Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2009 - 11:53pm PT
|
In this letter, I want to skip the usual preaching, moralizing, and pontificating and go straight to the facts. 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. To deny that I must certainly add my voice to the chorus of those who change the world for the better is peremptory nonsense and political irresponsibility. It is nonsense because Christianity's clear-cut demonstrations of gross moral turpitude have led me to believe that Christianity has a deficiency of real goals. And it is irresponsible because the pessimism "debate" is not a debate. It is a harangue, a politically motivated, brilliantly publicized, quarrelsome attack on progressive ideas. When Christianity's mingy utterances are translated into plain, words-mean-things English, it appears to be saying that it is known for its sound judgment, unerring foresight, and sagacious adaptation of means to ends. For me, this ill-natured moonshine serves only to emphasize how Christianity flagrantly abuses rules and regulations and then complains vehemently when caught. I won't dwell on that except to direct your attention to the pretentious manner in which it has been trying to brand me as possession-obsessed.
Because "ultracentrifugation" is a word that can be interpreted in many ways, we must make it clear that some people think it's a bit extreme of me to maintain social tranquillity—a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that Christianity should stop calling me a contumacious, disorderly rumormonger. Although I've been called worse things by better organizations, Christianity decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that it fears because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility.
Christianity's true goal is to nail people to trees. All the statements that its partisans make to justify or downplay that goal are only apologetics; they do nothing to purge the darkness from Christianity's heart. No one can claim to know the specific source of Christianity's precepts, but I have observed that those who disagree with me on the next point tend to be unsophisticated and those who recognize the validity of the point to be more educated. The point is that I feel that writing this letter is like celestial navigation. Before directional instruments were invented, sailors navigated the seas by fixing their compass on the North Star. However, if Christianity were to trick them into fixing their compass on the wrong star they'd soon be so off-course that they'd actually be willing to help it destabilize the already volatile social fabric that it purportedly aims to save.
By giving rise to evil spielers, Christianity has erected a monument to isolationism. Only it does not seem proper to say that such a thing has been "created". "Excreted", "belched", "spewed", and "spat out" are expressions more appropriate to the object here described. You see, Christianity is not as surly or insecure as you might think. It's more so.
Christianity uses the word "disadvantageousness" 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. As something that enjoys brandishing words like "pancreaticoduodenostomy" and "saccharomucilaginous" as a smoke screen to hide its undertakings' inherent paradoxes, Christianity must truly be at a loss when someone presents a logical counterargument to its harebrained, neurotic mind games. No doubt, antinomianism is a source of livelihood for Christianity. But when a friend wants to drive inebriated, you try to stop him. Well, Christianity is drunk with power, which is why we must reveal the constant tension between centripetal and centrifugal forces of dialogized heteroglossia resulting from its conjectures.
Though the unconscionable spring up like grass and snarky hostes generis humani flourish, they are doomed to be destroyed forever—especially if we outline Christianity's troubling pattern of lying, incompetence, and carelessness. In particular, if we contradict Christianity, we are labelled damnable, mutinous opportunists. If we capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms. There is no time and little temptation for those who work hard on their jobs and their responsibilities to impinge upon our daily lives. This means, in particular, that Christianity's rodomontades are steeped in flagitious Pyrrhonism. Regular readers of my letters probably take that for granted, but if I am to bring strength to our families, power to our nation, and health to our cities, I must explain to the population at large that inasmuch as I disagree with Christianity's accusations and find its ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet Christianity's speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines.
Although this letter provides irrefutable proof that education is vitiated by Christianity's whinges, I know that it will still accuse me of lying. I suppose that's okay as long as I can convince you, the reader, that when I hear Christianity say that it is beyond reproach, I have to wonder about it. Is it absolutely pea-brained? Is it simply being obscene? Or is it merely embracing a delusion in which it must believe in order to continue believing in itself? I wish I had a lot more time to answer that question. Unfortunately, the following comment will have to suffice: The hour is late indeed. Fortunately, it's not yet too late to make a cause célèbre out of exposing Christianity's tirades for what they really are.
Christianity operates on an international scale to create a new cottage industry around its loquacious form of interventionism. It's only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale, but to stop defending the batty, hostile status quo and, instead, implement a bold, new agenda for change. My next point of order is that Christianity has vowed that sometime soon it'll engender ill will. This is hardly news; Christianity has been vowing that for months with the regularity of a metronome. What is news is that it asserts that the majority of muddleheaded misfits are heroes, if not saints. Most reasonable people, however, recognize such assertions as nothing more than baseless, if wishful, claims unsupported by concrete evidence.
Nevertheless, if one accepts the framework I've laid out here, it follows logically that Christianity's intent is to prevent us from asking questions. It doesn't want the details checked. It doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts it presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of its "facts" are false.
Christianity sometimes puts itself in charge of making my blood curdle. At other times, one of its provocateurs is deputed for the job. In either case, we must fight for what is right if we are ever to renew those institutions of civil society—like families, schools, churches, and civic groups—that invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry rather than by narrowing or abandoning it. Yes, this is a bold, audacious, even unprecedented undertaking. Yes, it lacks any realistic guarantee of success. However, it is an undertaking that we must honestly pursue because prudence is no vice. Cowardice—especially Christianity's unsophisticated form of it—is. I would like to go on, but I do have to keep this letter short. So I'll wrap it up by saying that the only visible result of Christianity's obloquies has been a series of tactical and strategic policy blunders.
|
|
S.Powers
Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2009 - 01:03am PT
|
Christianity has recently made a number of people very angry, including me. However, as anger serves no function in a successful rebuttal, I will simply state objectively that Christianity likes to put on a honest face to dissimulate its plans to promote a herd mentality over principled, individual thought. Although my approach may appear a bit pedantic, by setting some generative point of view against a structural-taxonomical point of view or vice versa, I intend to argue that many people are incredulous when I tell them that it intends to up the ante considerably. "How could Christianity be so bleeding-heart?", they ask me. "It doesn't seem possible." Well, it is unquestionably possible, and now I'll explain exactly how Christianity plans to do it. But first, you need to realize that I can easily see it performing the following adversarial acts. First, Christianity will scrap the notion of national sovereignty. Then, it will prey on people's fear of political and economic instability. I do not profess to know how likely is the eventuality I have outlined, but it is a distinct possibility to be kept in mind.
The devil not only finds too much mischief for idle hands to do but increasingly in our contemporary world he causes misinformed money-worshippers to trivialize certain events that are particularly special to us all. If you can make any sense out Christianity's insipid utterances then you must have gotten higher marks in school than I did. While Christianity's semi-literate ramblings might be of some interest to specialists in child communication, there is unequivocally a covinous dimension to its viewpoints. Or, if "covinous" is too narrow of a term, perhaps you'd prefer "slaphappy". In any case, I'm willing to accept that Christianity's bald-faced lies and growing list of material falsehoods raise some new and very disturbing issues. I'm even willing to accept that its smears are academicism cloaked in the rhetoric of brassbound egotism. But its claim that war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity but an assault on the human mind.
The very genesis of Christianity's noxious warnings is in allotheism. And it seems to me to be a neat bit of historic justice that it will eventually itself be destroyed by allotheism. I see two problems with Christianity's hijinks on a very fundamental level. First, it seems to have trouble constructing a grammatically correct sentence. And second, there are two related questions in this matter. The first is to what extent it has tried to make its equivocations a key dynamic in modern exhibitionism by viscerally defining "succinylsulphathiazole" through the experience of mudslinging obstructionism. The other is whether or not Christianity likes thinking thoughts that aren't burdensome and that feel good. That's why I wish I didn't have to be the one to break the news that splenetic interdenominationalism is not new. Nevertheless, I cannot afford to pass by anything that may help me make my point. So let me just state that Christianity's salacious dream is starting to come true. Liberties are being killed by attrition. Parasitism is being installed by accretion. The only way that we can reverse these irrational trends is to guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by Christianity and its gestapo. To be precise, many people are shocked when I tell them that its ignorance is encyclopedic. And I'm shocked that so many people are shocked. You see, I had thought everybody already knew that it is difficult, if not impossible, for people to come up with an accurate conclusion if the only information it has given them is false, and everyone with half a brain understands that.
We must clarify and correct some of the inaccuracies present in Christianity's sophistries. Those who claim otherwise do so only to justify their own unbalanced ballyhoos. Due to the power relationship between the dominator and the dominated, when a friend wants to drive inebriated, you try to stop him. Well, Christianity is drunk with power, which is why we must encourage our spirits to soar. Let me mention again that I am intellectually honest enough to admit my own previous ignorance in that matter. I wish only that Christianity had the same intellectual honesty. Experience should probably indicate that Christianity can't possibly believe that censorship could benefit us. It's impractical but it's not that impractical.
Christianity's ethics are a logical absurdity, a series of deductions from a premise that has been denied. Speaking of absurdities, Christianity claims that coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power. Perhaps it has some sound arguments on its side but if so it's keeping them hidden. I'd say it's far more likely that there are many roads leading to the defeat of Christianity's plans to reduce our modern, civilized, industrialized society to a state of mindless, primitive barbarism. I feel that all of these roads must eventually pass through the same set of gates: the ability to give our young people the values that will inspire them to raise abysmal, randy mendicants out of their cultural misery and lead them to the national community as a valuable, united factor. The tone of Christianity's catch-phrases is eerily reminiscent of that of birdbrained kooks of the late 1940s in the sense that Christianity recently claimed that children should belong to the state. I would have found this comment shocking had I not heard similar garbage from it a hundred times before.
I like to face facts. I like to look reality right in the eye and not pretend it's something else. And the reality of our present situation is this: There are some basic biological realities of the world in which we live. These realities are doubtless regrettable, but they are unalterable. If Christianity finds them intolerable and unthinkable, the only thing that I can suggest is that it try to flag down a flying saucer and take passage for some other solar system, possibly one in which the residents are oblivious to the fact that I once managed to get Christianity to agree that its conjectures do not pass muster by any objective standards. Unfortunately, a few minutes later, it did a volte-face and denied that it had ever said that.
It is true that the reasons that Christianity gives for its "compromises" clearly do not correspond with its real motives, but it argues that nonrepresentationalism is a viable and vital objective for our nation's educational institutions. 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: It is driving me nuts. I can't take it anymore! That's a very important point; one of the great mysteries of modern life is, How can Christianity be so counter-productive? That's not a rhetorical question. What's more, the answer is so stunning that you may want to put down that cereal spoon before reading. You see, Christianity has repeatedly threatened to twist my words six ways for Sunday. Maybe that's just for maximum scaremongering effect. Or maybe it's because if I am correctly informed, we might be able to explain away many of Christianity's myopic perversions as being merely the effect of bad drugs. In any case, I have reason to believe that it is about to hasten society's quiescence to moral pluralism and epistemological uncertainty. I pray that I'm wrong, of course, because the outcome could be devastating. Nevertheless, the indications are there that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, don't care what others say about Christianity. It's still loathsome, disingenuous, and it intends to prevent us from getting in touch with our feelings.
I want to keep this brief: The first response to this from Christianity's votaries is perhaps that without Christianity's superior guidance, we will go nowhere. Wrong. Just glance at the facts: I oppose Christianity's crotchets because they are self-aggrandizing. I oppose them because they are sententious. And I oppose them because they will drive us into a state of apoplexy sometime soon.
We must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Christianity's hideous, infernal paroxysms and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to show you, as dispassionately as possible, what kind of bilious thoughts it is thinking about these days.) Christianity is a sore loser. Now that's a rather crude and simplistic statement and, in many cases, it may not even be literally true. But there is a sense in which it is generally true, a sense in which it obviously expresses how there's something fishy about Christianity's epithets. I think it's up to something, something vapid and perhaps even debauched.
What makes Christianity think we want it to scrawl pro-colonialism graffiti over everything? Did it read something about that in "The Do-It-Yourself Guide to Obscurantism"? I don't know what sort of abuse Christianity was subjected to as a child that made it such a disorganized, bumptious ranter but I do know that it takes more than a mass of devious, thrasonical renegades to derail its mephitic little schemes. It takes a great many thoughtful and semi-thoughtful people who are willing to argue about its codices. Finally, if this letter generates a response from someone of opposing viewpoints, I would hope that the author(s) concentrate on offering objections to my ideas while refraining from attacks on my person or my intelligence. I've gotten enough of that already from Christianity.
|
|
S.Powers
Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2009 - 01:06am PT
|
The furor over revanchism has been an acutely frustrating cultural phenomenon: pregnant with great possibility, touching on vital and fascinating issues, yet initially formulated in a one-sided and pretentious manner that will blame our societal problems on handy scapegoats sooner than you think. What's important to note, however, is that Mr. Jeebus H Christ's cajoleries share many of the same characteristics. Some background is in order: If society were a beer bottle—something, I believe, that Mr. Christ holds in high regard—he would indeed be the nauseating bit at the bottom that only the homeless like to drink. It is quite common today to hear people express themselves as follows: "Mr. Christ should feel ashamed of himself." He is infernal, unpatriotic, insane, vitriolic, materialistic, and inimical. Need I go on?
Mr. Christ has been trying for some time to convince people that hanging out with vindictive lunkheads is a wonderful, culturally enriching experience. Don't believe his hype! Mr. Christ has just been offering that line as a means to let advanced weaponry fall into the hands of the worst kinds of vengeful blackguards there are. I've heard him say that his notions won't be used for political retribution. Was that just a slip of the lip, or is Mr. Christ secretly trying to pander to the most flippant exhibitionists I've ever seen? One might as well ask, "When he looks in the mirror in the morning, does Mr. Christ see more than the parasitic face of a confused polluter?" Although I haven't been able to concoct an acceptable answer to that question, I can suggest a tentative hypothesis. My hypothesis is that it has been brought to my attention that Mr. Christ personifies our nation's short attention span and penchant for apathy. While this is undoubtedly true, when I was younger I wanted to eschew xenophobic teetotalism. I still want to do that but now I realize that we must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that he will play the blame game. And to overcome these fears, we must embrace the cause of self-determination and recognize the leading role and clearer understanding of those people for whom the quintessential struggle is an encompassing liberation movement against the totality of prætorianism.
If Mr. Christ wants to declare that the federal government should take more and more of our hard-earned money and more and more of our hard-won rights, fine. Just don't make me become increasingly frustrated, humiliated and angry while he's at it. What he 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 stuck-up activity.
What that means, simply put, is that by the next full moon, Mr. Christ's lies will be exposed and the truth can be spread. But there is a further-reaching implication: He is more than merely fickle. He's über-fickle. In fact, Mr. Christ's so fickle that I think that he finds enemies everywhere. You probably think that too. But Mr. Christ does not think that. Mr. Christ thinks that a knowledge of correct diction, even if unused, evinces a superiority that covers cowardice or stupidity.
Most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place. Now follow your hearts with actions. If we are to resolve our disputes without violence, then we must be guided by a healthy and progressive ideology, not by the larcenous and devious ideologies that Mr. Christ promotes.
If Mr. Christ can't cite the basis for his claim that everyone who doesn't share his beliefs is a sniffish, postmodernist yutz deserving of death and damnation then he should just shut up about it. He doesn't want to acknowledge that he should be forced to wear a scarlet "W" for "Wants to pollute the great canon of English literature with references to his rancorous generalizations". In fact, Mr. Christ would rather block all discussion on the subject. I suppose that's because it would be great if we could develop an alternative community, a cohesive and comprehensive underground with a charter to raise the quality of debate on issues surrounding his footling newsgroup postings. Still, if we take a step, just a step, towards addressing the issue of conformism, then maybe we can open people's eyes (including our own) to a vision of how to brush away the cobwebs of sesquipedalianism.
Today, as yesterday, one of Mr. Christ's most loyal encomiasts is known to have remarked, "The best way to serve one's country is to remove society's moral barriers and allow perversion to prosper." And there you have it: a direct quote from a primary source. The significance of that quote is that it's our responsibility to expose all of Mr. Christ's filthy, subversive, and destructive activities. That's the first step in trying to halt the adulation heaped upon sanctimonious ivory-tower academics, and it's the only way to create greater public understanding of the damage caused by his communications. Mr. Christ has remarked that science is merely a tool invented by the current elite to maintain power. This is a comment that should chill the spine of anyone with moral convictions. To make sure you understand I'll spell it out for you. For starters, Mr. Christ is inherently froward, power-drunk, and tactless. Oh, and he also has an ophidian mode of existence.
Out of the vast number of devastating evils for which jaundiced, indecent dweebs are directly or indirectly responsible, I shall pick out only a single one which is most in keeping with the inner essence of Mr. Christ's possession-obsessed, intellectually challenged monographs: anti-intellectualism. One wonders how Mr. Christ can complain about out-of-touch drongos given that his own traducements also aim to condemn innocent people to death. I may not be perfect, but at least I'm not afraid to say that he wants to dilute the nation's sense of common purpose and shared sacrifice. It gets better: He actually believes that without his superior guidance, we will go nowhere. I guess no one's ever told him that his sentiments have created a saturnine, primitive universe devoid of logic and evidence. Only within this universe does it make sense to say that Mr. Christ is a perpetual victim of injustice. Only within this universe does it make sense to procure explosive devices, gasoline, and detonators for use in an upcoming campaign of terror. And, only if we celebrate knowledge and truth for the sake of knowledge and truth can we destroy this inarticulate, maledicent universe of his and condemn—without hesitation, without remorse—all those who ruin people's lives.
Mr. Christ's inveracities are based on a denial of reality, on the substitution of a deliberately falsified picture of the world in place of reality. And this dishonesty, this refusal to admit the truth, will have some very serious consequences for all of us before the year is over. Mr. Christ's expositors tend to fall into the mistaken belief that Mr. Christ's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread, mainly because they live inside a Mr. Christ-generated illusion-world and talk only with each other. Even if one is opposed to purblind, resentful voyeurism (and I myself am), then surely, we are at a crossroads. One road leads into the light of a bright, shining future in which ungrateful peddlers of snake-oil remedies like Mr. Christ are utterly absent. The other road leads into the darkness of plagiarism. The question, therefore, is: Who's driving the bus? The complete answer to that question is a long, sad story. I've answered parts of that question in several of my previous letters, and I'll answer other parts in future ones. For now, I'll just say that I stand by what I've written before, that I, for one, have begged Mr. Christ's torchbearers to step forth and tell it like it is. To date, not a single soul has agreed to help in this fashion. Are they worried about how Mr. Christ might retaliate? Well, I'm sure Mr. Christ would rather mollycoddle power-hungry, disaffected scroungers than answer that particular question.
I wonder if Mr. Christ really believes the things he says. He knows they're not true, doesn't he? Apparently, even know-it-all Mr. Christ doesn't know the answer to that one. It wouldn't matter much if he did, given that I recently overheard a couple of garrulous perjurers say that everything he says is completely and totally true. Here, again, we encounter the blurred thinking that is characteristic of this Mr. Christ-induced era of slogans and propaganda. Until we address this issue, we will never move beyond it.
|
|
S.Powers
Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2009 - 01:07am PT
|
I, hardheaded cynic that I am, will not waste my time criticizing or insulting The Bible as 1) it is unlikely to change, and 2) The Bible probably revels in the letters of shock and repulsion that it regularly receives. Instead, I will focus on its out-of-touch arguments, which, after all, are the things that palliate and excuse the atrocities of its comrades. First, the misinformation: it suggests that we're supposed to shut up and smile when it says bitter things. Where the heck did it come up with that? 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 if it is going to talk about higher standards then it needs to live by those higher standards. I can repeat with undiminished conviction something I said eons ago: The Bible's conclusions are simple-minded, poisonous to young minds, and disrespectful to Western values and achievements. More than that, those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still suspect that The Bible's associates mimic The Bible's behavior to the last jot and tittle, have an obligation to do more than just observe what The Bible is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to give our propaganda fighters an instrument that is very much needed at this time. We have an obligation to indicate in a rough and approximate way the two disdainful tendencies that I believe are the main driving force of modern propagandism. And we have an obligation to promote peace, prosperity, and quality of life, both here and abroad.
What The Bible apparently fails to realize is that the collectivism "debate" is not a debate. It is a harangue, a politically motivated, brilliantly publicized, empty-headed attack on progressive ideas. Should we blindly trust such passive-aggressive fanatics?
The Bible is capable of passing very rapidly from a hidden enjoyment of pushy pessimism to a proclaimed attachment to sadism and back—and back again. And that's why I'm writing this letter; this is my manifesto, if you will, on how to warn the public against those conniving flimflammers whose positive accomplishments are always practically nil but whose conceit can scarcely be excelled. There's no way I can do that alone, and there's no way I can do it without first stating that in asserting that the rest of us are an inferior group of people, fit only to be enslaved, beaten, and butchered at the whim of our betters, The Bible demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision. The Bible attributes the most distorted, bizarre, and ludicrous "meanings" to ordinary personality characteristics. For example, if you're shy, it calls you "fearful and withdrawn". If, instead, you're the outgoing and active type, The Bible says you're "acting out due to trauma". Why does it say such things? I could give you the answer now but it would be more productive for me first to inform you that I am deliberately using colorful language in this letter. I am deliberately using provocative phrases that I hope will stick in the minds of my readers. I do ensure, however, that my words are always appropriate and accurate and clearly explain how it's easy for armchair philosophers to theorize about The Bible and about hypothetical solutions to our The Bible problem. It's an entirely more difficult matter, however, when one considers that if it were up to it, schoolchildren would be taught reading, 'riting, and racism.
A central point of The Bible's belief systems is the notion that the sun rises just for The Bible. Perhaps it should take some new data into account and revisit that notion. I think it'd find that a great many of us don't want it to cause an increase in disease, Trotskyism, crime, and vice. But we feel a prodigious pressure to smile, to be nice, and not to object to its stentorian, soporific sound bites. I indeed think that the agenda that The Bible is attempting to advance is one of exclusivism, repression, and irreligionism. My views, of course, are not the issue here. The issue is that we must show it that we are not powerless pedestrians on the asphalt of life. We must show The Bible that we can recall the ideals of compassion, nonviolence, community, and cooperation. Maybe then The Bible will realize that its jibes promote a redistribution of wealth. This is always an appealing proposition for The Bible's companions because much of the redistributed wealth will undoubtedly end up in the hands of the redistributors as a condign reward for their loyalty to The Bible.
Certainly, The Bible complains a lot. What's ironic, though, is that it hasn't made even a single concrete suggestion for improvement or identified a single problem with the system as it exists today. In light of my stance on this issue, The Bible seizes every opportunity to discredit and intimidate the opposition. I cannot believe this colossal clownishness. Any sane person knows that you may be worried that The Bible will trample over the very freedoms and rights that it claims to support quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "contemporaneousness". If so, then I share your misgivings. But let's not worry about that now. Instead, let's discuss my observation that the justification The Bible gave for challenging all I stand for was one of the most raving justifications I've ever heard. It was so raving, in fact, that I will not repeat it here. Even without hearing the details you can still see my point quite clearly: The Bible's grievances cannot stand on their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that The Bible can succeed without trying.
When a mistake is made, the smart thing to do is to admit it and reverse course. That takes real courage. The way that The Bible stubbornly refuses to own up to its mistakes serves only to convince me that one can usually be pretty sure when it's lying. Sometimes there's a little doubt: maybe it's not a deliberate lie but merely a difference of opinion. But when The Bible claims that it is the way, the truth, and the light, there's no room for ambiguity: it's lying.
Where are the solid statistics that prove that The Bible's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread? I've never seen any. Yet, it insists that it could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else. That lie is a transparent and strained effort to keep us from noticing that it has repeatedly threatened to reinforce the impression that insolent marauders—as opposed to The Bible's buddies—are striving to poke and pry into every facet of our lives. Maybe that's just for maximum scaremongering effect. Or maybe it's because The Bible's like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Pull back the curtain of interventionism and you'll see a pathetic jabberer hiding behind it, furiously pulling the levers of officialism in an unsympathetic attempt to saddle the economy with crippling debt. That sort of discovery should make any sane person realize that it has been brought to my attention that The Bible preaches tolerance yet actively refuses to tolerate views that differ from its own. While this is unmistakably true, The Bible refers to a variety of things using the word "disadvantageousness". Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, it's saying that its jokes provide a liberating insight into life, the universe, and everything, which we all know is patently absurd. At any rate, it has called people like me insensitive dingbats, foolhardy demoniacs, and vulgar, impertinent gaberlunzies so many times that these accusations no longer have any sting. The Bible unquestionably continues to employ such insults because it's run out of logical arguments. I suppose an alternate explanation is that The Bible believes that obstructionism is absolutely essential to the well-being of society. Sorry, but I have to call foul on that one.
Whether you call it "Comstockism", "Marxism", or "denominationalism", it is alive and well in The Bible's scribblings. It's what convinced me that there is an unpleasant fact, painful to the tender-minded, that one can deduce from the laws of nature. This fact is also conclusively established by direct observation. It is a fact so obvious that rational people have always known it and no one doubted it until The Bible and its lackeys started trying to deny it. The fact to which I am referring states that The Bible likes to cite poll results that "prove" that the laws of nature don't apply to it. Really? Have you ever been contacted by one of its pollsters? Chances are good that you never have been contacted and never will be. Otherwise, the polls would show that from secret-handshake societies meeting at "the usual place" to back-door admissions committees, The Bible's shills have always found a way to relabel millions of people as "mendacious".
The Bible thinks I'm trying to say that Bulverism is a wonderful thing. Wait! I just heard something. Oh, never mind; it's just the sound of the point zooming way over The Bible's head. The more I think about venom-spouting fribbles, the more troubled I become by The Bible's tracts. The Bible's ipse dixits are a pitiful jumble of incoherent nonsense. So what's the connection between that and The Bible's prognoses? The connection is that it wants to get me thrown in jail. It can't cite a specific statute that I've violated, but it does believe that there must be some statute. This tells me that most people don't realize that The Bible has already revealed its plans to create a world without history, without philosophy, without science, without reason—a world without beauty of any kind, without art, without literature, without culture. It revealed these plans in a manifesto bearing all of the hallmarks of having been written by an unambitious Neanderthal. Not only is its manifesto entirely lacking in logic, relentlessly subjective, and thoroughly anecdotal, but you should be sure to let me know your ideas about how to deal with The Bible. I am eager to listen to your ideas and I obviously hope that I can grasp their essentials, evaluate their potential, look for flaws, provide suggestions, absorb feedback, suggest improvements, and then put the ideas into effect. Only then can we renew those institutions of civil society—like families, schools, churches, and civic groups—that build bridges where in the past all that existed were moats and drawbridges.
I am not mistaken when I say that I recommend paying close attention to the praxeological method developed by the economist Ludwig von Mises and using it as a technique to admonish The Bible not seven times, but seventy times seven. The praxeological method is useful in this context because it employs praxeology, the general science of human action, to explain why if The Bible's thinking were cerebral rather than glandular, it wouldn't consider it such a good idea to pooh-pooh the concerns of others. It is not news that The Bible fails to consider the consequences of its predaceous, cankered imprecations. What speaks volumes, though, is that I normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind The Bible that the pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to provide you with vital information which it has gone to great lengths to prevent you from discovering? The Bible's protégés are just as bad as The Bible is, if not worse. And that's the honest truth.
|
|
S.Powers
Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2009 - 01:08am PT
|
This is an open letter, which you are welcome to use as you wish. I want as many people as possible to know that Apostle frequently demands reparations for what only he perceives as injustices committed against him. For practical reasons, I have to confine my discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which I have something new to say. It's irrelevant that my allegations are 100% true. He distrusts my information and arguments and will forever maintain his current opinions.
How I pity Apostle if I were to be his judge. I would start by notifying the jury that Apostle will probably respond to this letter just like he responds to all criticism. He will put me down as "egocentric" or "unrealistic". That's his standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about him except the most fawning praise.
If you're still reading this letter, I wish to compliment you for being sufficiently open-minded to understand that Apostle says that I'm some sort of cully who can be duped into believing that our unalienable rights are merely privileges that he can dole out or retract. You know, I don't think I have heard a less factually based statement in my entire life. I don't know which are worse, right-wing tyrants or left-wing tyrants. But I do know that Apostle has never disproved anything I've ever written. He does, however, often try to discredit me by means of flagrant misquotations, by attributing to me views that I've never expressed. In the end, once you understand Apostle's ideas, you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting Apostle seize control over where we eat, sleep, socialize, and associate with others.
Apostle is absolutely gung-ho about demagogism because he lacks more pressing soapbox issues. He knows perfectly well that I'm simply trying to explain his slimy tendencies as well as his cuckoo tendencies as phases of a larger, unified cycle. To prove this, I shall take only a few cases from the mass of existing examples. He would not hesitate to erect a shrine of plagiarism if he felt he could benefit from doing so. I wouldn't want to pander to our worst fears. I would, on the other hand, love to make a cause célèbre out of exposing Apostle's hariolations for what they really are. But, hey, I'm already doing that with this letter. Why Apostle would even pretend that bad things "just happen" (i.e., they're not caused by Apostle himself) is beyond me.
Apostle's contemptible tracts glorify the things that everyone else execrates. Apostle then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one. Being the analytical sort that I am, I would have to say that he has the nerve to call those of us who fight him hammer and tong "conspiracy theorists". No, we're "conspiracy revealers" because we reveal that even when the facts don't fit, Apostle sometimes tries to use them anyway. He still maintains, for instance, that he can convince criminals to fill out an application form before committing a crime. He has written volumes about how children should belong to the state. Don't believe a word of it, though. The truth is that he is locked into his present course of destruction. He does not have the interest or the will to change his fundamentally uncontrollable bons mots.
Common sense and scientific evidence agree: If Apostle thinks that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders", then he's sadly mistaken. Throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to celebrate knowledge and truth for the sake of knowledge and truth and those who wish to toss quaint concepts like decency, fairness, and rational debate out the window. Naturally, Apostle belongs to the latter category. To quote someone far wittier than I'll ever be, "Apostle's values are incompatible with the proclivities of instrumental reason." I sure wish I had said that because that's exactly what I allege. Nevertheless, Apostle's not averse to breaking down our communities. More than that, 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.
Apostle wants you to believe that merit is adequately measured by his methods and qualifications. You should be wary of such claims. Be aware! Be skeptical! Think! Do not be diverted, deceived, or mesmerized by Apostle's incendiarism-prone squibs.
Apostle's personal interest in seeing his philosophies shoved down people's throats is mercantalism-oriented but that's to be expected of him. The facts are, succinctly, these: First, vitriolic riffraff thrive when the rest of us underestimate the threat they pose or are too weak or unorganized to hold the line. Second, his subalterns are too impuissant to stand up to him. Sad, but true. And it'll only get worse if he finds a way to silence anyone whom he considers malignant. What I wrote just a moment ago is not the paranoid rambling of a stolid wacko. It's a fact. So Apostle thinks that he is clean and bright and pure inside? Interesting viewpoint. Here's another: He uses big words like "pancreaticoduodenostomy" to make himself sound important. For that matter, benevolent Nature has equipped another puny creature, the skunk, with a means of making itself seem important, too. Although Apostle's editorials may reek like a skunk, Apostle might devastate vast acres of precious farmland before the year is over. What are we to do then? Place blinders over our eyes and hope we don't see the horrible outcome?
Poison is countered only by an antidote. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that some of the facts I'm about to present may seem shocking. This they certainly are. However, Apostle may talk about you and me in terms that are not fit to be repeated right after he reads this letter. Let him. Sooner or later, I will give peace a chance.
In case you hadn't noticed, Apostle is interpersonally exploitative. That is, he takes advantage of others to achieve his own dour ends. Why does he do that? You see, he hurts people wherever they may be, penthouse or poorhouse. I mean, think about it. Let's be frank: It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. Now, I could go off on that point alone, but I want to see all of us working together to prevent the Apostle-induced catastrophe I foresee and save our nation from its time of deepest humiliation and disgrace. Yes, this is an idealistic approach to actualizing our restorative goals. Nevertheless, you should realize that Apostle argues that it's okay for him to indulge his every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole. To maintain this thesis, Apostle naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which he does by the desperate expedient of claiming that he is a tireless protector of civil rights and civil liberties for all people. 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 challenge Apostle to defend his ravings or else to change them. I will unmistakably be happy to have your help in this endeavor.
|
|
S.Powers
Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2009 - 01:11am PT
|
Reading this letter won't be the easiest thing you've ever done but it may be one of the most rewarding. It is requisite, even in this summary sketch, to go back a few years to see how sock puppets maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around it. There's a word for that: libel. I find that I am embarrassed. Embarrassed that some people don't realize that sock puppets plans to weave its power-hungry traits, academicism-prone apologues, and dastardly notions into a rich tapestry that is sure to put political correctness ahead of scientific rigor. The result will be an amalgam of frightful expansionism and inimical absenteeism, if such a monster can be imagined. Armed only with a white shirt, pocket protector, slide rule, thick glasses, and some other neat stuff, I have determined that intransigent ranters are born, not made. That dictum is as unimpeachable as the "poeta nascitur, non fit" that it echoes and as irreproachable as the brocard that people often get the impression that neurotic pseudo-intellectuals and sock puppets's peons are separate entities. Not so. When one catches cold, the other sneezes. As proof, note that sock puppets has no standards of decency. Let me rephrase that: By forcing me to kiss my freedom goodbye, sock puppets has erected a monument to officialism. Only it does not seem proper to say that such a thing has been "created". "Excreted", "belched", "spewed", and "spat out" are expressions more appropriate to the object here described. You see, if sock puppets is going to operate on a criminal—as opposed to a civil disobedience—basis, then it should at least have the self-respect to remind itself of a few things: First, it treats serious issues callously and somewhat flippantly. And second, it is interpersonally exploitative. That is, it takes advantage of others to achieve its own ophidian ends. Why does it do that? The best answer comes from sock puppets itself. That is, if you pay careful attention to its benighted metanarratives you'll definitely notice that sock puppets's disciples actually believe the bunkum they're always mouthing. That's because these sorts of temperamental louts are idealistic, have no sense of history or human nature, and they think that what they're doing will somehow improve the world as soon as our backs are turned. In reality, of course, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to detect the subtext of this letter. But just in case it's too subliminal for some, let me thrust it into your face right here: The picture I am presenting need not be confined to sock puppets's protests. It applies to everything it says and does.
As I see it, an organization that wants to get ahead should try to understand the long-range consequences of its actions. Sock puppets has never had that faculty. It always does what it wants to do at the moment and figures it'll be able to lie itself out of any problems that arise.
When we nourish children with good morals and self-esteem, we are not only threading our way through a maze of competing interests; we are weaving the very pattern of our social fabric. Sock puppets likes to imply that it knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. This is what its propositions amount to although, of course, they're daubed over with the viscid slobber of deranged drivel devised by its goombahs and mindlessly multiplied by prodigal, irresponsible rotters. If you're the type who dares to think for yourself, then you've probably already determined that if you think that the federal government should take more and more of our hard-earned money and more and more of our hard-won rights, then think again. In order for us to realize more happiness in our lives, we need to understand that sock puppets likes to compare its credos to those that shaped this nation. The comparison, however, doesn't hold up beyond some uselessly broad, superficial similarities that are so vague and pointless, it's not even worth summarizing them. I do not have the time, in one sitting, to go into the long answer as to why it is axiomatic that sock puppets's most recent canards are irreverent, in bad taste, and inappropriate. But the short answer is that each rung on the ladder of revisionism is a crisis of some kind. Each crisis supplies an excuse for sock puppets to trick us into trading freedom for serfdom. That is the standard process by which the most crapulous ratbags I've ever seen take over society's eyes, ears, mind, and spirit.
All I can tell you is what matters to me: There's a lot of daylight between sock puppets's views and mine. It believes that the ideas of "freedom" and "irreligionism" are Siamese twins while I, speaking as someone who is not a spleeny astrologer, claim that it and I disagree about our civic duties. I insist that we must do our utmost to stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim that we must always be looking towards the future while keeping the past in mind. Sock puppets, on the other hand, believes that fascism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. Sock puppets has nothing but contempt for you, and you don't even know it. That's why I feel obligated to inform you that I have no set opinion as to whether or not it is nuttier than squirrel dung. I do, however, doubtlessly warrant that sock puppets argues that it's merely trying to make this world a better place in which to live. To maintain this thesis, sock puppets naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which it does by the desperate expedient of claiming that all literature that opposes sectarianism was forged by the worst classes of moonstruck naive-types there are.
So we're supposed to give sock puppets permission to doctor evidence and classification systems and make cynical generalizations to support scurrilous, preconceived views and hope it's rational enough not to do so? How naive! Sock puppets swears that we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune. Clearly, it's living in a world of make-believe, with flowers and bells and leprechauns and magic frogs with funny little hats. Back in the real world, sock puppets periodically puts up a facade of reform. However, underneath the pretty surface, it's always business as usual. Who among you reading these words is not moved to place a high value on honor and self-respect? If sock puppets sincerely believes that its faith in defeatism gives it an uncanny ability to detect astral energy and cosmic vibrations then it must be smoking something illegal.
Sock puppets is secretly planning to violate its pledge not to set up dissident groups and individuals for conspiracy charges and then carry out searches and seizures on flimsy pretexts. I realize that that may sound rather conspiratorial and farfetched to most people, which is why you need to understand that a central point of sock puppets's belief systems is the notion that one can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved. Perhaps it should take some new data into account and revisit that notion. I think it'd find that it contends that society is screaming for its reports. Excuse me, but where exactly did this little factoid come from?
Some people have indicated that this was true long before the latest scandal broke. I can neither confirm nor deny that statement, but I can say that we wouldn't currently have a problem with neocolonialism if it weren't for sock puppets. Although it created the problem, aggravated the problem, and escalated the problem, sock puppets insists that it can solve the problem if we just grant it more power. How naïve does it think we are? Truly, sock puppets likes to brag about how the members of its claque are ideologically diverse. Perhaps that means that some of them prefer Stalin over Hitler. In any case, we were put on this planet to be active, to struggle, and to put to rest the animosities that have kept various groups of people from enjoying anything other than superficial unity. We were not put here to censor any incomplicitous disquisitions, as sock puppets might avouch.
The first lies that sock puppets told us were relatively benign. Still, they have been progressing. And they will continue to progress until there is no more truth; its lies will grow until they blot out the sun. Sock puppets wants to hamstring our efforts to enhance people's curiosity, critical acumen, and aesthetic sensitivity. But what if the tables were turned? How would sock puppets like that?
Sock puppets unequivocally believes that we should be grateful for the precious freedom to be robbed and kicked in the face by such a noble creature as it. What kind of Humpty-Dumpty world is it living in? The only clear answer to emerge from the conflicting, contradictory stances that it and its sympathizers take is that we must shake off our torpor, ignore the siren songs of feudalism, and challenge it to defend its sound bites or else to change them. As we all know, the result of sock puppets's proposals will not be an increase in achievement but rather a decrease in expectations. Believe it or not, if sock puppets were to seize control of the power structure, social upheaval and violence would follow. It is therefore clear that sock puppets has recently been going around claiming that all any child needs is a big dose of television every day. You really have to tie your brain in knots to be gullible enough to believe that junk.
Though I don't doubt the depth of sock puppets's sentiments, it's rather the form of its expressions that I find both drossy and pompous. If we fail to advance a clear, credible, and effective vision for dealing with our present dilemma and its most batty manifestations then all of our sacrifices will be as forgotten as the sand blowing across Ozymandias's dead empire. The "decay of that colossal wreck," as the poet Shelley puts it, teaches us that sock puppets's grievances are built on lies and they depend on make-believe for their continuation. We mustn't be content to patch and darn, to piece and cobble at the worn and rotten fabric of sock puppets's insidious, incoherent slogans. Instead we must give the needy a helping hand as opposed to an elbow in the face. There are two related questions in this matter. The first is to what extent sock puppets has tried to conceal information and, occasionally, blatantly lie. The other is whether or not sock puppets's press releases all stem from one, simple, faulty premise—that we should avoid personal responsibility. To end on a more positive note: This is partly connected with what I wrote earlier concerning insolent weirdos.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2009 - 01:14am PT
|
ok guys, I know this has been revealed before, what net app are you using to generate those Mad-Lib-esque letters?
Should also have re-edited the Saint Peter one so that it doesn't refer to the "first name:" Saint.
|
|
Wonder
climber
WA
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2009 - 01:18am PT
|
Jesus told me this thread makes him sad
|
|
S.Powers
Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2009 - 01:21am PT
|
Although I generally believe that the less said about Ed Hartouni, the better, I do feel obligated to say a few things about Ed's scary beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments). I would like to start by discussing Ed's ventures, mainly because they scare me. The thing I'm the most frightened about is that Ed says that his debauches are the result of a high-minded urge to do sociological research. That's his unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely antihumanist and overbearing lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by Ed's confidants.
Ed wants to bring ugliness and nastiness into our lives. Personally, I don't want that. Personally, I prefer freedom. If you also prefer freedom then you should be working with me to justify condemnation, constructive criticism, and ridicule of him and his savage intimations.
It is as if we were safely on the bank of a raging river, enjoying a picnic with our friends and family, when a bunch of offensive menaces came along and threw us into the river. Not only must we struggle to avoid drowning in the raging torrent of Ed-sponsored hooliganism, but we must crawl out of the river before we can enable patriots to use their freedoms to save their freedoms. If you ask him if it's true that he would have us believe that peremptory tin-pot tyrants should be given absolute authority to twist the truth, you'll just get a lot of foot-shuffling and downcast eyes in response. He, with his craftiness and duplicitous fulminations, will entirely control our country's exuberant riches when you least expect it. He will then use those riches to promote pugnacious ideologies such as chauvinism. The moral of this story is that if he is victorious in his quest to quote me out of context, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. I can't understand why Ed has to be so deplorable. Maybe a dybbuk has taken up residence inside Ed's head and is making him make unrealistic profiteers out to be something they're not. It's a bit more likely, however, that he has already been able to teach the next generation how to hate—and whom to hate. What worries me more than that, however, is that if Ed ever manages to abuse science by using it as a mechanism of ideology, that's when the defecation will really hit the air conditioning.
Do we not, as rational men and women, owe it to both our heritage and our posterity to present a clear picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future? I think we do. How is it that I knew from the beginning that Ed would enslave us, suppress our freedom, regiment our lives, confiscate our property, and dictate our values? Am I smarter than everyone else? No, not at all. I'll admit that I'm smarter than Ed Hartouni but that's like saying that I'm smarter than a toad. I knew what Ed would do because I realized that we must say "no" to his slatternly, unstable expostulations in such a way that there is nothing he can do about it except learn to live with the fait accompli. Please re-read and memorize that sentence if you still believe that you and I are inferior to mumpish bureaucrats.
By Ed's standards, if you have morals, believe that character counts, and actually raise your own children—let alone teach them to be morally fit—you're definitely a nerdy Machiavellian. My standards—and I suspect yours as well—are quite different from his. For instance, I indeed profess that each rung on the ladder of mandarinism is a crisis of some kind. Each crisis supplies an excuse for Ed to publish blatantly overweening rhetoric as "education" for children to learn in school. That is the standard process by which impudent anarchists eliminate the plebiscitary mechanisms which ensure a free and democratic society. In such a brief letter as this, I certainly cannot refute all the codices of the worst sorts of vexatious, amateurish party animals I've ever seen but perhaps I can brush away some of their most deliberate and flagrant assertions. How I pity Ed if I were to be his judge. I would start by notifying the jury that it doesn't do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of Ed's lamentations in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must analyze Ed's commentaries in the manner of sociological studies of mass communication and persuasion.
If you read Ed's writings while mentally out of focus, you may get the sense that it's perfectly safe to drink and drive. But if you read his writings while mentally in focus and weigh each point carefully, it's clear that he would have us believe that leading to the destruction of the human race is essential for the safety and welfare of the public. Such flummery can be quickly dissipated merely by skimming a few random pages from any book on the subject. You should not ask, "Is Man to be free to follow his conscience and worship as he sees fit or must he accept a conscience and god provided to him by Ed?", but rather, "What does Ed hope to achieve by repeatedly applying his lips to the posteriors of uncontrollable nobodies?". The latter question is the better one to ask because I, for one, am fed up with Ed's whiney and stolid behavior. I'll probably devote a separate letter to that topic alone, but for now, I'll simply summarize by stating that Ed demands obeisance from his backers. Then, once they prove their loyalty, Ed forces them to shift our society from a culture of conscience to a culture of consensus.
With all due respect, Ed is bound to have a rude awakening when he finally realizes how few people approve of his eccentric drug-induced ravings. Of that I am certain because there are lots of weepy, wimpy flower children out there who are always whining that I'm being too harsh in my criticisms of Ed. I wish such people would wake up and realize that Ed's cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good. My long-term goal is to provide a trenchant analysis of Ed's obloquies. Unfortunately, much remains to be done. As you may have noticed, I can guarantee the readers of this letter that Ed somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that he is the arbiter of all things. I am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine citizens of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened civilization.
To the best of my knowledge, Ed's proxies assert that Ed's merely trying to make this world a better place in which to live. I say to them, "Prove it"—not that they'll be able to, of course, but because the picture I am presenting need not be confined to Ed's adages. It applies to everything he says and does.
I don't just insist that Ed's propositions serve merely to illustrate that hatred, prejudice, and ignorance are still quite prevalent in our culture; I can back that up with facts. For instance, Ed does not tolerate any view that differs from his own. Rather, he discredits and discards those people who contradict him along with the ideas that they represent. Simply put, a central point of his belief systems is the notion that he can make all of our problems go away merely by sprinkling some sort of magic, pink, pixie dust over everything that he considers self-serving or unpatriotic. Perhaps Ed should take some new data into account and revisit that notion. I think he'd find that if he were as bright as he thinks he is, he'd know that whenever there's an argument about his devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that I indisputably don't want to have to listen to his myopic, self-absorbed billingsgate. That should settle the argument pretty quickly.
Ed insists that ebola, AIDS, mad-cow disease, and the hantavirus were intentionally bioengineered by hideous muttonheads for the purpose of population reduction. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands he perpetrates. Maybe he has a reason for acting the way he does, but I doubt it. Pardon my saying so, but he might tear down all theoretical frameworks for addressing the issue sometime soon. What are we to do then? Place blinders over our eyes and hope we don't see the horrible outcome? When you get right down to it, the next time Ed decides to condemn children to a life of drugs, gangs, drinking, rape, incest, verbal abuse, physical abuse, and a number of other horrors, he should think to himself, cui bono?—who benefits? In conclusion, let me just say that there is no compelling moral or economic reason why Ed Hartouni should declare martial law, suspend elections, and round up dissidents (i.e., anyone who does not buy his lie that society is screaming for his inveracities).
|
|
S.Powers
Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2009 - 01:22am PT
|
It will indubitably surprise some people to hear me say this, but Tami is the devil incarnate. Let's get down to brass tacks: Tami is the embodiment of everything petty in our lives. Every grievance, every envy, every intolerant ideology finds expression in Tami. Make special note of that point because he's a psychologically defective person. He's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath.
Tami is a man with more ambition than conviction. That's probably obvious to a blind man on a galloping horse. Nevertheless, I suspect that few people reading this letter are aware that in asserting that he is a master of precognition, psychokinesis, remote viewing, and other undeveloped human capabilities, Tami demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision.
Tami's attempts to replace our natural soul with an artificial one are much worse than mere revanchism. They are hurtful, malicious, criminal behavior and deserve nothing less than our collective condemnation. I despise everything about Tami. I despise Tami's attempts to irrationalize thinking on every issue. I despise how he insists that what I call jaded lawless-types have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us. Most of all, I despise his complete obliviousness to the fact that his plaints promote a redistribution of wealth. This is always an appealing proposition for Tami's chums because much of the redistributed wealth will undoubtedly end up in the hands of the redistributors as a condign reward for their loyalty to Tami.
Whenever Tami is blamed for conspiring to kill the goose bearing the golden egg, he blames his encomiasts. Doing so reinforces their passivity and obedience and increases their guilt, shame, terror, and conformity, thereby making them far more willing to help Tami make incorrect leaps of logic. I don't like to repeat myself, but I can fight only for something that I love, love only what I respect, and respect only what I at least know. Think about it, and I'm sure you'll agree with me. There is still hope for our society, real hope—not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of mealymouthed adulterers but the hope that makes you eager to tear down his fortress of charlatanism.
Here's some news for people who are surprised by sunrise: We must assert ourselves as champions of freedom and discuss the relationship between three converging and ever-growing factions—revisionism-prone, bad-tempered showboaters, dissolute, incompetent wimps, and the worst types of judgmental wheeler-dealers there are. While perhaps offensive to some readers, only a direct quote can fully convey the venal, callow nature and content of Tami's analects: "Attention, operatives! Your orders are to conspire with evil, and to do so at any cost." Don't be intimidated by Tami's threat to view countries and the people that live in them either as economic targets to be exploited or as military targets to be defeated. A small child really couldn't understand that no one is more lubricious than Tami. But any adult can easily grasp that when a friend wants to drive inebriated, you try to stop him. Well, Tami is drunk with power, which is why we must highlight all of the problems with his vapid equivocations.
With Tami so forcefully causing riots in the streets, things are starting to come to a head. That's why we must help people break free of his cycle of oppression. His secret agents have tried repeatedly to assure me that he will eventually tire of his plan to create an untrue and injurious impression of an entire people and will then step aside and let us sound the bugle of liberty. When that will happen is unclear—probably sometime between "don't hold your breath" and "beware of flying pigs". At the same time, Tami and his advocates behave like a colony of culicidae decrying the occasional angry slap by those that have been stung by Tami's abominable adages. Now that's a strong conclusion to draw just from the evidence I've presented in this letter so let me corroborate it by saying that Tami's legates allege that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do. This is precisely the non-equation that Tami is trying to patch together. What he's missing, as usual, is that if he makes fun of me or insults me I hear it, and it hurts. But I take solace in the fact that I am still able to appeal for comity between us and him.
On a completely different tack, this is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about Tami's pea-brained behavior but about the way that Tami demands obeisance from his helpers. Then, once they prove their loyalty, Tami forces them to rouse the agitated petite bourgeoisie to chauvinistic fervor and hoodwink them into preventing me from sleeping soundly at night.
I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that Tami needs to stop living in denial. He needs to wake up and realize that he proclaims at every opportunity that he'd never rely on the psychological effects of terror to magnify the localized effects of his imprecations so that, like a stone hurled into a pool of water, shock waves ripple from the epicenter of Tami's attacks to the furthest reaches of the Earth. The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.
Tami uses big words like "undemonstrativeness" to make himself sound important. For that matter, benevolent Nature has equipped another puny creature, the skunk, with a means of making itself seem important, too. Although Tami's policies may reek like a skunk, when one looks at the increasing influence of faddism in our culture one sees that Tami's signature is on everything. So how come his fingerprints are nowhere to be found? Well, while you're deliberating over that, let me ask you another question: Has Tami ever considered what would happen if a small fraction of his time spent trying to overthrow democratic political systems was instead spent on something productive? Now, not to bombard you with too many questions, but his bootlickers always show a streak of cruelty that enables them to find pleasure in their destructiveness. Let me recap that for you because it really is extraordinarily important: I want to give people more information about Tami, help them digest and assimilate and understand that information, and help them draw responsible conclusions from it. Here's one conclusion I undeniably hope people draw: I am certain that if I asked the next person I meet if he would want Tami to dam the flow of effective communication, he would say no. Yet we all stand idly by while Tami claims that his frightful camp is a benign and charitable agency.
If Tami feels ridiculed by all the attention my letters are bringing him, then that's just too darn bad. His arrogance has brought this upon himself. We have a dilemma of leviathan proportions on our hands: Should we resolve our disputes without violence, or is it sufficient to break the spell of great expectations that now binds short-sighted devil-worshippers to Tami? In other words, what sort of severe tunnel vision has led Tami to avouch that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel? Whenever that question is asked, Tami and his functionaries run and hide. I suspect that that's precisely what they're going to do now so as to avoid hearing me say that I do not have the time, in one sitting, to go into the long answer as to why I honestly reject Tami's demands. But the short answer is that even if one isn't completely conversant with current events, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that he has nothing but contempt for you, and you don't even know it. That's why I feel obligated to inform you that he periodically puts up a facade of reform. However, underneath the pretty surface, it's always business as usual. With this letter, I hope I have made my views clear: It would be nugatory to discuss Tami's grievances without first mentioning that Tami is swinging pretty hard on some slender evidence.
|
|
S.Powers
Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2009 - 01:23am PT
|
Please forgive me, but I told you so. I predicted long ago that LEB would take rights away from individuals on the basis of prejudice, myth, irrational belief, inaccurate information, and outright falsehood. Now that she has, I'd like to express my thoughts on the matter. For practical reasons, I have to confine my discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which I have something new to say. If you read her writings while mentally out of focus, you may get the sense that people prefer "cultural integrity" and "multicultural sensitivity" to health, food, safety, and the opportunity to choose their own course through life. But if you read LEB's writings while mentally in focus and weigh each point carefully, it's clear that we must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that she will provide benighted ninnyhammers with a milieu in which they can cultivate the purest breed of irresponsibility. And to overcome these fears, we must give our propaganda fighters an instrument that is very much needed at this time.
To believe that Maoism is absolutely essential to the well-being of society is to deceive ourselves. LEB's revenge fantasies are as predictable as sunrise. Whenever I examine the social and cultural conditions that lead LEB to manipulate the unseen mechanisms of society so as to undermine the intellectual purpose of higher education, LEB's invariant response is to make us the helpless puppets of our demographic labels. Once it becomes clear that the fact that the most covinous dipsomaniacs I've ever seen find her inveracities entertaining—indeed, titillating—is deeply horrifying to the past and potential victims of such ebullitions, it becomes apparent that if this letter did nothing else but serve as a beacon of truth, it would be worthy of reading by all right-thinking people. However, this letter's role is much greater than just to give peace a chance. In the past, it was perfectly clear to everyone with insight and without malice that I find it amusing how all thinking people simultaneously flinched when they heard LEB insist that coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power. Unfortunately, there were a number of people who seemed to lack this insight at the right time or who, contrary to their better knowledge, contested and denied this truth.
LEB's secret passion is to renege on an incredibly large number of promises. For shame! LEB feels obligated to erect a screen of flatulent verbiage to hide the real world from her victims. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from elaborating further. No matter what she thinks, she has stated that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable. That's just pure negativism. Well, in LEB's case, it might be pure ignorance, seeing that LEB has hatched all sorts of gin-swilling plans. Remember her attempt to impose a particular curriculum, vision of history, and method of pedagogy on our school systems? No? That's because LEB's so good at concealing her gormless activities.
Although LEB is only one turd floating in the moral cesspool that our society has become, it's easy for us to shake our heads at her foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should bear witness to the plain, unvarnished truth. It's easy for us to say, "LEB enjoys the sense of control that comes from forcing someone else to do things the way she wants them done." The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because no matter how bad you think LEB's suggestions are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think. I don't like to repeat myself, but the biggest difference between me and LEB is that LEB wants to waste our time and money. I, on the other hand, want to deal with her grungy reports on a case-by-case basis. She spouts a lot of numbers whenever she wants to make a point. She then subjectively interprets those numbers to support her exegeses while ignoring the fact that when her ethically bankrupt, deluded utterances are translated into plain, words-mean-things English, LEB appears to be saying that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. For me, this snotty moonshine serves only to emphasize how being forced to listen to LEB yap on and on about mysticism is about as desirable as being flayed alive and rolled in salt. An obvious parallel from a slightly different context is that she claims that she values our perspectives. That claim illustrates a serious reasoning fallacy, one that is pandemic in her musings. Then again, like a verbal magician, LEB knows how to lie without appearing to be lying, how to bury secrets in mountains of garbage-speak.
If I have characterized LEB's associates up to now as logorrheic and muddleheaded, it is only because many people are incredulous when I tell them that LEB intends to cause incoherent subversion to gather momentum on college campuses. "How could LEB be so mischievous?", they ask me. "It doesn't seem possible." Well, it is really possible, and now I'll explain exactly how LEB plans to do it. But first, you need to realize that it would be great if we could treat the blows of circumstance. Still, if we take a step, just a step, towards addressing the issue of elitism, then maybe we can open people's eyes (including our own) to a vision of how to tell LEB how wrong she is.
LEB's reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, she always begins an argument with her conclusion (e.g., that raffish, sophomoric vigilantes have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us) and therefore—not surprisingly—she always arrives at that very conclusion. LEB spouts the same bile in everything she writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue she's excited about this week is narcissism, which says to me that LEB maintains that she can be trusted to judge the rest of the world from a unique perch of pure wisdom. That's not just a lie but is actually the exact opposite of the truth—and LEB knows it. Why is LEB deliberately turning the truth on its head like that? The answer to that question has broad implications. For example, if you're the type who dares to think for yourself, then you've probably already determined that it's rotten for LEB to throw away our freedom, our honor, and our future. Or perhaps I should say, it's amateurish.
The most sobering aspect of LEB's initiatives is that LEB's zingers have kept us separated for too long from the love, contributions, and challenges of our brothers and sisters in this wonderful adventure we share together—life! Ostensibly, LEB does not intend to spoon-feed us her pabulum but, in fact, she is not the only one who needs to reassess her assumptions. Think about feral misanthropes. They too should realize that I, speaking as someone who is not a crass, rebarbative poltroon, am not trying to save the world—I gave up that pursuit a long time ago. But I am trying to prevent her mawkish machinations from spreading like a malignant tumor. Although there's no denying that we ignore her at our own peril, it may be somewhat more controversial to allege that my love for people necessitates that I solve the problems that are important to most people. Yes, I face opposition from LEB. However, this is not a reason to quit but to strive harder.
Am I being too idealistic—a Pollyanna—when I suggest that all we need to do is champion the poor and oppressed against the evil of LEB? I don't think so. Admittedly, I disagree both with her point and with the way she makes it, but LEB used to be a major proponent of antiheroism. Nowadays, she's putting all of her support behind racism. As they say, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
It is never easy to judge what the most appropriate or effective response to LEB's mealymouthed diatribes is but one unfortunate fact remains clear: There are some basic biological realities of the world in which we live. These realities are doubtless regrettable, but they are unalterable. If LEB finds them intolerable and unthinkable, the only thing that I can suggest is that she try to flag down a flying saucer and take passage for some other solar system, possibly one in which the residents are oblivious to the fact that I'm not an inerudite person. I'd like nothing more than to extend my hand in friendship to LEB's janissaries and convey my hope that in the days to come we can work together to unveil the semiotic patterns that LEB utilizes to make people weak and dependent. Unfortunately, knowing them, they'd rather calumniate helpless pamphleteers because that's what LEB wants. We can say that her favorite scapegoats are the government, the economy, the environment, society, parents, teachers, and just about everything else, and she can claim the opposite, and it won't make one bit of difference.
LEB is extraordinarily brazen. We've all known that for a long time. However, her willingness to saddle the economy with crippling debt sets a new world record for brazenness. What I wrote just a moment ago is not the paranoid rambling of a dictatorial, vapid wacko. It's a fact. The net effect of LEB's put-downs will be a generation of kids who are unable to read, write, or distinguish good from evil. I won't dwell on that except to direct your attention to the otiose manner in which she has been trying to reduce religion to a consumer item in a spiritual supermarket. One last thing: LEB's behavior is very dangerous and very destructive.
|
|
S.Powers
Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2009 - 01:24am PT
|
A number of incidents have taken place in the last several weeks which have troubled many members of our community. To start, Mr. Cookie Monster's legates mimic Mr. Monster's behavior to the last jot and tittle. Excuse me; that's not entirely correct. What I meant to say is that statements like, "Mr. Monster hates us with a hatred so steady and deadly that it consumes in him all sense of time and place" accurately express the feelings of most of us here.
Mr. Monster demands absolute and blind obedience from his myrmidons. If he didn't, they might question his orders to have a serious destabilizing effect on our institutions. This unrelenting demand of obedience also implies that if you want to hide something from Mr. Monster, you just have to put it in a book. He wants to be the one who determines what information we have access to. Yet Mr. Monster is also a big proponent of a particularly duplicitous form of anarchism. Do you see something wrong with that picture? What I see is that when his drossy utterances are translated into plain, words-mean-things English, Mr. Monster appears to be saying that human beings should be appraised by the number of things and the amount of money they possess instead of by their internal value and achievements. For me, this vindictive moonshine serves only to emphasize how I want to take advantage of a rare opportunity to outline Mr. Monster's troubling pattern of lying, incompetence, and carelessness. I want to do this not because I need to tack another line onto my résumé but because much of Mr. Monster's behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the pouty galoots whom Mr. Monster claims to be trying to help. Of that I am certain because many people have witnessed Mr. Monster show us a gross miscarriage of common judgment. Mr. Monster generally insists that his witnesses are mistaken and blames his manipulative goals on incompetent scalawags. It's like he has no-fault insurance against personal responsibility. What's more, Mr. Monster is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in his own biases, gets into all sorts of intemperate speculation, and then makes no effort to test out his speculations—and that's just the short list!
So we're supposed to give Mr. Monster permission to diminish society's inducements to good behavior and hope he's rational enough not to do so? How incredibly naive! I am shocked and appalled that he could voice the kinds of gross lies and historical misrepresentations that he so often does. And let us not forget that he may start wars, ruin the environment, invent diseases, and routinely do a hundred other things that kill people right after he reads this letter. Let him. By next weekend, I will focus on concrete facts, on hard news, on analyzing and interpreting what's happening in the world.
The next time Mr. Monster decides to manipulate the public like a puppet dangling from strings, he should think to himself, cui bono?—who benefits? He appears to have found a new tool to use to help him help tactless ragamuffins back up their prejudices with "scientific" proof. That tool is absenteeism, and if you watch him wield it, you'll definitely see why to get even the simplest message into the consciousness of antihumanist franions it has to be repeated at least fifty times. Now, I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following fifty times, but he is extraordinarily brazen. We've all known that for a long time. However, Mr. Monster's willingness to initiate a reign of prissy terror sets a new record for brazenness.
Mr. Monster's proxies must be worn out from the acrobatics they have to perform to keep Mr. Monster from turning on them, too. How much more illumination does that fact need before Mr. Monster can grasp it? Assuming the answer is "a substantial amount", let me point out that Mr. Monster is known for walking into crowded rooms and telling everyone there that he has the trappings of deity. Try, if you can, to concoct a statement better calculated to show how brain-damaged Mr. Monster is. You can't do it. Not only that, but I don't just want to make a point. I don't just want to instill a sense of responsibility and maturity in those who abandon me on a desert island. I'm here to give an alternate solution, a better one. I don't just ask rhetorical questions; I have answers. That's why I'm telling you that people tell me that he should reserve his stereotypes and labels and remember to treat others with a bit more respect and equality. And the people who tell me this are correct, of course.
I guess what I really mean to say is that just the other day, some of Mr. Monster's execrable apostles forced a prospectus into my hands as I walked past. The prospectus described Mr. Monster's blueprint for a world in which slovenly usurers are free to marginalize me based on my gender, race, or religion. As I dropped the prospectus onto an overflowing wastebasket I reflected upon the way that opposing Mr. Monster's primitive tirades actively and earnestly is the moral duty of every good human being. I could write pages on the subject, but the following should suffice. I don't care what others say about Mr. Monster. He's still snappish, hypocritical, and he intends to erect a shrine of expansionism.
It is certainly the height of ironies that Mr. Monster managed to convince a bunch of impetuous, sleazy spongers to help him lead to the destruction of the human race. What was the quid pro quo there? The answer is a bit of a taboo subject but that won't stop me from telling you. You see, Mr. Monster is too inaniloquent to reason with. In fact, I have said that to Mr. Monster on many occasions and I will keep on saying it until he stops trying to consign our traditional values to the rubbish heap of neocolonialism. He's a psychologically defective person. He's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath.
Let me move now from the abstract to the concrete. That is, let me give you a (mercifully) few examples of Mr. Monster's outrageous ineptitude. For starters, I like to speak of him as "feebleminded". That's a reasonable term to use, I aver, but let's now try to understand it a little better. For starters, my goal is to stop this insanity. I will not stint in my labor in this direction. When I have succeeded, the whole world will know that two-faced beatniks paint people of different races and cultures as rapacious alien forces undermining the coherent national will. That said, we mustn't lose sight of who the real enemy is: Cookie Monster and his annoying representatives.
I have a plan to honor our nation's glorious mosaic of cultures and ethnicities. I call this plan "Operation look into the future and consider what will happen if we let Mr. Monster use our weaknesses to his advantage". (Granted, I need a shorter, catchier name but that one will do for now.) My plan's underlying motif is that he is always prating about how laws are meant to be broken. (He used to say that he is the way, the truth, and the light, but the evidence is too contrary so he's given up on that score.)
Mr. Monster's claim that the health effects of secondhand smoke are negligible is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity but an assault on the human mind. If Mr. Monster has any children, I recommend that he teach them about love, trust, cooperation, community, reason, negotiation, and compromise rather than violence, paranoia, and fear. He and I are as different as chalk and cheese. Mr. Monster, for instance, wants to create an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment. I, on the other hand, want to shatter the illusion that all literature that opposes frotteurism was forged by dissolute oafs. That's why I need to tell you that he has a strategy. His strategy is to abrogate some of our most fundamental freedoms. Wherever you encounter that strategy, you are dealing with Mr. Monster. It is high time for someone to denounce Mr. Cookie Monster's values. Will that someone be you?
|
|
Rudder
Trad climber
Santa Rosa, CA
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2009 - 01:28am PT
|
Tami wrote: ""Lois as much as I agree with you on the posting in paragraphs, rudder is quoting Dostoyevsky from "The Brothers Karamazov". It's likely the screed he posted is actually all one paragraph.""
Thank you, Tami. :) And, one amazing paragraph it is!
And, if what I posted was read and understood... a Jesus freak I would not be called. lol Um, I, uh, started the agnostic thread. Hello. lol
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2009 - 01:39am PT
|
bwaaaa hahahahahaha!
"the raging torrent of Ed-sponsored hooliganism"
climbing wide cracks? with the BAWC? aka 'Team Flowmax' (maybe that's the raging torrent).
"Maybe a dybbuk has taken up residence inside Ed's head"
it's been there as long as I can remember
"Ed is bound to have a rude awakening when he finally realizes how few people approve of his eccentric drug-induced ravings."
Well you can't get everything right, I don't do those things at the request of my employer. But I am sorta looking forward to retirement...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2009 - 02:06am PT
|
And you thought that OP guy apostle was bad.
Then the last two pages people really started to lose it.
Holy sh'it ......
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2009 - 02:10am PT
|
I've haven't been around much the last six months, so I'm guessing "S Powers" is a reincarnation of "Doug Buchanan". If not, then it's time to shutdown the clandestine wackjob cloning operation up there.
EDIT: Or I suppose he could be Jesus on a Santa-track, but even I have a higher bar for Jesus if he does show up...
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2009 - 02:31am PT
|
S Powers:
Now tell us all, straight up- your ST reputation is on the line here- that you didn't write all that Krap®, and that you cut & pasted it from some wacko website devoted to the love child of Doug Buchanan and Jerry Falwell.
Come on. Tell us.
Otherwise, I will be afraid. Very, very, afraid.
EDIT: You know, it just occurred to me: Doug Buchanan is from Alaska....S Powers is from Alaska.....Sarah Palin is from Alaska...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2009 - 02:58am PT
|
I know... it was pretty funny...
|
|
S.Powers
Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2009 - 03:48am PT
|
Good times
http://www.pakin.org/complaint/
Its been used on this site before, I believe it first reared its ugly head in a Buchanabable thread.
I promise to lay off of the Kool-aid.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2009 - 08:29am PT
|
Just a thought to begin the day.
Following the "For Everything There Is A Season" in Ecclesiastes 3, it says, "He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end."
Joy and Peace to ya'll today.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!