posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by No One Gives A Damn:
Most people probably think they already know all they need to know about Mandard, but I have some new information to bring to light. But before I continue, allow me to explain that the only weapons Mandard has in his intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That's all he has, and he knows it. His nostrums may have been conceived in idealism, but they quickly degenerated into audacious, unreasonable conformism. Mandard likes to gag the innocent accused from protesting tribalism-motivated prosecutions. Such activity can flourish only in the dark, however. If you drag it into the open, Mandard and his functionaries will run for cover, like cockroaches in a dirty kitchen when the light is turned on suddenly during the night. That's why we must help others to see through the empty and meaningless statements uttered by Mandard and his understrappers. He likes opuscula that condition the public -- or, more precisely, brainwash the public -- into believing that we're supposed to shut up and smile when he says despicable, loathsome things. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that I've heard of primitive things like ageism and commercialism. But I've also heard of things like nonviolence, higher moralities, and treating all beings as ends in and of themselves -- ideas which his ignorant, unthinking, biased brain is too small to understand.

Mandard argues that he has the mandate of Heaven to overthrow democratic political systems. I wish I could suggest some incontrovertible chain of apodictic reasoning that would overcome this argument, but the best I can do is the following: He has no moral courage, nor even a desire to be honest and forthright, and everyone with half a brain understands that. I'll try not to dwell on this, but his goal is to bathe in splendor while the rest of us go to work in the mines. Well, that's getting away from my main topic, which is that extremism is dangerous. Mandard's pathetic version of it is doubly so. I have to laugh when Mandard says that he is a perpetual victim of injustice. Where in the world did he get that idea? Not only does that idea contain absolutely no substance whatsoever, but in order to solve the big problems with him, we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must oppose him and all he stands for. I have never been in favor of being gratuitously blathering. I have also never been in favor of sticking my head in the sand or of refusing to rouse people's indignation at Mandard. Although he has never read carefully anything I've written, he is deeply involved emotionally in his attack on truth and reality. I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that he wants to render unspeakable and unthinkable whole categories of beliefs about power. Why he wants that, I don't know, but that's what he wants.

The fact that careful examination of Mandard's utterances have left me no choice but to conclude that Mandard's standard operating procedure is to inflict more death and destruction than Genghis Khan's hordes is distressing, to say the least. Strange, isn't it, how dim-witted goof-offs are always the first to create an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment? Wouldn't it be wonderful if we lived in a world without the most sadistic adolescents I've ever seen? Mandard has a natural talent for complaining. He can find any aspect of life and whine about it for hours upon hours.

Irrespective of one's feelings on the subject, to say that the ideas of "freedom" and "favoritism" are Siamese twins is sick nonsense and untrue to boot. To put a barbaric spin on important issues is an injustice. I repeat: If you intend to challenge someone's assertions, you need to present a counterargument. Mandard provides none.

Although the moral absolutist position is well represented by social and political activists and unquestionably influences legislators and policy makers, he has been deluding people into believing that incendiarism is a noble goal. Don't let him delude you, too. To be honest, Mandard's invectives are a mere cavil, a mere scarecrow, one of the last shifts of a desperate and dying cause. The word on the street is that Mandard's allegations would be entirely risible if they weren't so antisocial. Since I don't have anything more to say on that subject, I'll politely get off my soapbox now.

---

Posts: 1041 | From: San Antonio texas/boston | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adebisi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by No One Gives A Damn:
Most people probably think they already know all they need to know about Mandard, but I have some new information to bring to light. But before I continue, allow me to explain that the only weapons Mandard has in his intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That's all he has, and he knows it. His nostrums may have been conceived in idealism, but they quickly degenerated into audacious, unreasonable conformism. Mandard likes to gag the innocent accused from protesting tribalism-motivated prosecutions. Such activity can flourish only in the dark, however. If you drag it into the open, Mandard and his functionaries will run for cover, like cockroaches in a dirty kitchen when the light is turned on suddenly during the night. That's why we must help others to see through the empty and meaningless statements uttered by Mandard and his understrappers. He likes opuscula that condition the public -- or, more precisely, brainwash the public -- into believing that we're supposed to shut up and smile when he says despicable, loathsome things. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that I've heard of primitive things like ageism and commercialism. But I've also heard of things like nonviolence, higher moralities, and treating all beings as ends in and of themselves -- ideas which his ignorant, unthinking, biased brain is too small to understand.

Mandard argues that he has the mandate of Heaven to overthrow democratic political systems. I wish I could suggest some incontrovertible chain of apodictic reasoning that would overcome this argument, but the best I can do is the following: He has no moral courage, nor even a desire to be honest and forthright, and everyone with half a brain understands that. I'll try not to dwell on this, but his goal is to bathe in splendor while the rest of us go to work in the mines. Well, that's getting away from my main topic, which is that extremism is dangerous. Mandard's pathetic version of it is doubly so. I have to laugh when Mandard says that he is a perpetual victim of injustice. Where in the world did he get that idea? Not only does that idea contain absolutely no substance whatsoever, but in order to solve the big problems with him, we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must oppose him and all he stands for. I have never been in favor of being gratuitously blathering. I have also never been in favor of sticking my head in the sand or of refusing to rouse people's indignation at Mandard. Although he has never read carefully anything I've written, he is deeply involved emotionally in his attack on truth and reality. I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that he wants to render unspeakable and unthinkable whole categories of beliefs about power. Why he wants that, I don't know, but that's what he wants.

The fact that careful examination of Mandard's utterances have left me no choice but to conclude that Mandard's standard operating procedure is to inflict more death and destruction than Genghis Khan's hordes is distressing, to say the least. Strange, isn't it, how dim-witted goof-offs are always the first to create an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment? Wouldn't it be wonderful if we lived in a world without the most sadistic adolescents I've ever seen? Mandard has a natural talent for complaining. He can find any aspect of life and whine about it for hours upon hours.

Irrespective of one's feelings on the subject, to say that the ideas of "freedom" and "favoritism" are Siamese twins is sick nonsense and untrue to boot. To put a barbaric spin on important issues is an injustice. I repeat: If you intend to challenge someone's assertions, you need to present a counterargument. Mandard provides none.

Although the moral absolutist position is well represented by social and political activists and unquestionably influences legislators and policy makers, he has been deluding people into believing that incendiarism is a noble goal. Don't let him delude you, too. To be honest, Mandard's invectives are a mere cavil, a mere scarecrow, one of the last shifts of a desperate and dying cause. The word on the street is that Mandard's allegations would be entirely risible if they weren't so antisocial. Since I don't have anything more to say on that subject, I'll politely get off my soapbox now.

---

No one gives a damn!

---

Posts: 20582 | From: Baker University, Baldwin City Kansas | Registered: Jul 1999  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by No One Gives A Damn:
Well, If someone was going to degrade my post, it would be you...

This is a geniune post, but, I guess I'm not taken seriously...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by No One Gives A Damn:
LOSOL MAN, I WENT YTO MATES HOUSE, JUST SEEN THIS **** IAND I WANT S4EX WITJH MANADARD. YAGEA

---

Posts: 63 | From: SW Universe | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adebisi:
No one gives a damn!

---

Posts: 7708 | From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by No One Gives A Damn:
This is a geniune post, but, I guess I'm not taken seriously...

---

Posts: 18154 | From: Indianapolis | Registered: Jul 1999  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by NumberSix:
unnotwithstanding.

---

This is one of the weirdest posts I've ever read (skimmed over) here at feedback.

--------------------
Old Toby /ōld tōbee/ 1. n. lit. (LOTR) a variety of pipeweed; longbottom
leaf. b Tobold Hornblower, hobbit who introduced longbottom leaf to The
Shire. 2. n. archaic (NN) arcane variant of ThunderDroid.

Posts: 428 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by ]ScRoCH[:
if you dont like the place, then leave, he is in control and your not, just get over it

---

Posts: 20582 | From: Baker University, Baldwin City Kansas | Registered: Jul 1999  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                          

quote:

---

This is a geniune post, but, I guess I'm not taken seriously...

---

The thread was just made for some fun huh?

Posts: 20582 | From: Baker University, Baldwin City Kansas | Registered: Jul 1999  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jedi Master Bryce:

quote:

---

This is a geniune post, but, I guess I'm not taken seriously...

---

The thread was just made for some fun huh?

---

Of course! It would be pointless if I posted that and said, yeah, I'm just playin' with ya...

--------------------
you liek teh cheese?

Posts: 3090 | From: Oxford, England | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged |