Dear Jovana,

I've done your survey and I'm happy to contribute
to your research.

Most of us want to know about ourselves, why we do the
things we do. Sometimes the reasons are clear and well
within sight, but sometimes even our own actions, let
alone those of other people are puzzling.

Most people are interested in other people, and to understand
them it can be useful to know about their background and
their past experiences. Many people today -
also seek to find out
about their own ancestry and they try to trace the
development of their family over many generations - spending
a great deal of time recording their family tree as far back
as the records go.

Thank you for allowing me to contribute in a small way to
your research.

Bollocks.

Dear Is Mise,

Talking about bollocks ...

What the difference between a tractor and a
giraffe?

One has hydrolics
The other has high bollocks.

And -

Imagine yourself - walking down the street with
your wife and you accuse her of being ashamed
to be seen with you.

"That's total bollocks,"

she would assure you -

by text from across the road.

Dear Foxy,

Re – PC Membership 2074183

It has been drawn to our attention that some of your recent pontifications are in breach of our agreed mandate.

Your Brand Image has been carefully crafted to include an easily recognized format, rhetorical content and style.

We are concerned that some of your recent “snappiness” may be a sign of some deeper underlying stress, perhaps in response to lost traction of your adopted style.

Remember that your brand image was specifically designed to cover weaknesses in logic, critical thinking and content.

You were to maintain this through gushing and sickly sweetness, patronizing comment, avoiding content through diversionary tactics, pointing the finger at others from high moral ramparts, emotive argument, socialized platitudes and intellectualized misdirection.

This has worked well for you over time.

We accept that the proletariat is stirring and traction is being lost however, it is vital that you maintain this style and mantra even though this has caused the declining traction in the first place.

More of the same is absolutely critical. We cannot be drawn into any debate on the basis of content, reality or those pesky facts.

By getting snappy all you are doing is telegraphing the fact that our beloved mantra is no longer working.

In the event than anyone raises an issue of great significance and well worthy of debate, always find something of little or no consequence but assign to it a great deal of moral/value importance.

That way you can avoid distasteful topics of any real significance. As a bonus this will also prevent anyone else from discussing them.

Also you should avoid disengagement, it is a sign of weakness, capitulation and not a good look.

Keep up the great work in avoiding exposure of the paucity of progressive correctness.

PC remedial workshops will resume next month, bookings essential as they are in high demand.

Dear spindoc,

"Somebody in France wanted to put Voltaire
in jail. Somebody in Franco's Spain sent
Lorca, their greatest poet, to death
before a firing squad. Somebody in Germany
under Hitler burned the books, drove
Thomas Mann into exile, and led their Jewish
scholars to the gas chamber. Somebody in Greece
long ago gave Socrates the hemlock to drink.
Somebody in the USSR banned Solzhenitsyn and
Pasternak. Somebody at Golgothe erected a cross
and somebody drove the nails into the hands of
Christ. Somebody spat on his garments.
NO ONE REMEMBERS THEIR NAMES."
(Milton Meltzer - on censorship).

It's wise to remember spindoc, that -
attempts to diminish anyone - only works in the minds
of the conceptually and ethically impaired.

But keep trying old chap!

'morning Foxy,

Many thanks for your compliance with the description I offered of you.

Life can be a bitch, so can being a progressive. 70 percent of your post was indeed dedicated to my prediction of your response, "find something of little or no consequence but assign to it a great deal of moral/value importance". Do you think you have responded to the content or just ignored it?

When it comes to diminishing people, there is no effort required, you do it admirably on you own. Not that you will go anywhere near any challenge to such concepts.

When it comes to "the conceptually and ethically impaired". Isn't that response precisely what I predicted? Try to denigrate the messenger?

You can't help yourself can you?

You are a classic progressive, incapable of response to content, just a predetermined rhetorical reaction to anything that causes you discomfort.

You could always respond to content of course, but that would be outside your skill domain would it not?