I remember when I was a college sophomore. With that in mind, I rate the treatise as a B+. I especially enjoyed the sprinkling of words such as schlubs, coofs, galimatias, camorra and mussitation.
If a few more baleful and insipid skeins were to have been injected into this specious soliloquoy, then perhaps it would have merited an A.
Well done, nonetheless.
It's just a computer-generated rant (only took the first 3 lines to see the signs). Don't bother trying to read/decipher it. It's designed to say a whole lot of nothing, which probably accurately reflects the OP's distinguishing characteristic...but still, not worth reading.
btickler wrote:
It's just a computer-generated rant (only took the first 3 lines to see the signs). Don't bother trying to read/decipher it. It's jdesigned to say a whole lot of nothing, which probably accurately reflects the OP's distinguishing characteristic...but still, not worth reading.
VERY GOOD OBSERVATION AND ASSESSMENT btickler
tl;dr
You've just failed.
kaynight, you nailed it.
kaynight wrote:
Please guys.......
OK ... Seven cheers for Kaynight! ... lol
The OP speaks with an eloquence which, in contrast, shows you other lads to be implacable and inimical in your polemics.
And, no...I would not accuse the OP of being hortatory or fustian.
Could you tell me more about your motive to write this ? And please be specific. And hurry please....before they deny you access.
So, this is computer generated?
I'm frankly impressed that a computer can pump out something like that. I wouldn't expect the grammar to be quite as perfect as it is. The words are also used sensibly (though in syntactical combination they mean nothing, of course). No given sentence is gibberish.
What program or site does this? Does it take whole sentences at once from other rants?
I would mention how to find them, but I'd rather their usage did not grow any wider here ;).
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Verbosity is speech or writing which is deemed to use an excess of words. Mark Twain wrote "generally, the fewer words that fully communicate or evoke the intended ideas or feelings, the more effective the communication. Ernest Hemingway, the 1954 Nobel prizewinner for literature, defended his concise style against a charge from William Faulkner that he "had never been known to use a word that might send the reader to a dictionary." Hemingway responded by saying, "Poor Faulkner. Does he really think that big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don't know the ten dollar words. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better ones, and those are the ones I use." A 2005 study from the psychology department of Princeton University found that using long and obscure words does not make people seem more intelligent. Dr. Daniel M. Oppenheimer did research which showed that people rated short, concise text as being written by the most intelligent individuals. But those who used long words and fonts types were the less intelligent.
I have no idea what the hell he said, but it sounds good to me, I'm in.
We must not fail, we CANNOT fail, we WILL NOT fail. The question before us friends is wheather it is more nobler to continue making sense out of this discussion OR wheather we should talk jibberish like my 18th wife. She couldn't fail, she wouldn't fail, she DIDN'T fail.
I believe "Camorra" is a proper noun and should, therefore, be capitalized.
I was going to respond, but I can't find my thesaurus anywhere.
OP basically said: "I don't like chess.com but I like big words".
Yep.
Over the past few weeks, I've learned to look past Chess.com's mad, parasitic remarks Tell us what they are.. I've learned to look past some of the cocky things Chess.com has said. Tel us what the cocky bastards at cc said! I've even learned to look past its attempts to drag men out of their beds in the dead of night and castrate them. But I cannot stay silent about Chess.com's incomprehensible and unforgivable audacity regarding a specific event that recently occurred. For those of you who like to eat dessert before soup, my conclusion at the end of this letter is going to be that if Chess.com can't stand the heat, it should get out of the kitchen. What is this specific event you speak of?
Chess.com 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 its campaigns. I wish that one of the innumerable busybodies who are forever making “statistical studies” about nonsense would instead make a statistical study that means something. For example, I'd like to see a statistical study of Chess.com's capacity to learn the obvious. What the hell are you talking about? Also worthwhile would be a statistical study of how many inarticulate schlubs realize that it amazes me how successful Chess.com has been at attacking the critical realism and impassive objectivity that are the central epistemological foundations of the scientific worldview. History will look back on that unfortunate success with profound regret and wonder why the people of our time didn't do more to subject Chess.com's opinions to the rigorous scrutiny they warrant. Perhaps our answer should be that whenever someone accuses Chess.com of forcing its moral code on the rest of us, its one-size-fits-all response is that it can override nature. This galimatias should make you realize that Chess.com may work hand-in-glove with dimwitted coofs right after it reads this letter. Let it. When you least expect it, I will maximize our individual potential for effectiveness and success in combatting Chess.com.
I once pointed out to Chess.com that its camorra is a wretched hive of scum and villainy. All I could garner from its ensuing mussitation was some nonsense about how the rule of law should give way to the rule of brutality and bribery. It's this sort of vitriolic response that leads me to believe that I must admit that I've read only a small fraction of Chess.com's writings. (As a well-known aphorism states, it is not necessary to eat all of an apple to learn that it is rotten.) Nevertheless, I've read enough of Chess.com's writings to know that Chess.com's companions were recently seen tossing quaint concepts like decency, fairness, and rational debate out the window. That's not a one-time accident or oversight. That's Chess.com's policy.
Chess.com often misuses the word “indistinguishableness” to mean something vaguely related to obscurantism or careerism or somesuch. Chess.com's expositors, realizing that an exact definition is anathema to what they know in their hearts, are usually content to assume that Chess.com is merely trying to say that the goodness of something is in direct proportion only to the amount of hedonism in said thing. If you've never seen Chess.com exhibit cruelty to animals, you're either incredibly unobservant or are concealing the truth from yourself. Chess.com has recently been going around claiming that the few of us who complain regularly about its cock-and-bull stories are simply spoiling the party. You really have to tie your brain in knots to be gullible enough to believe that junk.
While it is not my purpose to incriminate or exculpate or vindicate or castigate, I despise everything about Chess.com. I despise Chess.com's attempts to appropriate sacred symbols for crude purposes. I despise how it insists that it is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose. Most of all, I despise its complete obliviousness to the fact that if we were to let it get away with regimenting the public mind as much as an army regiments the bodies of its soldiers, that would be a gross miscarriage of justice. At this point, our task is to free Chess.com's mind from the constricting trammels of voyeurism and the counterfeit moral inhibitions that have replaced true morality. Your support can help greatly with this task, this crucial task, at which we must not fail.
I could have gone on. I just had to stop.
Over the past few weeks, I've learned to look past Chess.com's mad, parasitic remarks. I've learned to look past some of the cocky things Chess.com has said. I've even learned to look past its attempts to drag men out of their beds in the dead of night and castrate them. But I cannot stay silent about Chess.com's incomprehensible and unforgivable audacity regarding a specific event that recently occurred. For those of you who like to eat dessert before soup, my conclusion at the end of this letter is going to be that if Chess.com can't stand the heat, it should get out of the kitchen.
Chess.com 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 its campaigns. I wish that one of the innumerable busybodies who are forever making “statistical studies” about nonsense would instead make a statistical study that means something. For example, I'd like to see a statistical study of Chess.com's capacity to learn the obvious. Also worthwhile would be a statistical study of how many inarticulate schlubs realize that it amazes me how successful Chess.com has been at attacking the critical realism and impassive objectivity that are the central epistemological foundations of the scientific worldview. History will look back on that unfortunate success with profound regret and wonder why the people of our time didn't do more to subject Chess.com's opinions to the rigorous scrutiny they warrant. Perhaps our answer should be that whenever someone accuses Chess.com of forcing its moral code on the rest of us, its one-size-fits-all response is that it can override nature. This galimatias should make you realize that Chess.com may work hand-in-glove with dimwitted coofs right after it reads this letter. Let it. When you least expect it, I will maximize our individual potential for effectiveness and success in combatting Chess.com.
I once pointed out to Chess.com that its camorra is a wretched hive of scum and villainy. All I could garner from its ensuing mussitation was some nonsense about how the rule of law should give way to the rule of brutality and bribery. It's this sort of vitriolic response that leads me to believe that I must admit that I've read only a small fraction of Chess.com's writings. (As a well-known aphorism states, it is not necessary to eat all of an apple to learn that it is rotten.) Nevertheless, I've read enough of Chess.com's writings to know that Chess.com's companions were recently seen tossing quaint concepts like decency, fairness, and rational debate out the window. That's not a one-time accident or oversight. That's Chess.com's policy.
Chess.com often misuses the word “indistinguishableness” to mean something vaguely related to obscurantism or careerism or somesuch. Chess.com's expositors, realizing that an exact definition is anathema to what they know in their hearts, are usually content to assume that Chess.com is merely trying to say that the goodness of something is in direct proportion only to the amount of hedonism in said thing. If you've never seen Chess.com exhibit cruelty to animals, you're either incredibly unobservant or are concealing the truth from yourself. Chess.com has recently been going around claiming that the few of us who complain regularly about its cock-and-bull stories are simply spoiling the party. You really have to tie your brain in knots to be gullible enough to believe that junk.
While it is not my purpose to incriminate or exculpate or vindicate or castigate, I despise everything about Chess.com. I despise Chess.com's attempts to appropriate sacred symbols for crude purposes. I despise how it insists that it is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose. Most of all, I despise its complete obliviousness to the fact that if we were to let it get away with regimenting the public mind as much as an army regiments the bodies of its soldiers, that would be a gross miscarriage of justice. At this point, our task is to free Chess.com's mind from the constricting trammels of voyeurism and the counterfeit moral inhibitions that have replaced true morality. Your support can help greatly with this task, this crucial task, at which we must not fail.