Complaints....

[bassking22]

Check this place out!
http://www.pakin.org/complaint

[crankybait]

My duty to you, dear reader, constrains me to the disagreeable and almost painful task of giving you a significant amount of information that you may be unwilling to accept. As a preliminary, I want to show Cadet Bassking L 22, Jr. how he is as wrong as wrong can be. He supports a wide variety of wisecracks. Some are foul-mouthed; others are illiterate. A few openly support resistentialism. I am intellectually honest enough to admit my own previous ignorance in that matter. I only wish that he had the same intellectual honesty. Cadet 22's hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it. The bottom line is that I have put this letter before you, without any gain to myself, because I care.

[bassking22]

LOL
In a previous letter, I stated that Crank Y. Bait, Esq. disregards any evidence that contradicts his views. That will be my position in this letter, as well. Perhaps before going on, I should describe Crank to you. Crank is prolix, avaricious, and pushy. Furthermore, he yearns to etiolate his enemies. It's easy for armchair philosophers to theorize about him and about hypothetical solutions to our Crank problem. It's an entirely more difficult matter, however, when one considers that he knows how to lie. It's too bad he doesn't yet understand the ramifications of lying.

Let me try to put this in perspective: Crank's flimflams are evil. They're evil because they cause global warming; they make your teeth fall out; they give you spots; they incite nuclear war. And, as if that weren't enough, Crank complains a lot. What's ironic, though, is that he hasn't made even a single concrete suggestion for improvement or identified a single problem with the system as it exists today. I would definitely like to comment on his attempt to associate emotionalism with simplism. There is no association. Although Crank has unfairly depicted me and those who share my beliefs as astrologers and flibbertigibbets, we are neither. Yes, I unmistakably find his demeanor and pomposity downright apalling, but it has been said that I have a score to settle with Crank. I, in turn, believe that if we let Crank enable resentful, lazy warmongers to punch above their weight, then greed, corruption, and irrationalism will characterize the government. Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens. And lies and deceit will be the stock-in-trade of the media and educational institutions. Although theoretical differences can be drawn between his presumptuous writings and obstreperous ethnocentrism, these are distinctions without a difference.

I understand that blackguardism advances Crank's long-term goal of plutocratic global dictatorship, but if natural selection indeed works by removing the weakest and most genetically unfit members of a species, then Crank is clearly going to be the first to go. Irrespective of one's feelings on the subject, you may have noticed that he revels in his mumpish campaign to display an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations. But you don't know the half of it. For starters, one of the great mysteries of modern life is, Does Crank believe, deep in the adytum of his own mind, that he could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else? There is widespread agreement in asking that question, but there is great disagreement in answering it. His dishonest sophistries are fraught with the gravest consequences. Think I'm exaggerating? Just ask any of the most valuable members of our community and they'll all tell you how I am interested in facts, not in paregoric for his shills. Why do I tell you this? Because these days, no one else has the guts to. This letter has gone on far too long, in my opinion, and probably yours as well. So let me end it by saying merely that to forestall Crank Y. Bait, Esq.'s condescending platitudes, it would be immensely helpful to have more people understand that "combative" hardly seems like a strong enough word to describe Crank.

[WTL]

I want this letter to serve as an oasis of sanity in the Auburn Sociology Department's desert of foolishness. And that's why I feel compelled to say something about impractical, pesky airheads. Is it important that the Auburn Sociology Department's claims are complete drivel? Of course it's important. But what's more important is that there are some stentorian con artists who are piteous. There are also some who are confused. Which category does the Auburn Sociology Department fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both".

The Auburn Sociology Department is not as aberrant or insidious as you might think. It's more so. To say that courtesy and manners don't count for anything is out-of-touch nonsense and untrue to boot. The Auburn Sociology Department occasionally shows what appears to be warmth, joy, love, or compassion. You should realize, however, that these positive expressions are more feigned than experienced and invariably serve an ulterior motive, such as to waste taxpayers' money. There may be absolutely nothing we can do to prevent the Auburn Sociology Department from making good on its word to grasp at straws, trying to find increasingly sordid ways to cover up its criminal ineptitude. When we compare this disturbing conclusion to the comforting picture purveyed by its confreres, we experience psychological stress or "cognitive dissonance". Our only recourse is to stand by our principles and be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.

Don't let yourself be persuaded by imprudent, wily quacks who secretly want to remake the world to suit the Auburn Sociology Department's own meddlesome needs. Whenever anyone states the obvious -- that the Auburn Sociology Department's invectives celebrate deception, diversion, and fashion -- discussion naturally progresses towards the question, "Will the world ever be free of ethically bankrupt talebearers like the Auburn Sociology Department?" I'll tell you what I think the answer is. I can't prove it, but if I'm correct, events soon will prove me right. I think that the Auburn Sociology Department uses the word "chronocinematography" without ever having taken the time to look it up in the dictionary. Organizations that are too lazy to get their basic terms right should be ignored, not debated. When I say that I believe that people who work with the Auburn Sociology Department's brethren discredit themselves, I consider this to mean that if we don't lay out some ideas and interpretations that hold the potential for insight right now, then the Auburn Sociology Department's artifices will soon start to metastasize until they turn the social order upside-down so that the dregs on the bottom become the scum on the top. You may be worried that the Auburn Sociology Department will skewer me over a pit barbecue in a lustrum or two. If so, then I share your misgivings. But let's not worry about that now. Instead, let's discuss my observation that the Auburn Sociology Department can't possibly believe that it should be a given a direct pipeline to the National Treasury. It's duplicitous, but it's not that duplicitous.

No doubt, double standards are always truculent. But I would be grateful if the Auburn Sociology Department would take a little time from its rigorous schedule to bring meaning, direction, and purpose into our lives. Of course, pigs will grow wings and fly before that ever happens. I by no means claim to know everything about audacious derelicts. Sad, but true. And it'll only get worse if the Auburn Sociology Department finds a way to sugarcoat the past and dispense false optimism for the future. Moving on, I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to inculcate in the reader an inquisitive spirit and a skepticism about beliefs that the Auburn Sociology Department's foot soldiers take for granted.

The Auburn Sociology Department's propaganda factories continuously spew forth messages like, "The Auburn Sociology Department acts in the name of equality and social justice" and, "It's okay for the Auburn Sociology Department to indulge its every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole". What they don't tell you, though, is that the Auburn Sociology Department is nuttier than squirrel dung, so to speak. If Fate desired that the Auburn Sociology Department make a correct application of what it had read about propagandism, it would have to indicate title and page number, since the lewd alcoholism enthusiast would otherwise never in all its existence find the correct place. But since Fate does not do this, the Auburn Sociology Department thinks I'm trying to say that it is a paragon of morality and wisdom. Wait! I just heard something. Oh, never mind; it's just the sound of the point zooming way over the Auburn Sociology Department's head. The Auburn Sociology Department has the gall to pervert human instincts by suppressing natural, feral constraints and encouraging abnormal patterns of behavior. But you knew that already. So let me add that I am concerned that its vague and overly broad definition of "consubstantiationist" will cause barbaric televangelists to pose a threat to the survival of democracy one of these days. That fact may not be pleasant, but it is a fact regardless of our wishes on the matter. I and the Auburn Sociology Department part company when it comes to the issue of metagrobolism. It feels that science is merely a tool invented by the current elite to maintain power, while I maintain that I recently heard it tell a bunch of people that it is a perpetual victim of injustice. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text. Either the Auburn Sociology Department has no real conception of the sweep of history, or it is merely intent on winning some debating pin by trying to pierce a hole in my logic with "facts" that are taken out of context. The Auburn Sociology Department has warned us that by next weekend, putrid troublemakers will herald the death of intelligent discourse on college campuses. If you think about it, you'll realize that the Auburn Sociology Department's warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that the Auburn Sociology Department writes a lot of long statements that mean practically nothing. What's sneaky is that it constructs those statements in such a way that it never occurs to its readers to analyze them. Analysis would almost certainly indicate that when I say that the chief difficulty in writing about the Auburn Sociology Department is that it does not take much perspicacity to see that its crotchets have served as a powerful weapon with which crazy, brainless punks can replace discourse and open dialogue with footling complaints and blatant ugliness, this does not, I repeat, does not mean that it has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature. This is a common fallacy held by misinformed headcases. I'll give you an example of this, based on my own experience. As you know, the baleful influence of fogyism is plainly evident in the palpable one-sidedness of the Auburn Sociology Department's credos. Do I blame society for this? No, I blame the Auburn Sociology Department.

The Auburn Sociology Department says that the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to pass off all sorts of pestiferous and obviously flighty stuff on others as a so-called "inner experience". Yet it also wants to elevate the most naive criticasters you'll ever see to the sublime. Am I the only one who sees the irony there? I ask because griping about the Auburn Sociology Department will not make it stop trying to dissolve the bonds that join individuals to their natural communities. But even if it did, it would just find some other way to declare that profits come before people. I want nothing more -- or less -- than to face our problems realistically, get to the root of our problems, and be determined to solve them. To that task I have consecrated my life, and I invite you to do likewise. Astute observers have known for years that I'm at loggerheads with the Auburn Sociology Department on at least one important issue. Namely, it argues that space gods arriving in flying saucers will save humanity from self-destruction. I take the opposite position, that I overheard one of the Auburn Sociology Department's subordinates say, "Every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to demonstrate an outright hostility to law enforcement." 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 make plans and carry them out. Still, I stand by what I've written before, that we must work together to contribute to the intellectual and spiritual health of the body politic. What can you do to help? For starters, you might want to invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry, rather than by narrowing or abandoning it. I personally derive great satisfaction in doing that sort of thing because what I find frightening is that some academics actually believe the Auburn Sociology Department's line that we should derive moral guidance from its glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented canards. In this case, "academics" refers to a stratum of the residual intelligentsia surviving the recession of its demotic base, not to those seekers of truth who understand that the Auburn Sociology Department thinks that every word that leaves its mouth is teeming with useful information. However, its homilies need to be reassessed with its ulterior motives in mind.

If one dares to criticize even a single tenet of the Auburn Sociology Department's manifestos, one is promptly condemned as raucous, arrogant, lackadaisical, or whatever epithet the Auburn Sociology Department deems most appropriate, usually without much explanation. The Auburn Sociology Department may unwittingly replace Robert's Rules of Order with "facilitated consensus building" at all important meetings. I say "unwittingly" because it is apparently unaware that it operates under the influence of a particular ideology: a set of beliefs based on the root metaphor of the transmission of forces. Until you understand this root metaphor you won't be able to grasp why the Auburn Sociology Department's obiter dicta are just an outcropping of its hatred of us. End of story. Actually, I should add that if we can understand what has caused the current plague of pestilential grizzlers, I believe that we can then fight on the battleground of ideas for our inalienable individual rights. While perhaps offensive to some readers, only a direct quote can fully convey the dictatorial nature and content of the Auburn Sociology Department's remonstrations: "Attention, expositors! Your orders are to violate all the rules of decorum, and to do so at any cost." We need the space and autonomy to fight the reports that can hurt us. If that fact hurts, get over it; it's called reality. And for another dose of reality, consider that the Auburn Sociology Department somehow manages to get away with spreading lies (laws are meant to be broken), distortions (its way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't), and misplaced idealism (the Eleventh Commandment is, "Thou shalt treat people like bleeding-heart individuals"). However, when I try to respond in kind, I get censored faster than you can say "deanthropomorphization".

The Auburn Sociology Department exhibits an air of superiority. You realize, of course, that that's really just a defense mechanism to cover up its obvious inferiority. The Auburn Sociology Department uses big words like "superincomprehensibleness" to make itself sound important. For that matter, benevolent Nature has equipped another puny creature, the skunk, with a means of making itself seem important, too. Although the Auburn Sociology Department's vituperations may reek like a skunk, the Auburn Sociology Department and I disagree about our civic duties. I claim that we must do our utmost to deal stiffly with amateurish misanthropes who let pouty sods run rampant through the streets as expeditiously as possible. The Auburn Sociology Department, on the other hand, believes that cameralism is the only alternative to sadism. I take seriously the view that the Auburn Sociology Department and its dupes pay little or no attention to the negative impact that prætorianism will have on our daily lives. Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that when people say that bigotry and hate are alive and well, they're right. And the Auburn Sociology Department is to blame. The Auburn Sociology Department doesn't want to acknowledge that its lapdogs must be exposed and neutralized wherever they lurk. In fact, the Auburn Sociology Department would rather block all discussion on the subject. I suppose that's because it is firmly convinced that merit is adequately measured by its methods and qualifications. Its belief is controverted, however, by the weight of the evidence indicating that if we don't remove the the Auburn Sociology Department threat now, it will bite us in our backside sometime soon.

The Auburn Sociology Department likes to posture as a guardian of virtue and manners. However, when it comes right down to it, what it is pushing is both incorrigible and diabolic. Without a doubt, however, the Auburn Sociology Department's effusions are evil. They're evil because they cause global warming; they make your teeth fall out; they give you spots; they incite nuclear war. And, as if that weren't enough, when I say that the Auburn Sociology Department's practices are selfish, I mean it. I don't mean that they remind me of something selfish or that they have one or two selfish characteristics. I mean that they are selfish. In fact, the most selfish thing about them is the way that they prevent people from seeing that the Auburn Sociology Department keeps insisting that its plans for the future are all sweetness and light. To me, there is something fundamentally wrong with that story. Maybe it's that the Auburn Sociology Department is known for walking into crowded rooms and telling everyone there that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders". Try, if you can, to concoct a statement better calculated to show how moonstruck the Auburn Sociology Department is. You can't do it. Not only that, but it has a blatant disregard for society's basic laws. But that's not all: It's irrelevant that my allegations are 100% true. It distrusts my information and arguments and will forever maintain its current opinions. The Auburn Sociology Department uses a rather iconoclastic definition of "microcrystallography". So what's the connection between that and the Auburn Sociology Department's recommendations? The connection is that its pals all look like it, think like it, act like it, and subordinate principles of fairness to less admirable criteria, just like the Auburn Sociology Department does. And all this in the name of -- let me see if I can get their propaganda straight -- brotherhood and service. Ha!

Throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to create greater public understanding of the damage caused by the Auburn Sociology Department's beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) and those who wish to impair the practice of democracy. Naturally, the Auburn Sociology Department belongs to the latter category. If the human race is to survive on this planet, we will have to provide people the wherewithal to throw down the gauntlet and challenge the Auburn Sociology Department's goombahs to seek liberty, equality, and fraternity. Assume for a moment that some of the Auburn Sociology Department's unscrupulous snow jobs are so self-contradictory, they're their own refutation. It therefore follows that an armed revolt against the Auburn Sociology Department is morally justified. However, I think that it is not yet strategically justified. For your information, the Auburn Sociology Department's perspective is that the health effects of secondhand smoke are negligible. My perspective, in contrast, is that there is still hope for our society, real hope -- not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of splenetic astrologers, but the hope that makes you eager to give you some background information about it. I'll finish this letter by instructing you not to blindly accept my words or those of others as truth. Investigate, discriminate, and question everything not proven. Only by doing so can you determine for yourself that the magnitude of the Auburn Sociology Department's lies should disgust anyone who has an even moderate education.

[bassking22]

JEEBUS WTL!!! lol

[ironman]

I am getting just to lazy to read all the posts, lol.

[bassking22]

So am I. lol

[lizardsrule]

Originally Posted by WTL

I want this letter to serve as an oasis of sanity in the Auburn Sociology Department's desert of foolishness. And that's why I feel compelled to say something about impractical, pesky airheads. Is it important that the Auburn Sociology Department's claims are complete drivel? Of course it's important. But what's more important is that there are some stentorian con artists who are piteous. There are also some who are confused. Which category does the Auburn Sociology Department fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both".

The Auburn Sociology Department is not as aberrant or insidious as you might think. It's more so. To say that courtesy and manners don't count for anything is out-of-touch nonsense and untrue to boot. The Auburn Sociology Department occasionally shows what appears to be warmth, joy, love, or compassion. You should realize, however, that these positive expressions are more feigned than experienced and invariably serve an ulterior motive, such as to waste taxpayers' money. There may be absolutely nothing we can do to prevent the Auburn Sociology Department from making good on its word to grasp at straws, trying to find increasingly sordid ways to cover up its criminal ineptitude. When we compare this disturbing conclusion to the comforting picture purveyed by its confreres, we experience psychological stress or "cognitive dissonance". Our only recourse is to stand by our principles and be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost.

Don't let yourself be persuaded by imprudent, wily quacks who secretly want to remake the world to suit the Auburn Sociology Department's own meddlesome needs. Whenever anyone states the obvious -- that the Auburn Sociology Department's invectives celebrate deception, diversion, and fashion -- discussion naturally progresses towards the question, "Will the world ever be free of ethically bankrupt talebearers like the Auburn Sociology Department?" I'll tell you what I think the answer is. I can't prove it, but if I'm correct, events soon will prove me right. I think that the Auburn Sociology Department uses the word "chronocinematography" without ever having taken the time to look it up in the dictionary. Organizations that are too lazy to get their basic terms right should be ignored, not debated. When I say that I believe that people who work with the Auburn Sociology Department's brethren discredit themselves, I consider this to mean that if we don't lay out some ideas and interpretations that hold the potential for insight right now, then the Auburn Sociology Department's artifices will soon start to metastasize until they turn the social order upside-down so that the dregs on the bottom become the scum on the top. You may be worried that the Auburn Sociology Department will skewer me over a pit barbecue in a lustrum or two. If so, then I share your misgivings. But let's not worry about that now. Instead, let's discuss my observation that the Auburn Sociology Department can't possibly believe that it should be a given a direct pipeline to the National Treasury. It's duplicitous, but it's not that duplicitous.

No doubt, double standards are always truculent. But I would be grateful if the Auburn Sociology Department would take a little time from its rigorous schedule to bring meaning, direction, and purpose into our lives. Of course, pigs will grow wings and fly before that ever happens. I by no means claim to know everything about audacious derelicts. Sad, but true. And it'll only get worse if the Auburn Sociology Department finds a way to sugarcoat the past and dispense false optimism for the future. Moving on, I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to inculcate in the reader an inquisitive spirit and a skepticism about beliefs that the Auburn Sociology Department's foot soldiers take for granted.

The Auburn Sociology Department's propaganda factories continuously spew forth messages like, "The Auburn Sociology Department acts in the name of equality and social justice" and, "It's okay for the Auburn Sociology Department to indulge its every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole". What they don't tell you, though, is that the Auburn Sociology Department is nuttier than squirrel dung, so to speak. If Fate desired that the Auburn Sociology Department make a correct application of what it had read about propagandism, it would have to indicate title and page number, since the lewd alcoholism enthusiast would otherwise never in all its existence find the correct place. But since Fate does not do this, the Auburn Sociology Department thinks I'm trying to say that it is a paragon of morality and wisdom. Wait! I just heard something. Oh, never mind; it's just the sound of the point zooming way over the Auburn Sociology Department's head. The Auburn Sociology Department has the gall to pervert human instincts by suppressing natural, feral constraints and encouraging abnormal patterns of behavior. But you knew that already. So let me add that I am concerned that its vague and overly broad definition of "consubstantiationist" will cause barbaric televangelists to pose a threat to the survival of democracy one of these days. That fact may not be pleasant, but it is a fact regardless of our wishes on the matter. I and the Auburn Sociology Department part company when it comes to the issue of metagrobolism. It feels that science is merely a tool invented by the current elite to maintain power, while I maintain that I recently heard it tell a bunch of people that it is a perpetual victim of injustice. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text. Either the Auburn Sociology Department has no real conception of the sweep of history, or it is merely intent on winning some debating pin by trying to pierce a hole in my logic with "facts" that are taken out of context. The Auburn Sociology Department has warned us that by next weekend, putrid troublemakers will herald the death of intelligent discourse on college campuses. If you think about it, you'll realize that the Auburn Sociology Department's warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that the Auburn Sociology Department writes a lot of long statements that mean practically nothing. What's sneaky is that it constructs those statements in such a way that it never occurs to its readers to analyze them. Analysis would almost certainly indicate that when I say that the chief difficulty in writing about the Auburn Sociology Department is that it does not take much perspicacity to see that its crotchets have served as a powerful weapon with which crazy, brainless punks can replace discourse and open dialogue with footling complaints and blatant ugliness, this does not, I repeat, does not mean that it has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature. This is a common fallacy held by misinformed headcases. I'll give you an example of this, based on my own experience. As you know, the baleful influence of fogyism is plainly evident in the palpable one-sidedness of the Auburn Sociology Department's credos. Do I blame society for this? No, I blame the Auburn Sociology Department.

The Auburn Sociology Department says that the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to pass off all sorts of pestiferous and obviously flighty stuff on others as a so-called "inner experience". Yet it also wants to elevate the most naive criticasters you'll ever see to the sublime. Am I the only one who sees the irony there? I ask because griping about the Auburn Sociology Department will not make it stop trying to dissolve the bonds that join individuals to their natural communities. But even if it did, it would just find some other way to declare that profits come before people. I want nothing more -- or less -- than to face our problems realistically, get to the root of our problems, and be determined to solve them. To that task I have consecrated my life, and I invite you to do likewise. Astute observers have known for years that I'm at loggerheads with the Auburn Sociology Department on at least one important issue. Namely, it argues that space gods arriving in flying saucers will save humanity from self-destruction. I take the opposite position, that I overheard one of the Auburn Sociology Department's subordinates say, "Every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to demonstrate an outright hostility to law enforcement." 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 make plans and carry them out. Still, I stand by what I've written before, that we must work together to contribute to the intellectual and spiritual health of the body politic. What can you do to help? For starters, you might want to invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry, rather than by narrowing or abandoning it. I personally derive great satisfaction in doing that sort of thing because what I find frightening is that some academics actually believe the Auburn Sociology Department's line that we should derive moral guidance from its glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented canards. In this case, "academics" refers to a stratum of the residual intelligentsia surviving the recession of its demotic base, not to those seekers of truth who understand that the Auburn Sociology Department thinks that every word that leaves its mouth is teeming with useful information. However, its homilies need to be reassessed with its ulterior motives in mind.

If one dares to criticize even a single tenet of the Auburn Sociology Department's manifestos, one is promptly condemned as raucous, arrogant, lackadaisical, or whatever epithet the Auburn Sociology Department deems most appropriate, usually without much explanation. The Auburn Sociology Department may unwittingly replace Robert's Rules of Order with "facilitated consensus building" at all important meetings. I say "unwittingly" because it is apparently unaware that it operates under the influence of a particular ideology: a set of beliefs based on the root metaphor of the transmission of forces. Until you understand this root metaphor you won't be able to grasp why the Auburn Sociology Department's obiter dicta are just an outcropping of its hatred of us. End of story. Actually, I should add that if we can understand what has caused the current plague of pestilential grizzlers, I believe that we can then fight on the battleground of ideas for our inalienable individual rights. While perhaps offensive to some readers, only a direct quote can fully convey the dictatorial nature and content of the Auburn Sociology Department's remonstrations: "Attention, expositors! Your orders are to violate all the rules of decorum, and to do so at any cost." We need the space and autonomy to fight the reports that can hurt us. If that fact hurts, get over it; it's called reality. And for another dose of reality, consider that the Auburn Sociology Department somehow manages to get away with spreading lies (laws are meant to be broken), distortions (its way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't), and misplaced idealism (the Eleventh Commandment is, "Thou shalt treat people like bleeding-heart individuals"). However, when I try to respond in kind, I get censored faster than you can say "deanthropomorphization".

The Auburn Sociology Department exhibits an air of superiority. You realize, of course, that that's really just a defense mechanism to cover up its obvious inferiority. The Auburn Sociology Department uses big words like "superincomprehensibleness" to make itself sound important. For that matter, benevolent Nature has equipped another puny creature, the skunk, with a means of making itself seem important, too. Although the Auburn Sociology Department's vituperations may reek like a skunk, the Auburn Sociology Department and I disagree about our civic duties. I claim that we must do our utmost to deal stiffly with amateurish misanthropes who let pouty sods run rampant through the streets as expeditiously as possible. The Auburn Sociology Department, on the other hand, believes that cameralism is the only alternative to sadism. I take seriously the view that the Auburn Sociology Department and its dupes pay little or no attention to the negative impact that prætorianism will have on our daily lives. Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that when people say that bigotry and hate are alive and well, they're right. And the Auburn Sociology Department is to blame. The Auburn Sociology Department doesn't want to acknowledge that its lapdogs must be exposed and neutralized wherever they lurk. In fact, the Auburn Sociology Department would rather block all discussion on the subject. I suppose that's because it is firmly convinced that merit is adequately measured by its methods and qualifications. Its belief is controverted, however, by the weight of the evidence indicating that if we don't remove the the Auburn Sociology Department threat now, it will bite us in our backside sometime soon.

The Auburn Sociology Department likes to posture as a guardian of virtue and manners. However, when it comes right down to it, what it is pushing is both incorrigible and diabolic. Without a doubt, however, the Auburn Sociology Department's effusions are evil. They're evil because they cause global warming; they make your teeth fall out; they give you spots; they incite nuclear war. And, as if that weren't enough, when I say that the Auburn Sociology Department's practices are selfish, I mean it. I don't mean that they remind me of something selfish or that they have one or two selfish characteristics. I mean that they are selfish. In fact, the most selfish thing about them is the way that they prevent people from seeing that the Auburn Sociology Department keeps insisting that its plans for the future are all sweetness and light. To me, there is something fundamentally wrong with that story. Maybe it's that the Auburn Sociology Department is known for walking into crowded rooms and telling everyone there that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders". Try, if you can, to concoct a statement better calculated to show how moonstruck the Auburn Sociology Department is. You can't do it. Not only that, but it has a blatant disregard for society's basic laws. But that's not all: It's irrelevant that my allegations are 100% true. It distrusts my information and arguments and will forever maintain its current opinions. The Auburn Sociology Department uses a rather iconoclastic definition of "microcrystallography". So what's the connection between that and the Auburn Sociology Department's recommendations? The connection is that its pals all look like it, think like it, act like it, and subordinate principles of fairness to less admirable criteria, just like the Auburn Sociology Department does. And all this in the name of -- let me see if I can get their propaganda straight -- brotherhood and service. Ha!

Throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to create greater public understanding of the damage caused by the Auburn Sociology Department's beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) and those who wish to impair the practice of democracy. Naturally, the Auburn Sociology Department belongs to the latter category. If the human race is to survive on this planet, we will have to provide people the wherewithal to throw down the gauntlet and challenge the Auburn Sociology Department's goombahs to seek liberty, equality, and fraternity. Assume for a moment that some of the Auburn Sociology Department's unscrupulous snow jobs are so self-contradictory, they're their own refutation. It therefore follows that an armed revolt against the Auburn Sociology Department is morally justified. However, I think that it is not yet strategically justified. For your information, the Auburn Sociology Department's perspective is that the health effects of secondhand smoke are negligible. My perspective, in contrast, is that there is still hope for our society, real hope -- not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of splenetic astrologers, but the hope that makes you eager to give you some background information about it. I'll finish this letter by instructing you not to blindly accept my words or those of others as truth. Investigate, discriminate, and question everything not proven. Only by doing so can you determine for yourself that the magnitude of the Auburn Sociology Department's lies should disgust anyone who has an even moderate education.

What did he just say? Where the heck is the dictionary

Lizards

[bassking22]

Lol, I didnt bother to read it.

[ironman]

I know, I did'nt understand one word.

[bassking22]

Originally Posted by WTL

"deanthropomorphization"

Thats the only word I understand!

[zooker]

can we send the last to posters there?? please!!! bet they will be thrilled with beavus and cornhoilio here..

zooker