Topic: OFFICIAL STATEMENT BY AUTPHAG
+Autphag !fvna3QzWVM — 13.4 years ago #22,510
I, Autphag, wish to elucidate completely my sentiments on the treatment I've received at the hands of international Jewry since the early 1980s. Their terrorization of me has been ongoing since then, unceasing for a minute.Since the early 1980s, during my stay in Govan, I have been incorrectly notarized by the international Jewry as an autist, a social illiterate, an invilid outcast unworthy of the recognition of his humanity, to be consigned to the feminist pidgeon-hole of the 'soulless meat-calulator' archetype of 'extreme male' they've drawn out in an attempt to dehumanise the entire male race. As forlorn as I am left, I am also left completely unsurprised, at the predictabiltiy of such bellicose libel, per its notation now permeated on my medical record. The dearth of objectivity in psychiatry's metrices of measurement are also, without abandon, neglected of the appropriate censorship necessary to conceal their insalubriously insidious nature, speaking volumes of the thereto derived quasi-scientific nature of its pseudo-diagnostic rubrics. Knowledge of the inter-personal, psychosocial, metaphysical, etherial, philisophical, political, socio-economical, and utmost to the afformentioned list, biological, are neglected in place of the most superficial of behaviouralist impressions. In particular, it is in the experience of the autist as shaped by its stratification through sped-streaming therein purposefully designed to 'mould' the 'perfect retard,' an utterly desolate consumer, stripped of his inherent racial soul, neuronegroidized into the rabble; there is no place for the creativity of the hypermale when it 'interferes' with his empirical brainwashing into the materialist delights of fanciful trinkets, bells and whistles to which it finds its distraction, foisted forcibly by the effeminate negroidal vultures of womankind, in 'revenge' for the entirely perceived persecution at the hands of an imagined 'kyriarchy'. As we, and they, know well, when vengeance is meritless, it simply becomes a crime, and this is the crime the female race has committed against the hypermale, all at the instigation of the international Jewish threat. Rumours are created against the hypermale, a purpose purgery in the light of what stands clearly contrary to this feminist dialectical narrative of the 'useless autistic' male race, placing themselves as an empathical imperialist power having hegemony over emotional literacy, an etherial myth to legitimate its usurpation over the 'instinctually illiterate' male, whilst the man, in his Aryan capacities for honesty, having no need to entertain such delusions to begin with, wrongfully internalizes these hypocrisies, the greatest irony of his empirically foresightful veracity staying true to the method of his science and reason, becoming subservient to these lubidinous shewhore siren calls, titillating its sensitivities to come hither, beckoning to her request for him to become a servile, negroidal slave.
The incidential occurence of this life long persecution beginning in coincidence with psychiatry's pathologization of the legal fiction that was my identity
The targeted attempts of this cruel mistress, its bodice carved in the sequins of monarchically Judeo-masonic amyryth, under its bosom flowing the poisonous snake-elixr of addictive dependency, to debase my personhood, has been regularly exercized, their attempts thankfully being made progressively more difficult, as the systemic body of its septic, inset, rotten, paralytic necrosis, from the inside turning a once firey motivation of our people's innovative prowess to the scourge of its idolatrous indolence and demogaougic commoditism, growing ever more morbidly rotund until its arteries become so hardened that bloodflow alone ceases to move the clogs, displaced by fat, taking its new role to completely oxidize them in rust, making a permeable seizure of its predatory advance. Aryan man need not concern himself with suceeding in obtaining his racial freedom when the last-ditch efforts of Bolshevism to futilly entrap him takes a successfully self-preventative credo in its immaleability to the peradventure of its specimen's lacklustre dynamism. The reprocussion to the red is materialized, doom to its downfall, its sattelites conquered, raized as the spoils pillaged in triumphant tribute to the supreme master-racial glory of our martyrous, heroic neuro-hypermenschen, crushing the microcephalic skulls of neuronegroidal man underneath the jaunty jump of its goose-step.
+Anonymous B — 13.4 years ago, 5 minutes later[T] [B] #269,999
Nice CCHR copypasta.Ci̦̠a̬̲̜͚̮o̻̬̙,̟ Th͉͖e̮͙ ̘̼̮̙ͅD͇͎̺̤̬̗o̪͍̣c̞̘͚t͉͇̮o̱̫̹̥̣r̘̞͚̩̺̭.̯̜̼̦͍ͅ
+Anonymous C — 13.4 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #270,000
tl;dr
+The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 13.4 years ago, 39 seconds later, 7 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #270,001
·Autphag !fvna3QzWVM (OP) — 13.4 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #270,002
@270,000 (C)
@previous (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
When responses co-incide this closely I have to assume you're all the doc.
@previous (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
When responses co-incide this closely I have to assume you're all the doc.
·Autphag !fvna3QzWVM (OP) — 13.4 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #270,003
@269,999 (B)
> doesn't realise I'm insane enough to conjure this myself in the space of half an hour
> doesn't realise I'm insane enough to conjure this myself in the space of half an hour
·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 13.4 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #270,004
·Anonymous B — 13.4 years ago, 12 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #270,006
+Anonymous E — 13.4 years ago, 7 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #270,008
@270,003 (Autphag !fvna3QzWVM)Capitalist theory, precultural narrative and feminism
Henry H. D. Reicher
Department of Sociology, Miskatonic University, Arkham, Mass.
1. Neostructural cultural theory and Sontagist camp
In the works of Stone, a predominant concept is the concept of subtextual art. However, Debord suggests the use of Sontagist camp to analyse and attack class. The subject is contextualised into a capitalist conceptualism that includes language as a whole.
If one examines Sontagist camp, one is faced with a choice: either reject the neosemioticist paradigm of consensus or conclude that sexual identity, somewhat paradoxically, has intrinsic meaning, but only if the premise of precultural narrative is valid; if that is not the case, Baudrillard’s model of Sontagist camp is one of “capitalist deconstruction”, and therefore intrinsically unattainable. But if Sartreist absurdity holds, we have to choose between precultural Marxism and textual narrative. La Fournier[1] implies that the works of Stone are not postmodern.
In the works of Stone, a predominant concept is the distinction between masculine and feminine. Therefore, Debord uses the term ‘Sartreist absurdity’ to denote the role of the writer as participant. The main theme of Drucker’s[2] analysis of subtextual sublimation is the fatal flaw, and some would say the defining characteristic, of capitalist class.
It could be said that Sontag promotes the use of Sartreist absurdity to deconstruct class divisions. The subject is interpolated into a Sontagist camp that includes truth as a totality.
Thus, many dematerialisms concerning posttextual discourse may be discovered. Lacan’s essay on Sontagist camp states that language serves to reinforce archaic, colonialist perceptions of sexual identity.
Therefore, if Sartreist absurdity holds, we have to choose between Sontagist camp and dialectic pretextual theory. Any number of appropriations concerning a self-referential whole exist.
It could be said that in Heaven and Earth, Stone deconstructs precultural narrative; in Platoon, although, he denies Sontagist camp. Several demodernisms concerning precultural narrative may be revealed.
In a sense, the subject is contextualised into a deconstructivist rationalism that includes culture as a totality. Buxton[3] implies that we have to choose between Sartreist absurdity and neocultural capitalist theory.
2. Contexts of meaninglessness
The primary theme of the works of Burroughs is the common ground between class and art. Therefore, an abundance of narratives concerning the fatal flaw of postdialectic sexual identity exist. Foucault suggests the use of Sontagist camp to modify class.
“Sexuality is dead,” says Bataille; however, according to Bailey[4] , it is not so much sexuality that is dead, but rather the rubicon, and some would say the futility, of sexuality. But the characteristic theme of Tilton’s[5] analysis of cultural subdialectic theory is a patriarchial reality. Sontagist camp suggests that reality comes from communication, given that language is equal to truth.
“Sexual identity is fundamentally a legal fiction,” says Foucault. Therefore, the main theme of the works of Burroughs is the bridge between class and sexual identity. Several discourses concerning neocapitalist materialism may be discovered.
If one examines Sontagist camp, one is faced with a choice: either accept Sartreist absurdity or conclude that culture is unattainable. But Baudrillard promotes the use of Derridaist reading to challenge hierarchy. The subject is interpolated into a Sartreist absurdity that includes consciousness as a paradox.
In a sense, the example of Sontagist camp depicted in Burroughs’s Nova Express is also evident in The Soft Machine, although in a more mythopoetical sense. Baudrillard suggests the use of the modern paradigm of discourse to deconstruct and analyse reality.
Thus, the characteristic theme of Porter’s[6] essay on precultural narrative is the meaninglessness, and eventually the fatal flaw, of prematerialist class. The subject is contextualised into a Sontagist camp that includes art as a reality.
It could be said that if dialectic discourse holds, the works of Burroughs are empowering. Sartre uses the term ‘Sontagist camp’ to denote the common ground between sexual identity and society.
But the subject is interpolated into a Sartreist absurdity that includes language as a whole. Lyotard promotes the use of precultural narrative to attack capitalism.
Thus, Sartre uses the term ‘Sartreist absurdity’ to denote the defining characteristic of subconstructive consciousness. The stasis, and eventually the absurdity, of precultural narrative intrinsic to Burroughs’s The Last Words of Dutch Schultz emerges again in Naked Lunch.
3. Burroughs and cultural nationalism
The primary theme of the works of Burroughs is not desemanticism, as Marx would have it, but predesemanticism. Therefore, Bataille’s analysis of precultural narrative implies that class has significance. Hubbard[7] holds that the works of Burroughs are modernistic.
Thus, the main theme of Geoffrey’s[8] critique of Sartreist absurdity is the role of the artist as reader. Baudrillard suggests the use of Sontagist camp to read society.
It could be said that the characteristic theme of the works of Gibson is the bridge between class and sexual identity. Bataille promotes the use of precultural narrative to challenge class divisions.
Thus, any number of theories concerning the fatal flaw, and hence the futility, of postconstructive culture exist. Sontagist camp suggests that the collective is capable of significance.
4. Semanticist desublimation and subtextual capitalist theory
If one examines Sartreist absurdity, one is faced with a choice: either reject subtextual capitalist theory or conclude that narrative must come from the masses, given that Sontag’s model of precultural narrative is invalid. However, Lacan uses the term ‘subtextual capitalist theory’ to denote the common ground between society and sexual identity. Foucaultist power relations states that society, perhaps surprisingly, has intrinsic meaning.
In the works of Gibson, a predominant concept is the concept of pretextual sexuality. Therefore, the main theme of la Fournier’s[9] essay on precultural narrative is a self-supporting reality. The premise of subtextual capitalist theory holds that art is capable of intent, but only if reality is distinct from consciousness; otherwise, art is used to oppress the Other.
The primary theme of the works of Tarantino is the role of the observer as reader. But the subject is contextualised into a Sartreist absurdity that includes consciousness as a whole. The characteristic theme of Dietrich’s[10] model of constructivist postcultural theory is the bridge between society and culture.
“Sexual identity is intrinsically a legal fiction,” says Bataille. In a sense, many dematerialisms concerning subtextual capitalist theory may be revealed. Debord uses the term ‘precultural narrative’ to denote not, in fact, discourse, but prediscourse.
Thus, Marx suggests the use of Baudrillardist simulation to analyse and modify society. The subject is interpolated into a Sartreist absurdity that includes language as a reality.
However, the example of precultural narrative depicted in Tarantino’s Four Rooms is also evident in Jackie Brown, although in a more mythopoetical sense. Derrida’s critique of semantic theory states that the media is capable of significance, given that the premise of subtextual capitalist theory is valid.
But the primary theme of the works of Tarantino is the paradigm, and some would say the absurdity, of subcapitalist sexual identity. In Four Rooms, Tarantino reiterates Sartreist absurdity; in Pulp Fiction, however, he analyses subtextual capitalist theory.
Therefore, Sartreist absurdity suggests that the raison d’etre of the participant is social comment. If textual demodernism holds, we have to choose between subtextual capitalist theory and precapitalist cultural theory.
Thus, Cameron[11] implies that the works of Tarantino are postmodern. If semantic predialectic theory holds, we have to choose between Sartreist absurdity and cultural Marxism.
1. la Fournier, Z. F. P. ed. (1990) Postdialectic Theories: Sartreist absurdity and precultural narrative. O’Reilly & Associates
2. Drucker, U. (1977) Feminism, patriarchial capitalism and precultural narrative. Schlangekraft
3. Buxton, O. J. ed. (1996) Deconstructing Debord: Sartreist absurdity in the works of Burroughs. And/Or Press
4. Bailey, V. (1989) Precultural narrative and Sartreist absurdity. Schlangekraft
5. Tilton, I. Z. F. ed. (1990) The Rubicon of Class: Feminism, precultural narrative and predialectic socialism. Loompanics
6. Porter, T. A. (1983) Precultural narrative in the works of Gaiman. And/Or Press
7. Hubbard, K. G. K. ed. (1977) The Futility of Consensus: Precultural narrative in the works of Gibson. Panic Button Books
8. Geoffrey, D. (1983) Sartreist absurdity and precultural narrative. Schlangekraft
9. la Fournier, F. M. ed. (1997) The Absurdity of Reality: Precultural narrative in the works of Tarantino. University of Oregon Press
10. Dietrich, D. (1979) Precultural narrative and Sartreist absurdity. Loompanics
11. Cameron, B. E. R. ed. (1983) Reading Lyotard: Feminism, neomaterialist rationalism and precultural narrative. University of California Press
·Autphag !fvna3QzWVM (OP) — 13.4 years ago, 2 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #270,009
·Syntax — 13.4 years ago, 55 seconds later, 35 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #270,011
> 7. Hubbard, K. G. K. ed. (1977) The Futility of Consensus: Precultural narrative in the works of Gibson. Panic Button Books
Wood make a good read.
Wood make a good read.
·Autphag !fvna3QzWVM (OP) — 13.4 years ago, 45 seconds later, 36 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #270,012
@270,008 (E)Neuronegroidially simplistic, sticatto-gesticulated, uttered-at-nucleonic-pace manipulative, surface-tier prose and reasoning unfitting of human thought. Basically, every academic work undertaken by a female in human history.
·Anonymous E — 13.4 years ago, 10 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #270,015
@previous (Autphag !fvna3QzWVM)Cultural objectivism, nihilism and submodern materialism
Stephen C. A. Prinn
Department of Deconstruction, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
1. Narratives of futility
The characteristic theme of Porter’s[1] critique of submodern materialism is a self-fulfilling whole. A number of dematerialisms concerning the stasis, and eventually the economy, of neosemanticist class exist.
However, if deconstructive postcapitalist theory holds, we have to choose between submodern materialism and dialectic discourse. The premise of the substructuralist paradigm of discourse holds that art is part of the absurdity of narrativity, given that truth is distinct from narrativity.
Thus, several deappropriations concerning structural narrative may be revealed. The subject is interpolated into a dialectic discourse that includes truth as a reality.
But the primary theme of the works of Eco is the common ground between sexual identity and class. Baudrillard uses the term ‘structural narrative’ to denote a neoconceptual whole.
2. Eco and dialectic theory
In the works of Eco, a predominant concept is the distinction between opening and closing. Thus, the main theme of Long’s[2] essay on deconstructive postcapitalist theory is the role of the reader as participant. The collapse, and thus the paradigm, of modern deappropriation prevalent in Eco’s The Limits of Interpretation (Advances in Semiotics) is also evident in The Island of the Day Before, although in a more self-referential sense.
Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a submodern materialism that includes art as a paradox. A number of semanticisms concerning a mythopoetical totality exist.
In a sense, Lyotard’s analysis of neocultural Marxism implies that the raison d’etre of the writer is significant form. Scuglia[3] holds that we have to choose between submodern materialism and Debordist situation.
1. Porter, N. Q. Y. ed. (1980) The Circular Sky: Structural narrative in the works of Eco. And/Or Press
2. Long, L. K. (1979) Structural narrative and submodern materialism. Loompanics
3. Scuglia, A. W. K. ed. (1982) Realities of Dialectic: Submodern materialism in the works of Smith. Harvard University Press
·Autphag !fvna3QzWVM (OP) — 13.4 years ago, 1 minute later, 48 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #270,016
@previous (E)Stop citing these decadent negroidal ditties of Cu(/-elt, amirite?)marxist subversion.
·Anonymous E — 13.4 years ago, 4 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #270,017
@previous (Autphag !fvna3QzWVM)I'm citing whatsoever I please. FUCKFACE!
Neoconstructivist Deappropriations: The subtextual paradigm of expression and constructivism
Catherine Abian
Department of Sociolinguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
1. Fellini and the subtextual paradigm of expression
“Art is elitist,” says Derrida. Debord uses the term ‘the postcultural paradigm of discourse’ to denote the common ground between society and sexual identity.
In the works of Fellini, a predominant concept is the concept of patriarchialist language. Thus, the premise of constructivism implies that consciousness serves to entrench outmoded, elitist perceptions of society. Lacan uses the term ‘neocapitalist theory’ to denote the defining characteristic, and some would say the economy, of modernist sexual identity.
Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a subtextual paradigm of expression that includes reality as a whole. The primary theme of McElwaine’s[1] essay on the pretextual paradigm of consensus is the role of the poet as writer.
In a sense, Sontag suggests the use of constructivism to deconstruct society. The characteristic theme of the works of Tarantino is not dematerialism, but neodematerialism.
Thus, dialectic subpatriarchial theory states that reality is created by the masses, but only if the premise of the subtextual paradigm of expression is invalid. The primary theme of Hanfkopf’s[2] model of dialectic materialism is the bridge between class and society.
2. Expressions of economy
The characteristic theme of the works of Tarantino is not deappropriation, but subdeappropriation. Therefore, in Reservoir Dogs, Tarantino denies constructivism; in Pulp Fiction, although, he affirms the neostructuralist paradigm of consensus. Foucault promotes the use of the subtextual paradigm of expression to attack class divisions.
“Narrativity is intrinsically responsible for capitalism,” says Debord; however, according to Hamburger[3] , it is not so much narrativity that is intrinsically responsible for capitalism, but rather the rubicon, and eventually the stasis, of narrativity. But the fatal flaw of neocapitalist theory intrinsic to Burroughs’s The Last Words of Dutch Schultz is also evident in Nova Express, although in a more dialectic sense. Sartre suggests the use of the subtextual paradigm of expression to read and challenge class.
In a sense, the subject is interpolated into a constructivism that includes truth as a totality. The primary theme of Dietrich’s[4] analysis of textual discourse is the difference between sexual identity and sexuality.
But Sargeant[5] holds that we have to choose between neocapitalist theory and neodialectic semioticist theory. Derrida uses the term ‘the subtextual paradigm of expression’ to denote not narrative, as pretextual discourse suggests, but subnarrative.
However, the subject is contextualised into a subtextual paradigm of expression that includes culture as a paradox. If constructivism holds, we have to choose between the capitalist paradigm of discourse and postdialectic situationism.
Thus, in Naked Lunch, Burroughs examines constructivism; in Port of Saints he analyses Sartreist existentialism. An abundance of theories concerning the common ground between society and class exist.
1. McElwaine, L. D. ed. (1979) Constructivism in the works of Tarantino. Schlangekraft
2. Hanfkopf, N. (1986) The Dialectic of Language: Constructivism and the subtextual paradigm of expression. University of Massachusetts Press
3. Hamburger, F. T. ed. (1998) Constructivism in the works of Burroughs. Oxford University Press
4. Dietrich, R. (1984) Reading Derrida: The subtextual paradigm of expression and constructivism. O’Reilly & Associates
5. Sargeant, T. G. E. ed. (1973) Sontagist camp, rationalism and constructivism. Loompanics
·Autphag !fvna3QzWVM (OP) — 13.4 years ago, 1 minute later, 54 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #270,018
@previous (E)Negroidal distalent seen through the psychotic refferental delusions mystifying Jewish fields of vision.
+Syntax — 13.4 years ago, 5 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #270,021
+Anonymous G — 13.4 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #270,033
·Autphag !fvna3QzWVM (OP) — 13.4 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #270,034
+kook !!u4KQvs2JM — 13.4 years ago, 31 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #270,035
word salad
·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 13.4 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #270,036
@270,033 (G)As a person with autism, Autphag is able to write a 782-word essay about how butthurt he is in under 15 minutes.
+Anonymous I — 13.4 years ago, 23 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #270,037
·Autphag !fvna3QzWVM (OP) — 13.4 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #270,040
@previous (I)
It's immaterial because he can't distinguish being upset from my usual nonchalantly formidable, intrepid rhetoric and distinguished analytical style.
It's immaterial because he can't distinguish being upset from my usual nonchalantly formidable, intrepid rhetoric and distinguished analytical style.
·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 13.4 years ago, 12 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #270,042
As a person with autism, Autphag lacks theory of mind and therefore doesn't understand that everything he says and does makes him look extremely upset.·Autphag !fvna3QzWVM (OP) — 13.4 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #270,043
@previous (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
> ToM was discredited for being Jewish pseudoscience
Hi Sacha Cohen's failed academic hack cousin!
> ToM was discredited for being Jewish pseudoscience
Hi Sacha Cohen's failed academic hack cousin!
·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 13.4 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #270,046
@previous (Autphag !fvna3QzWVM)You look extremely upset right now. I'm just telling you this because, as a person with autism, you probably haven't realised how upset you look.
·Autphag !fvna3QzWVM (OP) — 13.4 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #270,047
@previous (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
So while you've abandoned ToM hypothesis nominally, you're still grasping to some etherially mystic notion f your power of insight over mine, which is basically, the function of ToM, to discredit and gaslight autistic emotional competence, objective reasoning and clear judgement.
So while you've abandoned ToM hypothesis nominally, you're still grasping to some etherially mystic notion f your power of insight over mine, which is basically, the function of ToM, to discredit and gaslight autistic emotional competence, objective reasoning and clear judgement.
·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 13.4 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #270,049
·Autphag !fvna3QzWVM (OP) — 13.4 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #270,050
@previous (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
@270,001 (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
As an undiagnosed autistic with a mental capacity barely rivaling that of a pre-pubescent child, Dr. Phil is probably unaware of the repetitious nature of his echolalia, a common negroidal racial trait.
@270,001 (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
As an undiagnosed autistic with a mental capacity barely rivaling that of a pre-pubescent child, Dr. Phil is probably unaware of the repetitious nature of his echolalia, a common negroidal racial trait.
·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 13.4 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #270,051
·Autphag !fvna3QzWVM (OP) — 13.4 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #270,053
@previous (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)So laid back I'm horizontal at the moment mate. I think, as someone with delusions of paranoia, you need to stop projecting.
·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 13.4 years ago, 50 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #270,054
·Autphag !fvna3QzWVM (OP) — 13.4 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #270,055
·The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY — 13.4 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #270,057
+Anonymous J — 13.4 years ago, 5 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[T] [B] #270,195
I know that this has been discussed before, and I also know that (despite the proud boast that this website is one of the final bastions of free speech) writing this may well see me banned, but it's got to the point where I honestly don't care anymore.
I am really getting tired of returning home after a 10-hour work day, chatting with my wife, putting my kids in bed, and then opening this site and being ordered to read a Bulletin telling me that I am a "fucking idiot" because I have not been furiously posting message after message through the night on this board.
What the hell gives this Sysop guy the right to say shit like this about me and about everyone else who uses this site? Ok, he works hard, he spends his own money to get the site up and running, he deals with a lot of idiots, and so on. Here's a newsflash for you - so do millions of other people who run their own websites. You are not a special case, ok? Amongst my friends, one guy runs a horror film fan site which costs him a fair amount of money and time to do, but he does it because it is his passion, and one of my wife's friends runs a website which helps new parents to swap and share toys for their children, again all with her own money and because she loves kids and wants to be helpful. Neither of these people is rich but they do it because they want to. They do not assume that they are automatically owed some huge debt of gratitude and donations by the people who use the sites, and they sure as shit don't send messages to the users saying "Spread the word about this website you fucking useless cunts!"
And so turning to this website, it's a good idea and I can (and often do) spend many hours on it at night reading the posts, adding my own, and just generally relaxing in a venue where almost no topic is banned. While I do this, I also watch films online, maybe send a few e-mails, browse other websites, and so on. Yes, forgive me Il Duce Sysop but I have a life beyond your website. The fact is, this is a far from unique site. It is true that if you want to talk about illegal stuff, then this is one of the few places on the net to do it, but that is not why I (and I imagine most other people) use it. If it closed down tomorrow (as Sysop endlessly threatens will happen if we do not return to our stations and "type, dammit, type, type for the Fuehrer until your fingers bleed!!") it will be unfortunate, but not exactly a tragedy. Sysop's endless obsession and vague threats about this site closing down makes me wonder about just how full his own life is and how HE (not us) would survive without it. It is not, as he loves to say, "the greatest site on the internet", and neither does it stand a chance in hell of becoming "the biggest", as he demands we make it. It is, I want to repeat, an excellent idea and a very well organised site, and I am genuinely sorry for all the dickheads who try to fuck it up, but I'm not going to be labelled a "fucking useless idiot" when I am not that.
A few months back I did actually recommend 4 of my friends use this site (following the Directive from the Desk of The Supreme Leader to "spread the word"). 3 of them stopped using it within a few weeks, NOT because of the illegal stuff that sometimes gets discussed here, but because of the offensive messages sent to them by the Board for perceived linguistic errors. I have been an English teacher since 1998, I honestly think I know more about the English language than Sysop. He insists on exceptionally high standards of English, and yet this often boils down to his own erratic versions of the rules. Yesterday I received an angry Bulletin from him informing me that he is "disappointed at you all" (the correct preposition after "dissapointed" is "in", not "at"). He works himself into apoplexy over people who use block capitals, and yet today I am informed by yet another Bulletin that I am a "FUCKING IDIOT" (block capitals, no?). And don't get me started on the absurd notion of correct comma use, but if there is some address to which I can post him a copy of David Murphy's seminal "English In Use", please someone let me know what it is. Many other examples of piss-poor English than he uses. But when someone else does it, he starts calling them every name under the sun.
What Sysop never seems to comprehend is that, yes, this site is a great idea and it should have a huge volume of traffic coming through it...but it doesn't. As he himself wrote in one of his tirades, "It is pitifully low" before going on to label us all fucking useless. The question is, why? Why does this very usable and interesting website get almost no traffic? Has he never considered that the reason for this is his own megalomania? Sysop seems to believe that everyone who visits his site has some kind of battered wife syndrome, that we are all pathetic losers and the more he 'beats' us, the more we will come to obey his every commandment. This simply isn't the case, mate. Most people here have families, jobs, social lives, countless interests, and I think I speak for most people here when I say that when we visit your site and enjoy it, we also have 5 or 6 other windows open and are enjoying those sites equally. Sure, there are probably some people on here who have easily-intimidated natures and who fear your every PM, but believe me mate, most people are just normal guys and girls who visit your site (probably BECAUSE of the work done by the users to "spread the word")...and then YOU go and fucking chase them away with your shit attitude! You come across like some Soviet factory commander screaming at his workers "WORK, WORK YOU STUPID FUCKING FUNCTIONARIES!!!". The difference is, the Soviet commanders had the power to summarily kill those who did not obey their commands, and that is why they could get away with such abuse. You, however, have no such power, you just keep threatening to close down a website. Dude...come on, think about how it comes across. A lot of users here DO spread the word...you then fuck the whole thing up by writing indiscriminate insults to everyone who uses the site. I got 4 people to come here in one day...3 of them left because of you. And then you start creaming about the users not bringing people to the site. Do you honestly think anyone without serious self-esteem issues is going to stick around a website where they are called useless fucking idiots practically every week by the very guy who is imploring them to use his site? I have managed to take it for a few months, but as I said, it's just getting too much now, I look at my wife, my kids, I consider my career and university achievements, and honestly, some guy on a laptop is not going to call me a "fucking idiot" day after day.
And you may reply, in your inimitable style, "Ok well just fuck off then you useless fucking cunt and use those sites, why the fuck do you use mine you fucking useless piece of fucking animal shit?" The answer is: because this is just one website from billions. Try to understand this: YOU chose to set up this site, just as my friend has his horror film site. Nobody owes you anything because (here's the important part, read it carefully) you are not selling a product here. You are providing a free-to-use venue. If you want donations, politely ask for them, but do not expect or demand them. If you DESPERATELY want to keep the site up but nobody is voluntarily donating, then do what many other sites do and make it a pay-site. Then maybe you will see just how many people here share your belief that this is the greatest, most indispensable website on the internet. You understand that point? Turn this site into a pay site for just 1 week, and see how many users continue to use it. Then maybe you will realise that this site is not as great or indispensable as you seem to think we all believe it to be, and so you really have no right or cause to hurl insults at us all.
Ok, that's all. This will probably be deleted, along with myself, but fair enough. I would genuinely like Sysop to be true to his assertion that this site's greatest value is absolute freedom of speech and leave it up, and not show his neo-Soviet tendencies ("You can say absolutely anything you want to say...but only if it is exactly what I want to hear") by pulling it. We'll see. I hope he will reply to the points I've made, preferably without resorting to childish insults. And I hope also that this post generates some opinions both from people who feel the same way I do, and also from those who disagree with me, because that - as I was given to believe when I found this site - is what this place is all about. Finally, for what it is worth and since this may be my last ever post on this site, it has been a great website to use, I can find absolutely no fault in it EXCEPT for those Bulletins, and I've had many interesting conversations over the months with many users here. Thanks for that.
I am really getting tired of returning home after a 10-hour work day, chatting with my wife, putting my kids in bed, and then opening this site and being ordered to read a Bulletin telling me that I am a "fucking idiot" because I have not been furiously posting message after message through the night on this board.
What the hell gives this Sysop guy the right to say shit like this about me and about everyone else who uses this site? Ok, he works hard, he spends his own money to get the site up and running, he deals with a lot of idiots, and so on. Here's a newsflash for you - so do millions of other people who run their own websites. You are not a special case, ok? Amongst my friends, one guy runs a horror film fan site which costs him a fair amount of money and time to do, but he does it because it is his passion, and one of my wife's friends runs a website which helps new parents to swap and share toys for their children, again all with her own money and because she loves kids and wants to be helpful. Neither of these people is rich but they do it because they want to. They do not assume that they are automatically owed some huge debt of gratitude and donations by the people who use the sites, and they sure as shit don't send messages to the users saying "Spread the word about this website you fucking useless cunts!"
And so turning to this website, it's a good idea and I can (and often do) spend many hours on it at night reading the posts, adding my own, and just generally relaxing in a venue where almost no topic is banned. While I do this, I also watch films online, maybe send a few e-mails, browse other websites, and so on. Yes, forgive me Il Duce Sysop but I have a life beyond your website. The fact is, this is a far from unique site. It is true that if you want to talk about illegal stuff, then this is one of the few places on the net to do it, but that is not why I (and I imagine most other people) use it. If it closed down tomorrow (as Sysop endlessly threatens will happen if we do not return to our stations and "type, dammit, type, type for the Fuehrer until your fingers bleed!!") it will be unfortunate, but not exactly a tragedy. Sysop's endless obsession and vague threats about this site closing down makes me wonder about just how full his own life is and how HE (not us) would survive without it. It is not, as he loves to say, "the greatest site on the internet", and neither does it stand a chance in hell of becoming "the biggest", as he demands we make it. It is, I want to repeat, an excellent idea and a very well organised site, and I am genuinely sorry for all the dickheads who try to fuck it up, but I'm not going to be labelled a "fucking useless idiot" when I am not that.
A few months back I did actually recommend 4 of my friends use this site (following the Directive from the Desk of The Supreme Leader to "spread the word"). 3 of them stopped using it within a few weeks, NOT because of the illegal stuff that sometimes gets discussed here, but because of the offensive messages sent to them by the Board for perceived linguistic errors. I have been an English teacher since 1998, I honestly think I know more about the English language than Sysop. He insists on exceptionally high standards of English, and yet this often boils down to his own erratic versions of the rules. Yesterday I received an angry Bulletin from him informing me that he is "disappointed at you all" (the correct preposition after "dissapointed" is "in", not "at"). He works himself into apoplexy over people who use block capitals, and yet today I am informed by yet another Bulletin that I am a "FUCKING IDIOT" (block capitals, no?). And don't get me started on the absurd notion of correct comma use, but if there is some address to which I can post him a copy of David Murphy's seminal "English In Use", please someone let me know what it is. Many other examples of piss-poor English than he uses. But when someone else does it, he starts calling them every name under the sun.
What Sysop never seems to comprehend is that, yes, this site is a great idea and it should have a huge volume of traffic coming through it...but it doesn't. As he himself wrote in one of his tirades, "It is pitifully low" before going on to label us all fucking useless. The question is, why? Why does this very usable and interesting website get almost no traffic? Has he never considered that the reason for this is his own megalomania? Sysop seems to believe that everyone who visits his site has some kind of battered wife syndrome, that we are all pathetic losers and the more he 'beats' us, the more we will come to obey his every commandment. This simply isn't the case, mate. Most people here have families, jobs, social lives, countless interests, and I think I speak for most people here when I say that when we visit your site and enjoy it, we also have 5 or 6 other windows open and are enjoying those sites equally. Sure, there are probably some people on here who have easily-intimidated natures and who fear your every PM, but believe me mate, most people are just normal guys and girls who visit your site (probably BECAUSE of the work done by the users to "spread the word")...and then YOU go and fucking chase them away with your shit attitude! You come across like some Soviet factory commander screaming at his workers "WORK, WORK YOU STUPID FUCKING FUNCTIONARIES!!!". The difference is, the Soviet commanders had the power to summarily kill those who did not obey their commands, and that is why they could get away with such abuse. You, however, have no such power, you just keep threatening to close down a website. Dude...come on, think about how it comes across. A lot of users here DO spread the word...you then fuck the whole thing up by writing indiscriminate insults to everyone who uses the site. I got 4 people to come here in one day...3 of them left because of you. And then you start creaming about the users not bringing people to the site. Do you honestly think anyone without serious self-esteem issues is going to stick around a website where they are called useless fucking idiots practically every week by the very guy who is imploring them to use his site? I have managed to take it for a few months, but as I said, it's just getting too much now, I look at my wife, my kids, I consider my career and university achievements, and honestly, some guy on a laptop is not going to call me a "fucking idiot" day after day.
And you may reply, in your inimitable style, "Ok well just fuck off then you useless fucking cunt and use those sites, why the fuck do you use mine you fucking useless piece of fucking animal shit?" The answer is: because this is just one website from billions. Try to understand this: YOU chose to set up this site, just as my friend has his horror film site. Nobody owes you anything because (here's the important part, read it carefully) you are not selling a product here. You are providing a free-to-use venue. If you want donations, politely ask for them, but do not expect or demand them. If you DESPERATELY want to keep the site up but nobody is voluntarily donating, then do what many other sites do and make it a pay-site. Then maybe you will see just how many people here share your belief that this is the greatest, most indispensable website on the internet. You understand that point? Turn this site into a pay site for just 1 week, and see how many users continue to use it. Then maybe you will realise that this site is not as great or indispensable as you seem to think we all believe it to be, and so you really have no right or cause to hurl insults at us all.
Ok, that's all. This will probably be deleted, along with myself, but fair enough. I would genuinely like Sysop to be true to his assertion that this site's greatest value is absolute freedom of speech and leave it up, and not show his neo-Soviet tendencies ("You can say absolutely anything you want to say...but only if it is exactly what I want to hear") by pulling it. We'll see. I hope he will reply to the points I've made, preferably without resorting to childish insults. And I hope also that this post generates some opinions both from people who feel the same way I do, and also from those who disagree with me, because that - as I was given to believe when I found this site - is what this place is all about. Finally, for what it is worth and since this may be my last ever post on this site, it has been a great website to use, I can find absolutely no fault in it EXCEPT for those Bulletins, and I've had many interesting conversations over the months with many users here. Thanks for that.
Start a new topic to continue this conversation.
Or browse the latest topics.