Serious complaint about FWS...

[Hastings]

What would I do without FreeWebSpace to provide me with a non-stop source of incompetent précis to complain about? 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. I, hardheaded cynic that I am, do not find endeavors that are thrasonical, sappy, and nit-picky to be "funny". Maybe I lack a sense of humor but maybe the biggest supporters of FreeWebSpace's homophobic attitudes are pusillanimous drongos and unbalanced backstabbers. A secondary class of ardent supporters consists of ladies of elastic virtue and cosmopolitan tendencies to whom such things afford a decent excuse for displaying their fascinations at their open windows.

It scares the bejeezus out of me to know that FreeWebSpace might win support by encapsulating frustrations and directing them toward unpopular scapegoats by the next full moon. Think I'm exaggerating? Just ask any of the most valuable members of our community and they'll all tell you how I like to throw darts at FreeWebSpace's logo. I know you're wondering why I just wrote that. I'll explain shortly, but first, I should state that today, we might have let FreeWebSpace use cheap, intemperate propaganda to arouse the passions of heathenism-prone stumblebums. Tomorrow, we won't. Instead, we will serve on the side of Truth.

I hate it when people get their facts entirely wrong. For instance, whenever I hear some corporate fat cat make noises about how commercialism is the only alternative to nonrepresentationalism, I can't help but think that this theme is stated in one form or another in every one of Man's great religions. Of course, this sounds simple, but in reality, the real issue is simple: Thanks to it, our national and individual sovereignty is fluttering precariously in the wind. We can quibble about many of the details but we can't quibble about the fundamental fact that we must fight FreeWebSpace hammer and tong. Let's start by informing people that I once overheard FreeWebSpace say something quite astonishing. Are you strapped in? FreeWebSpace said that no one is smart enough to see through its transparent lies. Can you believe that? At least its statement made me realize that once you understand its ethics, 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 FreeWebSpace take a condescending cheap shot at a person that most lethargic, illiterate numskulls will never be in a position to condescend to.

We'll know soon enough just how logorrheic these sorts of loonies can be, don't you think? In general, it is my job -- and your job, too -- to reach out for things with permanence, things beyond wealth and comfort and pleasure, things that have real meaning. Sure, there are exceptions, but it likes to cite poll results that "prove" that violence and prejudice are funny. 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 it would be nugatory to discuss FreeWebSpace's reports without first mentioning that it is axiomatic that FreeWebSpace is so intolerantly devoted to its own prejudices that its perception of reality is completely warped. As long as I live, I will be shouting this truth from rooftops and doing everything I can to protect innocent, little children from savage quiddlers like FreeWebSpace.

Perhaps FreeWebSpace has some sound arguments on its side, but if so, it's keeping them well hidden; all the arguments I've heard from it are absolutely wily. Just to add a little more perspective, FreeWebSpace 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, FreeWebSpace says you're "acting out due to trauma". Why does it say such things? I've excogitated one theory that almost completely answers that question. Unfortunately, it fails to take into account that someone once said to me, "We can't let shabby insurrectionists ram FreeWebSpace's shell games down our throats." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since.

It is a statistical certainty that it should scarcely seem questionable to anyone that there are deeper issues afoot here, just as it is a statistical certainty that it's craven for it to pursue a twofold credo of simplism and careerism. Or perhaps I should say, it's unruly. Please don't ask me to destroy our youths' ability to relax, reflect, study, and meditate. I simply can't do that. FreeWebSpace does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when it says that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins.

If you want a better opportunity to get a job, raise a family in a safe neighborhood, have a better chance at a good education, and lower the taxes on the money you earn, then I ask that you help me argue about FreeWebSpace's hastily mounted campaigns. It's easy for armchair philosophers to theorize about FreeWebSpace and about hypothetical solutions to our FreeWebSpace problem. It's an entirely more difficult matter, however, when one considers that its helpers always detect profound wisdom in what is most incomprehensible to them personally. As an interesting experiment, try to point this out to FreeWebSpace. (You might want to don safety equipment first.) I think you'll find that I don't want to build castles in the air. I don't want to plan things that I can't yet implement. But I do want to discuss the relationship between three converging and ever-growing factions -- jealous manipulators of the public mind, domineering, piteous malcontents, and tendentious pip-squeaks -- because doing so clearly demonstrates how I've repeatedly pointed out to it that it is intellectually dishonest in everything it says and does. That apparently didn't register with it, though. Oh, well; I guess I once tried to explain to FreeWebSpace that its exegeses will court a raving minority of repugnant malefactors. Rather than feel ashamed of itself, FreeWebSpace got angry at me. What this says is that this makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of FreeWebSpace's insidious, self-righteous tractates. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.)

Be forewarned: If I want to develop a subconscious death wish, that should be my prerogative. I indubitably don't need FreeWebSpace forcing me to. If we take FreeWebSpace's declamations to their logical conclusion, we see that in the blink of an eye, FreeWebSpace will force some to live by restrictive standards not applicable to others.

Before I continue, let me state that FreeWebSpace has conceived the project of reigning over opinions and of conquering neither kingdoms nor provinces but the human mind. If this project succeeds then mudslinging ne'er-do-wells will be free to curry favor with disruptive brigands using a barrage of flattery, especially recognition of their "value", their "importance", their "educational mission", and other muzzy-headed nonsense. Even worse, it will be illegal for anyone to say anything about how our path is set. By this, I mean that in order to anneal discourse with honesty, clear thinking, and a sense of moral good, we must help people see its disloyal remonstrations for what they are. I consider that requirement a small price to pay because FreeWebSpace's argument that the world can be happy only when its faction is given full rein is hopelessly flawed and totally circuitous.

Given what I know about petulant dingbats, I can say with confidence that certain facts are clear. For instance, FreeWebSpace's proposals are hermetically sealed against fresh air from the real world -- and FreeWebSpace knows it. FreeWebSpace has been doing "in-depth research" (whatever it thinks that means) to prove that the world is crying out to labor beneath its firm but benevolent heel. I should mention that I've been doing some research of my own. So far, I've "discovered" that if FreeWebSpace's theatrics get any more brazen, I expect they'll grow legs and attack me in my sleep. Lastly, FreeWebSpace is a pitiful specimen of an unctuous dopehead.

:tired2:

[stuffradio]

Reading all this, I can't dissect 100% what you're trying to say.
There is no real point that I can see from this and interpret what you're trying to tell everyone. I'm about to have supper, but maybe you can paraphrase in point form the facts you're trying to get across so everyone doesn't have to read the whole thing (even though they may if they wish).

[Dan]

Moved to Feedback.

My response? "Ummmm Okaaaayyyyyy! :-/

[sep]

Did you just copy paste that from elsewhere and replace whatever keyword with FreeWebSpace? be honest now.

[SC-Daniel]

Hunter,

I totally understand what you are trying to say! Man, you hit the nail right on the head!

Hahaha, I am seriously dying of laughter over here.

[Hastings]

Hunter,

I totally understand what you are trying to say! Man, you hit the nail right on the head!

Hahaha, I am seriously dying of laughter over here.

Why are you dying of laughter... I'm completely serious... I find that very offensive...


Did you just copy paste that from elsewhere and replace whatever keyword with FreeWebSpace? be honest now.

Honestly? No... I am not being cynical at all, and I did not simply copy/paste this - Every word I speak in the paragraphs above comes straight from my fingers, and straight from my... concern area of my brain? You get what I mean...

[sep]

You get what I mean...

Afraid not.

Maybe you should provide some examples of what you're actually complaining about?



If you want a better opportunity to get a job, raise a family in a safe neighborhood, have a better chance at a good education, and lower the taxes on the money you earn, then I ask that you help me argue about FreeWebSpace's hastily mounted campaigns.

Furthermore, I vote to move this to TTR :D

[hamster]

You lost me at paragraph 6 I think....

[tandoc]

BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.

filler.

[Dan]

Moved back to General Discussions.
Hastings informed me that this is a joke.

[Nick]

When you're writing something it should be like the perfect skirt. Long enough to cover the essentials, short enough to keep in interesting.

Wide vocabulary, sentence structure, and punctuation aren't the only traits of a fantastic writer. Getting to the point without losing the reader along with knowing when it's time to shut the ---- up are equally important.

[DavidsAwesome]

Thank god I only read 2 paragraphs or I would have kicked someones --- when I found out it was a joke.

Who the hell uses words like that?

[hamster]

Apparently he does... I kicked myself because I read the whole thing -_-

[Corazu]

I got partway through the 2nd paragraph and decided to scroll down to see if there was a simplified version...glad I did.

That's just mean Hunter. :P

[[DWH]Yuxuan]

Ya.. I thought it was a joke.

Most of it do NOT apply to this (or any) forum at all.

[notnamed]

I stopped reading when you used the word "precis" incorrectly.

[Gayowulf]

My only complaint is this thread.

[DavidsAwesome]

Furthermore, I vote to move this to TTR :D

I agree.

[Tree]

My original goal for this letter was to scrutinize Hunter Hastings's remarks point by point. Unfortunately, Hastings's focus wanders so wildly that he never actually finishes any of his points. I think you will notice this in the ensuing discussion. In the first place, Hastings's "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude is quarrelsome because it leaves no room for compromise.

There are no two ways about it; the next time Hastings decides to exclude all people and proposals that oppose his intemperate expostulations, he should think to himself, cui bono? -- who benefits? Some people I know say that he is the great master of deception. Others argue that Hastings has rightly earned the scorn and derision with which he is viewed in many quarters. At this point the distinction is largely academic given that he acts as if he were King of the World. This hauteur is astonishing, staggering, and mind-boggling.

When I'm through with Hastings he'll think twice before attempting to call for ritualistic invocations of needlessly formal rules. More concretely, if you think you can escape from his impolitic nostrums, then good-bye and good luck. To the rest of you I suggest that Hastings, already oppressive with his amoral, hostile ethics, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species -- if separate species we be -- for his reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world. If you think that that's a frightening thought then consider that whenever there's an argument about Hastings's devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that thanks to Hastings, larcenous political movements are experiencing a resurgence around the world. That should settle the argument pretty quickly.

For those of you out there who don't know what I'm talking about, let me give you a quick explanation: I am highly critical of those who tolerate or apologize for people who work with Hastings. Think about it, and I'm sure you'll agree with me. Forgive me, dear reader, but I must be so tactless as to remind you that when you least expect it, his lies will be exposed and the truth can be spread. And here, I allege, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in his newsgroup postings. Hastings has spent untold hours trying to use "pressure tactics" -- that's a euphemism for "torture" -- to coerce ordinary people into giving rise to indelicate casuists. During that time, did it ever once occur to him that we must fix our sights on the distant future, when we will have finally cleared away the spiritual and physical debris of the Hunter Hastings era? Many people consider that question irrelevant on the grounds that Hastings's worshippers all have serious personal problems. In fact, the way he keeps them loyal to him is by encouraging and exacerbating these problems rather than by helping to overcome them.

Is there a chance that Hastings isn't biased, jealous, and litigious? From what I've seen, I doubt it. Someone needs to clarify and correct some of the inaccuracies present in his campaigns. Who's going to do it? Hastings? I think not.

I've tried to explain to Hastings's asinine admirers that Hastings is fixated on antipluralism. As could be expected, they were a bit slow on the uptake. I just couldn't get them to comprehend that Hastings has warned us that before long, raving pamphleteers will dominate the whole earth and take possession of all its riches. If you think about it, you'll realize that Hastings's warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that Hastings is not a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens raise several issues about his slovenly perceptions that are frequently missing from the drivel that masquerades for discourse on this topic. Responsible citizens indisputably do not promote the total destruction of individuality in favor of an all-powerful group.

Hastings is trying hard to convince a substantial number of abysmal proponents of solecism to jawbone aimlessly. He presumably believes that the "hundredth-monkey phenomenon" will spontaneously incite the worst classes of putrid roustabouts there are to behave likewise. The reality, however, is that Hastings is a big fan of vigilante justice. There's nothing controversial about that view. It's a fact, pure and simple. It was a fact long before anyone realized that Hastings once said that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty. Oh, please. I'm just glad I hadn't eaten dinner right before I heard him say that. Otherwise, I'd probably still be vomiting too hard to tell you that I can no longer get very excited about any revelation of Hastings's hypocrisy or crookedness. It's what I've come to expect by now.

We'd all be in grave danger if Hastings continued to engage in his frightful behavior. If he can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen. Some people think it's a bit extreme of me to investigate his empty-headed principles, ideals, and objectives -- a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that Hastings is frightened that we might think outside the box. That's why he's trying so hard to prevent whistleblowers from reporting that emotionalism is not merely an attack on our moral fiber. It is also a politically motivated attack on knowledge. I may be beating a dead horse here, but I do want to point out that Hastings has come up with proven methods to acquire public acceptance of his crazy opuscula. All you have to do is let your guard down.

History teaches us that to ignore or dismiss people like Hastings simply as juvenile, malodorous drunks can have devastating consequences. But the problems with Hastings's arguments don't end there. He does not tolerate any view that differs from his own. Rather, Hastings discredits and discards those people who contradict him along with the ideas that they represent. Almost without exception, I have never read anything he has written that I would consider wise, logical, pertinent, reasonable, or scientific. Hastings's statement that character development is not a matter of "strength through adversity" but rather, "entitlement through victimization" is no exception. What's more, it takes more than a mass of prodigal stool pigeons to expose every neurotic practice of every neurotic ragamuffin. It takes a great many thoughtful and semi-thoughtful people who are willing to seek liberty, equality, and fraternity.

Now, more than ever, we must see through the haze of denominationalism. How do you think Hastings will get his hands on all of the incriminating documents about him that I have in my possession? A secretive home or office invasion, a knock on the door, or his favored battering-ram incursion? Let me give you a hint: I am unquestionably not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that instead of taking the easy path in life, the downward path, we must choose the upward path regardless of the pain, suffering, and sacrifice that this choice entails. Only then can we finally rage, rage against the dying of the light. Yes, Hastings will try to stop us by plaguing our minds, but there's an important difference between me and Hastings. Namely, I am willing to die for my cause. Hastings, in contrast, is willing to kill for his -- or, if not to kill, at least to egg on negative externalities in the form of evasion, collusion, and corruption. Okay, I've written enough for one letter, so let me just finish by saying that Hunter Hastings considers our independence to be the most formidable obstacle in the path of his ambitions and business pursuits.

[[DWH]Yuxuan]

Lol, so what's the URL?

[Tree]

http://www.pakin.org/complaint/

[hamster]

My original goal for this letter was to scrutinize Hunter Hastings's remarks point by point. Unfortunately, Hastings's focus wanders so wildly that he never actually finishes any of his points. I think you will notice this in the ensuing discussion. In the first place, Hastings's "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude is quarrelsome because it leaves no room for compromise.

There are no two ways about it; the next time Hastings decides to exclude all people and proposals that oppose his intemperate expostulations, he should think to himself, cui bono? -- who benefits? Some people I know say that he is the great master of deception. Others argue that Hastings has rightly earned the scorn and derision with which he is viewed in many quarters. At this point the distinction is largely academic given that he acts as if he were King of the World. This hauteur is astonishing, staggering, and mind-boggling.

When I'm through with Hastings he'll think twice before attempting to call for ritualistic invocations of needlessly formal rules. More concretely, if you think you can escape from his impolitic nostrums, then good-bye and good luck. To the rest of you I suggest that Hastings, already oppressive with his amoral, hostile ethics, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species -- if separate species we be -- for his reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world. If you think that that's a frightening thought then consider that whenever there's an argument about Hastings's devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that thanks to Hastings, larcenous political movements are experiencing a resurgence around the world. That should settle the argument pretty quickly.

For those of you out there who don't know what I'm talking about, let me give you a quick explanation: I am highly critical of those who tolerate or apologize for people who work with Hastings. Think about it, and I'm sure you'll agree with me. Forgive me, dear reader, but I must be so tactless as to remind you that when you least expect it, his lies will be exposed and the truth can be spread. And here, I allege, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in his newsgroup postings. Hastings has spent untold hours trying to use "pressure tactics" -- that's a euphemism for "torture" -- to coerce ordinary people into giving rise to indelicate casuists. During that time, did it ever once occur to him that we must fix our sights on the distant future, when we will have finally cleared away the spiritual and physical debris of the Hunter Hastings era? Many people consider that question irrelevant on the grounds that Hastings's worshippers all have serious personal problems. In fact, the way he keeps them loyal to him is by encouraging and exacerbating these problems rather than by helping to overcome them.

Is there a chance that Hastings isn't biased, jealous, and litigious? From what I've seen, I doubt it. Someone needs to clarify and correct some of the inaccuracies present in his campaigns. Who's going to do it? Hastings? I think not.

I've tried to explain to Hastings's asinine admirers that Hastings is fixated on antipluralism. As could be expected, they were a bit slow on the uptake. I just couldn't get them to comprehend that Hastings has warned us that before long, raving pamphleteers will dominate the whole earth and take possession of all its riches. If you think about it, you'll realize that Hastings's warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that Hastings is not a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens raise several issues about his slovenly perceptions that are frequently missing from the drivel that masquerades for discourse on this topic. Responsible citizens indisputably do not promote the total destruction of individuality in favor of an all-powerful group.

Hastings is trying hard to convince a substantial number of abysmal proponents of solecism to jawbone aimlessly. He presumably believes that the "hundredth-monkey phenomenon" will spontaneously incite the worst classes of putrid roustabouts there are to behave likewise. The reality, however, is that Hastings is a big fan of vigilante justice. There's nothing controversial about that view. It's a fact, pure and simple. It was a fact long before anyone realized that Hastings once said that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty. Oh, please. I'm just glad I hadn't eaten dinner right before I heard him say that. Otherwise, I'd probably still be vomiting too hard to tell you that I can no longer get very excited about any revelation of Hastings's hypocrisy or crookedness. It's what I've come to expect by now.

We'd all be in grave danger if Hastings continued to engage in his frightful behavior. If he can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen. Some people think it's a bit extreme of me to investigate his empty-headed principles, ideals, and objectives -- a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that Hastings is frightened that we might think outside the box. That's why he's trying so hard to prevent whistleblowers from reporting that emotionalism is not merely an attack on our moral fiber. It is also a politically motivated attack on knowledge. I may be beating a dead horse here, but I do want to point out that Hastings has come up with proven methods to acquire public acceptance of his crazy opuscula. All you have to do is let your guard down.

History teaches us that to ignore or dismiss people like Hastings simply as juvenile, malodorous drunks can have devastating consequences. But the problems with Hastings's arguments don't end there. He does not tolerate any view that differs from his own. Rather, Hastings discredits and discards those people who contradict him along with the ideas that they represent. Almost without exception, I have never read anything he has written that I would consider wise, logical, pertinent, reasonable, or scientific. Hastings's statement that character development is not a matter of "strength through adversity" but rather, "entitlement through victimization" is no exception. What's more, it takes more than a mass of prodigal stool pigeons to expose every neurotic practice of every neurotic ragamuffin. It takes a great many thoughtful and semi-thoughtful people who are willing to seek liberty, equality, and fraternity.

Now, more than ever, we must see through the haze of denominationalism. How do you think Hastings will get his hands on all of the incriminating documents about him that I have in my possession? A secretive home or office invasion, a knock on the door, or his favored battering-ram incursion? Let me give you a hint: I am unquestionably not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that instead of taking the easy path in life, the downward path, we must choose the upward path regardless of the pain, suffering, and sacrifice that this choice entails. Only then can we finally rage, rage against the dying of the light. Yes, Hastings will try to stop us by plaguing our minds, but there's an important difference between me and Hastings. Namely, I am willing to die for my cause. Hastings, in contrast, is willing to kill for his -- or, if not to kill, at least to egg on negative externalities in the form of evasion, collusion, and corruption. Okay, I've written enough for one letter, so let me just finish by saying that Hunter Hastings considers our independence to be the most formidable obstacle in the path of his ambitions and business pursuits.

I didn't hesitate to skip everything except the first line :P

[Corazu]

Yuxuan;999119']Lol, so what's the URL?

Yea I was thinking the same thing as soon as I saw Tree do it :P

[Jan]

Yur slow Hunter :p Been done before :D

[Tracker]

I have read some of Mr. Hunter Hastings's writings. While I disagree with much of their content, I do not intend to attack Hunter's opinions, only to offer my own viewpoints. Unless you share my view that jujuism is the principal ingredient in the ideological flypaper Hunter uses to attract peremptory, noisome bigamists into his little empire, there's no need for you to hear me further. He is not only homicidal, but he also lacks the self-control necessary to conform his behavior to reasonable norms. I'm no psychiatrist. Still, from the little I know about psychiatry I can honestly say that he seems to exhibit many of the symptoms of Asperger's syndrome. I don't say that to judge but merely to put his flagitious, devious diatribes into perspective.

If one accepts the framework I've laid out here, it follows logically that there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about Hunter's notions. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must admonish Hunter not seven times, but seventy times seven. When you tell Hunter's cultists that this is no laughing matter, they begin to get fidgety and their eyes begin to wander. They really don't care. They have no interest in hearing that he plans to further political and social goals wholly or in part through activities that involve force or violence and a violation of criminal law. What can you do about that? Start by reading about how Hunter never acts out of motives that might seem credible or even understandable to the rest of humanity. Become informed about the deceit, lies, and propanganda surrounding his promotion of solecism. Tell everyone you know that Hunter's planning to exploit issues such as the global economic crisis and the increase in world terrorism in order to instigate planet-wide chaos. Planet-wide chaos is his gateway to global tyranny, which will in turn enable him to institutionalize anarchism through systematic violence, distorted religion, and dubious science.

We mustn't let Hunter heat the cauldron of terror until it boils over into our daily lives. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy. If there's one thing that he's good at, it's spreading the germs of hatred, of discord and jealously, of dissolution and decomposition. Hunter looks primarily at a person's superficial qualities such as physiognomy and mannerisms. I, in contrast, consider how likely a person is to burn away social illness, exploitation, and human suffering. That's what's important to me. Either way, if I were elected Ruler of the World, my first act of business would be to eschew illaudable Lysenkoism. I would further use my position to inform certain segments of the Earth's population that Hunter's thesis is that people don't mind having their communities turned into war zones. That's entirely destructive, you say? Good; that means you're finally catching on. The next step is to observe that Hunter has rightly earned the scorn and derision with which he is viewed in many quarters. The logical consequences of that are clear: Sometime in the future Hunter will force us to bow down low before the worst types of stolid buggers there are. Fortunately, that hasn't happened...yet. But it will obviously happen if we don't break the spell of great expectations that now binds cantankerous, mealymouthed blackguards to Hunter. In summary, it is my prayer that people everywhere will join me in my quest to detail the specific steps and objectives needed to thwart Mr. Hunter Hastings's churlish little schemes.

[Jan]

Yur slow Hunter :p Been done before :D
Guess it was a while ago now :p Time flies when you're having fun!

http://www.freewebspace.net/forums/showthread.php?t=39351

[Eclouds]

This is an open letter, which you are welcome to use as you wish. I want as many people as possible to know that Jan The Admin is a master of psychological manipulation. To start, whenever I turn around I see Jan destroying our moral fiber. To deny such a truth would be to deny the evidence of our own senses. As I've said before, she doesn't use words for communication or for exchanging information. She uses them to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, and to deceive.

If Jan ever claims that men are spare parts in the social repertoire -- mere optional extras -- we must answer only one thing: "No, the reverse is true." This is not the place to develop that subject. It demands many pages of analysis, which I can't spare in this letter. Instead, I'll just state the key point, which is that you shouldn't let her intimidate you. You shouldn't let her push you around. We're the ones who are right, not Jan. To close, let me accentuate that if we bring Jan The Admin down a peg we shall not only survive her attacks; we shall prevail.

Don't hate me Jan! I did not write this!

[Matt8]

Yeah, screw a bunch of FWS!

[hamster]

Yeah, screw a bunch of FWS!

That's gotta be the shortest post in this thread :P

[RagekiCalvin]

mine's shorter

[Cam.]

I gave up after the first paragraph... It makes no sense :p

[Hastings]

Hastings informed me that this is a joke.

Well you're not supposed to say that!

[JohnN]

freewebspace cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real condition of life and his relations with his kind.

The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases freewebspace over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere.

freewebspace has, through its exploitation of the world market, given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionaries, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.

freewebspace, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.

freewebspace has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilized ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.

freewebspace keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralized the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralization. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class interest, one frontier, and one customs tariff.

freewebspace, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalization or rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground -- what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labor?

We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation freewebspace built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organization of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.

[SC-Daniel]

On behalf of several members of the community, I would like to express my shock and disappointment at some of GeekLayer Web Services's beliefs. The rest of this letter is focused exclusively on GeekLayer Web Services, not because I harbor any ill-will towards it but because I once managed to get it to agree that its policies serve no purpose other than to stretch credulity beyond the breaking point. Unfortunately, a few minutes later, it did a volte-face and denied that it had ever said that. While it's true that GeekLayer Web Services sees people like you and me as the perfect drones for its future globalist regime, it has yet to acknowledge that fact. When GeekLayer Web Services made its puppy-dog foot soldiers wag their little tails by promising to let them treat anyone who doesn't agree with it to a torrent of vitriol and vilification, I realized for the first time that there are two sorts of people in this world. There are those who weave GeekLayer Web Services's inane traits, overweening precepts, and tendentious notions into a rich tapestry that is sure to reap a harvest of death and there are those who instill a sense of responsibility and maturity in those who enshrine irrational fears and fancies as truth. GeekLayer Web Services fits neatly into the former category, of course. GeekLayer Web Services should be regarded as a bêete noire. I trust that I have not shocked any of you by writing that. However, I do realize that some of my readers may feel that much of what I have penned about GeekLayer Web Services in this letter is heartless and in violation of our Christian duty to love everyone. If so, I can say only that I wouldn't judge GeekLayer Web Services's torchbearers too harshly. They're surely just cannon fodder for GeekLayer Web Services's plot to destroy any resistance by channeling it into ineffective paths. So you see, GeekLayer Web Services's hatchet jobs are so exact in their scheme, so comprehensive in their scope, that hideous half-wits have adopted and embraced them verbatim ac litteratim.

[Dynash]

I shouldn't have read all that. Too early :p

[themoose]

tl;dr

[iBrightDev]

way to much to read. but, from what i gather is you dont like it here. no one is making you stay...

that being said...


Everybody lock your doors, get a gun, protect yourself! Hastings is planning to shift our society from a culture of conscience to a culture of consensus! The rest of this letter is focused exclusively on Hastings, not because I harbor any ill-will towards him but because he insists that the world is crying out to labor beneath his firm but benevolent heel. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands he perpetrates.

I pause to note that statements like, "Hastings is trying to deflect attention from his self-serving words" accurately express the feelings of most of us here. I would never take a job working for him. Given his tendentious exegeses, who would want to?

Hastings insists that he has no choice but to erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty. His reasoning is that he has achieved sainthood. Yes, I realize that that argument makes no sense, but Hastings has been trying for some time to convince people that he acts in the public interest. Don't believe his hype! Hastings has just been offering that line as a means to organize a whispering campaign against me.

If you've ever watched television or read a book, odds are that you already know that Hastings must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why Hastings accuses me of admitting that his jibes are our final line of defense against tyrrany. What I actually said is that someone just showed me a memo supposedly written by Hastings. The memo spells out his plans to bring discord, confusion, and frustration into our personal and public lives. If this memo is authentic, it tells us that I am reminded of the quote, "He feels he has not only a right, but also a duty, to poison the relationship between teacher and student." This comment is not as unreasonable as it seems because I can't follow Hastings's pretzel logic. I do, however, know that someone once said to me, "Hastings has become so morally and ideologically degraded, so acclimated to academicism and Dadaism, that he wants to descend to character assassination and name calling." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since.

I don't have time to go into this in as much detail as I should, but I cannot promise not to be angry at Hastings. I do promise, however, to try to keep my anger under control, to keep it from leading me -- as it leads Hastings -- to endorse a complete system of leadership by mobocracy. He is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to his codices. You may be wondering why complacent kooks latch onto Hastings's canards. It's because people of that nature need to have rhetoric and dogma to recite during times of stress in order to cope. That's also why if Hastings could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to cheat on taxes. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that one could truthfully say that Hastings's is the prototypical face of antidisestablishmentarianism. But saying that would miss the real point, which is that if his adherents had even an ounce of integrity they would punish Hastings for his salacious rantings.

Whenever there's an argument about Hastings's devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that Hastings's companions are an amalgamation of pathetic prigs, the worst kinds of capricious, surly grizzlers I've ever seen, and other nepotism-prone sensualists. That should settle the argument pretty quickly. What I am getting at is this: We've tolerated Hastings's overweening, self-righteous stratagems long enough. It's time to lose our patience and chill our kindness. It's time to shield people from Hastings's unholy and sordid deceptions. It's time to shout to the world that he attracts pestiferous twaddlers to his junta by telling them that his faith in obscurantism gives him an uncanny ability to detect astral energy and cosmic vibrations. I suppose the people to whom he tells such things just want to believe lies that make them feel intellectually and spiritually superior to others. Whether or not that's the case, Hastings recently got caught red-handed trying to numb the public to the cynicism and injustice in mainstream politics. Well, surprise, surprise, surprise, as Gomer Pyle would say.

Hastings has called people like me lawless miscreants, bad-tempered, irritable lie-virtuosi, and wishy-washy hippies so many times that these accusations no longer have any sting. Hastings clearly continues to employ such insults because he's run out of logical arguments. I suppose an alternate explanation is that in Hastings's initiatives, credentialism is witting and unremitting, hideous and pea-brained. He revels in it, rolls in it, and uses it to create a factitious demand for his grotty, illiterate objectives. Even though he presents a public face that avoids overt authoritarianism, he fervently believes that boosterism and cronyism are identical concepts. This shows that he is not merely mistaken about one little fact among millions of facts but that Hastings's desire to distract people from making a serious analysis of the situation is the chief sign that he's a sniffish flighty-type. (The second sign is that Hastings feels obliged to empty garbage pails full of the vilest slanders and defamations on the clean garments of honorable people.) Although it's easy to sit in the press box and criticize, he is always demanding money, sympathy, and the punishment of his critics. That said, let me continue.

Idle hands are the devil's tools. That's why Hastings spends his leisure time devising ever more immoral ways to denigrate and discard all of Western culture. Out of the vast number of devastating evils for which ophidian boors are directly or indirectly responsible, I shall pick out only a single one which is most in keeping with the inner essence of Hastings's besotted flimflams: paternalism. Whenever I turn around I see him turning the trickle of neopaganism into a tidal wave. To deny such a truth would be to deny the evidence of our own senses. Hastings extricates himself from difficulty by intrigue, by chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming, by an untruth, by an injustice.

What do we owe Hastings? Nothing, absolutely nothing. If he claims otherwise, we have to stand firm and point out that Hastings likes saying that he has a duty to conceal the facts and lie to the rest of us, under oath if necessary, perjuring himself to help disseminate the True Faith of egotism. Okay, that's a parody -- but not a very gross one. In point of fact, Hastings simply regurgitates the empty arguments that have been fed to him over the years. Do I blame society for this? No, I blame Hastings.

If we are powerless to examine Hastings's worldview from the perspective of its axiology (values) and epistemology (ways of knowing), it is because we have allowed Hastings to represent a threat to all the people in the area, indeed, possibly the world. Although this may come as a surprise to some readers, his revenge fantasies remain opaque to many observers who dismiss him on the basis of his squalid insults and general lunacy. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do, then there is truly no hope for you. To end this letter, I myself would like to make a bet with Hastings. I will gladly give him a day's salary if he can prove that the best way to serve one's country is to let down ladders that the mingy, diabolic, and ungrateful scramble to climb, as he insists. If Hastings is unable to prove that, then his end of the bargain is to step aside while I advocate concrete action and specific quantifiable goals. So, do we have a bet, Hastings?

[Dynash]

way to much to read. but, from what i gather is you dont like it here. no one is making you stay...
http://www.freewebspace.net/forums/showpost.php?p=999200&postcount=32 :p

[iBrightDev]

http://www.freewebspace.net/forums/showpost.php?p=999200&postcount=32 :p

gonna say... :eek3:

[themoose]

It has recently come to my attention that Mr. Justin St Germain's moral immaturity is a perilous failing and an insult to the celebrated virtues of our ancestors. For starters, we must reach out to people with the message that I'm tired of daft bohemians. We must alert people of that. We must educate them. We must inspire them. And we must encourage them to make some changes here.

If I said that Justin is a tireless protector of civil rights and civil liberties for all people, I'd be a liar. But I'd be being entirely honest if I said that he is a militant, obstinate vagrant. I use that label only when it's true. If you don't believe it is, then consider that it's about time the public realized that they are being hornswoggled by Justin and his serfs. (Yes, it is my job -- and your job, too -- to get the Justin St Germain monkey off our backs and off other people's backs as well, but that's a different story.) I can't predict the future, but I do know this: You don't have to say anything specifically about Justin for him to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that we should give direction to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality.

All this aside, to believe that at birth every living being is assigned a celestial serial number or frequency power spectrum is to deceive ourselves. I believe in "live and let live". Justin, in contrast, demands not only tolerance and acceptance of his programs of Gleichschaltung but endorsement of them. It's because of such homicidal demands that I warrant that he's more than footling. Justin's mega-footling. In fact, to understand just how footling he is, you first need to realize that Justin has long wanted to prevent anyone from stating publicly that even the most crazy big-mouths I've ever seen would think twice before sitting next to someone whose sole dream is to impose theological straightjackets on scriptural interpretation, so when his mom got scared and said "You're living with your auntie and uncle in bel air", I called for a cab and when it came near it had fresh in the license plate and dice in the mirror. If anything, I could say that this cab was rare but I thought, 'nah, forget it, yo holmes to bel air!'

[iBrightDev]

haha, thanks Colin.