FlyingEagle, on 10 September 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:
Yea, what you in Penguin do in the bedroom is of little relevance to this thread...
I am writing on behalf of myself and a few of my friends to state that I challenge Auburn to tell me what, if anything, in this post is not entirely truthful. Let me preface my discussion by quickly reasserting a familiar theme of my previous posts: Auburn sucks because they suck. They are one year removed from being a raging dumpster fire of a program. Nevertheless, Auburn has written more than its fair share of lengthy, over-worded, pseudo-intellectual tripe. In all such instances it conveniently overlooks the fact that it needs to realize that it's not special. It's not a beautiful or unique snowflake. It's just another officialism-prone, disruptive quidnunc who wants to put increased disruptive powers in the hands of the most pharisaical practitioners of parasitism you'll ever see.
While stingy, antisocial Machiavellians have previously relied on violence to get their way, their new manipulation of vitriolic, unsavory diatribes has combined with violence to overthrow all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and the good, and instead drag people down into the sphere of Auburn's own base nature. Auburn is the lineal descendant of the braggarts who nailed Jesus to the cross. How much more illumination does that fact need before Auburn can grasp it? Assuming the answer is "a substantial amount", let me point out that I'm not very conversant with Auburn's background. To be quite frank, I don't care to be. I already know enough to state with confidence that Auburn's roorbacks are an icon for the deterioration of the city, for its slow slide into crime, malaise, and filth. I should note that if Auburn isn't iconoclastic, I don't know who is.
Think about it. Auburn is profoundly hostile to religious tolerance, democracy, and the notion of a secular civil society. If you doubt this, just ask around. Auburn should stop protesting against its weaknesses and shortcomings. Rather, it should forgive itself for them and seek to strengthen itself by facing its salacious fears. Then, perhaps, Auburn would stop evoking a misdirected response to genuine unresolved grievances. Auburn's objective is clear: to marginalize dissident voices any day now. I myself have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that if you don't think that the success of Auburn's opuscula relies upon the average voter not knowing whether our nation has gone communist, socialist, fascist, or merely insane, then you've missed the whole point of this post.
More concretely, Auburn's demands are pretentious. They're unnecessary. They're counterproductive. Whenever I encounter them I think that Auburn prizes wealth and celebrity over and above decent morals and sound judgment. For proof of this fact I must point out that there's a lot of daylight between Auburn's views and mine. It believes that representative government is an outmoded system that should be replaced by a system of overt charlatanism while I aver that its intent is to prevent us from asking questions. Auburn doesn't want the details checked. It doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts it presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of its "facts" are false.
Any rational argument must acknowledge this. Auburn's vagarious, anti-democratic suggestions, naturally, do not. Auburn has a knack for convincing ostentatious oligarchs that it can scare us by using big words like "theologicohistorical". That's called marketing. The underlying trick is to use sesquipedalian terms like "consubstantiationist" and "archaeopterygiformes" to keep its sales pitch from sounding pea-brained. That's why you really have to look hard to see that I allege we should knock down Auburn's house of cards. By "house of cards," I'm referring to the fragile, highly unstable, and neo-quisquilious framework of lies on which Auburn's popularity is based. Without that framework, people everywhere would come to realize that Auburn intends to create a new social class. Amateurish nutcases, pernicious vocabularians, and the worst classes of brutal, noxious scamps there are will be given aristocratic status. The rest of us will be forced into serving as their compatriots in exclusivism.
For the sake of the universe, I hope that this is the only planet that contains insensitive rabiators like Auburn. I respect Auburn's declamations, although we must convince cacodemonic loblollies to stop supporting Auburn and tolerating its plaints. If we fail in this, we are not failing someone else; we are not disrupting some interest separate from ourselves. Rather, it is we who suffer when we neglect to observe that Auburn refers to a variety of things using the word "anthropocentrical". Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, it's saying that it is better that a hundred thousand people should perish than that it should be even slightly inconvenienced, which we all know is patently absurd. At any rate, I want to live my life as I see fit. I can't do that while Auburn still has the ability to relabel millions of people as "untrustworthy".
I happen to believe that if you'll allow me a minor dysphemism, Auburn's policy of undermining the individualistic underpinnings of traditional jurisprudence will leave entire regions awash with rivers of human blood. Or, to phrase that a little more politely, Auburn is trying to perpetuate myths that glorify faddism. Their mission? To confiscate other people's rightful earnings. Let me give you a concrete example of Auburn's totally disreputable behavior. Really, the only way to deal with a subject like this is to study concrete examples—many concrete examples—to look at the details and observe how nobody seems to realize that Auburn is controlling and demanding. My example begins with the observation that I want to thank Auburn for its tactics. They give me an excellent opportunity to illustrate just how puzzleheaded Auburn can be.
Looking at it on the bright side, bookish tax cheats commonly succumb to Auburn's distortions, deceptions, and delusions. I do not. Rather, I take pride in restoring the world back to its original balance.
Auburn has been trying to convince us that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. This pathetic attempt to give me reason to feel disconnected from reality deserves no comment other than to say that Auburn should have been placed long ago in a locked psychiatric unit. I would have committed it to such a facility under the justification that it should stop calling me a discourteous-to-the-core sullen-type. Although I've been called worse things by better organizations, if you're like most people you just shrug your shoulders whenever you hear about Auburn's latest solutions. When your shoulders get tired of shrugging I hope you'll realize that I recently heard Auburn tell a bunch of people that the bogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to its demands. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text.
Auburn's fans like to attack my character. If your football team hits Auburn in the mouth, Auburn and its foot soldiers will run for cover like cockroaches in a dirty kitchen when the light is turned on suddenly during the night. That's why we must illustrate the virtues that Auburn lacks—courage, truthfulness, courtesy, honesty, diligence, chivalry, and industry. That's our situation today, in very rough outline. Of course, I've left out a thousand details and refinements and qualifications. I've not mentioned that one could make a strong argument that it is the height of arrogance and untruthfulness for Auburn to imply that it commands an army of robots that live in the hollow center of the earth and produce earthquakes whenever they feel like shaking things up a bit on the surface. And I've ignored incendiarism altogether. I've simply pointed out one key fact: It should not be allowed to operate heavy machinery, specifically, its ego.
Edited by ForwardRebels, 10 September 2013 - 05:46 PM.