Posted on 11/16/2001 1:09:32 PM PST by Commie Basher
Here's a hilarious site. Randomly generates academese (at the bottom, it admits the text was random and meaningless).
Just click the ABOVE url!
The below url is good too, but something else.
Ziggy Summers and the Queer Hamster Group
Thus, the subject is contextualised into a neodialectic paradigm of narrative that includes narrativity as a paradox. Baudrillard's analysis of the postmodernist paradigm of reality holds that truth is used to exploit the underprivileged.
But if textual nihilism holds, we have to choose between textual situationism and Marxist capitalism. Lacan uses the term 'the structuralist paradigm of context' to denote the economy, and some would say the absurdity, of subdialectic society. In a sense, in Vineland, Pynchon analyses the postmodernist paradigm of reality; in Gravity's Rainbow, although, he examines Sartreist absurdity. The primary theme of the works of Pynchon is the role of the poet as reader.
Semper Fi
Here is my complaint with Jim Robinson :)
This letter is not meant to be witty or insulting, and I am afraid I won't even be able to make it eloquent. But I will do the best I can to comment on Mr. Jim Robinson's harangues. To organize my discussion, I suggest that we take one step back in the causal chain and exemplify the principles of honor, duty, loyalty, and courage. Once again, nihilism doesn't work. So why does Mr. Robinson cling to it? No, don't guess; this isn't audience participation day. I'll just tell you. But before I do, you should note that Mr. Robinson has never satisfactorily proved his assertion that all literature which opposes metagrobolism was forged by homophobic underachievers. He has merely justified that assertion with the phrase, "Because I said so."
Think about this: I find that some of his choices of words in his credos would not have been mine. For example, I would have substituted "morally crippled" for "philodestructiveness" and "gruesome" for "saccharogalactorrhea." So we're supposed to give Mr. Robinson permission to seek temporary tactical alliances with paltry, unconscionable pop psychologists in order to quote me out of context and hope he's rational enough not to do so? How naive! I, for one, understand that given the public appetite for more accountability, his historical record of besotted, horny smear tactics is clearer than the muddled pronouncements of his cringers, but when you tell Mr. Robinson's attendants that Mr. Robinson's cronies always detect profound wisdom in what is most incomprehensible to them personally, they begin to get fidgety, and their eyes begin to wander. They really don't care. They have no interest in hearing that in order to advance a clear, credible, and effective vision for dealing with our present dilemma and its most despicable manifestations, we must grant people the freedom to pursue any endeavor they deem fitting to their skills, talent, and interest. And that's just the first step. Remember, several things Mr. Robinson has said have brought me to the boiling point. The statement of his that made the strongest impression on me, however, was something to the effect of how skin color means more than skill and gender is more impressive than genius. Finally, any mistakes in this letter are strictly my fault. But if you find any factual error or have more updated information on the subject of Mr. Jim Robinson, Mr. Robinson-inspired versions of corporatism, etc., please tell me, so I can write an even stronger letter next time.
E. Helmut McElwaine
Department of Ontology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
1. Dialectic theory and neostructural situationism
"Sexuality is impossible," says Foucault.
In a sense, Marx suggests the use of capitalist materialism to read and attack class.
The subject is interpolated into a neostructural situationism that includes truth as a totality.
An A, I would imagine.
I'm sorry, but I just can't avoid talking about CNN. To address this in a pedantic manner, in the rest of this letter, factual information will be prefaced as such and my own opinions will be clearly stated as opinions. For instance, it is unmistakably a fact that CNN can get away with lies (e.g., that the purpose of life is self-gratification), because the average person cannot imagine anyone lying so brazenly. Not one person in a hundred will actually check out the facts for himself and discover that CNN is lying. To pass off all sorts of raucous and obviously flagitious stuff on others as a so-called "inner experience" has never been something that I myself wanted to do. Never. I wish malicious power brokers had the gumption not to feature simplistic answers to complex problems. Let me recap that for you, because it really is extraordinarily important: When one examines the ramifications of letting CNN take rights away from individuals on the basis of prejudice, myth, irrational belief, inaccurate information, and outright falsehood, one finds a preponderance of evidence leading to the conclusion that it is extraordinarily brazen. We've all known that for a long time. However, CNN's willingness to pose a threat to personal autonomy and social development sets a new record for brazenness. The foregoing greatly simplifies the real situation, but it does indicate in a rough, general way that CNN's intent is to prevent us from asking questions. It doesn't want the details checked. It doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts it presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of its "facts" are false. Let me conclude by saying that we who want to take up the all-encompassing challenge of freedom, justice, equality, and the pursuit of life with full dignity will not rest until we do.
Why do you have a complaint about my company on your Web page?
As poorly qualified as I am to reinforce the contentions of all reasonable people and confute those of unrestrained spongers, I hope you will bear with me while I begin this sincere and earnest attempt. And please don't get mad with me if, in doing so, I must question authority. To begin with, there is still hope for our society, real hope -- not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of feckless rascals (especially the feral type), but the hope that makes you eager to lead Sen. Hillary Clinton out of a dream world and back to hard reality. She has done inestimable damage to everything around her. But the problems with her complaints don't end there.
This is not wild speculation. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is documented fact. Though many people agree that we must work together against Stalinism, quislingism, favoritism, etc., Sen. Clinton does not merely leave a large part of this country's workforce dislocated and disillusioned. She does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically. We find among narrow and uneducated minds the belief that communism is a noble goal. This belief is due to a basic confusion, which can be cleared up simply by stating that Sen. Clinton asserts that her vices are the only true virtues. Most reasonable people, however, recognize such assertions as nothing more than baseless, if wishful, claims unsupported by concrete evidence.
Her ramblings may sound comfortable and simple, but it must not be forgotten that if you read her writings while mentally out of focus, you may get the sense that the majority of putrid mountebanks are heroes, if not saints. But if you read Sen. Clinton's writings while mentally in focus and weigh each point carefully, it's clear that there are three fairly obvious problems with her half-measures, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to disabuse her of the notion that she can encumber the religious idea with too many things of a purely earthly nature and thus bring religion into a totally unnecessary conflict with science and get away with it. First, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, many otherwise intelligent people continue to believe, thanks to Sen. Clinton, that she can walk on water. Second, I need to spend some time considering how best to uplift individuals and communities on a global scale to take off the kid gloves and vent some real anger at her. And third, she claims that no one is smart enough to see through her transparent lies. Predictably, she cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. I am not suggesting government censorship of Sen. Clinton's superficial vaporings. That's the current situation, and if you have any doubt about the reality of it, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to what's been happening in the world. Sorry for babbling so much, but it is my contention that Sen. Hillary Clinton's expositors have the temerity to condone universal oppression and then say that everyone else should do the same.
And here's an article discussing it in the Emperor's Clothes context-- And this happens to be an LA Times article--- hehehe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.