A formal complaint

[SilentGamer]

Must be annoying to go to a thesaurus every other word.

[Mal]


[Swizl]

> 

You must feel really proud

[Anna Comnena]

If we had some of the old SMF emoticons again I could probably display my thoughts on this thread more accurately and succinctly.

[Link]

> hi

I agree with Wing, his statement is the only valid one I see here. With this being said to end any further redundant controversy, hello.

Regards,

DeathTheKid

[Nook]

I, too, am fluent in jibberfuck.

[Rydo]

> Budweiser has had his say, and this is mine. In the rest of this letter, I will use history and science (in the Hegelian sense) to prove that without freedom of conscience and freedom of inquiry there's no way we can tell Budweiser where he can stick it. What can I do to prove to you that the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist if we don't celebrate knowledge and truth for the sake of knowledge and truth? Show you evidence that Budweiser is not interested in finding truth but only in defending ideas that fit with his world vision? While that would obviously help, some people I know say that his consistent lack of regard for others will detach individuals from traditional sources of strength and identity—family, class, private associations—in a lustrum or two. Others argue that a day without Budweiser would be like a day without temulent, saturnine particularism. At this point the distinction is largely academic given that he says he's going to stifle dissent quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "unextinguishableness". Is he out of his mind? The answer is fairly obvious when you consider that his accomplices criticize others for being complacent but do absolutely nothing themselves to embrace diversity. Although this discrepancy indisputably indicates that Budweiser's accomplices are all sharp-tongued but soft-toothed hypocrites, Budweiser needs to internalize the external truth that he is unable to support his assertions with documentation of any sort. I submit that everyone should stop and mull that assertion. Then, people will understand why Budweiser's canards are a sociopolitical tragicomedy. On the one hand, they consign most of us to the role of Budweiser's servants or slaves, but on the other hand, they sensationalize all of the issues. The most entertaining part, though, is that when Budweiser was first found letting down ladders that the horny, negligent, and cantankerous scramble to climb, I was scared. I was scared not only for my personal safety; I was scared for the people I love. And now that Budweiser is planning to misdirect, discredit, disrupt, and otherwise neutralize his nemeses, I'm decidedly downright terrified.
>
> In an atmosphere of false rumors and misinformation, I will unquestionably not bow to coercion, intimidation, or the threat of violence. That's self-evident, and even Budweiser would probably agree with me on that. Even so, if he continues to make human life negligible and cheap, crime will escalate as schools deteriorate, corruption increases, and quality of life plummets. To defuse or undermine incisive critiques of his filthy behavior by turning them into procedural arguments about mechanisms of institutional restraint is an injustice. If Budweiser had his way, schools would teach students that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. This is not education but indoctrination. It prevents students from learning about how what Budweiser is doing is not an innocent, recreational sort of thing. It is a criminal activity, it is an immoral activity, it is a socially destructive activity, and it is a profoundly tetchy activity.
>
> Might I suggest that Budweiser search for a hobby? It seems he has entirely too much time on his hands, given how often he tries to abridge our basic civil liberties. Even if possession-obsessed laughable-types join his band with the best of intentions, they will still open new avenues for the expression of hate in the near future. Not all, I hasten to add, do join with the best of intentions. He has stated that he is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative. That's just pure extremism. Well, in Budweiser's case, it might be pure ignorance, seeing that Budweiser promotes a victimization hierarchy. He and his eulogists appear at the top of the hierarchy, naturally, and therefore maintain that they deserve to be given more money, support, power, etc. than anyone else. Other groups, depending on Budweiser's view of them, are further down the list. At the bottom are those of us who realize that it doesn't do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of Budweiser's reinterpretations of historic events in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must rouse people's indignation at Budweiser.
>
> Budweiser considers all of his adversaries to be shameless revolting-types—or worse. When describing them, Budweiser lets some of the most bleeding-heart, stupid, and haughty words I've ever heard pass through his lips, words that serve no purpose other than to bring home the point that there's only one true drama queen around here, and Budweiser is the one wearing the crown. Although he has repeatedly denied charges of attempting to tip the scales in his favor, I have always been an independent thinker. I'm not influenced by popular trends, the media, or even so-called undisputed facts when parroted by others. Maybe that streak of independence is what first enabled me to see that Budweiser's criticisms of my letters have never successfully disproved a single fact I ever presented. Instead, his criticisms are based solely on his emotions and gut reactions. Well, I refuse to get caught up in Budweiser's "I think … I believe … I feel" game.
>
> There is a problem here. A large, politically incorrect, namby-pamby problem. I'm not the first to mention that this is not a question of propagandism or savagism. Rather, it is a question about how anyone who is genuinely pot-valiant must also be genuinely froward. Budweiser is both. This tells us that his confidants think that he has been robbed of all he does not possess. I say to them, "Prove it"—not that they'll be able to, of course, but because Budweiser should show some class. That's the sort of statement that some people profess is merciless but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made because we must reverse the devolutionary course that Budweiser has set for us. Those who claim otherwise do so only to justify their own corrupt opinions.
>
> Budweiser's ability to escape punishment for laying all of society open to the predations of organized criminality undeniably tells us one thing. It tells us that our passage to Perdition has been booked. I believe it also tells us that the most benighted know-it-alls you'll ever see would rather listen passively to Budweiser's screaming than stop and ask some simple questions about the issues involved and let the truth penetrate their resistance to change. The sooner he comes to grips with that reality, the better for all of us. Each rung on the ladder of ageism is a crisis of some kind. Each crisis supplies an excuse for Budweiser to toss sops to the egos of the mad. That is the standard process by which the most biggety recidivists I've ever seen stonewall on issues in which taxpayers see a vital public interest.
>
> It has been brought to my attention that no one—except Budweiser, so high on his own hallucinations that he believes them to be real—can seriously believe that he knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. While this is honestly true, he has secretly been pursuing a power-drunk agenda under the guise of false concern for the environment, poverty, civil rights, or whatever. This is, of course, a scandal and demands a thorough investigation, which I intend to conduct. I expect to find that Budweiser will probably throw another hissy fit if we don't let him batten on the credulity of the ignorant. At least putting up with another Budweiser hissy fit is easier than convincing Budweiser's agents provocateurs that in a recent essay, Budweiser stated that people don't mind having their communities turned into war zones. Since the arguments he made in the rest of his essay are based in part on that assumption, he should be aware that it just isn't true. Not only that, but if we can understand what has caused the current plague of irritating flag burners, I believe that we can then bring meaning, direction, and purpose into our lives.
>
> I will never give up. I will never stop trying. And I will use every avenue possible to convince the government to clamp down hard on his deeds. Hey, it's not my fault that Budweiser's memoirs reek of McCarthyism. I use the word "reek" because Budweiser's reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth but only phlegmatic answers, sententious resolutions to conflicts. Budweiser has become a patsy to his own malevolence. I wish I could put it more delicately, but that would miss the point.
>
> How can we trust a dishonest, abhorrent kook who actively conceals his true intentions? We can't. And besides, we must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because some reputed—as opposed to reputable—members of his army of oligophrenic flapadoshas quite adamantly suspect that the majority of oppressive wisenheimers are heroes, if not saints. I find it rather astonishing that _anyone_ could allege such a thing, but then again, we must serve on the side of Truth if we are ever to take up the all-encompassing challenge of freedom, justice, equality, and the pursuit of life with full dignity. Yes, this is a bold, audacious, even unprecedented undertaking. Yes, it lacks any realistic guarantee of success. However, it is an undertaking that we must truly pursue because Budweiser is trying to brainwash us. He wants us to believe that it's offensive to give him a rhadamanthine warning not to create a world sunk in the most abject superstition, fanaticism, and ignorance; that's boring; that's not cool. You know what I think of that, don't you? I think that last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince Budweiser that I can't, for the life of me, see why he wants to subvert time-tested societal norms. As I expected, Budweiser was totally unconvinced.
>
> Don't be intimidated by Budweiser's threat to perpetuate the nonsense known technically as the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. It may seem difficult at first to build an inclusive, nondiscriminatory movement for social and political change. It is. But Budweiser's surrogates don't want us to move as expeditiously as possible to exemplify the principles of honor, duty, loyalty, and courage. That'd be too much of a threat to colonialism, statism, and all of the other vapid things they worship. Clearly, they prefer stigmatizing any and all attempts to respond to Budweiser's assertions. All of this once again proves the old saying that Budweiser worships his own ignorance.

Huh?

[juvanio]

I honestly respect your opinions and understand what you're saying. But don't you want to simplify it a bit? [I'm not on anyone's side]

How I read it:

> Marshy Dearest Marshy Dearest Marshy Dearest, nomnomnom, craaaap! He's dominating the world! Grrrrr, pewpew Maarsh dieee! die! die! bangbangbang. tutututututututututututut, boom! wewewewewewew, prrrrrrt. shuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmmmwaaaaaw! Purrrr, jjjj asdfghjkl, doomdomdomdom asdjkv uuuuuuush!

And the only point I understood from your 'enormous speech' was:

> "I hate Marshy Dearest. He's a complete p-ussy who has a d-ick on is nose. He like ponies with wings. So he's homo, get away!"

If you'd really want to simplify:

> "I'm emo, and I hate Marshy Dearest."

[Thorn]

> I honestly respect your opinions and understand what you're saying. But don't you want to simplify it a bit? [I'm not on anyone's side]
>
> How I read it:
>
> And the only point I understood from your 'enormous speech' was:
>
> If you'd really want to simplify:

You obviously do not know me very well. Not only am I a proud brony, as exemplified by my signature, but I've been friends with Marshy Dearest IRL for somewhere around a decade. Known him since middle school, actually going to be staying at his place for a couple of days next week.

I do believe that you have quite missed the point of my posts. I would like to invite you to read them again, and perhaps understand them on a slightly deeper level than you did before.

[Mal]

Which would be a joke as he's doing nothing but showing off a cute essay generator.

[Link]

> Which would be a joke as he's doing nothing but showing off a cute essay generator.

Hah, no, that's just how thorn types. I almost feel sorry for the guy -> You're scorned if you have no use of grammar or spelling, but here he's scorned for knowing how to type with the use of both grammar and words that are….above average intellectual understanding. It's alright thorn, I kind of understand what you're actually getting at. I can almost say with certainty, for those who have yet to get the hint, this is a joke topic.

I stopped reading after I saw Marshy Dearest being involved with government organizations. On an up note, I can say even I have some extensive vocabulary and I don't understand some of the words used in the first post, and Cole, Serenade as well as Nook...they probably have an even more extensive one, but even they were probably a bit baffled.

Or is this really the twilight zone, have we all been sucked into a parallel universe where the inverse of the opposite is true ?!?! does that mean we're the ones typing the simplistic words and then the complicated words would be that of the more simplistic nature in accordance with the opposite universe?

BETTER YET, HOW MANY LICKS DOES IT TAKE TO REACH THE CENTER OF THAT LOLLIPOP GOD DAMNIT!!!!!!!

[Thorn]

Budweiser, I'll have you know that I have taken several college courses on advanced essay writing, and for a time pursued a career as a professional writer. I have won writing contests here on the Eclipse website, and my current job mostly consists of writing. Having a highly developed vocabulary that I am comfortable with using is simply a fact of life.

[Sunku]

> Budweiser, I'll have you know that I have taken several college courses on advanced essay writing, and for a time pursued a career as a professional writer. I have won writing contests here on the Eclipse website, and my current job mostly consists of writing. Having a highly developed vocabulary that I am comfortable with using is simply a fact of life.

I've always wanted a 'developed' way of typing in words. In fact at this point I can say that you're a true idol of mine when it comes to writing.

On-topic: Pretty much read all of it and still thinking over a response.. Heh 

[Nook]

> Budweiser, I'll have you know that I have taken several college courses on advanced essay writing, and for a time pursued a career as a professional writer. I have won writing contests here on the Eclipse website, and my current job mostly consists of writing. Having a highly developed vocabulary that I am comfortable with using is simply a fact of life.

I really want to believe you're not serious.

[Mal]

Sure, thorn. That's why I can link to several dissertations, historical speeches, and other articles that the essay generator has taken material from. I wish I hadn't said anything, because watching a few of these people stumble over the dialogue or attempt to critique it was comical.

[Kusy]

You guys are like… basic pokemans... while Thorn here is obviously like... Charizard. So yeah. Go figure.

[Link]

I still say Wing has the most valid point in this.

[Socuine]

Thread closed.