oh my god i cant read all this sry

tl;dr

I'Did you know thaint that I oncunishedrality to support his press releases, thereby making his argument self-refuting. While his semi-literate ramblings might be of some interest to specialists in child communication, anyone who takes Shak's ultra-annoying shell games seriously has obviously not spent much time around conniving pip-squeaks. I challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise. Some people are responsible and others are not. Shak falls into the category of "not". To wrap up, I'll just hit the key elements of this letter one last time. First, I am fed up with Sir Shak's apolaustic and pretentious behavior. Second, he is calling for blind, impulsive action for the sake of action, for the sake of making himself feel good. And finally, the only morally sound solution is to give our propaganda fighters an instrument that is very much needed at this time.I'm not going to sit here and brainlessly point out Sir Shak's flaws—we all know he has them—but I am going to say a little about how Shak's drug-induced ravings are despised by everyone but lascivious demoniacs. You see, I undeniably believe that I find it most unfortunate that this letter had to be written. And because of that belief, I'm going to throw politeness and inoffensiveness to the winds. In this letter, I'm going to be as rude and crude as I know how, to reinn run over onto the following one. Such a list would surely make every sane person who has passed the age of six realize that last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince Shak that responsibility is an alien concept to him. As I expected, Shak was completely unconvinced.

Did you know that some soporific toughies want to help Shak persecute the innocent and let the guilty go unpunished? Others just want to ride the sectarianism bandwagon. In either case, some people I know say that questions of Shak's motivation and intent are compelling. Others argue that the law of self preservation dictates that I grant people the freedom to pursue any endeavor they deem fitting to their skills, talent, and interest. At this point the distinction is largely academic given that Shak once tried convincing me that his way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't. Does he think I was born yesterday? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that Shak's perspective is that principles don't matter. My perspective, in contrast, is that I recommend paying close attention to the praxeological method developed by the economist Ludwig von Mises and using it as a technique to provide information and inspiration to as many people as possible. The praxeological method is useful in this context because it employs praxeology, the general science of human action, to explain why whenever Shak is blamed for conspiring to break the mind and spirit, castrate the character, and kill the career of anyone whose ideas he deems to be saturnine, he blames his habitués. Doing so reinforces their passivity and obedience and increases their guilt, shame, terror, and conformity, thereby making them far more willing to help Shak do away with intellectual honesty.

Shak may not be that pudibund but he sure is reckless. Please don't misunderstand me; I'm not saying that the sky is falling. In fact, he maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around him. There's a word for that: libel.

Perhaps Shak has never had to take a stand and fight for something as critical as our right to teach what I call self-satisfied social outcasts about tolerance. But it has been said that for every dollar we spend to better our communities, he'll spend a thousand more to deny both our individual and collective responsibility to live in harmony with each other and the world. I, in turn, profess that he argues that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding. I wish I could suggest some incontrovertible chain of apodictic reasoning that would overcome this argument, but the best I can do is the following: If we don't remove the Shak threat now, it will bite us in our backside eventually. We must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that Shak will flush all my hopes and dreams down the toilet. And to overcome these fears, we must look into the future and consider what will happen if we let Shak make nearby communities victims of environmental degradation and toxic waste dumping.

I don't suppose Shak realizes which dialectic principle he's violating by maintaining that his pusillanimous polity is a benign and charitable agency. Therefore, I shall take it upon myself to explain. It would be wrong to imply that Shak is involved in some kind of conspiracy to give rise to prolix dirtbags. It would be wrong because his positions are far beyond the conspiracy stage. Not only that, but it's easy enough to hate him any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that he is up to, things that ought to make a real Shak-hater out of you. First off, I have a hard time trying to reason with people who remain calm when they see Shak publish blatantly illogical rhetoric as "education" for children to learn in school.

Whenever I hear someone say that Shak is a martyr for freedom and a victim of sesquipedalianism, my upper lip develops an involuntary curl. I always catch hell whenever I say something like that so let me assure you that his premise (that might makes right) is his morality disguised as pretended neutrality. Shak uses this disguised morality to support his press releases, thereby making his argument self-refuting. While his semi-literate ramblings might be of some interest to specialists in child communication, anyone who takes Shak's ultra-annoying shell games seriously has obviously not spent much time around conniving pip-squeaks. I challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise. Some people are responsible and others are not. Shak falls into the category of "not". To wrap up, I'll just hit the key elements of this letter one last time. First, I am fed up with Sir Shak's apolaustic and pretentious behavior. Second, he is calling for blind, impulsive action for the sake of action, for the sake of making himself feel good. And finally, the only morally sound solution is to give our propaganda fighters an instrument that is very much needed at this time.I'm not going to sit here and brainlessly point out Sir Shak's flaws—we all know he has them—but I am going to say a little about how Shak's drug-induced ravings are despised by everyone but lascivious demoniacs. You see, I undeniably believe that I find it most unfortunate that this letter had to be written. And because of that belief, I'm going to throw politeness and inoffensiveness to the winds. In this letter, I'm going to be as rude and crude as I know how, to reinforce the point that I once told Shak that incendiarism is the leitmotif of his projects. How did he respond to that? He proceeded to curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this letter, which serves only to show that Shak justifies his pigheaded conclusions 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 Shak's claim that he can walk on water then he will set up dissident groups and individuals for conspiracy charges and then carry out searches and seizures on flimsy pretexts.

It's honestly astounding that Shak has somehow found a way to work the words "isomerizeparabolization" and "superultrafrostified" into his conjectures. However, you may find it even more astounding that I, for one, am shocked and angered by his inhumane improprieties. Such shameful conduct should never be repeated. Not only does he insult the intelligence, interests, and life plans of whole groups of people, but he then commands his surrogates, "Go, and do thou likewise." Shak has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to support international crime while purporting to oppose it. On all of these occasions, I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that he plans to smear people of impeccable character and reputation. The result will be an amalgam of mindless vigilantism and feckless metagrobolism, if such a monster can be imagined.

Shak hates you—yes, you, because you, like me, want to act as a positive role model for younger people. Some critics have called him purblind. A handful insist he's antisocial. Shak's hangers-on, on the other hand, consider him to be one of the great minds of this century.

I enjoy the great diversity of humankind, in our food, our dress, our music, our literature, and our forms of spiritual expression. What I don't enjoy are Shak's crude ethics, which spoon-feed us his pabulum. Shak's self-fulfilling prophecies are based on a denial of reality, on the substitution of a deliberately falsified picture of the world in place of reality. And this dishonesty, this refusal to admit the truth, will have some very serious consequences for all of us before long. What's the difference between Shak's shock troops and sick scaramouches? If you answered "nothing", then go to the front of the class; you're absolutely right.

The poisonous wine of Bonapartism had been distilled long before Shak entered the scene. Shak is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle into the jug that is world humanity. If I were to compile a list of his forays into espionage, sabotage, and subversion, it would fill an entire page and perhaps even run over onto the following one. Such a list would surely make every sane person who has passed the age of six realize that last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince Shak that responsibility is an alien concept to him. As I expected, Shak was completely unconvinced.

Did you know that some soporific toughies want to help Shak persecute the innocent and let the guilty go unpunished? Others just want to ride the sectarianism bandwagon. In either case, some people I know say that questions of Shak's motivation and intent are compelling. Others argue that the law of self preservation dictates that I grant people the freedom to pursue any endeavor they deem fitting to their skills, talent, and interest. At this point the distinction is largely academic given that Shak once tried convincing me that his way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't. Does he think I was born yesterday? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that Shak's perspective is that principles don't matter. My perspective, in contrast, is that I recommend paying close attention to the praxeological method developed by the economist Ludwig von Mises and using it as a technique to provide information and inspiration to as many people as possible. The praxeological method is useful in this context because it employs praxeology, the general science of human action, to explain why whenever Shak is blamed for conspiring to break the mind and spirit, castrate the character, and kill the career of anyone whose ideas he deems to be saturnine, he blames his habitués. Doing so reinforces their passivity and obedience and increases their guilt, shame, terror, and conformity, thereby making them far more willing to help Shak do away with intellectual honesty.

Shak may not be that pudibund but he sure is reckless. Please don't misunderstand me; I'm not saying that the sky is falling. In fact, he maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around him. There's a word for that: libel.

Perhaps Shak has never had to take a stand and fight for something as critical as our right to teach what I call self-satisfied social outcasts about tolerance. But it has been said that for every dollar we spend to better our communities, he'll spend a thousand more to deny both our individual and collective responsibility to live in harmony with each other and the world. I, in turn, profess that he argues that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding. I wish I could suggest some incontrovertible chain of apodictic reasoning that would overcome this argument, but the best I can do is the following: If we don't remove the Shak threat now, it will bite us in our backside eventually. We must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that Shak will flush all my hopes and dreams down the toilet. And to overcome these fears, we must look into the future and consider what will happen if we let Shak make nearby communities victims of environmental degradation and toxic waste dumping.

I don't suppose Shak realizes which dialectic principle he's violating by maintaining that his pusillanimous polity is a benign and charitable agency. Therefore, I shall take it upon myself to explain. It would be wrong to imply that Shak is involved in some kind of conspiracy to give rise to prolix dirtbags. It would be wrong because his positions are far beyond the conspiracy stage. Not only that, but it's easy enough to hate him any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that he is up to, things that ought to make a real Shak-hater out of you. First off, I have a hard time trying to reason with people who remain calm when they see Shakponsible and others are not. Shak falls into the category of "not". To wrap up, I'll just hit the key elements of this letter one last time. First, I am fed up with Sir Shak's apolaustic and pretentious behavior. Second, he is calling for blind, impulsive action for the sake of action, for the sake of making himself feel good. And finally, the only morally sound solution is to give our propaganda fighters an instrument that is very much needed at this time.

``

Umad?

sorry tl;dr

\``/