3 out of 4.

Hook’em

Anyone can wax philosophical, but when they don’t know what they’re saying (You) they come across as some kind of high meth lab worker. I’d be almost willing to put money down that in your case, that’d be spot on.

You know how I can tell losing to us bothers you? Because you’re here. I’ve never found myself on a ou site. I’d be too worried about catching whatever the fuck it is you have.

3 out 4.

Hook’em

No indeed life and at its root success, is the courageous attempt of man to achieve high degress of success whilst trying to stay morally righteous. This is a good definition of life – this persuit of beauty. Kant might have something to say on this subject. He’s sort of a philospher. You probably would have heard of him if you hadn’t spend the end of your first semester on this blog pontificating your quasi-philosophical bullshit. Anyway, getting back to kicking your ass, your style, beauty is the goal of life. Beauty is only obtained by winning through a moral means. The apex of winning, and the piety of an institution, are not mutally exclusive as you have suggested. Being an ou follower I’m sure you’d love if this was the case. The data obviously suggests otherwise. Your university has proven itself loose in regards to morals in comparison to most other university in regards to breaking the rules followed by other university in accordance with an agreed upon set of laws and bylaws, i.e. the NCAA. History bears this ought and Bob Stoops seems hell bent on keeping with traditions. Further it can be established that the perception of ou is one of a school who lacks moral fiber, one who does not understand the “correct” way of doing things, and one that abides in weak morals. Since perception is one of the ways beauty presents itself it can only be concluded then that perception itself is a form of reality. Thus ou is to morals what a dirty old whore is to sex. Complete with crabs.

Yet despite its complete lack of concern over its horrendous moral history and current perception, ou’s athletic department and football team pales in comparison, during any routine year, to that of the vastly morally superior University of Texas. Your football team has a losing record against the Longhorns. In truth it is not inconsiderable. Your team has lost 3 of the last 4, soon to be 4 of the last 5, and had its dirty, slutty ass kicked last October. The other parts of your athletic department are so far inferior to UT’s it is almost a waste to even mention them. The point being that UT strives for beauty (the very meaning of life) by plying their trade with a morally sound approach; and they see better results on the field, and can feel better about those results as a circumstance of being righteous.

Thus you’ll have to excuse us Longhorns if we don’t have a little chuckle when your school’s lack of understanding the true path of winning, the correct path, produces such gems as Bomar; that always invariably come back to haunt your tainted program. It is after all our right as a morally superior program.

Was that enough spin for you, Blueshorn? Or are you looking for some more beat down?

Thank you, I have always wondered about my style, and, in a way, I do agree that my writing would qualify as lucid. Few in the world could have written on this topic with the same level of clarity and brevity which I have displayed so far.

Not sure about a Jane Russell tit analogy though. I would say my style is more like an extremely quiet and smooth jack hammer with an eternal power source. The logic of my thought is endless; it just keeps coming and coming, in an endless series of unassuming waves, quietly and patiently destroying any and all opposition which stands in front it or which dares to stand in its way from its goals.