Re: Letter about Don strevel.

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 23:53:08 GMT, Chuck.K <noway@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>In article <T%SNd.11802$6u.2275@fed1read02>, dstrevel@xxxxxxx says...
>> I read it, it's stupidity on stage, stomping as if it had a purpose or
>> message worth its space on your monitor. It might be an attempt at a post
>> that could be reflected upon later as a submition in the "Write like
>> Strevel" contest we have from time to time,but done in good humor enjoyed by
>> all. It is a winner in the "Stupid as Hell" catagory.
>> Someone claimed it was written by a person that takes the small school
>> bus, I have to agree. I feel sorry for some peoples mothers when they look
>> at their kids and wonder where they went wrong.
>>
>>
>> doonie the LOONIE strevel, NOT in Las Vegas, NV.
>> http://www.mysupersecretvegas.com 27,665 visits and it STILL doesn't work
>> info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (autoresponder)
>
>I feel obligated to say something about Prof. Don Strevel, Esq.,
>because, as the Talmud says, "Silence is akin to assent." Here's my
>side of the story: Don shouldn't fortify a social correctness that
>restricts experience and defines success with narrow boundaries.
>That's just plain common sense. Of course, the people who appreciate
>his imprecations are those who eagerly root up common sense,
>prominently hold it out, and decry it as poison with astonishing
>alacrity. This is a free country, and I myself insist we ought to
>keep it that way. When I say that even the most rigorous theoretical
>framework Don could put forward would not leave him in the position
>of generalizing with the certainty to which he is prone in his catch-
>phrases, this does not, I repeat, does not mean that frotteurism is a
>be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us.
>This is a common fallacy held by pouty wonks. It probably sounds like
>I'm being ill-bred, but I must part company with many of my peers
>when it comes to understanding why I experienced quite an epiphany
>when I first realized that he should get with the program. My peers
>maintain that he is hell-bent on suppressing our freedom. While this
>is indeed true, I feel we must add that the next time he decides to
>perpetrate acts of the most unpatriotic character, he should think to
>himself, cui bono? -- who benefits?
>
>Don accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does he think I'm narrow-
>minded because I refuse to accept his claim that he has achieved
>sainthood? If so, then I guess I'm as narrow-minded as I could
>possibly be. I must point out that the biggest difference between me
>and Don is that Don wants to inure us to morally crippled defeatism.
>I, on the other hand, want to deal with the relevant facts. While he
>puts on a good dog and pony show, he can't possibly believe that
>women are crazed Pavlovian sex-dogs who will salivate at any object
>even remotely phallic in shape. He's stupid, but he's not that
>stupid. I don't get it: Why does Don insist on boring holes in the
>hull of the boat in which he himself is also a passenger? I mean, Don
>gives new meaning to the word "scabrous". But the problems with Don's
>goals don't end there.
>
>Why does he want to portray the most crotchety wackos I've ever seen
>as scumbags? Psychologists might suggest that he unmistakably needs
>to come to terms with his dangerous past. Counselors might suspect
>that an obnoxious mentality and a goofy sense of militarism create
>fertile soil for the worst sorts of footling busybodies there are to
>stigmatize any and all attempts to contribute to the intellectual and
>spiritual health of the body politic. Sociologists might point out
>that he is trying to fund a vast web of useless masters of deceit,
>nutty, hypocritical loudmouths, and unbridled, gutless beguilers just
>to prove he can. I agree with the above assessments, but Don would
>have us believe that his magic-bullet explanations are good for the
>environment, human rights, and baby seals. That, of course, is
>nonsense, total nonsense. But Don is surrounded by predaceous
>dopeheads who parrot the same nonsense, which is why if history
>follows its course, it should be evident that whenever anyone states
>the obvious -- that I, not being one of the many impetuous, vicious
>maggots of this world, am inwardly repelled by the pettifogging
>phraseology of his harangues and the reckless style in which they are
>expressed -- discussion naturally progresses towards the question,
>"What is this dastardly fascination he has with cronyism?" My answer
>is, as always, a model of clarity and the soul of wit: I don't know.
>However, I do know that you may be wondering why brazen, insane
>nymphomaniacs of one sort or another latch onto his invectives. 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 Don's
>idea of frightful, sniffish egotism is no political belief. It is a
>fierce and burning gospel of hatred and intolerance, of murder and
>destruction, and the unloosing of a shiftless, warped blood-lust. It
>is, in every sense, a sophomoric and pagan religion that incites its
>worshippers to a phlegmatic frenzy and then prompts them to confuse,
>disorient, and disunify.
>
>Just like dirty clothes on the floor and cluttered closets, Don's
>mess won't go away if we simply look the other way. Nonetheless, I
>correctly predicted that Don would dominate or intimidate others.
>Alas, I didn't think he'd do that so effectively -- or so soon. He
>has a fondness for spouting out technical mumbo-jumbo. To prove this,
>I shall take only a few cases from the mass of existing examples.
>It's considerations of this sort that make it worth our while to
>learn about the unrestrained things he is up to. Let me rephrase
>that: He maintains a "Big Brother" dossier of information about
>everyone he distrusts, to use as a potential career-ruining weapon.
>Is your name listed in that dossier? Well, if I knew that, I'd be in
>Stockholm picking up my prize and a sizable check. Whatever your age,
>you now have only one choice. That choice is between a democratic,
>peace-loving regime that, you hope, may lift the fog from Don's
>thinking and, as the alternative, the narrow-minded and grotty
>dirigisme currently being forced upon us by Don. Choose carefully,
>because there is no place in this country where we are safe from
>Don's dupes, no place where we are not targeted for hatred and
>attack.
>
>While this country still has far to go before people are truly judged
>on the content of their character, if it weren't for obtrusive,
>grungy crybabies, he would have no friends. When I was little, my
>father would sometimes pick me up, put me on his knee, and say "What
>we need from Don is fewer monologues and more dialogue." This is not
>to say that I will renew my resolve to follow knowledge like a
>sinking star beyond the utmost bound of human thought. It is merely
>to point out that he ignores a breathtaking number of facts, most
>notably:
>
>Fact: You shouldn't take threats made by iconoclastic, profligate
>hellions too seriously.
>
>Fact: This is clear to every knowledgeable observer.
>
>Fact: If snooty imbeciles really believed in equality, they wouldn't
>confuse the catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression
>of an authoritarian government in our minds.
>
>In addition, it strikes me as amusing that he complains about people
>who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! Don does nothing but
>complain.
>
>It has been said that we have to consider all of our options. I
>believe that to be true. I also believe that Don argues that society
>is supposed to be lenient towards the worst kinds of uppity,
>disgusting ignoramuses there are. To maintain this thesis, Don
>naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which he
>does by the desperate expedient of claiming that public opinion is a
>reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. I plan to work
>within the system to persuade my fellow citizens that the notion that
>he should get a life and stay out of mine is pervasive, not because I
>lack the courage for more drastic steps, but because many people are
>convinced that his schemes form a vast brainwashing and brain-
>contaminating machine, which has worked, on the whole, with great
>efficiency. I can't comment on that, but I can say that Don is not
>just stupid. He is unbelievably, astronomically stupid. He uses
>isolated incidents to make imperious, all-encompassing claims about
>his adversaries. That's clear. But he is capable of only two things,
>namely whining and underhanded tricks. As a general rule, I can no
>longer get very excited about any revelation of Don's hypocrisy or
>crookedness. It's what I've come to expect by now.
>
>I've heard of wicked things like Jacobinism and plagiarism. But I've
>also heard of things like nonviolence, higher moralities, and
>treating all beings as ends in and of themselves -- ideas which Don's
>ignorant, unthinking, despicable brain is too small to understand.
>There's something fishy about Don's deeds. I think he's up to
>something, something revolting and perhaps even reprehensible. Let's
>be realistic: there are those who are informed and educated about the
>evils of escapism, and there are those who are not. Don is one of the
>uninformed, naturally, and that's why it's easy for him to declaim my
>proposals. But when is Don going to provide an alternative proposal
>of his own? Here's the answer, albeit in a somewhat circuitous and
>roundabout style: If Don can one day monopolize the press, then the
>long descent into night is sure to follow.
>
>To tolerate Don's patronizing, contumelious undertakings simply
>because they're not packaged and sold as incomprehensible is to lead
>a bestial jihad against those who oppose Don. If an attempt to pit
>race against race, religion against religion, and country against
>country isn't censorious, it certainly is delusional. Given what I
>know about uninformed doomsday prophets, I can say with confidence
>that griping about Don will not make him stop trying to conspire with
>evil. But even if it did, he would just find some other way to
>reinforce the impression that hopeless pinheads -- as opposed to
>Don's buddies -- are striving to reduce human beings and many other
>living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social
>machine. His claim that doing the fashionable thing is more important
>than life or liberty is factually unsupported and politically
>motivated. If you understand that relative even to myopic gadflies,
>Don is more excitable, more violent, less sexually restrained, more
>impulsive, more prone to crime, less altruistic, less inclined to
>follow rules, and less cooperative, then you can comprehend that in
>asserting that discourteous converts to metagrobolism are easily
>housebroken, he demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision. With
>all due respect, he needs to stop living in denial. He needs to wake
>up and realize that he says that he needs a little more time to clean
>up his act. As far as I'm concerned, his time has run out.
>
>It's a well-known fact that this is a classic example of a zero-sum
>game. It's an equally well-known fact that we are nearing a synthesis
>of absenteeism and corporatism into an insufferable nihilism that
>will fan the flames of insurrectionism into a planet-spanning
>inferno. When logic puts these two facts together, the necessary
>result is an understanding that Don claims to be fighting for
>equality. What he's really fighting for, however, is equality in
>degradation, by which I mean that if obstructionism were an Olympic
>sport, Don would clinch the gold medal.
>
>We must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the
>politically correct thing to do, but because as long as the beer
>keeps flowing and the paychecks keep coming, Don's slaves don't
>really care that even if one is opposed to gruesome, subversive
>mercantalism (and I am), then surely, his hypocrisy is transparent.
>Even the least discerning among us can see right through it. Maybe
>you, too, want to show a clear lack of respect not just for those
>brave souls who fought and died for what they believed in, but also
>for you, the readers of this letter, so let me warn you: The central
>paradox of Don's stratagems, the twist that makes Don's ethics so
>irresistible to the worst types of churlish soporific-types there
>are, is that these people truly believe that we should abandon the
>institutionalized and revered concept of democracy. There's only one
>proper consideration here: the harm that'll indisputably be caused if
>Don is allowed to eliminate those law-enforcement officers who
>constitute the vital protective bulwark in the fragile balance
>between anarchy and tyranny. All else is abstract, shameless,
>intellectual hooey. This should be a chance to examine and bring
>problems to light, to share and join in understanding, but I recently
>informed him that his hatchet men sweep his peccadillos under the
>rug. Don said he'd "look further into the matter." Well, not too much
>further; after all, like a verbal magician, he knows how to lie
>without appearing to be lying, how to bury secrets in mountains of
>garbage-speak. His bromides violate the rational, enlightened claims
>of their own enunciatory modality. But let's not lose perspective. If
>everyone does his own, small part, together we can stand as a witness
>in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim that he favors
>a self-satisfied "Code of Conduct" that serves no purpose other than
>to shackle us with the chains of stoicism. I'd like to finish with a
>quote from a private e-mail message sent to me by a close friend of
>mine: "Only savage, besotted knee-biters are capable of imagining
>that the kids on the playground are happy to surrender to the school
>bully".
>
>
>Chuck
>www.cliffyberman.com (coming again soon)
>www.davidinlv.com (coming again soon)
>
>Sometimes you gotta go, where every Claven is insane!
>Where every Cliffy post spawns flames
>You gotta be where you can see, that Berman is still inane
>You gotta be where Cliffy is still insane!
>
>"BUT.... I'm a REAL Boy"!



Wow.
.

Loading