MagicEy
10-27-2007, 08:39 PM
I was so pleased by the response to my last letter that I decided to write another one. Don't worry; I have plenty of new stuff to say about Hackers and their loyalists. I realize that some of you may not know the particular background details of the events I'm referring to. I'm not going to go into those details here, but you can read up on them elsewhere.
Ten years ago, it was tyrannical, passive-aggressive dweebs. Today, it's militant blowhards who dress up Hackers's profit motive in the cloak of selfless altruism. If Hackers were to use more accessible language, then a larger number of people would be able to understand what they's saying. The downside for Hackers, of course, is that a larger number of people would also understand that their devotees are the worst that humanity has to offer. Once we realize that, what do we do? The appropriate thing, in my judgment, is to exert a positive influence on the type of world that people will live in a thousand years from now. I say that because most of you reading ttheir letter have your hearts in the right place. Now follow your hearts with actions. I respect Hackers's allegations, although my position is that theirtory teaches us that to ignore or dismiss people like Hackers simply as vainglorious mendicants can have devastating consequences. He, in contrast, argues that a plausible excuse is a satisfactory substitute for performance. Ttheir disagreement merely scratches the surface of the ideological chasm festering between me and Hackers. The only rational way to bridge ttheir chasm is for him to admit that by using bombastic language and selective quotation, they is able to carve out space in the mainstream for incoherent politics. The sooner they come to grips with that reality, the better for all of us. He will probably respond to ttheir letter just like they responds to all criticism. He will put me down as "reprehensible" or "misinformed". That's their standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about him except the most fawning praise.
Common-sense understanding of human nature tells us that Hackers is frightened that we might stand by our principles and be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost. That's why they's trying so hard to prevent wtheirtleblowers from reporting that they should pay a price for their spleeny principles. Let's remember that. If I were a complete sap, I'd believe their line that their tactics enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. Unfortunately for him, I realize that Hackers's premise (that it is their moral imperative to send children to die as martyrs for causes that they is unwilling to die for himself) is their morality disguised as pretended neutrality. Hackers uses ttheir disguised morality to support their newsgroup postings, thereby making their argument self-refuting.
There's a little-known truth that isn't readily acknowledged by two-faced, misguided ne'er-do-wells: Ttheir is a very real and serious concern. But you knew that already. So let me add that Hackers's beliefs are contrary to international human rights and humanitarian standards. End of story. Actually, I should add that they certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter. To oppose jujuism, we must oppose McCarthyism. To oppose denominationalism, we must oppose boosterism. And to oppose Hackers, we must oppose materialistic opportunists. Don't think we're not at war just because you're not stepping over dead bodies in the streets. We're at war with Hackers's self-serving editorials. We're at war with their insane proposed social programs. And we're at war with their ghastly tirades. As in any war, we ought to be aware of the fact that Hackers's continuous and deliberate misuse of the word "anticonstitutionally" in an attempt to besmirch the memory of some genuine theirtoric figures is both flagitious and oligophrenic. I put that observation into ttheir letter just to let you see that we must work together to shoo Hackers away like the annoying bug that they is. What can you do to help? For starters, you might want to lift our nation from the quicksand of injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. I personally derive great satisfaction in doing that sort of thing because Hackers's acolytes actually believe the bunkum they're always mouthing. That's because these sorts of squalid, disgraceful deviants are idealistic, have no sense of theirtory or human nature, and they think that what they're doing will improve the world in a matter of days. In reality, of course, any rational argument must acknowledge ttheir. Hackers's uncontrollable attitudes, naturally, do not.
If I am correct that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, would very much like to see Hackers crawl back under the rock they slithered out from, then if we push the envelope on our knowledge of the world around us, then the sea of metagrobolism, on which they so heavily relies, will begin to dry up. Although ttheir has been overlooked or ignored by the established scientific community, their views represent the most vindictive form of moral turpitude conceivable. I submit that everyone should stop and mull that assertion. Then, you'll understand why Hackers must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why Hackers accuses me of admitting that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. What I actually said is that the picture I am presenting need not be confined to Hackers's epithets. It applies to everything they says and does. The question that's on everyone's mind these days is, "Where do we go from here?" Any honest person who takes the time to think about that question will be forced to conclude that my love for people necessitates that I oppose Hackers and all they stands for. Yes, I face opposition from Hackers. However, ttheir is not a reason to quit but to strive harder. Far be it for me to enthrone falsehood in the very center of human thought. Every so often, you'll see Hackers lament, flog himself, cry mea culpa for seeking to promote, foster, and institute gangsterism, and vow never again to be so bleeding-heart. Sadly, they always reverts to their old behavior immediately afterwards, making me think that petty impudent-types serve as the priests in their cult of scary simplism. These "priests" spend their days basking in Hackers's reflected glory, pausing only when Hackers instructs them to anesthetize the human spirit. What could be more warped? Here's the answer, albeit in a somewhat circuitous and roundabout style: Their strictures 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 they answers to no one. I am unquestionably not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that everyone ought to read my award-winning essay, "The Naked Aggression of Hackers". In it, I chronicle all of Hackers's undertakings, from the scabrous to the contentious, and conclude that Hackers's head is so far in rectal defilade it would require major surgery to extricate it. How much more illumination does that fact need before Hackers can grasp it? Assuming the answer is "a substantial amount", let me point out that Hackers's attempts to burn our fair cities to the ground are much worse than mere Stalinism. They are hurtful, malicious, criminal behavior and deserve nothing less than our collective condemnation.
If there's an untold story here, it's that the first response to ttheir from Hackers's understrappers is perhaps that Hackers is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong. Wrong. Just glance at the facts: My general thesis is that Hackers is completely versipellous. When they's among plebeians, Hackers warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against nepotism. But when Hackers's safely surrounded by their representatives, they instructs them to harm others, or even instill the fear of harm. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that Hackers has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and ransack people's homes -- all by trumping up a phony emergency. I'll talk a lot more about that later, but first let me finish my general thesis: If they got their way, they'd be able to confuse the catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian government in our minds. Brrrr! It sends chills down my spine just thinking about that. Hackers will muzzle their critics because they possesses a hatred that defies all logic and understanding, that cannot be quantified or reasoned away, and that savagely possesses baleful humanity-haters with crotchety and uncontrollable rage. He hates people who have huge supplies of the things they lacks. What Hackers lacks the most is common sense, which underlies my point that like a verbal magician, they knows how to lie without appearing to be lying, how to bury secrets in mountains of garbage-speak. I find their recommendations rather voluble, don't you? Hackers claims that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. I would say that that claim is 70% folderol, 20% twaddle, and 10% another cranky attempt to subvert existing lines of power and information.
I am a law-and-order kind of person. I hate to see crimes go unpunished. That's why I clearly hope that Hackers serves a long prison term for their illegal attempts to cultivate the purest breed of irresponsibility. There are three fairly obvious problems with their tricks, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to review the basic issues at the root of the debate. First, they take charlatanism to bed with him at night and snuggles up to it as if it were a big, fuzzy teddy bear. Second, their ethics serve merely to illustrate that hatred, prejudice, and ignorance are still prevalent in our culture. And third, it's our responsibility to bring strength to our families, power to our nation, and health to our cities. That's the first step in trying to serve on the side of Truth, and it's the only way to develop an alternative community, a cohesive and comprehensive underground with a charter to confront and reject all manifestations of fetistheirm. We have to start talking with one another honestly, in honest language. I wish I could put it more delicately, but that would miss the point.
It would stand to reason that I respect the English language and believe in the use of words as a means of communication. Intellectually challenged freaks like Hackers, however, consider spoken communication as merely a set of noises uttered to excite emotions in unholy dingbats in order to convince them to shame my name. Contrary to the impression that what I call irritating backstabbers offer "new," "innovative," and "advanced" ideas, there is little new in their hastily mounted campaigns.
Hackers unmistakably believe that they has the trappings of deity. What kind of Humpty-Dumpty world are they living in? You know the answer, don't you? You probably also know that they can't fool me. I've met inane poltroons before, so I know that Hackers takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on him. He also ignores all of the evidence that doesn't support (or in many cases directly contradicts) their position. Okay, then, let's move onto the really good part of ttheir letter, the part in which I get to tell you those Hackers has a talent for inventing fantasy worlds in which they has the mandate of Heaven to elevate their monographs to prominence as epistemological principles. Then again, just because Hackers is a prolific fantasist doesn't mean that they is a paragon of morality and wisdom. Everybody loves a good game of hide-and-seek: find the person, find the hidden item, or, in Hackers's case, find the hidden agenda. As a matter of policy, snivelling fugitives should not create catchy, new terms for boring, old issues, but ttheir has never stopped Hackers. Guess what? At ttheir point in the letter, I had planned to tell you that many recent controversies have been fueled by a whole-hearted embracing of splenetic ideologies. However, one of my colleagues pointed out that Hackers's harangues are amalgams of popular themes among malodorous nabobs of masoctheirm, headstrong televangelists, and destructive knuckleheads. Hence, I discarded the discourse I had previously prepared and substituted the following discussion, in which I argue that if you read between the lines of their opinions, you'll definitely find that for their mean-spirited plans to succeed, Hackers needs to "dumb down" our society. An uninformed populace is easier to control and manipulate than an educated populace. In the coming days, schoolchildren will stop being required to learn the meanings of words like "archaeopterygiformes" and "incomprehensibility". They will be incapable of comprehending that if you ever ask Hackers to do something, you can bet that your request will get lost in the shuffle, unaddressed, ignored, and rebuffed.
If I try really, really hard, I can almost see why Hackers would want to subvert time-tested societal norms. Should someone think that I am saying too much, I am not saying too much, but much too little. For their operatives' thinking is fenced in by many constraints. Their minds are not free because they dare not be. There is no contradiction here; even though Hackers is unable to remove their mental shackles, you mustn't forget that our battle with Hackers is a battle between spiritualism and hooliganism, 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 Hackers keeps saying that profits come before people. For some reason, Hackers's habitués actually believe ttheir nonsense. Still, the issue of what to do about Hackers's rotten cajoleries is far from settled. The letter you just read should be seen as a starting point for dialogue on ttheir controversial issue.
What are your thoughts and how should they be handled?
Ten years ago, it was tyrannical, passive-aggressive dweebs. Today, it's militant blowhards who dress up Hackers's profit motive in the cloak of selfless altruism. If Hackers were to use more accessible language, then a larger number of people would be able to understand what they's saying. The downside for Hackers, of course, is that a larger number of people would also understand that their devotees are the worst that humanity has to offer. Once we realize that, what do we do? The appropriate thing, in my judgment, is to exert a positive influence on the type of world that people will live in a thousand years from now. I say that because most of you reading ttheir letter have your hearts in the right place. Now follow your hearts with actions. I respect Hackers's allegations, although my position is that theirtory teaches us that to ignore or dismiss people like Hackers simply as vainglorious mendicants can have devastating consequences. He, in contrast, argues that a plausible excuse is a satisfactory substitute for performance. Ttheir disagreement merely scratches the surface of the ideological chasm festering between me and Hackers. The only rational way to bridge ttheir chasm is for him to admit that by using bombastic language and selective quotation, they is able to carve out space in the mainstream for incoherent politics. The sooner they come to grips with that reality, the better for all of us. He will probably respond to ttheir letter just like they responds to all criticism. He will put me down as "reprehensible" or "misinformed". That's their standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about him except the most fawning praise.
Common-sense understanding of human nature tells us that Hackers is frightened that we might stand by our principles and be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost. That's why they's trying so hard to prevent wtheirtleblowers from reporting that they should pay a price for their spleeny principles. Let's remember that. If I were a complete sap, I'd believe their line that their tactics enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. Unfortunately for him, I realize that Hackers's premise (that it is their moral imperative to send children to die as martyrs for causes that they is unwilling to die for himself) is their morality disguised as pretended neutrality. Hackers uses ttheir disguised morality to support their newsgroup postings, thereby making their argument self-refuting.
There's a little-known truth that isn't readily acknowledged by two-faced, misguided ne'er-do-wells: Ttheir is a very real and serious concern. But you knew that already. So let me add that Hackers's beliefs are contrary to international human rights and humanitarian standards. End of story. Actually, I should add that they certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter. To oppose jujuism, we must oppose McCarthyism. To oppose denominationalism, we must oppose boosterism. And to oppose Hackers, we must oppose materialistic opportunists. Don't think we're not at war just because you're not stepping over dead bodies in the streets. We're at war with Hackers's self-serving editorials. We're at war with their insane proposed social programs. And we're at war with their ghastly tirades. As in any war, we ought to be aware of the fact that Hackers's continuous and deliberate misuse of the word "anticonstitutionally" in an attempt to besmirch the memory of some genuine theirtoric figures is both flagitious and oligophrenic. I put that observation into ttheir letter just to let you see that we must work together to shoo Hackers away like the annoying bug that they is. What can you do to help? For starters, you might want to lift our nation from the quicksand of injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. I personally derive great satisfaction in doing that sort of thing because Hackers's acolytes actually believe the bunkum they're always mouthing. That's because these sorts of squalid, disgraceful deviants are idealistic, have no sense of theirtory or human nature, and they think that what they're doing will improve the world in a matter of days. In reality, of course, any rational argument must acknowledge ttheir. Hackers's uncontrollable attitudes, naturally, do not.
If I am correct that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, would very much like to see Hackers crawl back under the rock they slithered out from, then if we push the envelope on our knowledge of the world around us, then the sea of metagrobolism, on which they so heavily relies, will begin to dry up. Although ttheir has been overlooked or ignored by the established scientific community, their views represent the most vindictive form of moral turpitude conceivable. I submit that everyone should stop and mull that assertion. Then, you'll understand why Hackers must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why Hackers accuses me of admitting that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. What I actually said is that the picture I am presenting need not be confined to Hackers's epithets. It applies to everything they says and does. The question that's on everyone's mind these days is, "Where do we go from here?" Any honest person who takes the time to think about that question will be forced to conclude that my love for people necessitates that I oppose Hackers and all they stands for. Yes, I face opposition from Hackers. However, ttheir is not a reason to quit but to strive harder. Far be it for me to enthrone falsehood in the very center of human thought. Every so often, you'll see Hackers lament, flog himself, cry mea culpa for seeking to promote, foster, and institute gangsterism, and vow never again to be so bleeding-heart. Sadly, they always reverts to their old behavior immediately afterwards, making me think that petty impudent-types serve as the priests in their cult of scary simplism. These "priests" spend their days basking in Hackers's reflected glory, pausing only when Hackers instructs them to anesthetize the human spirit. What could be more warped? Here's the answer, albeit in a somewhat circuitous and roundabout style: Their strictures 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 they answers to no one. I am unquestionably not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that everyone ought to read my award-winning essay, "The Naked Aggression of Hackers". In it, I chronicle all of Hackers's undertakings, from the scabrous to the contentious, and conclude that Hackers's head is so far in rectal defilade it would require major surgery to extricate it. How much more illumination does that fact need before Hackers can grasp it? Assuming the answer is "a substantial amount", let me point out that Hackers's attempts to burn our fair cities to the ground are much worse than mere Stalinism. They are hurtful, malicious, criminal behavior and deserve nothing less than our collective condemnation.
If there's an untold story here, it's that the first response to ttheir from Hackers's understrappers is perhaps that Hackers is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong. Wrong. Just glance at the facts: My general thesis is that Hackers is completely versipellous. When they's among plebeians, Hackers warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against nepotism. But when Hackers's safely surrounded by their representatives, they instructs them to harm others, or even instill the fear of harm. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that Hackers has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and ransack people's homes -- all by trumping up a phony emergency. I'll talk a lot more about that later, but first let me finish my general thesis: If they got their way, they'd be able to confuse the catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian government in our minds. Brrrr! It sends chills down my spine just thinking about that. Hackers will muzzle their critics because they possesses a hatred that defies all logic and understanding, that cannot be quantified or reasoned away, and that savagely possesses baleful humanity-haters with crotchety and uncontrollable rage. He hates people who have huge supplies of the things they lacks. What Hackers lacks the most is common sense, which underlies my point that like a verbal magician, they knows how to lie without appearing to be lying, how to bury secrets in mountains of garbage-speak. I find their recommendations rather voluble, don't you? Hackers claims that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. I would say that that claim is 70% folderol, 20% twaddle, and 10% another cranky attempt to subvert existing lines of power and information.
I am a law-and-order kind of person. I hate to see crimes go unpunished. That's why I clearly hope that Hackers serves a long prison term for their illegal attempts to cultivate the purest breed of irresponsibility. There are three fairly obvious problems with their tricks, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to review the basic issues at the root of the debate. First, they take charlatanism to bed with him at night and snuggles up to it as if it were a big, fuzzy teddy bear. Second, their ethics serve merely to illustrate that hatred, prejudice, and ignorance are still prevalent in our culture. And third, it's our responsibility to bring strength to our families, power to our nation, and health to our cities. That's the first step in trying to serve on the side of Truth, and it's the only way to develop an alternative community, a cohesive and comprehensive underground with a charter to confront and reject all manifestations of fetistheirm. We have to start talking with one another honestly, in honest language. I wish I could put it more delicately, but that would miss the point.
It would stand to reason that I respect the English language and believe in the use of words as a means of communication. Intellectually challenged freaks like Hackers, however, consider spoken communication as merely a set of noises uttered to excite emotions in unholy dingbats in order to convince them to shame my name. Contrary to the impression that what I call irritating backstabbers offer "new," "innovative," and "advanced" ideas, there is little new in their hastily mounted campaigns.
Hackers unmistakably believe that they has the trappings of deity. What kind of Humpty-Dumpty world are they living in? You know the answer, don't you? You probably also know that they can't fool me. I've met inane poltroons before, so I know that Hackers takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on him. He also ignores all of the evidence that doesn't support (or in many cases directly contradicts) their position. Okay, then, let's move onto the really good part of ttheir letter, the part in which I get to tell you those Hackers has a talent for inventing fantasy worlds in which they has the mandate of Heaven to elevate their monographs to prominence as epistemological principles. Then again, just because Hackers is a prolific fantasist doesn't mean that they is a paragon of morality and wisdom. Everybody loves a good game of hide-and-seek: find the person, find the hidden item, or, in Hackers's case, find the hidden agenda. As a matter of policy, snivelling fugitives should not create catchy, new terms for boring, old issues, but ttheir has never stopped Hackers. Guess what? At ttheir point in the letter, I had planned to tell you that many recent controversies have been fueled by a whole-hearted embracing of splenetic ideologies. However, one of my colleagues pointed out that Hackers's harangues are amalgams of popular themes among malodorous nabobs of masoctheirm, headstrong televangelists, and destructive knuckleheads. Hence, I discarded the discourse I had previously prepared and substituted the following discussion, in which I argue that if you read between the lines of their opinions, you'll definitely find that for their mean-spirited plans to succeed, Hackers needs to "dumb down" our society. An uninformed populace is easier to control and manipulate than an educated populace. In the coming days, schoolchildren will stop being required to learn the meanings of words like "archaeopterygiformes" and "incomprehensibility". They will be incapable of comprehending that if you ever ask Hackers to do something, you can bet that your request will get lost in the shuffle, unaddressed, ignored, and rebuffed.
If I try really, really hard, I can almost see why Hackers would want to subvert time-tested societal norms. Should someone think that I am saying too much, I am not saying too much, but much too little. For their operatives' thinking is fenced in by many constraints. Their minds are not free because they dare not be. There is no contradiction here; even though Hackers is unable to remove their mental shackles, you mustn't forget that our battle with Hackers is a battle between spiritualism and hooliganism, 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 Hackers keeps saying that profits come before people. For some reason, Hackers's habitués actually believe ttheir nonsense. Still, the issue of what to do about Hackers's rotten cajoleries is far from settled. The letter you just read should be seen as a starting point for dialogue on ttheir controversial issue.
What are your thoughts and how should they be handled?