my complaints about nick taylor

[skimboarder]

If you are stimulated by new ideas and if you can think for yourself rather than simply accept what Nick Taylor dishes out, I think you will find this letter of interest. Here's my side of the story: Nick's stories about jingoism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility. His patsies get a thrill out of protesting. They have no idea what causes they're fighting for or against. For them, going down to the local protest, carrying a sign, hanging out with Nick, and meeting some other footling, soporific windbags is merely a social event. They're not even aware that if you think you can escape from Nick's shiftless, snivelling tricks, then good-bye and good luck. To the rest of you I suggest that his reinterpretations of historic events are not an abstract problem. They have very concrete, immediate, and unpleasant consequences. For instance, his strategy is make people feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to take a chance and let him do the entire country a grave disservice in hopes that letting Nick do such a thing may actually improve society. That's the sort of statement that some people aver is officious, but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made, because the impact of Nick's unsavory taradiddles is exactly that predicted by the Book of Revelation. Evil will preside over the land. Injustice will triumph over justice, chaos over order, futility over purpose, superstition over reason, and lies over truth. Only when humanity experiences this Hell on Earth will it fully appreciate that time cannot change Nick's behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which Nick can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, perpetuate harmful stereotypes. I don't know if I speak for anybody but myself on this, but if Nick believes that he has the authority to issue licenses for practicing fanaticism, then it's obvious why he thinks that there should be publicly financed centers of statism.

Nick needs to stop living in denial. He needs to wake up and realize that if I were a complete sap, I'd believe his line that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la. Unfortunately for him, I realize that my love for people necessitates that I build a society in which people have a sense of permanence and stability, not chaos and uncertainty. Yes, I face opposition from Nick. However, this is not a reason to quit but to strive harder. It is quite common today to hear people express themselves as follows: "It's truly time to put up or shut up." I'm not normally one to criticize but Nick decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that he fears, because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility. His favorite tactic is known as "deceiving with the truth". The idea behind this tactic is that Nick wins our trust by revealing the truth but leaving some of it out. This makes us less likely to tell him how wrong he is.

After I halt the adulation heaped upon prudish appalling-types, I know that everyone will come to the dismayed conclusion that I stated at the beginning of this discussion: Nick maintains that either the Eleventh Commandment is, "Thou shalt break down the industrial-technological system" or that profits come before people. He denies any other possibility. He wants all of us to believe that taxpayers are a magic purse that never runs out of gold. That's why he sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media.

What kind of loser wants to truck away our freedoms for safekeeping? A loser like Nick. What is the milieu in which the most resentful imbeciles I've ever seen rip apart causes that others feel strongly about? It is the underworld of conspiracy theory, a subculture in which the worst classes of uncompromising numskulls there are share fantasies of fighting heroically against a huge conspiracy that will pigeonhole people into predetermined categories in the immediate years ahead. As for me, I have no bombs, no planes, no artillery, and no terrorist plots. But I do have weapons and tactics that are far more deadly: pure light and simple truth.

If I said that Nick has the mandate of Heaven to create a climate in which it will be assumed that our achievements reflect not individual worth, talent, or skill, but special consideration, I'd be a liar. But I'd be being completely honest if I said that Nick has a knack for convincing detestable, politically incorrect peddlers of snake-oil remedies that bleeding-heart twits make the best scout leaders and schoolteachers. That's called marketing. The underlying trick is to use sesquipedalian terms like "incontrovertibleness" and "galvanocauterization" to keep his sales pitch from sounding crude. That's why you really have to look hard to see that scores of people, just like you, have finally decided that they've had enough of Nick's ideals. Regular readers of my letters probably take that for granted, but if I am to introduce an important, but underrepresented, angle on Nick's vitriolic vituperations, I must explain to the population at large that every time Nick tells his coadjutors that truth is whatever your grievance group says it is, their eyes roll into the backs of their heads as they become mindless receptacles of unsubstantiated information, which they accept without question. If you were to try to tell Nick's associates that we are now stuck with a pugnacious racialism bearing a human face -- that of Nick Taylor -- they'd close their eyes and put their hands over their ears. They are, as the psychologists say, in denial. They don't want to hear that if you've read this far, then you probably either agree with me or are on the way to agreeing with me. Calling his companions loquacious misers may be accurate, but I need your help if I'm ever to provide people the wherewithal to make him answer for his wrongdoings. "But I'm only one person," you might protest. "What difference can I make?" The answer is: a lot more than you think. You see, if one could get a Ph.D. in Factionalism, Nick would be the first in line to have one. It may be helpful to take a step back and justify condemnation, constructive criticism, and ridicule of him and his twisted, inerudite biases. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation. By the way, Nick's solutions have merged with lexiphanicism in several interesting ways. Both spring from the same kind of reality-denying mentality. Both exercise control through indirect coercion or through psychological pressure or manipulation. And both vilify our history, character, values, and traditions.

My real point here is that the time is always right to do what is right. That's why we must get people to sign a petition to limit Nick's ability to cause trouble. The first step in that process is to realize that you shouldn't let him intimidate you. You shouldn't let him push you around. We're the ones who are right, not Nick. I don't want this to sound like sour grapes, but his criticisms of my letters have never successfully disproved a single fact I ever presented. Instead, Nick's criticisms are based solely on his emotions and gut reactions. Well, I refuse to get caught up in his "I think … I believe … I feel" game.

If you intend to challenge someone's assertions, you need to present a counterargument. Nick provides none. As a matter of fact, he is interpersonally exploitative. That is, he takes advantage of others to achieve his own conniving ends. Why does he do that? He doesn't want you to know the answer to that question; he wants to ensure you don't recognize and respect the opinions, practices, and behavior of others. Here's the heart of the matter: A great many of us don't want Nick to cause people to betray one another and hate one another. But we feel a prodigious pressure to smile, to be nice, and not to object to his ophidian revenge fantasies. He holds onto power like the eunuch mandarins of the Forbidden City -- sterile obstacles to progress who lead people towards iniquity and sin.

So who's crazy? I, or all the puerile, intolerant purveyors of malice and hatred who claim that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable? Before you answer, let me point out that by comparing today to even ten years ago and projecting the course we're on, I'd say we're in for an even more homicidal, self-satisfied, and avaricious society, all thanks to Nick's pronouncements.

I should add parenthetically that we must unmistakably convince the government to clamp down hard on Nick's machinations. Does that sound extremist? Is it too rapacious for you? I'm sorry if it seems that way, but that's life. Because we continue to share a common, albeit abused, atmospheric envelope, if Trotskyism were an Olympic sport, Nick would clinch the gold medal. We can say that he is out of control, like a runaway freight train, and he can claim the opposite, and it won't make one bit of difference. Now, I don't want to overwork the story about how he plans to help pusillanimous fugitives evade capture by the authorities, so let's just say that he and his shills are, by nature, intransigent prophets of pauperism. Not only can that nature not be changed by window-dressing or persiflage, but there is no doubt that Nick will insult the intelligence, interests, and life plans of whole groups of people quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "teleoroentgenography". Believe me, I would give everything I own to be wrong on that point, but the truth is that Nick's intent is to prevent us from asking questions. He doesn't want the details checked. He doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts he presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of his "facts" are false.

One of Nick's drones once said, "People are pawns to be used and manipulated." Now that's pretty funny, of course, but I didn't include that quote just to make you laugh. I included it to convince you that Nick is out to acquire power and use it to indoctrinate feeble-minded hoodlums. And when we play his game, we become accomplices. I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I, speaking as someone who is not a disgraceful lackwit, maintain that there is, because he asserts that the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to encumber the religious idea with too many things of a purely earthly nature and thus bring religion into a totally unnecessary conflict with science. Most reasonable people, however, recognize such assertions as nothing more than baseless, if wishful, claims unsupported by concrete evidence. Are Nick's communications good for the country? The nation's suicide statistics, drug statistics, crime statistics, divorce statistics, and mental illness statistics give us part of the answer. These statistics should make it clear that as that last sentence suggests, he cannot tolerate the world as it is. He needs to live in a world of fantasies. To be more specific, according to Nick, the kids on the playground are happy to surrender to the school bully. He might as well be reading tea leaves or tossing chicken bones on the floor for divination about what's true and what isn't. Maybe then Nick would realize that I've repeatedly pointed out to him that the most perceptive members of our society respond positively to my message that he frequently progresses into displays of authority he doesn't have. That apparently didn't register with him, though. Oh, well; I guess people often get the impression that what I call unreasonable shirkers and Nick's representatives are separate entities. Not so. When one catches cold, the other sneezes. As proof, note that Nick's premise (that women are spare parts in the social repertoire -- mere optional extras) is his morality disguised as pretended neutrality. Nick uses this disguised morality to support his obiter dicta, thereby making his argument self-refuting. Now that this letter is over, I pray that my logic and passion have convinced you that Nick Taylor is laughing up his sleeve at us.

[SoFloSkater]

i didint have time to read all of that but ur completely wrong

have u ever even met nick t?

and his concepts on wakeskating and wakeskaters arent negetive in Any way,
there posotive and only help push the sport further

[SoFloSkater]

im not gonna lie ,i dont understand more then half of it either

[pipo]

I don't know him so i won't judge him. How good do you know him, must be very good or you wouldn't know anything about him. But i've read the whole thing and I think you have a problem with him and you should talk to him about it. There's no need in tellin the whole freaking world.





*edit

[Schmaltz]

LOL...

Diatribe is fun...
It's like poetry...

Listening to a lengthy diatribe may seem like a waste of time, an attitude for which there is some etymological justification. The Greek word diatrib, the ultimate source of our word, is derived from the verb diatrbein, made up of the prefix dia-, “completely,” and trbein, “to rub,” “to wear away, spend, or waste time,” “to be busy.” The verb diatrbein meant “to rub hard,” “to spend or waste time,” and the noun diatrib meant “wearing away of time, amusement, serious occupation, study,” as well as “discourse, short ethical treatise or lecture, debate, argument.” It is the serious occupation of time in discourse, lecture, and debate that gave us the first use of diatribe recorded in English (1581), in the now archaic sense “discourse, critical dissertation.” The critical element of this kind of diatribe must often have been uppermost, explaining the origin of the current sense of diatribe, “a bitter criticism.”

[SleuCrew]

Oh Billy!

skimboarder, Um... My first suggestion is SEEK THERAPY!

Second of all, I highly doubt you can even comprehend half what you have just taken the time to type or copy and paste.

Obviously you are talking about a different Nick Taylor... Either way you should seek help and probably a straight jacket.

[VonBoggin]

oh no, the clouds and time are moving fast, skimboarder wrote too much false crap, is it cus he aint gettin ass.....

[PIRATE]

SkateForce, SleuCrew, Schmaltz, pipo, SoFloSkater, SoFloSkater, am i the only one who noticed that its copy and pasted.

[dietwater5]

ya i read some of the first paragraph and though it was obviously a copy and paste thing.

[Poo]

I don't care iif it's copy and pasted, could someone please summarize it for me, ive gotta leave for wakestock.

[88skisupreme]

This guy doesn't like that Nick is fan of the neocon's and their agenda.
There's your summary.

I really don't see Nick on here posting a bunch of political stuff, did I miss something?

Also this should be moved to "Other" category it has nothing to do with wakeskating.

[PIRATE]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_10/007392.php

[chriscut]

I call shenanigans

[Slyder]

Clearly, he's sided with the Decepticons

[urinal mint]

op, you have got to be the biggest moron on the forums.

does that not bother you?

[RedXIII]

skimboarder, your dumb for trying to sound more intelligent by writing in all big words and who cares what nick taylor thinks about something if he is pushing the sport in a positive way im happy.

[Mr. Top Hat]

[RedXIII]

Mr. Top Hat, come on top hat i want you to say something cause its always so freaking funny

[Mr. Top Hat]

for some reason i dont think hes too serious about his claims about the all mighty nicky bear taylor


for those of you who wanted a summarization
"nick is a doucheyhead"

[RedXIII]

Mr. Top Hat, heheheh thank you brian