POR MAIS CANHOTO QUE SEJA UM CACHIMBO É SEMPRE UM CACHIMBO

AFORISMOS E ANALÉPTICOS AFEMINADOS E AFINS:

O KÉ KU FMI VEIO CÁ FAZERE?

ARRESPONDE O FILHO DO CHICO MARÇANO EM FORMULAIRO DI PRAGUNTA

ATÃO NÃ FORAM OS GAJOS QUE OS CHAMARAM?

NÃO É O MESMO QUE CHAMÁMOS O FMI PORQUÊ?

PORQUE A SEGUNDA PODE TER RESPOSTA....OU ARRESPOSTAS VARIADAS

OS AMOTINADOS NUNCA SERÃO REVOLUCIONÁRIOS.

ISTO PORQUE UM REVOLUCIONÁRIO APÓS TOMAR O PHODER

VAI ROUBANDO DEVAGARINHO E POR VEZES DEPRESSA MAS NUNCA PENSA QUE ROUBA

PODE SUBTRAIR LIBERDADE PODER ECONÓMICO OU FARTURA AOS POVOS LIBERTADOS

MAS DIZ QUE SE APROPRIOU EM NOME DO POVO DE RECURSOS VITAIS

EUFÓRICOS LIBERTADORES ROUBAM MAIS QUE SÔFREGOS DITADORES

QUANDO A RALÉ PILHA POR CONTA PRÓPRIA

TEM MUITOS NOMES (MAS REVOLUCIONÁRIOS NEM POR ISSO)

QUANDO OS KACHIMBOS TÊM ACESSÓRIOS CHAMADOS ASS Y SORES

HOJE EM DIA TODO O KACHIMBO DE RAIZ DE NOGUEIRA OU DE CAROLO DE MILHO

QUE QUEIME TABACO DO FINO MARIA JOANA AND AMIGAS OU BARBA DE MILHO

VEM COM ACESSÓRIOS

UNS SERVEM PARA LIMPAR A MERDA QUE OS KACHIMBOS LÁ TÊM

OUTROS PARA SEGURAR NA PONTA DOS KACHIMBOS

OUTROS PARA LIMPAR O EXTERIOR DOS KACHIMBOS

OUTROS PARA LHES TIRAR OS CHEIROS

ASS Y SORES OR ACE SCORES?

A BER BAMOS

A NOITADA DAS LARANJAS LOUCAS

NOITES DE FACAS LONGAS JÁ ERAM

OS DO PS COMEÇAM A RAPAR O FUNDO AOS TACHOS

OS LARANJAS CONTAM TER ALGO PARA COMER LÁ PARA JULHO

MAS BÃO TER DE SE CONTENTAR COM PEPINOS

AS MOSCAS DESCEM EM VOO PICADO SOBRE O CADÁVER DA NAÇÃO

OUTRAS TENTAM LEVANTAR VOO COM O SAQUE MAS ESTÃO MUITO ATURDIDAS E CARREGADAS

É O FADO DO PHODER QUE É FODIDO

É O EXÍLIO DOURADO DAS ROSAS

OS EMIGRANTES NO ABSURDO - QUANDO OS KACHIMBOS PENSAM QUE PENSAM

OS KACHIMBOS PENSAM ENQUANTO ANDAM

QUANDO FALAM QUANDO ESCREVEM E ATÉ QUANDO DORMEM

MAS PENSAM EM QUÊ E SOBRE O QUÊ

PENSAM EM PAÍSES FICTÍCIOS HABITADOS POR SERES IRREAIS

É FRACA A TEORIA QUE AFIRMA QUE OS KACHIMBOS DE FACTO PENSAM EM ALGO SUBSTANCIAL

PENSAM EM QUIMERAS EM FORMIGAS DE FORMA HUMANA COM CABEÇAS DE CÃO

NO DEGRAU SUPERIOR DA PIRÂMIDE EM REFLUGENTE GLÓRIA

ESTÃO OS SISTEMAS PERFEITOS QUE TORNARÃO PERFEITAS AS IMPERFEITAS GENTES



OS KACHIMBOS SÃO ASSIM

CONSTROEM CASTELOS DE CLARAS EM PAÍSES DE BAZÓFIAS

E VIVA A PIDE-MANIFESTAÇÕES NOS COMÍCIOS DOS KACHIMBOS SÓ SE FOR A FAVOR

ISTO NÃO É O ESTADO NOVO A KANALHA SEM KACHIMBO

SÓ SE PODE MANIFESTAR NA TRASEIRA DOS AUTOCARROS

E SÓ SE ESTIVEREM VAZIOS

MANIFESTAÇÕES NOS CU MÍCIOS DOS KACHIMBOS NÃO É DEMOCRÁTICO

MAIS VALE LEVAR NO CU MÍCIO QUE ANDAR A MANIFESTAR OPINIÕES

QUE SÃO OBVIAMENTE FASCISTAS

MANIFESTAR OPINIÕES CONTRA EM COMÍCIOS PARTIDÁRIOS É SER REACCIONÁRIO

É SER ANTI-DEMOCRATA

SER CONTRA OS PARTIDOS SÓ EM LOCAIS ESCONDIDOS

COMO CASAS DE BANHO PÚBICAS E PEVIDADAS

VAIS DE CARTAZ FALAR MAL DOS KACHIMBOS

LEVAS NA TOLA

A BEM DA NAÇÃO NÃO SE MANIFESTEM



SEJAM MANSOS

RESPEITEM OS KACHIMBOS

QUANDO A KANALHA GRITA - AGARRA QUE É NOBRE

AS TURBAS SÃO COISAS IRRACIONAIS

UM HOMEM QUE MOVIMENTOU MILHÕES APARENTEMENTE É ACUSADO

DE QUERER UM CARGO PARLAMENTAR A 3 OU 4 MILENAS AO MÊS

UM MÉDICO ACUSADO DE QUERER TACHO

QUE VÁ PARA O PARLAMENTO EM VEZ DE IR ABRIR UM CENTRO DE ANÁLISES

NÃO É UM NOBRE TACHISTA É OU UM NOBRE PARVO OU UM NOBRE ILUDIDO

SOARES APOIA NOBRE PARA HUMILHAR ALEGRE

APARENTEMENTE O HOMEM QUE ERA BOM O SUFICIENTE PARA SER PRESIDENTE

NÃO É DIGNO DE OCUPAR O LUGAR QUE JÁ O FOI POR NULIDADES

COMO SANTOS DE CASA QUE NÃO FAZEM MILAGRES

QUE PUNHAM TERRORISTAS A DAR CABO DE PONTES

O QUE FIZERAM ESTES GAJOS QUE SÃO CABEÇAS DE LISTA ALÉM DE SEREM RODINHAS PARTIDÁRIAS

AS NOBRES PESSOAS QUE SE ADIANTAM PARA FAZEREM ALGUMA DIFERENÇA

DEVEM SER ESMAGADAS SÓ POR NÃO QUEREREM SER DEPUTADOS ANÓNIMOS E LIMITADOS?

OBVIAMENTE DEVEM - LINCHEMOS TODOS AS NOBRES GENTES NACIONAIS

TEMOS QUE IMPEDIR A SAÍDA DOS INCOMPETENTES

PARA NÃO DESPOVOAR A NAÇÃO


A ESQUIZOFRENIA PORTUGUESA SÓ TEM PIORADO COM O S.N.S

DEIXEM DE TOMAR COMPRIMIDOS QUE TALVEZ PASSE

DÚVIDA INEXISTENCIAL- OS DUPLAMENTE NASCIDOS FUMAM KACHIMBO E A PIOLHEIRA SÓ FUMA CIGARROS?

OS QUE FUMAM AS MASSAS PELOS CACHIMBOS

APÓS UM DUPLAMENTE NASCIDO APELIDADO NA SUA VIRTUALIDADE

O RUI DO MACHETE

PERORAR SOBRE A NECESSIDADE DAS FUNDAÇÕES DOS DUPLAMENTE NASCIDOS SEREM IGUAIS

NA SUA PROVISÃO DE MERCEDES E BMW'S

LEMBREI-ME DA PARÁBOLA DO KRISTUS HANDANAGAZOZA

É MAIS FÁCIL UM KACHIMBO ENTRAR NO REINO DOS CÉUS

DO QUE O GENERAL SALAVISA DEIXAR DE O SER

O EXÉRCITO PODE GASTAR MILHÕES EM FRAUDES COM ARMAS E COM MANUTENÇÕES MILITARES

MAS É INATACÁVEL POIS COMO REZA A LENDA

QUANDO UM HOMEM DIZ A OUTRO NUM ELEVADOR

OLHA O SALAVISA

O OUTRO RESPONDERÁ SEMPRE

EU SOU O GENERAL SALAVISA

NÃO IMPORTA QUE SEJAM EX-AMIGOS DE INFÂNCIA

UM SEMPRE SERÁ A SUA FUNÇÃO

POIS OS DUPLAMENTE NASCIDOS SÃO PORTENTOS QUE FUMAM CACHIMBO

SÃO MAIS QUE HOMENS SÃO CARGOS SÃO KOMENDAS SÃO BARÕES

SÃO SEMI-DEUSES

NÃO SÃO COMO A PIOLHEIRA

ELES SÃO SEMPRE SERÃO

DO JOÃO VASQUISMO-CAVAQUISTA OU DAS MANIAS DA PERSEGUIÇÃO

TEMOS SEMPRE SUCESSORES PARA O NOSSO CÉSAR CAVACUS SILVANUS

DA PSEUDO-CANHOTICE AOS DEXTROS MAIS EXTREMISTAS

O JOÃO VASQUISMO-CAVAQUISTA VIVE

EU SOU INFALÍVEL E RARAMENTE TENHO DÚVIDAS OU DÍVIDAS

OS OUTROS DEVEM-ME RESPEITO E VASSALAGEM

POR MAIS IMBECILIDADES QUE DICA

João Vasco disse...

DEVIAM TER VERGONHA COM ESSAS CAMPANHAS SUJAS

És mentiroso e pidesco. Os dados que dei, mostrei as referências e qualquer um pode confirmá-los, e não trabalho em fusão a frio.

És mentiroso porque crias dezenas de identidades, mas pela forma como te exprimes não enganas ninguém. És pidesco porque não me conheces, mas andas a seguir-me nos diferentes blogues a falar sobre o meu carácter e a minha vida pessoal, a minha namorada, a inventar o que eu penso ou deixo de pensar. Até no PiPismo me andas a perseguir.

Tu conheces-me pessoalmente?

FELIZMENTE NÃO PORQUE JÁ TEMOS QUE ATURAR OS PALERMAS INEPTOS QUE NOS GOVERNAM

QUANTO MAIS OS PALERMAS SIMILARES QUE NOS HÃO-DE GOVERNAR

mario rotama torga xinsulim, لرجل ذبح بعضهم البعض ولكن الخيول باهظة الثمن, P.A. Lerma:

Além de usares várias contas para postar comentários praticamente ilegíveis, além de a coberto do anonimato vires trazer a minha vida pessoal constantemente à baila, ainda vens acusar-me de coisas opostas, consoante a conta que estás a usar. Ora o problema é eu usar dados de 2002, que são demasiado antigos, ora o problema é esses dados serem diferentes dos que escolheste, de 1999. Eu coloquei aqui o link onde se podem verificar os dados que usei.

Acho que devias pensar sobre o que andas a fazer, criar não sei quantas contas para escrever mensagens quase ilegíveis que quase passam por spam, ao ponto de me pedirem para não te responder para não alimentar "trols", como terás lido. Se te queres manter anónimo, ok. Mas pelo menos cria uma identidade única e discute como um adulto.

Sim, porque isto tem tudo a ver com a Suécia.

Qual é o teu nome? Onde trabalhas?

INTERROGATÓRIO PIDESCO.....

Qual é a tua vontade de discutir a minha vida pessoal?

IMPESSOAL

E fica sabendo que estou contente com a minha vida profissional. Só não a quero discutir com um desconhecido anónimo que à falta de argumentos segue por essa via cobarde.


E se alegas que os dados sobre a China nunca podem ser fiáveis, então porque é que tu próprio colocaste um número para a China?

Enfim, são só diparates.
Chamas "picuinhíce" ao mínimo de rigor e passas para o plano pessoal, quando nem sequer dizes o teu nome verdadeiro, nem és capaz de escrever uma mensagem que se perceba como um adulto normal.

Devias ter vergonha.

COM ESSAS CAMPANHAS SUJAS

PSEUDO-REPUBLICANOS POUCO MUDAM

DE COMO O JAIRUS BATALHOU CONTRA OS GIGANTES (E VÁRIOS ANÕES) E VENCEU

Jairo Entrecosto disse...
Há por aqui Ingaysidores e Gaylibans da Al-Gayeda, mas o Barbas é adepto do Gaymunismo. Viram o que ele disse do homossexual que criticou o movimento político gayzista? Chamou-o homofóbico.

O proletário que não se alista nas fileiras do partido, obedecendo ao comité vermelho, é um reaccionário infectado pela cultura burguesa. Acaba por ser uma vítima, mas também um inimigo. Não consegue ver quem lhe quer bem, e isso é perigoso.

O Barbas, olha para o homossexual que não alinha com a cartilha Gay, e considera-o um traidor de todos os gaylotários, cúmplice e idiota útil do inimigo: o heterocionário.


Xangrylah disse...
Algo que sempre achei curioso na homofobia é o seu discurso revelar uma ignorância atroz sobre hábitos de higiene pessoal.
Tal quadro permite inferir que a suposta heterossexualidade destes comentadores é, na prática, uma séria ameaça à saúde pública.
Por favor, não fodam, Portugal agradece

Mats disse...
Wyrm,
Sabes que um dos pontos de encontro gay são ginásios não sabes?

Não sabia, mas graças aos teus conhecimentos, agora já sei. Obrigado


Krippmeister disse...
Jairo Entrefolhos,

Jairo Entrecosto disse...
Bem, vou andando...

Ainda não matei nenhum homossexual hoje, e os meu índices de glicémia homofóbica já estão a dar-me tonturas.

A ver se passo ali pelo parque onde eles costumam andar. Mas antes tenho de ir buscar a motosserra e a fita adesiva ( costumo selar-lhes a boca, não gosto dos guinchos). A ver se não tropeço naquelas cabeças de ateus que tenho espalhadas na cave, como no outro dia. Ia-me aleijando. Aquilo está uma desarrumação, nem vos conto. Desgraçados dos ateus, nem depois de mor...Bem, como dizia, vou então andando.

Foi um dia de grandes emoções. Descobri que não posso sentir nojo, porque isso é intolerância. Logo, mereci que tivessem nojo de mim.

Cuidado com o frio, tapem-se bem, e se a Gaystapo perguntar por mim, digam-lhes que não me viram hoje. Obrigado.

Bem, vou andando...

A ver se passo ali pelo pelo parque

Paio com ervilhas tem parques e lá tamém costumam andar homes de batina

Ora é a homofobia que reduziu o nº de padres

Gastaram as juntas tanto dinheiro em parques para a padralhada passear e é isto?



Jairo Entrecosto disse...

Tens razão. Mas como podia eu adivinhar que era a fotografia do teu namorado? De qualquer forma, vai dar ao mesmo:

Lá por seres homossexual e ficares excitado ao veres homens em tronco nu, não significa que todos os homens vejam uma demonstração de ginástica como um momento erótico.


Jairo Entrecosto disse...
Quem é que passa manhãs ajoelhado à frente de quem?!

Lá estás tu a sonhar e a projectar nos outros a tua....bem, a tua...enfim...como é que eu hei-de dizer isto de forma politicu mente correcta.... deixa cá ver...ah, a tua paneleirice. É isso!


Barba Rija disse...
DESPACHO de paneleiros aos outros.
correspondente a uma crescente autonomia e
responsabilidade dos seus órgãos
Parece-me mais é falta de coiso

na gestão dos recursos que lhes estão afectos
tem tido como consequência a das regras e princípios que norteiam a
onanização do ânus.

Assim acontece na preparação, em que se procedem às
alterações de ginástica acrobática:sexo ,que se mostram indispensáveis, quer em virtude da entrada do... , ambos Homens de tronco nu a executarem, quer ainda as resultantes das colhidas na directa facultativa realizada nos ...

DER NEUTRALISMUS IN KRIPPAHL

DA INEXISTÊNCIA DE UM KRIPPAHLISMO NEUTRALISTA
KIMURA KAPPUT
Unimportant sites evolve as predicted by the neutral theory, whereas
important sites are more influenced by natural selection, and the difference
in the patterns provides an opportunity to detect selection. Many scientists
have now recognized that the strictly neutral theory is not satisfactory, and
the issue has entered into a new phase

The selectionist position seems to be logical in a Darwinian sort of way.
The neutralist position, however, needs a bit more explanation.
How does an adaptively neutral or equivalent change (one that isn't 'seen' by natural selection) become fixed in the population?
The answer is genetic drift.

IN THE JÃO VAS CUS Approach

Here, the idea is that the ratio of one gene over another, say a mutated version versus the original, fluctuates over generations but eventually settles to 1 or 0. A thought experiment can be used to illustrate this, or, if you have an excessive amount of free time, you can actually try it. Take 10 coins, 5 heads and 5 tails, choose 5 of them at random and remove them, this step represents the coins
that came to an untimely death
We chose randomly because of the assumption that natural selection has no effect on whether heads are better than tails. Now make the
remaining 5 coins have children and boost the population back up to 10, but keep the
ratio of heads to tails the same. For example, if you had 2 heads and 3 tails then after
reproduction you should have 4 heads and 6 tails. Repeat this process a few times and
before you know it all your coins will be heads or tails. The mutation has become fixed in the population and natural selection contributed nothing.
Our job now is to determine what is really going on and so we turn our attention to the predictive aspects of each theory. It turns out that the predicted rate at which mutations accumulate is different for each hypothesis. If the selectionists are correct then mutations cannot accumulate as fast because Natural Selection keeps on removing deleterious mutations. The rate at which mutations accumulate for the neutral theory will be much higher since they aren't constantly being removed. One example of supposed evidence in favour of the neutral theory came with the analysis of mutations at different positions on a codon. A codon is a sequence of 3 nucleotides that encodes for a specific amino acid. In general, if either of the first 2 nucleotides of a codon changes, the resultant amino acid
is different. The 3rd site, however, is usually silent; a change here does not change the amino acid. A mutation at this site is called a synonymous substitution. It was found, by comparing two species of sea urchin, that there were 5 mutations at such sites in the gene that coded for the protein histone IV. These 5 mutations were located within a stretch of only 11 codons, apparent confirmation of the neutral theory. Other data, such as an analysis of RNA viruses, also seems to confirm the neutral hypothesis.


RNA has an intrinsically higher rate of mutation.
The neutralists argue that since the rate of accumulation of mutations is high as well, that it is in keeping with the Neutral hypothesis. But wouldn't a higher intrinsic rate of mutation also lead to a higher number of favourable mutations that would be kept under the selectionist scheme also? According to Roger Lewin "The question is, therefore, whether the observed maximum rate of change better fits the predicted effects of selection or the random accumulation of neutral alleles. The answer, unequivocally, has been the latter, and represents strong support for the neutral theory

Always beware of words like "unequivocally". Remember the synonymous substitution example? Well, it doesn't seem too amazing that it obeys the predicted results of the neutral theory because the sites where mutations were looked at were silent, they were already known not to make any difference in the protein! It seems a little obvious that such a change would be invisible to the selective pressures of the environment. In a paper by Tomoko Ohta the situation is described more accurately.
DNA sequence data have rapidly increased in the nineties, enabling
comparison of the patterns of substitution at selectively important (such as
nonsynonymous) and unimportant (such as synonymous) sites.

BOYS LIKE GIRLS, REALITY LIKE IRREALITY

Reality must be non-local.
Following EPR (Einstein et al., 1935), subsequent quantum state teleportation studies
have told us that the state of a quantum system A can be “teleported”
(in a “telepathic way as Einstein put out) from point X to point Y through a reality selection at point X by system B.

Such a feature gives a method (Furuzawa et al., 1998)94 of instantaneous
transfer for the states of a massive quantum, as a quantum is undistinguishable
from another when their states are identical. Shimony showed (Bennett et al.,
1993) that information (a classical concept) still can’t be transferred that way. The fact

that the quantum system seems to “know” the status of its various realities does not
violate classical causality as only the quantum system would have that “knowledge.”
And then if the quantum system transfers this information to the classical world at a
given location, it is not taken by that world as information since it would be identified
only through the conventional statistical quantum theory, giving a seemingly random
selection at the point of observation.
As a separate study will describe, Everett’s multiple-reality viewpoint, when combined
with the monadic spaces concept, may allow discerning quantum systems that can
exist with the ability to observe the classical world from within their own space. If the
manifold of such space is physically extendable across spacelike points within the classical
world, the possibility for quantum systems to communicate information instantaneously
to the classical world over spacelike distances would be theoretically there. Causality would
not be violated because the quantum does not operate locally, in contrast with the
classical world which has lost its unity (as I have discussed in Section V). In the monadic
spaces picture the speed of light is a base for quanta, a set of monadic relations
(there is no such thing as individual monadic relations), not for the various realities of
this set, which form a non-local whole.
This speed is a limit only when looking at
quantum processes from the classical world as done in the teleportation experiments,
and everywhere else in present quantum theory, and thus appears to be only a limitation....pués

E UM CARÁCTER DESCARACTERIZADO REVELA-SE-CASARÁ ELE COM BARBA RIJA OU FICARÃO SÓ AMIGOS

UM NOVO VELHO PALHAÇO NO BLOGUE

Sr.Animalesco disse...bolas
Eh pa este blog é uma beca treta sim senhor.???
o português é muito pior do que o dos meus adolescentes com atrasos cognitivos

Digam o que disserem não há volta a dar. Concordo com o Anacoreta!
serem uns mongoloides de primeira categoria

Nasceram abéculas e morrerão abéculas.

Vão todos levar na peida seus hipócritas de primeira categoria!
referências à homosexualidade latente do dito cujo

Zuavos do catano! VER OS ZUAVOS DO CATANO:


referências a homens de calças largas com hábitos muito duvidosos quando em campanha

Alguem aqui faz sexo????
necessidade óbvia de realizar actos e possível convite
De que ovo saíste ó barba rija???? Alguém aqui faz desporto???
esta parte é mais difícil
mas presumo que seja referência à prática de luta greco-romana

SERÁ QUE ALGUÉM ACEITA O DESAFIO

VEJAM OS PRÓXIMOS EPISÓDIOS DESTA NOVELA QUE COMPETE COM OS MORANGOS
CASARÁ ELE COM BARBA RIJA OU FICARÃO SÓ AMIGOS
CASAMENTOS GAY DA TRETA?

E A DÍVIDA TORNOU-SE ESPIRITUAL

CLÁSSICAS DÍVIDAS und CLÁSSICOS DE Sci Fi Socratis Fiction

A DÍVIDA EM INGLÊS TÉCNICO

A MAL DA NAÇÃO- DA EXTINÇÃO DOS BUIÇAS- DA NECESSIDADE DE LINCHAR OS ABUSADORES DE BURROS e OVELHAS

Kavaco é um dos culpados pelo estado actual do País, não só pelo que não fez mas principalmente pelo que fe:,
betonização de um país
afundamento da frota mercante
agricultura do vazio
e criação das baronias do cavaquistão
muito maiores do que as do corta-fitas soares
que serviram para enriquecer tal como os antecessores uma corte à custa do erário público.

Tudo isto não seria banal se os políticos e o povo em geral soubessem servir a nação
e não servir-se da nação como guardanapo

APRESENTADO O PROGRAMA DE GOVERNO DO K.k.k.(QUÊ-Quê-quê?)

os programas de GOVERNO devem ser livres de restrições que nos privem destas liberdades:

0 – A liberdade de tentar executar o programa como quisermos.
1 – A liberdade de estudar o programa, perceber o que faz e evitar alterá-lo
2 – A liberdade de distribuir cópias do programa Político e dizer que queremos ajudar os outros.
4 – A liberdade de distribuir as alterações que fizermos ao programa e contribuir geralmente para o piorar.

Para muitos isto parece utopia, absurdo ou, pior ainda, anarquismo.

Mas suponham que tentávamos aplicar estas regras à sociedade. Imaginem que alguém defendia a liberdade de fazer contas onde quisesse; a liberdade de estudar, perceber e ajudar outros a fazer contas; e a liberdade de criar e distribuir as melhorias que fizesse nas expressões sociais.

Estas liberdades são tão fundamentais que nem vale a pena defendê-las, porque ninguém vai propor limitá-las.
é só preciso produzir energia para as manter

chamam-se blogues

White Women's Workout - watch more funny videos

Dantas Pianoforte a três Mãos

EVA-Eu já não posso viver mais assim

ADão-Pq?

EVA_estou aborrecida

ADão-Então eu consegui este paraíso e tu aborreces-te

Eva-faltam-me as comodidades

adão-no paraíso não há nada que nos incomode

eva-já tou farta de andar nua

adãu-fica-te bem

eva-ma nã é quente

adum-cá nos akecemos doutro modo

eva-arranho-me toda

adum -deita na relva

eva-preferia fazer num tapete

Deus-mas tu deixa-me deprimido, quinta já levas

EVA-opá nem me fales em quinta. acho que peço só o usual e bazo logo.
depois à noite a ver se vou ter Convosco à Praça da Serpente.

Deus-muitoo rebelde

EVA-nem por isso, mas ya

Adão-Eu ainda nao decidi. Mas ia no escuro, nao claro xD
O meu está cheiooo de reflexos ruivos. Por estar queimado pelo sol.
uuuuh

Deus-ando com essas ideias o:


EVA-não sei se a ti te fica muito bem ruivo; és preto
xD deves ficar altamente é com preto mesmo preto com reflexos pretos

ADão-tens alguma coisa contra pessoas ruivas?


Deus-não; eu quero fazer ruivos, mas inda não fiz o cabelo de ruivos :| porquê?

Eva-se tu te esqueces de dar os parabéns à serpente eu fodo-te a booca toda! :'o mas, era só para te relembrar.

Adão-oolha já me tinha esquecido. tinha-me lembrado do jantar logo quando acordei mas nem associei aos anos dela; vou já mandar mensagem, pronto.

Deus-a quem?

Adão-como assim?

Deus- como vais enviar as mensagens e a quem?

Adão-sinais de fumo se inventar o fogo, aos macacos´´ursos,leões, peixes...nã peixes nã


Eva-mete o cu entre as perninhas. de certeza. É covarde, sabemos bem
e vai-me chamar maluca e dizer que tenho a mania de perseguição, aposto.


Adão- que "EVa" tão máscula,ninguém diria

Eva-se eu o confrontar directamente o que é que achas que acontece?

DeUS- eu nao sou anonimo de ninguém. Olha a merda -.- eu cá gosto do meu nome em tudo o que é lado . Jeoh vah, vá vah , rima e tudo. por tanto xD btw,
anonimo é um nome feio


Eva-pois a conversa, que foi tipo, LINDA xD
manda-me o link do sff para eu inserir


DEUS- Vamos trocar? eu dou-tos

EVA-queres ter o meu
que pode ter duas pessoas? e sabes quem são essas pessoas? ou tu ou o senhor Adão e como tu deixas de ser de certeza, tira as tuas conclusões...

DEUS-estive a pensar e porra, a EVA sabe de coisas das quais só tu e i eu sabemos
também não há mais ninguém


Serpente-eles tiveram conhecimento. Portanto DEUS é um burro x)


DEUS- eu preferia ter comós teus ._. os meus só se ligam ás quatro e meia da manhã, quando eu finalmente consigo adormecer. --' assim tinha mais escolhas e enfim sempre variava


Serpente-e depois só falam de merda.


EVA -no desta noite disse "e ainda por cima tu não es virgem" e eu o.O
quê?

DEUS- o que é que ele queria?


EVA- epah, isso é de gosto. Eu acho-o girinhoo , mas tu provavelmente nao.

DEUS -oh EVa, os dois que eu falei era os qe me disseram qe te conheciam xD

EVA-ah esses! tava a confundir :| oh esses parecem uns cavalos.

DEUS-são cavalos

CAVALO-muito pontente, muitoo. Opah, elas nao sao mesmooo nada de especial.

CAVALO-MESMO...
eu nunca as vi :|
mas o teu primo não é?

Cavalo-é....mas tem muita procura, mais que o Adão

EVA-estou um bocado preocupada pelo facto de eu nao achar os outros dois burros que te falei assim tipo "muitooo bons" . serei um ET?


DEus-não, és gaja e tens uma libido... potente...? xD


EVA-Santa é a outra kinda não nasceu.
E foda-se, as serpentes querem meter a puta da palavra mudasti. que metam antes Badjoras!

DEUS- também já ouvi isso, fiquei abismado com tamanha estupidez. o que é uma badjoras?

EVA-Coisas que eu cá sei

DEUS -oh minha cara, a panoplia de coisas que sabemos, nao dava para um livro. mas quase para uma enciclopedia, vou chamar-lhe BíBLIA ou TORAH
ou o Livro, tenho de criar papiro e tinta


EVA -foi com o Raposo e isto pq nao estava ciente do qe tava a fazer.

DEUS-e só porqe eu achei qe era porco demais foder com alguém estando a Serpente na selva. que por acaso era mesmo ao lado do paraíso onde eu tava.
Ela diz qe nao se importava. desde q ñ ouvisse gemidos


EVA-Ouviu?

DEUS-xD e o CAMELO ? aquele que queria vir na minha casa? AHAHAHAHAH lindo x)

EVA-Super discreta. O meu nome deveria ser Maria Discreta EVa.


DEUS-e o meu Discreta Abelha. é isso podiamos ser isso e inocentes ou ingenuas.

EVA- e somos bué :o e o meu outro nome do meio é Virgem

ADão-só assim por acaso sobre o teu "eu sei demasiado" a minha mÃe-TERRA diz que até se assusta com aquilo qe eu sei mas nao digo. diz que eu sou muito precoce e qe sempre fui --' qe fiche. -.-

DEUS-a minha não diz, QUE NÃO TENHO mas se tivesse aposto que pensava xD
nós sabemos muito ADão, é um facto irrevogável (oh vês? xD)

ADão-com quem foi? xDD Nós somos tão indiscretas que valha-me a nossa senhora dos queimados xD

DEUS-ainda não a criei Jasus (também inda não)porra, a tua libido chega ao sol

EVA-tom de voz inocente* mas tu não tens uma pila .____.

ADãO-não percebi, chama-me burra xD

EVA-gostavas de mim na mesma se eu fosse Lesbica ?

DEUS- que bonito. sa.

ADÃO-lindo opá agora vão-me bateeeeeer xD


DEUS-tem la um Ui no meio? olha, qe se fornique, eu gosto de perguntar coisas ._.
tem xD?


EVA-Não. eu gosto muitooooooooooo de pilas. Eu nem te vou perguntar quem era :o


DEUS-eu nao vou dizer porque tenho medo que ela ouça leia isto, mas começa por L x)

EVA-LEOA

LEão-não eu sou u outro vai dormir pá

EVA-nao, tou a ver um filme

DEUS-CENAS...

EVA-Sim, mas não te abraçava porque a última lésbica que abracei tentou enfiar-me a língua na boca. É. Mas és lésbica?

DEUS-Tem dias

dos cães e dos homens

um homem semi-morto de fome tal como um cão cai no marasmo enrola-se e deixa-se morrer

um homem com fome remexe no lixo, como os restos dos outros e rosna contra os cães bem alimentados



nada é real, nada é curioso, nada é sempre menos, nada nunca é mais, mais nada não é
nada mais

não fui eu que inventei os ateus moribundos

já vi crentes morrendo e amaldiçoando deus
e vi outros felizes por tudo acabar por haver um fim



como o jap que corta alegremente as suas próprias tripas

escrever a desconhecidos que nunca verei, nem tenho intenção de ver


isso diz muito sobre a mente humana

isso reflete-se nos blogues
esses espaços

imaginários são terrivelmente territoriais

as guerras, o ódio e o mundo existem apenas na ima gina ção das pessoas


e infelizmente tal como os cães não têm muita imaginação

precisam de a estimular com venenos orgânicos


chaos will always prevail. it is better organized.

I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. That way I wouldn't have to have any of those goddam stupid useless conversations with anybody. If anybody wanted to tell me something, they'd have to write on a piece of paper and shove it over to me. They'd get bored as hell of doing that after a while, and then I'd be through with having conversations for the rest of my life. - J.D. Salinger (1919-2010)
thoughts and chaos by
john raynes
[ jeraynes[at]gmail[dot]com ]
present past:
suicide note
euphoria and broken glass
tear drop
requiem for lothorethiel
self-inflicted pain
requiem for lothorethiel (II)
the girls we followed home
guest stars:
anonymous
delerium14
alice
shelyra
jill
virginia
second home:
jardim de micróbios
songs out of darkness:
a fine frenzy
atlanthea(rodrigo)
cinemuerte
muse
okkervil river
radiohead
the pains of being pure at heart
politically speaking:
a causa foi modificada
arrastão
blasfemias
blogue dos marretas
causa nossa
corta-fitas
da literatura
delito de opinião
estado sentido
farmácia central
hoje há conquilhas, amanhã não sabemos
j.p.coutinho
mar salgado
o insurgente
origem das espécies
portugal dos pequeninos
revista ler
voz do deserto
we have kaos in the garden
31 da armada
personal favourites:
aurea mediocritas
complexidade e contradição
corpo em excesso de velocidade
locus amoenus
ouriquense
postsecret
sem filtros nem nada
vontade indómita
cheering me up:
fail blog
lolcats
xkcd
friends:
calma nos blastos
cenas do arco da velha
cinzento colorido
da poptarts
delerium14
espaço de ensaio
hoje voltei a ver
i'm just killing time
lady chatterley
letras e grafias
million dollar kiss
na nossa agenda
o que diz molero
resma de esquissos
restless perceptions
said words
vai d'escadas
outside world:
saída de emergência
associação épica
recent chaos:
Silence as a weapon
Euphoria and broken glass [republished]
The useless struggle
Scarecrows, take arms
The scarecrow
The disaster
Enough
As it seems, the best movie of the year...

a screaming arch of Stukas-CURZIO MALAPARTE -Like some ancient prophet from the Bible

And the flies are the winners.....Malaparte the god of the flies is always there for the big moments and freely mixes fantasy with fact.
Narcissism, Dux Italiano, the liar as artist and the nostalgia of the Mediterranean delusion. Sure... but the UTOPIA lives in guy's like this

Rommel asks Malaparte if he built this villa himself.
No, he bought it as is... but he designed the scenery.
The conceit is a joke, a surrealist pun.
It pisses off the ideologue and the institutional maven.

Truth is external event, not the chimera of the sleeping mind.
Surrealism is a lie, a subversion of the secular being.
Automism, the occult, dead classicism, dead gods, individualism and instinct.


Poetry cannot coexist with the facts, for poetry is the mythologizing of the Big Lie. Yes... certainly accurate reportage is politically correct, and certainly only the sophisticated can follow such trans-dimensional narratives.

The greedy, self-absorbed expression of the elitist? Possibly.
But then, if atheism isn't elitist, is it atheism?

He painted it red, then he painted it white... then red again.
What's in a color? Plenty, some think.)

red was the preferred color of the fascist elite for their villas... or red was the color of Russia.


The Volga Rises in Europe, his impressions are heretical, as they show sympathy for the adversary, and seem to reconcile the social models of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia as similar mechanized versions of the New Man.

War, indeed, is the Sorelian action drama, and he describes it with the lyricism of an action painting. A burnt female corpse, fused into the cockpit of a Russian tank, the prairie panorama of the German tanks advancing below "a screaming arch of Stukas", the faces of the dead beneath the ice fresco of Lake Lagoda... or this description of a German convoy en route from Greece to the Ukraine:

"Instinctively one knew that beneath the mask of the dust the soldiers' faces were scorched by the sun, pinched by the Greek wind. The men sat in strangely stiff attitudes; they had the appearance of statues. They were so white with dust that they looked as if they were made of marble. One of them had an owl, a live owl, perched on his fist... the bird undoubtedly came from the Acropolis, it was one of those owls who hoot at night among the marble columns of the Parthenon."

POLITICA, CIÊNCIA e LINGUAGEM

QUE SE PODE ACRESCENTAR A UM TEXTO DESTES
NADA, CADA VEZ SE ESCREVE MAIS MAS CADA VEZ SE VAI DIZENDO MENOS
COMUNISTAS, FASCISTAS, PSEUDO-DEMOCRATAS,LIBERAIS USAM OS MESMOS DISCURSOS MUDANDO DE LUGAR APENAS UMAS PALAVRAS OU ACRESCENTANDO OUTRAS
A LINGUAGEM CONSTRÓI CIVILIZAÇÕES a falta de compreensão do que os outros dizem
destrói e mina pouco a pouco essa construção sempre inacabada
TODOS SOMOS CENSORES
Ninguém quer ouvir as ideias dos outros
Querem que reconheçam validade às suas
Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the (Onde estiver inglês leia-se qualquer linguagem Orwell é universal) language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it.


Our civilization is decadent and our language -- so the argument runs -- must inevitably share in the general collapse.
It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.

Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer.
But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely.
A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible.

Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers. I will come back to this presently, and I hope that by that time the meaning of what I have said here will have become clearer. Meanwhile, here are five specimens of the English language as it is now habitually written.
These five passages have not been picked out because they are especially bad -- I could have quoted far worse if I had chosen -- but because they illustrate various of the mental vices from which we now suffer. They are a little below the average, but are fairly representative examples.


I number them so that i can refer back to them when necessary:

1. I am not, indeed, sure whether it is not true to say that the Milton who once seemed not unlike a seventeenth-century Shelley had not become, out of an experience ever more bitter in each year, more alien [sic] to the founder of that Jesuit sect which nothing could induce him to tolerate.

Professor Harold Laski (Essay in Freedom of Expression)

2. Above all, we cannot play ducks and drakes with a native battery of idioms which prescribes egregious collocations of vocables as the Basic put up with for tolerate, or put at a loss for bewilder .

Professor Lancelot Hogben (Interglossa)

3. On the one side we have the free personality: by definition it is not neurotic, for it has neither conflict nor dream. Its desires, such as they are, are transparent, for they are just what institutional approval keeps in the forefront of consciousness; another institutional pattern would alter their number and intensity; there is little in them that is natural, irreducible, or culturally dangerous. But on the other side, the social bond itself is nothing but the mutual reflection of these self-secure integrities. Recall the definition of love. Is not this the very picture of a small academic? Where is there a place in this hall of mirrors for either personality or fraternity?

Essay on psychology in Politics (New York)

4. All the "best people" from the gentlemen's clubs, and all the frantic fascist captains, united in common hatred of Socialism and bestial horror at the rising tide of the mass revolutionary movement, have turned to acts of provocation, to foul incendiarism, to medieval legends of poisoned wells, to legalize their own destruction of proletarian organizations, and rouse the agitated petty-bourgeoise to chauvinistic fervor on behalf of the fight against the revolutionary way out of the crisis.

Communist pamphlet

5. If a new spirit is to be infused into this old country, there is one thorny and contentious reform which must be tackled, and that is the humanization and galvanization of the B.B.C. Timidity here will bespeak canker and atrophy of the soul. The heart of Britain may be sound and of strong beat, for instance, but the British lion's roar at present is like that of Bottom in Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream -- as gentle as any sucking dove. A virile new Britain cannot continue indefinitely to be traduced in the eyes or rather ears, of the world by the effete languors of Langham Place, brazenly masquerading as "standard English."
When the Voice of Britain is heard at nine o'clock, better far and infinitely less ludicrous to hear aitches honestly dropped than the present priggish, inflated, inhibited, school-ma'amish arch braying of blameless bashful mewing maidens!

Letter in Tribune

Each of these passages has faults of its own, but, quite apart from avoidable ugliness, two qualities are common to all of them. The first is staleness of imagery; the other is lack of precision. The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse. I list below, with notes and examples, various of the tricks by means of which the work of prose construction is habitually dodged:

Dying metaphors. A newly invented metaphor assists thought by evoking a visual image, while on the other hand a metaphor which is technically "dead" (e.g. iron resolution) has in effect reverted to being an ordinary word and can generally be used without loss of vividness. But in between these two classes there is a huge dump of worn-out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves. Examples are: Ring the changes on, take up the cudgel for, toe the line, ride roughshod over, stand shoulder to shoulder with, play into the hands of, no axe to grind, grist to the mill, fishing in troubled waters, on the order of the day, Achilles' heel, swan song, hotbed. Many of these are used without knowledge of their meaning (what is a "rift," for instance?), and incompatible metaphors are frequently mixed, a sure sign that the writer is not interested in what he is saying. Some metaphors now current have been twisted out of their original meaning withouth those who use them even being aware of the fact. For example, toe the line is sometimes written as tow the line. Another example is the hammer and the anvil, now always used with the implication that the anvil gets the worst of it. In real life it is always the anvil that breaks the hammer, never the other way about: a writer who stopped to think what he was saying would avoid perverting the original phrase.

Operators or verbal false limbs. These save the trouble of picking out appropriate verbs and nouns, and at the same time pad each sentence with extra syllables which give it an appearance of symmetry. Characteristic phrases are render inoperative, militate against, make contact with, be subjected to, give rise to, give grounds for, have the effect of, play a leading part (role) in, make itself felt, take effect, exhibit a tendency to, serve the purpose of, etc., etc. The keynote is the elimination of simple verbs. Instead of being a single word, such as break, stop, spoil, mend, kill, a verb becomes a phrase, made up of a noun or adjective tacked on to some general-purpose verb such as prove, serve, form, play, render. In addition, the passive voice is wherever possible used in preference to the active, and noun constructions are used instead of gerunds (by examination of instead of by examining). The range of verbs is further cut down by means of the -ize and de- formations, and the banal statements are given an appearance of profundity by means of the not un- formation.






Simple conjunctions and prepositions are replaced by such phrases as with respect to, having regard to, the fact that, by dint of, in view of, in the interests of, on the hypothesis that; and the ends of sentences are saved by anticlimax by such resounding commonplaces as greatly to be desired, cannot be left out of account, a development to be expected in the near future, deserving of serious consideration, brought to a satisfactory conclusion, and so on and so forth.

Pretentious diction. Words like phenomenon, element, individual (as noun), objective, categorical, effective, virtual, basic, primary, promote, constitute, exhibit, exploit, utilize, eliminate, liquidate, are used to dress up a simple statement and give an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgements. Adjectives like epoch-making, epic, historic, unforgettable, triumphant, age-old, inevitable, inexorable, veritable, are used to dignify the sordid process of international politics, while writing that aims at glorifying war usually takes on an archaic color, its characteristic words being: realm, throne, chariot, mailed fist, trident, sword, shield, buckler, banner, jackboot, clarion. Foreign words and expressions such as cul de sac, ancien regime, deus ex machina, mutatis mutandis, status quo, gleichschaltung, weltanschauung, are used to give an air of culture and elegance.


Except for the useful abbreviations i.e., e.g., and etc., there is no real need for any of the hundreds of foreign phrases now current in the English language.


Bad writers, and especially scientific, political, and sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones, and unnecessary words like expedite, ameliorate, predict, extraneous, deracinated, clandestine, subaqueous, and hundreds of others constantly gain ground from their Anglo-Saxon numbers.* The jargon peculiar to



*An interesting illustration of this is the way in which English flower names were in use till very recently are being ousted by Greek ones, Snapdragon becoming antirrhinum, forget-me-not becoming myosotis, etc. It is hard to see any practical reason for this change of fashion: it is probably due to an instinctive turning away from the more homely word and a vague feeling that the Greek word is scientific.




Marxist writing (hyena, hangman, cannibal, petty bourgeois, these gentry, lackey, flunkey, mad dog, White Guard, etc.) consists largely of words translated from Russian, German, or French;


but the normal way of coining a new word is to use Latin or Greek root with the appropriate affix and, where necessary, the size formation. It is often easier to make up words of this kind (deregionalize, impermissible, extramarital, non-fragmentary and so forth) than to think up the English words that will cover one's meaning. The result, in general, is an increase in slovenliness and vagueness.

Meaningless words. In certain kinds of writing, particularly in art criticism and literary criticism, it is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning.† Words like romantic, plastic, values, human, dead, sentimental, natural, vitality, as used in art criticism, are strictly meaningless, in the sense that they not only do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly ever expected to do so by the reader. When one critic writes, "The outstanding feature of Mr. X's work is its living quality

† Example: Comfort's catholicity of perception and image, strangely Whitmanesque in range, almost the exact opposite in aesthetic compulsion, continues to evoke that trembling atmospheric accumulative hinting at a cruel, an inexorably serene timelessness . . .Wrey Gardiner scores by aiming at simple bull's-eyes with precision. Only they are not so simple, and through this contented sadness runs more than the surface bittersweet of resignation." (Poetry Quarterly)


," while another writes, "The immediately striking thing about Mr. X's work is its peculiar deadness," the reader accepts this as a simple difference opinion. If words like black and white were involved, instead of the jargon words dead and living, he would see at once that language was being used in an improper way.
Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable."
But war is a game e fascismo é só uma palavra como ...cracia, é só preencher os vazios


The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Pétain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive.
é só trocar uns names...jména....namen...nomes




Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.


Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to. This time it must of its nature be an imaginary one. I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:

I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Here it is in modern:


Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.

This is a parody, but not a very gross one. Exhibit (3) above, for instance, contains several patches of the same kind of English. It will be seen that I have not made a full translation. The beginning and ending of the sentence follow the original meaning fairly closely, but in the middle the concrete illustrations -- race, battle, bread -- dissolve into the vague phrases "success or failure in competitive activities." This had to be so, because no modern writer of the kind I am discussing -- no one capable of using phrases like "objective considerations of contemporary phenomena" -- would ever tabulate his thoughts in that precise and detailed way. The whole tendency of modern prose is away from concreteness. Now analyze these two sentences a little more closely. The first contains forty-nine words but only sixty syllables, and all its words are those of everyday life. The second contains thirty-eight words of ninety syllables: eighteen of those words are from Latin roots, and one from Greek. The first sentence contains six vivid images, and only one phrase ("time and chance") that could be called vague. The second contains not a single fresh, arresting phrase, and in spite of its ninety syllables it gives only a shortened version of the meaning contained in the first. Yet without a doubt it is the second kind of sentence that is gaining ground in modern English. I do not want to exaggerate. This kind of writing is not yet universal, and outcrops of simplicity will occur here and there in the worst-written page. Still, if you or I were told to write a few lines on the uncertainty of human fortunes, we should probably come much nearer to my imaginary sentence than to the one from Ecclesiastes.

As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy. It is easier -- even quicker, once you have the habit -- to say In my opinion it is not an unjustifiable assumption that than to say I think. If you use ready-made phrases, you not only don't have to hunt about for the words; you also don't have to bother with the rhythms of your sentences since these phrases are generally so arranged as to be more or less euphonious. When you are composing in a hurry -- when you are dictating to a stenographer, for instance, or making a public speech -- it is natural to fall into a pretentious, Latinized style. Tags like a consideration which we should do well to bear in mind or a conclusion to which all of us would readily assent will save many a sentence from coming down with a bump. By using stale metaphors, similes, and idioms, you save much mental effort, at the cost of leaving your meaning vague, not only for your reader but for yourself. This is the significance of mixed metaphors. The sole aim of a metaphor is to call up a visual image. When these images clash -- as in The Fascist octopus has sung its swan song, the jackboot is thrown into the melting pot -- it can be taken as certain that the writer is not seeing a mental image of the objects he is naming; in other words he is not really thinking. Look again at the examples I gave at the beginning of this essay. Professor Laski (1) uses five negatives in fifty three words. One of these is superfluous, making nonsense of the whole passage, and in addition there is the slip -- alien for akin -- making further nonsense, and several avoidable pieces of clumsiness which increase the general vagueness. Professor Hogben (2) plays ducks and drakes with a battery which is able to write prescriptions, and, while disapproving of the everyday phrase put up with, is unwilling to look egregious up in the dictionary and see what it means; (3), if one takes an uncharitable attitude towards it, is simply meaningless: probably one could work out its intended meaning by reading the whole of the article in which it occurs. In (4), the writer knows more or less what he wants to say, but an accumulation of stale phrases chokes him like tea leaves blocking a sink. In (5), words and meaning have almost parted company. People who write in this manner usually have a general emotional meaning -- they dislike one thing and want to express solidarity with another -- but they are not interested in the detail of what they are saying. A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: 1. What am I trying to say? 2. What words will express it? 3. What image or idiom will make it clearer? 4. Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? And he will probably ask himself two more: 1. Could I put it more shortly? 2. Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly? But you are not obliged to go to all this trouble. You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. They will construct your sentences for you -- even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent -- and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself. It is at this point that the special connection between politics and the debasement of language becomes clear.

In our time it is broadly true that political writing is bad writing. Where it is not true, it will generally be found that the writer is some kind of rebel, expressing his private opinions and not a "party line." Orthodoxy, of whatever color, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style. The political dialects to be found in pamphlets, leading articles, manifestoes, White papers and the speeches of undersecretaries do, of course, vary from party to party, but they are all alike in that one almost never finds in them a fresh, vivid, homemade turn of speech. When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases -- bestial atrocities, iron heel, bloodstained tyranny, free peoples of the world, stand shoulder to shoulder -- one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy: a feeling which suddenly becomes stronger at moments when the light catches the speaker's spectacles and turns them into blank discs which seem to have no eyes behind them. And this is not altogether fanciful. A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance toward turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself. If the speech he is making is one that he is accustomed to make over and over again, he may be almost unconscious of what he is saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church. And this reduced state of consciousness, if not indispensable, is at any rate favorable to political conformity.

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism., question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

"While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement."

The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as "keeping out of politics." All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer. I should expect to find -- this is a guess which I have not sufficient knowledge to verify -- that the German, Russian and Italian languages have all deteriorated in the last ten or fifteen years, as a result of dictatorship.

But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better. The debased language that I have been discussing is in some ways very convenient. Phrases like a not unjustifiable assumption, leaves much to be desired, would serve no good purpose, a consideration which we should do well to bear in mind, are a continuous temptation, a packet of aspirins always at one's elbow. Look back through this essay, and for certain you will find that I have again and again committed the very faults I am protesting against. By this morning's post I have received a pamphlet dealing with conditions in Germany. The author tells me that he "felt impelled" to write it. I open it at random, and here is almost the first sentence I see: "[The Allies] have an opportunity not only of achieving a radical transformation of Germany's social and political structure in such a way as to avoid a nationalistic reaction in Germany itself, but at the same time of laying the foundations of a co-operative and unified Europe." You see, he "feels impelled" to write -- feels, presumably, that he has something new to say -- and yet his words, like cavalry horses answering the bugle, group themselves automatically into the familiar dreary pattern. This invasion of one's mind by ready-made phrases (lay the foundations, achieve a radical transformation) can only be prevented if one is constantly on guard against them, and every such phrase anaesthetizes a portion of one's brain.

I said earlier that the decadence of our language is probably curable. Those who deny this would argue, if they produced an argument at all, that language merely reflects existing social conditions, and that we cannot influence its development by any direct tinkering with words and constructions. So far as the general tone or spirit of a language goes, this may be true, but it is not true in detail. Silly words and expressions have often disappeared, not through any evolutionary process but owing to the conscious action of a minority. Two recent examples were explore every avenue and leave no stone unturned, which were killed by the jeers of a few journalists. There is a long list of flyblown metaphors which could similarly be got rid of if enough people would interest themselves in the job; and it should also be possible to laugh the not un- formation out of existence*, to reduce the amount of Latin and Greek in the average sentence, to drive out foreign phrases


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

*One can cure oneself of the not un- formation by memorizing this sentence: A not unblack dog was chasing a not unsmall rabbit across a not ungreen field.


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

and strayed scientific words, and, in general, to make pretentiousness unfashionable. But all these are minor points. The defense of the English language implies more than this, and perhaps it is best to start by saying what it does not imply.

To begin with it has nothing to do with archaism, with the salvaging of obsolete words and turns of speech, or with the setting up of a "standard English" which must never be departed from. On the contrary, it is especially concerned with the scrapping of every word or idiom which has outworn its usefulness. It has nothing to do with correct grammar and syntax, which are of no importance so long as one makes one's meaning clear, or with the avoidance of Americanisms, or with having what is called a "good prose style." On the other hand, it is not concerned with fake simplicity and the attempt to make written English colloquial. Nor does it even imply in every case preferring the Saxon word to the Latin one, though it does imply using the fewest and shortest words that will cover one's meaning. What is above all needed is to let the meaning choose the word, and not the other way around. In prose, the worst thing one can do with words is surrender to them. When you think of a concrete object, you think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the thing you have been visualizing you probably hunt about until you find the exact words that seem to fit it. When you think of something abstract you are more inclined to use words from the start, and unless you make a conscious effort to prevent it, the existing dialect will come rushing in and do the job for you, at the expense of blurring or even changing your meaning. Probably it is better to put off using words as long as possible and get one's meaning as clear as one can through pictures and sensations. Afterward one can choose -- not simply accept -- the phrases that will best cover the meaning, and then switch round and decide what impressions one's words are likely to make on another person. This last effort of the mind cuts out all stale or mixed images, all prefabricated phrases, needless repetitions, and humbug and vagueness generally. But one can often be in doubt about the effect of a word or a phrase, and one needs rules that one can rely on when instinct fails. I think the following rules will cover most cases:

(i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

(ii) Never us a long word where a short one will do.

(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.

(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

These rules sound elementary, and so they are, but they demand a deep change of attitude in anyone who has grown used to writing in the style now fashionable. One could keep all of them and still write bad English, but one could not write the kind of stuff that I quoted in those five specimens at the beginning of this article.

I have not here been considering the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought. Stuart Chase and others have come near to claiming that all abstract words are meaningless, and have used this as a pretext for advocating a kind of political quietism. Since you don't know what Fascism is, how can you struggle against Fascism? One need not swallow such absurdities as this, but one ought to recognize that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase -- some jackboot, Achilles' heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno, or other lump of verbal refuse -- into the dustbin, where it belongs.

Declarámos guerra às moscas em Nápoles, quatro anos de guerra, porque há então tanta mosca?

Tanto NOS JOGOS como NAS GUERRAS TODOS PERDEMOS
Perdemos tempo que é vida
Perdemos capacidade de julgar o outro
Pensamos que estamos a atingir o objectivo
Enganamo-nos a nós mesmos nas nossas avaliações
Do Hidrogénio aos Transurânicos fui apagado, escarnecido,pseudo-insultado por todos os elementos da tabela periódica
Infelizmente falhei o Kalium (Potássio) um numa imensidão de alvos
Os últimos foram o Urânio, U, o Einsténio Es , número atômico 99 e o último o Zinco,
mais previsível
a esquerda é geralmente mais censora que a direita
o primeiro que iniciou este jogo, quando estava a aprender a construir um blog em Abril foi o S o enxofre, rápidamente se torna ácido, sem saber porquê sem nunca antes
ter visto meia-dúzia destas coisas que chamam blogues aparece uma miúda do Porto
com 500 seguidores e sei lá que mais, a escrever que não faço sentido nenhum.
Estava no sapo muito quietinho, nem sabia para que serviam os ícones em cima
e fui experimentando