Next Generation Emulation banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

317 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This website is too much. It lets you generate a complaint letter about any company or person you want. :lol:
You also apparently get a different letter every time.

Here's an out take from my letter about George W. Bush:
Mr. Bush's favorite buzzword these days is "crisis". He likes to tell us that we have a crisis on our hands. He then argues that the only reasonable approach to combat this crisis is for him to threaten the existence of human life, perhaps all life on the planet.
Here's the link :wave:

The seeker of perfection
4,008 Posts
:lol: i entered Ngemu Mods and it came with this, i just had to change his for their:

Recent troubling developments prompt me to revisit a subject I've discussed in the past: Ngemu Mods and their plan to perpetrate acts of the most diabolic character. Here's my side of the story: I would be grateful if they would take a little time from their rigorous schedule to make a cause célèbre out of exposing their dissertations for what they really are. Of course, pigs will grow wings and fly before that ever happens. It seems ironic that their views are antiquated, misguided, and pudibund, given that an armed revolt against them is morally justified. However, I think that it is not yet strategically justified. Ngemu Mods can't possibly believe that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do. They're dirty, but they're not that dirty. I've received appreciative notes from academic psychologists and students of culture who deplore the misapplication of their subjects by ideologues like them. I challenge them to move from their broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise. Okay, I've written enough for one letter, so let me just finish by saying that Ngemu Mods are blinded by greed.

Premium Member
12,032 Posts
What a waste of time ... I love it! :p

2,771 Posts
I don't normally talk about how learning the truth can be a painful experience, especially for Mr. George W. Bush, Jr.. However, in this case I'm going to make an exception. I figure it's okay because Mr. Bush is entirely unmovable by truth or reason. One of my objectives is to keep the faith. He has, at times, called me "prissy" or "larcenous". Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to sell us fibs and fear mixed with a generous dollop of mandarinism. I just want to say that he is far more interested in fattening himself on the various processes of decay in our society than he is in helping us build a new understanding that can transport us to tomorrow. There's nothing controversial about that view. It's a fact, pure and simple. It was a fact long before anyone realized that when Mr. Bush hears anyone say that for all of his professed concern for human rights, Mr. Bush has yet to take a firm and unambiguous stand against those infantile scofflaws who pilfer the national treasure, his answer is to tear down everything that can possibly be regarded as a support of cultural elevation. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry, rather than by narrowing or abandoning it.

The significance of this is that the next time Mr. Bush decides to assail all that is holy, he should think to himself, cui bono? -- who benefits? I used a phrase a few moments ago. I referred to his sycophants as "coldhearted demoniacs." You ought to memorize that phrase, because, frankly, he can't possibly believe that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. He's unprofessional, but he's not that unprofessional.

Now, I'm going to be honest here. Mr. Bush thinks I'm trying to say that it is better that a hundred thousand people should perish than that he should be even slightly inconvenienced. Wait! I just heard something. Oh, never mind; it's just the sound of the point zooming way over Mr. Bush's head. Because I unfortunately lack the psychic powers that enable Mr. Bush to "know" matters for which there is no reliable evidence, I cannot forecast when he will next try to require schoolchildren to be taught that genocide, slavery, racism, and the systematic oppression, degradation, and exploitation of most of the world's people are all utterly justified. But I can unequivocally say that Mr. Bush does not merely show us a gross miscarriage of common judgment. He does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically.

Mr. Bush has no fixed ethical principles. Sounds pretty garrulous, doesn't it? But is it any more so than Mr. Bush's adversarial rantings?

Everybody loves a good game of hide-and-seek: find the person, find the hidden item, or, in Mr. Bush's case, find the hidden agenda. Our future is hopeless indeed if we do not shoo Mr. Bush away like the annoying bug that he is, but what makes matters thoroughly intolerable is knowing that Mr. Bush operates on an international scale to transform our society into a mealymouthed war machine. It's only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale, but to comment on a phenomenon that has and will continue to doctor evidence and classification systems and make moonstruck generalizations to support harebrained, preconceived views. While he is indubitably entitled to ignore good advice from intelligent people, many people are convinced that by promoting both nonrepresentationalism and Dadaism, his demands are doubly eccentric. I can't comment on that, but I can say that I welcome Mr. Bush's comments. However, Mr. Bush needs to realize that my cause is to speak up and speak out against him. I call upon men and women from all walks of life to support my cause with their life-affirming eloquence and indomitable spirit of human decency and moral righteousness. Only then will the whole world realize that Mr. Bush's claim that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind. Behold what a nice, thick, fat lie it is when Mr. Bush denies ever having strived to bad-mouth worthy causes. There is something grievously wrong with those inane ignoramuses who teach the next generation how to hate -- and whom to hate. Shame on the lot of them!

You may balk at this, but we've all heard Mr. Bush yammer and whine about how he's being scapegoated again, the poor dear. Don't be intimidated by his threat to dress up his profit motive in the cloak of selfless altruism. To say that war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength is judgmental nonsense and untrue to boot. Mr. Bush's hariolations do not come without a price. But it doesn't stop there.

Mr. Bush says that he needs a little more time to clean up his act. As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Bush's time has run out. In such a brief letter as this, I certainly cannot refute all the endeavors of sniffish, snappish upstarts, but perhaps I can brush away some of their most deliberate and flagrant reinterpretations of historic events. Other than that, people tell me that sometimes, what you don't know can hurt you. And the people who tell me this are correct, of course. Aside from the fact that it is dysfunctional and more than Pecksniffian to believe that Mr. Bush is the one who will lead us to our great shining future, Mr. Bush may dispense outright misinformation and flashlight-under-the-chin ghost stories right after he reads this letter. Let him. In the near future, I will tackle the multinational death machine that Mr. Bush is currently constructing.

Calling Mr. Bush's apparatchiks reckless practitioners of frotteurism may be accurate, but if Mr. Bush thinks that he is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong, then he's sadly mistaken. I fear that, over time, his diatribes will be seen as uncontested fact, because many people are afraid to snap his apologists out of their trance. I repeat: I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I suspect that there is, because if he would abandon his name-calling and false dichotomies it would be much easier for me to empower the oppressed to control their own lives. In the past, I've said that as Mr. Bush feels less and less need to conceal his expositions, he makes increasingly open moves towards abusive priggism. Were I to make such a generalization today, it would contain a few "weasel words" -- an escape hatch or that indispensable cliche that even Mr. Bush must concede that it has been, and is, my great undertaking to call for proper disciplinary action against him and his stooges. But because "impetuous" hardly seems like a strong enough word to describe him, I am not ready to retract my conviction or to recant error.

I, speaking as someone who is not an ill-bred, discourteous spieler, am not trying to save the world -- I gave up that pursuit a long time ago. But I am trying to call a spade a spade. In a sense, I've heard Mr. Bush say that honesty and responsibility have no cash value and are therefore worthless. Was that just a slip of the lip or is Mr. Bush secretly trying to skewer me over a pit barbecue? This isn't such an easy question to answer, but let me take a stab at it: He argues that I am indelicate for wanting to knock some sense into him. I should point out that this is almost the same argument that was made against Copernicus and Galileo almost half a millennium ago. His idiotic claim that superstition is no less credible than proven scientific principles is just that, an idiotic claim.

In order to understand the motivation behind Mr. Bush's methods of interpretation, it is important first to face our problems realistically, get to the root of our problems, and be determined to solve them. If Mr. Bush is going to make an emotional appeal, then he should also include a rational argument. If his plan to lead a hateful jihad against those who oppose him is to be discouraged then the wisest course of action is to indicate in a rough and approximate way the two apolaustic tendencies that I believe are the main driving force of modern Jacobinism. Before we start down that road I ought to remind you that he can't attack my ideas, so he attacks me. It could be worse, I suppose. Mr. Bush could promote a culture of dependency and failure. Is there anyone else out there who's noticed that other distasteful, antihumanist sods are also consumed with a desire to create an untrue and injurious impression of an entire people? I ask because he is absolutely determined to believe that the kids on the playground are happy to surrender to the school bully, and he's not about to let facts or reason get in his way. Let me close where I began: Mr. George W. Bush, Jr.'s snow jobs have put our proud nation on a path which, if left unchanged, may well cause it to follow the Roman Empire into historical oblivion.
Its funny, the figure's of speach actually refer to things that he's done. I should submit this.

PS: Love the new sig Razor.

General of Tangerines
3,944 Posts
This is quite accurate. :)

What I am about to say is strictly off the record. On that understanding, I shall give you candidly and without circumlocution the best estimate of our present plight that I have been able to make. For complete details, I refer you to my forthcoming book on the subject. I shall here mention only a few random items that may be new or especially interesting to you. For instance, Pres. George W. Bush truly believes that he is beyond reproach. I hope you realize that that's just an unruly pipe dream from a belligerent pipe, and that in the real world, one of Pres. Bush's serfs keeps throwing "scientific" studies at me, claiming they prove that Pres. Bush can ignore rules, laws, and protocol without repercussion. The studies are full of "if"s, "possible"s, "maybe"s, and various exceptions and admissions of their limitations. This leaves the studies inconclusive at best and works of fiction at worst. The only thing these studies can possibly prove is that I wish that one of the innumerable busybodies who are forever making "statistical studies" about nonsense would instead make a statistical study that means something. For example, I'd like to see a statistical study of Pres. Bush's capacity to learn the obvious. Also worthwhile would be a statistical study of how many choleric scatterbrains realize that you may be worried that Pres. Bush will hamstring our efforts to explain a few facets of this confusing world around us in the immediate years ahead. If so, then I share your misgivings. But let's not worry about that now. Instead, let's discuss my observation that Pres. Bush is entirely mistaken if he believes that his grievances are all sweetness and light. Pres. Bush is truly up to something. I don't know exactly what, but this is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to peddle the snake oil of refractory, shabby voyeurism. Not yet, at least. But he always tries to shift blame from himself to possession-obsessed, irreligionism-oriented goofballs. Pres. Bush will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact, because if he didn't, you might come to realize that I am not fooled by his gormless and eristic rhetoric. I therefore gladly accept the responsibility of notifying others that Pres. Bush hates it when you say that he can't discuss anything without talking about extremism. He really hates it when you say that. Try saying it to him sometime, if you have a thick skin and don't mind having him shriek insults at you.

Those of us who are too lazy or disinterested to enhance people's curiosity, critical acumen, and aesthetic sensitivity have no right to complain when he and his companions portray censorious sots as lunkheads. Pres. Bush can't relate to anyone other than disorderly calumniators. But it goes further than that; Pres. Bush uses big words like "compartmentalization" to make himself sound important. For that matter, benevolent Nature has equipped another puny creature, the skunk, with a means of making itself seem important, too. Although Pres. Bush's prank phone calls may reek like a skunk, there is still hope for our society, real hope -- not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of the worst classes of baleful, improvident sciolists there are, but the hope that makes you eager to dole out acerbic criticism of Pres. Bush and his phalanx of imperious dupes. I realize that academicism is a tremendous problem in our society, but does it constantly have to be thrown in our faces? To ask that question another way, what exactly is Pres. Bush trying to hide? The answer is rather depressing but I'll tell you anyway. The answer begins with the observation that Pres. Bush finds reality too difficult to swallow. Or maybe it just gets lost between the sports and entertainment pages. In either case, I plan to make Pres. Bush answer for his wrongdoings. Are you with me -- or against me? Whatever you decide, Pres. Bush's intimates argue that newspapers should report only on items he agrees with. These are the same scummy bureaucrats who ascribe opinions to me that I don't even hold. This is no coincidence; if Pres. Bush wanted to, he could create an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment. He could force me to feel disconnected from reality. And he could threaten the existence of human life, perhaps all life on the planet. We must not allow Pres. Bush to do any of these.

In public, Pres. Bush vehemently inveighs against corruption and sin. But when nobody's looking, Pres. Bush never fails to conspire with evil. Worst of all, our children's children would never forgive us for letting him shift blame from those who benefit from oppression to those who suffer from it. I'm not a psychiatrist. Sometimes, though, I wish I were, so that I could better understand what makes people like him want to impose a particular curriculum, vision of history, and method of pedagogy on our school systems. Do we not, as rational men and women, owe it to both our heritage and our posterity to clarify and correct some of the inaccuracies present in Pres. Bush's litanies? I, not being one of the many contumelious, flippant slanderers of this world, think we do. Granted, Pres. Bush conducts himself in a superciliously pompous manner. But Pres. Bush believes that cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior. That's just wrong. He further believes that society is supposed to be lenient towards petulant muttonheads. Wrong again! In closing, Pres. George W. Bush's magic-bullet explanations just don't stand up.

AKA snkmad
4,063 Posts
Just loved this!!
So here I am taking time out of my busy schedule to let you and maybe a few other people know that Blizzard should get off its pedestal and walk a day in our shoes. Permit me this forum to rant. In order for us to realize more happiness in our lives, we need to understand that Blizzard should stop and savor life, not prime the pump of escapism. We can therefore extrapolate that it is interpersonally exploitative. That is, it takes advantage of others to achieve its own quixotic ends. Why does it do that? This can be answered most easily by stating that if you read between the lines of its treatises, you'll definitely find that we've tolerated its arrogant hijinks long enough. It's time to lose our patience and chill our kindness. It's time to give parents the means to protect their children. It's time to shout to the world that even its horoscope says it's perfidious. But there's the rub; I wonder if it really believes the things it says. It knows they're not true, doesn't it? The complete answer to that question is a long, sad story. I've answered parts of that question in several of my previous letters, and I'll answer other parts in future ones. For now, I'll just say that it will probably throw another hissy fit if we don't let it create a beachhead for organized Jacobinism. At least putting up with another Blizzard hissy fit is easier than convincing Blizzard's encomiasts that we must break the mold and stray from the path of conventional wisdom. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to begin the debate about Blizzard's conclusions. Blizzard demands obeisance from its goombahs. Then, once they prove their loyalty, Blizzard forces them to empty garbage pails full of the vilest slanders and defamations on the clean garments of honorable people.

Everybody is probably familiar with the cliche that being forced to listen to Blizzard yap on and on about antipluralism is about as desirable as being flayed alive and rolled in salt. Well, there's a lot of truth in that cliche. Blizzard maintains that it's perfectly safe to drink and drive. Perhaps it would be best for it to awaken from its delusional narcoleptic fantasyland and observe that if I wanted to brainwash and manipulate a large segment of the population, I would convince them that sin is good for the soul. In fact, that's exactly what Blizzard does as part of its quest to reinforce the concept of collective guilt that is the root of all prejudice.

How do you think Blizzard will get its hands on all of the incriminating documents about it that I have in my possession? A secretive home or office invasion, a knock on the door, or its favored battering-ram incursion? You see, I, hardheaded cynic that I am, wouldn't want to abuse science by using it as a mechanism of ideology. I would, on the other hand, love to make a cause célèbre out of exposing Blizzard's remarks for what they really are. But, hey, I'm already doing that with this letter. Blizzard contends that everyone and everything discriminates against it -- including the writing on the bathroom stalls -- and that, therefore, it should be a given a direct pipeline to the National Treasury. This bizarre pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. For example, it convinces biggety deviants (as distinct from the predatory recidivists who prefer to chirrup while hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) that merit is adequately measured by Blizzard's methods and qualifications. In reality, contrariwise, if I didn't sincerely believe that it would be downright dishonest for Blizzard to alter laws, language, and customs in the service of regulating social relations, then I wouldn't be writing this letter. As long as the beer keeps flowing and the paychecks keep coming, Blizzard's loyalists don't really care that I myself am appalled by the vast generalizations in its claim that there's no difference between normal people like you and me and lubricious witlings. It follows from this that Blizzard thinks it would be a great idea to replace our natural soul with an artificial one. Even if we overlook the logistical impossibilities of such an idea, the underlying premise is still flawed. Of course, I'm generalizing a little here. But that's only because Blizzard's scornful notions can be quite educational. By studying them, students can observe firsthand the consequences of having an organization consumed with paranoia, fear, hatred, and ignorance.

Pardon my saying so, but Blizzard's surrogates 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 Blizzard, and meeting some other lethargic derelicts is merely a social event. They're not even aware that Blizzard's subordinates have discounted their brain as a useless organ. Let me try to explain what I mean by that in a single sentence: We must work together to tell you things that Blizzard doesn't want you to know. What can you do to help? For starters, you might want to call for proper disciplinary action against Blizzard and its chums. I personally derive great satisfaction in doing that sort of thing because one of Blizzard's trained seals keeps throwing "scientific" studies at me, claiming they prove that Blizzard has the authority to issue licenses for practicing paternalism. The studies are full of "if"s, "possible"s, "maybe"s, and various exceptions and admissions of their limitations. This leaves the studies inconclusive at best and works of fiction at worst. The only thing these studies can possibly prove is that Blizzard is thoroughly versipellous. When it's among plebeians, Blizzard warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against sensationalism. But when Blizzard's safely surrounded by its mercenaries, it instructs them to make people suspicious of those who speak the truth. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that Blizzard's communications promote a redistribution of wealth. This is always an appealing proposition for Blizzard's attendants because much of the redistributed wealth will undoubtedly end up in the hands of the redistributors as a condign reward for their loyalty to Blizzard. The reason Blizzard wants to introduce changes without testing them first is that it's absolutely brain-damaged. If you believe you have another explanation for its iconoclastic behavior, then please write and tell me about it.

How can Blizzard live with itself, knowing that when it promotes the idea of a "global village" Blizzard secretly means "global pillage"? There aren't enough hours in the day to fully answer that question, but consider this: Blizzard is willing to promote truth and justice when it's convenient. But when it threatens its creature comforts, Blizzard throws principle to the wind. My goal is to focus on the major economic, social, and political forces that provide the setting for the expression of a pouty agenda. I might not be successful at achieving that goal, but I sincerely do have to try. Blizzard, please spare us the angst of living in a fallen world. Does Blizzard really know anything about the expositions it claims to support? No, it doesn't.

I happen to believe that we are a nation of prostitutes. By this I mean that as long as we are fat, warm, and dry we don't care what Blizzard does. It is precisely that lack of caring that explains why I shall not argue that Blizzard's newsgroup postings are an authentic map of its plan to change this country's moral infrastructure. Read them and see for yourself. If Blizzard got its way, it'd be able to hurt others physically or emotionally. Brrrr! It sends chills down my spine just thinking about that. Blizzard's idiotic claim that it's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread is just that, an idiotic claim.

To be blunt, Blizzard has planted its representatives everywhere. You can find them in businesses, unions, activist organizations, tax-exempt foundations, professional societies, movies, schools, churches, and so on. Not only does this subversive approach enhance Blizzard's ability to provide cover for a brusque agenda but it also provides irrefutable evidence that Nature is a wonderful teacher. For instance, the lesson that Nature teaches us from newly acephalous poultry is that you really don't need a brain to run around like a dang fool making a spectacle of yourself. Nature also teaches us that Blizzard's hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it. Common-sense understanding of human nature tells us that the really interesting thing about all this is not that Blizzard's exegeses smack of antinomianism. The interesting thing is that if it wanted to, it could fuel inquisitions. It could pervert the course of justice. And it could turn the trickle of immoralism into a tidal wave. We must indubitably not allow Blizzard to do any of these. Blizzard's tirades have grown into the world's greatest enslavers of human minds. That should serve as the final, ultimate, irrefutable proof that there's something fishy about its morals. I think Blizzard's up to something, something horny and perhaps even dysfunctional. As far as I'm concerned, we must unquestionably wage war on solecism. Does that sound extremist? Is it too wishy-washy for you? I'm sorry if it seems that way, but that's life.

Unlike Blizzard, when I make a mistake I'm willing to admit it. Consequently, if -- and I'm bending over backwards to maintain the illusion of "innocent until proven guilty" -- it were not actually responsible for trying to have more impact on Earth's biological, geological, and chemical systems during our lifetime and our children's than all preceding human generations had together, then I'd stop saying that Blizzard's ophidian sycophants seem to think they can escape the consequences of their actions. I know you're wondering why I just wrote that. I'll explain shortly, but first, I should state that I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on Blizzard's part to promote, foster, and institute neopaganism in a lustrum or two. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that I am making a pretty serious accusation here. I am accusing Blizzard of planning to glorify the things that everyone else execrates. And I don't want anyone to think that I am basing my accusation only on the fact that I am certain that if I asked the next person I meet if he would want Blizzard to leave us in the lurch, he would say no. Yet we all stand idly by while Blizzard claims that the most out-of-touch publishers of hate literature I've ever seen should be fêted at wine-and-cheese fund-raisers. As I mentioned before, I am merely pointing out what I have observed. But let me add that if you read its writings while mentally out of focus, you may get the sense that our unalienable rights are merely privileges that it can dole out or retract. But if you read Blizzard's writings while mentally in focus and weigh each point carefully, it's clear that what it is doing is snobbism in its most blathering form. If you don't believe me, see for yourself. If Blizzard feels ridiculed by all the attention my letters are bringing it, then that's just too darn bad. Its arrogance has brought this upon itself.

Blizzard's accusations may sound comfortable and simple, but it must not be forgotten that Blizzard's vassals don't represent an ideology. They don't represent a legitimate political group of people. They're just flat resentful. Lest you think that I'm talking out of my hat here, I should point out that Blizzard says that without its superior guidance, we will go nowhere. You know, I don't think I have heard a less factually based statement in my entire life. I predict that before the year is over, people will generally agree that Blizzard surely dropped a clanger by admitting that it can justify anything that brings it a profit. This is a prediction that will not be true in all cases, but it is expected to become more common as time passes.

I don't need to tell you that I become truly impatient with people who refuse to recognize the key role that Blizzard is playing in the destruction of our civilization. That should be self-evident. What is less evident is that Blizzard somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that laws are meant to be broken. I am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine citizens of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened civilization. Are you prepared to discuss this, Blizzard? Blizzard can't possibly believe that it has the mandate of Heaven to exploit other cultures for self-entertainment. It's ruthless, but it's not that ruthless. The facts are in: Blizzard's goals are a crazy-quilt patchwork of the most temperamental classes of narcissism you'll ever see.
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.