Thread: A Complaint

errrrr, Huh????

Grunt for PM.

Al

He's been messing with an automatic complaint generator Wendy.

Grunt, I hope Al is amazingly rude to you ... well, more amazingly rude that is normal for that esteemed gentlem... (sorry, I couldn't say it )

Richard

Originally Posted by ozwinner

Grunt for PM.

Al

Grunt for Personal Message? Instead of using the internet are we supposed to write PMs down and tie them to his collar?

Richard

Originally Posted by Grunt

Some day, I want to raise predatory psychics out of their cultural misery and lead them to the national community as a valuable, united factor.

Now here I was, basking in the warm fuzzy glow of the culmination of another rotation of the earth, under the complete apprehension, (mis, apparently), that some day, all you wanted to raise was chooks!

Nice link though, I have a letter or two to write m'self tonight!

P

Oooooo, so not doing this, you make my head hurt Grunt...

I'm off to enjoy another voddy......


cheers
the very naive one.... (hic)

This must be where political speech writers get their speeches from

Maybe Grunt's lobbying for a speech-writers job for the coming commonwealth elections

ps Grunt, what did you say?

In reply.

I am not a diplomat and, as such, I am not fully conversant with the elegant and rarefied language of the diplomatic trade. I have a reputation for saying what I mean and meaning what I say. So I trust that you'll forgive me if I come across as a bit blunt when I state that Mr. Chris Grunt, Jr. doesn't know everything. Let me start by stressing that I am not attempting to suppress anyone's opinions, nor do I intend to demean Grunt personally for his beliefs or worldviews. But I do suspect that I must bear witness to the plain, unvarnished truth.
The justification Grunt gave for seeking to bury our heritage, our traditions, and our culture was one of the most insipid justifications I've ever heard. It was so insipid, in fact, that I will not repeat it here. Even without hearing the details you can still see my point quite clearly: Grunt says he's going to enact new laws forcing anyone who's not one of his apple-polishers to live in an environment that can, at best, be described as contemptuously tolerant in the immediate years ahead. Good old Grunt. He just loves to open his mouth and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how violent they sound. At no time in the past did backwards-to-the-core, incontinent schemers shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them. Knowledge is the key that unlocks the shackles of bondage. That's why it's important for you to know that if Grunt succeeds in his attempt to fortify a social correctness that restricts experience and defines success with narrow boundaries, it'll have to be over my dead body. For those who need very specific examples in order to grasp the significance of his shenanigans, I'll give a very specific example: Think for a moment about the way that he should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory. If we look beyond Grunt's delusions of grandeur, we see that he has two imperatives. The first is to obfuscate the issue so that one can't see what ought to be thoroughly obvious to all. The second imperative is to place our children at imminent risk of serious harm. Grunt's positions are some of the most stinking, footling, and impractical I've ever encountered. Which brings us to the harsh reality that must be faced: Whenever there's an argument about Grunt's devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that Grunt's allegations are exemplary of the forces minorities must fight in their struggle to achieve equal footing with the rest of the community. That should settle the argument pretty quickly.
Grunt's stances are like hothouse plants. They shoot up, but they lack the strength to defy the years and withstand heavy storms. I just want to say that Grunt presents one face to the public, a face that tells people what they want to hear. Then, in private, he devises new schemes to pooh-pooh the reams of solid evidence pointing to the existence and operation of a contemptible coterie of onanism. He is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in his own biases, gets into all sorts of deceitful speculation, and then makes no effort to test out his speculations -- and that's just the short list! Since I don't know Grunt that well, I'll have to be a bit presumptuous when I say that it is not uncommon for him to victimize the innocent, penalize the victim for making any effort to defend himself, and then paint the whole biased affair as some great benefit to humanity. Mr. Chris Grunt, Jr. emits an essence of "lackluster" that is so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics as we know them. Since I don't have anything more to say on that subject, I'll politely get off my soapbox now.

what are both of you drinking?

The glue bottles to close to the pot-belly stove, and you guys are
inhailing the fumes, Either move the glue, or ventilate the shed

I've been hesitating to write this letter, because I've been afraid that, if I did, Mr. Doggy Dog Grunt, Esq. would do everything in his power to make me turn to a life of crime. But after reading about Mr. Grunt's soulless vituperations, I could hesitate no longer. Note that some of the facts I plan to use in this letter were provided to me by a highly educated person who managed to escape Mr. Grunt's unimaginative, frowzy indoctrination and is consequently believable. What shall we do? We have several options. We might enhance people's curiosity, critical acumen, and aesthetic sensitivity. We might help people break free of Mr. Grunt's cycle of oppression. Or, we might speak out against disrespectful moochers. Any of these options, I feel, are acceptable. Still, we must choose one of them or else Mr. Grunt will subject human beings to indignities one day.
Mr. Grunt sometimes has trouble convincing people that his witticisms are not worth getting outraged about. When he has such trouble, he usually trots out a few stoicism-oriented, cranky brigands to constate authoritatively that there should be publicly financed centers of collectivism. Whether or not that trick of his works, it's still the case that if one believes statements like, "The majority of lackadaisical turncoats are heroes, if not saints," one is, in effect, supporting ophidian, predatory cretins. The time is always right to do what is right. That's why we must decidedly preserve the peace. The first step in that process is to realize that I and Mr. Grunt part company when it comes to the issue of charlatanism. He feels that what I call beer-guzzling misogynists should be fêted at wine-and-cheese fund-raisers, while I aver that he claims that he does the things he does "for the children". Predictably, he cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. I feel no more personal hatred for Mr. Grunt than I might feel for a herd of wild animals or a cluster of poisonous reptiles. One does not hate those whose souls can exude no spiritual warmth; one pities them.
At the risk of belaboring the obvious, Mr. Grunt had previously claimed that he had no intention to trick us into trading freedom for serfdom. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what he did. Next, he denied that he would blend together racism and solipsism in a train wreck of monumental proportions. We all know what happened then. Now, Mr. Grunt would have us believe he'd never ever turn once-flourishing neighborhoods into zones of violence, decay, and moral disregard. Will he? Go figure. My view is that once one begins thinking about free speech, about fatuitous freeloaders who use ostracism and public opinion to prevent the airing of views contrary to their own sleazy beliefs, one realizes that it's debatable whether Mr. Grunt unfairly lambastes people who are trying to do the best they can in a bad situation. However, no one can disagree that we can all have daydreams about Happy Fuzzy Purple Bunny Land, where everyone is caring, loving, and nice. Not only will those daydreams not come true, but his gofers tend to fall into the mistaken belief that he acts in the public interest, mainly because they live inside a Mr. Grunt-generated illusion-world and talk only with each other. I find that I am embarrassed. Embarrassed that some people just don't realize that Mr. Grunt's hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it. I'll try not to dwell on this, but Mr. Grunt's beliefs are based on hate. Hate, McCarthyism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life. My eventual goal for this letter is to plant markers that define the limits of what is execrable and what is not. I'm counting on you for your support.

Recent troubling developments prompt me to revisit a subject I've discussed in the past: Rabbi I P Freely and his plan to hammer a few more nails into the coffin of freedom. What follows is a call to action for those of us who care -- a large enough number to express our concerns about his closed-minded manuscripts. Even insolent lugs are ashamed of being associated with his villainous reasoning and tactless theories. But even if we disregard all that and examine only his unctuous expostulations, this seems to me to be enough to show that the best thing about him is the way that he encourages us to think outside the box. No, wait; Rabbi Freely doesn't encourage that. On the contrary, he discourages us from admitting that he has never been able to assimilate and accept the humane ideals, civilized aims, and social aspirations of his peers. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life. We can divide his nostrums into three categories: brazen, self-absorbed, and eccentric. I decidedly hope that the truth will prevail and that justice will be served before Rabbi Freely does any real damage. Or is it already too late? In other words, why can't Rabbi Freely live among us in peace? I don't pretend to know the answer, but I do know that whenever there's an argument about Rabbi Freely's devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that antisocial, inane social outcasts differ from each other only in the degree to which they stifle dissent. That should settle the argument pretty quickly.
Rabbi Freely's hangers-on actually believe the bunkum they're always mouthing. That's because these types of petty cowards are idealistic, have no sense of history or human nature, and they think that what they're doing will somehow improve the world in the immediate years ahead. In reality, of course, Rabbi Freely wonders why everyone hates him. Apparently, he never stopped to think that maybe it's because he must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why he accuses me of admitting that newspapers should report only on items he agrees with. What I actually said is that Rabbi Freely has managed to elude any direct ties to specific acts of negligence -- no small feat considering his history. I trust that I have not shocked any of you by writing that. However, I do realize that some of my readers may feel that much of what I have penned about Rabbi Freely in this letter is heartless and in violation of our Christian duty to love everyone. If so, I can say only that when I'm through with Rabbi Freely, he'll think twice before attempting to tell us how to live, what to say, what to think, what to know, and -- most importantly -- what not to know. Rabbi Freely says that he has his moral compass in tact. That is the most despicable lie I have ever heard in my entire life.
Rabbi Freely has nothing but contempt for you, and you don't even know it. That's why I feel obligated to inform you that he is attracted to antinomianism like a moth to a candle. I mean, think about it. The fact is, to get even the simplest message into the consciousness of the most Pecksniffian gadflies you'll ever see, it has to be repeated at least 50 times. Now, I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following 50 times, but the gloss that his surrogates put on his roorbacks unfortunately does little to stop defending the feral status quo and, instead, implement a bold, new agenda for change. Whatever should be true of statutory and often ephemeral enactments in human jurisprudence, the fact remains that Rabbi Freely's priorities are inverted. That conclusion is not based on some sort of blathering philosophy or on Rabbi Freely-style mental masturbation, but on widely known and proven principles of science. These principles explain that what I find frightening is that some academics actually believe Rabbi Freely's line that his decisions are based on reason. In this case, "academics" refers to a stratum of the residual intelligentsia surviving the recession of its demotic base, not to those seekers of truth who understand that Rabbi Freely's foot soldiers tend to fall into the mistaken belief that two wrongs make a right, mainly because they live inside a Rabbi Freely-generated illusion-world and talk only with each other. In closing this letter, let me point out that I would be remiss if I didn't remind you that Rabbi I P Freely works from the false assumption that most people actually want namby-pamby scatterbrains to shame my name.

ok
whats the url of the online codswallop generator?