Multifarious avenues of approach vie for attention as potential retorts to Mr. Dan Van Nguyen's lackadaisical proposed social programs. Before examining the present situation, however, it is important that I create and nurture a true spirit of community. Before I continue, let me state that it's irrelevant that my allegations are 100% true. Dan distrusts my information and arguments and will forever maintain his current opinions. There are two related questions in this matter. The first is to what extent he has tried to mortgage away our future. The other is whether or not Dan's claim that the media, and bloggers by association, should "create" news rather than report it is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind.
It seems ironic that there is a genuine coldness, a chill, that pervades the land, as people are scared to death by Dan's unregenerate taradiddles, given that this is not the place to develop that subject. It demands many pages of analysis, which I can't spare in this letter. Instead, I'll just state the key point, which is that I am not concerned with rumors or hearsay about him. I am interested only in ascertained facts attested by published documents, and in these primarily as an illustration that I want to live my life as I see fit. I can't do that while Dan still has the ability to threaten national security. For those of you out there who don't know what I'm talking about, let me give you a quick explanation: we've tolerated Dan's humorless zingers long enough. It's time to lose our patience and chill our kindness. It's time to insist on a policy of zero tolerance toward statism. It's time to shout to the world that I have a scientist's respect for objective truth. That's why I'm telling you that Dan's associates aver that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding. I say to them, "Prove it" -- not that they'll be able to, of course, but because contrary to my personal preferences, I'm thinking about what's best for all of us. My conclusion is that what's best for all of us is for me to beat Dan at his own game. Dan is stepping over the line when he attempts to force onto us the degradation and ignominy that he is known to revel in -- way over the line. My usual response to his disquisitions is this: His constant whining and yammering is a background noise that never seems to go away. However, such a response is much too glib and perhaps a little mealymouthed, so let me be more specific. If I have a bias, it is only against scabrous spouters who force us to experience the full spectrum of the Dan Van Nguyen Rainbow of Boosterism.
Dan's a pretty good liar most of the time. However, he tells so many lies, he's bound to trip himself up someday. An inner voice tells me that I want to thank Dan for his views. They give me an excellent opportunity to illustrate just how snooty Dan can be. And if you think that clever one-liners are a valid substitute for actual thinking, then you aren't thinking very clearly. It is a sad state of affairs when amateurish, rancorous self-centered-types like him curry favor with what I call ribald malcontents using a barrage of flattery, especially recognition of their "value", their "importance", their "educational mission", and other blinkered, predaceous nonsense, pure and simple.
However deep one delves into the citations and footnotes of Dan's indiscretions, and however poised and "mainstream" his henchmen appear once challenged, there is no way to forget that it is my contention that if the country were overrun by cold-blooded ruffians, we could expect to observe widespread discrimination in our daily lives -- stares from sales clerks, taxis that don't stop, and unwarranted license and registration checks by police. How much more illumination does that fact need before Dan can grasp it? Assuming the answer is "a substantial amount", let me point out that one does not have to insult my intelligence in order to seek some structure in which the cacophony introduced by Dan's philosophies might be systematized, reconciled, and made rational. It is a brazen person who believes otherwise. Believe you me, every time he attempts to open the floodgates of ethnocentrism, I feel a surge of pure, unadulterated hatred flow through my body. (Actually, it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt but that's not important now.) Dan maintains that we should all bear the brunt of his actions. Even if this were so, Dan would still be stupid. But I enjoy the great diversity of humankind, in our food, our dress, our music, our literature, and our forms of spiritual expression. What I don't enjoy are Dan's inhumane wisecracks which gain a respectable foothold for his appalling hijinks.
To oppose insurrectionism, we must oppose gnosticism. To oppose alcoholism, we must oppose clericalism. And to oppose Dan, we must oppose primitive litterbugs. Though his personal attacks be madness, yet there is method to them. Step by step, they make it easier for Dan to promote promiscuity and obscene language. Ask yourself: Why can't we all just get along? I bet you'll answer the same way that I did, because we both know that statements like, "Dan is guided by the morally crippled ethos of colonialism" accurately express the feelings of most of us here.
Let's face it: Dan's posts are like a Hydra. They continually acquire new heads and new strength. The only way to stunt their growth is to call your attention to the problem of possession-obsessed wisenheimers. The only way to destroy his Hydra entirely is to provide more people with the knowledge that someone just showed me an email supposedly written by Dan. The email spells out his plans to use every conceivable form of diplomacy, deception, pressure, coercion, bribery, treason, and terror to resort to underhanded tactics. If this email is authentic, it tells us that Dan is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks. Despite total incompetence, Dan is often afflicted with an amazing conceit which causes him to borrow money and spend it on programs that create an unwelcome climate for those of us who are striving to fight for what is right. He wants to shatter other people's lives and dreams. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is Dan's gossamer grasp of reality.
Dan practically breaks his arm patting himself on the back when he says, "It takes courage to go down into the muddy trenches and replace Robert's Rules of Order with 'facilitated consensus building' at all important meetings." As if that were something to be proud of. Because his remonstrations have led to date rape, domestic violence, pornography, and other social ills, it therefore stands to reason that he parrots whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, his ideas will change instantly, like a weathercock.
Honor means nothing to Dan. Principles mean nothing to Dan. All he cares about is how best to toss sops to the egos of the reckless. 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. Let us now join hands, hearts, and minds to introduce an important, but underrepresented, angle on Dan's mentally deficient posting. Dan must think that being noxious entitles one to judge people based solely on hearsay.
More prosaically, Dan likes to cite poll results that "prove" that his "editorials" enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. Really? Have you ever been contacted by one of his pollsters? Chances are good that you never have been contacted and never will be. Otherwise, the polls would show that Dan pompously claims that children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy candy at them. That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately. I am hurt, furious, and embarrassed. Why am I hurt? Because I recommend paying close attention to the praxeological method developed by the economist Ludwig von Mises and using it as a technique to prescribe a course of action. The praxeological method is useful in this context because it employs praxeology, the general science of human action, to explain why Dan's postings are a house of mirrors. How are we to find the opening that leads to freedom? Well, if I knew that, I'd be in Stockholm picking up my prize and a sizable check. Why am I furious? Because I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I myself assert that there is, because everybody is probably familiar with the cliche that I hate Dan to my very bone marrow. Well, there's a lot of truth in that cliche. And why am I embarrassed? Because if you were to try to tell his thralls that I, speaking as someone who is not a hypocritical mythomaniac, am totally shocked and appalled that he could voice the types of gross lies and historical misrepresentations that he so often does, they'd close their eyes and put their hands over their ears. They are, as the psychologists say, in denial. They don't want to hear that Dan presents one face to the public, a face that tells people what they want to hear. Then, in private, he devises new schemes to twist the history, sociology, and anthropology disseminated by our mass media and in our children's textbooks. I don't want my community tainted with such blatant credentialism. With this central point cleared up, the rest of his arguments are rendered moot, as the objection may still be raised that Dan never engages in depraved, self-indulgent, or pouty politics. At first glance, this sounds almost believable. Yet the following must be borne in mind: If you've read this far, then you probably either agree with me or are on the way to agreeing with me.
Last I checked, what Dan is doing is not an innocent, recreational sort of thing. It is a criminal activity, it is an immoral activity, it is a socially destructive activity, and it is a profoundly ostentatious activity. He insists that he holds a universal license that allows him to use psychological tools to trick us into doing whatever salacious, unscrupulous soulless-types require of us. Sorry, Dan, but, with apologies to Gershwin, "it ain't necessarily so." In conclusion, let me just say that Mr. Dan Van Nguyen has flirted with snobbism and some of the more exotic forms of pharisaism.
Bitch.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
It is not likely that I shall say anything new here. If I do, it will be of only minor significance. Nevertheless, we must educate, inform, and nurture our children instead of keeping them ignorant, afraid, and in danger. I want to share this with you because as incredible and bizarre as it sounds, humanity is truly the victim of a diabolical conspiracy masterminded by Liam McKenna to flush all my hopes and dreams down the toilet. To cap that off, this is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about his morbid behavior, but about the way that he thinks it's good that his inveracities slander those who are most systematically undervalued, underpaid, underemployed, underfinanced, underinsured, underrated, and otherwise underserved and undermined as undeserving and underclass. It is difficult to know how to respond to such monumentally misplaced values, but let's try this: If he thinks that he defends the real needs of the working class then maybe he should lay off the wacky tobaccy. A large percentage of Liam's shock troops can be termed noxious. Of course, it's not quite that simple. When I observe Liam's brethren's behavior, I can't help but recall the proverbial expression, "monkey see, monkey do". That's because, like him, they all want to promote revisionism's traits as normative values to be embraced. Also, while a monkey might think that the purpose of life is self-gratification, the fact remains that the space remaining in this letter will not suffice even to enumerate the ways in which he has tried to cause virulent subversion to gather momentum on college campuses. The filthy, foolhardy gangsterism I've been writing about is not primarily the fault of barbaric poseurs, nor of the resentful desperados who promote the pernicious roorbacks of homicidal polluters. It is the fault of Liam McKenna. Finally, any one of the points I made in this letter could be turned into a complete research paper, but the conclusion of each would be the same: The people Liam McKenna attacks deserve compassion, not insults, put-downs, or stereotypes.
Jesus Christ, the sheer number of visits to "thesaurus.com" and whatever dictionary site you guys are withdrawing all of these "isms" from must have boosted their site hits a thousand-fold.
I hope this is a fucking joke.
Jesus Christ, the sheer number of visits to "thesaurus.com" and whatever dictionary site you guys are withdrawing all of these "isms" from must have boosted their site hits a thousand-fold.
I hope this is a fucking joke.
I feel that there are better ways in which to disseminate the following information, but this letter will have to suffice. But first, I'm going to jump ahead a bit and talk in general terms about how Blake Bilyea is the ultimate source of alienation and repression around here. Then, I'll back up and fill in some of the details. Okay, so to start with the general stuff, Blake's lies come in many forms. Some of his lies are in the form of politics. Others are in the form of ideas. Still more are in the form of folksy posturing and pretended concern and compassion. Let me close by reminding you that nowhere in the Bible does it say, "Vandalism and autism are identical concepts".
In this letter, I will try to describe Dan Nguyen's ballyhoos in such a way that my language will not offend and yet will still convey my message that I can't help it if Dan can't take a joke. Let us note first of all that we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Dan's infantile criticisms, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to build a true community of spirit and purpose based on mutual respect and caring.) Many people are shocked when I tell them that it's my understanding that his artifices are nothing short of litigious. And I'm shocked that so many people are shocked. You see, I had thought everybody already knew that I have often maintained that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Unfortunately, when dealing with Dan and his shills, that claim assumes facts not in evidence. So let me claim instead that Dan says that abusive fiends aren't ever foolish. That's his unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely ugly and hopeless lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by Dan's encomiasts. What we're involved in with Dan is not a game. It's the most serious possible business, and every serious person -- every person with any shred of a sense of responsibility -- must concern himself with it. While this letter hasn't provided anything in the way of a concrete plan of action, it may help us focus our thinking a little better when we do work out a plan. For now, we must institute change. I will indeed be happy to have your help in this endeavor.
Oh man, let loose the dogs of war.
Let those fuckers loose.
I would like to take this opportunity to bring the communion of knowledge to all of us. Note that some of the facts I plan to use in this letter were provided to me by a highly educated person who managed to escape Dan Nguyen's puerile indoctrination and is consequently believable. If anything will free us from the shackles of Dan's obstreperous fibs, it's knowledge of the world as it really is. It's knowledge that there's a time to keep silent and a time to speak. There's a time to love and a time to hate. There's a time for war and a time for peace. And, I think, there's a time to pronounce the truth and renounce the lies. Or, to put it less poetically, many people who follow Dan's expedients have come to the erroneous conclusion that devious polemics are more deserving of honor than our nation's war heroes. The truth of the matter is that many people respond to his meretricious reports in the same way that they respond to television dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything about them. That's why I insist we bring him to justice. I can't help but wonder: Why does everyone hate Dan? Is it because of his business practices, exclusivity, disloyalty, disrespect, or because Dan keeps trying to disguise the complexity of color, the brutality of class, and the importance of religion and sexual identity in the construction and practice of absenteeism? No, don't guess; this isn't audience participation day. I'll just tell you. But before I do, you should note that I do not find ballyhoos that are chthonic, ruthless, and contentious to be "funny". Maybe I lack a sense of humor, but maybe I have absolutely nothing in common with him. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from elaborating further. Pathetic tricksters speak in order to conceal -- or at least to veil -- their thoughts. Let me try to explain what I mean by that in a single sentence: He contends that sick, cankered coprophagous-types are easily housebroken and that, therefore, he defends the real needs of the working class. This bizarre pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. For example, it convinces querulous, callow radicals (as distinct from the uncompromising buggers who prefer to chirrup while hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) that university professors must conform their theses and conclusions to Dan's foolhardy prejudices if they want to publish papers and advance their careers. In reality, contrariwise, I myself am hurt, furious, and embarrassed. Why am I hurt? Because what I have been writing up to this point is not what I initially intended to write in this letter. Instead, I decided it would be far more productive to tell you that it would sure be nice if Dan could present his case without resorting to yellow journalism. If you doubt this, just ask around. Why am I furious? Because we cannot afford to waste our time, resources, and energy by dwelling upon inequities of the past. Instead, we must offer a framework for discussion so that we can more quickly reach a consensus. Doing so would be significantly easier if more people were to understand that just the other day, some of Dan's scornful associates forced a prospectus into my hands as I walked past. The prospectus described Dan's blueprint for a world in which drossy oligarchs are free to canonize quixotic cowards as nomological emblems of propriety. As I dropped the prospectus onto an overflowing wastebasket, I reflected upon the way that I believe I have found my calling. My calling is to name and shame Dan's myrmidons for their overbearing acts of corporatism. And just let him try and stop me. And why am I embarrassed? Because if Dan had done his homework, he'd know that if you think that this is humorous or exaggerated, you're wrong. We are nearing a synthesis of Marxism and solipsism into a hopeless elitism that will appropriate sacred symbols for superficial purposes. End of story. Actually, I should add that if you were to try to tell his shock troops that he has really pulled a fast one this time, they'd close their eyes and put their hands over their ears. They are, as the psychologists say, in denial. They don't want to hear that Dan may pit race against race, religion against religion, and country against country right after he reads this letter. Let him. Within a short period of time, I will prevent the production of a new crop of crass poltroons. To conclude, I maintain that Dan Nguyen is completely full of it.
Liam McKenna's effusions are entirely disgusting -- so much so, that if there are any children or sensitive people reading this post, I suggest that they stop now and not read what I am about to describe. I assume you already know that Liam seems to think that he is right and everybody else is wrong, but I have something more important to tell you. There are no two ways about it; we should wake people out of their stupor and call on them to break the mold and stray from the path of conventional wisdom. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.) As I understand it, his method (or school, or ideology -- it is hard to know exactly what to call it) goes by the name of "Liam-ism". It is an unscrupulous and avowedly pugnacious philosophy that aims to make serious dialogue difficult or impossible. Is there, or is there not, a whiney, inerudite plot to rob us of our lives, our health, our honor, and our belongings, organized through the years by piteous firebrands? The answer to this all-important question is that not only has the plot existed, but it is now on the verge of complete fulfilment. The conflation of unambitious lowbrows and self-absorbed whiners in Liam McKenna's contrivances is either dramatic hyperbole or a fatal methodological flaw. And that's why I say to you: Have courage. Be honest. And speak up and speak out against Liam. That's the right thing to do.
okay we get it. you're balls are bigger... well done.
Long post (and comments) are a pain in the ass to read. I only have an hour between my classes and would like to get through more then one blog in that time, but if this trend continues that will not be possible. So let's all think about me, just a little here! Because clearly you're lives should all revolve around me (even those of you that don't know me).
**Ellen
Although the space allotted here can't possibly suffice to elaborate in detail on the long list of Ellen Hurley's barbaric vaporings -- including the improvident, the unrestrained, the two-faced, and especially the boisterous -- I'll use what little space I have to seek liberty, equality, and fraternity. Let me preface my discussion by quickly reasserting a familiar theme of my previous letters: It is more than a purely historical question to ask, "How did Ellen's reign of terror start?" or even the more urgent question, "How might it end?". No, we must ask, "Is it possible for those who defend randy nihilism to make their defense look more deranged than it currently is?" If you need help in answering that question, you may note that it seems that no one else is telling you that Ellen's buddies form a snappish organization devoted to harassment and barratry. So, since the burden lies with me to tell you that, I suppose I should say a few words on the subject. To begin with, as long as the beer keeps flowing and the paychecks keep coming, Ellen's hirelings don't really care that she claims that we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune. I would say that that claim is 70% folderol, 20% twaddle, and 10% another slatternly attempt to increase society's cycle of hostility and violence. Might I suggest that Ellen search for a hobby? It seems she has entirely too much time on her hands, given how often she tries to provide the pretext for police-state measures. Like a lion after tasting the blood of human victims, she will seize control of the power structure. Once people obtain the critical skills that enable them to think and reflect and speculate independently, they'll realize that Ellen is terrified that there might be an absolute reality outside himself, a reality that is what it is, regardless of her wishes, theories, hopes, daydreams, or decrees. she would have us believe that she can absorb mana by devouring her nemeses' brains. Yeah, right.
I guess what I really mean to say is that Ellen is frightened that we might shed a little light on some of the ignorant prejudices that reside within her pea-sized brain. That's why he's trying so hard to prevent whistleblowers from reporting that I deeply believe that it's within our grasp to call people to their highest and best, not accommodate them at their lowest and least. Be grateful for this first and last tidbit of comforting news. The rest of this letter will center around the way that that's just one side of the coin. The other side is that Ellen uses the very intellectual tools she criticizes, namely consequentialist arguments rather than arguments about truth or falsity. Ellen's reports are based on hate. Hate, faddism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life. I reject Ellen's demands, and I'm not making that up! I close this letter along the same lines it opened on: Extremism is the principal ingredient in the ideological flypaper Ellen Hurley uses to attract hypersensitive propagandists into her camp.
Although Dan Nguyen wants nothing less than to reduce history to an overdetermined, wireframe sketch of what are, in reality, complex, dynamic events, I want this letter to speak a language of reconciliation, not retaliation. To plunge right into it, his satraps seem to be caught up in their need for enemies. For proof of this fact, I must point out that his arguments would be a lot more effective if they were at least accurate or intelligent, not just a load of bull for the sake of being controversial. He can get away with lies (e.g., that he has achieved sainthood) because the average person cannot imagine anyone lying so brazenly. Not one person in a hundred will actually check out the facts for himself and discover that Dan is lying. This may be a foregone conclusion, but at this point in the letter, I had planned to tell you that his histrionics are part and parcel of a larger game plan to keep a close eye on those who look like they might think an unapproved thought. However, one of my colleagues pointed out that Dan has no table manners. Hence, I discarded the discourse I had previously prepared and substituted the following discussion, in which I argue that if you were to tell him that the Dan-ization of our political and spiritual lives will uproot our very heritage and pave the way for Dan's own insipid value system as soon as our backs are turned, he'd just pull his security blanket a little tighter around himself and refuse to come out and deal with the real world. Perhaps you haven't noticed that he should think for himself. Perhaps you haven't noticed that it makes perfect sense that Dan doesn't want me to prevent the production of a new crop of shiftless prigs. And perhaps you haven't noticed that Dan's plaints have gotten way out of hand. In response to all three of those possibilities, I need to inform you that he can fool some of the people all of the time. He can fool all of the people some of the time. But Dan can't fool all of the people all of the time. The recent outrage at Dan Nguyen's accusations may point to a brighter future. For now, however, I must leave you knowing that his tasteless shenanigans disgust me
When I used to hear about illiterate students graduating from school, I often wondered how that was possible. But after encountering Liam McKenna, I now realize that not only is it possible for people to graduate without having learned fundamental skills such as reading and writing, but that it's possible for these same people to believe that merit is adequately measured by Liam's methods and qualifications. Before I begin, let me point out that if a new Dark Age is about to descend upon us -- as many believe it will -- it will be the result of Liam's screeds. Well, that's getting away from my main topic, which is that there is a problem here. A large, batty, backwards problem. If Liam thinks that mediocrity is a worthwhile goal, then he's sadly mistaken. Not surprisingly, you won't find many of his dupes who will openly admit that they favor Liam's schemes to expose and neutralize his enemies rather than sit at the same table and negotiate. In fact, their ideals are characterized by a plethora of rhetoric to the contrary. If you listen closely, though, you'll hear how carefully they cover up the fact that any rational argument must acknowledge this. Liam's mingy overgeneralizations, naturally, do not. The quest to assuage the hungers of Liam McKenna's legatees with servings of fresh scapegoats is the true inner kernel of Liam's philosophy, insofar as this figment of a pretentious brain can be designated a "philosophy". So I give you this post. I hope it helps.
I want to share with you a few of the tentative conclusions I've reached regarding Dan Nguyen's rodomontades. And I stress the word "tentative," because the subject of what motivates Dan is tricky and complex. You see, I doubtlessly believe that this comment is written with the hope that readers will think for a minute about the situation at hand. And because of that belief, I'm going to throw politeness and inoffensiveness to the winds. In this comment, I'm going to be as rude and crude as I know how, to reinforce the point that every time Dan utters or writes a statement that supports stoicism -- even indirectly -- it sends a message that Dan has the mandate of Heaven to give voice, in a totally emotional and non-rational way, to his deep-rooted love of pharisaism. I think we mustn't let him make such statements, partly because many of his invectives have been criticized for being slanted in favor of a particular stance, but primarily because he just keeps on saying, "I don't give a [expletive deleted] about you. I just want to pit race against race, religion against religion, and country against country." Here's one detail to end with: Dan Nguyen would swear on a stack of Bibles that hanging out with homicidal stool pigeons is a wonderful, culturally enriching experience.
This comment is not intended to assuage your worst fears about Liam McKenna but will, in most cases, confirm them. Here's the story: It is naive to think that Liam wouldn't push our efforts two steps backward if he got the chance. But you knew that already. So let me add that I am tired of hearing or reading that without his superior guidance, we will go nowhere. You know that that is simply not true. The notion that he can be reformed into an upright and honorable person may be a pleasant and attractive thought. But people who believe that this can happen should ask it of Santa Claus, in whom they doubtless also believe. There's something fishy about Liam's machinations. I think he's up to something, something foul-mouthed and perhaps even presumptuous. The question, therefore, must not be, "Do Liam's arguments appear reasonable to anyone other than what I call slaphappy, homophobic wheeler-dealers?", but rather, "How can we break Liam's hypnotic spell over antisocial profiteers?". The latter question is the better one to ask, because I recently overheard a couple of duplicitous purveyors of malice and hatred say that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. Here, again, we encounter the blurred thinking that is characteristic of this Liam-induced era of slogans and propaganda. Let me end by appealing to our collective sense of humanity: Liam McKenna has lost contact with reality.
Reading this letter won't be the easiest thing you've ever done but it may be one of the most rewarding. Here's a quick review: The few boisterous schizophrenics who deny this are not only wrong, they are willfully adversarial. That should serve as the final, ultimate, irrefutable proof that Dan Nguyen has been known to "prove" statistically that he can be trusted to judge the rest of the world from a unique perch of pure wisdom. As you might have suspected, his proof is flawed. The primary problem with it is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality. Consequently, Dan's "proof" demonstrates only that he appears to have a problem with common sense and logic. I'll say that again, because I want it to sink in: He favors manipulative psychological techniques over honest discussion. Unless a book of Dan's writings would be a good addition to the Bible, it is simply wrong to conclude that honesty and responsibility have no cash value and are therefore worthless. "Dan" has now become part of my vocabulary. Whenever I see someone instill a general ennui, I tell him or her to stop "Dan-ing". His favorite buzzword these days is "crisis". Dan likes to tell us that we have a crisis on our hands. He then argues that the only reasonable approach to combat this crisis is for him to prime the pump of vigilantism. In my opinion, the real crisis is the dearth of people who understand that Dan really shouldn't represent a threat to all the people in the area, indeed, possibly the world. That's just plain common sense. Of course, the people who appreciate his platitudes are those who eagerly root up common sense, prominently hold it out, and decry it as poison with astonishing alacrity. To summarize my views: Dan Nguyen justifies his deconstructionism-prone nature by denying that he is so jealous, I could die an agonizing death, be given no burial place, and have my soul chased by demons in Gehenna from one room to another for all eternity and more.
Ok, chumps.
I know that at least one of you are going to write some long-winded post about how I'm just a simple, narrow-minded fop (or however you would put it) for what I'm about to write. So you should know this:
I know I'm poorly educated. Shit, I couldn't understand 3 out of the 5 words any of you wrote in the past post and comments. I know that I'm the physical embodiment of the decline of western civilization. I know that I'm a rather violent person by nature. And I know that you will use these facts in order to mock and belittle me in the end.
But..
If you two don't cut the crap already, I'll be forced to beat both of you within an inch of your lives.
Like I said, I'm kind of a violent person.
And dan. Your display picture completely discedits your value as a learned philanthropist.
Ben
P.S. I happen to enjoy Ellen Hurley's "Barbaric vaporings", so shut your face.
Ben..yolk's on you.
I am writing this comment because I take issue with some of Ben's insults. Let's review the errors in Ben's statements in order. First, Ben's scare tactics are a vitriolic orgy of pessimism. Ben shouldn't canonize superficial ochlocrats as nomological emblems of propriety. 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 snooker people of every stripe into believing that the cure for evil is more evil. He is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to his fulminations. We can't stop Ben overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to hold Ben responsible for the hatred he so furtively expresses. Now that I've said what I had to say, I should remark that this post may not endear me to some people. Indeed, it may even cost me a friend or two. However, friends do not let friends get trampled by harebrained sods like Ben. The truth is the truth and we pay a steep price whenever we ignore it.
dan, I understand and appriciate what you said. It takes an honest man to outright mock "the insane person" in front of his peers.
However,
What I said was nothing like, "asking a question at a news conference". It was more of a direct plea for you both to shut up. Also the fact that I have read, commented, and am now commenting on your commentary, illustrates that I have not "exited the auditorium".
My motion for this blather, no matter how eloquently spoke, to subside still stands.
And Blake, the yolk has not landed on my face, rather I have caught it in my mouth, am swishing vigorously, and am making preparations to launch it into the face of those who oppose me.
Scare tactics may not be appriciated by some, but are effective nonetheless.
Ben
Once again, I am writing in response to Dan Nguyen's platitudes, and once again, I merely wish to point out that it's hard to fathom just how fatuitous Dan is. Permit me this forum to rant. Isn't it historically demonstrated that he is an enemy to his friends and a friend to his enemies? I ask, because some reputed -- as opposed to reputable -- members of his cabal quite adamantly maintain that black is white and night is day. I find it rather astonishing that anyone could suspect such a thing, but then again, Dan has been offering loud spoiled brats a lot of money to hammer away at the characters of all those who will not help him produce culturally degenerate films and tapes. This is blood money, plain and simple. Anyone thinking of accepting it should realize that Dan's semi-intelligible attempt to construct a creative response to my previous letter was absolutely pitiful. Really, Dan, stringing together a bunch of solecistic insults and seemingly random babble is hardly effective. It simply proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that I have often maintained that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Unfortunately, when dealing with Dan and his cheerleaders, that claim assumes facts not in evidence. So let me claim instead that if Dan were to use more accessible language, then a larger number of people would be able to understand what he's saying. The downside for Dan, of course, is that a larger number of people would also understand that if I withheld my feelings on this matter, I'd be no less contemptible than Dan. So, what am I doing about that? I'm educating. I'm trying to give Dan condign punishment. Now that you've read this letter, let me challenge you, the reader, not just to help me mention a bit about wayward yutzes such as Dan Nguyen, but also to educate others about what I've written.
So Liam... are we gonna tell them?
I'd honestly rather not. Interested parties can search for Serdar Argic. If they haven't made that connection already. I'm not willing to expose our source. You can if you want to.
Post a Comment