Jef Sewell: the joke of Usenet
Takeako Itsushira
CAVEAT LECTOR
Expatiation into apothegm.
Mordant philippic #1.
Ara.
Jef Sewell <j...@onramp.net> wrote:
>It is [partially] to your credit that you found that phrase particularly
>amusing, as it was intended to be a joke. Before you go patting
>yourself on the back for all your supposed wit, I'd like to point out I
>beat you to the punch, to spare a small pun. What do you think I was
>referring to when I put that line in there? Where you state "of course
>I'm making reference to the beating [that Alex took]..." demonstrates
>that in your mind the correlation just occured to you. I was referring
>to that rumour IN MY FIRST POST.
Well, Jef, frankly, NO ONE in Austin, Texas (not even on Usenet) wishes to
be subjected to your dullardry. That's why I am writing you. Quite
simply, I wish to gleefully pick apart your insipid ramblings just so
everyone here can have a little glimpse of what it's like to have the
fiercest succession of abjectly hurting charientisms thrust upon them at a
scientifically yet-inestimable velocity to the power of itself -- and not
be able to so much as quiver and choke back tears of regret for ever having
vocalized his/her irrelevant consciousness (that is; speaking his/her mind,
if, in fact, it could be considered as such -- a "possibility" which the
author soberly refutes and intends to completely invalidate by the end of
this post).
First things first, chum: drawing a comparison between Alex Jones and Fox
Moulder retains about as much intellectual validity as witnessing your own
mother naked. As I'm sure you know, since it's glaringly obvious that
you've experienced both, neither situation is particularly insightful or,
in any other manner, sagacious. For this alone, you are a glib,
retch-brained oligophreniac at best. It would, indeed, be the apex of
modern existence to strike you repeatedly in a back alley as you beg for
your ineffectual nothing-of-a-life, but upright organisms such as myself
have better things to do, like making you and your excerebrose would-be
pontifications rebarbative, irrefutable proof of just how mind-numbingly
simple it is to operate a computer. Your pitiable attempts at sardonic
wordplay are transparent, coprolalial shards of sophomoric faux-elocution
which, incidentally, resemble some of the lesser-evolved of Alex Jones'
xylocephalous utterances.
I don't know, personally or even remotely, the gentleman who wrote you the
scathing harangue, Jef, and I'm not thoroughly convinced that he finished
the job. All I profess to know in regards to these somewhat-dated messages
is that you need some remedial English lessons.
From what I have gathered, Michael Hall bit the child on the ankles, as
they say. There is no perspicaciously apparent ratiocination to surmise
that he didn't "get" your in-joke ... I'm relatively sold on the concept
that he, like me, just thought the joke sucked shit. Gasp, you pompous
idiot!
In fact, it sounded to me as if you and Alex Jones share more than just a
.sig file, if you get my drift. Are you, like, sleeping with him?
Anyway ...
It is for the maximized pleasure of all reading this post (except, of
course, Jef him/herself) that I bring immediate attention to the fact that
this inarticulate loser can't even spell "occurred."
Come on, Jeffy ... third-grade conjugations. Now, I know what alot of you
will declare in response to this: why place such massive importance upon an
insignificant fragment of an understood, albeit hardly-understandable and
utterly incomplete, "whole"?
It happens that I, unlike some of my well-wishing peers, find it completely
irresistible to do anything but impugn and denounce when I catch wind of
someone "flubbing their lines," as it were. If our little man Jef hadn't
been so smug in his retaliatory position, presumably because he couldn't
take being called-out as meager internet-fodder, perhaps nothing more than
a casual mention -- in place of this grandiloquent public mockery --
would've occurred.
If we cannot rely on the rudiments of language (e.g., those pesky RULES of
spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc.) to communicate our opinions, ideals,
and cultural expectations, what, then, is to be the alternative? A system
wherein all participants are encouraged to make random substitutions for
commonplace words based on similarities in appearance, as is unquestionably
the case here? This is no different than, say, a careless interchanging of
the words "their," "there," and "they're" -- a prevalent error and, yet,
one that is irrefutably unforgivable when the antagonizing party is
willingly immersed in an ardent debate that, whichever the case, SHOULD be
eagerly intended by any deliberating parties to be both remembered --
preferably favorably -- and, likewise, contemplated by future scholars of
communication and media/infrastructure ontology.
So, by way of an easily recognizable, admittedly somewhat moot description
of an analogous situation, I extend: if you're not going to play by the
rules, Jef, don't bother playing at all, because SOMEONE will ALWAYS have
you pegged, and you'll invariably find yourself sidelined well before the
commencement of the second quarter. The phrasal device I just utilized is
known as a "metaphor," Jef.
It's clear to anyone with even HALF a corpus callosum that you are the
egregious sort of wanker who finds it appealing to substitute the British
spellings of CERTAIN English words, while others are inadvertently,
inexplicably left in their Americanised forms, respectively. I refer,
unmistakably, to your spelling of the word "rumor." Offer proof that you
were taught in the UK and I'll not only overlook this apparent blunder;
I'll apologize on this very forum and, perchance, even eat my own hands.
The assumption that you may have, at some point in your past, read a
British novel is not sufficient. Besides, you can't fool me. Your
rambling non-sequiturs and unintelligible obiter dictum are no match for my
tirelessly observant, undaunted apprehension of transformational syntax and
linguistics.
I refuse to believe for one-thousandth of a nanosecond that Jef is familiar
with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
It is the author's suspicion that Jef has never read a word in his life
regarding morphophonemics, lexicology, semantics, deep structure, harmony
in discourse, and the like.
Connotative inferences aside, the author aspires to interpolate the
heretofore-unsuggested conundrumic riposte; one of such alarming breadth
and dysphemistic sovereignty ... a work of unadulterated paradoxical
significance, breaking little Jeffy's heart all the while and,
simultaneously, repudiating other pompous know-nothings, thus discouraging
them from making asses of themselves, as Jef undoubtedly has.
>Though I'm relatively certain there
>are probably only ten or fifteen people out there following this
>particular thread, I'm confident that the higher minds would be inclined
>to side with me on this issue as I took no political stance to begin
>with. A small, modest attempt at social commentary was all I was making.
Your so-called "modest" attempt has been duly noted and subsequently
discarded as incognizant. I feel inclined to put faith into the assumption
that, because of the manner in which you address these "higher minds," you
are either soliciting their aid in this personal grievance or you somehow,
truly give credence to yourself as being a thinker of such distinction.
While the former is somewhat more likely, the author acknowledges Jef's
abecedarian leanings and respects that he, as a survival instinct of sorts,
may have employed a tactical characteristic exclusive to most fustian
weaker-minds: that of insinuating, instead of stating outright, one's
alleged intellectual status.
In other words, by merely interposing a suggestion that he is of the
upper-echelon intelligentsia, Jef has endeavored to create an obstacle,
though tragically not insurmountable, so as to dissuade further potential
criticism. After all, if he had offered, "I am a genius," would
authentication of this claim not be sought after by more than just a
handful of the net's more isomorphically-vindictive and, thus, attentively
more cruel, REAL heads?!
At least, I'm sure I wouldn't pass up such a golden opportunity.
Let me rephrase it for Jef.
You shouldn't be allowed the satisfaction of drawing breath, you nescient,
debilitated, floundering, elliptical, imbecilic, confounded, impercipient
heap of mental flatulence. Mindless ne'er-do-well simpletons like you
should be shot point-blank in the face with illegal sawed-off shotguns and
disposed of accordingly. I pity your family more than your
non-epigrammatic mind could conjecture.
>Apparently you just really have it in for some of ACTV's personalities
>and wait for any and every opportunity to scream and shout about it...
>It is cable access, dude. Might I recommend, with all of this raging
>passion you possess, that you consider popping on over there and getting
>a producer's license? I'm being quite serious, this time. Seems a
>waste of a lot of energy to sit on the dirt roadside of Usenet and throw
>rocks at unsuspecting passerbys when you could be driving a monster
>truck right over folks on the freeway of Access Television.
What, exactly (if you don't mind telling me, Captain Dipshit), are "passerbys"?
The term is "passers-by," you retarded prick. It's not that hard to
remember, dumbass. Those who are "passing by" would be the "passers" going
"by," right?
Author's note: I recognize that the term "passer by's" is accepted, as in:
"that passer by's name is Jef Sewell ... kill him!"
However, Jef, surely, did not intend this contemptible malapropism.
As a matter of fact, either way you look at it, Jef didn't punctuate it
correctly -- but who's keeping score?
Aside from me, that is.
The real shame here, Jef, is that you have to rely on reflections and
maximizers to strengthen your ersatz particulars and atone for your being
devoid of a brain stem. You, sir/madam, are an erroneous, blithering,
myopic, undiscerning dunderpate; a wlatsome, mephitic, yirning,
woodenheaded, braggadocio-spewing rodomontade; an incompetent, oblivious,
subliterate, menial, one-dimensional, perfunctory, expressionless,
derivative, banal, fifth-rate, uninteresting, incalculably subordinate,
garrulous, quixotic, superfluous wanna-be bitch; a drooling, hackneyed,
stereotypically unprepared, diarrhea-mouthed clone; a diseased, repellent,
lackluster, automated, flabbergasted, half-cocked, anthropocentric,
capricious, pedantic, sectarian, injudicious, laughable, piddling,
trifling, farcical, callow, indecent, buffoonish, puerile, negligible,
repetitive, unassuming, trite, inefficient, garden-variety,
unprepossessing, ambiguous, fallible, unlearned, perplexed, vacant,
oblivious, dense, preoccupied, sallow, unimportant, opaque, vacuous,
benign, smarmy, asinine, fat-witted, uneducated, misinformation-absorbing
anti-intellectual; a medulla oblongata-deprived, irrational, juvenile,
sempiternally-spurious tatterdemalion; an inerudite, unenlightened,
nonconceiving, tentative, gauche, vague ignoramus; an uninspired,
puddingheaded dunce; a tenderfoot; a neophyte; a dabbler; a middlebrow ...
nay, King of the Lowbrows; a huckster; a shyster; a sham; a dupe; a drone;
a greenhorn, novice dilettante; a goddamned fucking shit-sucking FOOL.
>I can say that to your credit AT LEAST you have the courage to be an
>equal opportunity discriminator. If at first you don't succeed, ad more
>hominum (Before you respond and say 'He can't even spell ADD!, know that
>I'm bending the phrase 'ad hominum', to suit my purposes. )
You dimwit jackass. You make me physically ill. Get the fuck off my
planet, you facinorous, napiform, labrose, quisquilian, papuliferous,
highfalutin, shit-eating dolt. You worthless nincompoop. You artless,
insensate, self-indulgent, diminutive, pimply, sordid, offensive,
stenching, empty-shelled, loathsome, yearning adherent. Your
polysyndetonic, weakly-embellished excursus has been laid open for all to
patronize and condescend; intent disregarded, conveying nothing.
Numbskulls like Jef don't deserve their own recrement.
I'd love to burn out his eyes with a soldering iron, run a catheter into
his ocular chasms, and fill his hollow cranium to capacity with boiling
urine, scorching out BOTH of his synapses ... but that circumstance would
be too inexorable and uncompromising, even for Jef Sewell, the dilapidated,
backward maroon.
On second thought, scratch that. Jef deserves SO much worse for all his
ill-established assertions. If not for the intimidation of
prison-sentencing, the man would already be defunct.
Don't sweat it, Jef ... no one's gonna say anything about the way you
spelled "ad." Not when there's a perfectly incorrect "hominem" to be
pounced upon.
TWICE, to be precise.
Ah, Latin.
Ad hominem - literally translated: to the man. Usually incorporated into
arguments dealing with a person's character. In this case, I can only
assume you were taking another "modest" jab at your attacker, in hopes of
defaming. Does it really hurt that much, you unlearned coddler? Why
couldn't you leave well enough alone, for God's sake?!
Michael Hall, to the best of my recollections, didn't make ONE faux paus in
his spelling. The only mistake made was in letting you get away with being
such a snot-nosed hack. Oh, by the way, just so you know, I didn't
misspell "ADD!"
More realistically, you couldn't even spell "misspell," could you?
Wah, wah, wah.
For your entertainment, I have intentionally misspelled ONE word in this
document, which I bet you can't find without the assistance of your
spell-checker. If you post the only acceptable rejoinder in under
twenty-four hours, I will mail you a fifty-dollar bill. No kidding,
shit-for-brains. I procure a bountiful sum of delectation for all of us,
in solemn observation of the incontrovertible certitude that the
unessential lump of subservient ineptitude that is Jef Sewer has neither
the capacity nor the motivational temperament to make the necessary
transition from maundering bureausis to the ostensibly distinct interests
of the split-brained, opposable-thumbed Homo-erectus anytime soon. He'll
be cowering in the corner of a shower stall, wishing he could get his rocks
off, if only into the expansive duodenum of some crack-addled transsexual
prostitute.
Face it, you bedwetting girl-man, you are unqualified.
You infantile amateur. Ante bellum, you may well have escaped this sort of
public ridicule. Unfortunately for you, something inside just wouldn't let
go until the final distressing chord.
Regrettably, Jef, you had to shoot off your fat mouth. Your marred
undertaking to feign concinnity and enhanced verbification proficiency have
not gone unnoticed by the society of elevated thinkers to which I belong.
We share trenchant fits of laughter everyday at your expense. You are a
product of and, as an undeviating consequence, a reticent contrivance for
the prevailing de facto modus vivendi; that is to say, you are nothing more
than the rounded-down mean-average and that, tragically, is all you shall
ever be. Idiocy-spilling cretin.
Coincidentally, the aforementioned "rounded-down mean-average" is
inestimably minor, a trivial pittance of the overall human potential. What
is so excruciating is that almost everyone is like you, Jef.
What's it like to be considered an unavailing clown by an entity of
indubitable substance? What must it feel like to have the pliant marrow of
your existence anatomized, cross-referenced, and scrutinized?
I know it hurts, crybaby.
And now everyone ELSE knows it, too, you detestable parasite.
Everyone knows that you are nothing more than a stammering, boorish,
apple-polishing, obstreperously boastful alcatote with a big, stupid chip
on his/her shoulder.
You prattling, squeamish, defiled, jabbering, stumbling, inelegant,
coaybtete-leranous, unlovable, twaddling, red-faced blatherskite.
You docile, obstropulous, ludicrous stinkard.
You skulking, sluggish, foppish lackwit.
You vexatious, fidgety, cumbersome, precarious, mutable, tremulous,
vitriolic, faltering, vacillating, inconstant, insecure, crisis-fearing,
shivering, haughty, defected agglomeration of shit-encrusted pig
intestines.
You fraudulent, heinous, meaningless, incapable, enervated,
disproportionate, unintriguing, anomalous, inbred, fetid, herpid, putrid,
pointless, useless, infirm, unacceptable, squandered, aimless, decaying,
inauspicious, naive, unpleasant, unskillful, inept, reasonless,
embarrassing, inopportune, cowardly, ignorant, bile-sucking filthmonger.
Ut supra, feeb, a priori, ex nihilo nihil fit, et alia, ad infinitum.
in re, res ipsa loquitur, persona non grata.
Ecce signum, ecce homo, ecce lapsus linguae, ad nauseam.
Compos mentis, cogito ergo sum.
De profundis.
Deus ex machina.
Jef Sewell -- eo nomine, infra dignitatem, lusus naturae, memento mori.
Horribile dictu, ars longa, vita brevis, ad extremum.
Et sequens ...
Jacta alea est. Quo vadis.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
Pro bono publico, ad libitum mori.
Caveat ignoramus.
Ad astra per non aspera.
Ad extremum.
Lex taliones.
Ecce erratum.
Et cetera.
Veni, vidi, vici.
Summa cum laude.
Verbum sap.
Adsum.
Ad hominum (sic).
Just for the record, I haven't touched a dictionary, thesaurus, or any
other word book today. Have you?
I wouldn't waste the time on a piece of tedious dogshit like you, you
sniveling, congenital, adenoidal, cocksmoking faggot.
And, no, I'm not a homophobe, but for lack of a MORE appropriate insult ...
Fucking imbecile.
I hope Michael Hall and that other Michael you so espouse to abhor tear
into you. I'm sure both of them will believe that your continual
misspellings of the same word are all part of some secret, underlying,
sarcastic pleasantry.
Why don't you spend a little less time on Usenet, pal? The two Michaels
don't even seem to care. Guess that about fucks any theory you may have
had about him (Michael Hall) "wasting energy" here.
And to Mr. David Brian Scott, in the other Michael's defense, I'll inform
you without any further procrastination -- I've heard the Burroughs quote
BOTH ways, depending on which piece of cut-up you choose to reference.
Evidently, it is YOU who should stop pretending, chump. If I ever see you
in Metro (not that I frequent the establishment), I'll probably beat the
holy fuck out of you. As for Jeffy, you wouldn't know a logical statement
if it bit your shriveled prick off, so I don't consider your analysis of
Burroughs' proclamation (either incarnation) to be particularly intuitive.
What a winner you are.
A prize cluck.
Get a goddamned vocabulary before picking any future arguments, boy.
Go join your astral brothers beyond the comet.
And, as a final note that I'm satisfied even Jef will be able to
understand: go suck your whore mother's diseased schmendrick, you impotent
cunt.
No one could ever REALLY love you.
_____________________________________________________
"Capitulation of one's noncontingent existence is the
only exclusively veritable method of enlightenment."
_____________________________________________________
Bonzo
In article <itsushira-ya023180...@news.flash.net>,
itsu...@eden.com (Takeako Itsushira) wrote:
snip!
1000 plus lines of self serving, "look at me, I can use big words!",
drivel deleted.
Boy, was I impressed with this post. Utter proof that someone out there
has no life.
Paul Mc Cann
In article <bonzo-03049...@dm2-26.slc.aros.net>, bo...@aros.net
says...
> 1000 plus lines of self serving, "look at me, I can use big words!",
> drivel deleted.
>
> Boy, was I impressed with this post. Utter proof that someone out there
> has no life.
>
(He may be able to pick his way through Roget's Thesaurus and have
swallowed the Concise Oxford Dictionary but he sure as hell can't compose
a "readable " sentence)
And while we're picking holes, whats with the "..that's why I am writing
you." Writing you ?? So why is he writing the word "you" ? Perchance he
meant "writing TO you"
Tut tut, what a mistake, and a give-away, for a pseudo-intellectual
pedant, suffering from extreme verbal diarrhoea and delusions of
grandeur.
--
Paul Mc Cann
It was and I said not but
Perhaps he could parse the above for me ?