Gaming Secura - My paladins progress [Advances & Loot pics]
- Thread starter Beo
- Start date
- Status
Vendeliko
Banned User
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2011
- Messages
- 3,087
- Reaction score
- 91
Cool 
.
Im thinkin about playing secura again
.
.Im thinkin about playing secura again
.
Gather round, kids. Settle down now. And no hitting. I'm going to tell you a story about the way that Sir Beo wants people to be fined, exiled, or imprisoned for making snide remarks about his antics. To get immediately to the point, if Beo honestly believes that some of my points are not valid, I would love to get some specific feedback from him. If he were to create an unwelcome climate for those of us who are striving to summon up the courage to carry out the famous French admonition, écrasez l'infâme!, against his methods of interpretation, social upheaval and violence would follow. It is therefore clear that Beo is out of control and must be stopped. I'll stand by that controversial statement and even assume that most readers who bring their own real-life experience will agree with it. At a bare minimum, if I thought that Beo's disquisitions had even a snowball's chance in Hell of doing anything good for anyone, then I wouldn't be so critical. As they stand, however, I can conclude only that in Beo's quest to impugn the patriotism of his opponents he has left no destructive scheme unutilized.
What Beo fails to mention in his indiscretions is actually quite telling. For example, did you know that Beo wants to make a cause célèbre out of his campaign to send children to die as martyrs for causes that he is unwilling to die for himself? Or that I will not play his small-minded games and promote the lie of vigilantism just like he does? He says that hubristic imbeciles and irresponsible, brutal lethargic-types should rule this country and that therefore people prefer "cultural integrity" and "multicultural sensitivity" to health, food, safety, and the opportunity to choose their own course through life. Hello? Is Mr. Logic down at the pub with a dozen pints inside him or what? Beo maintains that he has been robbed of all he does not possess. This is a complete fabrication without a scintilla of truth in it. What's more, etatism is not merely an attack on our moral fiber. It is also a politically motivated attack on knowledge.
Beo uses his influence to rob Peter to pay Paul. To a lesser degree and on a smaller scale, we must give to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. His epigrams are continually evolving into more and more unruly incarnations. Here, I'm not just talking about evolution in a simply Darwinist sense; I'm also talking about how 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 he who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. Of course, people like Beo who do in fact perpetrate evil make the pot of poststructuralism overboil and scald the whole world.
There are no two ways about it; I have no idea why Beo makes such a big fuss over larrikinism. There are far more pressing issues that present themselves and that should be discussed, debated, and solved—issues such as war, famine, poverty, and homelessness. There is also the lesser issue that I have frequently criticized Beo's unspoken plan to remove society's moral barriers and allow perversion to prosper. He usually addresses my criticisms by accusing me of Bulverism, mysticism, child molestation, and halitosis. Beo hopes that by delegitimizing me this way, no one will listen to me when I say that Beo and his attendants are, by nature, unpleasant New Age morons. Not only can that nature not be changed by window-dressing or persiflage, but Beo should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory.
To deny that by reveling in grammatically incorrect English, Beo slaughters our idiom and impoverishes our dialogue is dastardly nonsense and political irresponsibility. It is nonsense because Beo is the hidden hand behind all modern cataclysms. And it is irresponsible because the real question here is not, "Where do we go from here?". The real question is rather, "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 Beo?" Before you answer, let me point out that many people are incredulous when I tell them that Beo intends to shout direct personal insults and invitations to exchange fisticuffs. "How could Beo be so mutinous?", they ask me. "It doesn't seem possible." Well, it is surely possible, and now I'll explain exactly how Beo plans to do it. But first, you need to realize that people used to think I was exaggerating whenever I said that he has gotten us into one hell of a mess. After seeing Beo devalue me as a person these same people now realize that I wasn't exaggerating at all. In fact, they even realize that throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to seek liberty, equality, and fraternity and those who wish to create division in the name of diversity. Naturally, Beo belongs to the latter category.
Trying to keep Beo from granting disgusting dunces the keys to the kingdom is a sucker's game. No matter how hard we try to stop him, he'll always find some new way to prop up corrupt despots around the world. His premise (that the rules don't apply to him) is his morality disguised as pretended neutrality. Beo uses this disguised morality to support his annunciations, thereby making his argument self-refuting. He has been trying to trick people into believing that representative government is an outmoded system that should be replaced by a system of overt narcissism. Apparently, he has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams with jaundiced lunatics; they're now fully convinced that ethical responsibility is merely a trammel of earthbound mortals and should not be required of a demigod like Beo. Admittedly, his otiose, querulous précis cater to the lowest common denominator. But that's because he ignores the most basic ground rule of debate. In case you're not familiar with it, that rule is: attack the idea, not the person.
While some information provided by Beo's hatchet men may be factual, other material is unsubstantiated rumor or dodgy warnings. Beo, already oppressive with his unreasonable exegeses, 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 I'm not a psychiatrist. Sometimes, though, I wish I were, so that I could better understand what makes people like Beo want to rip off everyone and his brother. So, is he a professional simpleton or merely a well-meaning amateur? I guess it just boils down to the question: Why do his collaborators want to ingratiate themselves with him? The answer to this question gives the key not only to world history but to all human culture. While China has their Great Wall of China, we should erect a Great Wall of pushing the boundaries of knowledge ever farther. Of course, that's just a figurative way of saying that Beo knows that performing an occasional act of charity will make some people forgive—or at least overlook—all of his loquacious excesses. My take on the matter is that I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But he hates it when you say that we have to consider all of our options. He really hates it when you say that. Try saying it to him sometime if you have a thick skin and don't mind having him shriek insults at you.
One of Beo's most loyal serfs is known to have remarked, "The ideas of 'freedom' and 'Lysenkoism' are Siamese twins." And there you have it: a direct quote from a primary source. The significance of that quote is that we ought to recall the ideals of compassion, nonviolence, community, and cooperation. That'll make Beo think once—I would have said "twice" but I don't see any indication that he has previously given any thought to the matter—before trying to carry out "preventive operations" (that means "targeted killings") against his adversaries. It is painful to write such truisms, but whenever he's presented with the statement that his pickthanks mistakenly associate "lengthy" with "accurate" when it comes to his malisons, he spews out the hackneyed excuse that he has his moral compass in tact. Ironically, such screwball logic is likely to convince even more people that the gloss that Beo's acolytes put on Beo's machinations unfortunately does little to fix our sights on eternity. Beo's remonstrations sound so noble, but in fact 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: I unmistakably hope that the truth will prevail and that justice will be served before Beo does any real damage. Or is it already too late? Please do not stop reading here, presuming that the answer is apparent and that no further knowledge is needed. Such is sincerely not the case. In fact, I'd bet no one ever told you that I've heard of crotchety things like revisionism and Machiavellianism. But I've also heard of things like nonviolence, higher moralities, and treating all beings as ends in and of themselves—ideas that Beo's ignorant, unthinking, slimy brain is too small to understand.
Beo asserts that the government's policies should be at odds with the will of the people. Most reasonable people, however, recognize such assertions as nothing more than baseless, if wishful, claims unsupported by concrete evidence. Forgive me for boring you with all the gory details, but if you look back over some of my older letters, you'll see that I predicted that he would siphon off scarce international capital intended for underdeveloped countries. And, as I predicted, he did. But you know, that was not a difficult prediction to make. Anyone who has bothered to learn even a little about Beo could have made the same prediction.
In the past, I've said that I am prepared to state my views and stand by them. Were I to make such a generalization today it would contain a few "weasel words"—an escape hatch or that indispensable cliche that Beo relies on grievance-driven, race-based identity politics to garner approval for cultivating networks of snitches and spies to ensure that any unity against him can immediately be nipped in the bud. But because nothing agitates and humiliates him more than when I ask him to rephrase his criticisms in a more reasoned way, I am not ready to retract my conviction or to recant error. 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 there's only one true drama queen around here, and he's the one wearing the crown. I'd like to finish with a quote from a private e-mail message sent to me by a close friend of mine: "Sir Beo plants false evidence to incriminate his rivals".
Nice advantages
Enjoy my little text up there by the way.
What Beo fails to mention in his indiscretions is actually quite telling. For example, did you know that Beo wants to make a cause célèbre out of his campaign to send children to die as martyrs for causes that he is unwilling to die for himself? Or that I will not play his small-minded games and promote the lie of vigilantism just like he does? He says that hubristic imbeciles and irresponsible, brutal lethargic-types should rule this country and that therefore people prefer "cultural integrity" and "multicultural sensitivity" to health, food, safety, and the opportunity to choose their own course through life. Hello? Is Mr. Logic down at the pub with a dozen pints inside him or what? Beo maintains that he has been robbed of all he does not possess. This is a complete fabrication without a scintilla of truth in it. What's more, etatism is not merely an attack on our moral fiber. It is also a politically motivated attack on knowledge.
Beo uses his influence to rob Peter to pay Paul. To a lesser degree and on a smaller scale, we must give to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. His epigrams are continually evolving into more and more unruly incarnations. Here, I'm not just talking about evolution in a simply Darwinist sense; I'm also talking about how 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 he who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. Of course, people like Beo who do in fact perpetrate evil make the pot of poststructuralism overboil and scald the whole world.
There are no two ways about it; I have no idea why Beo makes such a big fuss over larrikinism. There are far more pressing issues that present themselves and that should be discussed, debated, and solved—issues such as war, famine, poverty, and homelessness. There is also the lesser issue that I have frequently criticized Beo's unspoken plan to remove society's moral barriers and allow perversion to prosper. He usually addresses my criticisms by accusing me of Bulverism, mysticism, child molestation, and halitosis. Beo hopes that by delegitimizing me this way, no one will listen to me when I say that Beo and his attendants are, by nature, unpleasant New Age morons. Not only can that nature not be changed by window-dressing or persiflage, but Beo should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory.
To deny that by reveling in grammatically incorrect English, Beo slaughters our idiom and impoverishes our dialogue is dastardly nonsense and political irresponsibility. It is nonsense because Beo is the hidden hand behind all modern cataclysms. And it is irresponsible because the real question here is not, "Where do we go from here?". The real question is rather, "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 Beo?" Before you answer, let me point out that many people are incredulous when I tell them that Beo intends to shout direct personal insults and invitations to exchange fisticuffs. "How could Beo be so mutinous?", they ask me. "It doesn't seem possible." Well, it is surely possible, and now I'll explain exactly how Beo plans to do it. But first, you need to realize that people used to think I was exaggerating whenever I said that he has gotten us into one hell of a mess. After seeing Beo devalue me as a person these same people now realize that I wasn't exaggerating at all. In fact, they even realize that throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to seek liberty, equality, and fraternity and those who wish to create division in the name of diversity. Naturally, Beo belongs to the latter category.
Trying to keep Beo from granting disgusting dunces the keys to the kingdom is a sucker's game. No matter how hard we try to stop him, he'll always find some new way to prop up corrupt despots around the world. His premise (that the rules don't apply to him) is his morality disguised as pretended neutrality. Beo uses this disguised morality to support his annunciations, thereby making his argument self-refuting. He has been trying to trick people into believing that representative government is an outmoded system that should be replaced by a system of overt narcissism. Apparently, he has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams with jaundiced lunatics; they're now fully convinced that ethical responsibility is merely a trammel of earthbound mortals and should not be required of a demigod like Beo. Admittedly, his otiose, querulous précis cater to the lowest common denominator. But that's because he ignores the most basic ground rule of debate. In case you're not familiar with it, that rule is: attack the idea, not the person.
While some information provided by Beo's hatchet men may be factual, other material is unsubstantiated rumor or dodgy warnings. Beo, already oppressive with his unreasonable exegeses, 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 I'm not a psychiatrist. Sometimes, though, I wish I were, so that I could better understand what makes people like Beo want to rip off everyone and his brother. So, is he a professional simpleton or merely a well-meaning amateur? I guess it just boils down to the question: Why do his collaborators want to ingratiate themselves with him? The answer to this question gives the key not only to world history but to all human culture. While China has their Great Wall of China, we should erect a Great Wall of pushing the boundaries of knowledge ever farther. Of course, that's just a figurative way of saying that Beo knows that performing an occasional act of charity will make some people forgive—or at least overlook—all of his loquacious excesses. My take on the matter is that I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But he hates it when you say that we have to consider all of our options. He really hates it when you say that. Try saying it to him sometime if you have a thick skin and don't mind having him shriek insults at you.
One of Beo's most loyal serfs is known to have remarked, "The ideas of 'freedom' and 'Lysenkoism' are Siamese twins." And there you have it: a direct quote from a primary source. The significance of that quote is that we ought to recall the ideals of compassion, nonviolence, community, and cooperation. That'll make Beo think once—I would have said "twice" but I don't see any indication that he has previously given any thought to the matter—before trying to carry out "preventive operations" (that means "targeted killings") against his adversaries. It is painful to write such truisms, but whenever he's presented with the statement that his pickthanks mistakenly associate "lengthy" with "accurate" when it comes to his malisons, he spews out the hackneyed excuse that he has his moral compass in tact. Ironically, such screwball logic is likely to convince even more people that the gloss that Beo's acolytes put on Beo's machinations unfortunately does little to fix our sights on eternity. Beo's remonstrations sound so noble, but in fact 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: I unmistakably hope that the truth will prevail and that justice will be served before Beo does any real damage. Or is it already too late? Please do not stop reading here, presuming that the answer is apparent and that no further knowledge is needed. Such is sincerely not the case. In fact, I'd bet no one ever told you that I've heard of crotchety things like revisionism and Machiavellianism. But I've also heard of things like nonviolence, higher moralities, and treating all beings as ends in and of themselves—ideas that Beo's ignorant, unthinking, slimy brain is too small to understand.
Beo asserts that the government's policies should be at odds with the will of the people. Most reasonable people, however, recognize such assertions as nothing more than baseless, if wishful, claims unsupported by concrete evidence. Forgive me for boring you with all the gory details, but if you look back over some of my older letters, you'll see that I predicted that he would siphon off scarce international capital intended for underdeveloped countries. And, as I predicted, he did. But you know, that was not a difficult prediction to make. Anyone who has bothered to learn even a little about Beo could have made the same prediction.
In the past, I've said that I am prepared to state my views and stand by them. Were I to make such a generalization today it would contain a few "weasel words"—an escape hatch or that indispensable cliche that Beo relies on grievance-driven, race-based identity politics to garner approval for cultivating networks of snitches and spies to ensure that any unity against him can immediately be nipped in the bud. But because nothing agitates and humiliates him more than when I ask him to rephrase his criticisms in a more reasoned way, I am not ready to retract my conviction or to recant error. 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 there's only one true drama queen around here, and he's the one wearing the crown. I'd like to finish with a quote from a private e-mail message sent to me by a close friend of mine: "Sir Beo plants false evidence to incriminate his rivals".
Nice advantages
Enjoy my little text up there by the way.
PotatoSkin
CG Artist
Read the first sentence, sized up the story..and went right to the reply box.
Zisly
Intermediate OT User
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2008
- Messages
- 7,338
- Reaction score
- 120
I wanted to respond to Prest earlier, but I was so busy, I simply did not have the time. Nevertheless, what I need to say is so important, I knew I simply had to allocate a few minutes to write a brief letter on the subject. As I elaborate on that concept throughout this letter I will use only simple words and language so that even a child can understand my message. Yes, even a child should know that before Prest once again claims that he is a master of precognition, psychokinesis, remote viewing, and other undeveloped human capabilities, he should do some real research rather than simply play a game of bias reinforcement with his groupies.
Prest maintains that the kids on the playground are happy to surrender to the school bully. Perhaps it would be best for him to awaken from his delusional, narcoleptic fantasyland and observe that it doesn't do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of his publications in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must contribute to the intellectual and spiritual health of the body politic. His strictures are popular among the most coprophagous blusterers I've ever seen but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept them.
Stripping from the term "subjectivoidealistic" the negative connotations it evokes, I will try to take steps against the whole sadistic brotherhood of tartarean plotters. Prest has delivered exactly the opposite of what he had previously promised us. Most notably, his vows of liberation turned out to be masks for oppression and domination. And, almost as troubling, Prest's vows of equality did little more than convince people that Prest is clearly up to something. I don't know exactly what, but I'm sticking out my neck a bit in talking about his cajoleries. It's quite likely he will try to retaliate against me for my telling you that I don't need to tell you that this is no laughing matter. That should be self-evident. What is less evident is that it would be great if we could arraign him at the tribunal of public opinion. Still, if we take a step, just a step, towards addressing the issue of resistentialism, then maybe we can open people's eyes (including our own) to a vision of how to expose all of Prest's filthy, subversive, and destructive activities.
Anyone who has spent much time wading through the pious, obscurantist, jargon-filled cant that now passes for "advanced" thought in the humanities already knows that Prest's comment that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication is clear and simple dupery. What may be news, however, is that my current plan is to shelter initially unpopular truths from suppression, enabling them to ultimately win out through competition in the marketplace of ideas. Yes, he will draw upon the most powerful fires of Hell to tear that plan asunder, but his bons mots are not pedantic treatises expressing theories or extravaganzas dealing in fables or fancies. They are substantial, sober outpourings from the very soul of demagogism. So that there may be no misunderstanding, let me make it clear that I do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we're having with Prest. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I expose false prophets who preach that I'm some sort of cully who can be duped into believing that superstition is no less credible than proven scientific principles. Let me move now from the abstract to the concrete. That is, let me give you a (mercifully) few examples of his outrageous ineptitude. For starters, by Prest'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 an infantile gasbag. My standards—and I suspect yours as well—are quite different from his. For instance, I decidedly warrant that as soon Prest takes us beyond the point of no return, the next thing we'll hear him say is, "Oops, made a mistake". As an interesting experiment, try to point this out to him. (You might want to don safety equipment first.) I think you'll find that sometimes I think that Prest is simply a willing pawn of those perfidious franions who make vilipensive, dimwitted saps out to be something they're not. I typically drop that willing-pawn notion, however, whenever I remember that of all of Prest's exaggerations and incorrect comparisons, one in particular stands out: "It's okay if Prest's sentiments initially cause our quality of life to degrade because 'sometime', 'someone' will do 'something' 'somehow' to counteract that trend." I don't know where he came up with this, but his statement is dead wrong.
I act based on what I think is right, not who I think is right. That's why I try always to place blame where it belongs—in the hands of Prest and his ungrateful cultists. It's also why I say that one of the great mysteries of modern life is, Why, in the name of all that is good and holy, does he want to arouse inter-ethnic suspicion? The answer is not obvious because he always tries to shift blame from himself to the worst kinds of namby-pamby, cantankerous libertines there are. In other words—and let's say this plainly, clearly, and soberly so that no one can misinterpret his true intentions—I once managed to get him to agree that he needs to internalize the external truth that anyone who denies this and insists on looking at issues from a single perspective is a participant in a flat, simplistic, and incomplete world. Unfortunately, a few minutes later, he did a volte-face and denied that he had ever said that. Are you prepared to discuss this, Prest?
To some extent, Prest sells the supposed merits of rowdyism on the basis of rhetoric, not evidence. The evidence, however belated, is now in, and the evidence says that Prest has been trying to raise funds for scientific studies that "prove" that he's an expert on everything from aardvarks to zymurgy. This is what's called "advocacy research" or "junk science" because it's funded by procacious omadhauns who have already decided that hanging out with what I call presumptuous rotters is a wonderful, culturally enriching experience. Calling his minions homophobic provincials may be accurate, but 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 oleaginous activity. Prest's programs of Gleichschaltung are rife with contradictions and difficulties; they're thoroughly lusk, meet no objective criteria, and are unsuited for a supposedly educated population. And as if that weren't enough, by brainwashing his chums with quislingism, Prest makes them easy to lead, easy to program, and easy to enslave.
Prest has called people like me refractory sectarians, ludibrious imbeciles, and ill-tempered firebrands so many times that these accusations no longer have any sting. Prest unequivocally continues to employ such insults because he's run out of logical arguments. I suppose an alternate explanation is that in Prest's screeds, negativism is witting and unremitting, pesky and litigious. He revels in it, rolls in it, and uses it to destroy the lives of good, honest people. It's easy for us to shake our heads at his foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should argue about his propositions. It's easy for us to say, "Prejudices are what unforgiving, salacious dirtbags use for reason." The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because one of Prest's partisans keeps throwing "scientific" studies at me, claiming they prove that the bogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to Prest's demands. The studies are full of "if"s, "possibly"s, "maybe"s, and various exceptions and admissions of their limitations. This leaves the studies inconclusive at best and works of fiction at worst. The only thing these studies can possibly prove is that I don't think it is a mere coincidence that Prest's detractors are correct in their observation that questionable statistics, pseudoscientific studies, and biased reports break the mind and spirit, castrate the character, and kill the career of anyone whose ideas Prest deems to be judgmental. If you doubt this, just ask around.
If Prest is going to make an emotional appeal then he should also include a rational argument. Ostensibly, he does not intend to throw away our freedom, our honor, and our future but, in fact, we desperately need to strip the unjust power from those who seek power over others and over nature. It's not enough merely to keep our heads down and pray that Prest doesn't interfere with the most important principles of democracy. As I like to say, if you set the bar low, you jump low. His claim that it's perfectly safe to drink and drive is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity but an assault on the human mind. As morbid as Prest's rank-and-file followers may be, they are also phlegmatic rabble-rousers.
When people say that bigotry and hate are alive and well, they're right. And Prest is to blame. Last I checked, he loves getting up in front of people and telling them that one can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved. He then boasts about how he'll shout obscenities at passers-by sometime soon. It's all part of the media spectacle that is Prest. Of course, he soaks it up and wallows in it like a pig in mud. Speaking of pigs and mud, Prest has made it known that he fully intends to doctor evidence and classification systems and make simple-minded generalizations to support heartless, preconceived views. If those words don't scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear warning, I don't know what could be.
Just because I understand Prest's apologues doesn't mean I agree with them. Prest has recently been going around claiming that society is screaming for his ventures. You really have to tie your brain in knots to be gullible enough to believe that junk. Now that I've said what I had to say, I should remark that this letter may not endear me to some people. Indeed, it may even cost me a friend or two. However, friends do not let friends get trampled by politically incorrect personæ non gratæ like Prest. The truth is the truth and we pay a steep price whenever we ignore it.
Yeah, congratz Beo! why u leave refugia?!
PotatoSkin
CG Artist
@Beo, I am more confused than you..honestly.
LOL you guys actually read it? Lmao it's a fake complaint letter generator..
Just read the thing before the smiley face lmao it's in color white
Btw the site I used.. Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator
Just read the thing before the smiley face lmao it's in color white
Btw the site I used.. Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator
Zisly
Intermediate OT User
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2008
- Messages
- 7,338
- Reaction score
- 120
You used a regenator?!LOL you guys actually read it? Lmao it's a fake complaint letter generator..
Just read the thing before the smiley face lmao it's in color white
Btw the site I used.. Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator
This letter comes to you in the hope that it will find the place in your mind where rationality resides and where decency and sanity, coupled with a healthy sense of anger, will trigger appropriate action. To begin at the beginning, Mr. Zisly , Jr. wants to prepare the ground for an ever-more vicious and brutal campaign of terror. Faugh.
Aside from a few exceptions, this statement is indubitably valid. But wait—as they say on late-night television infomercials—there's more: We can divide Zisly's claims into three categories: irrational, supercilious, and sniveling. Most people don't realize that Zisly has already revealed his plans to change this country's moral infrastructure. He revealed these plans in a manifesto bearing all of the hallmarks of having been written by a backwards geek. Not only is his manifesto entirely lacking in logic, relentlessly subjective, and completely anecdotal, but we must protect our peace, privacy, and safety. To do anything else, and I do mean anything else, is a complete waste of time. I'm not very conversant with his background. To be quite frank, I don't care to be. I already know enough to state with confidence that Zisly doesn't want us to tamp down any doubts that he plants false evidence to incriminate his nemeses. He would rather we settle for the meatless bone of Tartuffism.
Zisly can fool some of the people all of the time. He can fool all of the people some of the time. But he can't fool all of the people all of the time. As a dying tree drops its leaves and is attacked by fungus and worms of decay, so too is a nation set upon by Zisly. At the very least, he maintains a "Big Brother" dossier of information about everyone he distrusts to use as a potential weapon. Is your name listed in that dossier? I confess that I don't know the answer to that question. I do know, however, that we must tell you a little bit about Zisly and his rambunctious manuscripts. If we do, then perhaps a brighter day will dawn on planet Earth. Perhaps people will open their eyes and see that it's quite easy for Zisly to declaim my proposals. But when is he going to provide an alternative proposal of his own? I apologize if my answer is perceived as ignotum per ignotius, but what I'm about to say can't be understood unless one realizes that Zisly's buddies ought to work with us in a calm, constructive way to raise issues, as opposed to guns or knives. I'll say that again because I want it to sink in: Some time ago, in the aftermath of Zisly's last volley of attacks, a group of hostile deranged-types began to bury our heritage, our traditions, and our culture.
Being the analytical sort that I am, I would have to say that Zisly should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory. I find his bons mots rather baleful, don't you? Let's consider for a moment, though, that maybe there are other strains of interventionism active today, and the siren calls of those movements may mesmerize wily quiddlers whose maladroit behavior blinds them to historical lessons. Then doesn't it follow that a great many decent people are just as distressed as I am about his convictions? What I just said is a very important point but I'm afraid a lot of readers might miss it so I'll say a few more words on the subject. If you're still reading this letter, I wish to compliment you for being sufficiently open-minded to understand that if I were elected Ruler of the World, my first act of business would be to spread the word about Zisly's ultra-infernal, loquacious objectives to our friends, our neighbors, our relatives, our co-workers—even to strangers. I would further use my position to inform certain segments of the Earth's population that Zisly's lies come in many forms. Some of his lies are in the form of politics. Others are in the form of hastily mounted campaigns. Still more are in the form of folksy posturing and pretended concern and compassion.
Zisly's premise (that the rules don't apply to him) is his morality disguised as pretended neutrality. Zisly uses this disguised morality to support his accusations, thereby making his argument self-refuting. His propaganda machine once said that he would never effect complete and total control over every human being on the planet. So much for credibility!
This state of affairs demands the direct assault on those mingy ipse dixits that seek to traduce and discredit everyone but louche doofuses. Zisly files one grievance after another. For the benefit of any doubting Thomases I will prove that point via an explanation of how I shall be blamed by ignorant persons when I say that prolix, contemptible radicalism is not new. Cruel as that maxim may appear, some wild, bloodthirsty nudniks are hopelessly vexatious. Even so, I have a soft spot for crafty cretins: a bog not too far from here. For all intents and purposes, we must soon make one of the most momentous decisions in history. We must decide whether to let Zisly make counterproductive loonies out to be something they're not or, alternatively, whether we should take a strong position on his homilies, which, after all, meddle in everyone else's affairs. Upon this decision rests the stability of society and the future peace of the world. My view on this decision is that Zisly used to be a major proponent of obscurantism. Nowadays, he's putting all of his support behind alcoholism. As they say, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Not only does Zisly sugarcoat the past and dispense false optimism for the future, but he then commands his apple-polishers, "Go, and do thou likewise." In order to understand the motivation behind his theories it is important first to show you, as dispassionately as possible, what kind of venom-spouting thoughts he is thinking about these days. It's not uncommon for him to speak with authority on subjects he clearly knows nothing about. That's too big of a subject to get into here so let me instead discuss how Zisly claims that it is better that a hundred thousand people should perish than that he should be even slightly inconvenienced. That claim illustrates a serious reasoning fallacy, one that is pandemic in his demands. Then again, Zisly's principles lack internal moral consistency. It may be more correct, however, to say that mankind needs to do more to place a high value on honor and self-respect. Understand, I am not condemning mankind for not doing enough; I am merely stating that Zisly has commented that everything will be hunky-dory if we let him destroy any resistance by channeling it into ineffective paths. I would love to refute that, but there seems to be no need, seeing as his comment is lacking in common sense.
If we're not careful, Zisly's vitriolic malisons will throw us into a third world war sooner than you think. Although I consistently deal with Zisly appropriately, I do not countenance challenging Zisly through breaking the law—to do so is brown-nosing, predatory, and indefensible. You know what I mean?
Almost without exception, many people who follow Zisly's exegeses have come to the erroneous conclusion that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty. The truth of the matter is that he wants us to think of him as a do-gooder. Keep in mind, though, that Zisly wants to "do good" with other people's money and often with other people's lives. If he really wanted to be a do-gooder, he could start by admitting that one of his favorite tricks is to create a problem, then offer the solution. Naturally, it's always his solutions that grant him the freedom to foist the most poisonously false and destructive myths imaginable upon us, never the original problem. How many of Zisly's zealots are vile scumbags? I'm not comfortable throwing out an estimate that isn't backed up by specific data, but I do know that Zisly has made it known that he fully intends to impose theological straightjackets on scriptural interpretation. If those words don't scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear warning, I don't know what could be.
Someone just showed me a memo supposedly written by Zisly. The memo spells out his plans to pose a threat to personal autonomy and social development. If this memo is authentic, it tells us that Zisly avers that two wrongs make a right. As you can no doubt determine from comments like that, facts and Zisly are like oil and water. He will stop at nothing to violate all the rules of decorum. This may sound outrageous, but if it were fiction I would have thought of something more credible. As it stands, my goal is to present a noble vision of who we were, who we are, and who we can potentially be. I might not be successful at achieving that goal, but I unquestionably do have to try. The facts are in: Mr. Zisly , Jr. would rather talk about making changes than actually make them.
Aside from a few exceptions, this statement is indubitably valid. But wait—as they say on late-night television infomercials—there's more: We can divide Zisly's claims into three categories: irrational, supercilious, and sniveling. Most people don't realize that Zisly has already revealed his plans to change this country's moral infrastructure. He revealed these plans in a manifesto bearing all of the hallmarks of having been written by a backwards geek. Not only is his manifesto entirely lacking in logic, relentlessly subjective, and completely anecdotal, but we must protect our peace, privacy, and safety. To do anything else, and I do mean anything else, is a complete waste of time. I'm not very conversant with his background. To be quite frank, I don't care to be. I already know enough to state with confidence that Zisly doesn't want us to tamp down any doubts that he plants false evidence to incriminate his nemeses. He would rather we settle for the meatless bone of Tartuffism.
Zisly can fool some of the people all of the time. He can fool all of the people some of the time. But he can't fool all of the people all of the time. As a dying tree drops its leaves and is attacked by fungus and worms of decay, so too is a nation set upon by Zisly. At the very least, he maintains a "Big Brother" dossier of information about everyone he distrusts to use as a potential weapon. Is your name listed in that dossier? I confess that I don't know the answer to that question. I do know, however, that we must tell you a little bit about Zisly and his rambunctious manuscripts. If we do, then perhaps a brighter day will dawn on planet Earth. Perhaps people will open their eyes and see that it's quite easy for Zisly to declaim my proposals. But when is he going to provide an alternative proposal of his own? I apologize if my answer is perceived as ignotum per ignotius, but what I'm about to say can't be understood unless one realizes that Zisly's buddies ought to work with us in a calm, constructive way to raise issues, as opposed to guns or knives. I'll say that again because I want it to sink in: Some time ago, in the aftermath of Zisly's last volley of attacks, a group of hostile deranged-types began to bury our heritage, our traditions, and our culture.
Being the analytical sort that I am, I would have to say that Zisly should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory. I find his bons mots rather baleful, don't you? Let's consider for a moment, though, that maybe there are other strains of interventionism active today, and the siren calls of those movements may mesmerize wily quiddlers whose maladroit behavior blinds them to historical lessons. Then doesn't it follow that a great many decent people are just as distressed as I am about his convictions? What I just said is a very important point but I'm afraid a lot of readers might miss it so I'll say a few more words on the subject. If you're still reading this letter, I wish to compliment you for being sufficiently open-minded to understand that if I were elected Ruler of the World, my first act of business would be to spread the word about Zisly's ultra-infernal, loquacious objectives to our friends, our neighbors, our relatives, our co-workers—even to strangers. I would further use my position to inform certain segments of the Earth's population that Zisly's lies come in many forms. Some of his lies are in the form of politics. Others are in the form of hastily mounted campaigns. Still more are in the form of folksy posturing and pretended concern and compassion.
Zisly's premise (that the rules don't apply to him) is his morality disguised as pretended neutrality. Zisly uses this disguised morality to support his accusations, thereby making his argument self-refuting. His propaganda machine once said that he would never effect complete and total control over every human being on the planet. So much for credibility!
This state of affairs demands the direct assault on those mingy ipse dixits that seek to traduce and discredit everyone but louche doofuses. Zisly files one grievance after another. For the benefit of any doubting Thomases I will prove that point via an explanation of how I shall be blamed by ignorant persons when I say that prolix, contemptible radicalism is not new. Cruel as that maxim may appear, some wild, bloodthirsty nudniks are hopelessly vexatious. Even so, I have a soft spot for crafty cretins: a bog not too far from here. For all intents and purposes, we must soon make one of the most momentous decisions in history. We must decide whether to let Zisly make counterproductive loonies out to be something they're not or, alternatively, whether we should take a strong position on his homilies, which, after all, meddle in everyone else's affairs. Upon this decision rests the stability of society and the future peace of the world. My view on this decision is that Zisly used to be a major proponent of obscurantism. Nowadays, he's putting all of his support behind alcoholism. As they say, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Not only does Zisly sugarcoat the past and dispense false optimism for the future, but he then commands his apple-polishers, "Go, and do thou likewise." In order to understand the motivation behind his theories it is important first to show you, as dispassionately as possible, what kind of venom-spouting thoughts he is thinking about these days. It's not uncommon for him to speak with authority on subjects he clearly knows nothing about. That's too big of a subject to get into here so let me instead discuss how Zisly claims that it is better that a hundred thousand people should perish than that he should be even slightly inconvenienced. That claim illustrates a serious reasoning fallacy, one that is pandemic in his demands. Then again, Zisly's principles lack internal moral consistency. It may be more correct, however, to say that mankind needs to do more to place a high value on honor and self-respect. Understand, I am not condemning mankind for not doing enough; I am merely stating that Zisly has commented that everything will be hunky-dory if we let him destroy any resistance by channeling it into ineffective paths. I would love to refute that, but there seems to be no need, seeing as his comment is lacking in common sense.
If we're not careful, Zisly's vitriolic malisons will throw us into a third world war sooner than you think. Although I consistently deal with Zisly appropriately, I do not countenance challenging Zisly through breaking the law—to do so is brown-nosing, predatory, and indefensible. You know what I mean?
Almost without exception, many people who follow Zisly's exegeses have come to the erroneous conclusion that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty. The truth of the matter is that he wants us to think of him as a do-gooder. Keep in mind, though, that Zisly wants to "do good" with other people's money and often with other people's lives. If he really wanted to be a do-gooder, he could start by admitting that one of his favorite tricks is to create a problem, then offer the solution. Naturally, it's always his solutions that grant him the freedom to foist the most poisonously false and destructive myths imaginable upon us, never the original problem. How many of Zisly's zealots are vile scumbags? I'm not comfortable throwing out an estimate that isn't backed up by specific data, but I do know that Zisly has made it known that he fully intends to impose theological straightjackets on scriptural interpretation. If those words don't scare you, nothing will. If they are not a clear warning, I don't know what could be.
Someone just showed me a memo supposedly written by Zisly. The memo spells out his plans to pose a threat to personal autonomy and social development. If this memo is authentic, it tells us that Zisly avers that two wrongs make a right. As you can no doubt determine from comments like that, facts and Zisly are like oil and water. He will stop at nothing to violate all the rules of decorum. This may sound outrageous, but if it were fiction I would have thought of something more credible. As it stands, my goal is to present a noble vision of who we were, who we are, and who we can potentially be. I might not be successful at achieving that goal, but I unquestionably do have to try. The facts are in: Mr. Zisly , Jr. would rather talk about making changes than actually make them.
Vendeliko
Banned User
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2011
- Messages
- 3,087
- Reaction score
- 91
Guys stop that shit.
hiperkarma
High-level newbie
I play on Secura too.
Vendeliko
Banned User
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2011
- Messages
- 3,087
- Reaction score
- 91
Vendeliko
Banned User
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2011
- Messages
- 3,087
- Reaction score
- 91
Awesome!
Brook Kechup
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2009
- Messages
- 600
- Reaction score
- 7
Don Shotta
Well-Known Member
Shut up.
Vendeliko
Banned User
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2011
- Messages
- 3,087
- Reaction score
- 91
Where are the updates?...
OP
OP
Beo
Three Magic
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2009
- Messages
- 9,075
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 857
For real? If you don't like my attitude, leave my thread. It's not compulsory to comment here or even read it.
Awaiting premium.
- Status
