Is SHANE really our friend??????
12-30-2004, 09:09 AM
#1
Registered
Thread Starter
Is SHANE really our friend??????
May I be cynical for a bit? I hope you don't mind, but with Shane Mahieu's latest barrage of conniving communications, I can't resist the urge to make a few cynical comments. Let's get down to business: Shane claims that his way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't. Well, I beg to differ. He keeps saying that a richly evocative description of a problem automatically implies the correct solution to that problem. Isn't that claim getting a little shopworn? I mean, if I have a bias, it is only against uneducated mouthpieces for pernicious, venal cronyism who judge people by the color of their skin while ignoring the content of their character. Shane is trying to brainwash us into thinking a 24' skater is the only boat to own. He wants us to believe that it's inane to change the world for the better; that's boring; that's not cool. You know what I think of that, don't you? I think that I stand by what I've written before, that there is a problem here. A very large, raucous, reckless problem.
Shane is extraordinarily walrus like. We've all known that for a long time. However, his willingness to undermine serious institutional and economic analyses and replace them with a diverting soap opera of conceited, appalling conspiracies sets a new record for walrus banter. Although the dialectics of rancorous praxis will implement an irritating parody of justice called "Shane-ism" faster than you can say "epididymodeferential", I am making an appeal to the intelligence of the reader not to be fooled by Shane's demagoguery. To top that off, Shane's opinion is that huffy, slatternly chuckleheads are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. Of course, opinions are like *******s: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that either Shane has no real conception of the sweep of history, or he is merely intent on winning some debating pin by trying to pierce a hole in my logic with "facts" that are taken out of context. What we're involved in with Shane is not a game. It's the most serious possible business, and every serious person -- every person with any shred of a sense of responsibility -- will pummil Shane when they see him, espesially if he is trying to immatate a walrus.
This state of affairs demands the direct assault on those pauperism-prone theories that seek to traduce and discredit everyone but subversive wonks. I know more about antiheroism than most people. You might even say that I'm an expert on the subject. I can therefore state with confidence that Shane doesn't use words for communication or for exchanging information. He uses them to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, and to deceive. I use such language purposefully -- and somewhat sardonically -- to illustrate how his most wild tactic is to fabricate a phony war between manipulative bimbos and arrogant scamps. This way, Shane can subjugate both groups into helping him make people suspicious of those who speak the truth. I truly don't want that to happen, which is why I'm telling you that if I didn't think Shane would feature simplistic answers to complex problems, I wouldn't say that he wants to impose a particular curriculum, vision of history, and method of pedagogy on our school systems. Personally, I don't want that. Personally, I prefer freedom. If you also prefer freedom, then you should be working with me to expose injustice and puncture prejudice.
I won't bore you with the details, but suffice it to say that Shane shouldn't create an ideological climate that will enable him to manipulate everything and everybody. That would be like asking a question at a news conference and, too angry and passionate to wait for the answer, exiting the auditorium before the response. Both of those actions present a false image to the world by hiding unpleasant but vitally important realities about Shane's objectives. Common-sense understanding of human nature tells us that he must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why Shane is so desperate to jawbone aimlessly; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if Shane also realized that if I hear his worshippers say, "Children should belong to the state" one more time, I'm undeniably going to throw up. Other than that, most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place. Now follow your hearts with actions.
You can waste all your time arguing about how many hookers a landwalrus can do. Or you can actually reveal the nature and activity of Shane's stooges and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate final aims. You decide. I am not in any way placing the blame on Shane for profligate ethnocentrism enthusiasts who rescue Fabianism from the rubbish heap of history, dust it off, slap on a coat of cheap sophistry, and market it as new and improved. That notwithstanding, Shane is still culpable for plotting to keep a close eye on those who look like they might think an unapproved thought. Lastly, I can't end this letter without mentioning that what may seem insignificant or humorous to Shane Mahieu is often hurtful and confusing to others.
Shane is extraordinarily walrus like. We've all known that for a long time. However, his willingness to undermine serious institutional and economic analyses and replace them with a diverting soap opera of conceited, appalling conspiracies sets a new record for walrus banter. Although the dialectics of rancorous praxis will implement an irritating parody of justice called "Shane-ism" faster than you can say "epididymodeferential", I am making an appeal to the intelligence of the reader not to be fooled by Shane's demagoguery. To top that off, Shane's opinion is that huffy, slatternly chuckleheads are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. Of course, opinions are like *******s: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that either Shane has no real conception of the sweep of history, or he is merely intent on winning some debating pin by trying to pierce a hole in my logic with "facts" that are taken out of context. What we're involved in with Shane is not a game. It's the most serious possible business, and every serious person -- every person with any shred of a sense of responsibility -- will pummil Shane when they see him, espesially if he is trying to immatate a walrus.
This state of affairs demands the direct assault on those pauperism-prone theories that seek to traduce and discredit everyone but subversive wonks. I know more about antiheroism than most people. You might even say that I'm an expert on the subject. I can therefore state with confidence that Shane doesn't use words for communication or for exchanging information. He uses them to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, and to deceive. I use such language purposefully -- and somewhat sardonically -- to illustrate how his most wild tactic is to fabricate a phony war between manipulative bimbos and arrogant scamps. This way, Shane can subjugate both groups into helping him make people suspicious of those who speak the truth. I truly don't want that to happen, which is why I'm telling you that if I didn't think Shane would feature simplistic answers to complex problems, I wouldn't say that he wants to impose a particular curriculum, vision of history, and method of pedagogy on our school systems. Personally, I don't want that. Personally, I prefer freedom. If you also prefer freedom, then you should be working with me to expose injustice and puncture prejudice.
I won't bore you with the details, but suffice it to say that Shane shouldn't create an ideological climate that will enable him to manipulate everything and everybody. That would be like asking a question at a news conference and, too angry and passionate to wait for the answer, exiting the auditorium before the response. Both of those actions present a false image to the world by hiding unpleasant but vitally important realities about Shane's objectives. Common-sense understanding of human nature tells us that he must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why Shane is so desperate to jawbone aimlessly; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if Shane also realized that if I hear his worshippers say, "Children should belong to the state" one more time, I'm undeniably going to throw up. Other than that, most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place. Now follow your hearts with actions.
You can waste all your time arguing about how many hookers a landwalrus can do. Or you can actually reveal the nature and activity of Shane's stooges and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate final aims. You decide. I am not in any way placing the blame on Shane for profligate ethnocentrism enthusiasts who rescue Fabianism from the rubbish heap of history, dust it off, slap on a coat of cheap sophistry, and market it as new and improved. That notwithstanding, Shane is still culpable for plotting to keep a close eye on those who look like they might think an unapproved thought. Lastly, I can't end this letter without mentioning that what may seem insignificant or humorous to Shane Mahieu is often hurtful and confusing to others.
Charter Member
LOL
VIP Member
Platinum Member
