my first pit of hell rant...

Dis thred sux.

Dis thred sux.

Your smelly sox sux.

Alright so I didnt read most of it due to the fact that I don't really care, I was gonna comment and say how it's not even in the Pits of Hell. But then I saw this last page so it's all good!

so yeah.
http://www.pakin.org/complaint/
have fun.

So that's where it came from.

I guessed it was computer-assisted nonsense since people were typing up a bunch of decent quality crap in a really short time. That's just plain impossible.

EDIT: LOL I just realized Harrisonized was trying to attack the fallacies of a computer-based text generator xD Three times!

When I began writing this letter, I had the notion that I would write about something positive and optimistic instead of going on about how duplicitous Prof. Doctor Professor Seargent, Ph.D. is. Unfortunately, I couldn't think of anything particularly positive to write about. So, instead, I'll just tell you that Prof. Seargent uses words like "indistinguishableness" to give his tractates an air of culture and elegance. There are a number of reasons Prof. Seargent isn't telling us as to why he wants to cast the world into nuclear holocaust. In this letter, I will expose those reasons one-by-one, on the principle that this is a free country, and I profess we ought to keep it that way. His rejoinders promote a redistribution of wealth. This is always an appealing proposition for Prof. Seargent's allies because much of the redistributed wealth will undoubtedly end up in the hands of the redistributors as a condign reward for their loyalty to Prof. Seargent. According to the laws of probability, history has proven beyond any doubt that his mottos smack of lexiphanicism. In view of that, it is not surprising that even if one isn't completely conversant with current events, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that I am sick of hearing him intone with an authority reminiscent of Moses descending Sinai that superstition is no less credible than proven scientific principles. That's just a fancy way of saying that we must work together to offer a framework for discussion so that we can more quickly reach a consensus. What can you do to help? For starters, you might want to help people see Prof. Seargent's irascible ideologies for what they are. I personally derive great satisfaction in doing that sort of thing because I can't make heads or tails of Prof. Seargent's mind games. I mean, does he want to lay all of society open to the predations of organized criminality or doesn't he?

I hope that humanity will rid this earth of frightful, misguided kooks with the greatest dispatch, since otherwise, the earth might well become rid of humanity. Since I have promised to be candid, I will tell you candidly that those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still think that Prof. Seargent should focus more on the quality of his writing than on the amount of drivel he can squeeze in, have an obligation to do more than just observe what Prof. Seargent is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to lend a helping hand. We have an obligation to denounce those who claim that character development is not a matter of "strength through adversity" but rather, "entitlement through victimization". And we have an obligation to restore the world back to its original balance.

Sometime in the future Prof. Seargent will keep a close eye on those who look like they might think an unapproved thought. Fortunately, that hasn't happened...yet. But it will doubtlessly happen if we don't make this world a kinder, gentler place.

When it comes to Prof. Seargent's apothegms, I certainly claim that we have drifted along for too long in a state of blissful denial and outright complacency. It's time to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world. The sooner we do that the better because Nature is a wonderful teacher. For instance, the lesson that Nature teaches us from newly acephalous poultry is that you really don't need a brain to run around like a dang fool making a spectacle of yourself. Nature also teaches us that Prof. Seargent indubitably dropped a clanger by admitting that he has nephelococcygic delusions about being able to set the wolf to mind the sheep. If you doubt this, just ask around.

Prof. Seargent frequently engages in violent fantasies involving muddleheaded gits. So what's the connection between that and Prof. Seargent's sentiments? The connection is that he has vowed that when you least expect it, he'll revive an arcadian past that never existed. This is hardly news; Prof. Seargent has been vowing that for months with the regularity of a metronome. What is news is that I have nothing more to say on that issue. In reaching that conclusion I have made the usual assumption that Prof. Seargent's credos all stem from one, simple, faulty premise—that he is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative.

I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But Prof. Seargent never stops boasting about his generous contributions to charitable causes. As far as I can tell, however, his claimed magnanimousness is entirely chimerical, and, furthermore, if the human race is to survive on this planet, we will have to allay the concerns of the many people who have been harmed by Prof. Seargent.

If we are to nourish children with good morals and self-esteem, then we must be guided by a healthy and progressive ideology, not by the feckless and passive-aggressive ideologies that Prof. Seargent promotes. I'm not a psychiatrist. Sometimes, though, I wish I were, so that I could better understand what makes people like him want to replace the search for truth with a situationist relativism based on lethargic, pigheaded fanaticism. I would sooner let Prof. Seargent force me to die in oppression, chaos, and despair than become one of his buddies, pure and simple. He is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks. To burn our fair cities to the ground has never been something that I wanted to do. Never. My goal is to unveil the semiotic patterns that Prof. Seargent utilizes to overthrow the government and eliminate the money system. I will not stint in my labor in this direction. When I have succeeded, the whole world will know that Prof. Seargent once tried to meddle in everyone else's affairs. If you consider this an exception to the rule then you undeniably don't understand how Prof. Seargent operates. I hope, however, that you at least understand that I've repeatedly pointed out to him that I invite you to talk to him yourself if you feel that I'm misrepresenting his position. That apparently didn't register with him, though. Oh, well; I guess we have to consider all of our options. An equal but opposite observation is that I act based on what I think is right, not who I think is right. That's why I try always to work together towards a shared vision. It's also why I say that he says that he is clean and bright and pure inside. Wow! Isn't that like hiding the stolen goods in the closet and, when the cops come in, standing in front of the closet door and exclaiming, "They're not in here!"?

It sincerely shouldn't be necessary to have to say such things, but Prof. Seargent should start developing the parts of his brain that have been impaired by ethnocentrism. At least then he'll stop trying to put political correctness ahead of scientific rigor. I am truly at a loss for words when he asserts that he is a perpetual victim of injustice. He can't possibly be serious. I suspect that the real story here is that we must give to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. Our battle with Prof. Seargent is a battle between spiritualism and anti-intellectualism, between tradition and subversion, between the defenders of Western civilization and its enemies. With the battle lines drawn as such, it is abundantly clear that every so often you'll see Prof. Seargent lament, flog himself, cry mea culpa for leading to the destruction of the human race, and vow never again to be so paltry. Sadly, he always reverts to his old behavior immediately afterwards, making me think that I once had a nightmare in which he was free to turn our country into a slatternly, intolerant cesspool overrun with scum, disease, and crime. 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 Prof. Seargent recently got caught red-handed trying to deny the obvious. Well, surprise, surprise, surprise, as Gomer Pyle would say.

Clearly, the tone of Prof. Seargent's prophecies is eerily reminiscent of that of depraved peremptory-types of the late 1940s in the sense that if Prof. Seargent is victorious in his quest to siphon off scarce international capital intended for underdeveloped countries, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. Let me try to put this in perspective: You may be wondering why benighted, flippant devotees of conspiracy theories latch onto his tricks. 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 Prof. Seargent alleges that he has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature. Naturally, this is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. It seems to me that he is both callow and polyloquent. Now there's a dangerous combination if I've ever seen one.

If you agree, read on. To bring the matter closer to home, let me remind you that when a friend wants to drive inebriated, you try to stop him. Well, Prof. Seargent is drunk with power, which is why we must get us out of the hammerlock that he is holding us in. And that, in my view, is our real problem.

In case you hadn't noticed, Harrison and anyone else whose name came up here, these are not handwritten rants. They're computer generated. Hence the fact that none of the arguments in them make sense (though this fact seems irrelevant to some people) and the points they make seem completely offtopic. Those of us who realized the OP's post was a generated rant joined in with other generated rants, and people who didn't suddenly began wondering why we all became so verbose in our arguments. XD

so yeah.
http://www.pakin.org/complaint/
have fun.

Oh man, now I feel stupid for replying manually. >_>

Allow me to introduce myself. I'm the founder of the Anti-Southperry Society. In this letter, I will tell you what made me form such an organization and how I plan to use it to tell you things that Southperry doesn't want you to know. With this letter, I hope to expose injustice and puncture prejudice. But first, I would like to make the following introductory remark: If Southperry's thinking were cerebral rather than glandular, it wouldn't consider it such a good idea to rip apart causes that others feel strongly about. It's easy for us to shake our heads at Southperry's foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should put Southperry's self-satisfied stratagems out to pasture. It's easy for us to say, "Now is not the time to go wobbly on our opposition to Southperry's uncivilized effusions." The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because I indeed hope that Southperry's punishment fits its crime. The facts are indisputable, the arguments are impeccable, and the consequences are undeniable. So why does Southperry feel that it is a tireless protector of civil rights and civil liberties for all people? The complete answer to that question is a long, sad story. I've answered parts of that question in several of my previous letters, and I'll answer other parts in future ones. For now, I'll just say that I am not concerned with rumors or hearsay about it. I am interested only in ascertained facts attested by published documents and in these primarily as an illustration that Southperry has frequently been spotted making nicey-nice with unscrupulous, ruthless scoundrels. Is this because it needs their help to rot out the foundations of our religious, moral, and political values? I hardly know. But I will stake the immortality of my soul that only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that Southperry's fibs always follow the same pattern. It puts the desired twist on the actual facts, ignores inconvenient facts, and invents as many new "facts" as necessary to convince us that I'm some sort of cully who can be duped into believing that a plausible excuse is a satisfactory substitute for performance.

As part of its efforts to gain a mainstream following, Southperry publishes the Journal of Ill-bred Neocolonialism. Included alongside articles discussing history, culture, art, religion, and philosophy are endorsements of Southperry's plans to demonstrate an outright hostility to law enforcement. Southperry's a pretty good liar most of the time. However, it tells so many lies, it's bound to trip itself up someday. For brevity, I won't comment further on that but rather on the way that Southperry's desire to usher in the beginning of an ostentatious new era of radicalism is the chief sign that it's a deranged, merciless palooka. (The second sign is that Southperry feels obliged to promote group-think attitudes over individual insights.)

Let's play a little game. Deduct one point from your I.Q. if you fell for Southperry's ridiculous claim that it has mystical powers of divination and prophecy. Deduct another point if you failed to notice that Southperry plans to have a serious destabilizing effect on our institutions. It has instructed its lackeys not to discuss this or even admit to its plan's existence. Obviously, Southperry knows it has something to hide.

The greatest quote I ever heard goes something like this: "We must be fearless in confronting Southperry's caustic flock." Several things Southperry has said have brought me to the boiling point. The statement of its that made the strongest impression on me, however, was something to the effect of how it can change its soporific ways.

Now let's have some fun and examine a few of Southperry's more ridiculous statements. First, Southperry said that the average working-class person can't see through its chicanery. That's rather demented, isn't it? Later on, it claimed that the bogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to its demands. What this really means is that it wants to hoodoo us. Southperry wants us to believe that we can solve all of our problems by giving it lots of money. We might as well toss that money down a well because we'll never see it again. What we will see, however, is that some people have indicated that Southperry's arrogance will lead it to tinker about with a lot of halfway prescriptions before you know it. I can neither confirm nor deny that statement, but I can say that time cannot change Southperry's behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which Southperry can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, combine the most sordid avarice with the most invincible hatred of the very people who tolerate and enrich it.

Southperry wants to turn doomsday prophets loose against us good citizens. You know what groups have historically wanted to do the same thing? Fascists and Nazis.

Now, I hope Southperry was joking when it implied it was going to foist the most poisonously false and destructive myths imaginable upon us, but it sure didn't sound like it. Southperry's apparatchiks consider its utterances a breath of fresh air. I, however, find them more like the fetid odor of incendiarism. Southperry demands absolute and blind obedience from its emissaries. If it didn't, they might question its orders to fan the flames of nonrepresentationalism into a planet-spanning inferno. This unrelenting demand of obedience also implies that if you were to tell Southperry that it has a problem not only with civil rights but also with the legal responsibility and accountability as to what is considered appropriate behavior, it'd just pull its security blanket a little tighter around itself and refuse to come out and deal with the real world. I know that I'm emotional now, but Southperry has commented that women are crazed Pavlovian sex-dogs who will salivate at any object even remotely phallic in shape. I would love to refute that but there seems to be no need, seeing as its comment is lacking in common sense.

I once had a nightmare in which Southperry was free to deface a social fabric that was already deteriorating. 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 we must ask Southperry to rephrase its criticisms in a more reasoned way if we are ever to put to rest self-indulgent and blinkered precepts such as Southperry's. Yes, this is a bold, audacious, even unprecedented undertaking. Yes, it lacks any realistic guarantee of success. However, it is an undertaking that we must undeniably pursue because I, hardheaded cynic that I am, find Southperry's bons mots not only insalubrious but also frowzy. (The merits of Southperry's smears won't be discussed here because they lack merit.)

One wonders how Southperry can complain about pouty scofflaws given that its own cajoleries also aim to violate strongly held principles regarding deferral of current satisfaction for long-term gains. Most people don't realize this, but Southperry has, in fact, presented evidence in support of its claim that it is the one who will lead us to our great shining future. Of course, its evidence has been rather flimsy in the credibility department. It's generally a lot easier to find evidence that once you understand Southperry's roorbacks, 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 Southperry feature simplistic answers to complex problems.

For those of you who don't know, history has proven beyond any doubt that "Southperry" has become a byword for treachery and deceit. That fact may not be pleasant but it is a fact regardless of our wishes on the matter. Southperry operates on the basis of an unremitting hatred of civility and decency. I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that I'm no psychiatrist. Still, from the little I know about psychiatry I can sincerely say that Southperry seems to exhibit many of the symptoms of Asperger's syndrome. I don't say that to judge but merely to put Southperry's prodigal, bleeding-heart self-fulfilling prophecies into perspective. Anyway, I hope I've made my point, which is that Southperry should judge not lest it be judged.

As a citizen of this country, which I believe in and which I have seen Mr. Harrisonized tear apart, I must oppose our human vices wherever they may be found—arrogance, hatred, jealousy, unfaithfulness, avarice, and so on. When writing this letter, I had originally intended to segregate the pure errors of fact in Harrisonized's comments from the assertions of questionable judgment where there could be room for dispute. I eventually decided against that approach because it must be pointed out that Harrisonized's stooges believe a conspiracy of clumsy proletariats control banking, foreign policy, and the media. I'll go further: Harrisonized recently got caught red-handed trying to use terms of opprobrium such as "dastardly, vapid schmucks" and "ghastly mental defectives" to castigate whomever he opposes. Well, surprise, surprise, surprise, as Gomer Pyle would say. Whenever someone tells him not to lead us into an age of shoddiness—shoddy goods, shoddy services, shoddy morals, and shoddy people—Harrisonized gets all teary-eyed. My, my; how sad. My heart bleeds for him; it really does.

Harrisonized plans to give expression to that which is most destructive and most harmful to society. He has instructed his worshippers not to discuss this or even admit to his plan's existence. Obviously, Harrisonized knows he has something to hide. If he is victorious in his quest to scar little children's self-image, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. I have been a veritable oasis of civility in the present debate. I could write pages on the subject, but the following should suffice. What I just wrote is not based on merely a single experience or anecdote. Rather, it is based upon the wisdom of accumulated years, spanning two continents, and proven by the fact that I am not a robot. I am a thinking, feeling, human being. As such, I get teary-eyed whenever I see Harrisonized use every conceivable form of diplomacy, deception, pressure, coercion, bribery, treason, and terror to apotheosize demented beggars. It makes me want to preserve the peace, which is why I'm so eager to tell you that Harrisonized swears that he can make all of our problems go away merely by sprinkling some sort of magic, pink, pixie dust over everything that he considers cold-blooded or crapulous. Clearly, he's living in a world of make-believe, with flowers and bells and leprechauns and magic frogs with funny little hats. Back in the real world, Harrisonized decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that he fears because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility.

Harrisonized drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes him sound smarter than he really is and obscures the fact that somebody has to test the assumptions that underlie Harrisonized's philippics. That somebody can be you. In any case, I'm not writing this letter for your entertainment. I'm not even writing it for your education. I'm writing it for our very survival.

I thought it couldn't be done, but, once again, Harrisonized's flimflams have sunk to a new low. You know what I mean? I plan to work within the system to persuade my fellow citizens that we have a life-or-death situation on our hands, not because I lack the courage for more drastic steps but because if I had to choose the most anti-democratic specimen from Harrisonized's welter of homophobic gabble, it would have to be Harrisonized's claim that it's inappropriate to teach children right from wrong. Only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that our long-corrupt legal system is parlously close to establishing a precedent that will enable Harrisonized to censor any incomplicitous prophecies. But I digress. What we have been imparting to him—or what he has been eliciting from us—is a half-submerged, barely intended logic, contaminated by wishes and tendencies we prefer not to acknowledge. For Harrisonized's nutty plans to succeed, he needs to dumb down our society. An uninformed populace is easier to control and manipulate than an educated populace. Faster than you can say "galvanocontractility", schoolchildren will stop being required to learn the meanings of words like "semiprofessionalized" and "saccharogalactorrhea". They will be incapable of comprehending that there are lots of weepy, wimpy flower children out there who are always whining that I'm being too harsh in my criticisms of Harrisonized. I wish such people would wake up and realize that if anything, Harrisonized wants to prohibit any discussion of her attempts to advocate his reinterpretations of historic events amid a hue and cry as possession-obsessed as it is disdainful. While it is clear why he wants that to be a taboo subject, in public, Harrisonized vehemently inveighs against corruption and sin. But when nobody's looking, Harrisonized never fails to utilize legal, above-ground organizing in combination with illegal, underground tactics to waste our time and money.

To put it crudely, there is still hope for our society, real hope—not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of the worst sorts of hateful yahoos I've ever seen but the hope that makes you eager to look at our situation realistically and from a viewpoint that takes in the whole picture. Now that I've been exposed to Harrisonized's half-measures I must admit that I don't completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps Harrisonized doesn't want to acknowledge that his offhand remarks are clear testimony to the fact that his helots favor a lifestyle that is as self-aggrandizing as his calumnies. In fact, Harrisonized would rather block all discussion on the subject. I suppose that's because his compeers have been staggering around like punch-drunk fighters hit too many times—stunned, confused, betrayed, and trying desperately to rationalize his wrongheaded, moonstruck hypnopompic insights. It is unquestionably not a pretty sight.

As far as I'm concerned, if Harrisonized can one day boss others around then the long descent into night is sure to follow. There are two classes of people in this world: decent, honest folks like you and me and closed-minded urban guerrillas like him. By writing this letter, I am undoubtedly sticking my head far above the parapet. The big danger is that Harrisonized will retaliate against me. He'll most likely try to force me to die a slow and painful death although another possibility is that I once tried to explain to him that his double standards will make bribery legal and part of business as usual. Rather than feel ashamed of himself, Harrisonized got angry at me. What this says is that Harrisonized's older bons mots were fastidious enough. His latest ones are honestly beyond the pale.

I understand that Harrisonized is lying to himself if he thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is ultimately surly, but he says that he could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else. Hey, Harrisonized, how about telling us the truth for once? He has been trying to raise funds for scientific studies that "prove" that I'm too gloomy to exemplify the principles of honor, duty, loyalty, and courage. This is what's called "advocacy research" or "junk science" because it's funded by adversarial, balmy ninnyhammers who have already decided that the future of the entire world rests in Harrisonized's hands. Harrisonized used to be a major proponent of materialism. Nowadays, he's putting all of his support behind irreligionism. As they say, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Simply put, there is something patently feebleminded in the notion that Harrisonized's hariolations will spread enlightenment to the masses, nurture democracy, reestablish the bonds of community, bring us closer to God, and generally work to the betterment of Man and society. Please re-read and memorize that sentence if you still believe that Harrisonized's way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't. I undeniably hope that the truth will prevail and that justice will be served before Harrisonized does any real damage. Or is it already too late? We should be able to look into our own souls for the answer. If we do, I suspect we'll find that many people respond to Harrisonized's depraved, scary methods of interpretation in the same way that they respond to television dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything about them. That's why I insist we embrace the cause of self-determination and recognize the leading role and clearer understanding of those people for whom the quintessential struggle is an encompassing liberation movement against the totality of pauperism.

It's irrelevant that my allegations are 100% true. Harrisonized distrusts my information and arguments and will forever maintain his current opinions. Do his sympathizers develop an alternative community, a cohesive and comprehensive underground with a charter to set the stage so that my next letter will begin from a new and much higher level of influence? No, that would be the correct and logical thing to do. Instead, they waste natural resources.

For years I've been warning people that Harrisonized plans to distort and trivialize the debate surrounding despotism. However, that's not my entire message; it's only a part of it. I also want you to know that Harrisonized's subalterns say, "Harrisonized is a spokesman for God." Yes, I'm afraid they really do talk like that. It's the only way for them to conceal that some people have said that Harrisonized favors obfuscation and deviousness above frankness. Maybe. But I'm more inclined to believe that even Harrisonized's advocates are afraid that Harrisonized will cripple his enemies politically, economically, socially, morally, and psychologically eventually. I have seen their fear manifested over and over again and it is further evidence that there are some simple truths in this world. First, Harrisonized goes ga-ga for any type of charlatanism you can think of. Second, by reveling in grammatically incorrect English, Harrisonized slaughters our idiom and impoverishes our dialogue. And finally, Harrisonized's contrivances are a load of bunk. I use this delightfully pejorative term, "bunk"—an alternative from the same page of my criminal-slang lexicon would serve just as well—because there's a chance that Harrisonized will foment, precipitate, and finance large-scale wars to emasculate and bankrupt nations and thereby force them into a one-world government in the immediate years ahead. Well, that's extremely speculative but it is clear today that Harrisonized is utterly mistaken if he believes that he can convince criminals to fill out an application form before committing a crime. Let me end by saying that I know that what I have written in this letter will send many readers (especially any who are big fans of Mr. Harrisonized) into a tizzy or a tantrum. I am sorry, but I remind them that Harrisonized should be responsible for his own actions.

How did this thread turn into a hate thread for me after my first post?

How did this thread turn into a hate thread for me after my first post?

The fact that you take these seriously is what's making it so hilarious for them. I doubt anyone who posted in this thread even read through their generated complaint before they put it up.

Errrrr because a person arguing with an arguement generator (That should have been obvious enough because the arguement didn't make sense) is really weird?

Errrrr because a person arguing with an arguement generator (That should have been obvious enough because the arguement didn't make sense) is really weird?

Actually, if you bother to read it, it does make sense... it's just that most of what was directed to me was irrelevant to me so I felt I was being slandered.

Actually, if you bother to read it, it does make sense... it's just that most of what was directed to me was irrelevant to me so I felt I was being slandered.

*facepalm*

... I can't... even...

No, these arguments don't make sense. The whole point of using that generator is that it uses a ton of big words and references things most people don't know so that it appears to be an intelligent rant, but in actuality none of the things it says make any sense at all and anyone who actually knew about the subject would know it instantly. For example, the part about "This same argument was used against Copernicus and Galileo almost half a millenium ago"... No. It wasn't. No one said that Galileo was "wanting to take away as many opportunities for mischief as possible". It doesn't make sense at all.

No, these arguments don't make sense. The whole point of using that generator is that it uses a ton of big words and references things most people don't know so that it appears to be an intelligent rant, but in actuality none of the things it says make any sense at all and anyone who actually knew about the subject would know it instantly. For example, the part about "This same argument was used against Copernicus and Galileo almost half a millenium ago"... No. It wasn't. No one said that Galileo was "wanting to take away as many opportunities for mischief as possible". It doesn't make sense at all.

Some of it does, some of it doesn't. Linguistically, it makes sense. After reading through such dense material though, I seemed to stopped caring whether the arguments were valid and just answered as it went along.



I feel stupid.

I almost pee'd myself laughing. Thanks!

I almost pee'd myself laughing. Thanks!

You are too sadistic.

Doesn't anyone get the point? It doesn't matter for squat that I shall return to this point in particular. What's far more relevant is that Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator's agendas bespeak a spiritual crassness, a materialistic and short-sighted stupidity that will blend together cynicism and priggism in a train wreck of monumental proportions when you least expect it, . I will start this discussion by arguing that Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator evinces a bulldog-like instinct for going after the jugular of its intended victims. Then, I will present evidence that Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator wants to impose a one-size-fits-all model on how society should function. Such intolerance is felt by all people, from every background. To deny that appeasement is not the answer is immature nonsense and political irresponsibility. It is nonsense because Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator believes, in its elitist delirium, that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication. And it is irresponsible because the doom-and-gloom, it's-too-late crowd always plays right into its hands. That's the sort of statement that some people insist is uncouth but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made because it has remarked that it has answers to everything. This is a comment that should chill the spine of anyone with moral convictions. To make sure you understand I'll spell it out for you. For starters, if Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator bites me I will bite back.

Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator's machinations are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive—even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, by refusing to act, by refusing to reverse the devolutionary course that Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator has set for us, we are giving Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator the power to introduce more restrictions on our already dwindling freedoms.

Okay, I admit that Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator's writings are a treasure trove of ad hominem attacks, blockish accusations, and biased reporting from a merciless point of view. But certain facts are clear. For instance, Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator is unquestionably up to something. I don't know exactly what, but covinous casuists often take earthworms or similar small animals and impale them on a pin to enjoy watching them twist and writhe as they slowly die. Similarly, Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator enjoys watching respectable people twist and writhe whenever it threatens to remake the world to suit its own imprudent needs.

In Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator's sophistries, metagrobolism is witting and unremitting, satanic and rummy. It revels in it, rolls in it, and uses it to send the wrong message to children. Now, I am all for freedom of speech, but Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator says that despicable, unreasonable swaggerers are easily housebroken. That's a stupid thing to say. It's like saying that the purpose of life is self-gratification.

Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator claims that every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to engage in or goad others into engaging in illegal acts. Perhaps it has some sound arguments on its side but if so it's keeping them hidden. I'd say it's far more likely that we find among narrow and uneducated minds the belief that at birth every living being is assigned a celestial serial number or frequency power spectrum. This belief is due to a basic confusion that can be cleared up simply by stating that there are two types of people in this world. There are those who encourage the acceptance of scapegoating and demonization and there are those who tackle the multinational death machine that it is currently constructing. Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator fits neatly into the former category, of course. Let me end this letter by challenging my readers to begin a course of careful, planned, and coordinated action. Are you with me, or with the forces of oligarchism and oppression?

Actually, if you bother to read it, it does make sense... it's just that most of what was directed to me was irrelevant to me so I felt I was being slandered.

im pretty sure no one hates you bro. they just threw your name in the generator and copypasted away.

People just found it so amusing that a person would argue with a generated arguement, so they kept posting them. NOTHING in the actual content of the posts other than your name itself was put there by them