Venting Because im Mad
New member
Dear People who will cheer me up,
I don't know what to make of The dictionary's opuscula. On the one hand, The dictionary's recommendations, like opium, hashish, or alcohol, keep the canaille in a trance and oblivious of reality. But on the other hand, one can predict on empirical grounds that in the blink of an eye The dictionary will detach individuals from traditional sources of strength and identity—family, class, private associations. So, without further ado, I present you with this all-important piece of information: Testy spielers are often found at her elbow. This suggests to me that she says it is within her legal right to exhibit cruelty to animals. Whether or not she indeed has such a right, I try never to argue with The dictionary because it's clear she's not susceptible to reason.
Of all the delusions I have ever known, the most unprincipled is the idea that people find The dictionary's unrelenting, over-the-top hostility rather refreshing. Still, that doesn't prevent The dictionary from donning the mantel of prætorianism and casting the world into nuclear holocaust. For the sake of the universe, I hope that this is the only planet that contains profligate saboteurs like her. She obviously didn't have to pass an intelligence test to get to where she is today because her knowledge of how things work is completely off the mark. First of all, The dictionary's idiotic claim that she's a moral exemplar is just that, an idiotic claim.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but I cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for The dictionary's subterfuge. I'm completely stunned. The dictionary's writings are saturated with the nit-picky, backwards rhetoric that will clearly plant the seeds of conformism into the tabulae rasae of children's minds. Likewise, The dictionary would have us believe that ebola, AIDS, mad-cow disease, and the hantavirus were intentionally bioengineered by pusillanimous energumens for the purpose of population reduction. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But The dictionary is surrounded by blasphemous prigs who parrot the same nonsense, which is why she reminds me of the thief who cries "Stop, thief!" to distract attention from his thievery. And I can say that with a clear conscience because it's a pity that two thousand years after Christ, the voices of dotty personæ non gratæ like her can still be heard, worse still that they're listened to, and worst of all that anyone believes them.
The dictionary's perceptions have no basis in science or in human experience. Instead, they consist of doctrinaire conjectures derived from a world view rooted in clueless, jaundiced factionalism. The law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior.
At the risk of sounding hopelessly prudish, The dictionary's most deluded tactic is to fabricate a phony war between intellectually challenged, sinister boeotians and detestable carpetbaggers. This way, she can subjugate both groups into helping her deny the obvious. I definitely don't want that to happen, which is why I'm telling you that if The dictionary can't stand the heat, she should get out of the kitchen. Lastly, The dictionary's "compromises" should be recorded and studied for as long as human life exists on Earth as an example of what happens when a society lets one of its members stab us in the back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sincerely Skilled
I don't know what to make of The dictionary's opuscula. On the one hand, The dictionary's recommendations, like opium, hashish, or alcohol, keep the canaille in a trance and oblivious of reality. But on the other hand, one can predict on empirical grounds that in the blink of an eye The dictionary will detach individuals from traditional sources of strength and identity—family, class, private associations. So, without further ado, I present you with this all-important piece of information: Testy spielers are often found at her elbow. This suggests to me that she says it is within her legal right to exhibit cruelty to animals. Whether or not she indeed has such a right, I try never to argue with The dictionary because it's clear she's not susceptible to reason.
Of all the delusions I have ever known, the most unprincipled is the idea that people find The dictionary's unrelenting, over-the-top hostility rather refreshing. Still, that doesn't prevent The dictionary from donning the mantel of prætorianism and casting the world into nuclear holocaust. For the sake of the universe, I hope that this is the only planet that contains profligate saboteurs like her. She obviously didn't have to pass an intelligence test to get to where she is today because her knowledge of how things work is completely off the mark. First of all, The dictionary's idiotic claim that she's a moral exemplar is just that, an idiotic claim.
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but I cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for The dictionary's subterfuge. I'm completely stunned. The dictionary's writings are saturated with the nit-picky, backwards rhetoric that will clearly plant the seeds of conformism into the tabulae rasae of children's minds. Likewise, The dictionary would have us believe that ebola, AIDS, mad-cow disease, and the hantavirus were intentionally bioengineered by pusillanimous energumens for the purpose of population reduction. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But The dictionary is surrounded by blasphemous prigs who parrot the same nonsense, which is why she reminds me of the thief who cries "Stop, thief!" to distract attention from his thievery. And I can say that with a clear conscience because it's a pity that two thousand years after Christ, the voices of dotty personæ non gratæ like her can still be heard, worse still that they're listened to, and worst of all that anyone believes them.
The dictionary's perceptions have no basis in science or in human experience. Instead, they consist of doctrinaire conjectures derived from a world view rooted in clueless, jaundiced factionalism. The law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior.
At the risk of sounding hopelessly prudish, The dictionary's most deluded tactic is to fabricate a phony war between intellectually challenged, sinister boeotians and detestable carpetbaggers. This way, she can subjugate both groups into helping her deny the obvious. I definitely don't want that to happen, which is why I'm telling you that if The dictionary can't stand the heat, she should get out of the kitchen. Lastly, The dictionary's "compromises" should be recorded and studied for as long as human life exists on Earth as an example of what happens when a society lets one of its members stab us in the back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sincerely Skilled