Is this job beyond MON?


Status
Not open for further replies.
get a grip man
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. :-D
 
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).

Aye.
 
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
 
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).

some good points there...
 
The purpose of this letter is to outline a plan to deliver new information about Stubber's bestial belief systems. I begin with critical semantic clarifications. First, I am not fooled by Stubber's lackluster and eristic rhetoric. I therefore gladly accept the responsibility of notifying others that nothing unites people like a common enemy. That's why I would encourage everybody to take some shots of their own at Stubber by reprimanding him for discouraging us from expressing our cop-outs in whatever way we damn well please.

My current plan is to get people to sign a petition to limit Stubber's ability to cause trouble. Yes, he will draw upon the most powerful fires of Hell to tear that plan asunder, but his equivocations can be subtle. They can be so subtle that many people never realize they're being influenced by them. That's why we must proactively notify humanity that there isn't a man, woman, or child alive today who thinks that Stubber should be a given a direct pipeline to the National Treasury, so let's toss out that ridiculous argument of Stubber's from the get-go. I won't pull any punches here: I want to make a genuine contribution to human society. But first, let me pose an abstract question. Why can't we simply agree to disagree? On the surface, it would seem to have something to do with the way that unravelling the Gordian Knot that is Stubber is not difficult when you realize the multifaceted nature of Stubber and his bedfellows. But upon further investigation one will find that for those of us who make our living trying to complain about puerile, garrulous lounge lizards, it is important to consider that it's clearly a tragedy that Stubber's goal in life is apparently to replace the search for truth with a situationist relativism based on drugged-out, oleaginous diabolism. Here, I use the word "tragedy" as the philosopher Whitehead used it. Whitehead stated that "the essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things," which I interpret as saying that Stubber may trivialize the entire issue right after he reads this letter. Let him. Eventually, I will step back and consider the problem of Stubber's activities in the larger picture of popular culture imagery.

Much can be learned about Stubber by understanding improvident, mealymouthed scapegoatism. By the way, saying that last sentence out loud is a nice way to get to the point quickly at a cocktail party. He's often accused of talking about you and me in terms that are not fit to be repeated. His advocates usually respond with a message along the lines of, "So what? At least Stubber isn't trucking away our freedoms for safekeeping." I suppose there's an argument to be made for that, but aren't we forgetting that it's time to put up or shut up? In closing, all that I ask is that you join me to stop Stubber and wage war on resistentialism.


http://www.pakin.org/complaint/

:lol::lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top