$80m in Prize Money: Reviewing Systematic Immolation  of Thought

Rather than running a traditional writing competition, with all of the horror that they can entail, I am instead wishing to get rid of some of the rampant excess wealth I've accumulated over the past few lottery wins by essentially commissioning reviews into probably the most groundbreaking work that these streets have ever heard.

I am talking, of course, about Systematic Immolation of Thought.  

It works like this - you write a CREDIBLE review of SIOT, you enter.  You'll receive a SIGNIFICANT CASH AWARD for simply entering, and then if it's good, you're in with a chance of winning up to $80m.

Please note that this is ONLY available for those reviewing SYSTEMATIC IMMOLATION OF THOUGHT.  Some money is available into reviewing other works by WhereWasI, but please contact me first.

As of yet I am a non-entrant, and so the question I am about to ask is solely for clarification's sake without expressing any intent of actually becoming an entrant as of yet (I know that I have to be VERY careful with my words here for obvious reasons).

My question is: can I also posthumously submit reviews written less than 1 year ago by the original author? If so I might have a good contender.

Hmm, good question MonobrowedMenace.

I'm going to say YES.

It works like this - you write a CREDIBLE review of SIOT, you enter.  You'll receive a SIGNIFICANT CASH AWARD for simply entering, and then if it's good, you're in with a chance of winning up to $80m.

So, theoretically, and I really am assuming that something like this would never happen in a reputable writing contest such as this as I ask this, the prize could be from $1 - $80,000,000, depending on how you feel?  Will there be some sort of outside, impartial adjudicator for this if this is the case or, alternatively, could you confirm the actual prize for winning said "reputable" contest?

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, can you provide proof of your recent lottery wins, I am not a cautionary fellow usually, but I have heard many a tale of a reputed $80,000,000 being linked back to a fellow, some would say simple, person who shall remain unnamed.  I wouldn't want to get my hands dirty with money of that sort you know, I have enough things going on without having another worry and I have heard dirty money leads to unpleasant outcomes. 

Thanks in advance!

Qalico, you make some good points.

Firstly, at least one prize will the million mark   

Thirdly, ask Gillian about my lottery wins.

Lastly, who is this simpleton you refer to?

TaptGutt.

One prize will what the million mark, I think you missed some wordage.  Does Gillian run the lottery these days?

I seem to remember he resided in Chicago for a stupendous amount of time and although a talented and respected mafioso retired for some reason unbeknownst to most.  I think it had something to do with some repairs he contracted out to the tune of 80 million, perhaps to a plumbing and heating engineer.  It was a far spun yarn and I thought nothing of it upon hearing it.

My Review of "Systematic Immolation of Thought"

After reading "Systematic Immolation of Thought" by WherewasI I'm able to give the work a review. Many valid points were made in the work, but also in my opinion flaws. I'll start with the flaws.

He seems to disregard historical references in discussions. This can be a problem because history tends to teach up valuable lessons. Ignoring historical lessons will also ignore why those decisions and/or thought processes existed thus possibly overlooking valuable lessons from the past. History tends to repeat itself so to ignore it, not learn from or use it can be a grave error in my opinion. People who draw ideas from the past or from experiences doesnt make the work less relevant or unoriginal as WherewasI implies. I also believe he prioritizes originality and independent thinking to the point where he is actually discouraging the use of others words or ideas. Intelligence has been built upon other ideas and views. Even as children knowledge isn't gained naturally but taught, so to say your words are original is probably incorrect. Knowledge is built over time with basis of other works/words/ideas ect. I always implore people to be original but why reinvent the wheel? To seem more original? I don't know if it's worth it or even likely.

The work does have valid points also. He does emphasize the idea of critical thinking, not taking things for face value and blindly accepting information as many people do. He does stress analyzing and questioning decisions is very important to intellectual growth and this I agree with. Doing your research on ideas and thought is important, you can't blindly accept "facts" no matter who they come from. Unfortunately many people do this today. He also stresses the need to know 'why' which important because understanding what was done is one thing but to understand why is to comprehend the thought. It digs deeper into thoughts or ideas themselves, not based on historical evidence but more on emotion. This will lead to a deeper meaningful discussion, not just surface level. He also stresses individual responsibility and application of knowledge. It is our responsibility to learn and to apply the knowledge we do learn or it is pointless, which ties us back to why.

Overall the work was well written and a good read, it has objective flaws and points but I do believe it was well thought out and an important discussion. It's meant to persuade and I believe it does accomplish its goal.

Okay, since I have been graciously given the OK to posthumously submit reviews to this Competitive Systematic Immolation of Thought Reviewing Competition (CSIOTRC) I will submit the following review (or rather, passionate love letter) written by the easily-forgotten nobody called JubTheNub:

Contemporary analysis: Systematic Immolation of Thought

I would also like to make it known that, through a complicated bureaucratic process which I struggle to fully comprehend myself, I have been declared the heir apparent of whatever income this review may generate.

Which means: should this review win the prize money of this competition, we can use it to cancel my outstanding debt of $80,000,000 to you, TaptGutt.

Was I tricked by YungCyrax into paying him millions of dollars, mistakenly believing that I was paying off my debt and that he was the current incarnation of the "kuklinski" bloodline? Yes.

Do I personally feel ashamed of that? Also yes.

Did I get my money back after I called him a swindling blackguard? No.

Did I then proceed to send him a very heated letter laden with insults so vile that I do not dare repeating them here in the streets? Yes again.

What's up y'all.  In the spirit of friendly debate, my review is basically just the opposite of what TommyVitale said.  

Do we have an option to set someone on fire or ourselves or do you guys just think about it.

I am confused what is going on here but I have a few fire extinguishers for sale and will donate one to the cause.

Shaz runs off tapping his gutt

Everyone knows your family line doesn't pay their debts anyway. I would suggest no one contribute to yet another sham promise in a long line of your family's legacy.

"Transistor, his family line also have a history of going bonkers, rouging out of nowhere, shooting random people and writing terrible pathetic apologetic speeches, as we can see in one of his grandparents letters." She throws a stinky ass piece of paper on the ground for everyone to see.

"Lets not even mention the blatant disrespect he is used to treat people above his rank. I believe the sensible thing to do in a case such as this, would be strip him away from him gun, but i'm not his leader, so this is just an opinion. Lets just hope he doesn't fuck up again (unlikely) and shoot random goombas, because thats really all he's ever able to kill."

"Oh, and lets not forget about this other one lame ass attempt at apology. How embarrassing for his lineage."

She throws another stinky ass paper in the gutter.

This will show the likes of Gillian that I am an honest and decent man.

Sidesteps all the shitty ass papers in the Streets (not a reference to anyone's weekly or not weekly newspaper by the way) and hears TaptGutt offering 16 Saddle Newsflash's worth of prize money.

Despite having "Systematic Immolation of Thought" (SIOT) on my Mafia reading list, I had previously been too engaged in reading weekly newspapers to devote the time required to actively engage with WhereWasI's charming insights. Given that no such weekly papers now exist, I have plenty of time to dive right into it and that money sounds deliciously sweet. 

I knew heading in that Systematic Immolation of Thought was one of the defining works of the modern mafia, ranked up there with "The Gangster's Handbook" in terms of thought provoking literature, and as important to the community at large as knowing that purchasing someone's bathwater should not draw scorn and is not, contrary to popular opinion, an act of contemptible dweebery.

With that said, and despite going into this with my eyes open wider than a hooker's asshole after one of Gillian's cocaine dinners, I have to admit that I was as blown away by the toaster analogy as I was not surprised that he gave his speech from atop stacked milk crates; the very epitome of a mafia stereotype in a speech advocating for the divergence from them.

Anyway, you might think that there are no parallels to be drawn between the rehashing of old ideas without exploring the why of them and how a toaster works and you would be absolutely right. WhereWasI argues that it is important to know how the toaster actually works to be able to apply that knowledge to other situations rather than just knowing how to put bread in it. Until I read this dissertation, I had never spared a second for how my toaster works. Has anyone else? Well if you, like me, didn't delve deeper into the structure of your breakfast buddy, according to WhereWasI, you're going to freeze to death. Unless you explore the why of everything, you're going to die essentially. Except you aren't because those two things don't necessarily correlate. 

Sure, nobody wants to be an intellectual pillow and some critical analysis would be beneficial, but simplifying complex problem-solving and critical thinking into being akin to using your toaster is disingenuous nonsense. I guess the real problem with SIOT then, is that a bit like the first electric toaster invented by Alan MacMasters in 1893 which only toasted one side of the bread, it doesn't actually get the job done which it sets out to do.

I guess I learned something important in that I now know how a toaster works but my biggest takeaway was best summarised by the late Morrissey, "this is a piece of ass, written by Mr Ass."

I regret reading this. 

"TaptGutt, i didnt say anything about you not paying people. Transistor did. Why don't you say something to him? Also, i always believed TommyVitale to be in collusion with you and your little friends, so it really doesn't make any differente (for me)."

Gillian, you're banned from this contest and I wish you would leave me alone.  I'm fed up being picked on by you

SaddleFlashing.  A fine effort.  I'm going to award you $26m

Also, i always believed TommyVitale to be in collusion with you and your little friends, so it really doesn't make any differente (for me)."

Now this sounds newsworthy… the editor of the country’s leading paper colluding with the editor of the country’s 2nd shittiest one. And now contest money is changing hands between them?  Is this suspicious?  Yes it is. I would like to maybe run a story about this in my own fine tabloid, a follow up to an ongoing  expose piece I’ve been running on TaptGutt. Don Gillian may I set up a time to meet with you later for additional details and maybe a comment on this controversy?