My complaint about Brigid Connor

What would I do without Baroness Brigid Connor to provide me with a nonstop source of twisted grievances to complain about? The key point of the following exposition is that my dream is for tired eyes to open and see clearly, broken spirits to find new energy, and weary arms to find the strength to provide people the wherewithal to maintain the great principles of virtue, truth, right, and honor. Anyone who says that the laws of nature don't apply to her can be branded as both imperious and piteous. The mere mention of that fact guarantees that this letter will never get published in any mass-circulation periodical that Baroness Connor has any control over. But that's inconsequential because I feel no more personal hatred for Baroness Connor 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.

Baroness Connor is an inspiration to testy apostates everywhere. They panegyrize her crusade to open new avenues for the expression of hate, and, more importantly, they don't realize that Baroness Connor's campaigns of malice and malignity are eerily similar to those promoted by madmen such as Pol Pot. What's scary, though, is that their extollment of metagrobolism has been ratcheted up a few notches from anything Pol Pot ever conjured up. I have this advice to offer: The world has changed, Baroness Connor; get used to it. She says that she acts in the name of equality and social justice. Yet she also wants to pour a few drops of wormwood into our general enthusiasm. Am I the only one who sees the irony there? I ask because she ought to unstop her ears and uncover her eyes. Only then will Baroness Connor hear that to which she has been too long heedless. Only then will she see that she is intentionally being lawless. That's the sort of statement that some people contend is illiterate but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made because she can't possibly believe that children should belong to the state. She's birdbrained but she's not that birdbrained.

This is a fine example of what I've been talking about. Hard to believe? Then consider the following statement from one of Baroness Connor's politically incorrect, mentally deficient torchbearers: "Baroness Connor can bring about peace and prosperity for the whole of humanity through violence, deception, oppression, exploitation, graft, and theft." Pretty capricious, huh? Well, Baroness Connor wants to control every aspect of our lives. She wants us to rise, fall asleep, work, and live at the beat of a drum. Then, once we're molded into a uniform mass, we'll be incapable of seeing that Baroness Connor thinks it would be a great idea to stifle the voices of those who are simply seeking to be heard. Even if we overlook the logistical impossibilities of such an idea, the underlying premise is still flawed.

I must ask that Baroness Connor's factotums convert retreat into advance. I know they'll never do that so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to drag men out of their beds in the dead of night and castrate them. In a tacit concession of defeat, Baroness Connor is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what her disdainful politics have failed at. In spite of the fact that Baroness Connor's apologues are so insecure that in minutes they can wipe out of a child's brain what that child had learned in six months at home, church, or school, all of her janissaries are thieves—idle, envious, and ready to plunder and enslave their weaker neighbors. It's therefore not surprising that Baroness Connor occasionally shows what appears to be warmth, joy, love, or compassion. You should realize, however, that these positive expressions are more feigned than experienced and invariably serve an ulterior motive, such as to take control of a nation and suck it dry.

Listen carefully: Baroness Connor justifies her stupid proposed social programs with fallacious logical arguments based on argumentum ad baculum. In case you're unfamiliar with the term, it means that if we don't accept Baroness Connor's claim that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance then she will undermine liberty in the name of liberty. To pick an obvious but often overlooked example, she claims to be supportive of my plan to prevent the production of a new crop of the most militant clods you'll ever see. Don't trust her, though; she's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Before you know it, she'll encourage and exacerbate passivity in some people who might otherwise be active and responsible citizens. Not only that, but Baroness Connor thinks we want her to establish a world government complete with a world army, a world parliament, a world court, and numerous other agencies that commit confrontational, in-your-face acts of violence, intimidation, and incivility. Excuse me, but maybe whenever anyone states the obvious—that she should put her own house in order before she tells others what to do—discussion naturally progresses towards the question, "Why is she so compelled to complain about situations over which she has no control?" People often ask me that question. It's a difficult question to answer, however, because the querist generally wants a simple, concise answer. He doesn't want to hear a long, drawn-out explanation about how Baroness Connor has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter.

Baroness Connor's monographs are becoming increasingly self-serving. They have already begun to threaten national security. Now fast-forward a few years to a time in which they have enabled Baroness Connor to threaten the common good. If you don't want such a time to come then help me recognize and respect the opinions, practices, and behavior of others. Help me derail Baroness Connor's materialistic little schemes.
Above all, Baroness Connor's attitude is indubitably, "You don't agree with me; therefore, you must be a demented, base-minded grifter". I don't normally want to expose anyone to rigorous sarcasm, satire and disdain, but Baroness Connor deserves it. This is sufficiently illustrated by the ridicule with which her perceptions are treated by everyone other than patronizing, scornful spoiled brats. Which brings us to the harsh reality that must be faced: You should be sure to let me know your ideas about how to deal with her. I am eager to listen to your ideas and I hope that I can grasp their essentials, evaluate their potential, look for flaws, provide suggestions, absorb feedback, suggest improvements, and then put the ideas into effect. Only then can we present a clear picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future. Her homicidal vicegerents are nothing more than subservient blobs of easily controlled protoplasm. That's why they're so willing to help Baroness Connor lower this country's moral tone and depreciate its commercial integrity.

A bunch of scabrous exponents of cynicism have recently been accused of dominating or intimidate others. Baroness Connor's fingerprints are all over that operation. Even if it turns out that she is not ultimately responsible for instigating it, the sheer amount of her involvement demands answers. For instance, what is Baroness Connor's secret agenda? I apologize if this disappoints you, but my intent was only to elucidate the question, not to answer it. I shall therefore state only that Baroness Connor claims that embracing a system of paternalism will make everything right with the world. Perhaps she has some sound arguments on her side, but if so she's keeping them hidden. I'd say it's far more likely that we must show Baroness Connor that we are not powerless pedestrians on the asphalt of life. We must show her that we can challenge her bad-tempered assumptions about merit. Maybe then Baroness Connor will realize that I am not trying to save the world—I gave up that pursuit a long time ago. But I am trying to stick to the facts and offer only those arguments that can be supported by those facts.

If we can understand what has caused the current plague of baleful buttinskies, I believe that we can then eschew sneaky irreligionism. Baroness Connor wants us to think of her as a do-gooder. Keep in mind, though, that she wants to "do good" with other people's money and often with other people's lives. If Baroness Connor really wanted to be a do-gooder, she could start by admitting that she says that human beings should be appraised by the number of things and the amount of money they possess instead of by their internal value and achievements. That's a stupid thing to say. It's like saying that everyone who doesn't share her beliefs is a sordid schemer deserving of death and damnation.

Trumpeted so many times, Baroness Connor's fairy tales have begun to feed on themselves, to generate their own publicity, to cow their opponents not by argument but by sheer repetition, and to use lethal violence as a source of humor. I wonder what would happen if Baroness Connor really did degrade, divide, and destroy our nation. There's a spooky thought. She represents a new breed of repugnant, polyloquent nymphomaniacs. This is not rhetoric. This is reality. She speaks like a true defender of the status quo—a status quo, we should not forget, that enables her to invade every private corner and force every thought into a wanton mold. Until we address this issue, we will never move beyond it.

My complaint

Like many of you, I am sick and tired of being misinformed and disinformed by Dr. Goetz. That's why I'm writing this letter, to bear the flambeau of freedom. To plunge right into it, if Dr. Goetz wants to be taken seriously, she should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults. I hardly need to tell you that I overheard one of her winged monkeys say, "Dr. Goetz is a tireless protector of civil rights and civil liberties for all people." This quotation demonstrates the power of language as it epitomizes the "us/them" dichotomy within hegemonic discourse. As for me, I prefer to use language to hinder the power of bad-tempered usurers like Dr. Goetz.
As that last sentence suggests, Dr. Goetz believes that the ancient Egyptians used psychic powers to build the pyramids. The real damage that this belief causes actually has nothing to do with the belief itself but with psychology, human nature, and the skillful psychological manipulation of that nature by Dr. Goetz and her stentorian underlings. You may not believe me when I say that she loves everybody so much, she wants to rip out the guts of everybody who doesn't love everybody as much as she does, but the facts are plain and abundant for anyone with the eyes to see and the intelligence to discern fact from fancy. I would truly not have thought it possible that Dr. Goetz often tries to prove her points by quoting "authorities" who are in fact nothing more than sanctimonious schizophrenics, but it's absolutely true. One thing to keep in mind is that it's not necessarily difficult to give our young people the values that will inspire them to build a coalition of stouthearted people devoted to stopping her. We can begin simply by rising to the challenge of thwarting Dr. Goetz's meddlesome plans. See? I told you it wasn't necessarily difficult. We just need to remember that Dr. Goetz managed to convince a bunch of the most clumsy wheeler-dealers you'll ever see to help her help dirty fugitives evade capture by the authorities. What was the quid pro quo there? Well, while you're deliberating over that, let me ask you another question: Does her oversized ego demand that she create an ideological climate that will enable her to treat people's bona fide personal devastation as bathos? Now, not to bombard you with too many questions, but if she were to lobotomize everyone caught thinking an independent thought, social upheaval and violence would follow. It is therefore clear that Dr. Goetz sometimes has trouble convincing people that the laws of nature don't apply to her. When she has such trouble, she usually trots out a few conceited adulteresses to constate authoritatively that Dr. Goetz should be a given a direct pipeline to the National Treasury. Whether or not that trick of hers works, it's still the case that Dr. Goetz complains a lot. What's ironic, though, is that she hasn't made even a single concrete suggestion for improvement or identified a single problem with the system as it exists today.
In any case, there is something in the way of "natural law" that can be stated awkwardly as follows: "Dr. Goetz makes decisions based on random things glamorized by the press and the resulting rantings of the worst kinds of illiberal doomsday prophets there are." Please do not quote me on that. Instead, work it into a better natural law and enunciate it in clearer and more concise terms. It is immaterial who is credited with the words; the objective is to make pretentiousness unfashionable. Sorry for going on for so long about Dr. Goetz. I guess I just have a burr under my saddle from seeing Dr. Goetz resort to underhanded tactics.

Vizio and Marketing Babble

I work at a online retailer setting up sales, and I recently set up a Vizio HDTV. Vizio has wonderful televisions at a reasonable prices, but the person in charge of writing the copy on their website has a screw lose.

I was working on the Vizio VA220E
http://www.vizio.com/va220e.html


Check out the Additional Features...
"Two - 3W speakers provide the ultimate home theater sound experience that will truly set it apart from the competition"

This is a good example of Marketing Babble, and their just setting themselves up to look bad.

It just seems sleazy to me, and their trying to convince potential buyers that you don't need a home theater system with this TV. It's not a 5.1 surround sound system, it's speakers on a TV, every TV has them. I can also assume that other 22" 720p TVs have at least a 1 watt speaker, an extra 2 watts won't make that much difference.

I would of made a mention of the 5ms response time spec instead...

"5ms response time ensures you'll be able to watch fast paced action movies and play video games with out any video ghosting or smearing"

A sentence like that one gives buyers ideas on how they can use the TV, and from there they can figure out why they need/want it.