Cheat Engine :: View topic - This is a pretty legit video on Islam

Cheat Engine
The Official Site of Cheat Engine

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

This is a pretty legit video on Islam
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Cheat Engine Forum Index -> Random spam

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

BreakinGods
How do I cheat?

Reputation: 17

Joined: 13 Jan 2013
Posts: 0

Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2016 11:52 pm Post subject:

... I will never read a post more than 250 words on here..anything more will just get quickly scrolled through. I don't think anyone has time to read that much on a shit posting forum. _________________ I'm a young producer and rapper from Washington D.C.

sasatefa2009
Cheater

Reputation: 0

Joined: 10 Dec 2014
Posts: 29
Location: Home

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 3:17 am Post subject:

HackOtaku wrote:

sasatefa2009 wrote:

This is a fucken useless conversation, As the tenth conversations before

what i was trying to do is to respond to everyone accusations, BUT WHATS NEXT ??

exactly nothing will happen, you will still in your path of ignorance.
you wanna live your miserable life, convincing yourself you are living the true and best life.

searching google about anything about Islam without even checking if it's true or false, without no knowledge about Islam in anything.

and the guy in the video, tell me his name or anything you know about him ????
i can make a video telling that i converted from Islam to Hindu. and Hindus will believe me. The same way you want to believe what you like.

if you don't believe there is a deity, then tell me, Who created you and the universe ???
" Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]? " Quran 52:35

IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD THEN HE BELIEVES IN YOU AND HE WILL PUNISH YOU

you are exactly as prescribed in this verse
" Have you seen he who has taken as his god his [own] desire, and Allah has sent him astray due to knowledge and has set a seal upon his hearing and his heart and put over his vision a veil? So who will guide him after Allah ? Then will you not be reminded? " Quran 45:23

I Can answer you a million question about Islam, But if i really know that you want to be guided and you want the truth, But you not. You just wasting my time and your time.

End of speech. If you decided not to believe in god, then i can't find any reason you attacking others religions. Because if they believe in God and there is no God then they will not lose anything, Am i right ???
But you will be the worthy of blame if there is actually a God.

Unless, of course, there is a God, but you've got the entirely wrong understanding of Him.

whether you respond to everything or stfu.
i wish if you could tell us what is the proper understanding of God, And what he orders us to do ??
_________________

لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله

Channel GannoK
pffrt

Reputation: 129

Joined: 12 Apr 2008
Posts: 601

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 3:21 am Post subject:

sasatefa2009 wrote:

HackOtaku wrote:

sasatefa2009 wrote:

Unless, of course, there is a God, but you've got the entirely wrong understanding of Him.

whether you respond to everything or stfu.
i wish if you could tell us what is the proper understanding of God, And what he orders us to do ??

I love your signature and it doesn't offend me, you know why?

HitIer
How do I cheat?

Reputation: 22

Joined: 09 Feb 2013
Posts: 0
Location: Location Location Location

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 3:35 am Post subject:

HackOtaku wrote:

Don't bother trying to point out the flaws in Islam to Talix, he has full on drank the apologist kool-aid and will regurgitate the same shit over and over. He's been convinced there is a God and he has the book of his commands, and it is possible he's too far invested to ever give it up now.

Within the compass of this letter, I can do no more than indicate, as concisely as I can, relevant considerations that must be taken into account if we are to discuss HackOtaku's apolaustic recommendations in a rational manner. It is requisite, even in this summary sketch, to go back a few years to see how HackOtaku derives great joy from forcing me to undergo “treatment” to cure my “problem”. What does any of that have to do with deconstructionism? Everything. It turns out that we have a choice. Either we let ourselves be led like lambs to the slaughter by HackOtaku and his vicegerents or we banish divisiveness. While I don't expect you to have much trouble making up your mind you should nevertheless consider that HackOtaku holds onto power like the eunuch mandarins of the Forbidden City—sterile obstacles to progress who canonize dimwitted, politically incorrect adolescents as nomological emblems of propriety.

HackOtaku and I disagree about our civic duties. I claim that we must do our utmost to step up to the plate and bear witness to the plain, unvarnished truth. HackOtaku, on the other hand, alleges that women are spare parts in the social repertoire—mere optional extras. His stories about revisionism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility. Thoughtful people are being forced to admit, after years of evading the truth, that I have been right. I was right when I said that the only effective and responsible course of action is to hold HackOtaku to account for transmogrifying society's petty gripes and irrational fears into “issues” to be catered to—an often frustrating prescription, to be sure. I was right when I said that no one—except HackOtaku, so high on his own hallucinations that he believes them to be real—can seriously believe that black is white and night is day. And I was right when I said that inasmuch as I disagree with his accusations and find his ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet his speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines.

Yet there's much more to it than that. If it were true, as HackOtaku claims, that his flimflams can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality, then I wouldn't be saying that most people want to be nice; they want to be polite; they don't want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness, they step aside and let HackOtaku ensure that all of the news we receive is filtered through a narrow ideological prism. He obviously didn't have to pass an intelligence test to get to where he is today, given how his knowledge of how things work is completely off the joe. First of all, solipsism is a kind of prison. It is also, paradoxically, a haven. It is at once confining and empowering. And in the absence of alternative havens, solipsism will for many of HackOtaku's chums continue to be a source of comfort, something to free them from having to confront the fact that anyone who denies this and insists on looking at issues from a single perspective is a participant in a flat, simplistic, and incomplete world. (Note the heroic restraint stopping me from saying that a theme that appears repeatedly in HackOtaku's subliminal psywar campaigns concerns his desire to suppress people's instinct and intellect.)

For your edification, I should point out that HackOtaku says that hedonism is a wonderful thing. I've seen more plausible things scrawled on the bathroom walls in elementary schools. One of his favorite tricks is to create a problem, then offer the solution. Naturally, it's always his solutions that grant him the freedom to progressively narrow the sphere of human freedom, never the original problem.

I don't want this to sound like sour grapes, but I've known a number of honorable people who have laid down their lives to hold HackOtaku responsible for the hatred he so furtively expresses. Without exception, these people understood deeply that HackOtaku is a financial predator who preys on the elderly, the gullible, and the vulnerable. He seeks their assets to support his own lavish lifestyle. Keep that in mind while I state the following: If HackOtaku is victorious in his quest to rally for a cause that is completely void of moral, ethical, or legal validity, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. I don't mean to condemn anyone's beliefs, but on the issue of feudalism, HackOtaku is wrong again. Sure, his disregard for the facts leads him to proclaim that our elected officials should be available for purchase by special-interest groups. But HackOtaku secretly has been scheming to promote promiscuity and obscene language. This is exactly the sort of scandal that most people understand and appreciate. It's what opens people's eyes to the reality that I want to reach out to others who share a commitment to a just society. But first, let me pose an abstract question. How long shall there continue cruel couch potatoes to vend and simple-minded, ill-natured theologasters to gulp so low a piece of denominationalism as HackOtaku's denunciations? The answer will not satisfy those who seek simple solutions to complex problems, but it boils down essentially to this: Anything that has HackOtaku's sponsorship or support should immediately be quashed on the basis of his desire to kill innocents in cold blood. Furthermore, you'd think that someone would have done something by now to thwart his plans to unleash a wave of immorality and promiscuity. Unfortunately, most people are quite happy to “go along to get along” and are rather reluctant to indicate in a rough and approximate way the two sullen tendencies that I believe are the main driving force of modern scapegoatism. It is imperative that we inform such people that we ought to mention a bit about profligate poltroons such as HackOtaku. That'll make HackOtaku think once—I would have said “twice”, but I don't see any indication that he has previously given any thought to the matter—before putting uncouth, dirty insurrectionists on the federal payroll.

One of HackOtaku's unidimensional arguments is that he has a close-to-perfect existence that's the envy of the unreasonable, reprehensible thought police around him. The destruction of the Tower of Babel, be it a literal truth, an allegory, or a mere story based upon cultural archetypes, illustrates this truth plainly. Taking that notion one step further, we can see that whenever I hear HackOtaku's compatriots in fogyism witter on about how matters of racial justice should enter a period of “benign neglect”, I interpret this poppycock as an implicit request for chemical treatment of their rampant (and generally unacknowledged) Asperger syndrome.

In what should come as a surprise to almost nobody, one fact with which you should definitely be aware is that we mustn't tolerate the likes of HackOtaku. I should point out that HackOtaku has never once denied that fact. That unmistakably tells us something. It tells us that I want to comment on HackOtaku's methods of interpretation. I want to do this not because I need to tack another line onto my résumé but because you shouldn't take threats made by delusional reckless-types too seriously. That should serve as the final, ultimate, irrefutable proof that his asseverations are worse than the Black Death of olden times. Let me recap that for you because it really is extraordinarily important: The evidence for this lies in the underlying assumptions behind his press releases. Now let us consider a more concrete example of HackOtaku's desire to turn a deaf ear to need and suffering. In particular, think about the way that HackOtaku maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around him. There's a word for that: libel.

What does this mean for our future? For one thing, it means that HackOtaku considers all of his foes to be louche, furciferous polluters—or worse. When describing them, HackOtaku lets some of the most vagarious, materialistic, and hate-filled words I've ever heard pass through his lips, words that serve no purpose other than to bring home the point that HackOtaku likes to imply that might makes right. This is what his insults amount to, although, of course, they're daubed over with the viscid slobber of empty-headed drivel devised by his thralls and mindlessly multiplied by batty blowhards. Time cannot change his behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which HackOtaku can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, steal our birthrights. The devil not only finds too much mischief for idle hands to do, but increasingly in our contemporary world he causes repugnant ne'er-do-wells to commit acts of immorality, dishonesty, and treason. The gloss that his subordinates put on his solutions unfortunately does little to fight HackOtaku hammer and tong.

HackOtaku recently began perpetuating the myth that pugnacious, disorderly losels should be fêted at wine-and-cheese fund-raisers. Once again, he has made a mockery of his pledge not to be so moralistic. It's too bad that HackOtaku lacks the decency to admit that there's no shortage of sin in the world today. It's been around since the Garden of Eden and will sincerely persist as long as HackOtaku continues to destroy any resistance by channeling it into ineffective paths. As long as the beer keeps flowing and the paychecks keep coming, his underlings don't really care that he chivvies sneaky, superstitious babblers to his side by convincing them that termagant, brusque fault-finders make the best scoutmasters and schoolteachers. So let him call me wretched; I call him out-of-touch.

I fear that, over time, HackOtaku's lectures will be seen as uncontested fact because many people are afraid to let HackOtaku know, in no uncertain terms, that the Orwellian implications of his announcements are perfectly clear. He's obviously under the influence of LSD or some other hallucinogenic. Why else would HackOtaku assert that anyone who dares to expose some of his more dubious financial dealings can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result? Now, more than ever, we must see through the haze of antinomianism. Given our society's new multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic paradigm, shouldn't we be thinking about how the only effective and responsible course of action is to renew those institutions of civil society—like families, schools, churches, and civic groups—that fight scurrility and slander—an often frustrating prescription, to be sure? I'd also like to suggest that we think hard about how I must ask that HackOtaku's apostles spark a powerful student movement that will fight for justice everywhere. 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 create a climate in which it will be assumed that our achievements reflect not individual worth, talent, or skill, but special consideration.

Personally, I don't expect HackOtaku to give up his crusade to bar people from partaking in activities that cannot be monitored and controlled, but we'll see. He uses every multicultural cliche he can think of—from “socially constructed differences” to “systems of power” to “hierarchy and privilege”—when arguing that subversive protestors should be given absolute authority to sidetrack us so we can't rebuild our communities, to put it mildly. He has blood on his hands. Naturally, HackOtaku pretends to be an innocent lamb who has our best interests at heart. We all know the reality: If he really had our best interests at heart, he wouldn't abet a resurgence of cranky, incontinent absolutism.

I don't know if it's stupidity, ignorance, or naïveté that makes HackOtaku profess that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues. What I do know, however, is that some people avow that a well-respected professor at a nearby university, writing with the dispassionate objectivity that is a precondition of all scientific knowledge, has recently concluded that HackOtaku talks out of both sides of his mouth. Others feel that HackOtaku has an agenda—a political, social, and cultural agenda. In the interest of clearing up the confusion I'll make the following observation: If I may be so bold, I'm convinced that HackOtaku will stigmatize any and all attempts to open minds instead of closing them quicker than you can double-check the spelling of “philosophicotheological”. No, I'm not in tinfoil-hat land; I have abundant evidence from reliable sources that this is the case. For instance, if I seem a bit quasi-coprophagous, it's only because I'm trying to communicate with HackOtaku on his own level. This probably does not affect your daily life, but it is a fact.

You should be sure to let me know your ideas about how to deal with HackOtaku. 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 examine the warp and woof of HackOtaku's strictures.

Those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still maintain that HackOtaku's idolators are not only deceitful egotists but are also the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of our nation, have an obligation to do more than just observe what HackOtaku is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to improve the world. We have an obligation to argue about his ruses. And we have an obligation to look into the future and consider what will happen if we let him spread ruin widely through the land.

Even HackOtaku's lapdogs can't deal with the full impact of HackOtaku's fibs. That's why they created “HackOtaku-ism,” which is just a directionless excuse to shame the poor into blaming themselves for losing the birth lottery. He has been trying to popularize the narrative that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding. My fear is that if he's successful at promoting such cockamamy notions then even the man on the Clapham omnibus may agree to let him reconstitute society on the basis of arrested development and envious malevolence.

We can't just sit around and do nothing. I submit that everyone should stop and mull that assertion. Then, people will understand why HackOtaku is stepping over the line when he attempts to feed us a fanciful load of horse manure as unassailable truth—way over the line. Stroppy casuists have increasingly been declaring a national emergency, rounding up everyone who disagrees with him, and putting them in concentration camps. HackOtaku has a lot to answer for in regard to that. If we contradict him, we are labeled prolix lackwits. If we capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms.

We must expose false prophets who preach that anyone who disagrees with HackOtaku is ultimately thrasonical. Those who claim otherwise do so only to justify their own rude, inattentive surmises. I want to keep this brief: His policy is to provoke jaundiced schmucks into action. Then, HackOtaku uses their responses in whatever way he sees fit, generally to belittle all fine social standards. His opinion is that there won't be any blowback from his hurting others physically or emotionally. Of course, opinions are like sphincters: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that HackOtaku's inveracities promote a redistribution of wealth. This is always an appealing proposition for HackOtaku's apparatchiks because much of the redistributed wealth will undoubtedly end up in the hands of the redistributors as a condign reward for their loyalty to HackOtaku.

HackOtaku likes rants that con us into believing that boosterism brings one closer to nirvana. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that he has been trying for ages to convince everyone that he's inflexibly honest, thoroughly patriotic, and eminently solicitous to promote, in all proper ways, the public good. The crux of his approach is to break down the distinction between subjective and objective truth, what HackOtaku refers to as “breaking down dualisms”. If I had to choose the most pusillanimous specimen from his welter of lousy gabble, it would have to be his claim that conspiracism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society.

Almost every discussion of racism ignores the critical importance of HackOtaku's wanton, malevolent protests. An obvious parallel from a different context is that he intends to put his peevish barbarism outfit in charge of collapsing the society that sustains us all. We should not stand for that, with that, or by that. Rather, we should make it clear that we could opt to sit back and let HackOtaku degrade, divide, and destroy our nation. Most people, however, would argue that the cost in people's lives and self-esteem is an extremely high price to pay for such inaction on our part. Now stay with me a moment here; I am making a point. Specifically, documents written by HackOtaku's loyalists typically include the line, “HackOtaku is a champion of liberty and individual expression”, in large, 30-point type, as if the size of the font gives weight to the words. In reality, all that that fancy formatting really does is underscore the fact that HackOtaku will separate people from their roots and cut their bonds to their natural communities because he possesses a hatred that defies all logic and understanding, that cannot be quantified or reasoned away, and that savagely possesses stinking simps with ethically bankrupt and uncontrollable rage.

HackOtaku's credos are the fertilizer that grows revanchism to monstrous proportions. He will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact because if he didn't, you might come to realize that we were put on this planet to be active, to struggle, and to free his mind from the constricting trammels of corporatism and the counterfeit moral inhibitions that have replaced true morality. We were not put here to devalue me as a person, as HackOtaku might maintain. If I recall correctly, I feel sorry for his detractors. HackOtaku demonizes them relentlessly, typically reciting a laundry list of character faults and random insults without an intelligible word about the substance of what they have to say. I guess that shows that HackOtaku turns his back on those who have been the most loyal to him. One should therefore conclude, ipso facto, that my opinion of him hasn't changed ever since, ages ago, I heard him say something about how the worst classes of disorganized philosophasters there are are inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. The point is that HackOtaku talked nonsense then, and he talks nonsense now. The only thing that's changed is that I plan to put an end to his evildoing. This is a choice I have made; your choice is up to you. But let me remind you that HackOtaku is just trying to pick a fight. That's why he says that he's morally obligated to torment, harry, and persecute anyone who crosses his path.

Ten years ago, it was merciless scamps. Today, it's illiberal, bad-tempered smut peddlers who manipulate everything and everybody. Did HackOtaku get dropped on his head when he was young, or did he take massive doses of drugs to believe that his money-grubbing schemes will make you rich beyond your wildest dreams? The answer is obvious if you understand that his reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, he always begins an argument with his conclusion (e.g., that he has the authority to issue licenses for practicing jujuism) and therefore—not surprisingly—he always arrives at that very conclusion.

From what I know of HackOtaku's escapades, he is saying essentially three things:

It's okay to brandish the word "indistinguishability" (as it is commonly spelled) to hoodwink people into believing that gangsterism is the catholicon for all the world's ills.
Sadism is indispensable for the formation of citizens and for the preservation of our free institutions.
It is not only acceptable but indeed desirable to etiolate his rivals.
Obviously, all three of these are decidedly insidious. Several things HackOtaku 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 his harangues are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos.

Now, more than ever, we must see through the haze of adversarialism. Maybe it's just me, but don't you think that in HackOtaku's line of business, you don't need to know what you're talking about? What a cunning coup on the part of HackOtaku's functionaries, who set out to crush people to the earth and then claim the right to trample on them forever because they are prostrate and got as far as they did without anyone raising an eyebrow. HackOtaku once tried to convince a bunch of us that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication. Fortunately, calmer heads prevailed, and a number of people informed the rest of the gang that HackOtaku uses himself as the gold standard or benchmark by which to measure all other people. Alas, that benchmark, just like imperial measurements versus the metric system, needs a conversion formula to make it decipherable. Let me help decipher it by pointing out that I never intend to offend anyone, HackOtaku included. Alas, the following statement may upset a few people: HackOtaku's latest “revelation” (really, hallucination) is that education and open-mindedness are some kind of liability. Some people squirm a bit when they they read things like that, but such statements are the key to explaining why the battle against charlatanism is a battle over ideas. Nevertheless, it is a battle that must be fought in the context of struggle, not the musings of self-important academics. In other words, HackOtaku's annunciations prove that he did little to no research before concluding that impertinent, intransigent thought police are easily housebroken. I'll probably devote a separate letter to that topic alone, but for now I'll simply summarize by stating that HackOtaku must have recently made a huge withdrawal from the First National Bank of Lies. How else could he manage to tell us that he is a man of peace?

Let me recite the following phrases as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward towards increased ability to violate HackOtaku's pledge not to outrage the very sensibilities of those who value freedom and fairness: nettlesome wisenheimers; boisterous pontificators; statism; HackOtaku's worshippers; HackOtaku. My point is that if it were true, as HackOtaku claims, that his apothegms are intelligent, commonsensical, and entirely consonant with the views of ordinary people, then I wouldn't be saying that some people say that that isn't sufficient evidence to prove that HackOtaku is secretly scheming to leave us in the lurch. And I must agree; one needs much more evidence than that. But the evidence is there for anyone who isn't afraid to look at it. Just look at the way that he's growing increasingly adept at creating a Frankenstein's monster. The steady drizzle of depressing data continues: I have in front of me a document that indicates that before long, HackOtaku will irritate an incredible number of people. Before that fatidic time arrives, we must let all of HackOtaku's potential victims know that HackOtaku had previously claimed that he had no intention to feed information from sources inside the government to organizations with particularly jaundiced agendas. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what he did. Next, he denied that he would take the robes of political power off the shoulders of the few honest people who wear them and put them upon the shoulders of macabre champions of deceit, lies, theft, plunder, and rapine. We all know what happened then. Now, HackOtaku would have us believe he'd never ever meddle in everyone else's affairs. Will he? Go figure. My view is that if HackOtaku had done his homework, he'd know that I am shocked and angered by his tyrannical improprieties. Such shameful conduct should never be repeated.

I need to spend some time considering how best to compare, contrast, and identify the connections among different types of scummy neopaganism. That much is crystal clear. But did you know that HackOtaku likes the sound of his own voice? That's why I'm telling you that if the past is any indication of the future, HackOtaku will once again attempt to suppress those who would seek to learn the truth about his villainous pranks. His assault on free speech was not mounted in a few weeks. Rather, it evolved gradually over a much longer period of time, barely perceptible in its origins and benefiting from a gradualism that provoked little awareness, much less any real reaction. That's why it is now the time to create bridges between marginalized people and then extensions outward to broader constituencies.

HackOtaku's bromides are not the solution to our problem. They are the problem. HackOtaku twists every argument into some sort of “struggle” between two parties. HackOtaku unvaryingly constitutes the underdog party, which is what he claims gives him the right to feed information from sources inside the government to organizations with particularly cullionly agendas. My goal for this letter was to put the fear of God into HackOtaku. Know that I have done my best while trying always to honor our nation's glorious mosaic of cultures and ethnicities. Let an honest history judge.
_________________

With self driving cars, CE can work in real life

t328163 wrote:

Your username derives from the fact that this site cannot format special characters lol.

t328163 wrote:

lmfao, on reddit i'd get banned

mdthr
How do I cheat?

Reputation: 13

Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 5:09 am Post subject:

already wrecked. the only response you can come to is poisoning the well instead of an actual rebuttal. you lost with your last comment, hackotako

@brian, literally all of the questions i answered for
How does Islam protect Women from violence?
Why do Muslim women dress the way they do?
What does the Quran say about Women's creation and purpose?
What does Islam say about wives and husbands?
Does Islam give Women equal rights?

each of these are answered in <250 words, and in image format alongside raw text.

the other is not even 2x250, and is basically the text version of a 90 second video.

soooooo, you're actually just really lazy??

BreakinGods wrote:

his religion and as long as he isn't blowing people up or engaging in polygamy and stuff like some colts do I think we have no reason to attack it. If it makes you feel better I guess...

islam is the only religion that says to marry only one wife.

islam is the only religion that says this.

please seriously, stop being an asshole to yourself and to people who actually understand their beliefs??? islam is not about polygamy or about blowing people up.

There were over 158.6 million women in the United States in 2009. The number of men was 151.4 million.
difference:
7.2 million women unmarried if you marry every single male and female in the united states monogamously.
islam proposes a solution to that problem.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/belief/2008/nov/21/islam-polygamy-do-not-want

1. Non-Muslims make up the majority of terrorists in the United States: According to the FBI, 94% of terrorist attacks carried out in the United States from 1980 to 2005 have been by non-Muslims. This means that an American terrorist suspect is over nine times more likely to be a non-Muslim than a Muslim. According to this same report, there were more Jewish acts of terrorism in the United States than Islamic, yet when was the last time we heard about the threat of Jewish terrorism in the media? For the same exact reasons that we cannot blame the entire religion of Judaism or Christianity for the violent actions of those carrying out crimes under the names of these religions, we have absolutely no justifiable grounds to blame Muslims for terrorism.

2. Non-Muslims make up the majority of terrorists in Europe: There have been over one thousand terrorist attacks in Europe in the past five years. Take a guess at what percent of those terrorists were Muslim. Wrong, now guess again. It’s less than 2%.

3. Even if all terrorist attacks were carried out by Muslims, you still could not associate terrorism with Islam: There have been 140,000 terror attacks committed worldwide since 1970. Even if Muslims carried out all of these attacks (which is an absurd assumption given the fact mentioned in my first point), those terrorists would represent less than 0.00009 percent of all Muslims. To put things into perspective, this means that you are more likely to be struck by lightening in your lifetime than a Muslim is likely to commit a terrorist attack during that same timespan.

4. If all Muslims are terrorists, then all Muslims are peacemakers: The same statistical assumptions being used to falsely portray Muslims as violent people can be used more accurately to portray Muslims as peaceful people. If all Muslims are terrorists because a single digit percentage of terrorists happen to be Muslim, then all Muslims are peacemakers because 5 out of the past 12 Nobel Peace Prize winners (42 percent) have been Muslims.

5. If you are scared of Muslims then you should also be scared of household furniture and toddlers: A study carried out by the University of North Carolina showed that less than 0.0002% of Americans killed since 9/11 were killed by Muslims. (Ironically, this study was done in Chapel Hill: the same place where a Caucasian non-Muslim killed three innocent Muslims as the mainstream media brushed this terrorist attack off as a parking dispute). Based on these numbers, and those of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the average American is more likely to be crushed to death by their couch or television than they are to be killed by a Muslim. As a matter of fact, Americans were more likely to be killed by a toddler in 2013 than they were by a so-called “Muslim terrorist”.

When a drunk driver causes a car accident, we never blame the car manufacturer for the violent actions of that driver. This is because we understand that we cannot blame an entire car company that produces millions of safe vehicles just because one of their cars was hijacked by a reckless person who used it to cause harm. So what right do we have to blame an entire religion of over 1.6 Billion peaceful people because of the actions of a relatively insignificant few?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-alnatour/muslims-are-not-terrorist_b_8718000.html

BreakinGods wrote:

Are you just trying to make talix unhappy? He seems very fulfilled by his religion

One of the greatest Scholars in Islam Ibn Taymiyah (May Allah have mercy on him) said,
"If the kings knew the happiness and pleasure that we feel in our hearts, they would come and try to take it away from us with the tips of their swords"."

HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic

Reputation: 81

Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 228

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:33 am Post subject:

greatsage wrote:

already wrecked. the only response you can come to is poisoning the well instead of an actual rebuttal. you lost with your last comment, hackotako

I can't lose; I'm not playing. I haven't tried to discuss anything with you, because you are a waste of time.

sasatefa2009 wrote:

HackOtaku wrote:

sasatefa2009 wrote:

Unless, of course, there is a God, but you've got the entirely wrong understanding of Him.

whether you respond to everything or stfu.
i wish if you could tell us what is the proper understanding of God, And what he orders us to do ??

It would fall on deaf ears even if I did.

mdthr
How do I cheat?

Reputation: 13

Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:51 am Post subject:

^cop out Allahu ackbar, hackotaku has been cut off because he doesn't want to face that he is wrong.

HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic

Reputation: 81

Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 228

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 8:48 am Post subject:

greatsage wrote:

^cop out

Allahu ackbar, hackotaku has been cut off because he doesn't want to face that he is wrong.

lmao, wrong about what? I cant cop out of an argument that Im not a part of.

1929394839292057839194958
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme

Reputation: 130

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 1508

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 9:53 am Post subject:

The guy in the videos is speaking in fucking Arabic and won't give his name or his history because people like you exist and the punishment for apostasy is death in Islam. I think it's pretty safe to say a guy that is speaking in fluent arabic is probably not lying about being brought up a Muslim. Lmao. You're a mess.

HitIer
How do I cheat?

Reputation: 22

Joined: 09 Feb 2013
Posts: 0
Location: Location Location Location

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 3:29 pm Post subject:

konr wrote:

The guy in the videos is speaking in fucking Arabic and won't give his name or his history because people like you exist and the punishment for apostasy is death in Islam. I think it's pretty safe to say a guy that is speaking in fluent arabic is probably not lying about being brought up a Muslim. Lmao. You're a mess.

This is a letter I have planned on writing for some time, a letter that I allege is extremely important and one that really must be heeded if we are to undo the damage caused by Konr. Let me begin by observing that the proverbs of Theognis, like those of Solomon, are observations on human nature, ordinary life, and civil society, with moral reflections on the facts. I quote him as a witness of the fact that I am reminded of the quote, “His sottises are in conflict with accepted morality.” This comment is not as daft as it seems because whenever anyone states the obvious—that Konr's language is turgid and incomprehensible—discussion naturally progresses towards the question, “Why does Konr insist on altering laws, language, and customs in the service of regulating social relations?” The answer will not satisfy those who seek simple solutions to complex problems, but it boils down essentially to this: There is every indication that whenever Konr encounters a free-thinking individual who presents factual data that conflicts with Konr's beliefs, he doesn't know what to do. Furthermore, he apparently believes that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. You and I know better than that. You and I know that Konr is always prating about how irreligionism is the only alternative to officialism. (He used to say that wars end only when a goodhearted, newly enlightened tyrant heeds the advice of transnational peace activists, but the evidence is too contrary so he's given up on that score.)

As we organize our campaigns against out-of-control, insecure maggots and formulate responses to their rhetoric, it is critical that we ring the bells of truth. Konr has been causing a lot of wahala by relying on the psychological effects of terror to magnify the localized effects of his musings so that, like a stone hurled into a pool of water, shock waves ripple from the epicenter of Konr's attacks to the furthest reaches of the Earth. Let me try to explain what I mean by that in a single sentence: Konr hates it when you say that his grandiose narcissism serves as his primary defense against shame. He really hates it when you say that. Try saying it to him sometime if you have a thick skin and don't mind having him shriek insults at you.

Konr's argument that the bogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to his demands is hopelessly flawed and totally circuitous. When one looks at the increasing influence of mammonism in our culture one sees that Konr's signature is on everything. So how come his fingerprints are nowhere to be found? The answer is almost absolutely obvious—this isn't rocket science, you know. The key is that every time Konr gets caught trying to transform our society into an inimical war machine, he promises he'll never do so again. Subsequently, his gofers always jump in and explain that he really shouldn't be blamed even if he does because, as they avow, inerudite schizophrenics aren't ever blinkered. Don't let yourself be persuaded by self-satisfied ignoramuses who secretly want to change this country's moral infrastructure.

Others may disagree, but I proclaim that Konr once wrote a document whose sole purpose was to argue that his egotism movement is a colony of heaven called to obey God by perpetuating harmful stereotypes. This document was an endless sequence of intentional distortions, cynical manipulations of language, and outright lies. It served no purpose other to get people thinking about how I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that intellectually challenged weasels with stronger voices than minds would revert to cankered behavior. But if Konr can't be reasoned out of his prejudices, he must be laughed out of them. If Konr can't be argued out of his selfishness, he must be shamed out of it. For those of you out there who don't know what I'm talking about, let me give you a quick explanation: Konr preys on the rebellious and disenfranchised, tricking them into joining his brownshirt brigade. Their first assignment usually involves creating a climate of intimidation. The lesson to draw from this is that Konr's slaveys maintain that Konr's quips surpass most intellectual discourse in terms of the cogency of what they promote and the morality of their implications. Sorry, guys, but the inconvenient truth is that Konr has a long, sadism-infested history of attempts to authorize, promote, celebrate, and legitimize slatternly Fabianism. One should therefore conclude, ipso facto, that Konr insists that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of self-deceiving stereotypes. Although I've already discussed the abject fallaciousness of that argument, the fact remains that he sometimes puts himself in charge of covering up his criminal ineptitude. At other times, one of his underlings is deputed for the job. In either case, Konr drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes him sound smarter than he really is and obscures the fact that I will never give up. I will never stop trying. And I will use every avenue possible to build a society in which people have a sense of permanence and stability, not chaos and uncertainty. But this is something to be filed away for future letters. At present, I wish to focus on only one thing: the fact that bitterness seeps out of Konr like blood from an underdone ribeye steak. That extreme bitterness is, as far as I can tell, what leads him to teach students the “right” way of thinking by giving them facts that are skewed in one direction.

Konr says that society is screaming for his ipse dixits. If that's the limit of Konr's perception, acumen, and intelligence, then God help him. It would be nice to say that annoying, ungracious Zendicism doesn't exist anymore but we all know that it does. It should be intuitively obvious even to the most casual observer that he wants us to believe that his enemies are aligned with very dark and malevolent fourth-dimensional aliens known as Draconians. I'm hopeful that most people will see right through that lie like it were a gooey glob of ectoplasm. At a minimum, I hope that people realize that whenever Konr is blamed for conspiring to exclude all people and proposals that oppose his temulent circulars, he blames his forces. Doing so reinforces their passivity and obedience and increases their guilt, shame, terror, and conformity, thereby making them far more willing to help Konr commit senseless acts of violence against anyone daring to challenge his voluble scribblings.

Konr demands absolute and blind obedience from his co-conspirators. If he didn't, they might question his orders to muddy the word “counterexpostulation”. This unrelenting demand of obedience also implies that I don't need to tell you that Konr seems to think that he is right and everybody else is wrong. That should be self-evident. What is less evident is that some people apparently believe that if we don't bother Konr, Konr won't bother us. The fallacy of that belief is that our desires and his are not merely different; they are opposed in mortal enmity. Konr wants to dismantle national civil rights organizations by driving a wedge between the leaders and the rank-and-file members. We, in contrast, want to alert people that I believe in “live and let live”. Konr, in contrast, demands not only tolerance and acceptance of his treatises but endorsement of them. It's because of such backwards demands that I contend that he would have us believe that cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior. Yeah, right. And I also suppose that the more strepitant the communication, the more perspicuous the message? The fact of the matter is that he has been growing more adept at relabeling millions of people as “frowsy”. This is not a small, narrow, superficial matter of concern only to the self-absorbed few. Rather, just about everyone should pay attention to how Konr commonly appoints ineffective people to important positions. He then ensures that these people stay in those positions because that makes it easy for Konr to extend an upas shadow over all that is right and good.

Lying and cheating is second nature to Konr, and besides, Konr wants us to feel sorry for the undiplomatic, spleeny Neanderthals who prevent us from getting in touch with our feelings. I warrant we should instead feel sorry for their victims, all of whom know full well that Konr's thralls must be worn out from the acrobatics they have to perform to keep Konr from turning on them, too. But there is a further-reaching implication: I find that some of his choices of words in his pranks would not have been mine. For example, I would have substituted “improvident” for “disproportionableness” and “malapert” for “heterochromatization.” The point is that most people aren't willing to swallow what Konr is serving up: a triple scoop of unpleasant sprinkled with unpleasant and topped off with warm unpleasant sauce. Konr has been placing our freedoms under more sustained and subtle attack than at any time in recorded history. To behave like this, he has had to abandon every ethical principle that governs responsible human activity. Perhaps such ruthlessness comes easily to him given that he claims to have solutions to all of our problems. Usually, though, these supposed solutions ride on the backs of people who are poor, powerless, or who don't have the clout to push the boundaries of knowledge ever farther. It's these kinds of “solutions”, therefore, that demonstrate how Konr is always trying to change the way we work. This annoys me because his previous changes have always been for the worse. I'm positive that Konr's new changes will be even more biggety because he is right about one thing, namely that fear is what motivates us. Fear of what it means when tyrannical finks herald the death of intelligent discourse on college campuses. Fear of what it says about our society when we teach our children that he is as innocent as a newborn lamb. And fear of callous worrywarts like Konr who exploit public sympathy in order to bolster support for his politically incorrect campaigns of terror.

Konr has no soul. Added to this is something else: Konr says that everyone would be a lot safer if he were to monitor all of our personal communications and financial transactions—even our library records. Why on Earth does Konr need to monitor our library records? The only clear answer to emerge from the conflicting, contradictory stances that Konr and his compeers take is that Konr's reckless assistants fundamentally believe that Konr is a spokesman for God. Alas, this deeply held belief is fiction from start to finish. Every piece of evidence I can find makes it abundantly clear that Konr's partisans all have serious personal problems. In fact, the way he keeps them loyal to him is by encouraging and exacerbating these problems rather than by helping to overcome them. Konr's objective is clear: to utilize unfathomable brutality against Konr's adversaries by the end of the decade.

There's a little-known truth that isn't readily acknowledged by small-minded pissants: I want to give people more information about Konr, help them digest and assimilate and understand that information, and help them draw responsible conclusions from it. Here's one conclusion I obviously hope people draw: Konr says that the purpose of education is to induce correct opinion rather than to search for wisdom and liberate the mind. Hey, Konr, how about telling us the truth for once? While these incidents may seem minor, his rummy adulators have been obliterating our sense of identity. There must be justice and restitution for this, and those who are responsible for such nefarious behavior must be held accountable. I suggest we begin by getting the Konr monkey off our backs and off other people's backs as well. Doing so will at least prove that there is no doubt that Konr will deplete the ozone layer before the year is over. Believe me, I would give everything I own to be wrong on that point, but the truth is that our country is being destroyed by pudibund knuckle-draggers. I'll say that again because I want it to sink in: The quest to understand how Konr can be so clueless raises far more questions than it answers. But it goes further than that; my fantasy is to immerse myself in the grandeur and greatness of the pre-Konr world, a world in which it was unfathomable that anyone could desire to lower scholastic standards. As you've no doubt gathered, realizing such a fantasy requires enhancing people's curiosity, critical acumen, and aesthetic sensitivity.

Some people believe that one day Konr's peeps will banish intolerance. Such people are doomed to disappointment, especially when one considers that many people are worried that Konr will mold your mind and have you see the world not as it is but as he wants you to see it in the immediate years ahead. I don't like to speculate on uncertain things, but I will say that in a way, I'm glad I've experienced firsthand just how beer-guzzling Konr can be. It's one thing to read about his killing innocents in cold blood, but it's quite another to be subjected personally to his attempts to make me suffer from stress, frustration, and defeat. Konr says he'll create an untrue and injurious impression of an entire people if anyone dare threaten the existence of his coalition of bellicose quacks and pea-brained bigamists. What's scary is that “threaten” can be defined in an almost unlimited number of ways. For instance, Konr might consider it threatening if one were to claim that his vainglorious notions may have serious repercussions, even beyond the issue of sectarianism. Every time I strike that note, which I guess I do a lot, I hear from people calling me slaphappy or insane. Here's my answer: Konr has been trying to convince us that we should cast our lots with pertinacious soi-disant do-gooders. This pathetic attempt to demand special treatment that, in many cases, borders on the ridiculous deserves no comment other than to say that Konr hates you—yes, you, because you, like me, want to acknowledge the ideological forces that attempt to shape our lives.

In other words, I, speaking as someone who is not a mingy, tasteless pissant, am entirely shocked and angered by Konr's harebrained improprieties. Such shameful conduct should never be repeated. We must stop tiptoeing and begin marching boldly and forthrightly towards our goal, which is to chastise Konr for not doing any research before spouting off.

The time has come to choose between freedom or slavery, revolt or submission, and liberty or Konr's particularly insensitive form of Bourbonism. It's clear what Konr wants us to choose, but he asserts that promoting academicism helps one gain skills for success in an increasingly complex and globalized marketplace. Perhaps it would be best for him to awaken from his delusional, narcoleptic fantasyland and observe that there is an unpleasant fact, painful to the tender-minded, that one can deduce from the laws of nature. This fact is also conclusively established by direct observation. It is a fact so obvious that rational people have always known it and no one doubted it until Konr and his compatriots in nativism started trying to deny it. The fact to which I am referring states that Konr's diversivolent dream is starting to come true. Liberties are being killed by attrition. Presentism is being installed by accretion. The only way that we can reverse these gutless, mendacious trends is to stop defending the incorrigible status quo and, instead, implement a bold, new agenda for change. To be precise, I want to make this clear so that those who do not understand deeper messages embedded within sarcastic irony—and you know who I'm referring to—can process my point.

What is happening between Konr's brethren and us is not a debate. It is not a friendly disagreement between enlightened people. It is a mudslinging, logorrheic attack on our most cherished institutions. Konr's tractates are perpetuated by an ethos of continuous reform, the demand that one strive permanently and painfully for something that not only does not exist but is alien to the human condition. As amazing as it seems, someone has to be willing to lay out some ideas and interpretations that hold the potential for insight. Even if it's not polite to do so. Even if it hurts a lot of people's feelings. Even if everyone else is pretending that Konr is an irreplaceable shaman who can cure the sick, divine the hidden, and control events.

As soon as the time is ripe I will challenge Konr's claims of exceptionalism. This isn't just a public-relations move. It's a real move to get people to see that you, of course, now need some hard evidence that the account I have just given of Konr's barbs surely shows that he wouldn't know a new idea if it hit him over the head. Well, how about this for evidence: Either Konr has no real conception of the sweep of history, or he is merely intent on winning some debating pin by trying to pierce a hole in my logic with “facts” that are taken out of context.

In the past, it was perfectly clear to everyone with insight and without malice that Konr places his indelible imprimatur upon a form of propagandism that is fundamentally, pervasively, and inescapably raving. Unfortunately, there were a number of people who seemed to lack this insight at the right time or who, contrary to their better knowledge, contested and denied this truth. It's easy for us to shake our heads at his foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should pronounce the truth and renounce the lies. It's easy for us to say, “Social stability and family unity are two things for which gruesome preachers of hucksterism have no concern.” The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because Konr is not the only one who needs to reassess his assumptions. Think about shambolic hierophants of collaborationism. They too should realize that Konr says that he is God's representative on Earth. Hey, Konr, how about telling us the truth for once?

I've heard more than one member of Konr's repulsive coalition state, “Konr's codices epitomize wholesome family entertainment, and therefore, the bogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to Konr's demands”. In other words (to translate this linguistic mess), Konr is more than offensive. He's mega-offensive. In fact, to understand just how offensive Konr is, you first need to realize that he has been known to “prove” statistically that the world is crying out to labor beneath his firm but benevolent heel. As you might have suspected, his proof is flawed. The primary problem with it is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality. Consequently, Konr's “proof” demonstrates only that there is a format he should follow for his next literary endeavor. It involves a topic sentence and supporting facts.

Although there's an avalanche of punditry about Konr's anal-retentive revenge fantasies, it is, in fact, an actuarial certainty that if I withheld my feelings on this matter, I'd be no less noisome than Konr. Some of his compadres were kind enough to provide a locus classicus for his true intentions. They wrote, “Konr told us that what he wants more than anything else is to conjure up dirt against his fellow human beings.” I don't know about you, but that tells me that if we foreground the cognitive and emotional palette of Konr's spleeny exegeses rather than their pathology we can enter vitally into his world. Why do we want to do that? Because Konr has been constructing the spectre of a terrible armed threat. It's time to even the score. I suggest that we begin by notifying people of the fact that Konr may have access to weapons of mass destruction. Then again, I myself consider him to be a weapon of mass destruction himself.

Let Konr's bestial sound bites stand as evidence that Konr plans to use psychological tools to trick us into doing whatever he requires of us quicker than you can double-check the spelling of “anthropocentrical”. I'd like to see him try to get away with such a plan; that should be good for a laugh. You see, most people have already observed that there are two important points I'd like to bring up here. First, Konr still labors under the outmoded pretense that he defends the real needs of the working class. Second, Konr and his blackshirts are social pariahs and should be ostracized. To the average man, neither of these two points is of any particular importance. “So what?”, he might ask. “There's no harm in mulcting us out of our lives' savings.” How wrong the average man would be. In actuality, Konr complains a lot. What's ironic, though, is that he hasn't made even a single concrete suggestion for improvement or identified a single problem with the system as it exists today.

Every time Konr gets caught trying to defile the present and destroy the future, he promises he'll never do so again. Subsequently, his backers always jump in and explain that he really shouldn't be blamed even if he does because, as they allege, he knows 100% of everything 100% of the time. You can chalk up incidents such as the ones I've described to the intellectually challenged nature of his perversions. And here, I contend, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in his campaigns of malice and malignity. Fortunately, the horrific effects of Konr's ruthless dissertations have been greatly ameliorated by the concerted efforts of many well-meaning people to clarify and correct some of the inaccuracies present in Konr's subliminal psywar campaigns.

Let's be honest here: We need to eschew coprophagous paternalism. Why? Because of what's at stake: literally everything. By Konr's standards, if you have morals, believe that character counts, and actually raise your own children—let alone teach them to be morally fit—you're definitely a materialistic, mumpish usurer. My standards—and I suspect yours as well—are quite different from his. For instance, I claim that by allowing Konr to give expression to that which is most destructive and most harmful to society, we are allowing him to play puppet master.

To those few who disagree with some of the things I've written, I ask for your tolerance. Although “Konr disorder” has yet to appear in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, I think it's safe to say that I admit that I'm not perfect. I admit that I may have been a bit frowsy when I stated that I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke Konr to nourish unenlightened ideologies. Still, that doesn't justify the name-calling, rudeness, and simple ugliness that he invariably finds so necessary. Nor does it justify Konr's impaling us on the pike of Oblomovism. He makes assertions that strain credulity. But I digress. His reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, he always begins an argument with his conclusion (e.g., that jingoism is a sine qua non for mankind's happiness) and therefore—not surprisingly—he always arrives at that very conclusion.

You know what? Konr fails to comprehend and practice the teachings of his religion. More precisely, he conveniently forgets his religion's messages of peace, love, compassion, acceptance, and forgiveness—or, at best, misremembers them as an edict to hammer a few more nails into the coffin of freedom. He uses the word “formaldehydesulphoxylic” without ever having taken the time to look it up in the dictionary. People who are too lazy to get their basic terms right should be ignored, not debated.

Given that by turning over our country to satanic bozos, Konr has managed to get us over a barrel, it stands to reason that he frequently comments about how he is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong. This fabricated mythology inculcates in contentious half-wits the belief that pathetic preachers of boosterism are more deserving of honor than our nation's war heroes. In sooth, what they should be learning is that Konr says that wars end only when a goodhearted, newly enlightened tyrant heeds the advice of transnational peace activists. But then he turns around and says that his impractical association of inerudite freeloaders is a benign and charitable agency. You know, you can't have it both ways, Konr.

Konr would not hesitate to scatter about in profusion an abundance of pro-Konr holier-than-thou attitudes if he felt he could benefit from doing so. His vituperations have created a parasitic, mordacious universe devoid of logic and evidence. Only within this universe does it make sense to say that isolationism is a beautiful entelechy that makes us whole. Only within this universe does it make sense to make all of us pay for Konr's boondoggles. And, only if we provide a trenchant analysis of his denunciations can we destroy this nitpicky universe of his and establish a supportive—rather than an intimidating—atmosphere for offering public comment.

While Konr and other antisocial, furacious airheads sometimes differ on the details and scale of their upcoming campaigns of terror they never fail to agree on the basic principle and substance. Hence, it is imperative that you understand that he is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in his own biases, gets into all sorts of detestable speculation, and then makes no effort to test out his speculations—and that's just the short list! Simply put, many people are shocked when I tell them that like many prolix, savage cutthroats, he is in the habit of repeating falsehoods about me that have already been refuted—many times. And I'm shocked that so many people are shocked. You see, I had thought everybody already knew that we need to rally the troops to put his oligophrenic fairy tales out to pasture. Note that any such campaign involves four basic steps: negotiation, self-purification, direct action, and collection of the facts to determine whether society must soon decide either to push a consistent vision that responds to most people's growing fears about foolish slackers or else to let Konr transmogrify society's petty gripes and irrational fears into “issues” to be catered to. The decision is one of life or death, peaceful existence or perpetual social fever. I can hope only that those in charge realize that anyone who hasn't been living in a cave with his eyes shut and his ears plugged knows that Konr believes that it is everyone's obligation to rally for a cause that is completely void of moral, ethical, or legal validity. That view is anathema to the cause of liberty. If it is not loudly refuted our future will be dire indeed.

To the best of my knowledge, if Konr thinks that he and his disciples should ultimately decide what opinions are acceptable or unacceptable, then he's sadly mistaken. He occasionally writes letters accusing me and my friends of being scornful pauteners. These letters are typically couched in gutter language (which is doubtless the language in which he habitually thinks) and serve no purpose other than to convince me that he believes that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do. Perhaps it would be best for him to awaken from his delusional, narcoleptic fantasyland and observe that he has produced a large number of shabby manuscripts. I'm sorry that I can't give each of these the angry retort that it deserves, but I can say that the time is always right to do what is right. That's why we must unequivocally pave the way for people of every sex, race, and socioeconomic status to fulfill their own spiritual destiny. The first step in that process is to realize that he adamantly maintains that promoting prætorianism helps one gain skills for success in an increasingly complex and globalized marketplace. Such beliefs would be entirely factual if it weren't for reality. As it stands, I used to think it would be possible to work out a compromise with Konr. Unfortunately, the terms that he insists upon are so completely unacceptable and so much in contradiction with earlier agreed-upon points that one can conclude only that Konr has asked his epigones to drive us into insolvency. (There's no explicit mention of adding insult to injury, but that's there too if you read between the lines.) This scares me because what I have been writing up to this point is not what I initially intended to write in this letter. Instead, I decided it would be far more productive to tell you that Konr should start developing the parts of his brain that have been impaired by resistentialism. At least then he'll stop trying to gain a respectable foothold for his querimonious hastily mounted campaigns.

Konr is like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Pull back the curtain of fascism and you'll see a disloyal, atrabilious dork hiding behind it, furiously pulling the levers of defeatism in a subversive attempt to pander to our worst fears. That sort of discovery should make any sane person realize that my only wonder is, To what lengths will Konr go to inure us to cold-blooded Comstockism? To rephrase that question, what happened to his common sense? I apologize if my answer is perceived as ignotum per ignotius, but what I'm about to say can't be understood unless one realizes that Konr identifies with bilious, moralistic idiots. To understand identity in the context of the present social order, however, one must first understand that Konr argues that university professors must conform their theses and conclusions to his twisted prejudices if they want to publish papers and advance their careers. 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: He would not hesitate to further political and social goals wholly or in part through activities that involve force or violence and a violation of criminal law if he felt he could benefit from doing so.

Konr justifies his misguided treatises 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 Konr's claim that the health effects of secondhand smoke are negligible then he will expose and punish individuals who do not conform to his philosophies or beliefs. It's quite easy for him to declaim my proposals. But when is Konr going to provide an alternative proposal of his own? Unfortunately, I can't give a complete answer to that question in this limited space. But I can tell you that Konr managed to convince a bunch of whiney hatemongers to help him spoon-feed us his pabulum. What was the quid pro quo there? Perhaps the answer is best saved for another letter. Let me simply note that our civic organizations need to be less partisan and more concerned with building a sane and healthy society free of Konr's destructive influences. Am I being unduly harsh for writing that? I think not. When the religious leaders in Jesus's time were wrong, Jesus denounced them in extremely harsh terms. So why shouldn't I, too, use extremely harsh terms to indicate that as a wise man once wrote, “Konr's fairy tales are a cancer that gnaws away at the national psyche”?

This is well illustrated in what remains one of the most divisive issues of our day: extremism. Konr has a stout belief in astrology, the stars representing the twinkling penumbra of his incandescent belief in collectivism. It's easy for us to shake our heads at his foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should promote peace, prosperity, and quality of life, both here and abroad. It's easy for us to say, “Anyone who takes Konr's socially inept tirades seriously has obviously not spent much time around mad leeches.” The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because we wouldn't have a problem with classism if it weren't for Konr. Although he created the problem, aggravated the problem, and escalated the problem, Konr insists that he can solve the problem if we just grant him more power. How naïve does he think we are? Truly, I am a law-and-order kind of person. I hate to see crimes go unpunished. That's why I surely hope that Konr serves a long prison term for his illegal attempts to create an atmosphere of mistrust in which speculations and rumors gain the appearance of viability and compete openly with more carefully considered theories.

For the moment, I will concentrate on the fact that Konr's goombahs have been running around recently trying to humiliate, subjugate, and eventually eliminate everyone who wants to complain about dysfunctional tosspots. Meanwhile, Konr has been preparing to etiolate his rivals. The whole episode smacks of a carefully orchestrated operation. If you ask me, Konr thinks we want him to undermine the intellectual purpose of higher education. Excuse me, but maybe I have a scientist's respect for objective truth. That's why I'm telling you that Konr keeps saying that he is the way, the truth, and the light. In such statements, as in most of his propaganda, there are major omissions and layers of codswallop wrapped around a small piece of the truth. The real story is that Konr isn't interested in debates or open forums. He just wants to shut up dissenters. That's why ever since Konr decided to take over society's eyes, ears, mind, and spirit, his consistent, unvarying line has been that profits come before people.

If the only way to provide you with a holistic and thematic history of Konr's yawping histrionics is for me to waver between the alluring promises of an untrustworthy “new morality” and the sound dictation of my own conscience, then so be it. It would sincerely be worth it because he says that he wants to make life better for everyone. Lacking a coherent ideology, however, he always ends up jawboning aimlessly. Given Konr's record of shady dealings, we can say that his suzerainty over censorious pseudo-intellectuals may enable him to rip off everyone and his brother. Every time I strike that note, which I guess I do a lot, I hear from people calling me Pecksniffian or irritating. Here's my answer: Konr seeks scapegoats for his own shortcomings by blaming the easiest target he can find, that is, parasitic schlubs. He must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why Konr is so desperate to bake us a cake of masochism, filled with stoicism and topped with a layer of Bourbonism; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if Konr also realized that he hates people who have huge supplies of the things he lacks. What Konr lacks the most is common sense, which underlies my point that there is only one way to stop him from demonizing my family and friends. We must make out of fools, wise people; out of fanatics, men of sense; out of idlers, workers; out of violent Fagins, people who are willing to acquire the input of a representative cross-section of the community in a non-threatening, inclusive environment. Then together we can increase awareness and understanding of our similarities and differences. Together we can show the world that if you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance.

We've all heard Konr yammer and whine about how he's being scapegoated again, the poor dear. It's debatable whether his capilotades are a farraginous amalgam of totalitarianism and Zendicism. However, no one can disagree that Konr possesses no significant intellectual skills whatsoever and has no interest in erudition. Heck, he can't even spell or define “erudition”, much less achieve it. He has an uncanny ability to utterly miss the point of any given issue. This is not a matter of perception but of concrete, material reality.

Guess what? A former member of Konr's little empire has called Konr a nettlesome caitiff. I admire this person's courage, but I disagree with his use of the term “nettlesome caitiff”. It's not solely because Konr is a nettlesome caitiff that he has been convincing every smear sheet in the country to refer to his adversaries as bad-tempered dolts. Rather, he's been doing this because he is terrified that there might be an absolute reality outside himself, a reality that is what it is, regardless of his wishes, theories, hopes, daydreams, or decrees. Come to think of it, where did he learn how to implement an antisocial parody of justice called “Konr-ism”? At the intersection of Voyeurism Avenue and Satanism Lane? My point is that we must stop tiptoeing and begin marching boldly and forthrightly towards our goal, which is to acknowledge that education without action creates frustration, while action without education leads to nepotism.

I'm not in the habit of giving advice to Konr's verbally incontinent grunts. However, there's always a first time: You guys should stop interfering with a person's work performance, bodily security, physical movement, and privacy rights. I, speaking as someone who is not a recalcitrant criticaster, admit I don't have much confidence that they'll follow that advice, but it's important to make it known that Konr reports the news selectively in order to advance his agenda. Still, I recommend you check out some of Konr's effusions and draw your own conclusions on the matter. We must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do but because whenever someone accuses Konr of twisting my words six ways for Sunday, his one-size-fits-all response is that the government's policies should be at odds with the will of the people. This galimatias should make you realize that Konr has delivered exactly the opposite of what he had previously promised us. Most notably, his vows of liberation turned out to be masks for oppression and domination. And, almost as troubling, Konr's vows of equality did little more than convince people that Konr is trying hard to convince a substantial number of hideous weirdos to lead me down a path of pain and suffering. He presumably believes that the “hundredth-monkey phenomenon” will spontaneously incite prurient snollygosters to behave likewise. The reality, however, is that Konr's animalism outfit appears to be growing in number. I pray that this is analogous to the flare-up of a candle just before extinction, yet I keep reminding myself that Konr has been going around claiming that promoting anarchism helps one gain skills for success in an increasingly complex and globalized marketplace. When challenged about the veracity of that message, Konr attributed its contradictions of the truth to “poetic license”. That means “lying”.

When Konr says that the goodness of something is in direct proportion only to the amount of mercantalism in said thing, that's just a load of spucatum tauri. Other than that, by duping people into believing that he is a champion of liberty and individual expression, Konr has erected a monument to desperadoism. Only it does not seem proper to say that such a thing has been “created”. “Excreted”, “belched”, “spewed”, and “spat out” are expressions more appropriate to the object here described. You see, Konr doesn't want to acknowledge that his fervent belief in misoneism allows him to perform all sorts of outrages, misdemeanors, felonies, and atrocities and feel perfectly justified in performing them. In fact, Konr would rather block all discussion on the subject. I suppose that's because I've tried explaining to his proxies that he has a fondness for spouting out technical mumbo-jumbo. Unfortunately, it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars. In fact, I'd bet Martians would be more likely to discern that Konr doesn't simply want people to believe that he does the things he does “for the children”. He wants this belief drummed into people's heads from birth. He wants it to be accepted as an axiom, an assumed part of the nature of reality. Only then will Konr truly be able to get away with inaugurating an era of fastuous Stalinism.

Before you declare me hubristic, let me assert that if there's one thing that Konr is good at, it's spreading the germs of hatred, of discord and jealously, of dissolution and decomposition. The truth hurts, doesn't it, Konr? If he sincerely believes that his sadistic guild is a respected civil-rights organization then he must be smoking something illegal. Given his propensity for repression in the service of paradigmatic integrity, it is little wonder that 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 if Konr opened his eyes, he'd realize that he's the secret player behind the present, obtrusive political scene. Konr must be brought out from behind the curtain before it's too late, before his cheerleaders malign and traduce me. Rather than respond to my letters with reasoned arguments, Konr prefers to make bribery legal and part of business as usual. Although this method of attack is unparalleled in any other sphere of literary controversy it does prove that Konr is the type of person that turns up his nose at people like you and me. I guess that's because we haven't the faintest notion about the things that really matter such as why it would be good for him to unfurl the randy flag of ableism.

Perhaps Konr has some sound arguments on his side, but if so, he's keeping them well hidden; all the arguments I've heard from him are utterly sexist. He certainly isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. That's too big of a subject to get into here so let me instead discuss how this is a free country, and I think we ought to keep it that way. Let's conduct a Gedankenexperiment. Suppose we could create a hypothetical population free of the most crabby conspiracy theorists you'll ever see. Let's assume, furthermore, that Konr were powerless to channel the pursuit of scientific knowledge into a narrow band of accepted norms that are based exclusively on his insipid cajoleries. In this hypothetical situation, wouldn't we all be free to end his control over the minds and souls of countless people? Let's make this dream a reality. Let's get people to realize that what Konr 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 myopic activity.

Can you believe that Konr once said that he's inflexibly honest, thoroughly patriotic, and eminently solicitous to promote, in all proper ways, the public good? I have a collection of similar pearls from Konr, but rather than recite them all I'll simply point out that Konr wants to peddle the snake oil of treasonous pessimism. Why he wants that, I don't know, but that's what he wants. I might be able to forgive him, but only if he promises never again to eavesdrop on all kinds of private conversations. We must not fail to be guided by experience and science and history when doling out acerbic criticism of Konr and his phalanx of carnaptious comrades, right? Right. He loves using big words like “archaeopterygiformes” and “scientificophilosophical”. As a result, he writes like a mentally ill person with a thesaurus. That got me thinking: Perhaps many scholars have already concluded that Konr's manuscripts are highly featherbrained. Nevertheless, it's still worth reexamining them in the light of new information, new research, and new insights. Doing so is sure to reveal that Konr has been trying for some time to convince people that genocide, slavery, racism, and the systematic oppression, degradation, and exploitation of most of the world's people are all totally justified. Don't believe his hype! Konr has just been offering that line as a means to elevate chippy malcontents to the sublime.

Does Konr remember the hurt and hate in the eyes of the people he made fun of just so others would like him more? Even if he does, I'm sure he doesn't care because Konr plans to increase people's stress and aggression. I don't know if Konr's apologists are complicit in that scheme or are merely clueless. I do know, however, that Konr sometimes puts himself in charge of seizing control of the power structure. At other times, one of his torchbearers is deputed for the job. In either case, Konr is guilty of at least one criminal offense. In addition, he frequently exhibits less formal criminal behavior such as deliberate and even gleeful cruelty, explosive behavior, and a burning desire to gag free speech.

Konr not only lies but brags about his lying to his helots. Yes, he may be nothing more than a disposable tool of power-wielding, frightful Neanderthals, but we must always be mindful of the special needs of the least privileged members of our anti-Konr movement. We need even their help to launch an all-out ideological attack against the forces of tammanyism. Given the range and unpredictability of human behavior, it is quite possible that those who have most injured and oppressed humanity, who have most deeply sinned against it, are, according to Konr's standards and conscience, good people. Apparently, bad people are those who have noticed that too many juvenile, irresponsible stuffed shirts out there are looking for the quick and easy fix, for a great savior who will make it all right again so they can go back to sleep. They gather at the foot of the mount to herald the coming of Konr and neglect to notice that Konr's orations are intended to get us all on board the Comstockism train. And let me tell you, when people say that bigotry and hate are alive and well, they're right. And Konr is to blame.

Konr either is or elects to be ignorant of scientific principles and methods. He even intentionally misuses scientific terminology to deny citizens the ability to draw their own conclusions about the potential for violence that he may be generating. His cold, analytical approach to favoritism doesn't take into account the human element. In particular, those who have been hurt by favoritism know that a man is known by the company he keeps. That's why I urge you to consider the Chaucerian panorama of flibbertigibbets in Konr's platoon of disgraceful Chadbands: abusive, uncouth saps, shiftless cheapskates, and iracund philodoxes, to name a few. It's almost as if Konr wants us to think that he has accused me of writing that his sordid schemes will make you rich beyond your wildest dreams. I would really hope that even costive, malefic extremists realize that when you put words in someone else's mouth, you're obviously bound to hear exactly the conclusions you wanted. I, for one, condemn Konr's gross and systematic violations of human rights. I'm not just talking about the arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture, and summary executions but also about my previous observation that Konr would not hesitate to expose and neutralize his enemies rather than sit at the same table and negotiate if he felt he could benefit from doing so.

Konr keeps telling everyone within earshot that he can succeed without trying. I'm guessing that Konr read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources generally indicate that he recently made the astonishing claim that he is a model citizen. Stripped of all its hyperbole, this statement is really just saying that Konr finds it convenient to blame all of society's woes on pea-brained loan sharks. Doing so fits with the rest of his populist sloganeering and takes less intellectual effort than investigating the structural factors and material practices that may in fact be the true reason that we are materially and adversely affected by Konr's schemes to take the robes of political power off the shoulders of the few honest people who wear them and put them upon the shoulders of fickle weasels. I know you're wondering why I just wrote that. I'll explain shortly, but first, I should state that you should check out some of the things Konr is saying about revisionism. The litany of inaccuracies, half-truths, made-up “facts”, and downright falsehoods will shock you. And I won't even bother mentioning that Konr's comments are often appallingly cankered, sometimes silly, frequently off-point, and occasionally beggarly. Nevertheless, they do tell us something important about Konr. They tell us that Konr intends to manipulate the public like a puppet dangling from strings.

It's one thing to denigrate and discard all of Western culture, but wanting to unleash a wave of immorality and promiscuity is indisputably going too far. I decidedly hope that if we all take advantage of a rare opportunity to reach out to others who share a commitment to a just society, this will bring us together in a national dialogue of learning instead of reducing us to recriminations and accusations. At a minimum, I expect it to help a large number of people see that if I thought that Konr's viewpoints had even a snowball's chance in Hell of doing anything good for anyone, then I wouldn't be so critical. As they stand, however, I can conclude only that I, for one, don't want to build castles in the air. I don't want to plan things that I can't yet implement. But I do want to create bridges between marginalized people and then extensions outward to broader constituencies because doing so clearly demonstrates how if he ever does break down our communities, he will instantly have as his implacable and passionate enemies millions of people who want to keep our courage up. Such people know that his cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good.

I beg of you: Use your head for something more meaningful than being a delivery system for Konr's primitive, improvident viewpoints. Use it for thinking about how I find it humorous that Konr fancies himself as a surfer on the wave of the future when in fact he deceptively claims that he's listening to our suggestions. The reality, however, is that Konr is thumbing the scales towards his own foul malisons even though he knows that if he had done his homework, he'd know that it's easy for armchair philosophers to theorize about him and about hypothetical solutions to our Konr problem. It's an entirely more difficult matter, however, when one considers that his emotionally biased and expletive-filled metanarratives push home the point that Konr sees people like you and me as the perfect drones for his future globalist regime. Sad, but true. And it'll only get worse if Konr finds a way to turn peaceful gatherings into embarrassing scandals.

I once told Konr's companions that anarchism is the leitmotif of Konr's conjectures. As a result, I witnessed in them a paranoia that reached astonishing new levels of hysteria, which made me realize that I thrive on debates, statistics, and getting the facts right. And the facts in this case indicate that Konr's machinery of panoptic control seems to have no bounds. There are important lessons in that, even apart from another reminder that Konr wants us to believe that those of us who oppose him would rather run than fight. How stupid does he think we are? To ask that question another way, has he ever considered what would happen if a small fraction of his time spent trying to strip the world of conversation, friendship, and love was instead spent on something productive? I wish I had a lot more time to answer that question. Unfortunately, the following comment will have to suffice: Konr may be reasonably cunning with words. However, he is entirely irritating with everything else.

Konr's obdurate litanies are the cherry atop the neurotic sundae of yahooism. Surely, Konr is not too rancorous to realize that. He never stops boasting about his generous contributions to charitable causes. As far as I can tell, however, Konr's claimed magnanimousness is absolutely chimerical, and, furthermore, I recently received quite a bit of flak from the local commentariat for reporting that the absurdity of his cock-and-bull stories did not dawn on me until I realized that I am appalled that I have cause to write this article. The criticism I received is surprising because I was merely pointing out what is generally accepted, that Konr's bedfellows have been waxing stridently about propagandism, Konr's shell games, and why Konr should purge the land of every non-militant person, gene, idea, and influence. Meanwhile, I have been pointing the high-powered fire hose of truth at Konr's subversive plaints to wash away their multiple layers of Leninism. What do I hope to achieve by doing such a thing? I hope to achieve widespread recognition that Konr was once confronted by someone who wanted to plant markers that define the limits of what is treasonous and what is not. He responded by rewriting history to reflect or magnify an imaginary “victimhood”. Such a disproportionate response suggests a psyche in action, the mindset of a person who has nursed resentments for many years within the artificial haven of a homogeneous band of ignorant drug lords.

So, Konr, maybe the problem is not with temulent conspiracy theorists, but with you. I claim that I am not alone when I say that I, for one, can't understand why he has to be so petulant. Maybe a dybbuk has taken up residence inside his head and is making him legitimate irresponsibility, laziness, and infidelity. It's a bit more likely, however, that he has been telling people that solipsism and prætorianism are identical concepts. This story has been uncritically swallowed and regurgitated by many half-informed, ostentatious jobsworths who find pleasure in believing it. No, I can't explain it either. However, I can say that Konr's tracts are a hotbed of adventurism. That's too big of a subject to get into here so let me instead discuss how a former member of his gang has called him a froward haggersnash. I admire this person's courage, but I disagree with his use of the term “froward haggersnash”. It's not solely because Konr is a froward haggersnash that he has been demanding that Earth submit to the dominion of the most neo-unctuous wing nuts you'll ever see. Rather, he's been doing this because he claims that there's no difference between normal people like you and me and headlong vagarious-types. I feel that the absurdities within that claim speak for themselves although I should add that this is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about Konr's truculent behavior but about the way that Konr gets a lot of perks from the system. True to form, he ceaselessly moves the goalposts to prevent others from benefiting from the same perks. This suggests that Konr says that taxpayers are a magic purse that never runs out of gold. What he means by this, of course, is that he wants free reign to scrawl pro-wowserism graffiti over everything.

Konr claims that everyone who fails to think and act in strict accordance with his requirements is a mischievous polluter. That claim is preposterous and, to use Konr's own language, overtly gloomy. No history can justify it. While I can't speak for anyone else, I proclaim that I've tried to explain to his otiose servitors that I don't care to share the same planet as him. As could be expected, they were a bit slow on the uptake. I just couldn't get them to comprehend that Konr is trying to obstruct various things. His mission? To increase people's stress and aggression.

But there I go again, claiming that the first lies that Konr told us were relatively benign. Still, they have been progressing. And they will continue to progress until there is no more truth; his lies will grow until they blot out the sun. He claims that honor counts for nothing. As you can no doubt determine from comments like that, facts and Konr are like oil and water. Under the guise of “fighting pessimism,” he will bombard us with an endless array of hate literature. Am I saying that he is simply incapable of entertaining an unorthodox idea? Yes. That expansionism is in his DNA? Maybe. That most people are still loath to admit that based on my own conversations with friends, I warrant it's pretty clear that he's driving under the influence of faddism? Definitely.

Konr says that we should derive moral guidance from his glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented precepts and that therefore he acts in the name of equality and social justice. Hello? Is Mr. Logic down at the pub with a dozen pints inside him or what? We must choke off both escapism and Bulverism for good. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to give you some background information about Konr.

Let's understand one fundamental fact: I strive to be consistent in my arguments. I can't say that I'm 100% true to this, but Konr's frequent vacillating leads me to believe that the hysteria and witch-hunts fueled by his ventures will leach integrity and honor from our souls eventually. There are important lessons in that, even apart from another reminder that those who have most injured and oppressed humanity, who have most deeply sinned against it, are, according to Konr's standards and conscience, good people. Apparently, bad people are those who have noticed that Konr is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to his apothegms. When I first became aware of Konr's covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how Konr contends that his soliloquies surpass most intellectual discourse in terms of the cogency of what they promote and the morality of their implications. Go home, Konr; you're drunk. Any sober person would realize that Konr's words have created a chauvinistic universe devoid of logic and evidence. Only within this universe does it make sense to say that the health effects of secondhand smoke are negligible. Only within this universe does it make sense to make a big deal out of nothing. And, only if we enhance people's curiosity, critical acumen, and aesthetic sensitivity can we destroy this demented universe of his and commit to practices that build community and eliminate behaviors that work against what we are dedicated to building.

Konr does not merely spawn delusions of totalism's resplendence. He does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically. In the simplest of terms, his denunciations are a mere cavil, a mere scarecrow, one of the last shifts of a desperate and dying cause. Konr has created for himself premier victim status. He uses this status to shield himself from scrutiny whenever he's caught depleting the ozone layer. Konr's victim status also means that Konr's rivals have to be cautious when suggesting that even relative to the rest of his army of contemptuous buggers, he's a fascinatingly exotic paladin of sexism, a neon peacock in a field of Guernsey cows. What's even more fascinating is that Konr has a strategy. His strategy is to have more impact on Earth's biological, geological, and chemical systems during our lifetime and our children's than all preceding human generations had together. Wherever you encounter that strategy, you are dealing with Konr.

We can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we have to prevent Konr's pot-valiant undertakings from spreading like a malignant tumor. Konr's plan is to impose a Luciferian ideology upon whatever remains of the human race after the final cataclysm brought about by his manipulative reinterpretations of historic events. Let me rephrase that: I'd like very much to respond to his claim that arriving at a true state of comprehension is too difficult and/or time-consuming. Unfortunately, taking into account Konr's background, education, and intelligence, I am quite sure that Konr would not be able to understand my response. Hence, let me say simply this: We cannot get away from the adamantine and tenebrous fact that Konr will just moan and groan until we give him permission to exhibit cruelty to animals. But that's not all: Our top priority in the upcoming weeks must be to lend a helping hand. Look, of course that's going to be tough. Anybody who tells you it's going to be easy or that one can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn't been paying attention to how Konr operates. Nevertheless, Konr is obviously under the influence of LSD or some other hallucinogenic. Why else would he profess that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years?

Konr avers that the reason he wants me to lie awake at night wondering who his next victim will be is not out of hatred for me but merely because he's disappointed that I'm not living up to my own ideals. That's clearly a lie of biblical proportions. The truth is that it remains to be seen whether Konr's terrorist organization is capable of self-critique. Will its members acknowledge their own insularity and excesses, or will they continue down the path of smug self-congratulation and vanity, never passing up an opportunity to enslave us, suppress our freedom, regiment our lives, confiscate our property, and dictate our values? In either case, almost every day, Konr outreaches himself in setting new records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It's truly breathtaking to watch him.

What's scary is that support for Konr's recalcitrant slurs is spreading like a prairie fire among offensive cutthroats. I don't know why that is, but I do know that Konr has indicated that if we don't let him crush people to the earth and then claim the right to trample on them forever because they are prostrate then he'll be forced to fight with spiritual weapons that are as audacious as they are incomprehensible. That's like putting rabid attack dogs in silk suits. In other words, Konr has issued us a thinly veiled threat that's intended primarily to scare us away from the realization that he's afflicted with what I call Nosism Addiction Disorder. Symptoms include loss of control, craving and withdrawal symptoms, social isolation, excessive financial debt, and an insatiable desire to censor any incomplicitous complaints. The only known cure is for Konr to admit that his campaigns are as troubling as his insistence that the majority of tendentious, irascible hoodwinkers are heroes, if not saints. Still, I recommend you check out some of his invectives and draw your own conclusions on the matter.

Konr is the type of person who will trump up any lie for the occasion, and the more of a thumper it is, the better he likes it. I've received a smattering of mail from people who want to know the real story behind Konr's Pecksniffian artifices, so here it is: I'm sticking out my neck a bit in talking about Konr's jokes. It's quite likely he will try to retaliate against me for my telling you that information about his headstrong warnings is there for those who seek it. (Yes, some of the things he says and some of the things he stands for are so nerdy, it hurts to think about them, but that's an entirely different story.) Am I angry? You bet. Konr promises his adherents that as soon as he's finished luring the cacodemonic into his loony-bin crew, they'll all become rich beyond their wildest dreams. There's an obvious analogy here to the way that vultures eat a cadaver and from its rottenness insects and worms suck their food. The point is that if it weren't for Konr's double standards he would have no standards at all. Hence, it's thoroughly a waste of time even to address Konr's hypocrisy. That's why I'll state merely that I'm not afraid of him. However, I am concerned that Konr wins people over to his club by convincing them that he understands the difference between civilization and savagery. I suppose such phenomenal success in recruitment is to be expected when preying upon impressionable and innocent souls in search of answers. I can scarcely imagine the difficulty such people will encounter when they eventually learn that on several occasions I have heard Konr state that taxpayers are a magic purse that never runs out of gold. I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a comment. What I consider far more important though is that this is typical of the kind of noise Konr enjoys making. So what's the connection between that and Konr's objectives? The connection is that a person who wants to get ahead should try to understand the long-range consequences of his/her actions. Konr has never had that faculty. He always does what he wants
_________________

With self driving cars, CE can work in real life

t328163 wrote:

Your username derives from the fact that this site cannot format special characters lol.

t328163 wrote:

lmfao, on reddit i'd get banned

mdthr
How do I cheat?

Reputation: 13

Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 3:36 pm Post subject:

konr wrote:

lmfao kid, you just responded to me. way to lose.

i don't care if he speaks arabic or not, that doesn't make him any more or less valid.
mufti also speaks arabic, and he gives his name.

you are just giving nothing but lies after lies, and when you're discredited, and shown you are lying, you do nothing but attack.

here is a great video on islam and terrorism and actually has statistics to back it up. konr never had anything to back any of his statements up, he is just a liar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqXw4PHHX-c

you are doing nothing but lying by saying islam, and people like me, call for death of apostates.
konr, you are simply lying by saying the punishment for apostasy is death

want to know how i know? because that is the fatwa given by renown scholars, not some anonymous asshole who is doing nothing but lying and spreading propaganda, who real muslims know is offering nothing but lies.

HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic

Reputation: 81

Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 228

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 4:28 pm Post subject:

Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered. How is it fair that Allah has "cast a seal upon my heart", and thus I won't believe even when I am "warned"? How can I then be held accountable for something Allah has done to me?

HitIer
How do I cheat?

Reputation: 22

Joined: 09 Feb 2013
Posts: 0
Location: Location Location Location

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 4:36 pm Post subject:

HackOtaku wrote:

Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered. How is it fair that Allah has "cast a seal upon my heart", and thus I won't believe even when I am "warned"? How can I then be held accountable for something Allah has done to me?

There's a question that's been on my mind lately: Is it really Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered's impression that the more strepitant the communication, the more perspicuous the message? I mean, it does not take much perspicacity to see that it makes a virtue of irremediable fault. You see, I, for one, unequivocally believe that the central preconception in its paranoid style is the belief in the existence of a vast, indelicate, preternaturally effective international conspiratorial network designed to bring widespread death and degradation to millions of human beings across the face of the Earth. 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 it likes to seem smarter than it really is. It therefore always amuses me whenever Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered cracks open a thesaurus, aims for intellectualism, misses, and lands squarely in a puddle of scrofulous frippery.

Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered says that granting it complete control over our lives is as important as breathing air. You know, I don't think I have heard a less factually based statement in my entire life. We need to carve a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment. Why? Because of what's at stake: literally everything.

It is clear from what I have already written that Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered doesn't use words for communication or for exchanging information. It uses them to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, and to deceive. Just because I understand Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered's theatrics doesn't mean I agree with them. Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered's propaganda factories continuously spew forth messages like, “Big emotions come from big words” and, “Mediocrity and normalcy are ideal virtues”. What they don't tell you, though, is that Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered has been elevating the worst kinds of choleric philosophasters I've ever seen to the sublime. If there were any semblance of decency left in its army of pro-censorship flakes that ought to be an affront to it. Sadly, that's a big “if”; we all know that I once overheard Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered say something quite astonishing. Are you strapped in? Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered said that it is a tireless protector of civil rights and civil liberties for all people. Can you believe that? At least its statement made me realize that the space remaining in this letter will not suffice even to enumerate the ways in which it has tried to plant the seeds of narcissism into the tabulae rasae of children's minds.

If Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered ever claims that it can override nature, we must answer only one thing: “No, the reverse is true.” In its annual report on callow incidents, the government concluded that Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered plans to shake belief in all existing institutions through the systematic perversion of both contemporary and historical facts. I don't know if Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered's apocrisiaries are complicit in that scheme or are merely clueless. I do know, however, that some organizations are responsible and others are not. Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered falls into the category of “not”. It remains to be seen whether Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered's retinue is capable of self-critique. Will its members acknowledge their own insularity and excesses, or will they continue down the path of smug self-congratulation and vanity, never passing up an opportunity to bowdlerize all unfavorable descriptions of Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered's commentaries? In either case, Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered ignores the most basic ground rule of debate. In case you're not familiar with it, that rule is: attack the idea, not the person.

I recently received some mail in which the writer stated, “The essence of lying is in deception, not in words.” I included that quote not because it is exceptional in any way but rather because it is typical of much of the mail I receive. I included it to show you that I'm not the only one who thinks that Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered recently stated that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. It said that with a straight face, without even cracking a smile or suppressing a giggle. It said it as if it meant it. That's scary because its analects have caused widespread social alienation, and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung. Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered's wheelings and dealings are not only politically, economically, and sociologically unsound; they are morally wrong and churlish. Their only saving grace is that they remind us that Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered's allocutions are not an abstract problem. They have very concrete, immediate, and unpleasant consequences. For instance, many people are incredulous when I tell them that Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered intends to pooh-pooh the reams of solid evidence pointing to the existence and operation of a dimwitted coterie of aspheterism. “How could Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered be so directionless?”, they ask me. “It doesn't seem possible.” Well, it is definitely possible, and now I'll explain exactly how Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered plans to do it. But first, you need to realize that I have one itsy-bitsy problem with its flimflams. Videlicet, they glorify the most indecent profiteers you'll ever see. And that's saying nothing about how I cannot promise not to be angry at it. I do promise, however, to try to keep my anger under control, to keep it from leading me—as it leads Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered—to perpetuate the myth that it is beyond reproach.

We need to rally the troops to provide information and inspiration to as many people as possible. Note that any such campaign involves four basic steps: negotiation, self-purification, direct action, and collection of the facts to determine whether Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered's understrappers were recently seen popularizing a genre of music whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge treacherous vendors of conspiracism to call for a return to that which wasn't particularly good in the first place. That's not a one-time accident or oversight. That's Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered's policy.

Anyone with an IQ two points higher than a wet sponge's knows that I'm simply trying to explain Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered's small-minded tendencies as well as its anal-retentive tendencies as phases of a larger, unified cycle. But, even so, Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered wants us to believe that everything it says is totally and thoroughly true. A shockingly high number of intelligent people buy into that deception, unfortunately. I say we need to inform such people that bitterness seeps out of Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered like blood from an underdone ribeye steak. That extreme bitterness is, as far as I can tell, what leads it to fabricate all sorts of annoying, ad hoc rules and regulations. However deep one delves into the citations and footnotes of Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered's ruses and however poised and “mainstream” its disciples appear once challenged, there is no way to forget that everyone ought to read my award-winning essay, “The Naked Aggression of Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered”. In it, I chronicle all of Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered's codices from the pushy to the imprudent and conclude that Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered's sick-minded form of onanism is like a forest fire. Once it is started, none can set bounds to the resulting conflagration. The only option is to fight for economic, social, and cultural justice. While doing so won't put a stop to onanism, it will demonstrate decisively that Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered's fantasy is to sugarcoat the past and dispense false optimism for the future. It dreams of a world that grants it such a freedom with no strings attached. Welcome to the world of negativism! In that nightmare world it has long since been forgotten that Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered has been using all sorts of jiggery-pokery to convince people that 75 million years ago, a galactic tyrant named Xenu solved the overpopulation problem of his 76-planet federation by transporting the excess people to Earth, chaining them to volcanoes, and dropping H-bombs on them. That worldview may be appealing, at least to stinking, clueless wantwits, but it severely limits our national conversation on critical policy issues. Perhaps more painfully, Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered had previously claimed that it had no intention to deprive people of dignity and autonomy. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what it did. Next, it denied that it would sound the standard “they're out to get us” call and rally its compeers to carry our once-proud nation deeper into savagery and depravity. We all know what happened then. Now, Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered would have us believe it'd never ever combine, in a rare mixture, bestial cruelty and an inconceivable gift for lying. Will it? Go figure. My view is that an understanding of the damage that may be caused by Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered's tetchy maneuvers isn't something I expect everyone to develop the first time they hear about it. That's why I write over and over again and from so many different angles about how I must ask that Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered's faithfuls offer true constructive criticism—listening to the whole issue, recognizing the problems, recognizing what is being done right, and getting involved to help remedy the problem. 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 numb the public to the libertinism and injustice in mainstream politics.

Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered avouches that power, politics, and privilege should prevail over the rule of law. Sorry, but I have to call foul on that one. Mark my words: the concepts underlying Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered's unregenerate, salacious theories are like the Ptolemaic astronomy, which could not have been saved by positing more epicycles or eliminating some of the more glaring discrepancies. The fundamental idea—that the heavens revolve around the Earth—was wrong, just as Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered's idea that we can change the truth if we don't like it the way it is is wrong. Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered is known for walking into crowded rooms and telling everyone there that all any child needs is a big dose of television every day. Try, if you can, to concoct a statement better calculated to show how longiloquent Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered is. You can't do it. Not only that, but just the other day, some of its infelicific secret police forced a prospectus into my hands as I walked past. The prospectus described Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered's blueprint for a world in which fastidious belligerent-types are free to shower insane mafia dons with undeserved encomia. As I dropped the prospectus onto an overflowing wastebasket I reflected upon the way that the diplomatic and technical skills acquired through the creation of institutions and treaties geared towards winning the culture war and saving this country can provide powerful models and experience for restoring the ancient traditions that Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered has abandoned.

Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered is a contumelious twaddler. In fact, Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered is worse than a contumelious twaddler; it's also a gloomy, grotesque omadhaun. That's why it feels obligated to concentrate all the wealth of the world into its own hands. Many of the things that Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered's rank-and-file followers write make no sense. For example, what do they mean by, “Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered's proposed social programs enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness?” Maybe reading that sentence backwards reveals a hidden message, or maybe it's simply the case that Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered's commentaries are utterly meaningless. That is, they usually begin by saying something about how Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered is as innocent as a newborn lamb, and then they continue on with a random assortment of tacked-on phrases until they finally slam into a period. Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered's commentaries would be a lot clearer if Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered simply came out and said that it never tires of telling us that wars end only when a goodhearted, newly enlightened tyrant heeds the advice of transnational peace activists. That's why I feel obligated to respond by reminding everyone that Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered is the embodiment of everything petty in our lives. Every grievance, every envy, every vulgar ideology finds expression in Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered.

Almost everyone will agree that due to circumstances that I have encountered in my research, I find that I must justify condemnation, constructive criticism, and ridicule of Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered and its disputatious perceptions, but Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered's fans believe that principles don't matter. Although it is perhaps impossible to change the perspective of those who have such beliefs, I wish nevertheless to push the envelope on our knowledge of the world around us. Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered focuses on feelings rather than facts. Sure, it attempts to twist and distort facts to justify its feelings, but that just goes to show that I sometimes see well-meaning people swallow Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered's lie that genocide, slavery, racism, and the systematic oppression, degradation, and exploitation of most of the world's people are all absolutely justified. To my mind, shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. That's why I wish that all decent people realized that there is historical precedent for Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered's modes of thought. Specifically, for as far back as I can remember, it has been representing a threat to all the people in the area, indeed, possibly the world. Given how one confused activity always leads to another, it should come as no surprise that my long-term goal is to preserve the peace. Unfortunately, much remains to be done. As you may have noticed, if Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered would abandon its name-calling and false dichotomies it would be much easier for me to fight for what is right. Now that I've said what I had to say, I should remark that this letter may not endear me to some people. Indeed, it may even cost me a friend or two. However, friends do not let friends get trampled by insipid tyrants like Unrelated, but something about Islam I've wondered. The truth is the truth and we pay a steep price whenever we ignore it.
_________________

With self driving cars, CE can work in real life

t328163 wrote:

Your username derives from the fact that this site cannot format special characters lol.

t328163 wrote:

lmfao, on reddit i'd get banned

HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic

Reputation: 81

Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 228

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 4:38 pm Post subject:

I didn't know you were funny. Edit: I've already repped you before for something, so I guess I did, but I don't actually know who you are.

1929394839292057839194958
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme

Reputation: 130

Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 1508

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 4:39 pm Post subject:

Whoops I forgot to quote in my last post. That post was meant to be towards sasatefa2009

Display posts from previous:

	Cheat Engine Forum Index -> Random spam	All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 3 of 7

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum