WARNING! Gale Force Winds Off The Coast Of Von Luebbert!

Articles

WARNING! Gale Force Winds Off The Coast Of Von Luebbert!

By Ron Lewis
Aug. 26, 2005

Mr. Von Luebbert, in the short history of my Windbag of the Week awards, you are the first to make an acceptance speech – and what a speech! If I had awarded you as Clumsiest Contributor of the Week, I have no doubt you would have tripped on your way to the podium.

Do you not even have a clue to what a WINDBAG you are? Please, take your article, “Foot in Mouth Award…Essay”, or the one that so fittingly appeared directly above my announcement of your Award, “Perspective,…Reasoning”, and read it aloud to a child or dog - or how about that high school English class you mention? Or any average schmuck walking down the street. Expect to lose the child’s attention before the end of your first paragraph, the dog to start licking himself, the teens to dis you like a dork, and the average person to agree with me that you are a WINDBAG. (I’m laughing as I visualize you typing “ad populum, ad populum” with a manic, wild-eyed _expression – oops, now you’re typing “ad hominem, ad hominem”. What a riot!)

Do you find yourself alone at cocktail parties? Do you even get invited? Do conversing friends turn apprehensively silent when you approach? If so, I would suggest it is because you are a WINDBAG. Bore them once, shame on you, bore them twice, shame on them.

Yes, while I did disagree with the points of your article (more in a moment), the primary intent of my Award was to point out what a WINDBAG you are. However in fairness, noting your fluency in Latin (language of WINDBAGS) and Northern European surname, I should allow for the possibility that English is your second (or third, whatever) language and confirm your understanding of our slang term ‘windbag.’ Here is the online definition I found:

The flexible air-filled chamber of a bagpipe or similar instrument. Slang. A talkative person who communicates nothing of substance or interest. So you know, I intended to describe you as definition 2 and I believe its overall tone is apt. However, I might be convinced to grant that your articles have ‘substance’, if I could finish one – I keep skipping past long passages in boredom when there could have been some substance buried in the bloat.

Before I discuss your “analysis for logic” of my post, please help me out, Oh Wondrous Font of All Things Latin, what is the ad nauseum term for a person who evades criticism with an off-handed statement such as yours, “Aware that disputation with a guy like Ron is pointless, I….”? We have another slang term that conveys the concept - “chicken (poop).” With that quibbling comment, you dismiss the entirety of my criticism, then commence with the WIND. Who cares whether the logical tactic of my words can be defined in Latin (the essence of the rest of your article) – did you get my point?

If not, maybe I can be more concise: You condemn Mr. O’Reilly for propaganda when he is one of least guilty among popular pundits. And you do it using propaganda yourself. And you do it in fine WINDBAG style.

Was that logic clear enough for you? Was it clear enough that you could be convinced to actually address the charges? For example, apply your little analytical efforts to determine whether Mr. O’Reilly has more or less bias than most journalists (be forewarned that we’ll demand real evidence). Next, address why each of those elements of propaganda I note in your attacking article are not. Finally, and your most challenging task, do it without boring us to death.

(If I might predict: he won’t, the ‘spin nurses’ rarely do.)

In this latest article, you criticize me for several assumptions as to your partisanship in posting the attack (disguised as “academic analysis”, ) on Mr. O’Reilly. I guess that, in your Latin Debate Club meetings, rules forbid examination of one’s motives beyond their actual words in that moment’s sparring. I do not feel bound by such constraints and so, based my assumptions on your other UK articles (4 total, I believe) as well. In “Today We Sent a Mother and Daughter to Combat”, it is pretty obvious which side you support. Not only do you attack Mr. O’Reilly again (now, you want us to think it just happenstance that he was your “topic” again ), but the sophomoric insults of the current Administration (“Bush League”) and anger at the war in Iraq leave no doubt that you are not a Republican or Conservative. In your only other UK post that I recall, “The Truth is People…the Truth”, you exhibit so much hatred for the American government that I’m not sure the Democrats would even want you – and hatred for America is their party platform! Most Americans reading that article would be relieved to know that you did not live next door, or in the dumpster behind their workplace.

No, Mr. Von Leubbert, however ‘illogical’ (my apologies for ignorance of the Latin term) my assumptions may have been for exceeding the bounds of the one article to which I referred, they were accurate. Similarly, if you were to promote the sale of some fantastic hair care product, it would be fair for me to question your credibility if you were bald – even though you may shrewdly wear a hat or wig that day. (oops, I’m sure that broke some rule of logic)

However, continuing in my efforts to ‘practice what I preach’ in my article, “Are You Part of the Problem?”, I will offer a solution to our disagreement. I will accept the truth of your criticism of me – my articles are lacking in proper, Latin-defined, logic as you describe. What was I thinking? If only I had cared enough to try, I could have accomplished that mundane goal!

On the other hand, you can admit the truth of my criticism – you are a WINDBAG. And I will apologize, in advance, for not being able to finish reading your admission.

------------

About the author: Ron Lewis is a software salesman extraordinaire, albeit habitually unemployed, with no significant accomplishments at age 47 other than two wonderfully talented children who take after their mother. All his friends note his keen insight, bad eyesight, doggedly jaded disposition, and rugged bad looks. A third person seems to recall that he talks too much.

Email: grnacres@direcway.com

Tell a friend about this site!

------------

All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED!