stubber
Striker
I'm not really sure how your cliched response persuades me that a dog's dinner is really a banquet in disguise. I'm sure that's 'cos I'm thick as pig shite, rather than because of any failing(s) on your behalf. :-Dget a grip man
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm not really sure how your cliched response persuades me that a dog's dinner is really a banquet in disguise. I'm sure that's 'cos I'm thick as pig shite, rather than because of any failing(s) on your behalf. :-Dget a grip man
After hearing Stubber say that he's a moral exemplar, I felt that someone needed to write a dissenting opinion. Before I say anything else, I'd like to state the following disclaimer for Stubber's benefit: Warning! This letter may contain sarcasm. Okay, now that that's taken care of, let me posit the hypothesis that if you've never seen Stubber spread hatred, animosity, and divisiveness, you're either incredibly unobservant or are concealing the truth from yourself. I can repeat with undiminished conviction something I said eons ago: He does not appeal to most people as being the most endearing or public-minded of citizens. Maybe Stubber's image would improve somewhat if he stopped trying to utilize legal, above-ground organizing in combination with illegal, underground tactics to take control of a nation and suck it dry. Even Stubber's serfs are afraid that Stubber will perpetuate misguided and questionable notions of other choleric oligarchs' intentions in a matter of days. I have seen their fear manifested over and over again, and it is further evidence that a central fault line runs through each of Stubber's commentaries. Specifically, we must build an inclusive, nondiscriminatory movement for social and political change if we are ever to prevent the Stubber-induced catastrophe I foresee and save our nation from its time of deepest humiliation and disgrace. Yes, this is a bold, audacious, even unprecedented undertaking. Yes, it lacks any realistic guarantee of success. However, it is an undertaking that we must certainly pursue because Stubber shouldn't trick our children into adopting unconventional, disapproved-of opinions and ways of life. That would be like asking a question at a news conference and, too angry and passionate to wait for the answer, exiting the auditorium before the response. Both of those actions create a mass psychology of fear about an imminent terrorist threat.
Stubber has been trying to raise funds for scientific studies that "prove" that his despotism movement is looking out for our interests. This is what's called "advocacy research" or "junk science" because it's funded by blowsy, shiftless bohemians who have already decided that Stubber is a refined gentleman with the soundest education and morals you can imagine. The problem with him is not that he's conniving. It's that he wants to separate people from their roots and cut their bonds to their natural communities.
I wish I could say this nicely but I don't have much tolerance for antihumanist rotters: Stubber's sophistries are sensationalism at its worst. From this anecdotal evidence I would argue that I want to test the assumptions that underlie his equivocations. I want to do this not because I need to tack another line onto my résumé but because he is unable to see any issue in a broad perspective or from more than one side. Hence and therefore, Stubber has been trying to convince us that he is clean and bright and pure inside. That argument fails to take into account the reality that I oppose Stubber's editorials because they are insensitive. I oppose them because they are crotchety. And I oppose them because they will fragment the nation into politically disharmonious units before long. I have now said everything there is to say. So, to summarize it all, for some strange reason, Stubber is worried he'll be disenfranchised and shunned by whiney practitioners of opportunism (especially the villainous type).
After hearing Stubber say that he's a moral exemplar, I felt that someone needed to write a dissenting opinion. Before I say anything else, I'd like to state the following disclaimer for Stubber's benefit: Warning! This letter may contain sarcasm. Okay, now that that's taken care of, let me posit the hypothesis that if you've never seen Stubber spread hatred, animosity, and divisiveness, you're either incredibly unobservant or are concealing the truth from yourself. I can repeat with undiminished conviction something I said eons ago: He does not appeal to most people as being the most endearing or public-minded of citizens. Maybe Stubber's image would improve somewhat if he stopped trying to utilize legal, above-ground organizing in combination with illegal, underground tactics to take control of a nation and suck it dry. Even Stubber's serfs are afraid that Stubber will perpetuate misguided and questionable notions of other choleric oligarchs' intentions in a matter of days. I have seen their fear manifested over and over again, and it is further evidence that a central fault line runs through each of Stubber's commentaries. Specifically, we must build an inclusive, nondiscriminatory movement for social and political change if we are ever to prevent the Stubber-induced catastrophe I foresee and save our nation from its time of deepest humiliation and disgrace. Yes, this is a bold, audacious, even unprecedented undertaking. Yes, it lacks any realistic guarantee of success. However, it is an undertaking that we must certainly pursue because Stubber shouldn't trick our children into adopting unconventional, disapproved-of opinions and ways of life. That would be like asking a question at a news conference and, too angry and passionate to wait for the answer, exiting the auditorium before the response. Both of those actions create a mass psychology of fear about an imminent terrorist threat.
Stubber has been trying to raise funds for scientific studies that "prove" that his despotism movement is looking out for our interests. This is what's called "advocacy research" or "junk science" because it's funded by blowsy, shiftless bohemians who have already decided that Stubber is a refined gentleman with the soundest education and morals you can imagine. The problem with him is not that he's conniving. It's that he wants to separate people from their roots and cut their bonds to their natural communities.
I wish I could say this nicely but I don't have much tolerance for antihumanist rotters: Stubber's sophistries are sensationalism at its worst. From this anecdotal evidence I would argue that I want to test the assumptions that underlie his equivocations. I want to do this not because I need to tack another line onto my résumé but because he is unable to see any issue in a broad perspective or from more than one side. Hence and therefore, Stubber has been trying to convince us that he is clean and bright and pure inside. That argument fails to take into account the reality that I oppose Stubber's editorials because they are insensitive. I oppose them because they are crotchety. And I oppose them because they will fragment the nation into politically disharmonious units before long. I have now said everything there is to say. So, to summarize it all, for some strange reason, Stubber is worried he'll be disenfranchised and shunned by whiney practitioners of opportunism (especially the villainous type).
After hearing Stubber say that he's a moral exemplar, I felt that someone needed to write a dissenting opinion. Before I say anything else, I'd like to state the following disclaimer for Stubber's benefit: Warning! This letter may contain sarcasm. Okay, now that that's taken care of, let me posit the hypothesis that if you've never seen Stubber spread hatred, animosity, and divisiveness, you're either incredibly unobservant or are concealing the truth from yourself. I can repeat with undiminished conviction something I said eons ago: He does not appeal to most people as being the most endearing or public-minded of citizens. Maybe Stubber's image would improve somewhat if he stopped trying to utilize legal, above-ground organizing in combination with illegal, underground tactics to take control of a nation and suck it dry. Even Stubber's serfs are afraid that Stubber will perpetuate misguided and questionable notions of other choleric oligarchs' intentions in a matter of days. I have seen their fear manifested over and over again, and it is further evidence that a central fault line runs through each of Stubber's commentaries. Specifically, we must build an inclusive, nondiscriminatory movement for social and political change if we are ever to prevent the Stubber-induced catastrophe I foresee and save our nation from its time of deepest humiliation and disgrace. Yes, this is a bold, audacious, even unprecedented undertaking. Yes, it lacks any realistic guarantee of success. However, it is an undertaking that we must certainly pursue because Stubber shouldn't trick our children into adopting unconventional, disapproved-of opinions and ways of life. That would be like asking a question at a news conference and, too angry and passionate to wait for the answer, exiting the auditorium before the response. Both of those actions create a mass psychology of fear about an imminent terrorist threat.
Stubber has been trying to raise funds for scientific studies that "prove" that his despotism movement is looking out for our interests. This is what's called "advocacy research" or "junk science" because it's funded by blowsy, shiftless bohemians who have already decided that Stubber is a refined gentleman with the soundest education and morals you can imagine. The problem with him is not that he's conniving. It's that he wants to separate people from their roots and cut their bonds to their natural communities.
I wish I could say this nicely but I don't have much tolerance for antihumanist rotters: Stubber's sophistries are sensationalism at its worst. From this anecdotal evidence I would argue that I want to test the assumptions that underlie his equivocations. I want to do this not because I need to tack another line onto my résumé but because he is unable to see any issue in a broad perspective or from more than one side. Hence and therefore, Stubber has been trying to convince us that he is clean and bright and pure inside. That argument fails to take into account the reality that I oppose Stubber's editorials because they are insensitive. I oppose them because they are crotchety. And I oppose them because they will fragment the nation into politically disharmonious units before long. I have now said everything there is to say. So, to summarize it all, for some strange reason, Stubber is worried he'll be disenfranchised and shunned by whiney practitioners of opportunism (especially the villainous type).
source
Never. The rise & fall of our managerial elite is foremost in my preoccupaton.Stubber may trivialize the entire issue right after he reads this letter. Let him.