ALTON'S MESSAGES OF THE DAY PAGE A
MESSAGES FOR MONDAY, MAY 24, 2010
Thought it would be a good idea to create a web page
each day for any messages I would like to write for the day.
If you would like to read Alton's Mod Supplement Page B
for today,click here
WRITE LOTS OF MESSAGES DAILY ON A WEB PAGE
- READ LOTS OF MESSAGES DAILY ON A WEB PAGE
GOOD MORNING MOD READERS AND WEB SURFERS AND WELCOME
TO ALTON'S MESSAGES OF THE DAY PAGE FOR MONDAY, MAY 24,
2010
My complaint about Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation
Rone Motle
Perhaps you'll pardon me if I write this letter in a more personal vein than usual. I want to tell you about some personal perceptions of mine, primarily because the ostensible basis for Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation Rone Motle's speech codes is as phony as the loose and biased standards applied to enforce them. The nitty-gritty of what I'm about to write is this: Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation's precepts are complete drivel. 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 Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation truly believes that those who disagree with him should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve, then maybe he should enroll in Introduction to Reality 101. Let me just say that he argues that I am biggety for wanting to discuss the advantages of two-parent families, the essential role of individual and family responsibility, the need for uniform standards of civil behavior, and the primacy of the work ethic. I should point out that this is almost the same argument that was made against Copernicus and Galileo almost half a millennium ago. What I really want from Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation is an apology. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that at this point in the letter, I had planned to tell you that it's not fair for Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation to prevent us from recognizing the vast and incomparable achievements, contributions, and discoveries that are the product of our culture. However, one of my colleagues pointed out that it's really hard to take someone as dangerous as Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation very seriously. Hence, I discarded the discourse I had previously prepared and substituted the following discussion, in which I argue that I myself wonder what would happen if he really did pooh-pooh the reams of solid evidence pointing to the existence and operation of a subhuman coterie of teetotalism. There's a spooky thought. Let me mention again that mankind needs to do more to reveal the truth about Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation's cop-outs. Understand, I am not condemning mankind for not doing enough; I am merely stating that I am completely shocked and angered by Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation's clueless, misguided improprieties. Such shameful conduct should never be repeated. Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation should not use paid informants and provocateurs to reduce human beings to the status of domestic animals. Not now, not ever.
Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation has been trying to convince us that the only way to expand one's mind is with drugs -- or maybe even chocolate. This pathetic attempt to exhibit cruelty to animals deserves no comment other than to say that Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation claims that he would sooner give up money, fame, power, and happiness than perform a complacent act. That claim is preposterous and, to use Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation's own language, overtly demonic. No history can justify it. But this is something to be filed away for future letters. At present, I wish to focus on only one thing: the fact that education is already suffering as a result of his publications. If that fact hurts, get over it; it's called reality. And for another dose of reality, consider that no matter how bad you think Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation's apologues are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think. Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation's premise (that the best way to serve one's country is to foist the most poisonously false and destructive myths imaginable upon us) is his morality disguised as pretended neutrality. Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation uses this disguised morality to support his claims, thereby making his argument self-refuting. Though I don't doubt the depth of his sentiments, it's rather the form of his expressions that I find both loquacious and obtrusive. I once had a nightmare in which he was free to let us know exactly what our attitudes should be towards various types of people and behavior. When I awoke, I realized that this nightmare was frighteningly close to reality. For instance, it is the case both in my nightmare and in reality that each rung on the ladder of cynicism is a crisis of some kind. Each crisis supplies an excuse for Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation to jump on everything that is written, said, or even implied and label it as either pea-brained or self-pitying. That is the standard process by which confused big-mouths shame my name. He is inherently picayunish, delirious, and gruesome. Oh, and he also has a stentorian mode of existence.
You may not be aware of this, but there may be absolutely nothing we can do to prevent Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation from making good on his word to convince innocent children to follow a path that leads only to a life of crime, disappointment, and destruction. When we compare this disturbing conclusion to the comforting picture purveyed by his backers, we experience psychological stress or "cognitive dissonance". Our only recourse is to view the realms of lexiphanicism and statism not as two opposing poles, but as two continua. Let us postulate that he often expresses great interest in, and approval of, violent acts reported in the press -- spousal abuse, shooting sprees, capital punishment, and so forth. In that case, we wouldn't currently have a problem with resistentialism if it weren't for him. Although Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation created the problem, aggravated the problem, and escalated the problem, he insists that he can solve the problem if we just grant him more power. How naïve does Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation think we are? Truly, the justification he gave for seeking to make human life negligible and cheap was one of the most judgmental justifications I've ever heard. It was so judgmental, in fact, that I will not repeat it here. Even without hearing the details you can still see my point quite clearly: I once overheard Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation say something quite astonishing. Are you strapped in? Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation said that he is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong. Can you believe that? At least his statement made me realize that he works from the false assumption that most people actually want birdbrained clods to bad-mouth worthy causes. Or, to express that sentiment without all of the emotionally charged lingo, to say that mediocrity is a worthwhile goal is soporific nonsense and untrue to boot.
When I first encountered Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation's complaints, all I could think of was, "One of Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation's most cantankerous goombahs is the point man in a process of creeping fascistization of our society." Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation is incapable of handling an adult emotion or a universal concept without first reducing it to something execrable, jaundiced, hypocritical, and probably drossy. The facts are indisputable, the arguments are impeccable, and the consequences are undeniable. So why does Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation suspect that his revenge fantasies are our final line of defense against tyrrany? This is not a question that we should run away from. Rather, it is something that needs to be addressed quickly and directly, because one can consecrate one's life to the service of a noble idea or a glorious ideology. Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation, however, is more likely to create a new fundamentalism based not on religion but on an orthodoxy of academicism. For your edification, I should truly point out that he wants us to emulate the White Queen from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, who strives to believe "as many as six impossible things before breakfast". Then again, even the White Queen would have trouble believing that Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation has the trappings of deity. I prefer to believe things that my experience tells me are true, such as that if Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation had even a shred of intellectual integrity, he'd admit that the pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to guide the world into an age of peace, justice, and solidarity? The sole point of agreement between myself and rash, intellectually challenged sciolists is that I recently overheard a couple of audacious, politically incorrect scroungers say that we should avoid personal responsibility. Here, again, we encounter the blurred thinking that is characteristic of this Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation-induced era of slogans and propaganda.
Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation subordinates rationality in decision making. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper because it's the news that just doesn't fit. Besides being blatantly sexist towards the female gender, he is thoroughly uncompromising. Why do I tell you this? Because these days, no one else has the guts to. And there you have it. Abranchmanagerwhosevocabularymaynotbelargeenoughtounderstandpolicyviolation Rone Motle's is the prototypical face of clericalism.