Scientist censored on every Social Network

Stros121 · February 23

What ever happened to Romeo Rose?

elfenix · February 23

1 hour ago, Stros121 said:

What ever happened to Romeo Rose?

i assume fitlump used her horn to suck out his life force and that's how she ended up on city council

TexasEd · February 23

On 2/21/2024 at 1:55 PM, RDCanecutter said:

Texas has already seceded from Mexico and from the US. The only artistically viable remaining secession is from Canada. This will of course require a stealthy unification with Canada first, otherwise secession would be chest-thumping play-action. But my people inform me that it has been underway and is nearly complete. I almost feel sorry for those Canadians, but they are fools, such trusting fools.

We already have a Canadian Senator

JosephStang · February 23

In this thread a dumb cunt mathematician compares a 10d string theory to a 3d geometry.

Blotto · February 23

20 minutes ago, JosephStang said:

In this thread a dumb cunt mathematician compares a 10d string theory to a 3d geometry.

Well someone sure put their grumpy pants on as soon as the natives became distracted. As we are wont to do.

utee94 · February 23

7 hours ago, JosephStang said:

In this thread a dumb cunt mathematician compares a 10d string theory to a 3d geometry.

I really have no idea why the actual, real scientists and mathematicians are ignoring you. It's mind-bottling.

Gatorubet · February 23

4 minutes ago, utee94 said:

I really have no idea why the actual, real scientists and mathematicians are ignoring you. It's mind-bottling.

They are just jealous of his Holonomic Toroid discovery, all of them angry that they missed a 3d Real Local Hidden Variable Theory with one force…. in accordance with the prophecy.

MissingInAction · February 23

Please don't crowd source this bot.

Thus is the most entertaining thread we've had in a while.

F the off-season

Trey3216 · February 23

7 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

They are just jealous of his Holonomic Toroid discovery, all of them angry that they missed a 3d Real Local Hidden Variable Theory with one force…. in accordance with the prophecy.

...and the hadiths

Prepuce of Doom · February 23

1 hour ago, Trey3216 said:

...and the hadiths

...and the Shuvs

Jerry Callo · February 23

1 hour ago, Trey3216 said:

...and the hadiths

and the hadithnots

DDD Dad · February 23

Beau Vine · February 23

Once again, I am writing in response to Joseph Stang’s warnings, and once again, I merely wish to point out that Stang must mend his ways. Let me give you a vastly oversimplified yet still basically true explanation of why I say that Stang loves calling his disparagers ghastly smart-mouths as if this were some magic incantation with the power to ward off evil. The term is evidently an effective, all-purpose slur that stifles discussion and demonizes one’s targets. Sadly, that tactic works well enough in most cases to conceal the fact that our formerly brave populace now lives in fear under the yoke of a pouty Joseph Stang. The fact that this point is obvious to any grade-schooler who has yet to be indoctrinated by Stang’s unfriendly screeds makes it no less anathema to the sensibilities of Stang’s band. As we all know, offending those sensibilities is what leads such improvident spoiled brats to call for ritualistic invocations of needlessly formal rules. I don’t mean to condemn anyone’s beliefs, but Stang says I’m capricious. Well, if capricious means, wants to put an end to Stang’s evildoing then sure, call me capricious. I don’t mind because there are two things we need to do right away. First, we need to bring fresh leadership and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy. Second—and this is critical so get out your highlighter—we need to take action. Once those two things are accomplished we can finally start discussing how you may make the comment, What does this have to do with frightful, uncivilized dissemblers? Well, once you begin to see the light you’ll realize that nothing unites people like a common enemy. That’s why I would encourage everybody to take some shots of their own at Stang by reprimanding him for lowering scholastic standards.

Not only have the worst kinds of dim bulbs there are decided to glorify their campaigns of demagoguery and disinformation by dressing them up as moral and righteous prerogatives, but their teachings are being debated as though they were actually reasonable. Why is Stang really so waspish? Is it because his inability to fathom what I am talking about is betrayed by his insistence that he’s a living bodhisattva of peace and nonviolence? Or because before I knew anything about him, I was once an onlooker at a few of Stang’s mass demonstrations, without possessing even the slightest insight into the mentality of his confederates or the nature of his diegeses? I’m sure you already know the answer so I won’t bother repeating it. I’d like to emphasize, however, that Stang is certifiably condescending. Anyone who refuses to accept that fact is abysmally ridiculous, sneaky, and uppish.

On a similar note, Stang’s expedients are a logical absurdity, a series of deductions from a premise that has been denied. Speaking of absurdities, there’s no point in engaging Stang in debate. He’s unlikely to display rationality, dignity, or professionalism in any serious confabulation. Stang simply would behave like a skeevy, treacherous barmpot and try to justify packaging and selling exclusivism—and making a huge profit from doing so. While I have no proof that he exhibits certain features that a humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, you should still believe me, as he doesn’t want us to know about his plans to foist the most poisonously false and destructive myths imaginable upon us. Otherwise, we might do something about that.

All no-nonsense, clear-eyed people sense intuitively that Stang is a card-carrying member of the Hypocrisy Club. That’s the theory, at least. But in practice, I once told Stang that he indubitably benefits from society’s institutionalized favoritism, structural emotionalism, and the lingering legacy of recidivism. How did he respond to that? He proceeded to curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this letter, which serves only to show that I know some sappy, obnoxious jackanapes who actually believe that Stang is an expert on everything from aardvarks to zymurgy. Incredible? Those same people have told me that no one is smart enough to see through his transparent lies. With such people roaming about, it should come as no surprise to you that hidebound, chauvinistic buggers like Stang are not born—they are excreted. However unsavory that metaphor may be, I need your help if I’m ever to do what needs to be done. But I’m only one person, you might protest. What difference can I make? The answer is: a lot more than you think. You see, rancorous smell-feasts 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, Stang enjoys watching respectable people twist and writhe whenever he threatens to prevent people from thinking and visualizing beyond an increasingly psychologically caged existence.

There is no contradiction here; even though Stang’s foot soldiers share a different voice and different moral sensibilities from the rest of us, you mustn’t forget that there are two challenges we must face if we wish to repair the perfidious world we have inherited from Stang. The first challenge is to convert retreat into advance. This is only slightly less difficult than the second challenge, which is to convey to people the knowledge that I don’t know if Stang’s rude, irrational bunco games were borne out of arrogance, paranoia, or both. I do know, however, that most people would agree that he shows a curious unwillingness to change the world for the better. But once you’ve admitted that, you’ve admitted that Stang has bats in the belfry if he thinks divine ichor flows through his veins. And it follows inexorably that, except in special cases, where there’s no name for a problem, you can’t see a problem, and when you can’t see a problem, you pretty much can’t solve it. The name of our problem is Joseph Stang, and I feel that the solution is to pronounce the truth and renounce the lies. This will not be easy, and progress will not be instantaneous. Still, I am committed to getting it right, and that’s why I’m telling you that Stang is exceedingly birdbrained, brutal, hectoring, carnaptious, boisterous, lecherous, thrasonical, brazen, unforgiving, and yawping. Sorry for the synathroesmus, but he has been trying hard to separate us off into various, antagonistic camps. I allege we should oppose that effort by encouraging students to be bold, independent, and creative thinkers. There are several valid and obvious reasons why I avow that. Perhaps the most important reason is that Stang gets a lot of perks from the system. True to form, he ceaselessly moves the goalposts to prevent others from benefiting from the same perks. This suggests that Stang’s precepts are merely a stalking horse. They mask his secret intention to attack the very fabric of this nation.

Although this has been overlooked or ignored by the established scientific community, Stang wants to violate values so important to our sense of community. Has he gone around the bend? One rarely encounters an answer to such questions, largely because the answer can be surprisingly complicated. Given its importance, though, it is honestly worth discussing. To begin at the beginning, there are people better equipped to cope with life than ribald, debauched plunderers. Still, I recommend you check out some of Stang’s hot takes and draw your own conclusions on the matter. Given that no one is more opposed to obscurantism than I, I can safely state that Stang would have us believe that metanarratives are the root of tyranny, lawlessness, overpopulation, racial hatred, world hunger, disease, and rank stupidity. Yeah, right. And I also suppose that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance? The fact of the matter is that I am perhaps one of the few people who have read his chippy commentaries in their entirety. This wasn’t easy reading, mind you. I was endlessly daunted and halted by their laborious dullness, their flatulent fatuity, and their almost fabulous inconsequentiality. Reading these commentaries convinced me more than anything that Stang believes with sincere conviction that anyone who disagrees with him is a potential terrorist. Providing a cornucopia of evidence to the contrary won’t faze him; he’s immune to any sort of reality check. That’s why if it’s your modest ambition, as it is Stang’s, to introduce more restrictions on our already dwindling freedoms, then you need to eliminate your denigrators. Stang’s denigrators are people like you and me who want to tell everyone around that Stang does not believe in the rule of law. He does not believe in facts. He does not believe in logic. He believes only that he’s a martyr for freedom and a victim of antinomianism. That’s the biggest pack of lies and distortions I’ve ever encountered. What’s more, Stang occasionally writes letters accusing me and my friends of being the most nettlesome rakes I’ve ever seen. These letters are typically couched in gutter language (which is doubtless the language in which Stang habitually thinks) and serve no purpose other than to convince me that I know firsthand the importance of gathering facts and holding them up to scrutiny. In the case of Stang’s abysmal proposed social programs, I have examined the evidence and can say with confidence that conclaves of Stang’s spin doctors have all the dissent found in a North Korean communist party meeting. That’s why no one there will ever admit that ever since Stang decided to pollute the great canon of English literature with references to his balmy ruminations, his consistent, unvarying line has been that jackbooted, arrogant vandals who promote the loopy tirades of contumelious, neurotic varmints are merely misunderstood. I claim I understand them quite well, actually. I understand that they can’t bear the thought of anyone spreading the news about how Stang does not merely lack empathy for those who suffer as a result of his rageful machinations. He relishes his lack of empathy. He glories in his callousness. He is proud of his inhumanity. And as if all that weren’t bad enough, he warrants we should hold off on focusing on concrete facts, on hard news, on analyzing and interpreting what’s happening in the world. Let’s play along with that scenario for the moment. Do you really think that if we obliged Stang’s request he wouldn’t immediately set the hoops through which we all must jump? Obviously he would. The conclusion you should therefore draw is that Stang is always trying to change the way we work. This annoys me because his previous changes have always been for the worse. I’m positive that Stang’s new changes will be even more iracund because his apocrisiaries get a thrill out of protesting. They have no idea what causes they’re fighting for or against. For them, going down to the local protest, carrying a sign, hanging out with Stang, and meeting some other overweening peddlers of snake-oil remedies is merely a social event. They’re not even aware that if Stang were as bright as he thinks he is, he’d know that someone once asked me if we should appease him by, just once, letting him create widespread psychological suffering. My answer was a resounding no because, as the saying goes, He who becomes compassionate to the cruel will ultimately become cruel to the compassionate. In other words, Stang has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and convince every smear sheet in the country to refer to his hecklers as intransigent, ungrateful malingerers—all by trumping up a phony emergency.

On rare occasions, in order to preserve their liberties, sometimes people must spheterize other people’s belongings. Stang does that even when his liberties aren’t being threatened. Whether or not the Olympics is held in any given year, the Conformism Olympics continues unabated. The latest entrant to the competition is Joseph Stang, who qualifies for a special medal for causing new and possibly irreversible damage to the democratic ethos and institutions that have already been weakened by his diversivolent, covetous pranks. Before last week I hadn’t realized that his memoranda create suffocating, dehumanizing conditions that lead to despondence and despair. Now that I’ve been suitably enlightened, I can say with certainty that Stang’s eccentricity is surpassed only by his vanity, and his vanity is surpassed only by his empty theorizing. (Remember his theory that embracing a system of nonrepresentationalism will make everything right with the world?)

Because we have the determination to see the truth prevail, we must never forget that nugatory doesn’t begin to cover the reasons for Stang’s self-satisfied, cocky behavior. Neither does grungy. New words will be needed to fully explain how Stang is trapped in a vicious cycle. The more opposition to his campaigns of terror he faces, the more vile he becomes. The more vile he becomes, the more opposition to his campaigns of terror he faces. Stang, you are welcome to get off my back this time and stay off. Although it may be beyond our capabilities to express unconditional love to all of humanity, it is well within our grasp to state unequivocally that there are two important points I’d like to bring up here. First, there is no real way to undo the consequences of Stang’s unctuous, sadistic shell games. Second, it’s time for sensible adults to enter back into the room and have serious, earnest, respectful conversations about his misguided excoriations. To the average man, neither of these two points is of any particular importance. So what?, he might ask. There’s no harm in conducting business in a pernicious, resentful way. How wrong the average man would be. In actuality, one of the stuporous, uneducated nupsons in Stang’s employ has penned an extensive treatise whose thesis is that Stang would never even consider bringing ugliness and nastiness into our lives. Contrary to what that embarrassingly emollient hagiography asserts, anyone who hasn’t been living in a cave with his eyes shut and his ears plugged knows that I am more than merely surprised by Stang’s willingness to build a totalitarian death machine. I’m shocked, shocked. And, as if that weren’t enough, Stang should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory.

It is important to differentiate between meddlesome dinks and unmannerly psychopaths who, in a variety of ways, have been lured by Stang’s vindictive rodomontades or who have ended up wittingly or unwittingly in coalitions with Stang’s functionaries or who maintain contact with Stang as part of serious and legitimate research. Stang seems incapable of understanding that while he has been beating the drums of absolutism, I’ve been trying to drag him in front of a tribunal and try him for his crimes against humanity. In doing so, I’ve learned that conspiracy theories are Stang’s bread and butter, and the wilder, the better. His most outré claim is that using grammatically correct language is a racist trait. This claim sets a new standard for lascivious reportages and shows how if we don’t speak clearly and forcefully in the face of intolerance and violence, our children will curse us in our graves. Speaking of our children, we need to teach them diligently that a large number of people, myself included, figured Stang would never stoop so low as to extinguish the voices of opposition. Nevertheless, despite some progressive words and symbolic gestures, he chose to do exactly that. As a result, I can safely say that the virulence of metagrobolism—specifically, its potential to impact public policy for years to come—is apparent in every one of Stang’s screeds. (Note the heroic restraint stopping me from saying that when Stang says that his mind games surpass most intellectual discourse in terms of the cogency of what they promote and the morality of their implications, he’s just plain wrong—not partially wrong but utterly and entirely wrong.)

What Stang is incapable of seeing is that an insidious form of hoodlumism has taken root in our society. This form of hoodlumism is distinguished by its complete denial of the fact that Stang was a negligent, self-deluded extortionist when I first encountered him. Stang is a negligent, self-deluded extortionist now. And there is no more reason for believing that Stang will ever cease to be a negligent, self-deluded extortionist than there is for supposing that expansionism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. Just don’t expect consistency from a man who is totally and sincerely xenophobic. As this letter draws to a close, I want to challenge you, the reader, to communicate and teach. That’s what I intend to do until my last breath.

Pescado_Rojo · February 23

8 minutes ago, Jerry Callo said:

and the hadithnots

and the Irish

dcbc · February 23

On 2/22/2024 at 8:54 AM, JosephStang said:

I'm starting to like this place. At least when a bunch of dumb clowns say dumb clown bullshit nobody bans me for calling them dumb clowns.

No, you dumb clown. Nobody has ever envisioned that geometry before I did. Ever. In the history of the human race.

And you want to be my latex salesman?

Hard Times · February 23

29 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Once again, I am writing in response to Joseph Stang’s warnings, and once again, I merely wish to point out that Stang must mend his ways. Let me give you a vastly oversimplified yet still basically true explanation of why I say that Stang loves calling his disparagers ghastly smart-mouths as if this were some magic incantation with the power to ward off evil. The term is evidently an effective, all-purpose slur that stifles discussion and demonizes one’s targets. Sadly, that tactic works well enough in most cases to conceal the fact that our formerly brave populace now lives in fear under the yoke of a pouty Joseph Stang. The fact that this point is obvious to any grade-schooler who has yet to be indoctrinated by Stang’s unfriendly screeds makes it no less anathema to the sensibilities of Stang’s band. As we all know, offending those sensibilities is what leads such improvident spoiled brats to call for ritualistic invocations of needlessly formal rules. I don’t mean to condemn anyone’s beliefs, but Stang says I’m capricious. Well, if capricious means, wants to put an end to Stang’s evildoing then sure, call me capricious. I don’t mind because there are two things we need to do right away. First, we need to bring fresh leadership and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy. Second—and this is critical so get out your highlighter—we need to take action. Once those two things are accomplished we can finally start discussing how you may make the comment, What does this have to do with frightful, uncivilized dissemblers? Well, once you begin to see the light you’ll realize that nothing unites people like a common enemy. That’s why I would encourage everybody to take some shots of their own at Stang by reprimanding him for lowering scholastic standards.

Not only have the worst kinds of dim bulbs there are decided to glorify their campaigns of demagoguery and disinformation by dressing them up as moral and righteous prerogatives, but their teachings are being debated as though they were actually reasonable. Why is Stang really so waspish? Is it because his inability to fathom what I am talking about is betrayed by his insistence that he’s a living bodhisattva of peace and nonviolence? Or because before I knew anything about him, I was once an onlooker at a few of Stang’s mass demonstrations, without possessing even the slightest insight into the mentality of his confederates or the nature of his diegeses? I’m sure you already know the answer so I won’t bother repeating it. I’d like to emphasize, however, that Stang is certifiably condescending. Anyone who refuses to accept that fact is abysmally ridiculous, sneaky, and uppish.

On a similar note, Stang’s expedients are a logical absurdity, a series of deductions from a premise that has been denied. Speaking of absurdities, there’s no point in engaging Stang in debate. He’s unlikely to display rationality, dignity, or professionalism in any serious confabulation. Stang simply would behave like a skeevy, treacherous barmpot and try to justify packaging and selling exclusivism—and making a huge profit from doing so. While I have no proof that he exhibits certain features that a humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, you should still believe me, as he doesn’t want us to know about his plans to foist the most poisonously false and destructive myths imaginable upon us. Otherwise, we might do something about that.

All no-nonsense, clear-eyed people sense intuitively that Stang is a card-carrying member of the Hypocrisy Club. That’s the theory, at least. But in practice, I once told Stang that he indubitably benefits from society’s institutionalized favoritism, structural emotionalism, and the lingering legacy of recidivism. How did he respond to that? He proceeded to curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this letter, which serves only to show that I know some sappy, obnoxious jackanapes who actually believe that Stang is an expert on everything from aardvarks to zymurgy. Incredible? Those same people have told me that no one is smart enough to see through his transparent lies. With such people roaming about, it should come as no surprise to you that hidebound, chauvinistic buggers like Stang are not born—they are excreted. However unsavory that metaphor may be, I need your help if I’m ever to do what needs to be done. But I’m only one person, you might protest. What difference can I make? The answer is: a lot more than you think. You see, rancorous smell-feasts 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, Stang enjoys watching respectable people twist and writhe whenever he threatens to prevent people from thinking and visualizing beyond an increasingly psychologically caged existence.

There is no contradiction here; even though Stang’s foot soldiers share a different voice and different moral sensibilities from the rest of us, you mustn’t forget that there are two challenges we must face if we wish to repair the perfidious world we have inherited from Stang. The first challenge is to convert retreat into advance. This is only slightly less difficult than the second challenge, which is to convey to people the knowledge that I don’t know if Stang’s rude, irrational bunco games were borne out of arrogance, paranoia, or both. I do know, however, that most people would agree that he shows a curious unwillingness to change the world for the better. But once you’ve admitted that, you’ve admitted that Stang has bats in the belfry if he thinks divine ichor flows through his veins. And it follows inexorably that, except in special cases, where there’s no name for a problem, you can’t see a problem, and when you can’t see a problem, you pretty much can’t solve it. The name of our problem is Joseph Stang, and I feel that the solution is to pronounce the truth and renounce the lies. This will not be easy, and progress will not be instantaneous. Still, I am committed to getting it right, and that’s why I’m telling you that Stang is exceedingly birdbrained, brutal, hectoring, carnaptious, boisterous, lecherous, thrasonical, brazen, unforgiving, and yawping. Sorry for the synathroesmus, but he has been trying hard to separate us off into various, antagonistic camps. I allege we should oppose that effort by encouraging students to be bold, independent, and creative thinkers. There are several valid and obvious reasons why I avow that. Perhaps the most important reason is that Stang gets a lot of perks from the system. True to form, he ceaselessly moves the goalposts to prevent others from benefiting from the same perks. This suggests that Stang’s precepts are merely a stalking horse. They mask his secret intention to attack the very fabric of this nation.

Although this has been overlooked or ignored by the established scientific community, Stang wants to violate values so important to our sense of community. Has he gone around the bend? One rarely encounters an answer to such questions, largely because the answer can be surprisingly complicated. Given its importance, though, it is honestly worth discussing. To begin at the beginning, there are people better equipped to cope with life than ribald, debauched plunderers. Still, I recommend you check out some of Stang’s hot takes and draw your own conclusions on the matter. Given that no one is more opposed to obscurantism than I, I can safely state that Stang would have us believe that metanarratives are the root of tyranny, lawlessness, overpopulation, racial hatred, world hunger, disease, and rank stupidity. Yeah, right. And I also suppose that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance? The fact of the matter is that I am perhaps one of the few people who have read his chippy commentaries in their entirety. This wasn’t easy reading, mind you. I was endlessly daunted and halted by their laborious dullness, their flatulent fatuity, and their almost fabulous inconsequentiality. Reading these commentaries convinced me more than anything that Stang believes with sincere conviction that anyone who disagrees with him is a potential terrorist. Providing a cornucopia of evidence to the contrary won’t faze him; he’s immune to any sort of reality check. That’s why if it’s your modest ambition, as it is Stang’s, to introduce more restrictions on our already dwindling freedoms, then you need to eliminate your denigrators. Stang’s denigrators are people like you and me who want to tell everyone around that Stang does not believe in the rule of law. He does not believe in facts. He does not believe in logic. He believes only that he’s a martyr for freedom and a victim of antinomianism. That’s the biggest pack of lies and distortions I’ve ever encountered. What’s more, Stang occasionally writes letters accusing me and my friends of being the most nettlesome rakes I’ve ever seen. These letters are typically couched in gutter language (which is doubtless the language in which Stang habitually thinks) and serve no purpose other than to convince me that I know firsthand the importance of gathering facts and holding them up to scrutiny. In the case of Stang’s abysmal proposed social programs, I have examined the evidence and can say with confidence that conclaves of Stang’s spin doctors have all the dissent found in a North Korean communist party meeting. That’s why no one there will ever admit that ever since Stang decided to pollute the great canon of English literature with references to his balmy ruminations, his consistent, unvarying line has been that jackbooted, arrogant vandals who promote the loopy tirades of contumelious, neurotic varmints are merely misunderstood. I claim I understand them quite well, actually. I understand that they can’t bear the thought of anyone spreading the news about how Stang does not merely lack empathy for those who suffer as a result of his rageful machinations. He relishes his lack of empathy. He glories in his callousness. He is proud of his inhumanity. And as if all that weren’t bad enough, he warrants we should hold off on focusing on concrete facts, on hard news, on analyzing and interpreting what’s happening in the world. Let’s play along with that scenario for the moment. Do you really think that if we obliged Stang’s request he wouldn’t immediately set the hoops through which we all must jump? Obviously he would. The conclusion you should therefore draw is that Stang is always trying to change the way we work. This annoys me because his previous changes have always been for the worse. I’m positive that Stang’s new changes will be even more iracund because his apocrisiaries get a thrill out of protesting. They have no idea what causes they’re fighting for or against. For them, going down to the local protest, carrying a sign, hanging out with Stang, and meeting some other overweening peddlers of snake-oil remedies is merely a social event. They’re not even aware that if Stang were as bright as he thinks he is, he’d know that someone once asked me if we should appease him by, just once, letting him create widespread psychological suffering. My answer was a resounding no because, as the saying goes, He who becomes compassionate to the cruel will ultimately become cruel to the compassionate. In other words, Stang has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and convince every smear sheet in the country to refer to his hecklers as intransigent, ungrateful malingerers—all by trumping up a phony emergency.

On rare occasions, in order to preserve their liberties, sometimes people must spheterize other people’s belongings. Stang does that even when his liberties aren’t being threatened. Whether or not the Olympics is held in any given year, the Conformism Olympics continues unabated. The latest entrant to the competition is Joseph Stang, who qualifies for a special medal for causing new and possibly irreversible damage to the democratic ethos and institutions that have already been weakened by his diversivolent, covetous pranks. Before last week I hadn’t realized that his memoranda create suffocating, dehumanizing conditions that lead to despondence and despair. Now that I’ve been suitably enlightened, I can say with certainty that Stang’s eccentricity is surpassed only by his vanity, and his vanity is surpassed only by his empty theorizing. (Remember his theory that embracing a system of nonrepresentationalism will make everything right with the world?)

Because we have the determination to see the truth prevail, we must never forget that nugatory doesn’t begin to cover the reasons for Stang’s self-satisfied, cocky behavior. Neither does grungy. New words will be needed to fully explain how Stang is trapped in a vicious cycle. The more opposition to his campaigns of terror he faces, the more vile he becomes. The more vile he becomes, the more opposition to his campaigns of terror he faces. Stang, you are welcome to get off my back this time and stay off. Although it may be beyond our capabilities to express unconditional love to all of humanity, it is well within our grasp to state unequivocally that there are two important points I’d like to bring up here. First, there is no real way to undo the consequences of Stang’s unctuous, sadistic shell games. Second, it’s time for sensible adults to enter back into the room and have serious, earnest, respectful conversations about his misguided excoriations. To the average man, neither of these two points is of any particular importance. So what?, he might ask. There’s no harm in conducting business in a pernicious, resentful way. How wrong the average man would be. In actuality, one of the stuporous, uneducated nupsons in Stang’s employ has penned an extensive treatise whose thesis is that Stang would never even consider bringing ugliness and nastiness into our lives. Contrary to what that embarrassingly emollient hagiography asserts, anyone who hasn’t been living in a cave with his eyes shut and his ears plugged knows that I am more than merely surprised by Stang’s willingness to build a totalitarian death machine. I’m shocked, shocked. And, as if that weren’t enough, Stang should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory.

It is important to differentiate between meddlesome dinks and unmannerly psychopaths who, in a variety of ways, have been lured by Stang’s vindictive rodomontades or who have ended up wittingly or unwittingly in coalitions with Stang’s functionaries or who maintain contact with Stang as part of serious and legitimate research. Stang seems incapable of understanding that while he has been beating the drums of absolutism, I’ve been trying to drag him in front of a tribunal and try him for his crimes against humanity. In doing so, I’ve learned that conspiracy theories are Stang’s bread and butter, and the wilder, the better. His most outré claim is that using grammatically correct language is a racist trait. This claim sets a new standard for lascivious reportages and shows how if we don’t speak clearly and forcefully in the face of intolerance and violence, our children will curse us in our graves. Speaking of our children, we need to teach them diligently that a large number of people, myself included, figured Stang would never stoop so low as to extinguish the voices of opposition. Nevertheless, despite some progressive words and symbolic gestures, he chose to do exactly that. As a result, I can safely say that the virulence of metagrobolism—specifically, its potential to impact public policy for years to come—is apparent in every one of Stang’s screeds. (Note the heroic restraint stopping me from saying that when Stang says that his mind games surpass most intellectual discourse in terms of the cogency of what they promote and the morality of their implications, he’s just plain wrong—not partially wrong but utterly and entirely wrong.)

What Stang is incapable of seeing is that an insidious form of hoodlumism has taken root in our society. This form of hoodlumism is distinguished by its complete denial of the fact that Stang was a negligent, self-deluded extortionist when I first encountered him. Stang is a negligent, self-deluded extortionist now. And there is no more reason for believing that Stang will ever cease to be a negligent, self-deluded extortionist than there is for supposing that expansionism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. Just don’t expect consistency from a man who is totally and sincerely xenophobic. As this letter draws to a close, I want to challenge you, the reader, to communicate and teach. That’s what I intend to do until my last breath.

DRTL 🤣

Fudge Nuggets · February 23

17 hours ago, Pimphand said:

If you want to see how far the rabbit hole goes start with Solar Cycle 10 when in 1859 we had the Carrington Event which was an X-45 class solar flare which at the time caused it to get so bright in Colorado the miners woke up thinking it was time to start working. Aurora events were seen as far south as the Caribbean, and telegraph operators burned their hands and even said unplugged telegraphs started taking readings. If we get anything close to that in modern times it's game over for the internet and the power grid globally.....

Solar cycles run in 11 year cycles and every 8 solar cycles is a Gleissberg cycle. Well if you take 1859 and add 88 to it you wind up in 1947 which just so happened to produce the 3 largest sun spots ever recorded including one group that was 3x the size of Jupiter (whose Great Red Spot (hurricane) which is 3x the size of earth for scale). Well if you go 88 years out from 1947 it takes you to 2035 which will be near the peak of Solar Cycle 26. I'm not saying the modern way of life will go away then just that the odds are stacked against us making it too much further down the road than ~2046 in that regard.

But run along obedience worshippers you tried to saddle us with lockdowns, quaccines, told us we were the most deplorable pieces of shit for not playing your stupid games and despite the 100 million dollar advertising agenda to get you sheep to get scared and obey taking the poison. Instead we sat there with our middle fingers up and took all the criticism and look at your stupid narradigm now we tore that shit apart despite being the vast minority. Have fun ever thinking anyone of any level of critical thought will ever take you seriously ever again.

Since 1947 we should have had about 7 of these cataclysmic events, yet here we are. I’m calling bullshit.

Mrs Whiggins · February 23

2 hours ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

and the Irish

Are we in agreement that the Dutch should be shunned?

Gatorubet · February 23

3 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

Once again, I am writing in response to Joseph Stang’s warnings, and once again, I merely wish to point out that Stang must mend his ways. Let me give you a vastly oversimplified yet still basically true explanation of why I say that Stang loves calling his disparagers ghastly smart-mouths as if this were some magic incantation with the power to ward off evil. The term is evidently an effective, all-purpose slur that stifles discussion and demonizes one’s targets. Sadly, that tactic works well enough in most cases to conceal the fact that our formerly brave populace now lives in fear under the yoke of a pouty Joseph Stang. The fact that this point is obvious to any grade-schooler who has yet to be indoctrinated by Stang’s unfriendly screeds makes it no less anathema to the sensibilities of Stang’s band. As we all know, offending those sensibilities is what leads such improvident spoiled brats to call for ritualistic invocations of needlessly formal rules. I don’t mean to condemn anyone’s beliefs, but Stang says I’m capricious. Well, if capricious means, wants to put an end to Stang’s evildoing then sure, call me capricious. I don’t mind because there are two things we need to do right away. First, we need to bring fresh leadership and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy. Second—and this is critical so get out your highlighter—we need to take action. Once those two things are accomplished we can finally start discussing how you may make the comment, What does this have to do with frightful, uncivilized dissemblers? Well, once you begin to see the light you’ll realize that nothing unites people like a common enemy. That’s why I would encourage everybody to take some shots of their own at Stang by reprimanding him for lowering scholastic standards.

Not only have the worst kinds of dim bulbs there are decided to glorify their campaigns of demagoguery and disinformation by dressing them up as moral and righteous prerogatives, but their teachings are being debated as though they were actually reasonable. Why is Stang really so waspish? Is it because his inability to fathom what I am talking about is betrayed by his insistence that he’s a living bodhisattva of peace and nonviolence? Or because before I knew anything about him, I was once an onlooker at a few of Stang’s mass demonstrations, without possessing even the slightest insight into the mentality of his confederates or the nature of his diegeses? I’m sure you already know the answer so I won’t bother repeating it. I’d like to emphasize, however, that Stang is certifiably condescending. Anyone who refuses to accept that fact is abysmally ridiculous, sneaky, and uppish.

On a similar note, Stang’s expedients are a logical absurdity, a series of deductions from a premise that has been denied. Speaking of absurdities, there’s no point in engaging Stang in debate. He’s unlikely to display rationality, dignity, or professionalism in any serious confabulation. Stang simply would behave like a skeevy, treacherous barmpot and try to justify packaging and selling exclusivism—and making a huge profit from doing so. While I have no proof that he exhibits certain features that a humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, you should still believe me, as he doesn’t want us to know about his plans to foist the most poisonously false and destructive myths imaginable upon us. Otherwise, we might do something about that.

All no-nonsense, clear-eyed people sense intuitively that Stang is a card-carrying member of the Hypocrisy Club. That’s the theory, at least. But in practice, I once told Stang that he indubitably benefits from society’s institutionalized favoritism, structural emotionalism, and the lingering legacy of recidivism. How did he respond to that? He proceeded to curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this letter, which serves only to show that I know some sappy, obnoxious jackanapes who actually believe that Stang is an expert on everything from aardvarks to zymurgy. Incredible? Those same people have told me that no one is smart enough to see through his transparent lies. With such people roaming about, it should come as no surprise to you that hidebound, chauvinistic buggers like Stang are not born—they are excreted. However unsavory that metaphor may be, I need your help if I’m ever to do what needs to be done. But I’m only one person, you might protest. What difference can I make? The answer is: a lot more than you think. You see, rancorous smell-feasts 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, Stang enjoys watching respectable people twist and writhe whenever he threatens to prevent people from thinking and visualizing beyond an increasingly psychologically caged existence.

There is no contradiction here; even though Stang’s foot soldiers share a different voice and different moral sensibilities from the rest of us, you mustn’t forget that there are two challenges we must face if we wish to repair the perfidious world we have inherited from Stang. The first challenge is to convert retreat into advance. This is only slightly less difficult than the second challenge, which is to convey to people the knowledge that I don’t know if Stang’s rude, irrational bunco games were borne out of arrogance, paranoia, or both. I do know, however, that most people would agree that he shows a curious unwillingness to change the world for the better. But once you’ve admitted that, you’ve admitted that Stang has bats in the belfry if he thinks divine ichor flows through his veins. And it follows inexorably that, except in special cases, where there’s no name for a problem, you can’t see a problem, and when you can’t see a problem, you pretty much can’t solve it. The name of our problem is Joseph Stang, and I feel that the solution is to pronounce the truth and renounce the lies. This will not be easy, and progress will not be instantaneous. Still, I am committed to getting it right, and that’s why I’m telling you that Stang is exceedingly birdbrained, brutal, hectoring, carnaptious, boisterous, lecherous, thrasonical, brazen, unforgiving, and yawping. Sorry for the synathroesmus, but he has been trying hard to separate us off into various, antagonistic camps. I allege we should oppose that effort by encouraging students to be bold, independent, and creative thinkers. There are several valid and obvious reasons why I avow that. Perhaps the most important reason is that Stang gets a lot of perks from the system. True to form, he ceaselessly moves the goalposts to prevent others from benefiting from the same perks. This suggests that Stang’s precepts are merely a stalking horse. They mask his secret intention to attack the very fabric of this nation.

Although this has been overlooked or ignored by the established scientific community, Stang wants to violate values so important to our sense of community. Has he gone around the bend? One rarely encounters an answer to such questions, largely because the answer can be surprisingly complicated. Given its importance, though, it is honestly worth discussing. To begin at the beginning, there are people better equipped to cope with life than ribald, debauched plunderers. Still, I recommend you check out some of Stang’s hot takes and draw your own conclusions on the matter. Given that no one is more opposed to obscurantism than I, I can safely state that Stang would have us believe that metanarratives are the root of tyranny, lawlessness, overpopulation, racial hatred, world hunger, disease, and rank stupidity. Yeah, right. And I also suppose that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance? The fact of the matter is that I am perhaps one of the few people who have read his chippy commentaries in their entirety. This wasn’t easy reading, mind you. I was endlessly daunted and halted by their laborious dullness, their flatulent fatuity, and their almost fabulous inconsequentiality. Reading these commentaries convinced me more than anything that Stang believes with sincere conviction that anyone who disagrees with him is a potential terrorist. Providing a cornucopia of evidence to the contrary won’t faze him; he’s immune to any sort of reality check. That’s why if it’s your modest ambition, as it is Stang’s, to introduce more restrictions on our already dwindling freedoms, then you need to eliminate your denigrators. Stang’s denigrators are people like you and me who want to tell everyone around that Stang does not believe in the rule of law. He does not believe in facts. He does not believe in logic. He believes only that he’s a martyr for freedom and a victim of antinomianism. That’s the biggest pack of lies and distortions I’ve ever encountered. What’s more, Stang occasionally writes letters accusing me and my friends of being the most nettlesome rakes I’ve ever seen. These letters are typically couched in gutter language (which is doubtless the language in which Stang habitually thinks) and serve no purpose other than to convince me that I know firsthand the importance of gathering facts and holding them up to scrutiny. In the case of Stang’s abysmal proposed social programs, I have examined the evidence and can say with confidence that conclaves of Stang’s spin doctors have all the dissent found in a North Korean communist party meeting. That’s why no one there will ever admit that ever since Stang decided to pollute the great canon of English literature with references to his balmy ruminations, his consistent, unvarying line has been that jackbooted, arrogant vandals who promote the loopy tirades of contumelious, neurotic varmints are merely misunderstood. I claim I understand them quite well, actually. I understand that they can’t bear the thought of anyone spreading the news about how Stang does not merely lack empathy for those who suffer as a result of his rageful machinations. He relishes his lack of empathy. He glories in his callousness. He is proud of his inhumanity. And as if all that weren’t bad enough, he warrants we should hold off on focusing on concrete facts, on hard news, on analyzing and interpreting what’s happening in the world. Let’s play along with that scenario for the moment. Do you really think that if we obliged Stang’s request he wouldn’t immediately set the hoops through which we all must jump? Obviously he would. The conclusion you should therefore draw is that Stang is always trying to change the way we work. This annoys me because his previous changes have always been for the worse. I’m positive that Stang’s new changes will be even more iracund because his apocrisiaries get a thrill out of protesting. They have no idea what causes they’re fighting for or against. For them, going down to the local protest, carrying a sign, hanging out with Stang, and meeting some other overweening peddlers of snake-oil remedies is merely a social event. They’re not even aware that if Stang were as bright as he thinks he is, he’d know that someone once asked me if we should appease him by, just once, letting him create widespread psychological suffering. My answer was a resounding no because, as the saying goes, He who becomes compassionate to the cruel will ultimately become cruel to the compassionate. In other words, Stang has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and convince every smear sheet in the country to refer to his hecklers as intransigent, ungrateful malingerers—all by trumping up a phony emergency.

On rare occasions, in order to preserve their liberties, sometimes people must spheterize other people’s belongings. Stang does that even when his liberties aren’t being threatened. Whether or not the Olympics is held in any given year, the Conformism Olympics continues unabated. The latest entrant to the competition is Joseph Stang, who qualifies for a special medal for causing new and possibly irreversible damage to the democratic ethos and institutions that have already been weakened by his diversivolent, covetous pranks. Before last week I hadn’t realized that his memoranda create suffocating, dehumanizing conditions that lead to despondence and despair. Now that I’ve been suitably enlightened, I can say with certainty that Stang’s eccentricity is surpassed only by his vanity, and his vanity is surpassed only by his empty theorizing. (Remember his theory that embracing a system of nonrepresentationalism will make everything right with the world?)

Because we have the determination to see the truth prevail, we must never forget that nugatory doesn’t begin to cover the reasons for Stang’s self-satisfied, cocky behavior. Neither does grungy. New words will be needed to fully explain how Stang is trapped in a vicious cycle. The more opposition to his campaigns of terror he faces, the more vile he becomes. The more vile he becomes, the more opposition to his campaigns of terror he faces. Stang, you are welcome to get off my back this time and stay off. Although it may be beyond our capabilities to express unconditional love to all of humanity, it is well within our grasp to state unequivocally that there are two important points I’d like to bring up here. First, there is no real way to undo the consequences of Stang’s unctuous, sadistic shell games. Second, it’s time for sensible adults to enter back into the room and have serious, earnest, respectful conversations about his misguided excoriations. To the average man, neither of these two points is of any particular importance. So what?, he might ask. There’s no harm in conducting business in a pernicious, resentful way. How wrong the average man would be. In actuality, one of the stuporous, uneducated nupsons in Stang’s employ has penned an extensive treatise whose thesis is that Stang would never even consider bringing ugliness and nastiness into our lives. Contrary to what that embarrassingly emollient hagiography asserts, anyone who hasn’t been living in a cave with his eyes shut and his ears plugged knows that I am more than merely surprised by Stang’s willingness to build a totalitarian death machine. I’m shocked, shocked. And, as if that weren’t enough, Stang should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory.

It is important to differentiate between meddlesome dinks and unmannerly psychopaths who, in a variety of ways, have been lured by Stang’s vindictive rodomontades or who have ended up wittingly or unwittingly in coalitions with Stang’s functionaries or who maintain contact with Stang as part of serious and legitimate research. Stang seems incapable of understanding that while he has been beating the drums of absolutism, I’ve been trying to drag him in front of a tribunal and try him for his crimes against humanity. In doing so, I’ve learned that conspiracy theories are Stang’s bread and butter, and the wilder, the better. His most outré claim is that using grammatically correct language is a racist trait. This claim sets a new standard for lascivious reportages and shows how if we don’t speak clearly and forcefully in the face of intolerance and violence, our children will curse us in our graves. Speaking of our children, we need to teach them diligently that a large number of people, myself included, figured Stang would never stoop so low as to extinguish the voices of opposition. Nevertheless, despite some progressive words and symbolic gestures, he chose to do exactly that. As a result, I can safely say that the virulence of metagrobolism—specifically, its potential to impact public policy for years to come—is apparent in every one of Stang’s screeds. (Note the heroic restraint stopping me from saying that when Stang says that his mind games surpass most intellectual discourse in terms of the cogency of what they promote and the morality of their implications, he’s just plain wrong—not partially wrong but utterly and entirely wrong.)

What Stang is incapable of seeing is that an insidious form of hoodlumism has taken root in our society. This form of hoodlumism is distinguished by its complete denial of the fact that Stang was a negligent, self-deluded extortionist when I first encountered him. Stang is a negligent, self-deluded extortionist now. And there is no more reason for believing that Stang will ever cease to be a negligent, self-deluded extortionist than there is for supposing that expansionism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. Just don’t expect consistency from a man who is totally and sincerely xenophobic. As this letter draws to a close, I want to challenge you, the reader, to communicate and teach. That’s what I intend to do until my last breath.

Guadaloopy · February 23

17 hours ago, F250 said:

We just need one of the UFO crazies to join this thread and we will have ourselves a stew.

I know for a fact that Joseph Stang has been steered down a dead end path by sophon interference sent by the Trisolarans in an effort to block all human scientific progress. All we need is for his Wallbreaker to point out the folly of his wasted efforts to send him further down an unending spiral of hopelessness.

PvilleStang · February 23

3 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Since 1947 we should have had about 7 of these cataclysmic events, yet here we are. I’m calling bullshit.

I think JosephStang is pissed because someone stole his cataclysmic converters.

High Plains Drifter · February 23

On 2/22/2024 at 1:16 AM, JosephStang said:

People with a brain and integrity: Wow, that geometry is shockingly beautiful and Israel tortured him for 5 years to suppress it and Britain has him homeless and broke locked in a social prison so we should probably do something about getting him off the street.

Surlies programmed with idiotic arrogance: "What about the math?"

You must begin a reading program immediately so that you may understand the crises of our age. Begin with the late Romans, including Boethius, of course. Then you should dip rather extensively into early Medieval. You may skip the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. That is mostly dangerous propaganda. Now that I think of it, you had better skip the Romantics and the Victorians, too. For the contemporary period, you should study some selected comic books. I recommend Batman especially, for he tends to transcend the abysmal society in which he's found himself. His morality is rather rigid, also.

RDCanecutter · February 23

5 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

Once again, I am writing in response to Joseph Stang’s warnings, and once again, I merely wish to point out that Stang must mend his ways. Let me give you a vastly oversimplified yet still basically true explanation of why I say that Stang loves calling his disparagers ghastly smart-mouths as if this were some magic incantation with the power to ward off evil. The term is evidently an effective, all-purpose slur that stifles discussion and demonizes one’s targets. Sadly, that tactic works well enough in most cases to conceal the fact that our formerly brave populace now lives in fear under the yoke of a pouty Joseph Stang. The fact that this point is obvious to any grade-schooler who has yet to be indoctrinated by Stang’s unfriendly screeds makes it no less anathema to the sensibilities of Stang’s band. As we all know, offending those sensibilities is what leads such improvident spoiled brats to call for ritualistic invocations of needlessly formal rules. I don’t mean to condemn anyone’s beliefs, but Stang says I’m capricious. Well, if capricious means, wants to put an end to Stang’s evildoing then sure, call me capricious. I don’t mind because there are two things we need to do right away. First, we need to bring fresh leadership and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy. Second—and this is critical so get out your highlighter—we need to take action. Once those two things are accomplished we can finally start discussing how you may make the comment, What does this have to do with frightful, uncivilized dissemblers? Well, once you begin to see the light you’ll realize that nothing unites people like a common enemy. That’s why I would encourage everybody to take some shots of their own at Stang by reprimanding him for lowering scholastic standards.

Not only have the worst kinds of dim bulbs there are decided to glorify their campaigns of demagoguery and disinformation by dressing them up as moral and righteous prerogatives, but their teachings are being debated as though they were actually reasonable. Why is Stang really so waspish? Is it because his inability to fathom what I am talking about is betrayed by his insistence that he’s a living bodhisattva of peace and nonviolence? Or because before I knew anything about him, I was once an onlooker at a few of Stang’s mass demonstrations, without possessing even the slightest insight into the mentality of his confederates or the nature of his diegeses? I’m sure you already know the answer so I won’t bother repeating it. I’d like to emphasize, however, that Stang is certifiably condescending. Anyone who refuses to accept that fact is abysmally ridiculous, sneaky, and uppish.

On a similar note, Stang’s expedients are a logical absurdity, a series of deductions from a premise that has been denied. Speaking of absurdities, there’s no point in engaging Stang in debate. He’s unlikely to display rationality, dignity, or professionalism in any serious confabulation. Stang simply would behave like a skeevy, treacherous barmpot and try to justify packaging and selling exclusivism—and making a huge profit from doing so. While I have no proof that he exhibits certain features that a humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, you should still believe me, as he doesn’t want us to know about his plans to foist the most poisonously false and destructive myths imaginable upon us. Otherwise, we might do something about that.

All no-nonsense, clear-eyed people sense intuitively that Stang is a card-carrying member of the Hypocrisy Club. That’s the theory, at least. But in practice, I once told Stang that he indubitably benefits from society’s institutionalized favoritism, structural emotionalism, and the lingering legacy of recidivism. How did he respond to that? He proceeded to curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this letter, which serves only to show that I know some sappy, obnoxious jackanapes who actually believe that Stang is an expert on everything from aardvarks to zymurgy. Incredible? Those same people have told me that no one is smart enough to see through his transparent lies. With such people roaming about, it should come as no surprise to you that hidebound, chauvinistic buggers like Stang are not born—they are excreted. However unsavory that metaphor may be, I need your help if I’m ever to do what needs to be done. But I’m only one person, you might protest. What difference can I make? The answer is: a lot more than you think. You see, rancorous smell-feasts 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, Stang enjoys watching respectable people twist and writhe whenever he threatens to prevent people from thinking and visualizing beyond an increasingly psychologically caged existence.

There is no contradiction here; even though Stang’s foot soldiers share a different voice and different moral sensibilities from the rest of us, you mustn’t forget that there are two challenges we must face if we wish to repair the perfidious world we have inherited from Stang. The first challenge is to convert retreat into advance. This is only slightly less difficult than the second challenge, which is to convey to people the knowledge that I don’t know if Stang’s rude, irrational bunco games were borne out of arrogance, paranoia, or both. I do know, however, that most people would agree that he shows a curious unwillingness to change the world for the better. But once you’ve admitted that, you’ve admitted that Stang has bats in the belfry if he thinks divine ichor flows through his veins. And it follows inexorably that, except in special cases, where there’s no name for a problem, you can’t see a problem, and when you can’t see a problem, you pretty much can’t solve it. The name of our problem is Joseph Stang, and I feel that the solution is to pronounce the truth and renounce the lies. This will not be easy, and progress will not be instantaneous. Still, I am committed to getting it right, and that’s why I’m telling you that Stang is exceedingly birdbrained, brutal, hectoring, carnaptious, boisterous, lecherous, thrasonical, brazen, unforgiving, and yawping. Sorry for the synathroesmus, but he has been trying hard to separate us off into various, antagonistic camps. I allege we should oppose that effort by encouraging students to be bold, independent, and creative thinkers. There are several valid and obvious reasons why I avow that. Perhaps the most important reason is that Stang gets a lot of perks from the system. True to form, he ceaselessly moves the goalposts to prevent others from benefiting from the same perks. This suggests that Stang’s precepts are merely a stalking horse. They mask his secret intention to attack the very fabric of this nation.

Although this has been overlooked or ignored by the established scientific community, Stang wants to violate values so important to our sense of community. Has he gone around the bend? One rarely encounters an answer to such questions, largely because the answer can be surprisingly complicated. Given its importance, though, it is honestly worth discussing. To begin at the beginning, there are people better equipped to cope with life than ribald, debauched plunderers. Still, I recommend you check out some of Stang’s hot takes and draw your own conclusions on the matter. Given that no one is more opposed to obscurantism than I, I can safely state that Stang would have us believe that metanarratives are the root of tyranny, lawlessness, overpopulation, racial hatred, world hunger, disease, and rank stupidity. Yeah, right. And I also suppose that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance? The fact of the matter is that I am perhaps one of the few people who have read his chippy commentaries in their entirety. This wasn’t easy reading, mind you. I was endlessly daunted and halted by their laborious dullness, their flatulent fatuity, and their almost fabulous inconsequentiality. Reading these commentaries convinced me more than anything that Stang believes with sincere conviction that anyone who disagrees with him is a potential terrorist. Providing a cornucopia of evidence to the contrary won’t faze him; he’s immune to any sort of reality check. That’s why if it’s your modest ambition, as it is Stang’s, to introduce more restrictions on our already dwindling freedoms, then you need to eliminate your denigrators. Stang’s denigrators are people like you and me who want to tell everyone around that Stang does not believe in the rule of law. He does not believe in facts. He does not believe in logic. He believes only that he’s a martyr for freedom and a victim of antinomianism. That’s the biggest pack of lies and distortions I’ve ever encountered. What’s more, Stang occasionally writes letters accusing me and my friends of being the most nettlesome rakes I’ve ever seen. These letters are typically couched in gutter language (which is doubtless the language in which Stang habitually thinks) and serve no purpose other than to convince me that I know firsthand the importance of gathering facts and holding them up to scrutiny. In the case of Stang’s abysmal proposed social programs, I have examined the evidence and can say with confidence that conclaves of Stang’s spin doctors have all the dissent found in a North Korean communist party meeting. That’s why no one there will ever admit that ever since Stang decided to pollute the great canon of English literature with references to his balmy ruminations, his consistent, unvarying line has been that jackbooted, arrogant vandals who promote the loopy tirades of contumelious, neurotic varmints are merely misunderstood. I claim I understand them quite well, actually. I understand that they can’t bear the thought of anyone spreading the news about how Stang does not merely lack empathy for those who suffer as a result of his rageful machinations. He relishes his lack of empathy. He glories in his callousness. He is proud of his inhumanity. And as if all that weren’t bad enough, he warrants we should hold off on focusing on concrete facts, on hard news, on analyzing and interpreting what’s happening in the world. Let’s play along with that scenario for the moment. Do you really think that if we obliged Stang’s request he wouldn’t immediately set the hoops through which we all must jump? Obviously he would. The conclusion you should therefore draw is that Stang is always trying to change the way we work. This annoys me because his previous changes have always been for the worse. I’m positive that Stang’s new changes will be even more iracund because his apocrisiaries get a thrill out of protesting. They have no idea what causes they’re fighting for or against. For them, going down to the local protest, carrying a sign, hanging out with Stang, and meeting some other overweening peddlers of snake-oil remedies is merely a social event. They’re not even aware that if Stang were as bright as he thinks he is, he’d know that someone once asked me if we should appease him by, just once, letting him create widespread psychological suffering. My answer was a resounding no because, as the saying goes, He who becomes compassionate to the cruel will ultimately become cruel to the compassionate. In other words, Stang has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and convince every smear sheet in the country to refer to his hecklers as intransigent, ungrateful malingerers—all by trumping up a phony emergency.

On rare occasions, in order to preserve their liberties, sometimes people must spheterize other people’s belongings. Stang does that even when his liberties aren’t being threatened. Whether or not the Olympics is held in any given year, the Conformism Olympics continues unabated. The latest entrant to the competition is Joseph Stang, who qualifies for a special medal for causing new and possibly irreversible damage to the democratic ethos and institutions that have already been weakened by his diversivolent, covetous pranks. Before last week I hadn’t realized that his memoranda create suffocating, dehumanizing conditions that lead to despondence and despair. Now that I’ve been suitably enlightened, I can say with certainty that Stang’s eccentricity is surpassed only by his vanity, and his vanity is surpassed only by his empty theorizing. (Remember his theory that embracing a system of nonrepresentationalism will make everything right with the world?)

Because we have the determination to see the truth prevail, we must never forget that nugatory doesn’t begin to cover the reasons for Stang’s self-satisfied, cocky behavior. Neither does grungy. New words will be needed to fully explain how Stang is trapped in a vicious cycle. The more opposition to his campaigns of terror he faces, the more vile he becomes. The more vile he becomes, the more opposition to his campaigns of terror he faces. Stang, you are welcome to get off my back this time and stay off. Although it may be beyond our capabilities to express unconditional love to all of humanity, it is well within our grasp to state unequivocally that there are two important points I’d like to bring up here. First, there is no real way to undo the consequences of Stang’s unctuous, sadistic shell games. Second, it’s time for sensible adults to enter back into the room and have serious, earnest, respectful conversations about his misguided excoriations. To the average man, neither of these two points is of any particular importance. So what?, he might ask. There’s no harm in conducting business in a pernicious, resentful way. How wrong the average man would be. In actuality, one of the stuporous, uneducated nupsons in Stang’s employ has penned an extensive treatise whose thesis is that Stang would never even consider bringing ugliness and nastiness into our lives. Contrary to what that embarrassingly emollient hagiography asserts, anyone who hasn’t been living in a cave with his eyes shut and his ears plugged knows that I am more than merely surprised by Stang’s willingness to build a totalitarian death machine. I’m shocked, shocked. And, as if that weren’t enough, Stang should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory.

It is important to differentiate between meddlesome dinks and unmannerly psychopaths who, in a variety of ways, have been lured by Stang’s vindictive rodomontades or who have ended up wittingly or unwittingly in coalitions with Stang’s functionaries or who maintain contact with Stang as part of serious and legitimate research. Stang seems incapable of understanding that while he has been beating the drums of absolutism, I’ve been trying to drag him in front of a tribunal and try him for his crimes against humanity. In doing so, I’ve learned that conspiracy theories are Stang’s bread and butter, and the wilder, the better. His most outré claim is that using grammatically correct language is a racist trait. This claim sets a new standard for lascivious reportages and shows how if we don’t speak clearly and forcefully in the face of intolerance and violence, our children will curse us in our graves. Speaking of our children, we need to teach them diligently that a large number of people, myself included, figured Stang would never stoop so low as to extinguish the voices of opposition. Nevertheless, despite some progressive words and symbolic gestures, he chose to do exactly that. As a result, I can safely say that the virulence of metagrobolism—specifically, its potential to impact public policy for years to come—is apparent in every one of Stang’s screeds. (Note the heroic restraint stopping me from saying that when Stang says that his mind games surpass most intellectual discourse in terms of the cogency of what they promote and the morality of their implications, he’s just plain wrong—not partially wrong but utterly and entirely wrong.)

What Stang is incapable of seeing is that an insidious form of hoodlumism has taken root in our society. This form of hoodlumism is distinguished by its complete denial of the fact that Stang was a negligent, self-deluded extortionist when I first encountered him. Stang is a negligent, self-deluded extortionist now. And there is no more reason for believing that Stang will ever cease to be a negligent, self-deluded extortionist than there is for supposing that expansionism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. Just don’t expect consistency from a man who is totally and sincerely xenophobic. As this letter draws to a close, I want to challenge you, the reader, to communicate and teach. That’s what I intend to do until my last breath.

You can't just drive by and drop some brief remark. At least flesh it out with more words.

tejas60 · February 23

On 2/22/2024 at 12:16 PM, B00M said:

You tell us dawg. You’re so fucking smart that you’re homeless and here begging us for money

username checks out.

DDD Dad · February 23

5 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

Once again, I am writing in response to Joseph Stang’s warnings, and once again, I merely wish to point out that Stang must mend his ways. Let me give you a vastly oversimplified yet still basically true explanation of why I say that Stang loves calling his disparagers ghastly smart-mouths as if this were some magic incantation with the power to ward off evil. The term is evidently an effective, all-purpose slur that stifles discussion and demonizes one’s targets. Sadly, that tactic works well enough in most cases to conceal the fact that our formerly brave populace now lives in fear under the yoke of a pouty Joseph Stang. The fact that this point is obvious to any grade-schooler who has yet to be indoctrinated by Stang’s unfriendly screeds makes it no less anathema to the sensibilities of Stang’s band. As we all know, offending those sensibilities is what leads such improvident spoiled brats to call for ritualistic invocations of needlessly formal rules. I don’t mean to condemn anyone’s beliefs, but Stang says I’m capricious. Well, if capricious means, wants to put an end to Stang’s evildoing then sure, call me capricious. I don’t mind because there are two things we need to do right away. First, we need to bring fresh leadership and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy. Second—and this is critical so get out your highlighter—we need to take action. Once those two things are accomplished we can finally start discussing how you may make the comment, What does this have to do with frightful, uncivilized dissemblers? Well, once you begin to see the light you’ll realize that nothing unites people like a common enemy. That’s why I would encourage everybody to take some shots of their own at Stang by reprimanding him for lowering scholastic standards.

Not only have the worst kinds of dim bulbs there are decided to glorify their campaigns of demagoguery and disinformation by dressing them up as moral and righteous prerogatives, but their teachings are being debated as though they were actually reasonable. Why is Stang really so waspish? Is it because his inability to fathom what I am talking about is betrayed by his insistence that he’s a living bodhisattva of peace and nonviolence? Or because before I knew anything about him, I was once an onlooker at a few of Stang’s mass demonstrations, without possessing even the slightest insight into the mentality of his confederates or the nature of his diegeses? I’m sure you already know the answer so I won’t bother repeating it. I’d like to emphasize, however, that Stang is certifiably condescending. Anyone who refuses to accept that fact is abysmally ridiculous, sneaky, and uppish.

On a similar note, Stang’s expedients are a logical absurdity, a series of deductions from a premise that has been denied. Speaking of absurdities, there’s no point in engaging Stang in debate. He’s unlikely to display rationality, dignity, or professionalism in any serious confabulation. Stang simply would behave like a skeevy, treacherous barmpot and try to justify packaging and selling exclusivism—and making a huge profit from doing so. While I have no proof that he exhibits certain features that a humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, you should still believe me, as he doesn’t want us to know about his plans to foist the most poisonously false and destructive myths imaginable upon us. Otherwise, we might do something about that.

All no-nonsense, clear-eyed people sense intuitively that Stang is a card-carrying member of the Hypocrisy Club. That’s the theory, at least. But in practice, I once told Stang that he indubitably benefits from society’s institutionalized favoritism, structural emotionalism, and the lingering legacy of recidivism. How did he respond to that? He proceeded to curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this letter, which serves only to show that I know some sappy, obnoxious jackanapes who actually believe that Stang is an expert on everything from aardvarks to zymurgy. Incredible? Those same people have told me that no one is smart enough to see through his transparent lies. With such people roaming about, it should come as no surprise to you that hidebound, chauvinistic buggers like Stang are not born—they are excreted. However unsavory that metaphor may be, I need your help if I’m ever to do what needs to be done. But I’m only one person, you might protest. What difference can I make? The answer is: a lot more than you think. You see, rancorous smell-feasts 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, Stang enjoys watching respectable people twist and writhe whenever he threatens to prevent people from thinking and visualizing beyond an increasingly psychologically caged existence.

There is no contradiction here; even though Stang’s foot soldiers share a different voice and different moral sensibilities from the rest of us, you mustn’t forget that there are two challenges we must face if we wish to repair the perfidious world we have inherited from Stang. The first challenge is to convert retreat into advance. This is only slightly less difficult than the second challenge, which is to convey to people the knowledge that I don’t know if Stang’s rude, irrational bunco games were borne out of arrogance, paranoia, or both. I do know, however, that most people would agree that he shows a curious unwillingness to change the world for the better. But once you’ve admitted that, you’ve admitted that Stang has bats in the belfry if he thinks divine ichor flows through his veins. And it follows inexorably that, except in special cases, where there’s no name for a problem, you can’t see a problem, and when you can’t see a problem, you pretty much can’t solve it. The name of our problem is Joseph Stang, and I feel that the solution is to pronounce the truth and renounce the lies. This will not be easy, and progress will not be instantaneous. Still, I am committed to getting it right, and that’s why I’m telling you that Stang is exceedingly birdbrained, brutal, hectoring, carnaptious, boisterous, lecherous, thrasonical, brazen, unforgiving, and yawping. Sorry for the synathroesmus, but he has been trying hard to separate us off into various, antagonistic camps. I allege we should oppose that effort by encouraging students to be bold, independent, and creative thinkers. There are several valid and obvious reasons why I avow that. Perhaps the most important reason is that Stang gets a lot of perks from the system. True to form, he ceaselessly moves the goalposts to prevent others from benefiting from the same perks. This suggests that Stang’s precepts are merely a stalking horse. They mask his secret intention to attack the very fabric of this nation.

Although this has been overlooked or ignored by the established scientific community, Stang wants to violate values so important to our sense of community. Has he gone around the bend? One rarely encounters an answer to such questions, largely because the answer can be surprisingly complicated. Given its importance, though, it is honestly worth discussing. To begin at the beginning, there are people better equipped to cope with life than ribald, debauched plunderers. Still, I recommend you check out some of Stang’s hot takes and draw your own conclusions on the matter. Given that no one is more opposed to obscurantism than I, I can safely state that Stang would have us believe that metanarratives are the root of tyranny, lawlessness, overpopulation, racial hatred, world hunger, disease, and rank stupidity. Yeah, right. And I also suppose that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance? The fact of the matter is that I am perhaps one of the few people who have read his chippy commentaries in their entirety. This wasn’t easy reading, mind you. I was endlessly daunted and halted by their laborious dullness, their flatulent fatuity, and their almost fabulous inconsequentiality. Reading these commentaries convinced me more than anything that Stang believes with sincere conviction that anyone who disagrees with him is a potential terrorist. Providing a cornucopia of evidence to the contrary won’t faze him; he’s immune to any sort of reality check. That’s why if it’s your modest ambition, as it is Stang’s, to introduce more restrictions on our already dwindling freedoms, then you need to eliminate your denigrators. Stang’s denigrators are people like you and me who want to tell everyone around that Stang does not believe in the rule of law. He does not believe in facts. He does not believe in logic. He believes only that he’s a martyr for freedom and a victim of antinomianism. That’s the biggest pack of lies and distortions I’ve ever encountered. What’s more, Stang occasionally writes letters accusing me and my friends of being the most nettlesome rakes I’ve ever seen. These letters are typically couched in gutter language (which is doubtless the language in which Stang habitually thinks) and serve no purpose other than to convince me that I know firsthand the importance of gathering facts and holding them up to scrutiny. In the case of Stang’s abysmal proposed social programs, I have examined the evidence and can say with confidence that conclaves of Stang’s spin doctors have all the dissent found in a North Korean communist party meeting. That’s why no one there will ever admit that ever since Stang decided to pollute the great canon of English literature with references to his balmy ruminations, his consistent, unvarying line has been that jackbooted, arrogant vandals who promote the loopy tirades of contumelious, neurotic varmints are merely misunderstood. I claim I understand them quite well, actually. I understand that they can’t bear the thought of anyone spreading the news about how Stang does not merely lack empathy for those who suffer as a result of his rageful machinations. He relishes his lack of empathy. He glories in his callousness. He is proud of his inhumanity. And as if all that weren’t bad enough, he warrants we should hold off on focusing on concrete facts, on hard news, on analyzing and interpreting what’s happening in the world. Let’s play along with that scenario for the moment. Do you really think that if we obliged Stang’s request he wouldn’t immediately set the hoops through which we all must jump? Obviously he would. The conclusion you should therefore draw is that Stang is always trying to change the way we work. This annoys me because his previous changes have always been for the worse. I’m positive that Stang’s new changes will be even more iracund because his apocrisiaries get a thrill out of protesting. They have no idea what causes they’re fighting for or against. For them, going down to the local protest, carrying a sign, hanging out with Stang, and meeting some other overweening peddlers of snake-oil remedies is merely a social event. They’re not even aware that if Stang were as bright as he thinks he is, he’d know that someone once asked me if we should appease him by, just once, letting him create widespread psychological suffering. My answer was a resounding no because, as the saying goes, He who becomes compassionate to the cruel will ultimately become cruel to the compassionate. In other words, Stang has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and convince every smear sheet in the country to refer to his hecklers as intransigent, ungrateful malingerers—all by trumping up a phony emergency.

On rare occasions, in order to preserve their liberties, sometimes people must spheterize other people’s belongings. Stang does that even when his liberties aren’t being threatened. Whether or not the Olympics is held in any given year, the Conformism Olympics continues unabated. The latest entrant to the competition is Joseph Stang, who qualifies for a special medal for causing new and possibly irreversible damage to the democratic ethos and institutions that have already been weakened by his diversivolent, covetous pranks. Before last week I hadn’t realized that his memoranda create suffocating, dehumanizing conditions that lead to despondence and despair. Now that I’ve been suitably enlightened, I can say with certainty that Stang’s eccentricity is surpassed only by his vanity, and his vanity is surpassed only by his empty theorizing. (Remember his theory that embracing a system of nonrepresentationalism will make everything right with the world?)

Because we have the determination to see the truth prevail, we must never forget that nugatory doesn’t begin to cover the reasons for Stang’s self-satisfied, cocky behavior. Neither does grungy. New words will be needed to fully explain how Stang is trapped in a vicious cycle. The more opposition to his campaigns of terror he faces, the more vile he becomes. The more vile he becomes, the more opposition to his campaigns of terror he faces. Stang, you are welcome to get off my back this time and stay off. Although it may be beyond our capabilities to express unconditional love to all of humanity, it is well within our grasp to state unequivocally that there are two important points I’d like to bring up here. First, there is no real way to undo the consequences of Stang’s unctuous, sadistic shell games. Second, it’s time for sensible adults to enter back into the room and have serious, earnest, respectful conversations about his misguided excoriations. To the average man, neither of these two points is of any particular importance. So what?, he might ask. There’s no harm in conducting business in a pernicious, resentful way. How wrong the average man would be. In actuality, one of the stuporous, uneducated nupsons in Stang’s employ has penned an extensive treatise whose thesis is that Stang would never even consider bringing ugliness and nastiness into our lives. Contrary to what that embarrassingly emollient hagiography asserts, anyone who hasn’t been living in a cave with his eyes shut and his ears plugged knows that I am more than merely surprised by Stang’s willingness to build a totalitarian death machine. I’m shocked, shocked. And, as if that weren’t enough, Stang should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory.

It is important to differentiate between meddlesome dinks and unmannerly psychopaths who, in a variety of ways, have been lured by Stang’s vindictive rodomontades or who have ended up wittingly or unwittingly in coalitions with Stang’s functionaries or who maintain contact with Stang as part of serious and legitimate research. Stang seems incapable of understanding that while he has been beating the drums of absolutism, I’ve been trying to drag him in front of a tribunal and try him for his crimes against humanity. In doing so, I’ve learned that conspiracy theories are Stang’s bread and butter, and the wilder, the better. His most outré claim is that using grammatically correct language is a racist trait. This claim sets a new standard for lascivious reportages and shows how if we don’t speak clearly and forcefully in the face of intolerance and violence, our children will curse us in our graves. Speaking of our children, we need to teach them diligently that a large number of people, myself included, figured Stang would never stoop so low as to extinguish the voices of opposition. Nevertheless, despite some progressive words and symbolic gestures, he chose to do exactly that. As a result, I can safely say that the virulence of metagrobolism—specifically, its potential to impact public policy for years to come—is apparent in every one of Stang’s screeds. (Note the heroic restraint stopping me from saying that when Stang says that his mind games surpass most intellectual discourse in terms of the cogency of what they promote and the morality of their implications, he’s just plain wrong—not partially wrong but utterly and entirely wrong.)

What Stang is incapable of seeing is that an insidious form of hoodlumism has taken root in our society. This form of hoodlumism is distinguished by its complete denial of the fact that Stang was a negligent, self-deluded extortionist when I first encountered him. Stang is a negligent, self-deluded extortionist now. And there is no more reason for believing that Stang will ever cease to be a negligent, self-deluded extortionist than there is for supposing that expansionism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. Just don’t expect consistency from a man who is totally and sincerely xenophobic. As this letter draws to a close, I want to challenge you, the reader, to communicate and teach. That’s what I intend to do until my last breath.

Brisketexan · February 23

1 hour ago, RDCanecutter said:

You can't just drive by and drop some brief remark. At least flesh it out with more words.

I'm just concerned that he's making a run at my Master of Brevity title. This aggression will not stand.

Gatorubet · February 24

3 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

You must begin a reading program immediately so that you may understand the crises of our age. Begin with the late Romans, including Boethius, of course. Then you should dip rather extensively into early Medieval. You may skip the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. That is mostly dangerous propaganda. Now that I think of it, you had better skip the Romantics and the Victorians, too. For the contemporary period, you should study some selected comic books. I recommend Batman especially, for he tends to transcend the abysmal society in which he's found himself. His morality is rather rigid, also.

Pro tip: skip the venerable Bede. He’s a wanker.

chainsaw · February 24

8 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

Once again, I am writing in response to Joseph Stang’s warnings, and once again, I merely wish to point out that Stang must mend his ways. Let me give you a vastly oversimplified yet still basically true explanation of why I say that Stang loves calling his disparagers ghastly smart-mouths as if this were some magic incantation with the power to ward off evil. The term is evidently an effective, all-purpose slur that stifles discussion and demonizes one’s targets. Sadly, that tactic works well enough in most cases to conceal the fact that our formerly brave populace now lives in fear under the yoke of a pouty Joseph Stang. The fact that this point is obvious to any grade-schooler who has yet to be indoctrinated by Stang’s unfriendly screeds makes it no less anathema to the sensibilities of Stang’s band. As we all know, offending those sensibilities is what leads such improvident spoiled brats to call for ritualistic invocations of needlessly formal rules. I don’t mean to condemn anyone’s beliefs, but Stang says I’m capricious. Well, if capricious means, wants to put an end to Stang’s evildoing then sure, call me capricious. I don’t mind because there are two things we need to do right away. First, we need to bring fresh leadership and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy. Second—and this is critical so get out your highlighter—we need to take action. Once those two things are accomplished we can finally start discussing how you may make the comment, What does this have to do with frightful, uncivilized dissemblers? Well, once you begin to see the light you’ll realize that nothing unites people like a common enemy. That’s why I would encourage everybody to take some shots of their own at Stang by reprimanding him for lowering scholastic standards.

Not only have the worst kinds of dim bulbs there are decided to glorify their campaigns of demagoguery and disinformation by dressing them up as moral and righteous prerogatives, but their teachings are being debated as though they were actually reasonable. Why is Stang really so waspish? Is it because his inability to fathom what I am talking about is betrayed by his insistence that he’s a living bodhisattva of peace and nonviolence? Or because before I knew anything about him, I was once an onlooker at a few of Stang’s mass demonstrations, without possessing even the slightest insight into the mentality of his confederates or the nature of his diegeses? I’m sure you already know the answer so I won’t bother repeating it. I’d like to emphasize, however, that Stang is certifiably condescending. Anyone who refuses to accept that fact is abysmally ridiculous, sneaky, and uppish.

On a similar note, Stang’s expedients are a logical absurdity, a series of deductions from a premise that has been denied. Speaking of absurdities, there’s no point in engaging Stang in debate. He’s unlikely to display rationality, dignity, or professionalism in any serious confabulation. Stang simply would behave like a skeevy, treacherous barmpot and try to justify packaging and selling exclusivism—and making a huge profit from doing so. While I have no proof that he exhibits certain features that a humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, you should still believe me, as he doesn’t want us to know about his plans to foist the most poisonously false and destructive myths imaginable upon us. Otherwise, we might do something about that.

All no-nonsense, clear-eyed people sense intuitively that Stang is a card-carrying member of the Hypocrisy Club. That’s the theory, at least. But in practice, I once told Stang that he indubitably benefits from society’s institutionalized favoritism, structural emotionalism, and the lingering legacy of recidivism. How did he respond to that? He proceeded to curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this letter, which serves only to show that I know some sappy, obnoxious jackanapes who actually believe that Stang is an expert on everything from aardvarks to zymurgy. Incredible? Those same people have told me that no one is smart enough to see through his transparent lies. With such people roaming about, it should come as no surprise to you that hidebound, chauvinistic buggers like Stang are not born—they are excreted. However unsavory that metaphor may be, I need your help if I’m ever to do what needs to be done. But I’m only one person, you might protest. What difference can I make? The answer is: a lot more than you think. You see, rancorous smell-feasts 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, Stang enjoys watching respectable people twist and writhe whenever he threatens to prevent people from thinking and visualizing beyond an increasingly psychologically caged existence.

There is no contradiction here; even though Stang’s foot soldiers share a different voice and different moral sensibilities from the rest of us, you mustn’t forget that there are two challenges we must face if we wish to repair the perfidious world we have inherited from Stang. The first challenge is to convert retreat into advance. This is only slightly less difficult than the second challenge, which is to convey to people the knowledge that I don’t know if Stang’s rude, irrational bunco games were borne out of arrogance, paranoia, or both. I do know, however, that most people would agree that he shows a curious unwillingness to change the world for the better. But once you’ve admitted that, you’ve admitted that Stang has bats in the belfry if he thinks divine ichor flows through his veins. And it follows inexorably that, except in special cases, where there’s no name for a problem, you can’t see a problem, and when you can’t see a problem, you pretty much can’t solve it. The name of our problem is Joseph Stang, and I feel that the solution is to pronounce the truth and renounce the lies. This will not be easy, and progress will not be instantaneous. Still, I am committed to getting it right, and that’s why I’m telling you that Stang is exceedingly birdbrained, brutal, hectoring, carnaptious, boisterous, lecherous, thrasonical, brazen, unforgiving, and yawping. Sorry for the synathroesmus, but he has been trying hard to separate us off into various, antagonistic camps. I allege we should oppose that effort by encouraging students to be bold, independent, and creative thinkers. There are several valid and obvious reasons why I avow that. Perhaps the most important reason is that Stang gets a lot of perks from the system. True to form, he ceaselessly moves the goalposts to prevent others from benefiting from the same perks. This suggests that Stang’s precepts are merely a stalking horse. They mask his secret intention to attack the very fabric of this nation.

Although this has been overlooked or ignored by the established scientific community, Stang wants to violate values so important to our sense of community. Has he gone around the bend? One rarely encounters an answer to such questions, largely because the answer can be surprisingly complicated. Given its importance, though, it is honestly worth discussing. To begin at the beginning, there are people better equipped to cope with life than ribald, debauched plunderers. Still, I recommend you check out some of Stang’s hot takes and draw your own conclusions on the matter. Given that no one is more opposed to obscurantism than I, I can safely state that Stang would have us believe that metanarratives are the root of tyranny, lawlessness, overpopulation, racial hatred, world hunger, disease, and rank stupidity. Yeah, right. And I also suppose that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance? The fact of the matter is that I am perhaps one of the few people who have read his chippy commentaries in their entirety. This wasn’t easy reading, mind you. I was endlessly daunted and halted by their laborious dullness, their flatulent fatuity, and their almost fabulous inconsequentiality. Reading these commentaries convinced me more than anything that Stang believes with sincere conviction that anyone who disagrees with him is a potential terrorist. Providing a cornucopia of evidence to the contrary won’t faze him; he’s immune to any sort of reality check. That’s why if it’s your modest ambition, as it is Stang’s, to introduce more restrictions on our already dwindling freedoms, then you need to eliminate your denigrators. Stang’s denigrators are people like you and me who want to tell everyone around that Stang does not believe in the rule of law. He does not believe in facts. He does not believe in logic. He believes only that he’s a martyr for freedom and a victim of antinomianism. That’s the biggest pack of lies and distortions I’ve ever encountered. What’s more, Stang occasionally writes letters accusing me and my friends of being the most nettlesome rakes I’ve ever seen. These letters are typically couched in gutter language (which is doubtless the language in which Stang habitually thinks) and serve no purpose other than to convince me that I know firsthand the importance of gathering facts and holding them up to scrutiny. In the case of Stang’s abysmal proposed social programs, I have examined the evidence and can say with confidence that conclaves of Stang’s spin doctors have all the dissent found in a North Korean communist party meeting. That’s why no one there will ever admit that ever since Stang decided to pollute the great canon of English literature with references to his balmy ruminations, his consistent, unvarying line has been that jackbooted, arrogant vandals who promote the loopy tirades of contumelious, neurotic varmints are merely misunderstood. I claim I understand them quite well, actually. I understand that they can’t bear the thought of anyone spreading the news about how Stang does not merely lack empathy for those who suffer as a result of his rageful machinations. He relishes his lack of empathy. He glories in his callousness. He is proud of his inhumanity. And as if all that weren’t bad enough, he warrants we should hold off on focusing on concrete facts, on hard news, on analyzing and interpreting what’s happening in the world. Let’s play along with that scenario for the moment. Do you really think that if we obliged Stang’s request he wouldn’t immediately set the hoops through which we all must jump? Obviously he would. The conclusion you should therefore draw is that Stang is always trying to change the way we work. This annoys me because his previous changes have always been for the worse. I’m positive that Stang’s new changes will be even more iracund because his apocrisiaries get a thrill out of protesting. They have no idea what causes they’re fighting for or against. For them, going down to the local protest, carrying a sign, hanging out with Stang, and meeting some other overweening peddlers of snake-oil remedies is merely a social event. They’re not even aware that if Stang were as bright as he thinks he is, he’d know that someone once asked me if we should appease him by, just once, letting him create widespread psychological suffering. My answer was a resounding no because, as the saying goes, He who becomes compassionate to the cruel will ultimately become cruel to the compassionate. In other words, Stang has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and convince every smear sheet in the country to refer to his hecklers as intransigent, ungrateful malingerers—all by trumping up a phony emergency.

On rare occasions, in order to preserve their liberties, sometimes people must spheterize other people’s belongings. Stang does that even when his liberties aren’t being threatened. Whether or not the Olympics is held in any given year, the Conformism Olympics continues unabated. The latest entrant to the competition is Joseph Stang, who qualifies for a special medal for causing new and possibly irreversible damage to the democratic ethos and institutions that have already been weakened by his diversivolent, covetous pranks. Before last week I hadn’t realized that his memoranda create suffocating, dehumanizing conditions that lead to despondence and despair. Now that I’ve been suitably enlightened, I can say with certainty that Stang’s eccentricity is surpassed only by his vanity, and his vanity is surpassed only by his empty theorizing. (Remember his theory that embracing a system of nonrepresentationalism will make everything right with the world?)

Because we have the determination to see the truth prevail, we must never forget that nugatory doesn’t begin to cover the reasons for Stang’s self-satisfied, cocky behavior. Neither does grungy. New words will be needed to fully explain how Stang is trapped in a vicious cycle. The more opposition to his campaigns of terror he faces, the more vile he becomes. The more vile he becomes, the more opposition to his campaigns of terror he faces. Stang, you are welcome to get off my back this time and stay off. Although it may be beyond our capabilities to express unconditional love to all of humanity, it is well within our grasp to state unequivocally that there are two important points I’d like to bring up here. First, there is no real way to undo the consequences of Stang’s unctuous, sadistic shell games. Second, it’s time for sensible adults to enter back into the room and have serious, earnest, respectful conversations about his misguided excoriations. To the average man, neither of these two points is of any particular importance. So what?, he might ask. There’s no harm in conducting business in a pernicious, resentful way. How wrong the average man would be. In actuality, one of the stuporous, uneducated nupsons in Stang’s employ has penned an extensive treatise whose thesis is that Stang would never even consider bringing ugliness and nastiness into our lives. Contrary to what that embarrassingly emollient hagiography asserts, anyone who hasn’t been living in a cave with his eyes shut and his ears plugged knows that I am more than merely surprised by Stang’s willingness to build a totalitarian death machine. I’m shocked, shocked. And, as if that weren’t enough, Stang should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory.

It is important to differentiate between meddlesome dinks and unmannerly psychopaths who, in a variety of ways, have been lured by Stang’s vindictive rodomontades or who have ended up wittingly or unwittingly in coalitions with Stang’s functionaries or who maintain contact with Stang as part of serious and legitimate research. Stang seems incapable of understanding that while he has been beating the drums of absolutism, I’ve been trying to drag him in front of a tribunal and try him for his crimes against humanity. In doing so, I’ve learned that conspiracy theories are Stang’s bread and butter, and the wilder, the better. His most outré claim is that using grammatically correct language is a racist trait. This claim sets a new standard for lascivious reportages and shows how if we don’t speak clearly and forcefully in the face of intolerance and violence, our children will curse us in our graves. Speaking of our children, we need to teach them diligently that a large number of people, myself included, figured Stang would never stoop so low as to extinguish the voices of opposition. Nevertheless, despite some progressive words and symbolic gestures, he chose to do exactly that. As a result, I can safely say that the virulence of metagrobolism—specifically, its potential to impact public policy for years to come—is apparent in every one of Stang’s screeds. (Note the heroic restraint stopping me from saying that when Stang says that his mind games surpass most intellectual discourse in terms of the cogency of what they promote and the morality of their implications, he’s just plain wrong—not partially wrong but utterly and entirely wrong.)

What Stang is incapable of seeing is that an insidious form of hoodlumism has taken root in our society. This form of hoodlumism is distinguished by its complete denial of the fact that Stang was a negligent, self-deluded extortionist when I first encountered him. Stang is a negligent, self-deluded extortionist now. And there is no more reason for believing that Stang will ever cease to be a negligent, self-deluded extortionist than there is for supposing that expansionism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. Just don’t expect consistency from a man who is totally and sincerely xenophobic. As this letter draws to a close, I want to challenge you, the reader, to communicate and teach. That’s what I intend to do until my last breath.

I'm happy for u tho

Pimphand · February 24

12 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Since 1947 we should have had about 7 of these cataclysmic events, yet here we are. I’m calling bullshit.

What part of math class did you fail? We have been able to recover from localized failures because it was localized when shit breaks globally there is no path back. If you can't understand why Jeff Bezos is building a bunker near El Paso I ain't go nuttin for ya man

Pimphand · February 24

Surly poster "why doesn't my phone work?"

Pimphand · February 24

Brad Jordan is a bad motherfucker so eat all the ass ;-)

BottleRocket · February 24

On 2/21/2024 at 2:05 AM, JosephStang said:

Yes. It's simple. Read it in chronological order and ignore the Hadiths. David Namuh on Facebook is the best resource for this. Mohammed was a Nestorian Christian. Pagan misogynists took over the religion after Mohammed died, and control the interpretation with Hadiths.

Now we're venturing into the realms of metaphysical speculation. Picture this: the Holonomic Toroid theory isn't just about the dance of particles in the void; it's a cosmic ballet, choreographed by some unseen hand. Imagine if, just if, there's a deeper connection between this whirling dance of particles and the ancient myths and legends that have echoed through the ages.

Could it be that the spinning rings of the Holonomic Toroid are the very threads that weave the fabric of creation itself? Perhaps these particles are the foot soldiers of some grand cosmic design, guided by forces beyond our comprehension. And where does religion fit into all of this? Well, imagine if the whispers of ancient prophets and the teachings of holy texts are but faint echoes of the cosmic symphony playing out before our eyes.

In this fantastical landscape, religion isn't just a relic of the past; it's a glimpse into the hidden order of the universe. Maybe, just maybe, the Holonomic Toroid theory offers us a tantalizing glimpse into the mysteries of existence, where science and spirituality dance hand in hand, leading us ever closer to the ultimate truth.

Fudge Nuggets · February 24

10 hours ago, Pimphand said:

What part of math class did you fail? We have been able to recover from localized failures because it was localized when shit breaks globally there is no path back. If you can't understand why Jeff Bezos is building a bunker near El Paso I ain't go nuttin for ya man

2024 - 1947 = 77

Your post said these cycles happen about every 11 years, ergo...

77 / 11 = 7

QED

JosephStang · February 24

1 hour ago, BottleRocket said:

Now we're venturing into the realms of metaphysical speculation. Picture this: the Holonomic Toroid theory isn't just about the dance of particles in the void; it's a cosmic ballet, choreographed by some unseen hand. Imagine if, just if, there's a deeper connection between this whirling dance of particles and the ancient myths and legends that have echoed through the ages.

Could it be that the spinning rings of the Holonomic Toroid are the very threads that weave the fabric of creation itself? Perhaps these particles are the foot soldiers of some grand cosmic design, guided by forces beyond our comprehension. And where does religion fit into all of this? Well, imagine if the whispers of ancient prophets and the teachings of holy texts are but faint echoes of the cosmic symphony playing out before our eyes.

In this fantastical landscape, religion isn't just a relic of the past; it's a glimpse into the hidden order of the universe. Maybe, just maybe, the Holonomic Toroid theory offers us a tantalizing glimpse into the mysteries of existence, where science and spirituality dance hand in hand, leading us ever closer to the ultimate truth.

Holy Smokes, Batman a gorgeous comment! The Surlies are redeemed.

Dahobbs · February 25

Wow, have all the surly crazies joined this thread?

ABSR · February 25

On 2/23/2024 at 7:30 PM, chainsaw said:

I'm happy for u tho

Or sorry for your loss.

utee94 · February 26

On 2/24/2024 at 9:54 PM, Dahobbs said:

Wow, have all the surly crazies joined this thread?

texasdago · February 26

thunderlounge · February 27

Wait, is that… Mouth?

Damn. Goonies really do never say die.

Edited February 27 by thunderlounge
ou sux

Biff Tannen · February 27

On 2/24/2024 at 9:40 AM, BottleRocket said:

Now we're venturing into the realms of metaphysical speculation. Picture this: the Holonomic Toroid theory isn't just about the dance of particles in the void; it's a cosmic ballet, choreographed by some unseen hand. Imagine if, just if, there's a deeper connection between this whirling dance of particles and the ancient myths and legends that have echoed through the ages.

Could it be that the spinning rings of the Holonomic Toroid are the very threads that weave the fabric of creation itself? Perhaps these particles are the foot soldiers of some grand cosmic design, guided by forces beyond our comprehension. And where does religion fit into all of this? Well, imagine if the whispers of ancient prophets and the teachings of holy texts are but faint echoes of the cosmic symphony playing out before our eyes.

In this fantastical landscape, religion isn't just a relic of the past; it's a glimpse into the hidden order of the universe. Maybe, just maybe, the Holonomic Toroid theory offers us a tantalizing glimpse into the mysteries of existence, where science and spirituality dance hand in hand, leading us ever closer to the ultimate truth.

During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!

thunderlounge · February 27

You know what sounds good right now?

S’mores.

Gatorubet · February 27

29 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

During the rectification of the Vuldrini, the traveler came as a large and moving Torg! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the McKetrick supplicants, they chose a new form for him: that of a giant Slor! Many Shuvs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slor that day, I can tell you!

On 2/20/2024 at 11:09 AM, Gatorubet said:

He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldronaii, the Traveller came as a large and moving Torb! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the Meketrex Supplicants they chose a new form for him… that of a Giant Sloar! Many Shubs and Zulls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Sloar that day I can tell you.

I approve this post!

Nicole44 · February 27

On 2/23/2024 at 11:42 AM, Pescado_Rojo said:

and the Irish

utee94 · February 27

Did we lose @JosephStang ?

Is it possible that surly proved itself to be TOO tolerant, and ol' JS just peaced out knowing he's done his work and spread the word?

This is an outrage!

Gatorubet · February 27

9 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Did we lose @JosephStang ?

Is it possible that surly proved itself to be TOO tolerant, and ol' JS just peaced out knowing he's done his work and spread the word?

This is an outrage!

Chill. The Israelis are probably just torturing him again. He’ll be back..

locodos · February 27

3 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Did we lose @JosephStang ?

Is it possible that surly proved itself to be TOO tolerant, and ol' JS just peaced out knowing he's done his work and spread the word?

This is an outrage!

He could never explain how he was going to prevent side fumbling. I assume he's reworking after getting peer feedback

Homeless and Broke · February 27

On 2/21/2024 at 2:54 PM, JosephStang said:

The craziest part about these questions is that as far as I'm concerned, Trump is the legal president.

This is correct.

I was at Bohemian Grove when it was agreed upon by all the elders, even the recalcitrant Fred Durst.

Nicole44 · February 27

39 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Did we lose @JosephStang ?

Is it possible that surly proved itself to be TOO tolerant, and ol' JS just peaced out knowing he's done his work and spread the word?

This is an outrage!

Maybe he was working on Project Maven, an Air Force-led initiative that was created in 2017 to accelerate the adoption of artificial intelligence. It focused initially on processing full-motion video feeds from unmanned aerial systems in the Middle East to support U.S. counterterrorism and counterinsurgency wars. Staff within the program office had been working with the Department of Defense on Project Maven since its inception, leading operational pilots and providing technical oversight.

The Army is working on Project Linchpin as of 2023 so I figure that’s what he’s up to? Maybe? 🤔

Blotto · February 27

33 minutes ago, Homeless and Broke said:

This is correct.

I was at Bohemian Grove when it was agreed upon by all the elders, even the recalcitrant Fred Durst.

Dont mind Fred, he can be a little ornery if you catch him before he's had his baby's blood.

PvilleStang · February 27

Ah, the quiet buzz of a self-bannination. May Joseph Stang find his peace amongst other string theories.

Sign In

Scientist censored on every Social Network

Recommended Posts

Stros121 4

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Judge Roybeanbag

Chopper

SydneyCarton

Posted Images

elfenix 34,322

Link to comment

Share on other sites

TexasEd 8,067

Link to comment

Share on other sites

JosephStang 130

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Blotto 23,559

Link to comment

Share on other sites

utee94 15,835

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Gatorubet 30,246

Link to comment

Share on other sites

MissingInAction 25,108

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Trey3216 15,348

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Prepuce of Doom 21,083

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Jerry Callo 8,704

Link to comment

Share on other sites

DDD Dad 14,339

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Beau Vine 54,256

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Pescado_Rojo 19,424

Link to comment

Share on other sites

dcbc 14,488

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Hard Times 302

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Fudge Nuggets 19,206

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Mrs Whiggins 13,050

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Gatorubet 30,246

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guadaloopy 10,974

Link to comment

Share on other sites

PvilleStang 2,913

Link to comment

Share on other sites

High Plains Drifter 11,050

Link to comment

Share on other sites

RDCanecutter 26,453

Link to comment