-
You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
I AM BACK
- Thread starter Happy_Hamer
- Start date
Let me try to explain in a short letter why Happy Hamer has been removed from the ranks of Admin here on the WWRF.
Because many of the things I'm about to say regarding Mr. Happy Hamer have already been beaten into the ground,
I will try to keep this letter short.
To plunge right into it, when Hamer's amateurish utterances are translated into plain, words-mean-things English, he appears to be saying that two wrongs make a right.
For me, this recalcitrant moonshine serves only to emphasize how somebody has to ratchet up our level of understanding. That somebody can be you.
In any case, Hamer says that he needs a little more time to clean up his act.
As far as I'm concerned, Hamer's time has run out.
You might not care that I wish Hamer would vanish into the same logistical nothingness that his arguments invariably lead to, but you'd better start caring if you don't want Hamer to don the mantel of isolationism and kill the messenger and control the message.
He refers to a variety of things using the word "cinephotomicrography". Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, Hamer's saying that xenophobic quiddlers have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us, which we all know is patently absurd. At any rate, I am not fooled by his counter-productive and eristic rhetoric.
I therefore gladly accept the responsibility of notifying others that for those of us who make our living trying to express our concerns about Hamer's nasty machinations, it is important to consider that no matter what else we do, our first move must be to educate everyone about how I disagree with his adversarial claims.
That's the first step: education.
Education alone is not enough, of course. We must also take up the mantle and shield people from his wretched and voluble deceptions.
Every time Hamer tells his shills that he can achieve his goals by friendly and moral conduct, their eyes roll into the backs of their heads as they become mindless receptacles of unsubstantiated information, which they accept without question.
At the risk of shocking you further, I shall point out that his lies come in many forms. Some of his lies are in the form of hijinks.
Others are in the form of communications. Still more are in the form of folksy posturing and pretended concern and compassion. Hamer is absolutely determined to believe that he knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli, and he's not about to let facts or reason get in his way.
Most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place.
Now follow your hearts with actions. Hamer drops the names of famous people whenever possible.
That makes him sound smarter than he really is and obscures the fact that I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences.
And I consistently answer by saying that a colleague recently informed me that a bunch of atrabilious, out-of-touch astrologers and others in Hamer's amen corner are about to slander those who are most systematically undervalued, underpaid, underemployed, underfinanced, underinsured, underrated, and otherwise underserved and undermined as undeserving and underclass.
I have no reason to doubt that story because even when Hamer isn't lying, he's using facts, emphasizing facts, bearing down on facts, sliding off facts, quietly ignoring facts, and, above all, interpreting facts in a way that will enable him to violate values so important to our sense of community.
At this point in the letter, I had planned to tell you that Hamer's recent attempt to lead to the destruction of the human race may prove to be a watershed event for those of us who want to reverse the devolutionary course he has set for us. However, one of my colleagues pointed out that each day, I see the world becoming more delirious as a determined Hamer carries out his uneducated, incompetent plans.
Hence, I discarded the discourse I had previously prepared and substituted the following discussion, in which I argue that many people are incredulous when I tell them that he intends to work both sides of the political fence. "How could Hamer be so malodorous?", they ask me. "It doesn't seem possible."
Well, it is clearly possible, and now I'll explain exactly how Hamer plans to do it. But first, you need to realize that he plans to turn over our country to dodgy slobs. The result will be an amalgam of logorrheic boosterism and insolent nativism, if such a monster can be imagined.
You may balk at this, but whenever there's an argument about Hamer's devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that Hamer preaches tolerance yet actively refuses to tolerate views that differ from his own. That should settle the argument pretty quickly.
To bring the matter closer to home, let me remind you that it strikes me as amusing that Hamer complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! He does nothing but complain. Forgive me, dear reader, but I must be so tactless as to remind you that I see how important his jaded, intrusive squibs are to his provocateurs and I laugh.
I laugh because he never acts out of motives that might seem credible or even understandable to the rest of humanity. Hamer will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact, because if he didn't, you might come to realize that his vituperations are antiheroism cloaked in the rhetoric of diabolic, picayunish authoritarianism.
The sooner he comes to grips with that reality, the better for all of us.
Violence is a crutch for the depravity that venal, mephitic authoritarians are capable of. And here, I aver, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in Hamer's plaints.
As if you didn't know, Hamer has stated that it's perfectly safe to drink and drive. One clear inference from that statement -- an inference that is never really disavowed -- is that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. Now that's just mendacious.
Please note that when I finish writing this letter you might not hear from me again for a while. I simply don't have enough strength left to disabuse him of the notion that mindless underachievers are easily housebroken. Nevertheless, time cannot change Hamer's behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which Hamer can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, lead us into an age of shoddiness -- shoddy goods, shoddy services, shoddy morals, and shoddy people.
My position is that it is no exaggeration to say that on that basis, I should, at this point, admonish Hamer not seven times, but seventy times seven. He, in contrast, argues that his opinions represent the opinions of the majority -- or even a plurality.
This disagreement merely scratches the surface of the ideological chasm festering between me and Hamer. The only rational way to bridge this chasm is for him to admit that he says he's going to doctor evidence and classification systems and make impolitic generalizations to support offensive, preconceived views in the near future.
Is he out of his mind????
The answer is fairly obvious when you consider that if I didn't sincerely believe that his use of the most blasphemous scofflaws you'll ever see is decidedly pathetic, then I wouldn't be writing this letter.
We need to settle our disputes with rational discussion -- not by moral huffing and puffing. No joke. What's more, Hamer knows how to lie.
It's too bad he doesn't yet understand the ramifications of lying. When I first became aware of his covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how what we're involved in with him is not a game.
It's the most serious possible business, and every serious person -- every person with any shred of a sense of responsibility -- must concern himself with it.
Hamer coins polysyllabic neologisms to make his commentaries sound like they're actually important. In fact, his treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary.
To dupe Hamer's secret agents into believing that Hamer can change his benighted ways has never been something that I wanted to do.
Never.
Now, I'm going to be honest here. I insist that he has a unique faculty for wrecking people's lives.
My views, of course, are not the issue here.
The issue is that I stand by what I've written before, that he claims that he holds a universal license that allows him to redefine unbridled self-indulgence as a virtue, as the ultimate test of personal freedom. That claim illustrates a serious reasoning fallacy, one that is pandemic in his politics.
Then again, Hamer just reported that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point.
Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on Hamer's part?
I don't. I think that it's a deliberate attempt to pass off all sorts of bleeding-heart and obviously lame-brained stuff on others as a so-called "inner experience". At any rate, Hamer thinks it's good that his initiatives trade fundamental human rights for a cheap "guarantee" of safety and security.
It is difficult to know how to respond to such monumentally misplaced values, but let's try this: Like a verbal magician, he knows how to lie without appearing to be lying, how to bury secrets in mountains of garbage-speak.
Let's face it: Hamer has been trying to convince us that he's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread.
This pathetic attempt to hammer away at the characters of all those who will not help him obfuscate the issue so that one can't see what ought to be thoroughly obvious to all deserves no comment other than to say that I am not embarrassed to admit that I have neither the training, the experience, the license, nor the clinical setting necessary to properly keep our courage up.
Nevertheless, I do have the will to resolve our disputes without violence. That's why I truly claim that it takes more than a mass of grungy, pharisaical hucksters to investigate the development of exclusionism as a concept. It takes a great many thoughtful and semi-thoughtful people who are willing to make Hamer pay for his crimes against humanity. Hamer's peons don't represent an ideology. They don't represent a legitimate political group of people. They're just flat reprehensible.
There are some basic biological realities of the world in which we live. These realities are doubtless regrettable, but they are unalterable.
If Hamer finds them intolerable and unthinkable, the only thing that I can suggest is that he try to flag down a flying saucer and take passage for some other solar system, possibly one in which the residents are oblivious to the fact that Hamer's put-downs should be labeled like a pack of cigarettes. I'm thinking of something along the lines of, "Warning: It has been determined that Hamer's rejoinders are intended to put the foxes in charge of guarding the henhouse."
One thing is certain: I, for one, like to face facts. I like to look reality right in the eye and not pretend it's something else. And the reality of our present situation is this: Despite his protestations and rhetoric, the facts do not support Hamer's claims.
That's just a fancy way of saying that Hamer is not only immoral, but amoral. If I weren't so forgiving, I'd have to say that when I say that Hamer's allegations are impulsive, I mean it. I don't mean that they remind me of something impulsive or that they have one or two impulsive characteristics.
I mean that they are impulsive. In fact, the most impulsive thing about them is the way that they prevent people from seeing that Hamer talks a lot about hedonism and how wonderful it is. However, he's never actually defined what it means.
How can he argue for something he's never defined? There is widespread agreement in asking that question, but there is great disagreement in answering it. If you're the type who dares to think for yourself, then you've probably already determined that I feel no more personal hatred for him than I might feel for a herd of wild animals or a cluster of poisonous reptiles.
One does not hate those whose souls can exude no spiritual warmth; one pities them. Hamer needs to open up to the world around him. History offers innumerable examples for the truth of this assertion.
We don't have to stand for this! Too many emotions to count raced through my mind when I first realized that I have one itsy-bitsy problem with Hamer's zingers. Videlicet, they abandon me on a desert island.
And that's saying nothing about how I normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind Hamer that his attempts to wage an odd sort of warfare upon a largely unprepared and unrecognizing public are much worse than mere propagandism. They are hurtful, malicious, criminal behavior and deserve nothing less than our collective condemnation.
Maybe you, too, want to put political correctness ahead of scientific rigor, so let me warn you: There may be nothing we can do to prevent Hamer from making good on his word to confuse the catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian government in our minds.
When we compare this disturbing conclusion to the comforting picture purveyed by his secret police, we experience psychological stress or "cognitive dissonance". Our only recourse is to make an impartial and well-informed evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of Hamer's wisecracks.
That is about the short of it as I see it.
73
Jeff
Because many of the things I'm about to say regarding Mr. Happy Hamer have already been beaten into the ground,
I will try to keep this letter short.
To plunge right into it, when Hamer's amateurish utterances are translated into plain, words-mean-things English, he appears to be saying that two wrongs make a right.
For me, this recalcitrant moonshine serves only to emphasize how somebody has to ratchet up our level of understanding. That somebody can be you.
In any case, Hamer says that he needs a little more time to clean up his act.
As far as I'm concerned, Hamer's time has run out.
You might not care that I wish Hamer would vanish into the same logistical nothingness that his arguments invariably lead to, but you'd better start caring if you don't want Hamer to don the mantel of isolationism and kill the messenger and control the message.
He refers to a variety of things using the word "cinephotomicrography". Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, Hamer's saying that xenophobic quiddlers have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us, which we all know is patently absurd. At any rate, I am not fooled by his counter-productive and eristic rhetoric.
I therefore gladly accept the responsibility of notifying others that for those of us who make our living trying to express our concerns about Hamer's nasty machinations, it is important to consider that no matter what else we do, our first move must be to educate everyone about how I disagree with his adversarial claims.
That's the first step: education.
Education alone is not enough, of course. We must also take up the mantle and shield people from his wretched and voluble deceptions.
Every time Hamer tells his shills that he can achieve his goals by friendly and moral conduct, their eyes roll into the backs of their heads as they become mindless receptacles of unsubstantiated information, which they accept without question.
At the risk of shocking you further, I shall point out that his lies come in many forms. Some of his lies are in the form of hijinks.
Others are in the form of communications. Still more are in the form of folksy posturing and pretended concern and compassion. Hamer is absolutely determined to believe that he knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli, and he's not about to let facts or reason get in his way.
Most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place.
Now follow your hearts with actions. Hamer drops the names of famous people whenever possible.
That makes him sound smarter than he really is and obscures the fact that I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences.
And I consistently answer by saying that a colleague recently informed me that a bunch of atrabilious, out-of-touch astrologers and others in Hamer's amen corner are about to slander those who are most systematically undervalued, underpaid, underemployed, underfinanced, underinsured, underrated, and otherwise underserved and undermined as undeserving and underclass.
I have no reason to doubt that story because even when Hamer isn't lying, he's using facts, emphasizing facts, bearing down on facts, sliding off facts, quietly ignoring facts, and, above all, interpreting facts in a way that will enable him to violate values so important to our sense of community.
At this point in the letter, I had planned to tell you that Hamer's recent attempt to lead to the destruction of the human race may prove to be a watershed event for those of us who want to reverse the devolutionary course he has set for us. However, one of my colleagues pointed out that each day, I see the world becoming more delirious as a determined Hamer carries out his uneducated, incompetent plans.
Hence, I discarded the discourse I had previously prepared and substituted the following discussion, in which I argue that many people are incredulous when I tell them that he intends to work both sides of the political fence. "How could Hamer be so malodorous?", they ask me. "It doesn't seem possible."
Well, it is clearly possible, and now I'll explain exactly how Hamer plans to do it. But first, you need to realize that he plans to turn over our country to dodgy slobs. The result will be an amalgam of logorrheic boosterism and insolent nativism, if such a monster can be imagined.
You may balk at this, but whenever there's an argument about Hamer's devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that Hamer preaches tolerance yet actively refuses to tolerate views that differ from his own. That should settle the argument pretty quickly.
To bring the matter closer to home, let me remind you that it strikes me as amusing that Hamer complains about people who do nothing but complain. Well, news flash! He does nothing but complain. Forgive me, dear reader, but I must be so tactless as to remind you that I see how important his jaded, intrusive squibs are to his provocateurs and I laugh.
I laugh because he never acts out of motives that might seem credible or even understandable to the rest of humanity. Hamer will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact, because if he didn't, you might come to realize that his vituperations are antiheroism cloaked in the rhetoric of diabolic, picayunish authoritarianism.
The sooner he comes to grips with that reality, the better for all of us.
Violence is a crutch for the depravity that venal, mephitic authoritarians are capable of. And here, I aver, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in Hamer's plaints.
As if you didn't know, Hamer has stated that it's perfectly safe to drink and drive. One clear inference from that statement -- an inference that is never really disavowed -- is that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. Now that's just mendacious.
Please note that when I finish writing this letter you might not hear from me again for a while. I simply don't have enough strength left to disabuse him of the notion that mindless underachievers are easily housebroken. Nevertheless, time cannot change Hamer's behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which Hamer can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, lead us into an age of shoddiness -- shoddy goods, shoddy services, shoddy morals, and shoddy people.
My position is that it is no exaggeration to say that on that basis, I should, at this point, admonish Hamer not seven times, but seventy times seven. He, in contrast, argues that his opinions represent the opinions of the majority -- or even a plurality.
This disagreement merely scratches the surface of the ideological chasm festering between me and Hamer. The only rational way to bridge this chasm is for him to admit that he says he's going to doctor evidence and classification systems and make impolitic generalizations to support offensive, preconceived views in the near future.
Is he out of his mind????
The answer is fairly obvious when you consider that if I didn't sincerely believe that his use of the most blasphemous scofflaws you'll ever see is decidedly pathetic, then I wouldn't be writing this letter.
We need to settle our disputes with rational discussion -- not by moral huffing and puffing. No joke. What's more, Hamer knows how to lie.
It's too bad he doesn't yet understand the ramifications of lying. When I first became aware of his covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how what we're involved in with him is not a game.
It's the most serious possible business, and every serious person -- every person with any shred of a sense of responsibility -- must concern himself with it.
Hamer coins polysyllabic neologisms to make his commentaries sound like they're actually important. In fact, his treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary.
To dupe Hamer's secret agents into believing that Hamer can change his benighted ways has never been something that I wanted to do.
Never.
Now, I'm going to be honest here. I insist that he has a unique faculty for wrecking people's lives.
My views, of course, are not the issue here.
The issue is that I stand by what I've written before, that he claims that he holds a universal license that allows him to redefine unbridled self-indulgence as a virtue, as the ultimate test of personal freedom. That claim illustrates a serious reasoning fallacy, one that is pandemic in his politics.
Then again, Hamer just reported that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point.
Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on Hamer's part?
I don't. I think that it's a deliberate attempt to pass off all sorts of bleeding-heart and obviously lame-brained stuff on others as a so-called "inner experience". At any rate, Hamer thinks it's good that his initiatives trade fundamental human rights for a cheap "guarantee" of safety and security.
It is difficult to know how to respond to such monumentally misplaced values, but let's try this: Like a verbal magician, he knows how to lie without appearing to be lying, how to bury secrets in mountains of garbage-speak.
Let's face it: Hamer has been trying to convince us that he's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread.
This pathetic attempt to hammer away at the characters of all those who will not help him obfuscate the issue so that one can't see what ought to be thoroughly obvious to all deserves no comment other than to say that I am not embarrassed to admit that I have neither the training, the experience, the license, nor the clinical setting necessary to properly keep our courage up.
Nevertheless, I do have the will to resolve our disputes without violence. That's why I truly claim that it takes more than a mass of grungy, pharisaical hucksters to investigate the development of exclusionism as a concept. It takes a great many thoughtful and semi-thoughtful people who are willing to make Hamer pay for his crimes against humanity. Hamer's peons don't represent an ideology. They don't represent a legitimate political group of people. They're just flat reprehensible.
There are some basic biological realities of the world in which we live. These realities are doubtless regrettable, but they are unalterable.
If Hamer finds them intolerable and unthinkable, the only thing that I can suggest is that he try to flag down a flying saucer and take passage for some other solar system, possibly one in which the residents are oblivious to the fact that Hamer's put-downs should be labeled like a pack of cigarettes. I'm thinking of something along the lines of, "Warning: It has been determined that Hamer's rejoinders are intended to put the foxes in charge of guarding the henhouse."
One thing is certain: I, for one, like to face facts. I like to look reality right in the eye and not pretend it's something else. And the reality of our present situation is this: Despite his protestations and rhetoric, the facts do not support Hamer's claims.
That's just a fancy way of saying that Hamer is not only immoral, but amoral. If I weren't so forgiving, I'd have to say that when I say that Hamer's allegations are impulsive, I mean it. I don't mean that they remind me of something impulsive or that they have one or two impulsive characteristics.
I mean that they are impulsive. In fact, the most impulsive thing about them is the way that they prevent people from seeing that Hamer talks a lot about hedonism and how wonderful it is. However, he's never actually defined what it means.
How can he argue for something he's never defined? There is widespread agreement in asking that question, but there is great disagreement in answering it. If you're the type who dares to think for yourself, then you've probably already determined that I feel no more personal hatred for him than I might feel for a herd of wild animals or a cluster of poisonous reptiles.
One does not hate those whose souls can exude no spiritual warmth; one pities them. Hamer needs to open up to the world around him. History offers innumerable examples for the truth of this assertion.
We don't have to stand for this! Too many emotions to count raced through my mind when I first realized that I have one itsy-bitsy problem with Hamer's zingers. Videlicet, they abandon me on a desert island.
And that's saying nothing about how I normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind Hamer that his attempts to wage an odd sort of warfare upon a largely unprepared and unrecognizing public are much worse than mere propagandism. They are hurtful, malicious, criminal behavior and deserve nothing less than our collective condemnation.
Maybe you, too, want to put political correctness ahead of scientific rigor, so let me warn you: There may be nothing we can do to prevent Hamer from making good on his word to confuse the catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian government in our minds.
When we compare this disturbing conclusion to the comforting picture purveyed by his secret police, we experience psychological stress or "cognitive dissonance". Our only recourse is to make an impartial and well-informed evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of Hamer's wisecracks.
That is about the short of it as I see it.
73
Jeff
No offence Shockwav but I have NO freaking clue what you just said and I read it twice......Any chance of getting that in english??
Buck i couldnt even pronounce some of the words he even typed. And i stopped reading after the 2nd Paragraph! Ok lets just cut to the chase. Hammer quiet because he didnt want to be a Admin anymore. Ha, See i explained it in one sentance 
Hell Yeah
