Page to retire after 2005

best news I've heard in years


crit PRO

Once again, I find disappointment. Once again, I find no satisfaction. Once
again, I find that most law-abiding citizens disapprove of Princess Crit
Pro's methods. With this letter, I hope to bring fresh leadership and
even-handed tolerance to the present controversy. But first, I would like to
make the following introductory remark: Those of us who are too lazy or
disinterested to present another paradigm in opposition to Crit's
chauvinistic, vulgar animadversions have no right to complain when he and
his dupes infringe upon our most important constitutional rights.

Crit's bestial attempt to construct a creative response to my previous
letter was absolutely pitiful. Really, Crit, stringing together a bunch of
solecistic insults and seemingly random babble is hardly effective. It
simply proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's possible that in the
blink of an eye, he will pull out all stops in his nefarious drive to trick
our children into adopting unconventional, disapproved-of opinions and ways
of life. However, I cannot speculate about that possibility here because I
need to devote more space to a description of how Crit's warnings are geared
toward the continuation of social stratification under the rubric of
"tradition". Funny, that was the same term that his underlings once used to
conduct business in a featherbrained, imprudent way. Crit fails to consider
the consequences of his vaporings. But don't take my word for it; ask any
dodgy, complacent malefactor you happen to meet. I don't mean to scare you,
but he has warned us that one of these days, stroppy cult leaders will shred
the basic compact between the people and their government. If you think
about it, you'll realize that his warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in
the sense that he may be reasonably cunning with words. However, he is
completely sordid with everything else. I heard through the grapevine that
Crit is off his trolley. Whether or not this rumor is true, he just keeps on
saying, "I don't give a [expletive deleted] about you. I just want to
increase people's stress and aggression."

I've never bothered Crit. Yet Crit wants to insult my intelligence. Whatever
happened to "live and let live"?

Crit wants to advocate his rodomontades amid a hue and cry as prissy as it
is bitter. But what if the tables were turned? How would Crit like that? I
am making a pretty serious accusation here. I am accusing him of planning to
convert our children to cultural zombies in a mass of unthinking and easily
herded proletarian cattle. And I don't want anyone to think that I am basing
my accusation only on the fact that his reason is not true reason. It does
not seek the truth, but only impetuous answers, disdainful resolutions to
conflicts. While perhaps offensive to some readers, only a direct quote can
fully convey the headstrong nature and content of Crit's apologues:
"Attention, proxies! Your orders are to pursue a twofold credo of
obscurantism and exhibitionism, and to do so at any cost." Even when the
facts don't fit, Crit sometimes tries to use them anyway. He still
maintains, for instance, that people prefer "cultural integrity" and
"multicultural sensitivity" to health, food, safety, and the opportunity to
choose their own course through life.

What's interesting is that if I were a complete sap, I'd believe Crit's line
that censorship could benefit us. Unfortunately for him, I realize that if
Crit believes that his invectives are all sweetness and light, then it's
obvious why he thinks that anyone who resists him deserves to be crushed.
All I can tell you is what matters to me: He appears to have found a new
tool to use to help him create some sadistic, pseudo-psychological profile
of me to discredit my opinions. That tool is ageism, and if you watch him
wield it, you'll surely see why knowledge is the key that unlocks the
shackles of bondage. That's why it's important for you to know that Crit
thinks I'm trying to say that space aliens are out to lay eggs in our
innards or ooze their alien hell-slime all over us. Wait! I just heard
something. Oh, never mind; it's just the sound of the point zooming way over
Crit's head. Crit claims to be supportive of my plan to fight the warped,
distorted, misshapen, unwholesome monstrosity that his undertakings have
become. Don't trust him, though; he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Before you
know it, he'll terrorize our youngsters. Not only that, but if I wanted to
brainwash and manipulate a large segment of the population, I would convince
them that we can stop fascism merely by permitting government officials
entrée into private homes to search for pertinacious boeotians. In fact,
that's exactly what Crit does as part of his quest to confuse the
catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian
government in our minds.

This is equivalent to saying that I like to speak of Crit as "ornery".
That's a reasonable term to use, I feel, but let's now try to understand it
a little better. For starters, he has never gotten ahead because of his hard
work or innovative ideas. Rather, all of his successes are due to kickbacks,
bribes, black market double-dealing, outright thuggery, and unsavory
political intrigue. It would be a crying shame to let the worst sorts of
antihumanist mob bosses I've ever seen tap into the national resurgence of
overt plagiarism. Now, I could go off on that point alone, but he is like a
giant octopus sprawling its slimy length over city, state, and nation. Like
the octopus of real life, Crit operates under cover of self-created screen.
He seizes in his long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our
legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers, and every
agency created for the public protection. He doesn't care about freedom, as
he can neither eat it nor put it in the bank. It's just a word to him.

I have often maintained that reasonable people can reasonably disagree.
Unfortunately, when dealing with Crit and his vassals, that claim assumes
facts not in evidence. So let me claim instead that I can reword my point as
follows. Crit has more understanding of beer and milk regulations than of
farsighted plans for the future. If he thinks that "the norm" shouldn't have
to worry about how the exceptions feel then maybe he should lay off the
wacky tobaccy. Crit has -- not once, but several times -- been able to
concentrate all the wealth of the world into his own hands without anyone
stopping him. How long can that go on? As long as his blockish dissertations
are kept on life support. That's why we have to pull the plug on them and
seek some structure in which the cacophony introduced by his ploys might be
systematized, reconciled, and made rational. He maliciously defames and
damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around him. There's a word
for that: libel.

Crit claims that illiberal poltroons should be fêted at wine-and-cheese
fund-raisers. I think that the absurdities within that claim speak for
themselves, although I should add that the poisonous wine of anarchism had
been distilled long before Crit entered the scene. Crit is merely the agent
decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world
humanity. He contends that the Earth is flat and that, therefore, newspapers
should report only on items he agrees with. This bizarre pattern of thinking
leads to strange conclusions. For example, it convinces delusional leeches
(as distinct from the intolerant paper-pushers who prefer to chirrup while
hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) that the Queen of England
heads up the international drug cartel. In reality, contrariwise, there are
some basic biological realities of the world in which we live. These
realities are doubtless regrettable, but they are unalterable. If Crit finds
them intolerable and unthinkable, the only thing that I can suggest is that
he try to flag down a flying saucer and take passage for some other solar
system, possibly one in which the residents are oblivious to the fact that
it is immature and stupid of Crit to influence the attitudes of dominant
culture towards any environment or activity that is predominantly snarky. It
would be mature and intelligent, however, to issue a call to conscience and
reason, and that's why I say that he presents himself as a disinterested
classicist lamenting the infusion of politically motivated methods of
pedagogy and analysis into higher education. Crit is eloquent in his
denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors amoral hippies. And
here we have the ultimate irony, because even when Crit isn't lying, he's
using facts, emphasizing facts, bearing down on facts, sliding off facts,
quietly ignoring facts, and, above all, interpreting facts in a way that
will enable him to help the most catty apostates you'll ever see back up
their prejudices with "scientific" proof.

It is deeply unfortunate that I hate it when evil parvenus like Crit go on
with such vigor about subjects they don't even know about, since it's easy
for Crit to declaim my proposals. But when is he going to provide an
alternative proposal of his own? This can be answered most easily by stating
that when I was younger, I wanted to respond to his arguments. I still want
to do that, but now I realize that one of his buddies once said,
"National-security interests can and should be sidestepped whenever Crit's
personal interests are at stake." Now that's pretty funny, of course, but I
didn't include that quote just to make you laugh. I included it to convince
you that I am not fooled by Crit's dishonest and eristic rhetoric. I
therefore gladly accept the responsibility of notifying others that like a
verbal magician, Crit knows how to lie without appearing to be lying, how to
bury secrets in mountains of garbage-speak. In a recent essay, Crit stated
that two wrongs make a right. Since the arguments he made in the rest of his
essay are based in part on that assumption, he should be aware that it just
isn't true. Not only that, but my general thesis is that his bruta fulmina
are not an abstract problem. They have very concrete, immediate, and
unpleasant consequences. For instance, his reports all stem from one,
simple, faulty premise -- that all it takes to solve our social woes are
shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical
1950s Shangri-la. I'll talk a lot more about that later, but first let me
finish my general thesis: A central point of his belief systems is the
notion that children don't need as much psychological attentiveness,
protection, and obedience training as the treasured household pet. Perhaps
Crit should take some new data into account and revisit that notion. I think
he'd find that he is trying to declare a national emergency, round up
everyone who disagrees with him, and put them in concentration camps. His
mission? To inject even more fear and divisiveness into political campaigns.
Although the moral absolutist position is well represented by social and
political activists and indeed influences legislators and policy makers,
Crit accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does he suspect I'm narrow-minded
because I refuse to accept his claim that he is a spokesman for God? If so,
then I guess I'm as narrow-minded as I could possibly be.

Plainly stated, Crit keeps telling everyone within earshot that superstition
is no less credible than proven scientific principles. I'm guessing that
Crit read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources
generally indicate that he occasionally writes letters accusing me and my
friends of being crass, deplorable porn stars. These letters are typically
couched in gutter language (which is doubtless the language in which he
habitually thinks) and serve no purpose other than to convince me that I
recently heard him tell a bunch of people that he's the best thing to come
along since the invention of sliced bread. I can't adequately describe my
first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent
uncontrollable laughter in text. If one could get a Ph.D. in Immoralism,
Crit would be the first in line to have one. Sorry for babbling so much, but
there are lessons to be learned from history.



"crit PRO" wrote in message
oups.com...
best news I've heard in years


crit PRO

Joe King wrote:
Once again, I find disappointment. Once again, I find no satisfaction. Once
again, I find that most law-abiding citizens disapprove of Princess Crit
Pro's methods. With this letter, I hope to bring fresh leadership and
even-handed tolerance to the present controversy. But first, I would liketo
make the following introductory remark: Those of us who are too lazy or
disinterested to present another paradigm in opposition to Crit's
chauvinistic, vulgar animadversions have no right to complain when he and
his dupes infringe upon our most important constitutional rights.

Crit's bestial attempt to construct a creative response to my previous
letter was absolutely pitiful. Really, Crit, stringing together a bunch of
solecistic insults and seemingly random babble is hardly effective. It
simply proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's possible that in the
blink of an eye, he will pull out all stops in his nefarious drive to trick
our children into adopting unconventional, disapproved-of opinions and ways
of life. However, I cannot speculate about that possibility here because I
need to devote more space to a description of how Crit's warnings are geared
toward the continuation of social stratification under the rubric of
"tradition". Funny, that was the same term that his underlings once used to
conduct business in a featherbrained, imprudent way. Crit fails to consider
the consequences of his vaporings. But don't take my word for it; ask any
dodgy, complacent malefactor you happen to meet. I don't mean to scare you,
but he has warned us that one of these days, stroppy cult leaders will shred
the basic compact between the people and their government. If you think
about it, you'll realize that his warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in
the sense that he may be reasonably cunning with words. However, he is
completely sordid with everything else. I heard through the grapevine that
Crit is off his trolley. Whether or not this rumor is true, he just keepson
saying, "I don't give a [expletive deleted] about you. I just want to
increase people's stress and aggression."

I've never bothered Crit. Yet Crit wants to insult my intelligence. Whatever
happened to "live and let live"?

Crit wants to advocate his rodomontades amid a hue and cry as prissy as it
is bitter. But what if the tables were turned? How would Crit like that? I
am making a pretty serious accusation here. I am accusing him of planningto
convert our children to cultural zombies in a mass of unthinking and easily
herded proletarian cattle. And I don't want anyone to think that I am basing
my accusation only on the fact that his reason is not true reason. It does
not seek the truth, but only impetuous answers, disdainful resolutions to
conflicts. While perhaps offensive to some readers, only a direct quote can
fully convey the headstrong nature and content of Crit's apologues:
"Attention, proxies! Your orders are to pursue a twofold credo of
obscurantism and exhibitionism, and to do so at any cost." Even when the
facts don't fit, Crit sometimes tries to use them anyway. He still
maintains, for instance, that people prefer "cultural integrity" and
"multicultural sensitivity" to health, food, safety, and the opportunity to
choose their own course through life.

What's interesting is that if I were a complete sap, I'd believe Crit's line
that censorship could benefit us. Unfortunately for him, I realize that if
Crit believes that his invectives are all sweetness and light, then it's
obvious why he thinks that anyone who resists him deserves to be crushed.
All I can tell you is what matters to me: He appears to have found a new
tool to use to help him create some sadistic, pseudo-psychological profile
of me to discredit my opinions. That tool is ageism, and if you watch him
wield it, you'll surely see why knowledge is the key that unlocks the
shackles of bondage. That's why it's important for you to know that Crit
thinks I'm trying to say that space aliens are out to lay eggs in our
innards or ooze their alien hell-slime all over us. Wait! I just heard
something. Oh, never mind; it's just the sound of the point zooming way over
Crit's head. Crit claims to be supportive of my plan to fight the warped,
distorted, misshapen, unwholesome monstrosity that his undertakings have
become. Don't trust him, though; he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Before you
know it, he'll terrorize our youngsters. Not only that, but if I wanted to
brainwash and manipulate a large segment of the population, I would convince
them that we can stop fascism merely by permitting government officials
entrée into private homes to search for pertinacious boeotians. In fact,
that's exactly what Crit does as part of his quest to confuse the
catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian
government in our minds.

This is equivalent to saying that I like to speak of Crit as "ornery".
That's a reasonable term to use, I feel, but let's now try to understand it
a little better. For starters, he has never gotten ahead because of his hard
work or innovative ideas. Rather, all of his successes are due to kickbacks,
bribes, black market double-dealing, outright thuggery, and unsavory
political intrigue. It would be a crying shame to let the worst sorts of
antihumanist mob bosses I've ever seen tap into the national resurgence of
overt plagiarism. Now, I could go off on that point alone, but he is likea
giant octopus sprawling its slimy length over city, state, and nation. Like
the octopus of real life, Crit operates under cover of self-created screen.
He seizes in his long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our
legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers, and every
agency created for the public protection. He doesn't care about freedom, as
he can neither eat it nor put it in the bank. It's just a word to him.

I have often maintained that reasonable people can reasonably disagree.
Unfortunately, when dealing with Crit and his vassals, that claim assumes
facts not in evidence. So let me claim instead that I can reword my pointas
follows. Crit has more understanding of beer and milk regulations than of
farsighted plans for the future. If he thinks that "the norm" shouldn't have
to worry about how the exceptions feel then maybe he should lay off the
wacky tobaccy. Crit has -- not once, but several times -- been able to
concentrate all the wealth of the world into his own hands without anyone
stopping him. How long can that go on? As long as his blockish dissertations
are kept on life support. That's why we have to pull the plug on them and
seek some structure in which the cacophony introduced by his ploys might be
systematized, reconciled, and made rational. He maliciously defames and
damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around him. There's a word
for that: libel.

Crit claims that illiberal poltroons should be fêted at wine-and-cheese
fund-raisers. I think that the absurdities within that claim speak for
themselves, although I should add that the poisonous wine of anarchism had
been distilled long before Crit entered the scene. Crit is merely the agent
decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world
humanity. He contends that the Earth is flat and that, therefore, newspapers
should report only on items he agrees with. This bizarre pattern of thinking
leads to strange conclusions. For example, it convinces delusional leeches
(as distinct from the intolerant paper-pushers who prefer to chirrup while
hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) that the Queen of England
heads up the international drug cartel. In reality, contrariwise, there are
some basic biological realities of the world in which we live. These
realities are doubtless regrettable, but they are unalterable. If Crit finds
them intolerable and unthinkable, the only thing that I can suggest is that
he try to flag down a flying saucer and take passage for some other solar
system, possibly one in which the residents are oblivious to the fact that
it is immature and stupid of Crit to influence the attitudes of dominant
culture towards any environment or activity that is predominantly snarky.It
would be mature and intelligent, however, to issue a call to conscience and
reason, and that's why I say that he presents himself as a disinterested
classicist lamenting the infusion of politically motivated methods of
pedagogy and analysis into higher education. Crit is eloquent in his
denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors amoral hippies. And
here we have the ultimate irony, because even when Crit isn't lying, he's
using facts, emphasizing facts, bearing down on facts, sliding off facts,
quietly ignoring facts, and, above all, interpreting facts in a way that
will enable him to help the most catty apostates you'll ever see back up
their prejudices with "scientific" proof.

It is deeply unfortunate that I hate it when evil parvenus like Crit go on
with such vigor about subjects they don't even know about, since it's easy
for Crit to declaim my proposals. But when is he going to provide an
alternative proposal of his own? This can be answered most easily by stating
that when I was younger, I wanted to respond to his arguments. I still want
to do that, but now I realize that one of his buddies once said,
"National-security interests can and should be sidestepped whenever Crit's
personal interests are at stake." Now that's pretty funny, of course, butI
didn't include that quote just to make you laugh. I included it to convince
you that I am not fooled by Crit's dishonest and eristic rhetoric. I
therefore gladly accept the responsibility of notifying others that like a
verbal magician, Crit knows how to lie without appearing to be lying, howto
bury secrets in mountains of garbage-speak. In a recent essay, Crit stated
that two wrongs make a right. Since the arguments he made in the rest of his
essay are based in part on that assumption, he should be aware that it just
isn't true. Not only that, but my general thesis is that his bruta fulmina
are not an abstract problem. They have very concrete, immediate, and
unpleasant consequences. For instance, his reports all stem from one,
simple, faulty premise -- that all it takes to solve our social woes are
shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical
1950s Shangri-la. I'll talk a lot more about that later, but first let me
finish my general thesis: A central point of his belief systems is the
notion that children don't need as much psychological attentiveness,
protection, and obedience training as the treasured household pet. Perhaps
Crit should take some new data into account and revisit that notion. I think
he'd find that he is trying to declare a national emergency, round up
everyone who disagrees with him, and put them in concentration camps. His
mission? To inject even more fear and divisiveness into political campaigns.
Although the moral absolutist position is well represented by social and
political activists and indeed influences legislators and policy makers,
Crit accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does he suspect I'm narrow-minded
because I refuse to accept his claim that he is a spokesman for God? If so,
then I guess I'm as narrow-minded as I could possibly be.

Plainly stated, Crit keeps telling everyone within earshot that superstition
is no less credible than proven scientific principles. I'm guessing that
Crit read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources
generally indicate that he occasionally writes letters accusing me and my
friends of being crass, deplorable porn stars. These letters are typically
couched in gutter language (which is doubtless the language in which he
habitually thinks) and serve no purpose other than to convince me that I
recently heard him tell a bunch of people that he's the best thing to come
along since the invention of sliced bread. I can't adequately describe my
first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent
uncontrollable laughter in text. If one could get a Ph.D. in Immoralism,
Crit would be the first in line to have one. Sorry for babbling so much, but
there are lessons to be learned from history.


I can't believe that you took so much time to write that, that I took
so much time to read that, and that CP understood more than 1/3 of the
words let alone the concepts and nuances.
Bill C

Bill C wrote:
Joe King wrote:
I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text

I can't believe that you took so much time to write that, that I took
so much time to read that

Then write a complaint http://www.pakin.org/complaint/

--
E. Dronkert

Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
Bill C wrote:
Joe King wrote:
I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text

I can't believe that you took so much time to write that, that I took
so much time to read that

Then write a complaint http://www.pakin.org/complaint/

--
E. Dronkert
LOL! Thanks, that would explain a whole lot. I knew people couldn't
really be that stupid, lazy yes, stupid no.
Bill C

On 21 Nov 2005 13:48:14 -0800, "Bill C"
wrote:


Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
Bill C wrote:
Joe King wrote:
I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text

I can't believe that you took so much time to write that, that I took
so much time to read that

Then write a complaint http://www.pakin.org/complaint/

--
E. Dronkert
LOL! Thanks, that would explain a whole lot. I knew people couldn't
really be that stupid, lazy yes, stupid no.
Bill C

Now if you can explain why anyone would put all that energy into the
pseudo-Rich Pinto blog - of interest to maybe three or four people in
the civilized world - we've just about got a wrap. We'll just pass on
the nutcases that keep popping up with that other feud.

At least when my wife says I'm crazy, I can tell her I'm just a
mainstream case, and not on the lunatic fringe.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
At least when my wife says I'm crazy, I can tell her I'm just a
mainstream case, and not on the lunatic fringe.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...0a01b3fa7bf962

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 09:34:21 +0200, Donald Munro
wrote:

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
At least when my wife says I'm crazy, I can tell her I'm just a
mainstream case, and not on the lunatic fringe.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...0a01b3fa7bf962


And people want all of us to vote. Even the little voices...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Bill C says...

I can't believe that you took so much time to write that, that I took
so much time to read that,

And you tell me that I have too much time on my hands...