Machine. It could be said that the premise of postdialectic capitalist
theory states that truth is part of the dialectic of art.
"Culture is responsible for capitalism," says Sontag; however,
according to Dietrich[10] , it is not so much culture that is
responsible for capitalism, but rather the collapse, and subsequent
meaninglessness, of culture. The primary theme of the works of
Burroughs is the stasis, and therefore the genre, of dialectic sexual
identity. Therefore, Dahmus[11] suggests that the works of Burroughs
are empowering.
If one examines Lacanist obscurity, one is faced with a choice: either
accept capitalist subsemiotic theory or conclude that context comes
from the collective unconscious. The subject is interpolated into a
constructivist paradigm of consensus that includes consciousness as a
paradox. In a sense, Foucault promotes the use of capitalist
subsemiotic theory to read reality.
In the works of Burroughs, a predominant concept is the concept of
neocultural culture. The subject is contextualised into a capitalist
dematerialism that includes consciousness as a totality. But the
characteristic theme of Porter's[12] analysis of the constructivist
paradigm of consensus is the bridge between society and class.
Marx suggests the use of capitalist subsemiotic theory to attack
sexist perceptions of society. It could be said that in The Last Words
of Dutch Schultz, Burroughs denies semanticist discourse; in The
Ticket that Exploded he deconstructs the constructivist paradigm of
consensus.
The subject is interpolated into a postdialectic capitalist theory
that includes reality as a reality. However, several desituationisms
concerning Derridaist reading exist.
The primary theme of the works of Burroughs is the absurdity of
subtextual class. Thus, the subject is contextualised into a
constructivist paradigm of consensus that includes culture as a whole.
A number of theories concerning a constructive reality may be
discovered. But the main theme of Bailey's[13] model of capitalist
subsemiotic theory is the difference between reality and sexual
identity.
Lyotard uses the term 'postdialectic capitalist theory' to denote not
construction, but postconstruction. In a sense, the subject is
interpolated into a capitalist subsemiotic theory that includes
narrativity as a paradox.
Bataille uses the term 'postdialectic capitalist theory' to denote the
role of the writer as artist. Therefore, an abundance of theories
concerning capitalist subsemiotic theory exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Scuglia, G. ed. (1971) Subdialectic Theories: Capitalist
subsemiotic theory and postdialectic capitalist theory. O'Reilly &
Associates
2. Parry, K. F. C. (1986) Postdialectic capitalist theory, Sontagist
camp and rationalism. Schlangekraft
3. Buxton, Z. ed. (1992) The Genre of Context: Postdialectic
capitalist theory and capitalist subsemiotic theory. And/Or Press
4. Wilson, N. Y. (1970) Capitalist subsemiotic theory and
postdialectic capitalist theory. University of Massachusetts Press
5. Hanfkopf, Q. ed. (1989) Reading Bataille: Capitalist subsemiotic
theory in the works of Joyce. O'Reilly & Associates
6. Pickett, F. O. T. (1977) Postdialectic capitalist theory and
capitalist subsemiotic theory. University of California Press
7. Cameron, V. U. ed. (1995) The Genre of Society: Capitalist
subsemiotic theory in the works of Burroughs. Yale University Press
8. McElwaine, Q. R. Y. (1987) Neodialectic deappropriation,
postdialectic capitalist theory and rationalism. University of Georgia
Press
9. Sargeant, U. Z. ed. (1978) Reinventing Surrealism: Capitalist
subsemiotic theory and postdialectic capitalist theory. Cambridge
University Press
10. Dietrich, H. (1999) Postdialectic capitalist theory and capitalist
subsemiotic theory. O'Reilly & Associates
11. Dahmus, E. Q. C. ed. (1977) The Failure of Expression: Capitalist
subsemiotic theory and postdialectic capitalist theory. And/Or Press
12. Porter, O. (1996) Postdialectic capitalist theory and capitalist
subsemiotic theory. Schlangekraft
13. Bailey, E. G. M. ed. (1984) Narratives of Collapse: Rationalism,
postdialectic capitalist theory and neomaterialist discourse.
University of California Press
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was
randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator. To generate another
essay, follow this link. If you like this particular essay and would
like to return to it, follow this link for a bookmarkable page.
The Postmodernism Generator was written by Andrew C. Bulhak using the
Dada Engine, a system for generating random text from recursive
grammars, and modified slightly by Josh Larios (this version, anyway.
There are others out there).
This installation of the Generator has delivered 574760 essays since
25/Feb/2000 18:43:09 PST, when it became operational. It is being
served from a machine in Seattle, Washington, USA. Not Australia, New
Zealand, or the Null Device, for the record.
More detailed technical information may be found in Monash University
Department of Computer Science Technical Report 96/264: "On the
Simulation of Postmodernism and Mental Debility Using Recursive
Transition Networks". An on-line copy is available from Monash
University.
More generated texts are linked to from the Communications From
Elsewhere front page.
If you enjoy this, you might also enjoy reading about the Social Text
Affair, where NYU Physics Professor Alan Sokal's brilliant(ly
meaningless) hoax article was accepted by a cultural criticism
publication.
Scott Munro
<alza...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>But Tolkien would replace the search for
>truth with a situationist relativism based on meddlesome communism if he got
>the chance.
My goodness, but you *are* a fool.
--
Scott Munro
"But what is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the
greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness,
without tuition or restraint."
--Edmund Burke, *Reflections on the Revolution in France*
Scott Munro
> > [snip funny-message/trolling-drivel]
>
> Look. Its a form troll!
Whoops. Guess I got reeled in.
That's what I get for having an ISP with a lousy news server.
Bill O'Meally
"DevilScream" <alza...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cix89.1996$C6....@news1.bredband.com...
> http://hugin.sigusr1.org/~pakin/complaint
>
I'm not a real Tolkien fan
> though (haven't been bothered to read the books, except for Bilbo which I
> read many years ago).
Yeah. Great book that Bilbo.
--
Bill
"Wise fool"
Gandalf, THE TWO TOWERS
Banazir the Jedi Hobbit
> > [snip funny-message/trolling-drivel]
>
> Look. Its a form troll!
>
> Emmeril Lugosi
Emmeril Lugosi, the famous heead chef of /Nosferatu/?
Today we will be preparing Dwimmerlaik a L'orange...
http://ringil.cis.ksu.edu/Tolkien/Humor/MIM/swedish-chef.html
Let's kick it up a notch!
(Starts chainsaw)
--
Banazir
(BAM!)
Looney
with King, and you're all set :-)
Guess he got bored with porn-surfing...
Anthony "Looney" Toohey
--------------------------------
Please don't read this...
Thanks.
Looney
Chris
My complaint about Pants
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 Pants. I begin
with critical semantic clarifications. First, Pants wants to undermine
the individualistic underpinnings of traditional jurisprudence. Such
intolerance is felt by all people, from every background. For one
thing, he should show some class. But more important, his claim that
he is a perpetual victim of injustice is not only an attack on the
concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind.
Exhibitionism doesn't work. So why does Pants cling to it? While I
don't know the answer to that particular question, I do know that if
Pants can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen.
He is a psychologically defective person. He's what the psychiatrists
call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath. I hate to say this,
but we are observing the change in our society's philosophy and values
from freedom and justice to corruption, decay, cynicism, and
injustice. All of these "values" are artistically incorporated in one
person: Pants. Does he really know anything about the bait-and-switch
tactics he claims to support? No, he doesn't.
Honor means nothing to him. Principles mean nothing to him. All he
cares about is how to create profound emotional distress for people on
both sides of the issue. Pants and his vindictive "compromises" should
be shunned. And that's the honest truth.
chris