Recently a school-related, extracurricular activity, Academic Decathlon, in which I am involved, has given me, as well as my fellow group members, the imprimatur for the creation of a "formal" interview and a, hopefully, ingenious speech. The entailments of such an interview and speech include the complete and utter abrogating of any use of argot, the intolerance of equivocation, which thus causes the idea of being even somewhat laconic to be completely out of the question, and the quality of capriciousness within either of these verbal elements is greatly frowned upon and thus harshly excoriated. All the while, of course, one is expected to keep a high degree of sang-froid and poise, but not too much, for an avoidance of the supercilious quality is held in high regard and greatly appreciated, as well.
The label of a malcontent is not one I wish to pertain to, for I am not one to relish within the status of an anathema, but I cannot deny the rightful opinion that is mine, and I will not give way as a credulous character, in which neither an opinion nor even a thought is apparent within the mind. Scruples I will not have, for I know, and I am sure others will concur, that my opinion hence forth is that of a righteous nature.
Implacable to withhold such righteousness, I have to say that such restrictions on the literal speech of such participants of these previously entailed activities, is one of the gravest signs of perfidy within our nation that is America. Melodramatic, one may say, I think not! Was it not our forefathers before us that enabled our mere ability to have such freedom of speech, and for such a freedom to be stripped bare from these participants, causes me to smell the scents of debauchery.
Stigma these judges should withhold, for their deprecation of our daily use of a type of colloquial, is it not our current form of speech? Based on such a truth, thus standardized language should not evoke feelings of saturnine, but rather interest and intrigue, for through our daily language the true insights of our internal self can be attained, thus leading to the revering of our external and internal self. A mere gift, priceless in itself, for the presented, facade of a person is no longer, allowing for the true, withheld soul to run free. What could be more gratifying than the ability to obtain the learnings of the true person, itself? Nothing.
Furthermore, the point of an interview or speech, itself, is, in fact, to be given the chance to obtain knowledge about said person and be able to realize the entailments behind said person's soul, is it not? Since there is truth behind such words, why, I ask, do such regulations remain? Such a remainder, allows one to interpret this to be a direct stab at the supposedly unsatisfactory level of one's mind, and ultimately one's true self. What is so bad about me, about who I am, and the true self that is me?
No comments:
Post a Comment