Quote:Oh this You just want the exploit tactic is priceless, I mean really, spare me because it is the lamest of all Ollie and Cos excuses not to have the fake exploit tested.
I have never asked for the fucking exploit, only independent verification that it works instead of the word of Ollie and Cos minions, which why I suggested Dropbear do the test, but only after Ollie herself posted how good Dropbears word was and how he could be the last word.
Only then when they saw Ollies big mouth had trapped them into being exposed did Rubbins start to try and smear Dropbear, Ollies own endorsement conveniently forgotten.
But the anyone who has dealt with Dropbear knows that he has more discretion to anyone else on the vault and that he has been keeping exploits and PMing new comers to the vault, advising them to not publicly post exploits or share with untested members since he joined the Vault.
Up until Rubbins saw how fucked they were, no one on the Vault has ever questioned Dropbear or his trustworthiness and exploit knowledge.
Which of course is why Rubbins tried to smear him and why I want him to do the test,
Because Dropbear, who incidentally was leaning Ollies way initially, would tell the truth when he found out the shard exploit was bullshit.
Since then Ollie and the other Bullshiteers have tried to distract in anyway they can including this whole lame, oh you just want our exploit excuse.
The problem with this excuse is that not only do I not want or need your fake exploit boys, Dropbear wouldnt give it to me anyway, because he is trustworthy, and he is more then a little pissed with me for dragging him into this after Ollie brought his name up.
SO? JUST MORE OLLIE AND COS BULLSHIT DESPERATION TO PREVENT THEIR FAKE EXPLOIT FROM BEING EXPOSED.
There are some comments I need to make regarding Barcelot. What follows is the story of how Barcelot can be so rich in the rhetoric of democracy and yet so poor in its implementation. He keeps saying that people are pawns to be used and manipulated. I suggest taking such statements with a grain of salt because he was a deplorable bureaucrat when I first encountered him. He's a deplorable bureaucrat now. And there is no more reason for believing that he will ever cease to be a deplorable bureaucrat than there is for supposing that Barcelot can walk on water. All of these things are related: alarmism, Barcelot's smears, and the general breakdown of our society. I'll even tell you how they're related. It's really very simple. In essence, we have much to fear from Barcelot. Personally, I'm afraid that as soon as our backs are turned, he'll impale us on a Morton's Fork: Either we let him degrade, divide, and destroy our nation, or he'll champion censorship in the name of free speech, intolerance in the name of tolerance, and oppression in the name of freedom. Regardless of which we choose, when people see scary fogeys behaving like scary fogeys they begin to realize that Barcelot's goal is to force square pegs into round holes. This is abject warlordism!
Barcelot is extremely inane. In fact, my Inane-O-Meter confirms that Barcelot swears that his coterie is looking out for our best interests. Clearly, he's living in a world of make-believe, with flowers and bells and leprechauns and magic frogs with funny little hats. Back in the real world, Barcelot is secretly planning to prey on people's fear of political and economic instability. I realize that that may sound rather conspiratorial and far-fetched to most people, which is why you need to understand that Barcelot's sophistries are a crazy-quilt patchwork of the most stingy kinds of caciquism you'll ever see. Have you noticed that that hasn't been covered at all by the mainstream media? Maybe they're afraid that Barcelot will retaliate by interfering with my efforts to discuss the programmatic foundations of his sleazy, unprincipled intimations in detail. Barcelot recently made the astonishing claim that the government's policies should be at odds with the will of the people. Stripped of all its hyperbole, this statement is really just saying that Barcelot claims that he holds a universal license that allows him to progressively enlarge and increasingly centralize the means of oppression, exploitation, violence, and destruction. I would say that that claim is 70% folderol, 20% twaddle, and 10% another uncongenial attempt to make the pot of Bonapartism overboil and scald the whole world.
Barcelot insists that only one or two members of his entire imperium are rapacious bludgers. Only one or two members? This is, to put it charitably, an understatement of the facts. It would be far more accurate to say that Barcelot's mind has limited horizons. It is confined to the immediate and simplistic, with the inevitable consequence that everything is made banal and basic and is then leveled down until it is deprived of all spiritual life. If it were up to him, his castigators would have to endure forced, behavior-modification therapy. That's just another shovel of dirt thrown on the grave of free speech and another reason why we must take stock of what we know, identify areas for further research, and provide a useful starting point for debate on Barcelot's rancorous, nit-picky theories. Barcelot insists that he is a champion of liberty and individual expression. Naturally, he gives no evidence whatsoever to support that parti pris. Perhaps that's because I have never read anything Barcelot has written that I would consider wise, logical, pertinent, reasonable, or scientific. His statement that his vices are the only true virtues is no exception. What's more, if he would, just once, demonstrate real and genuine concern for others, Barcelot might begin to realize that his desire to rally for a cause that is completely void of moral, ethical, or legal validity is the chief sign that he's a negligent ditz. (The second sign is that Barcelot feels obliged to provoke terrible, total, universal, and merciless destruction.)
Barcelot's commentaries are thoroughly meaningless. That is, they usually begin by saying something about how Barcelot is above everyone else, and then they continue on with a random assortment of tacked-on phrases until they finally slam into a period. Barcelot's commentaries would be a lot clearer if Barcelot simply came out and said that he maintains that either it is not only acceptable but indeed desirable to advocate oligophrenic off-the-cuff comments or that he serves as wisdom to the mighty and succor to the brave. Barcelot denies any other possibility. He has written more than his fair share of lengthy, over-worded, pseudo-intellectual tripe. In all such instances Barcelot conveniently overlooks the fact that I suggest that we ask him to rephrase his criticisms in a more reasoned way. This right and truthful proposition, practically established, will help us shatter the illusion that we should derive moral guidance from Barcelot's glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented op-ed pieces.
Wherever sappy, detestable rotten-types are seen distorting and trivializing the debate surrounding interdenominationalism, Barcelot is there. Wherever pretentious survivalists are found leading an active disinformation campaign, Barcelot is lurking nearby. Wherever infelicific hell-raisers are observed donning the mantel of hedonism and repeating the mistakes of the past, Barcelot will no doubt be in the vicinity. I defy any coincidence theorist to try to explain away those observations. Clearly, Barcelot presents one face to the public, a face that tells people what they want to hear. Then, in private, he devises new schemes to assail all that is holy.
Barcelot's current aspiration is to elevate the most shambolic cheapjacks you'll ever see to the sublime. I'd call that the most sadistic idea in Barcelot's long history of sadistic ideas. It's the sort of idea that draws attention to how groupthink and mob behavior are common within his camorra. Hence, it isn't unusual for one who commits heresy against Barcelot's established dogma to be exiled from the community. The sad part is that these outcasts still refuse to believe that Barcelot is an opportunist. That is, he is an ideological chameleon without any real morality, without a soul.
Barcelot says that matters of racial justice should enter a period of benign neglect. That's his unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely dangerous and semi-intelligible lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by Barcelot's eulogists.
If it weren't for randy phlyarologists, Barcelot would have no friends. Let's face it: His flunkies tend to fall into the mistaken belief that the cure for evil is more evil, mainly because they live inside a Barcelot-generated illusion world and talk only with each other. His lapdogs remain largely silent when asked about the correlative connecting him to parasitism. The rare times they do deign to comment they invariably skew the issue to prevent people from realizing that we need to keep our eyes on Barcelot. Otherwise, he'll advocate fatalistic acceptance of a sex-crazed new world order before the year is over. If that thought doesn't send chills down your spine then you are dead to the love of freedom. The rest of us are concerned that Barcelot is not just illaudable. He is unbelievably, astronomically illaudable.
Although a thorough discussion of unscrupulous tammanyism is beyond the scope of this letter, the basal lie that underlies all of Barcelot's improvident animadversions is that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding. Translation: Embracing a system of demagogism will make everything right with the world. I doubt you need any help from me to identify the supreme idiocy of those views, but you should nevertheless be aware that if Barcelot's drugged-out gibes became more widespread, it would spell the ruination of this country. By provoking his opponents to irrational rage, Barcelot makes them look like the worst types of mean-spirited, deranged nupsons there are. Let me express that same thought in slightly different terms: I indubitably feel that Barcelot has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. He obviously has none or he wouldn't pull the levers of cannibalism and oil the gears of lexiphanicism.
Ignoring the problem of Titoism will not make it go away, as evidenced by the way that Barcelot has been making a ham-handed effort to show that exclusivism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. I'm guessing that most people are starting to realize that such claims are a distortion of the truth and that we desperately need to combat these lies by attacking Barcelot's malice and hypocrisy. He likes to imply that it's okay if his teachings initially cause our quality of life to degrade because sometime, someone will do something somehow to counteract that trend. This is what his prophecies amount to, although, of course, they're daubed over with the viscid slobber of homophobic drivel devised by his tuft-hunters and mindlessly multiplied by imperious tatterdemalions. Although I agree with those who believe that justice and humanity are utterly on our side and nothing but illegality and barbarity are on Barcelot's, nevertheless, I cannot agree with the subject matter and attitude that is woven into every one of Barcelot's mendacious practices. I would like to close by saying that I know how most of you feel.
Pages: 
HOW SCARED IT OLLIE AND CO? (Read 11373 times)
