A weird site!

[newzolt]

Complaint letter generator!!
Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Once again, I find disappointment. Once again, I find no satisfaction. Once again, I find that Miss Aussie_Ben's animadversions have reached a depth of degeneracy that was virtually unknown in the past. Before examining the present situation, however, it is important that I direct your attention in some detail to the vast and irreparable calamity brought upon us by Aussie_Ben. Frankly, I shall not argue that her newsgroup postings are an authentic map of her plan to reconstitute society on the basis of arrested development and envious malevolence. Read them and see for yourself.

Because we continue to share a common, albeit abused, atmospheric envelope, documents written by Aussie_Ben's adulators typically include the line, "Aussie_Ben is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted", 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 if you can make any sense out Aussie_Ben's gloomy precepts then you must have gotten higher marks in school than I did. I challenge her to point out any text in this letter that proposes that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la. It isn't there. There's neither a hint nor a suggestion of such a thing. Come on, Aussie_Ben; I know you're capable of thoughtful social behavior. I do not wish to evaluate solipsism here, though I warrant that Aussie_Ben has declared that she's staging a revolt against everyone who dares to enlighten the mind of Man and improve him as a rational, moral, and social being. Aussie_Ben's revolting all right; the very sight of her turns my stomach. All kidding aside, she doesn't care about freedom, as she can neither eat it nor put it in the bank. It's just a word to her.

Contrary to the impression that what I call dictatorial wimps offer "new," "innovative," and "advanced" ideas, there is little new in their rejoinders. Without beating around the bush, I'll tell you now what I have concluded about Aussie_Ben's antihumanist, odious beliefs. I've concluded that Aussie_Ben says that her adages are Right with a capital R. What balderdash! What impudence! What treachery!

I could substantiate what I'm saying about mentally deficient ignoramuses but I don't feel that that's necessary because we all know what they're like. Hey, it's not my fault that Aussie_Ben gets a lot of perks from the system. True to form, she ceaselessly moves the goalposts to prevent others from benefiting from the same perks. This suggests that if you were to tell Aussie_Ben that corporatism is a crime, an outrage, and a delusion, she'd just pull her security blanket a little tighter around herself and refuse to come out and deal with the real world. Unfortunately, most people have been so brainwashed by her pharisaical propositions that when push comes to shove they'll end up siding with Aussie_Ben. That's why we must question authority. I am sick of our illustrious "leaders" treading on eggshells so as not to upset Aussie_Ben. Here's what I have to say to them: Some people believe that one day Aussie_Ben's helpers will institute change. Such people are doomed to disappointment, especially when one considers that Aussie_Ben would have us believe that black is white and night is day. Such flummery can be quickly dissipated merely by skimming a few random pages from any book on the subject.

In order to understand the motivation behind Aussie_Ben's communiqu?s it is important first to make plans and carry them out. Doesn't it strike you as odd that Aussie_Ben contributes nothing to society? Those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still believe that her ventures bespeak a spiritual crassness, a materialistic and short-sighted stupidity that will operate on a criminal—as opposed to a civil disobedience—basis in a matter of days, have an obligation to do more than just observe what she is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to educate the public on a range of issues. We have an obligation to bring her to justice. And we have an obligation to pronounce the truth and renounce the lies. In any case, there is something in the way of "natural law" that can be stated awkwardly as follows: "What Aussie_Ben considers a fair shake, the rest of us consider a repressive, humiliating, culture-stripping experience." Please do not quote me on that. Instead, work it into a better natural law and enunciate it in clearer and more concise terms. It is immaterial who is credited with the words; the objective is to tell it like it is. I have now said everything there is to say. So, to summarize it all, the world would be better off if Miss Aussie_Ben had never been born.

 

[vaibhav mehta]

Great find mate. As`Jane Austen said ''Those who do not complain are never pitied''.

 

[Cricketman]

My complaint about Mr. Yuseless K Pathan

What do petty stool pigeons, mudslinging, aberrant mouthpieces for soulless sectarianism, and Mr. Yuseless K Pathan have in common? If you answered, "They all muddy the word 'anthropogeographical'," then pat yourself on the back. For complete details, I refer you to my forthcoming book on the subject. I shall here mention only a few random items that may be new or especially interesting to you. For instance, Yuseless's henchmen are not only vicious slobs but are also the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of our nation. So let Yuseless call me saturnine. I call him irascible.

Maybe in the immediate years ahead, Yuseless will rip off everyone and his brother. Crotchety predictions aside, this would not be an impossible scenario if his self-centered expostulations were to gain ascendancy in our society. The public is like a giant that he has blindfolded, drugged, and gagged. This giant has plugs in his ears and Yuseless leads him around by the nose. Clearly, such a giant needs to establish clear, justifiable definitions of antinomianism and misoneism so that you can defend a decision to take action when Yuseless's legates welsh on all sorts of agreements. That's why I feel obligated to notify the giant (i.e., the public) that Yuseless should stop calling me a pathetic creep. Although I've been called worse things by better people, Yuseless is not just pestiferous. He is unbelievably, astronomically pestiferous.

Given the tenor of our times, there is still hope for our society, real hope—not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of dodgy, parasitic nincompoops but the hope that makes you eager to upbraid him for being so pigheaded. Yuseless's list of sins is long and each one deserves more space than I have here. Therefore, rather than describe each one individually, I'll summarize by stating that his self-pitying remonstrations can be quite educational. By studying them, students can observe firsthand the consequences of having a mind consumed with paranoia, fear, hatred, and ignorance. In conclusion, let me just say that Mr. Yuseless K Pathan places his indelible imprimatur upon a form of negativism that is fundamentally, pervasively, and inescapably slovenly.


Lolz.

 

[ag6858]

The following letter is inspired by a quote from Thomas Paine: "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." In the rest of this letter, I will use history and science (in the Hegelian sense) to prove that you have my word that you shouldn't let yourself be flummoxed by Pres. George W Bush's fast talk and air of self-confidence. Pres. Bush 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 trample over the very freedoms and rights that he claims to support. I can say one thing about him. He understands better than any of us that psychological impact is paramount—not facts, not anybody's principles, not right and wrong. I'm not suggesting that we behave likewise. I'm suggesting only that Pres. Bush likes to muddy the word "schizosaccharomycetaceae". Such activity can flourish only in the dark, however. If you drag it into the open, Pres. Bush and his fans will run for cover, like cockroaches in a dirty kitchen when the light is turned on suddenly during the night. That's why we must acknowledge that it is of paramount importance not to let Pres. Bush's vassals, who are legion, stir up class hatred. Let us now renew those institutions of civil society—like families, schools, churches, and civic groups—that rise to the challenge of thwarting Pres. George W Bush's dysfunctional plans because in that is our only hope for the future.

 

[Bibu07]

-Bump- not a big one.

When assessing Mr. King Cricket's crotchets, one need not resort to vicious name-calling or opprobrious epithets. One need only present the facts. It is worth noting at the outset that we need to keep King Cricket's hatchet men at bay. Why? Because of what's at stake: literally everything. Listen up: King Cricket has been trying hard to protect what has become a lucrative racket for him. Unfortunately, that lucrative racket has a hard-to-overlook consequence: it will win support by encapsulating frustrations and directing them toward unpopular scapegoats sometime soon.

King Cricket's behavior might be different if he were told that he indulges in various forms of verbal savagery to conceal the fact that it is difficult, if not impossible, for people to come up with an accurate conclusion if the only information he has given them is false. Of course, as far as King Cricket's concerned, this fact will fall into the category of, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts." That's why I'm telling you that if you're interested in the finagling, double-dealing, chicanery, cheating, cajolery, cunning, rascality, and abject villainy by which he may malign and traduce me in the immediate years ahead, then you'll want to consider the following very carefully. You'll especially want to consider that if you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance. If you agree, read on. The biggest supporters of King Cricket's Pecksniffian assertions are unbridled, ostentatious hippies and stingy brigands. A secondary class of ardent supporters consists of ladies of elastic virtue and cosmopolitan tendencies to whom such things afford a decent excuse for displaying their fascinations at their open windows. King Cricket's stratagems are the opiate of the self-indulgent. I submit that everyone should stop and mull that assertion. Then, you'll understand why King Cricket claims that he acts in the public interest. Perhaps he has some sound arguments on his side but if so he's keeping them hidden. I'd say it's far more likely that King Cricket doesn't want us to deal with his ethically bankrupt campaigns on a case-by-case basis. He would rather we settle for the meatless bone of solipsism.

If you intend to challenge someone's assertions, you need to present a counterargument. King Cricket provides none. I fully intend to encourage our spirits to soar. That's the path that I have chosen. It's truly not an easy path but then again, I myself am decidedly not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that either King Cricket 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.

Unsympathetic malefactors like King Cricket always lie. Even an occasional truth is intended only to cover up a bigger falsification and is therefore, itself, a deliberate untruth. What is his current objective? As usual, there are multiple objectives:
to suppress people's instinct and intellect,
to call evil good and good evil, and
to provide financial support to backwards banana republics and their xenophobic dictators.
Others have stated it much more eloquently than I, but if you look back over some of my older letters, you'll see that I predicted that he would use scapegoating as a foil to draw anger away from more accurate targets. And, as I predicted, he did. But you know, that was not a difficult prediction to make. Anyone who has bothered to learn even a little about King Cricket could have made the same prediction.


We should not concern ourselves with King Cricket's putative virtue or vice. Rather, we should concern ourselves with our own welfare and with the fact that some people have said that inherent in our legal construction of mercantalism is the notion that given the public appetite for more accountability, I can hardly believe how in this day and age, unpleasant, mutinous scamps are allowed to scrawl pro-charlatanism graffiti over everything . Maybe. But I'm more inclined to believe that King Cricket has been trying to convince us that we should all bear the brunt of his actions. This pathetic attempt to develop a credible pretext to forcibly silence his opponents deserves no comment other than to say that King Cricket can get away with lies (e.g., that Maoism is the only alternative to voyeurism) because the average person cannot imagine anyone lying so brazenly. Not one person in a hundred will actually check out the facts for himself and discover that King Cricket is lying.

In effect, King Cricket should clarify his point so people like you and me can tell what the heck he's talking about. Without clarification, King Cricket's positions sound lofty and include some emotionally charged words but don't really seem to make any sense. I want to see all of us working together to improve the lot of humankind. Yes, this is an idealistic approach to actualizing our restorative goals. Nevertheless, you should realize that I have some advice for King Cricket. He should keep his mouth shut until he stops being such a phlegmatic, logorrheic creep and starts being at least one of informative, agreeable, creative, or entertaining.

As I mentioned before, I wish argumentative wantwits had the gumption not to make the pot of gangsterism overboil and scald the whole world. But let me add that he demands obeisance from his representatives. Then, once they prove their loyalty, King Cricket forces them to destroy our moral fiber. Even if his facts were reliable, they were gathered selectively and then manipulated towards favored conclusions. His victims have been speaking out for years. Unfortunately, their voices have long been silenced by the roar and thunder of King Cricket's yes-men, who loudly proclaim that divine ichor flows through King Cricket's veins. Regardless of those irascible proclamations, the truth is that it's his belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to redefine unbridled self-indulgence as a virtue, as the ultimate test of personal freedom. I can't understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such an odious idea. In fact, my letters generally make the diametrically opposite claim, that if you've never seen King Cricket force us to bow down low before cocky, aberrant ex-cons, you're either incredibly unobservant or are concealing the truth from yourself.

King Cricket has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and make incorrect leaps of logic—all by trumping up a phony emergency. I find that I am embarrassed. Embarrassed that some people don't realize that many people are incredulous when I tell them that he intends to steal our birthrights. "How could King Cricket be so inerudite?", they ask me. "It doesn't seem possible." Well, it is indubitably possible, and now I'll explain exactly how King Cricket plans to do it. But first, you need to realize that you shouldn't let him intimidate you. You shouldn't let him push you around. We're the ones who are right, not King Cricket.

King Cricket always looks the other way when one of his buddies gets it in his head to cause people to betray one another and hate one another. Apparently, the principle laid down by Jean-Marie Collot d'Herbois during the French Reign of Terror still holds true today: Tout est permis ? quiconque agit dans le sens de la r?volution. We must face the undeniable fact that he likes to abridge our basic civil liberties. Such activity can flourish only in the dark, however. If you drag it into the open, King Cricket and his followers will run for cover, like cockroaches in a dirty kitchen when the light is turned on suddenly during the night. That's why we must deal with the relevant facts. He once heard a radicalism-prone, appalling slob say, "Once King Cricket has approved of something it can't possibly be self-satisfied." What's amazing is that King Cricket was then able to use that single quotation plus some anecdotal evidence to convince his devotees that he should exhibit cruelty to animals because "it's the right thing to do", which makes me wonder, "Isn't he the oleaginous ivory-tower academic who recently wanted to ****** the free and natural economic development of various countries' indigenous population?" The only clear answer to emerge from the conflicting, contradictory stances that he and his patsies take is that those who get involved with his quixotic adherents are seldom aware of his dealings with garrulous wackos.

Please let me explain that by refusing to act, by refusing to put the kibosh on King Cricket's communiqu?s, we are giving King Cricket the power to diminish our will to live. What if we collectively just told his lackeys, "Sure, go ahead and force me to undergo 'treatment' to cure my 'problem'. Have fun!"? That would be worse than overbearing; it would cause otiose subversion to gather momentum on college campuses. Plainly stated, he says that his snow jobs enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. Wow! Isn't that like hiding the stolen goods in the closet and, when the cops come in, standing in front of the closet door and exclaiming, "They're not in here!"? Let me end by appealing to our collective sense of humanity: Mr. King Cricket has little respect for laws or for any behavior that most people would consider requisite for a sustainable information economy.