Drawings for sex topics Options

[Somey]

...If wikipedia is victorious in its quest to curry favor with the most self-deceiving ochlocrats you'll ever see using a barrage of flattery, especially recognition of their "value", their "importance", their "educational mission", and other dastardly nonsense, then its crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. It's not that I have anything against devotees of conspiracy theories in general. It's just that wikipedia parrots whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, its ideas will change instantly like a weathercock. When one looks at the increasing influence of lexiphanicism in our culture one sees that wikipedia's signature is on everything. So how come its fingerprints are nowhere to be found?...

And you're saying this text is, or is not computer-generated?

If it is, that's one smart computer. Though I would probably replace "lexiphanicism" with something like "textual echolalia," if only to have it make a bit more sense.

[Moulton]

Wikipedia favors manipulative psychological techniques over honest discussion.

In other words, Wikipedia favors dramaturgy at best and sociopathy at worst, while eschewing authentic modes of academic inquiry and review.

[Rhindle]

And you're saying this text is, or is not computer-generated?

If it is, that's one smart computer. Though I would probably replace "lexiphanicism" with something like "textual echolalia," if only to have it make a bit more sense.

I believe it is computer generated, unless this guy already has a bunch of stuff pre-written which I doubt.