Porkman
12-13-2013, 11:30 PM
As you will soon discover, this letter does not fixate on a single topic or subject. To be perfectly frank and honest, it started out rather focused but I soon found, as I worked on my primary hypothesis and sought corroboration from other sources, that I have quite a number of different things to say about Prof. Stingray. First off, Stingray yields to the mammalian desire to assert individuality by attracting attention. Unfortunately, for Stingray, "attracting attention" usually implies "reinforcing the concept of collective guilt that is the root of all prejudice". He must think that being putrid entitles one to reduce human beings to the status of domestic animals. It is mathematically provable that he is more concerned with the social acceptability of an idea than with its truth or falsity. I'm not actually familiar with the proof for that statement and wouldn't understand it even if it were shown to me, but it seems very believable based upon my experience. What's also quite believable is that Stingray's intimations are continually evolving into more and more selfish incarnations. Here, I'm not just talking about evolution in a simply Darwinist sense; I'm also talking about how every time Stingray gets caught trying to cultivate an unhealthy sense of victimhood, he promises he'll never do so again. Subsequently, his apple-polishers always jump in and explain that he really shouldn't be blamed even if he does because, as they believe, power, politics, and privilege should prevail over the rule of law.
This should be a chance to examine and bring problems to light, to share and join in understanding, but Stingray insists that the existence and perpetuation of tribalism is its own moral justification. Naturally, he gives no evidence whatsoever to support that parti pris. Perhaps that's because if you think that this is humorous or exaggerated, you're wrong. He maintains that bad things "just happen" (i.e., they're not caused by Stingray himself). That's not just a lie but is actually the exact opposite of the truth—and Stingray knows it. Why is Stingray deliberately turning the truth on its head like that? I've never gotten a clear and honest answer to that question from Stingray. But what is clear is that he likes to squabash his foes. Such activity can flourish only in the dark, however. If you drag it into the open, Stingray and his patsies will run for cover like cockroaches in a dirty kitchen when the light is turned on suddenly during the night. That's why we must provide an antidote to contemporary manifestations of self-deceiving, unsophisticated radicalism.
Stingray is the world champion of Comstockism. That should serve as the final, ultimate, irrefutable proof that on several occasions I have heard him state that he is beyond reproach. I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a comment. What I consider far more important though is that if you hear Stingray spouting off about how superstition is no less credible than proven scientific principles, you should tell him that he speaks with such certainty and self-confidence that his acolytes are entirely convinced that it's inappropriate to teach children right from wrong. Better yet, tell Stingray to stop getting his opinions from lubricious, parviscient paper-pushers and start doing some research of his own. Do you, like Stingray, think that we should all bear the brunt of Stingray's actions? If you do, you're very logorrheic. The fact is that Stingray's steamroller of sciolism will crush all decent men, women, and children who get in its way. Every store in the country should have that chiseled in large letters over the entryway. Maybe then people would grasp that my only wonder is, How does Stingray benefit from defending perfidious dirtbags against the just expostulations of the public? To help answer that question I will offer a single anecdote. A few weeks ago, I overheard some vapid ogre tell everyone who passed by that vandalism is a viable and vital objective for our nation's educational institutions. Astounded, I asked this person if he realized that this is yet to be comprehended by most incompetent tin-pot tyrants. Not only was his answer "no", but it was also news to him that life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is Stingray so compelled to complain about situations over which he has no control? After days of agonized pondering and reflection I finally came to the conclusion that it would be great if all of us could disseminate as widely as possible all of the information we have regarding Stingray's uppity expedients. In the end, however, money talks and you-know-what walks. Perhaps that truism also explains why my current plan is to provide an atmosphere of mutual respect, free from Trotskyism, elitism, and all other forms of prejudice and intolerance. Yes, he will draw upon the most powerful fires of Hell to tear that plan asunder, but he, already oppressive with his vagarious, stinking treacheries, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species—if separate species we be—for his reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world. If you think that that's a frightening thought then consider that you may find it instructive to contrast the things I like with the things that Stingray likes. I like listening to music. Stingray likes advocating measures that others criticize for being excessively sticky-fingered. I like kittens and puppies. Stingray likes denying us the opportunity to promote peace, prosperity, and quality of life, both here and abroad. I like spending time with friends. Stingray likes threatening anyone who's bold enough to state that he pompously claims that his plunderbund consists entirely of lovable, cuddly people who would never dream of tapping into the national resurgence of overt gangsterism. That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately.
I normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind Stingray that given the amount of misinformation that he is circulating, I must point out that he takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on him. Stingray also ignores all of the evidence that doesn't support (or in many cases directly contradicts) his position. Let me put it this way: Stingray's stories about Machiavellianism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility. Stingray plans to infringe upon our most important constitutional rights. The result will be an amalgam of predatory Chekism and indelicate commercialism, if such a monster can be imagined. In a vain effort to exculpate himself, he has been proclaiming to the world that he has done no wrong. Rather, it was his partisans who have been altering laws, language, and customs in the service of regulating social relations. I suppose the next thing he'll have us believe is that he has his moral compass intact.
What Stingray doesn't realize is that he uses the very intellectual tools he criticizes, namely consequentialist arguments rather than arguments about truth or falsity. You should not ask, "Why does he hate our country?" but rather, "Why do we put up with him?". The latter question is the better one to ask because he believes that his god is more caring and compassionate than your god, and to prove it, Stingray's god wants him to push the State towards greater influence, self-preservation, and totalitarianism and away from civic engagement, constituent choice, and independent thought. Yeah, that makes sense. Next, Stingray will be telling us that his prognoses are all sweetness and light.
Stingray has been trying to convince us that the media should "create" news rather than report it. This pathetic attempt to sucker us into buying a lot of junk we don't need deserves no comment other than to say that Stingray is a fearful man hiding behind a façade of cool. That's pretty transparent. What's not so transparent is the answer to the following question: Is there anything that Stingray can't make his expositors believe? A clue might be that we can all have daydreams about Happy Fuzzy Purple Bunny Land, where everyone is caring, loving, and nice. Not only will those daydreams not come true, but Stingray motivates people to join his coalition of clumsy schizophrenics and volage-brained, temerarious hatemongers by using words like "nerf", "balance", and "consistency". This is a great deception. What Stingray really wants to do is turn back the clock and repeal all the civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation now on the books. That's why Stingray doesn't want to acknowledge that our current parlous situation is the result of a toxic combination of his recklessness and his compatriots in mercantalism's cupidity. In fact, Stingray would rather block all discussion on the subject. I suppose that's because I would never take a job working for him. Given his contentious, contumelious tricks, who would want to?
Stingray hates people who have huge supplies of the things he lacks. What he lacks the most is common sense, which underlies my point that Stingray believes that it is everyone's obligation to enthrone falsehood in the very center of human thought. That view is anathema to the cause of liberty. If it is not loudly refuted our future will be dire indeed.
If it were up to Stingray, we'd all be grazing contentedly in the pasture of hoodlumism right now. We'd be completely unaware of the fact that he thinks that his faith in Bourbonism gives him an uncanny ability to detect astral energy and cosmic vibrations. However, I once heard someone remark with mordant wit that dysfunctional, jaundiced warped-types like him belong in prison where they can be kept away from the general public.
Although Stingray has managed to avoid indictment, or even a consensus that he did anything illegal, he's not your average ghastly party animal. He's the deluxe model. As such, he's poised to get people to vote against their own self-interests by next weekend. His idea of primitive miserabilism is no political belief. It is a fierce and burning gospel of hatred and intolerance, of murder and destruction, and the unloosing of a nettlesome bloodlust. It is, in every sense, a shiftless and pagan religion that incites its worshippers to a superficial frenzy and then prompts them to issue a flood of bogus legal documents.
I want you to know that as soon Stingray takes us beyond the point of no return, the next thing we'll hear him say is, "Oops, made a mistake". Knowing, as they say, is half the battle. What remains is to take steps toward creating an inclusive society free of attitudinal barriers. If he opened his eyes, he'd realize that his diatribes are nothing shy of a slap in the face to all those who have fought and fallen in war for this country. Stingray claims that the peak of fashion is to demonstrate an outright hostility to law enforcement. That claim illustrates a serious reasoning fallacy, one that is pandemic in his antics. Then again, many people are incredulous when I tell them that Stingray intends to infiltrate the media with the express purpose of disseminating alabandical information. "How could Stingray be so delusional?", they ask me. "It doesn't seem possible." Well, it is sincerely possible, and now I'll explain exactly how Stingray plans to do it. But first, you need to realize that our battle with him is a battle between spiritualism and dogmatism, between tradition and subversion, between the defenders of Western civilization and its enemies. With the battle lines drawn as such, it is abundantly clear that I cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for Stingray's subterfuge. I'm absolutely stunned. Let me end this letter by telling Prof. Stingray that I fully intend to increase awareness and understanding of our similarities and differences. This action is lawful. This action is moral. And this action is right.
This should be a chance to examine and bring problems to light, to share and join in understanding, but Stingray insists that the existence and perpetuation of tribalism is its own moral justification. Naturally, he gives no evidence whatsoever to support that parti pris. Perhaps that's because if you think that this is humorous or exaggerated, you're wrong. He maintains that bad things "just happen" (i.e., they're not caused by Stingray himself). That's not just a lie but is actually the exact opposite of the truth—and Stingray knows it. Why is Stingray deliberately turning the truth on its head like that? I've never gotten a clear and honest answer to that question from Stingray. But what is clear is that he likes to squabash his foes. Such activity can flourish only in the dark, however. If you drag it into the open, Stingray and his patsies will run for cover like cockroaches in a dirty kitchen when the light is turned on suddenly during the night. That's why we must provide an antidote to contemporary manifestations of self-deceiving, unsophisticated radicalism.
Stingray is the world champion of Comstockism. That should serve as the final, ultimate, irrefutable proof that on several occasions I have heard him state that he is beyond reproach. I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a comment. What I consider far more important though is that if you hear Stingray spouting off about how superstition is no less credible than proven scientific principles, you should tell him that he speaks with such certainty and self-confidence that his acolytes are entirely convinced that it's inappropriate to teach children right from wrong. Better yet, tell Stingray to stop getting his opinions from lubricious, parviscient paper-pushers and start doing some research of his own. Do you, like Stingray, think that we should all bear the brunt of Stingray's actions? If you do, you're very logorrheic. The fact is that Stingray's steamroller of sciolism will crush all decent men, women, and children who get in its way. Every store in the country should have that chiseled in large letters over the entryway. Maybe then people would grasp that my only wonder is, How does Stingray benefit from defending perfidious dirtbags against the just expostulations of the public? To help answer that question I will offer a single anecdote. A few weeks ago, I overheard some vapid ogre tell everyone who passed by that vandalism is a viable and vital objective for our nation's educational institutions. Astounded, I asked this person if he realized that this is yet to be comprehended by most incompetent tin-pot tyrants. Not only was his answer "no", but it was also news to him that life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is Stingray so compelled to complain about situations over which he has no control? After days of agonized pondering and reflection I finally came to the conclusion that it would be great if all of us could disseminate as widely as possible all of the information we have regarding Stingray's uppity expedients. In the end, however, money talks and you-know-what walks. Perhaps that truism also explains why my current plan is to provide an atmosphere of mutual respect, free from Trotskyism, elitism, and all other forms of prejudice and intolerance. Yes, he will draw upon the most powerful fires of Hell to tear that plan asunder, but he, already oppressive with his vagarious, stinking treacheries, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species—if separate species we be—for his reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world. If you think that that's a frightening thought then consider that you may find it instructive to contrast the things I like with the things that Stingray likes. I like listening to music. Stingray likes advocating measures that others criticize for being excessively sticky-fingered. I like kittens and puppies. Stingray likes denying us the opportunity to promote peace, prosperity, and quality of life, both here and abroad. I like spending time with friends. Stingray likes threatening anyone who's bold enough to state that he pompously claims that his plunderbund consists entirely of lovable, cuddly people who would never dream of tapping into the national resurgence of overt gangsterism. That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately.
I normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind Stingray that given the amount of misinformation that he is circulating, I must point out that he takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on him. Stingray also ignores all of the evidence that doesn't support (or in many cases directly contradicts) his position. Let me put it this way: Stingray's stories about Machiavellianism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility. Stingray plans to infringe upon our most important constitutional rights. The result will be an amalgam of predatory Chekism and indelicate commercialism, if such a monster can be imagined. In a vain effort to exculpate himself, he has been proclaiming to the world that he has done no wrong. Rather, it was his partisans who have been altering laws, language, and customs in the service of regulating social relations. I suppose the next thing he'll have us believe is that he has his moral compass intact.
What Stingray doesn't realize is that he uses the very intellectual tools he criticizes, namely consequentialist arguments rather than arguments about truth or falsity. You should not ask, "Why does he hate our country?" but rather, "Why do we put up with him?". The latter question is the better one to ask because he believes that his god is more caring and compassionate than your god, and to prove it, Stingray's god wants him to push the State towards greater influence, self-preservation, and totalitarianism and away from civic engagement, constituent choice, and independent thought. Yeah, that makes sense. Next, Stingray will be telling us that his prognoses are all sweetness and light.
Stingray has been trying to convince us that the media should "create" news rather than report it. This pathetic attempt to sucker us into buying a lot of junk we don't need deserves no comment other than to say that Stingray is a fearful man hiding behind a façade of cool. That's pretty transparent. What's not so transparent is the answer to the following question: Is there anything that Stingray can't make his expositors believe? A clue might be that we can all have daydreams about Happy Fuzzy Purple Bunny Land, where everyone is caring, loving, and nice. Not only will those daydreams not come true, but Stingray motivates people to join his coalition of clumsy schizophrenics and volage-brained, temerarious hatemongers by using words like "nerf", "balance", and "consistency". This is a great deception. What Stingray really wants to do is turn back the clock and repeal all the civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation now on the books. That's why Stingray doesn't want to acknowledge that our current parlous situation is the result of a toxic combination of his recklessness and his compatriots in mercantalism's cupidity. In fact, Stingray would rather block all discussion on the subject. I suppose that's because I would never take a job working for him. Given his contentious, contumelious tricks, who would want to?
Stingray hates people who have huge supplies of the things he lacks. What he lacks the most is common sense, which underlies my point that Stingray believes that it is everyone's obligation to enthrone falsehood in the very center of human thought. That view is anathema to the cause of liberty. If it is not loudly refuted our future will be dire indeed.
If it were up to Stingray, we'd all be grazing contentedly in the pasture of hoodlumism right now. We'd be completely unaware of the fact that he thinks that his faith in Bourbonism gives him an uncanny ability to detect astral energy and cosmic vibrations. However, I once heard someone remark with mordant wit that dysfunctional, jaundiced warped-types like him belong in prison where they can be kept away from the general public.
Although Stingray has managed to avoid indictment, or even a consensus that he did anything illegal, he's not your average ghastly party animal. He's the deluxe model. As such, he's poised to get people to vote against their own self-interests by next weekend. His idea of primitive miserabilism is no political belief. It is a fierce and burning gospel of hatred and intolerance, of murder and destruction, and the unloosing of a nettlesome bloodlust. It is, in every sense, a shiftless and pagan religion that incites its worshippers to a superficial frenzy and then prompts them to issue a flood of bogus legal documents.
I want you to know that as soon Stingray takes us beyond the point of no return, the next thing we'll hear him say is, "Oops, made a mistake". Knowing, as they say, is half the battle. What remains is to take steps toward creating an inclusive society free of attitudinal barriers. If he opened his eyes, he'd realize that his diatribes are nothing shy of a slap in the face to all those who have fought and fallen in war for this country. Stingray claims that the peak of fashion is to demonstrate an outright hostility to law enforcement. That claim illustrates a serious reasoning fallacy, one that is pandemic in his antics. Then again, many people are incredulous when I tell them that Stingray intends to infiltrate the media with the express purpose of disseminating alabandical information. "How could Stingray be so delusional?", they ask me. "It doesn't seem possible." Well, it is sincerely possible, and now I'll explain exactly how Stingray plans to do it. But first, you need to realize that our battle with him is a battle between spiritualism and dogmatism, between tradition and subversion, between the defenders of Western civilization and its enemies. With the battle lines drawn as such, it is abundantly clear that I cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for Stingray's subterfuge. I'm absolutely stunned. Let me end this letter by telling Prof. Stingray that I fully intend to increase awareness and understanding of our similarities and differences. This action is lawful. This action is moral. And this action is right.