why apple COMPUTERS sucks

[Grunt Issun]

Ok im goign to show you this letter about why apple sux

 

(all in one breath)

This is a letter I have planned on writing for some time, a letter that I claim is extremely important and one that clearly must be heeded if we are to undo the damage caused by Apple. With this letter, I hope to review the basic issues at the root of the debate. But first, I would like to make the following introductory remark: Apple's theatrics are as predictable as sunrise. Whenever I punish Apple for its obdurate publications, its invariant response is to make it nearly impossible to disturb its loathsome gravy train. When I say that I still wish briefly to take a position on the question as to what extent Apple's criticisms use a philosophical device of asking one question, answering a thoroughly different question, and then applying that answer to the original question, I don't just mean that it wants to destroy the values, methods, and goals of traditional humanistic study, that it wants to rewrite history to reflect or magnify an imaginary "victimhood", or that it wants to force me to run for cover. Sure, Apple undoubtedly wants all that but it also wants much more. It wants to stifle the voices of those who are simply seeking to be heard.

 

We ought to cast a ray of light on Apple's careless manuscripts. That'll make Apple think once—I would have said "twice" but I don't see any indication that it has previously given any thought to the matter—before trying to replace discourse and open dialogue with predatory rejoinders and blatant ugliness. I can easily see Apple performing the following brutish acts. First, it will sharpen intergroup tensions. Then, it will create an ideological climate that will enable it to agitate for indoctrination programs in local schools. I do not profess to know how likely is the eventuality I have outlined, but it is a distinct possibility to be kept in mind.

 

Daily, the truth is being impressed upon us that I once overheard Apple say something quite astonishing. Are you strapped in? Apple said that it has its moral compass in tact. Can you believe that? At least its statement made me realize that I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I avouch that there is because if revanchism were an Olympic sport, it would clinch the gold medal.

 

Apple believes that it is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative. The real damage that this belief causes actually has nothing to do with the belief itself but with psychology, human nature, and the skillful psychological manipulation of that nature by Apple and its crude patsies. I thought it couldn't be done, but, once again, Apple's hastily mounted campaigns have sunk to a new low. Apple has been repeating its lies so often and so loudly that they're beginning to drown out the truth. That said, let me continue. When all is said and done, Apple's favorite tactic is known as "deceiving with the truth". The idea behind this tactic is that it wins our trust by revealing the truth but leaving some of it out. This makes us less likely to make this world a kinder, gentler place.

 

It's my hunch that Apple's memoirs are a masterpiece of prodigal oligarchism. (Yes, Apple clings to any argument or principle, however rancorous or verbally incontinent, that appears to support its half-measures, but that's an entirely different story.) You may be picking up on something here in all of my responses to Apple's arrogant threats. All of my responses presume that Apple says it is within its legal right to enslave us, suppress our freedom, regiment our lives, confiscate our property, and dictate our values. Whether or not it indeed has such a right, it's possible that anyone who believes that cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior is kidding himself. However, I cannot speculate about that possibility here because I need to devote more space to a description of how Apple's demands are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that Apple has been robbed of all it does not possess and they promote the mistaken idea that the media should "create" news rather than report it.

 

I don't know when barbarism became chic, but Apple looks primarily at a person's superficial qualities such as physiognomy and mannerisms. I, in contrast, consider how likely a person is to remove the misunderstanding that Apple has created in the minds of myriad people throughout the world. That's what's important to me. Either way, there is something grievously wrong with those ostentatious, grotty racketeers who create a regime of conniving insurrectionism. Shame on the lot of them!

 

Furthermore, Apple really believes that individual worth is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. Unfortunately for it, that's all in its imagination. Apple needs to get out of that fictional world and get back to reality, where people can see that if we briefly prescind from the main point of this letter we can focus on how you should check out some of the things Apple is saying about nonrepresentationalism. The litany of inaccuracies, half-truths, made-up "facts", and downright falsehoods will shock you. And I won't even bother mentioning that I wonder if Apple really believes the things it says. It knows they're not true, doesn't it? Whenever that question is asked, Apple and its goombahs run and hide. I suspect that that's precisely what they're going to do now so as to avoid hearing me say that Apple's most progressive idea is to prostrate the honor, power, independence, laws, and property of entire countries. If that sounds progressive to you, you must be facing the wrong way.

 

Apple is the type of organization that turns up its nose at people like you and me. I guess that's because we haven't the faintest notion about the things that really matter such as why it would be good for it to panic irrationally and overreact completely. Apple may be reasonably cunning with words. However, it is entirely fatuitous with everything else. It's petty for Apple to blend together alarmism and denominationalism in a train wreck of monumental proportions. Or perhaps I should say, it's self-serving. Apple's practices are simply the result of vested interests striking back at a group whose actions in support of religious freedom, social reform, and government accountability have cut through those vested interests. But let's not lose perspective. Apple's heinous anecdotes eviscerate freedom of speech and sexual privacy rights. Apple then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one.

 

Look at it from my point of view: At no time in the past did detestable parvenus shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them. I have frequently criticized Apple's unspoken plan to encourage individuals to disregard other people, to become fully self-absorbed. It usually addresses my criticisms by accusing me of ruffianism, propagandism, child molestation, and halitosis. Apple hopes that by delegitimizing me this way, no one will listen to me when I say that before Apple initiated a blackguardism flap to help promote its dysfunctional, hypocritical beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments), people everywhere were expected to provide a positive, confident, and assertive vision of humanity's future and our role in it. Nowadays, it's the rare person indeed who realizes that as soon as Apple found the resources to do so it lost no time in laying waste to the environment. The inevitable followed: Stolid sensualists started to plunge us into the dark abyss of annihilation. The scariest part of all of this is that Apple does not merely lay waste to the environment. It does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically.

 

Apple's idea of power-drunk, pertinacious emotionalism is no political belief. It is a fierce and burning gospel of hatred and intolerance, of murder and destruction, and the unloosing of an ornery blood-lust. It is, in every literal sense, an infernal and pagan religion that incites its worshippers to a pestiferous frenzy and then prompts them to pilfer the national treasure. Think about this: Apple's band has found a rallying cry for its upcoming battle against our most treasured liberties. That rallying cry is, "Apple is a protective bulwark against the advancing tyranny of blockish, confused pickpockets!" It's quotes like that that make me realize that if a cogent, logical argument entered Apple's brain, no doubt a concussion would result. For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, I must say that Apple prizes wealth and celebrity over and above decent morals and sound judgment. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that Man's eternal search for Truth is a challenge to be avoided at all costs, then there is decidedly no hope for you. Okay, I've vented enough frustration. So let me end by saying that Apple's ploys are hypersensitive to the core.

 

so yeah...apple sux

[Twig]

tl;dr

 

You're right. I like mangoes more

[Rusty Shovel]

Not gonna read it. Sorry, someone want to summarize it for me?

[Home Slice]

Too lazy to read.

[~Marluxia~]

Go Mango

[Eury]

Mangos >>>>> Apples.

[Grunt Issun]

summarize? ok

 

By now everyone should have heard about Apple and its biased deeds. In case you haven't heard or have even forgotten, allow me to refresh your memory. The full truth of my conclusion I shall develop in the course of this letter but the conclusion's general outline is that Apple spouts the same bile in everything it writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue it's excited about this week is philistinism, which says to me that I want nothing more—or less—than to take the mechanisms, language, ideology, and phraseology for determining what is right and what is wrong out of the hands of Apple and its surrogates and put them back in the hands of ordinary people. To that task I have consecrated my life and I invite you to do likewise.

 

The problem is, I admit I have a tendency to become a bit insensitive whenever I rebuke Apple for trying to welsh on all types of agreements. While I am desirous of mending this tiny personality flaw, if I thought that Apple's expostulations had even a snowball's chance in Hell of doing anything good for anyone, then I wouldn't be so critical. As they stand, however, I can conclude only that society must soon decide either to test the assumptions that underlie Apple's overgeneralizations or else to let Apple deny us the opportunity to restore the ancient traditions that it has abandoned. The decision is one of life or death, peaceful existence or perpetual social fever. I can hope only that those in charge realize that wherever scary tin-pot tyrants are seen forcing me to live lower than dirt, Apple is there. Wherever damnable so-called experts are found giving rise to the most passive-aggressive swaggerers you'll ever see, Apple is lurking nearby. Wherever sinful disinformation artists are observed challenging all I stand for, Apple will no doubt be in the vicinity. I defy any coincidence theorist to try to explain away those observations. Clearly, we are a nation of prostitutes. By this I mean that as long as we are fat, warm, and dry we don't care what Apple does. It is precisely that lack of caring that explains why I'm willing to accept that Bulverism is a growing threat to society and should be outlawed. I'm even willing to accept that its randy excuses are an affront to every concept of freedom that our men and women in uniform have sacrificed so much to protect. But its attendants' thinking is fenced in by many constraints. Their minds are not free because they dare not be. I challenge you to ponder this subject with the broadest vision possible.

[wolfman505]

Now and forever apple sucks no matter what.

[Yankee]

I see computer, I use computer.

Idc if it's Apple, Microsoft, or your mothers.

[Lyfe.]

Cool story bro.

 

why ~Wynn~ YCMEMBER sucks

 

 

 

I'ma make this clear.

 

(all in one breath)

~Wynn~ tries to express his anger through a stupid thread that makes absolutely no sense and serves no purpose. All the members of YCM could have gone their whole life without ~Wynn~'s ramblings like a douche.

 

Alkndlksnfds jdsj lkfjd.ksjflkdsjglksl sglksjgls;j lkgfdgk ngkjfdhskjghfdklghdkjhk k gahgk ghdkj hgulkgjjasjghlk ak;jghklnjk lkg rjakh glkhakjgj lk;ahgj akl;hglkajkjhglk;j akghflka hgkl rjalkghkla jkhrlkahgfi;ajg ahkgj aklh kahlgk rja;hgk;ah gjkdanijghdakjgn riagkmag ioalkg haighrlkg haighk;jdafhglka jrgkna klrg hakjglkadhfgkadngkjabdk ghrabglk rahgk;ankljrgh akj;srhg ;iak hgk;adfh gk;jadhfkgahdl gkad

 

bsag hkjsah gkljsahkjh fkjahgkjf dahkjgfh daghfk jdahgkjfdh ai ghfdkahg iruahgiurhgjkbrepig rekj;ghreiu hgkj;aerh giuad bgreaiuh gkea gihakh.fjknkfkkkikbggkfa gkjr giurhaskjlgr haiug rlu gtakjhgriueabgr abg jkra hiug rbeaghriua hgrIUhbg rjlah gkjrahgirueah giruahkjgradh kjg rhdaiughrdkjabgkjrdabg k;jfdah giurshabkjgr ghaugkrhabig rhsakjfgh eriuahg krej;ay grjkaeh giuSHg iuaerhbgiurbag 8rehq kjgrbydkjg riualhg kljradhgiu rkdbhagrhda hgirh aipu grhaei greA

 

hiorh ipgrheak ghrpiueahgiu re haiugh rpeiahg iprea hgpi reahpigurehapiug rhepaiug rpieua gfrpiua gfepiuwa giprueahgipureahgipureah ipugreah piogr paigjr[aj prgoiuahrgpiuahdr gpiuagh riuaghljag jlhrdab girhsbalkugr apiugrh eauig lraekgh re g.

 

And that is why ~Wynn~ sucks.

 

[Grunt Issun]

you make me sad

 

it was a rant generator that made this rant

[Lyfe.]

you make me sad

Don't worry ma'am. I'm a professional.

 

it was a rant generator that made this rant

That you decided to post without giving credit. Interesting...

[Lonk]

I dislike rant generators. WiiOmi used one yesterday, but it was so dull and persistent in very humid wording.

[Jacoby746]

summarize? ok

 

By now everyone should have heard about Apple and its biased deeds. In case you haven't heard or have even forgotten' date=' allow me to refresh your memory. The full truth of my conclusion I shall develop in the course of this letter but the conclusion's general outline is that Apple spouts the same bile in everything it writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue it's excited about this week is philistinism, which says to me that I want nothing more—or less—than to take the mechanisms, language, ideology, and phraseology for determining what is right and what is wrong out of the hands of Apple and its surrogates and put them back in the hands of ordinary people. To that task I have consecrated my life and I invite you to do likewise.

 

The problem is, I admit I have a tendency to become a bit insensitive whenever I rebuke Apple for trying to welsh on all types of agreements. While I am desirous of mending this tiny personality flaw, if I thought that Apple's expostulations had even a snowball's chance in Hell of doing anything good for anyone, then I wouldn't be so critical. As they stand, however, I can conclude only that society must soon decide either to test the assumptions that underlie Apple's overgeneralizations or else to let Apple deny us the opportunity to restore the ancient traditions that it has abandoned. The decision is one of life or death, peaceful existence or perpetual social fever. I can hope only that those in charge realize that wherever scary tin-pot tyrants are seen forcing me to live lower than dirt, Apple is there. Wherever damnable so-called experts are found giving rise to the most passive-aggressive swaggerers you'll ever see, Apple is lurking nearby. Wherever sinful disinformation artists are observed challenging all I stand for, Apple will no doubt be in the vicinity. I defy any coincidence theorist to try to explain away those observations. Clearly, we are a nation of prostitutes. By this I mean that as long as we are fat, warm, and dry we don't care what Apple does. It is precisely that lack of caring that explains why I'm willing to accept that Bulverism is a growing threat to society and should be outlawed. I'm even willing to accept that its randy excuses are an affront to every concept of freedom that our men and women in uniform have sacrificed so much to protect. But its attendants' thinking is fenced in by many constraints. Their minds are not free because they dare not be. I challenge you to ponder this subject with the broadest vision possible.

[/quote']

 

Still to lazy to read.

[Clair]

[align=center]

[spoiler=In which Wynn tries to be cool by following a long post fad.]

Ok im goign to show you this letter about why apple sux

 

(all in one breath)

This is a letter I have planned on writing for some time' date=' a letter that I claim is extremely important and one that clearly must be heeded if we are to undo the damage caused by Apple. With this letter, I hope to review the basic issues at the root of the debate. But first, I would like to make the following introductory remark: Apple's theatrics are as predictable as sunrise. Whenever I punish Apple for its obdurate publications, its invariant response is to make it nearly impossible to disturb its loathsome gravy train. When I say that I still wish briefly to take a position on the question as to what extent Apple's criticisms use a philosophical device of asking one question, answering a thoroughly different question, and then applying that answer to the original question, I don't just mean that it wants to destroy the values, methods, and goals of traditional humanistic study, that it wants to rewrite history to reflect or magnify an imaginary "victimhood", or that it wants to force me to run for cover. Sure, Apple undoubtedly wants all that but it also wants much more. It wants to stifle the voices of those who are simply seeking to be heard.

 

We ought to cast a ray of light on Apple's careless manuscripts. That'll make Apple think once—I would have said "twice" but I don't see any indication that it has previously given any thought to the matter—before trying to replace discourse and open dialogue with predatory rejoinders and blatant ugliness. I can easily see Apple performing the following brutish acts. First, it will sharpen intergroup tensions. Then, it will create an ideological climate that will enable it to agitate for indoctrination programs in local schools. I do not profess to know how likely is the eventuality I have outlined, but it is a distinct possibility to be kept in mind.

 

Daily, the truth is being impressed upon us that I once overheard Apple say something quite astonishing. Are you strapped in? Apple said that it has its moral compass in tact. Can you believe that? At least its statement made me realize that I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I avouch that there is because if revanchism were an Olympic sport, it would clinch the gold medal.

 

Apple believes that it is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative. The real damage that this belief causes actually has nothing to do with the belief itself but with psychology, human nature, and the skillful psychological manipulation of that nature by Apple and its crude patsies. I thought it couldn't be done, but, once again, Apple's hastily mounted campaigns have sunk to a new low. Apple has been repeating its lies so often and so loudly that they're beginning to drown out the truth. That said, let me continue. When all is said and done, Apple's favorite tactic is known as "deceiving with the truth". The idea behind this tactic is that it wins our trust by revealing the truth but leaving some of it out. This makes us less likely to make this world a kinder, gentler place.

 

It's my hunch that Apple's memoirs are a masterpiece of prodigal oligarchism. (Yes, Apple clings to any argument or principle, however rancorous or verbally incontinent, that appears to support its half-measures, but that's an entirely different story.) You may be picking up on something here in all of my responses to Apple's arrogant threats. All of my responses presume that Apple says it is within its legal right to enslave us, suppress our freedom, regiment our lives, confiscate our property, and dictate our values. Whether or not it indeed has such a right, it's possible that anyone who believes that cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior is kidding himself. However, I cannot speculate about that possibility here because I need to devote more space to a description of how Apple's demands are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that Apple has been robbed of all it does not possess and they promote the mistaken idea that the media should "create" news rather than report it.

 

I don't know when barbarism became chic, but Apple looks primarily at a person's superficial qualities such as physiognomy and mannerisms. I, in contrast, consider how likely a person is to remove the misunderstanding that Apple has created in the minds of myriad people throughout the world. That's what's important to me. Either way, there is something grievously wrong with those ostentatious, grotty racketeers who create a regime of conniving insurrectionism. Shame on the lot of them!

 

Furthermore, Apple really believes that individual worth is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. Unfortunately for it, that's all in its imagination. Apple needs to get out of that fictional world and get back to reality, where people can see that if we briefly prescind from the main point of this letter we can focus on how you should check out some of the things Apple is saying about nonrepresentationalism. The litany of inaccuracies, half-truths, made-up "facts", and downright falsehoods will shock you. And I won't even bother mentioning that I wonder if Apple really believes the things it says. It knows they're not true, doesn't it? Whenever that question is asked, Apple and its goombahs run and hide. I suspect that that's precisely what they're going to do now so as to avoid hearing me say that Apple's most progressive idea is to prostrate the honor, power, independence, laws, and property of entire countries. If that sounds progressive to you, you must be facing the wrong way.

 

Apple is the type of organization that turns up its nose at people like you and me. I guess that's because we haven't the faintest notion about the things that really matter such as why it would be good for it to panic irrationally and overreact completely. Apple may be reasonably cunning with words. However, it is entirely fatuitous with everything else. It's petty for Apple to blend together alarmism and denominationalism in a train wreck of monumental proportions. Or perhaps I should say, it's self-serving. Apple's practices are simply the result of vested interests striking back at a group whose actions in support of religious freedom, social reform, and government accountability have cut through those vested interests. But let's not lose perspective. Apple's heinous anecdotes eviscerate freedom of speech and sexual privacy rights. Apple then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one.

 

Look at it from my point of view: At no time in the past did detestable parvenus shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them. I have frequently criticized Apple's unspoken plan to encourage individuals to disregard other people, to become fully self-absorbed. It usually addresses my criticisms by accusing me of ruffianism, propagandism, child molestation, and halitosis. Apple hopes that by delegitimizing me this way, no one will listen to me when I say that before Apple initiated a blackguardism flap to help promote its dysfunctional, hypocritical beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments), people everywhere were expected to provide a positive, confident, and assertive vision of humanity's future and our role in it. Nowadays, it's the rare person indeed who realizes that as soon as Apple found the resources to do so it lost no time in laying waste to the environment. The inevitable followed: Stolid sensualists started to plunge us into the dark abyss of annihilation. The scariest part of all of this is that Apple does not merely lay waste to the environment. It does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically.

 

Apple's idea of power-drunk, pertinacious emotionalism is no political belief. It is a fierce and burning gospel of hatred and intolerance, of murder and destruction, and the unloosing of an ornery blood-lust. It is, in every literal sense, an infernal and pagan religion that incites its worshippers to a pestiferous frenzy and then prompts them to pilfer the national treasure. Think about this: Apple's band has found a rallying cry for its upcoming battle against our most treasured liberties. That rallying cry is, "Apple is a protective bulwark against the advancing tyranny of blockish, confused pickpockets!" It's quotes like that that make me realize that if a cogent, logical argument entered Apple's brain, no doubt a concussion would result. For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, I must say that Apple prizes wealth and celebrity over and above decent morals and sound judgment. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that Man's eternal search for Truth is a challenge to be avoided at all costs, then there is decidedly no hope for you. Okay, I've vented enough frustration. So let me end by saying that Apple's ploys are hypersensitive to the core.

 

so yeah...apple sux

[/quote']

 

 

 

 

[/align]

 

Pineapple > Apple

[Lyfe.]

[align=center]

[spoiler=In which Wynn tries to be cool by following a long post fad.]

Ok im goign to show you this letter about why apple sux

 

(all in one breath)

This is a letter I have planned on writing for some time' date=' a letter that I claim is extremely important and one that clearly must be heeded if we are to undo the damage caused by Apple. With this letter, I hope to review the basic issues at the root of the debate. But first, I would like to make the following introductory remark: Apple's theatrics are as predictable as sunrise. Whenever I punish Apple for its obdurate publications, its invariant response is to make it nearly impossible to disturb its loathsome gravy train. When I say that I still wish briefly to take a position on the question as to what extent Apple's criticisms use a philosophical device of asking one question, answering a thoroughly different question, and then applying that answer to the original question, I don't just mean that it wants to destroy the values, methods, and goals of traditional humanistic study, that it wants to rewrite history to reflect or magnify an imaginary "victimhood", or that it wants to force me to run for cover. Sure, Apple undoubtedly wants all that but it also wants much more. It wants to stifle the voices of those who are simply seeking to be heard.

 

We ought to cast a ray of light on Apple's careless manuscripts. That'll make Apple think once—I would have said "twice" but I don't see any indication that it has previously given any thought to the matter—before trying to replace discourse and open dialogue with predatory rejoinders and blatant ugliness. I can easily see Apple performing the following brutish acts. First, it will sharpen intergroup tensions. Then, it will create an ideological climate that will enable it to agitate for indoctrination programs in local schools. I do not profess to know how likely is the eventuality I have outlined, but it is a distinct possibility to be kept in mind.

 

Daily, the truth is being impressed upon us that I once overheard Apple say something quite astonishing. Are you strapped in? Apple said that it has its moral compass in tact. Can you believe that? At least its statement made me realize that I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I avouch that there is because if revanchism were an Olympic sport, it would clinch the gold medal.

 

Apple believes that it is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative. The real damage that this belief causes actually has nothing to do with the belief itself but with psychology, human nature, and the skillful psychological manipulation of that nature by Apple and its crude patsies. I thought it couldn't be done, but, once again, Apple's hastily mounted campaigns have sunk to a new low. Apple has been repeating its lies so often and so loudly that they're beginning to drown out the truth. That said, let me continue. When all is said and done, Apple's favorite tactic is known as "deceiving with the truth". The idea behind this tactic is that it wins our trust by revealing the truth but leaving some of it out. This makes us less likely to make this world a kinder, gentler place.

 

It's my hunch that Apple's memoirs are a masterpiece of prodigal oligarchism. (Yes, Apple clings to any argument or principle, however rancorous or verbally incontinent, that appears to support its half-measures, but that's an entirely different story.) You may be picking up on something here in all of my responses to Apple's arrogant threats. All of my responses presume that Apple says it is within its legal right to enslave us, suppress our freedom, regiment our lives, confiscate our property, and dictate our values. Whether or not it indeed has such a right, it's possible that anyone who believes that cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior is kidding himself. However, I cannot speculate about that possibility here because I need to devote more space to a description of how Apple's demands are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that Apple has been robbed of all it does not possess and they promote the mistaken idea that the media should "create" news rather than report it.

 

I don't know when barbarism became chic, but Apple looks primarily at a person's superficial qualities such as physiognomy and mannerisms. I, in contrast, consider how likely a person is to remove the misunderstanding that Apple has created in the minds of myriad people throughout the world. That's what's important to me. Either way, there is something grievously wrong with those ostentatious, grotty racketeers who create a regime of conniving insurrectionism. Shame on the lot of them!

 

Furthermore, Apple really believes that individual worth is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. Unfortunately for it, that's all in its imagination. Apple needs to get out of that fictional world and get back to reality, where people can see that if we briefly prescind from the main point of this letter we can focus on how you should check out some of the things Apple is saying about nonrepresentationalism. The litany of inaccuracies, half-truths, made-up "facts", and downright falsehoods will shock you. And I won't even bother mentioning that I wonder if Apple really believes the things it says. It knows they're not true, doesn't it? Whenever that question is asked, Apple and its goombahs run and hide. I suspect that that's precisely what they're going to do now so as to avoid hearing me say that Apple's most progressive idea is to prostrate the honor, power, independence, laws, and property of entire countries. If that sounds progressive to you, you must be facing the wrong way.

 

Apple is the type of organization that turns up its nose at people like you and me. I guess that's because we haven't the faintest notion about the things that really matter such as why it would be good for it to panic irrationally and overreact completely. Apple may be reasonably cunning with words. However, it is entirely fatuitous with everything else. It's petty for Apple to blend together alarmism and denominationalism in a train wreck of monumental proportions. Or perhaps I should say, it's self-serving. Apple's practices are simply the result of vested interests striking back at a group whose actions in support of religious freedom, social reform, and government accountability have cut through those vested interests. But let's not lose perspective. Apple's heinous anecdotes eviscerate freedom of speech and sexual privacy rights. Apple then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one.

 

Look at it from my point of view: At no time in the past did detestable parvenus shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them. I have frequently criticized Apple's unspoken plan to encourage individuals to disregard other people, to become fully self-absorbed. It usually addresses my criticisms by accusing me of ruffianism, propagandism, child molestation, and halitosis. Apple hopes that by delegitimizing me this way, no one will listen to me when I say that before Apple initiated a blackguardism flap to help promote its dysfunctional, hypocritical beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments), people everywhere were expected to provide a positive, confident, and assertive vision of humanity's future and our role in it. Nowadays, it's the rare person indeed who realizes that as soon as Apple found the resources to do so it lost no time in laying waste to the environment. The inevitable followed: Stolid sensualists started to plunge us into the dark abyss of annihilation. The scariest part of all of this is that Apple does not merely lay waste to the environment. It does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically.

 

Apple's idea of power-drunk, pertinacious emotionalism is no political belief. It is a fierce and burning gospel of hatred and intolerance, of murder and destruction, and the unloosing of an ornery blood-lust. It is, in every literal sense, an infernal and pagan religion that incites its worshippers to a pestiferous frenzy and then prompts them to pilfer the national treasure. Think about this: Apple's band has found a rallying cry for its upcoming battle against our most treasured liberties. That rallying cry is, "Apple is a protective bulwark against the advancing tyranny of blockish, confused pickpockets!" It's quotes like that that make me realize that if a cogent, logical argument entered Apple's brain, no doubt a concussion would result. For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, I must say that Apple prizes wealth and celebrity over and above decent morals and sound judgment. If, after hearing facts like that, you still believe that Man's eternal search for Truth is a challenge to be avoided at all costs, then there is decidedly no hope for you. Okay, I've vented enough frustration. So let me end by saying that Apple's ploys are hypersensitive to the core.

 

so yeah...apple sux

[/quote']

 

 

 

 

[/align]

 

Pineapple > Apple

 

There's a fuking reindeer.

[venmon]

i greatly dislike the apple os and computers and steve jobs and all but the ipod touch is sweet, like i thought i would hate it and my parents bought it for me and only recently can i have the ability to put it down

[Scyire]

Ipod Touch =/= Computer

[Rusty Shovel]

I still like them.

 

And I still dislike rant generators.

[Tentacruel]

I'm too lazy to read so I'm gonna summarize it for all of us.

READ THIS

YOU CAN'T HAXX APPLE BUT YOU CAN HAXX PC!

[Azmodius]

I'm too lazy to read so I'm gonna summarize it for all of us.

READ THIS

YOU CAN'T HAXX APPLE BUT YOU CAN HAXX PC!

 

This.

 

I'd rather have a simplistic easy to use computer than one that can get virus'.

[MarbleZone]

Catterpillars can hax apples. Your argument is invalid.

[Sidepipe]

Catterpillars can hax apples. Your argument is invalid.

 

Touché.

Altho, I think he was talking about the the computers, not the organic apples. ;)

 

And no,

Apple(Fruit) = Apple(Computer)

is invalid.

[MarbleZone]

That post was like a blinding flash of light upon the clouded darkness of my totally unintentional fallacy.

 

I like the word fallacy. It resembles other nice words.

[Pikachu]

'It usually addresses my criticisms by accusing me of ruffianism, propagandism, child molestation, and halitosis.'

 

Man, Apple must REALLY hate you.