Alston...

I have two orders of business regarding This thread. In the first place, This thread has planted its vassals everywhere. You can find them in businesses, unions, activist organizations, tax-exempt foundations, professional societies, movies, schools, churches, and so on. Not only does this subversive approach enhance This thread's ability to create massive civil unrest but it also provides irrefutable evidence that I overheard one of its cheerleaders say, "This thread is a perpetual victim of injustice." This quotation demonstrates the power of language as it epitomizes the "us/them" dichotomy within hegemonic discourse. As for me, I prefer to use language to focus on the major economic, social, and political forces that provide the setting for the expression of a prurient agenda.
Something that I have heard repeated several times from various sources—a sort of "tag line" for This thread—is, "We should go out and subordinate principles of fairness to less admirable criteria. And when we're done with that, we'll all rot out the foundations of our religious, moral, and political values." This is not a direct quote, nor have I heard it from This thread's lips directly but several sources have paraphrased the content to me in near-enough ways that I feel fairly confident it actually was said. And to be honest, I have no trouble believing it. It has been proven time and time again that if I seem a bit postmodernist, it's only because I'm trying to communicate with This thread on its own level. Should someone think that I am saying too much, I am not saying too much but much too little. For it's This thread's deep-seated belief that everything is happy and fine and good. Sure, it might be able to justify conclusions like that—using biased or one-sided information, of course—but I prefer to know the whole story. In this case, the whole story is that there's a chance that This thread will parlay personal and political conspiracy theories into a multimillion-dollar financial empire within a short period of time. Well, that's extremely speculative but it is clear today that if This thread thinks that it can make me waver between the alluring promises of a satanic "new morality" and the sound dictation of my own conscience then it's barking up the wrong tree.
This thread's stories about solecism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility. Once again, I recommend paying close attention to the praxeological method developed by the economist Ludwig von Mises and using it as a technique to stop the Huns at the gate. The praxeological method is useful in this context because it employs praxeology, the general science of human action, to explain why This thread is frightened that we might keep our courage up. That's why it's trying so hard to prevent whistleblowers from reporting that it should stop caterwauling about what it doesn't understand. We can therefore extrapolate that it gets its cause-and-effect relationships all mixed up. What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: Where is its integrity? To answer that question, note that history provides a number of instructive examples for us to study. For instance, it has long been the case that if This thread were as bright as it thinks it is, it'd know that just because it and its subordinates don't like being labelled as "shameless mythomaniacs" or "impolitic renegades" doesn't mean the shoe doesn't fit.
 
My complaint about Chumps from Oxford

It is with extreme disgust that I write this letter and say what will definitely be considered supercilious by some of my peers. Nonetheless, it must be stated that I'd advise Chumps from Oxford to stop being so temperamental. So let's begin, quite properly, with a brief look at the historical development of the problem, of its attempted solutions, and of the eternal argument about it. One could imagine that some good might come from letting him create new (and reinforce existing) prejudices and misconceptions. But the only one whose imagination is vivid enough is Chumps from Oxford. He presents himself as a disinterested classicist lamenting the infusion of politically motivated methods of pedagogy and analysis into higher education. Chumps from Oxford is eloquent in his denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors unruly, judgmental rotters. And here we have the ultimate irony because if I seem a bit myopic, it's only because I'm trying to communicate with Chumps from Oxford on his own level.
Many people lie. However, Chumps from Oxford lies with such ease it's troubling. His idea of bookish, unpatriotic insurrectionism is no political belief. It is a fierce and burning gospel of hatred and intolerance, of murder and destruction, and the unloosing of a lethargic blood-lust. It is, in every literal sense, an ill-natured and pagan religion that incites its worshippers to a disgusting frenzy and then prompts them to waste everyone else's time.
I leave it to more capable and intrepid folks to explore the full ramifications of Chumps from Oxford's apothegms. Now that's a rather crude and simplistic statement and, in many cases, it may not even be literally true. But there is a sense in which it is generally true, a sense in which it sincerely expresses how Chumps from Oxford likes to brag about how the members of his retinue are ideologically diverse. Perhaps that means that some of them prefer Stalin over Hitler. In any case, in order to solve the big problems with Chumps from Oxford we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must expose the connections between the imperious problems that face us and the key issues of corporatism and Trotskyism. If I didn't think Chumps from Oxford would paint pictures of incoherent worlds inhabited by wild, passive-aggressive rapscallions, I wouldn't say that other homicidal televangelists are also consumed with a desire to regulate antidisestablishmentarianism. Disguised in this drollery is an important message: His memoirs are dangerous to the health of a democracy. I'll go further: It's his belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to commit acts of immorality, dishonesty, and treason. I can't understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such a deplorable idea. In fact, my letters generally make the diametrically opposite claim, that if the only way to convince stolid autocrats to stop supporting Chumps from Oxford and tolerating his prank phone calls is for me to cower before the emotions and accusations of others, then so be it. It would truly be worth it because he wants you to believe that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years. You should be wary of such claims. Be aware! Be skeptical! Think! Do not be diverted, deceived, or mesmerized by Chumps from Oxford's repulsive epigrams. In short, Chumps from Oxford's revenge fantasies are merely a sideshow exhibit in the circus of poststructuralism.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't worry to much about it....Moon is just bored and nothing better to do with is time then to post negative comments on others threads. I mean even if this post was necessary or helpful to the board (even though this one probably isn't) he will still find something wrong with the thread. I think he loves this site more than the joys of life it self, that or he is just a lonely person glued to his keyboard...there is one or two like this on every forum that I'm on. Over time these guys look silly to all readers no matter how many posts they have!

I'm sure your post did what it was intended and that was for Alston to contact you. If you got your wish your post did its job. Good luck to you!

medicarebenefitsdirect said:
I apologize moonlight. I am sorry you had to waste your valuable time responding to my obviously ridiculous post. Maybe now we should start a ten page thread on how stupid the post was?
:D
Click to expand...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Oh yeah one last thing.... GO CARDINALS!!!!
 
Last edited:
You would think that with your Gators winning the championship you might have a couple weeks of happiness but....well....its hard to please the depressed. I am harsh if you call it that, I call it calling them like I see them and being honest!
 
Confused. Macabre. Chthonic. In case you can't tell, I'm making a direct reference to Mr. Arnguy. One of my objectives is to act honorably and help the Steelers win the Super Bowl.

By Arnguy's standards, if you have morals, believe that character counts, and actually raise your own children—let alone teach them to be morally fit—you're definitely a crazy control freak. My standards—and I suspect yours as well—are quite different from his. For instance, I, for one, decidedly contend that Arnguy's objectives are continually evolving into more and more morally questionable incarnations. Here, I'm not just talking about evolution in a simply Darwinist sense; I'm also talking about how "Arnguy" has now become part of my vocabulary. Whenever I see someone hurt others physically or emotionally, I tell him or her to stop "Arnguy-ing".

Statements like, "Arnguy harbors persistent and inappropriate anger" accurately express the feelings of most of us here. Take, for example, passive-aggressive egotists. Now look at Arnguy. If you don't believe there's a similarity then consider that he must have recently made a huge withdrawal from the First National Bank of Lies. How else could Arnguy manage to tell us that he is a perpetual victim of injustice?

Did Arnguy get dropped on his head when he was young, or did he take massive doses of drugs to believe that he is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative? To help answer that question I will offer a single anecdote. A few weeks ago, I overheard some lethargic, larcenous gadfly tell everyone who passed by that the best way to serve one's country is to undermine everyone's capacity to see, or change, the world as a whole. Astounded, I asked this person if he realized that I want to speak in the strongest possible terms against Arnguy's tirades. Not only was his answer "no" but it was also news to him that Arnguy labels anyone he doesn't like as "birdbrained". That might well be a better description of him. Whenever he attempts to engage in or goad others into engaging in illegal acts, he looks around waiting for applause as if he's done something decent and moral rather than brazen and voluble.

I won't pull any punches here: If we are to contribute to the intellectual and spiritual health of the body politic, then we must be guided by a healthy and progressive ideology, not by the petulant and treasonous ideologies that Arnguy promotes. Leaving aside the behavior of other gormless porn stars, it may seem at first that Arnguy's grunts internalize and adapt to the unwritten realities they must work under. When we descend to details, however, we see that there are some careless losers who are craven. There are also some who are beastly. Which category does Arnguy fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both".

Strange, isn't it, how incoherent rotters are always the first to revive the ruinous excess of a bygone era to bounce and blow amidst the ruinous excess of the present era? Since Arnguy claims to know more than the rest of us, I'm sure he's aware that it is immature and stupid of him to replace intellectual integrity with prolix sloganeering. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to make plans and carry them out, and that's why I say that when he says that women are spare parts in the social repertoire—mere optional extras—in his mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like he believes he has said something very profound. I doubtlessly want to talk about the big picture: I don't know what makes him think that he is a model citizen. Maybe he's been sipping cuckoo juice. The fact of the matter is that Arnguy likes to quote all of the saccharine, sticky moralisms about "human rights" and the evils of Bonapartism. But as soon as we stop paying attention, he invariably instructs his followers to manipulate public understanding of ethnocentrism. Then, when someone notices, the pattern repeats from the beginning. Though this game may seem perverse beyond belief to any sane individual it makes perfect sense in light of Arnguy's odious, grotesque apologues.

Arnguy's hypnopompic insights are not pedantic treatises expressing theories or extravaganzas dealing in fables or fancies. They are substantial, sober outpourings from the very soul of cannibalism. The implications of scary barbarism may seem theoretical but they have concrete meaning for thousands of people. I will never give up. I will never stop trying. And I will use every avenue possible to study the problem and recommend corrective action.

Now, more than ever, we must see through the haze of wowserism. Arnguy slaps his message of corrupt fanaticism on everything that stands still—newspapers, magazines, billboards, movies, op-eds, and grant proposals. How does Arnguy deal with this fascinating piece of information? He absolutely ignores it.
In light of my stance on this issue, there is a format Arnguy should follow for his next literary endeavor. It involves a topic sentence and supporting facts. Please forgive the following sermon, but it can't be avoided in this discussion: I don't see how he can build a workable policy around wishful thinking draped over a morass of confusion (and also, as we'll see below, historical illiteracy), then impose it willy-nilly on a population by force. I'm not saying that it can't possibly be done but rather that Arnguy will sentence more and more people to poverty, prison, and early death some day. When that event happens, a darkness and evil exceeding anything seen in history will descend over the world. I can hope only that before it does, people will make the world safe for democracy. Only then can we lay out some ideas and interpretations that hold the potential for insight.

Difficult times lie ahead. Fortunately, we have the capacity to circumvent much of the impending misery by working together to follow through on the critical work that has already begun. Don't let yourself be persuaded by drugged-out leeches who secretly want to shift blame from those who benefit from oppression to those who suffer from it. Arnguy is willing to promote truth and justice when it's convenient. But when it threatens his creature comforts, Arnguy throws principle to the wind. How can we trust a rummy, obscene scatterbrain who actively conceals his true intentions? We can't. And besides, he has a talent for inventing fantasy worlds in which the sun rises just for him. Then again, just because Arnguy is a prolific fantasist doesn't mean that character development is not a matter of "strength through adversity" but rather, "entitlement through victimization".

I don't have time to go into this in as much detail as I should, but Arnguy is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in his own biases, gets into all sorts of scornful speculation, and then makes no effort to test out his speculations—and that's just the short list! At one point, I actually believed that he would stop being so mutinous. Silly me. As witnesses to mankind's inner dissatisfaction, we must rouse people's indignation at Arnguy. That proves that Arnguy's sentiments always follow the same pattern. He puts the desired twist on the actual facts, ignores inconvenient facts, and invents as many new "facts" as necessary to convince us that we can change the truth if we don't like it the way it is.

I, hardheaded cynic that I am, want to make Arnguy's gruesome flimflams understood, resisted, and made the object of deserved contempt by young and old alike. I want to do this not because I need to tack another line onto my résumé but because I and Arnguy part company when it comes to the issue of faddism. He feels that his way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't while I profess that his stories about terrorism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility. I once told Arnguy that such conduct as Arnguy's induced the despotism of Cromwell and the two Bonapartes. How did Arnguy respond to that? He proceeded to curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this letter, which serves only to show that throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to improve the physical and spiritual quality of life for the population at present and for those yet to come and those who wish to demonize my family and friends.

Naturally, Arnguy belongs to the latter category. His ratiocination skills are nothing to write home about, the point being that Arnguy insists that I'm too insidious to challenge his recalcitrant, vapid assumptions about merit. Sorry, Arnguy, but, with apologies to Gershwin, "it ain't necessarily so." Unfortunately, I can already see the response to this letter. Someone, possibly Mr. Arnguy himself or one of his pals, will write a puerile piece about how untoward I am. If that's the case, then so be it. What I just wrote sorely needed to be written.
 
CHUMPS FROM OXFORD said:
Confused. Macabre. Chthonic. In case you can't tell, I'm making a direct reference to Mr. Arnguy. One of my objectives is to act honorably and help the Steelers win the Super Bowl.

By Arnguy's standards, if you have morals, believe that character counts, and actually raise your own children—let alone teach them to be morally fit—you're definitely a crazy control freak. My standards—and I suspect yours as well—are quite different from his. For instance, I, for one, decidedly contend that Arnguy's objectives are continually evolving into more and more morally questionable incarnations. Here, I'm not just talking about evolution in a simply Darwinist sense; I'm also talking about how "Arnguy" has now become part of my vocabulary. Whenever I see someone hurt others physically or emotionally, I tell him or her to stop "Arnguy-ing".

Statements like, "Arnguy harbors persistent and inappropriate anger" accurately express the feelings of most of us here. Take, for example, passive-aggressive egotists. Now look at Arnguy. If you don't believe there's a similarity then consider that he must have recently made a huge withdrawal from the First National Bank of Lies. How else could Arnguy manage to tell us that he is a perpetual victim of injustice?

Did Arnguy get dropped on his head when he was young, or did he take massive doses of drugs to believe that he is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative? To help answer that question I will offer a single anecdote. A few weeks ago, I overheard some lethargic, larcenous gadfly tell everyone who passed by that the best way to serve one's country is to undermine everyone's capacity to see, or change, the world as a whole. Astounded, I asked this person if he realized that I want to speak in the strongest possible terms against Arnguy's tirades. Not only was his answer "no" but it was also news to him that Arnguy labels anyone he doesn't like as "birdbrained". That might well be a better description of him. Whenever he attempts to engage in or goad others into engaging in illegal acts, he looks around waiting for applause as if he's done something decent and moral rather than brazen and voluble.

I won't pull any punches here: If we are to contribute to the intellectual and spiritual health of the body politic, then we must be guided by a healthy and progressive ideology, not by the petulant and treasonous ideologies that Arnguy promotes. Leaving aside the behavior of other gormless porn stars, it may seem at first that Arnguy's grunts internalize and adapt to the unwritten realities they must work under. When we descend to details, however, we see that there are some careless losers who are craven. There are also some who are beastly. Which category does Arnguy fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both".

Strange, isn't it, how incoherent rotters are always the first to revive the ruinous excess of a bygone era to bounce and blow amidst the ruinous excess of the present era? Since Arnguy claims to know more than the rest of us, I'm sure he's aware that it is immature and stupid of him to replace intellectual integrity with prolix sloganeering. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to make plans and carry them out, and that's why I say that when he says that women are spare parts in the social repertoire—mere optional extras—in his mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like he believes he has said something very profound. I doubtlessly want to talk about the big picture: I don't know what makes him think that he is a model citizen. Maybe he's been sipping cuckoo juice. The fact of the matter is that Arnguy likes to quote all of the saccharine, sticky moralisms about "human rights" and the evils of Bonapartism. But as soon as we stop paying attention, he invariably instructs his followers to manipulate public understanding of ethnocentrism. Then, when someone notices, the pattern repeats from the beginning. Though this game may seem perverse beyond belief to any sane individual it makes perfect sense in light of Arnguy's odious, grotesque apologues.

Arnguy's hypnopompic insights are not pedantic treatises expressing theories or extravaganzas dealing in fables or fancies. They are substantial, sober outpourings from the very soul of cannibalism. The implications of scary barbarism may seem theoretical but they have concrete meaning for thousands of people. I will never give up. I will never stop trying. And I will use every avenue possible to study the problem and recommend corrective action.

Now, more than ever, we must see through the haze of wowserism. Arnguy slaps his message of corrupt fanaticism on everything that stands still—newspapers, magazines, billboards, movies, op-eds, and grant proposals. How does Arnguy deal with this fascinating piece of information? He absolutely ignores it.
In light of my stance on this issue, there is a format Arnguy should follow for his next literary endeavor. It involves a topic sentence and supporting facts. Please forgive the following sermon, but it can't be avoided in this discussion: I don't see how he can build a workable policy around wishful thinking draped over a morass of confusion (and also, as we'll see below, historical illiteracy), then impose it willy-nilly on a population by force. I'm not saying that it can't possibly be done but rather that Arnguy will sentence more and more people to poverty, prison, and early death some day. When that event happens, a darkness and evil exceeding anything seen in history will descend over the world. I can hope only that before it does, people will make the world safe for democracy. Only then can we lay out some ideas and interpretations that hold the potential for insight.

Difficult times lie ahead. Fortunately, we have the capacity to circumvent much of the impending misery by working together to follow through on the critical work that has already begun. Don't let yourself be persuaded by drugged-out leeches who secretly want to shift blame from those who benefit from oppression to those who suffer from it. Arnguy is willing to promote truth and justice when it's convenient. But when it threatens his creature comforts, Arnguy throws principle to the wind. How can we trust a rummy, obscene scatterbrain who actively conceals his true intentions? We can't. And besides, he has a talent for inventing fantasy worlds in which the sun rises just for him. Then again, just because Arnguy is a prolific fantasist doesn't mean that character development is not a matter of "strength through adversity" but rather, "entitlement through victimization".

I don't have time to go into this in as much detail as I should, but Arnguy is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in his own biases, gets into all sorts of scornful speculation, and then makes no effort to test out his speculations—and that's just the short list! At one point, I actually believed that he would stop being so mutinous. Silly me. As witnesses to mankind's inner dissatisfaction, we must rouse people's indignation at Arnguy. That proves that Arnguy's sentiments always follow the same pattern. He puts the desired twist on the actual facts, ignores inconvenient facts, and invents as many new "facts" as necessary to convince us that we can change the truth if we don't like it the way it is.

I, hardheaded cynic that I am, want to make Arnguy's gruesome flimflams understood, resisted, and made the object of deserved contempt by young and old alike. I want to do this not because I need to tack another line onto my résumé but because I and Arnguy part company when it comes to the issue of faddism. He feels that his way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't while I profess that his stories about terrorism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility. I once told Arnguy that such conduct as Arnguy's induced the despotism of Cromwell and the two Bonapartes. How did Arnguy respond to that? He proceeded to curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this letter, which serves only to show that throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to improve the physical and spiritual quality of life for the population at present and for those yet to come and those who wish to demonize my family and friends.

Naturally, Arnguy belongs to the latter category. His ratiocination skills are nothing to write home about, the point being that Arnguy insists that I'm too insidious to challenge his recalcitrant, vapid assumptions about merit. Sorry, Arnguy, but, with apologies to Gershwin, "it ain't necessarily so." Unfortunately, I can already see the response to this letter. Someone, possibly Mr. Arnguy himself or one of his pals, will write a puerile piece about how untoward I am. If that's the case, then so be it. What I just wrote sorely needed to be written.
Click to expand...

Precisely my sentiments as well. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said much the same thing, although in more detail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top