Complain about the user above you

[Mr Queeba]

Use the complaint generator from http://www.pakin.org/complaint to complain about the user above you.
Since there's nobody above me, I'll just use Rotondo.
Anthony Rotondo will almost certainly blow a gasket when he reads this letter, but I undoubtedly must make the case that Rotondo has a history of opening the gates of Hell. You may be disappointed to hear that my concrete suggestions on how to get people to sign a petition to limit his ability to cause trouble are sprinkled throughout this letter like raisins in a pudding, not grouped together in a single block of text at the end. This was a conscious decision I made based on the observation that one of the avaricious witlings in Rotondo's employ has penned an extensive treatise whose thesis is that Rotondo would never even consider changing the course of history. Contrary to what that emollient hagiography asserts, Rotondo maintains not only that he is a protective bulwark against the advancing tyranny of the most wayward erastophiliacs you'll ever see but also that his mistakes are always someone else's fault. He's wrong on all counts. In reality, if we don't discuss the relationship among three converging and ever-growing factions—politically incorrect, ethically bankrupt schemers, anti-democratic, brassbound bozos, and presumptuous scaramouches—right now, then Rotondo's imprecations will soon start to metastasize until they scorn and abjure reason.

What do you think the chances are that Rotondo will eventually stop demanding that loyalty to gutless polemicists supersedes personal loyalty? I assure you, the likelihood of that is slim to none. The reason is that Rotondo's biggest lie is that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of crass stereotypes. Sure, he might be able to peddle that boatload of parisology to the hayseeds, but he has offered to deter his votaries from stamping out the last vestiges of academic freedom, scholarly autonomy, and freedom of research and teaching in our nation's universities. Did he follow through with that? No, of course not. This failure may be Rotondo's most consequential broken promise. It suggests that perhaps the only weapons Rotondo has in his intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That's all he has, and he knows it.

If Rotondo thinks that the purpose of life is self-gratification, then he's sadly mistaken. Does he honestly expect us to believe that human rights can best be protected by suspending them altogether? There is widespread agreement in asking that question but there is great disagreement in answering it. To inform you of the grounds upon which I base my diatribes, I offer the following. If he had lived the short, sickly, miserable life of a chattel serf in the ages “before technocracy” he wouldn't be so keen to grasp at straws, trying to find increasingly insincere ways to shake belief in all existing institutions through the systematic perversion of both contemporary and historical facts. Maybe he'd even begin to realize that he asserts that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. While that happens to be pure fantasy from the world of make-believe, one important fact to consider is that it is easy to see faults in others. But it takes perseverance to light the torch of human rights. Finally, in case you missed it, what I've really been alluding to in this letter is a queasy combination of revolting incompetence, base insidiousness, poststructuralism, and ignorance. All of these characteristics are embodied in Anthony Rotondo, and they all make a strong statement about how Rotondo reminds me of the thief who cries “Stop, thief!” to distract attention from his thievery.
go go go

[Ad Bot]

[ZeÜberMedic!]

In this letter, I will do my best to make my arguments against Mr. Queeba clear and articulate. I plan to utilize numerous examples and maybe even some occasional humor so as not to strain your patience as I delve into immense detail about how our attempts to push the boundaries of knowledge ever farther have so far served only as a divertissement for Queeba and his brethren. Consider this letter not as a monologue but rather as a joint effort between writer and reader. Together we shall accentuate our universal humanity. Together we shall speak truth to power. And together we shall drain the swamp of influence-peddling and the system of pay-to-play.

Are you still with me? Queeba deceptively claims that he's listening to our suggestions. The reality, however, is that he's thumbing the scales towards his own mealymouthed indiscretions even though he knows that in my view, everyone should be aware of the history of his junta. Although Queeba's junta began as a splinter faction of his eccentric lynch mob, it rapidly morphed into Queeba's primary mechanism for replacing Robert's Rules of Order with “facilitated consensus building” at all important meetings. The significance of this transformation is that Queeba's goal is to reduce meaningful political discussions to “my team versus your team” identity-based politics. How cantankerous is that? How cankered? How base-minded?

Queeba either is or elects to be ignorant of scientific principles and methods. He even intentionally misuses scientific terminology to fan the flames of obscurantism into a planet-spanning inferno. You may be worried that he will persecute the innocent and let the guilty go unpunished before long. If so, then I share your misgivings. But let's not worry about that now. Instead, let's discuss my observation that Queeba claims to have the perfect solution to all our problems. Alas, his solution involves smearing and defaming me. What bothers me about that is that there is more at play here than his purely political game of devising lackadaisical scams to get money for nothing. There are ideologies at work, hidden agendas to use paid informants and provocateurs to extract obscene salaries and profits from corporations that cause people to betray one another and hate one another. All in all, I realize that this letter has seemed incredibly bleak. However, expecting the worst from Mr. Queeba means we will never be disappointed. If we're wrong and he does not try to pander to our worst fears, we'll be relieved. If we're right and he does, we'll be prepared.

[gebenuwell]

I realize that everyone is entitled to his opinion, and I respect this. I also hope that you will all respect mine as you read this letter. Read on, gentle reader, and hear what I have to say. ZeÜberMedic! has asked his dupes to insist that our society be infested with expansionism, cameralism, antagonism, and an impressive swarm of other “isms”. (There's no explicit mention of making nearby communities victims of environmental degradation and toxic waste dumping, but that's there too if you read between the lines.) This scares me because what we're involved in with ZeÜberMedic! is not a game. It's the most serious possible business, and every serious person—every person with any shred of a sense of responsibility—must concern himself with it.

We are a nation of prostitutes. By this I mean that as long as we are fat, warm, and dry we don't care what ZeÜberMedic! does. It is precisely that lack of caring that explains why many people lie. ZeÜberMedic!, however, lies with such ease it's troubling. He is currently limited to shrieking and spitting when he's confronted with inconvenient facts. Faster than you can say “phytopaleontological”, however, ZeÜberMedic! is likely to switch to some sort of “put some pesky harijan up on a pedestal” approach to draw our attention away from such facts. He can go on saying that desperadoism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society but the rest of us have serious problems to deal with that preclude our indulging in such peevish dreams just now.

If ZeÜberMedic! had even a shred of intellectual integrity, he'd admit that if his plans for the future were intended as a joke, he forgot to include the punchline. Every time he gets caught trying to create massive civil unrest, he promises he'll never do so again. Subsequently, his cronies always jump in and explain that he really shouldn't be blamed even if he does because, as they warrant, you and I are objects for him to use then casually throw away and forget like old newsprint that's performed its duty catching bird droppings. When I say that ZeÜberMedic!'s rodomontades defy common sense, I don't just mean that he wants to spread ruin widely through the land, that he wants to devise impudent scams to get money for nothing, or that he wants to detach individuals from traditional sources of strength and identity—family, class, private associations. Sure, ZeÜberMedic! undoubtedly wants all that, but he also wants much more. He wants to set the hoops through which we all must jump. Innocent children have been brainwashed by ZeÜberMedic!'s stroppy, beer-guzzling epigrams. That's all I have to say. Thank you for reading this letter.

[CRITAWAKETS]

In response to Dr. Gebunwell , Esq.'s proposed social programs, I would like to offer the following opposing points. With this letter, I hope to lead the way to the future, not to the past. But first, I would like to make the following introductory remark: I should note that Gebunwell constantly insists that his monographs are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos. But he contradicts himself when he says that honor counts for nothing.

Gebunwell uses obscure words like “electrophysiologically” and “superultrafrostified” to conceal his agenda to cause this country to flounder on the shoals of self-interest, corruption, and chaos. I find that having to process phrases with long words like those makes me feel hoodwinked, inferior, definitely frustrated, and angry. That's why I strive for utmost clarity whenever I explain to others that Gebunwell once said that the moon is made of green cheese. His compadres and others capable of little more than rote psittacism are now saying that too. In contrast, I say that in order to solve the big problems with Gebunwell we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must invite all the people who have been harmed by Gebunwell to continue to express and assert their concerns in a constructive and productive fashion.

Like fire, Gebunwell is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. To a lesser degree and on a smaller scale, Gebunwell sees the world as somewhat anarchic, a game of catch-as-catch-can in which the sneakiest potlickers nab the biggest prizes. Of perhaps even more concern is that if he is going to tear down everything that can possibly be regarded as a support of cultural elevation, then he should at least have the self-respect to remind himself of a few things: First, he always sounds like he's reading a prepared speech. And second, it's not hard to know what to expect from him and his drones. What we can expect from them is lies, lies, and more lies in every direction one turns—lies so thick that they multiply faster than one can respond to them. We can also expect a complete denial of the fact that Gebunwell's chargés d'affaires are united by only two things. Want to guess what those are? They're a deep-seated sense of victimization and a burning desire to replace Robert's Rules of Order with “facilitated consensus building” at all important meetings. Aside from those two things, the members of Gebunwell's coalition have little in common. Surprisingly, some of them even realize that Gebunwell is like a pigeon. Pigeons are too self-absorbed to care about anyone else. They poo on people they don't like; they poo on people they don't even know. The only real difference between Gebunwell and a pigeon is that Gebunwell intends to feed us a fanciful load of horse manure as unassailable truth. That's why even when the facts don't fit, Gebunwell sometimes tries to use them anyway. He still maintains, for instance, that the rockets our enemies want to launch at us are filled with gumdrops and happiness.

If I have characterized Gebunwell's chums up to now as pernicious and shiftless, it is only because the first lies that Gebunwell told us were relatively benign. Still, they have been progressing. And they will continue to progress until there is no more truth; his lies will grow until they blot out the sun. He doesn't use words for communication or for exchanging information. He uses them to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, and to deceive.

If Gebunwell's thinking were cerebral rather than glandular, he wouldn't consider it such a good idea to see to it that all patriotic endeavors are directed down blind alleys where they end only in frustration and discouragement. Like a mental patient who becomes agitated when his delusions are challenged, Gebunwell goes bonkers when encountering a worldview that contradicts his own. For example, Gebunwell hates hearing that he is operating under the misguided assumption that he's merely trying to make this world a better place in which to live. This revelation invariably provokes temper tantrums and other infantile behavior and causes Gebunwell to try to suppress all indications that life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is he so compelled to complain about situations over which he has no control? In other words, whatever happened to his sense of humanity? You see, I am deliberately using colorful language in this letter. I am deliberately using provocative phrases that I hope will stick in the minds of my readers. I do ensure, however, that my words are always appropriate and accurate and clearly explain how many institutions define “harassment” as “unwanted conduct that annoys, threatens, or alarms a person or group.” Based on that definition, Gebunwell's pigeonholing people into predetermined categories is certainly a narcissistic form of harassment. We need to make people aware of his harassing behavior and, more specifically, inform them that if there's one thing that he's good at, it's spreading the germs of hatred, of discord and jealously, of dissolution and decomposition.

Gebunwell anathematizes anyone who might demand a thoughtful brown townysis and resolution of our problems with Gebunwell. Let me recap that for you because it really is extraordinarily important: Gebunwell will do everything in his power to get me to get fired from my job. I don't have to take that lying down. That's why I'm going to tell you a little story about how Gebunwell avouches that he possesses an innate, fixed, pure, and essential identity that makes him superior to the rest of us. That story is full of more holes than a cheap hooker with a piercing special interest and a heroin habit. Gebunwell actually believes that he is a voice of probity. True, Gebunwell has a right to his opinion. In his mind, he also apparently has a right to be a stiff-necked clodpate as evidenced by his endless attempts to reduce human beings to the status of domestic animals.

Gebunwell needs to stop living in denial. He needs to wake up and realize that if we fail to wage war on immoralism then all of our sacrifices will be as forgotten as the sand blowing across Ozymandias's dead empire. The “decay of that colossal wreck,” as the poet Shelley puts it, teaches us that I could write a hundred letters about how this is sufficiently illustrated by the ridicule with which Gebunwell's initiatives are treated by everyone other than high-handed, malefic manipulators of the public mind. I can tell innumerable stories about Gebunwell's desire to encourage the acceptance of scapegoating and demonization. And I can show you that his barbaric, revolting form of insurrectionism has been spreading across the country like plague through a circa-1348 European town. Regardless of what I actually do, however, I recommend paying close attention to the praxeological method developed by the economist Ludwig von Mises and using it as a technique to comment on a phenomenon that has and will continue to create a new cottage industry around Gebunwell's overbearing form of Oblomovism. The praxeological method is useful in this context because it employs praxeology, the general science of human action, to explain why Gebunwell's smear tactics do not pass muster by any objective standards. If you'll forgive my parrhesia, I'd like to add that we've tolerated his inconsiderate shell games long enough. It's time to lose our patience and chill our kindness. It's time to ensure social harmony. It's time to shout to the world that we've all heard him yammer and whine about how he's being scapegoated again, the poor dear.

Someone just showed me a memo supposedly written by Gebunwell. The memo spells out his plans to ridicule the accomplishments of generations of great men and women. If this memo is authentic, it tells us that if Gebunwell would, just once, demonstrate real and genuine concern for others, he might begin to realize that when I was younger I wanted to work beyond the predatory plasticity of his hate sheets. I still want to do that, but now I realize that he often argues that fanaticism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. A similar argument was first made over 1200 years ago by a well-known lowlife and was quickly disproved. In those days, however, no one would have doubted that Gebunwell has a talent for inventing fantasy worlds in which we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune. Then again, just because Gebunwell is a prolific fantasist doesn't mean that it is not only acceptable but indeed desirable to introduce a zeitgeist of solecism to our society.

Again, Gebunwell is thoroughly beastly, as he has proved to my complete satisfaction. Alas, it may seem difficult at first to hone in on his faults with laser-like precision. It is. But ever since he decided to separate people from their roots and cut their bonds to their natural communities, his consistent, unvarying line has been that imperialism is a beautiful entelechy that makes us whole.

To inform you of the grounds upon which I base my slurs, I offer the following. If you think that Gebunwell has answers to everything then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what Gebunwell wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance such as that he fervently believes that it is his moral imperative to start wars, ruin the environment, invent diseases, and routinely do a hundred other things that kill people. This shows that he is not merely mistaken about one little fact among millions of facts but that Gebunwell has repeatedly indicated a desire to consign most of us to the role of his servants or slaves. Is that the sound of rarefied respectability that Gebunwell's lickspittles so frequently attribute to Gebunwell? The supercilious blathering of an unsympathetic oligarch is more like it. In fact, Gebunwell would have us believe that he has the authority to issue licenses for practicing oligarchism. Not surprisingly, his evidence for that entirely intellectually challenged claim is top-heavy with anonymous sources and, to put it mildly, he has a checkered track record for accuracy. I think it would be more accurate for Gebunwell to say that one can usually be pretty sure when he's lying. Sometimes there's a little doubt: maybe it's not a deliberate lie but merely a difference of opinion. But when Gebunwell claims that taxpayers are a magic purse that never runs out of gold, there's no room for ambiguity: he's honestly lying. I allege I've now told you everything you need to know about Dr. Gebunwell , Esq.. I'll therefore end this letter with the supererogatory comment that Gebunwell is a vulture living on the labor and the good nature of the rest of the world.

I chose 10 paragraphs, deal with it.

[Nix the Glaceon]

I am not writing to agree or disagree with Lord Crita Wakets. What I have to say, however, regards Lord Wakets's conscious decision to importune mudslinging, two-faced demagogues into throwing us into a “heads I win, tails you lose” situation. Whoa! Don't stampede for the exits! I promise I'll get to the main topic of this letter, Lord Wakets's infantile intimations, in just a few sentences. I simply feel it's important first to provide some additional context by mentioning that if we don't reveal some shocking facts about Lord Wakets's rants then Lord Wakets will teach our children a version of history that is not only skewed, distorted, and wrong but dangerously so. This message has been brought to you by the Department of Blinding Obviousness. What might not be so obvious, however, is that Lord Wakets is an expert at calming his foes with sweet inversions of the truth. In case you don't believe me, consider how he has managed to convince an alarming number of people that the sky is falling. He does this even though he knows full well that this is a contributing factor to the apparent decline of civilization and culture around us. There's nothing controversial about that view. It's a fact, pure and simple. It was a fact long before anyone realized that Lord Wakets's pontifications are not witty satire, as he would have you believe. They're simply the revolting ramblings of someone who has no idea or appreciation of what he's mocking.

Lord Wakets's warnings are of use to nobody and nothing, without meaning, without educational purpose, without ethos, surviving on the basis of a traditionally fostered prejudice. Concordantly, one might say that Lord Wakets has so frequently lied about how there should be publicly financed centers of Dadaism that some weaker-minded people are starting to believe it. We need to explain to such people that Lord Wakets can't fool me. I've met hateful stumblebums before so I know that Lord Wakets certainly believes that he is a champion of liberty and individual expression. He has apparently constructed a large superstructure of justifications for this a priori conclusion. I guess that shouldn't be too surprising given that Lord Wakets expects people to bow and scrape before him. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation.

While it is essential—and among my highest priorities—to pronounce an enlightened and just judgment upon Lord Wakets, the purpose of this letter is far greater than to prove to you how possession-obsessed and vulgar Lord Wakets has become. The purpose of this letter is to get you to start thinking for yourself, to start thinking about how his brand of cronyism focuses on granting more power to ornery spoilsports regardless of the implication for others. Lord Wakets-inspired cronyism further advocates that these folks use their newly attained power for good or evil as they individually decide. I reject this and every other form of cronyism because many of the most valued members of our community believe in reporting as best as possible the facts and circumstances surrounding Lord Wakets's uncongenial, subhuman indiscretions. Lord Wakets, on the other hand, believes in denying citizens the ability to draw their own conclusions about the potential for violence that he may be generating. I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In particular, I hope you can see that a central fault line runs through each of Lord Wakets's traducements. Specifically, Lord Wakets has been flushing all my hopes and dreams down the toilet. If there were any semblance of decency left in his crew that ought to be an affront to it. Sadly, that's a big “if”; we all know that if Lord Wakets were to get his greasy hands on the levers of power he'd immediately do the devil's work. If you don't believe me then consider that engaging him in intelligent debate is far from easy. The last time I saw someone try, furious hatred, frenzied personal attacks, emotionalism, and defiance of reason and fact were all on display in spades, and they were all directed at this one, poor, frightened person. I wish Lord Wakets would more calmly accept the fact that he keeps saying that he possesses infinite wisdom. This is exemplary of the nonsensical rhetoric and scaremongering that typifies the language of apolaustic harijans and other impertinent, exploitative deviants.

I'll give you an example of this, based on my own experience. As you know, Lord Wakets spouts the same bile in everything he writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue he's excited about this week is hedonism, which says to me that Lord Wakets deeply believes that Bulverism is a beautiful entelechy that makes us whole. Meanwhile, back on Earth, the truth is very simple: Lord Wakets has spent untold hours trying to promote his vile substitute for morality, which defines as acrimonious any attempt to listen to others. During that time, did it ever once occur to him that without checks and balances, pushy barrators are free to degrade, divide, and destroy our nation? Well, I asked the question so I should answer it. Let me start by saying that I am not fooled by his intrusive and eristic rhetoric. I therefore gladly accept the responsibility of notifying others that we must decidedly delegitimize Lord Wakets. Does that sound extremist? Is it too niddering for you? I'm sorry if it seems that way, but that's life.

Lord Wakets says that people prefer “cultural integrity” and “multicultural sensitivity” to health, food, safety, and the opportunity to choose their own course through life. If that's the limit of Lord Wakets's perception, acumen, and intelligence, then God help him. An inner voice tells me that he wants us to believe that courtesy and manners don't count for anything. I'm hopeful that most people will see right through that lie like it were a gooey glob of ectoplasm. At a minimum, I hope that people realize that in some sense, Lord Wakets's twisted dream of constructing the spectre of a terrible armed threat has triumphed. Of course, this would better be called a nightmare, not a dream. In point of contrast, I'm one of those people who dreams about keeping the faith. That's why I write that Lord Wakets sometimes uses the word “blepharosphincterectomy” when describing his sermons. Beware! This is a buzzword designed for emotional response.

Lord Wakets should think about how his ramblings lead moralistic fomenters of revolution to build a totalitarian death machine. If Lord Wakets doesn't want to think that hard, perhaps he should just keep quiet. Whatever he claims to the contrary, Lord Wakets's headstrong hatchet jobs cause death by a thousand blows. While no one blow is strong enough, together they get on my nerves.

One does not have to manipulate the unseen mechanisms of society so as to squander irreplaceable treasures in order to embark on a new path towards change. It is a myopic person who believes otherwise. Lord Wakets once tried to convince a bunch of us that the cure for evil is more evil. Fortunately, calmer heads prevailed, and a number of people informed the rest of the gang that if my memory serves me correctly, if emotionalism were an Olympic sport, Lord Wakets would clinch the gold medal. But this is something to be filed away for future letters. At present, I wish to focus on only one thing: the fact that even if scientific evidence established that our freedoms should survive on the crumbs that fall from the banquet table of McCarthyism, it would still be the case that all of the armchair pundits on the Internet are saying that repeating something over and over does not make it true. We can therefore conclude that Lord Wakets might break down our communities when you least expect it. What are we to do then? Place blinders over our eyes and hope we don't see the horrible outcome?

If you want truth, you have to struggle for it. This letter represents my struggle, my attempt at looking into the future and considering what will happen if we let Lord Wakets violate strongly held principles regarding deferral of current satisfaction for long-term gains. It is also my soapbox for informing the community at large that the really interesting thing about all this is not that objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that his arguments are full of hair-splitting, lawyer-like quibbling and references to obscure authorities. The interesting thing is that he has long been violating values so important to our sense of community. What worries me more than that, however, is that if Lord Wakets ever manages to undermine the basic values of work, responsibility, and family, that's when the defecation will really hit the air conditioning.

Lord Wakets insists it would be best for all of us if he were to till the manipulative side of the privatism garden. Such sentiments have no place in our community, let alone in our world. I wish that all of the loveist, headlong slobs who hold similar views would stop to think about how the reason Lord Wakets wants to attack the critical realism and impassive objectivity that are the central epistemological foundations of the scientific worldview is that he's utterly insufferable. If you believe you have another explanation for his discourteous behavior, then please write and tell me about it. He is simply incapable of entertaining an unorthodox idea. And let me tell you, he believes with sincere conviction that he can override nature. Providing a cornucopia of evidence to the contrary won't faze him; he's immune to any sort of reality check. That's why Lord Wakets claims that his casus belli will spread enlightenment to the masses, nurture democracy, reestablish the bonds of community, bring us closer to God, and generally work to the betterment of Man and society. That claim is preposterous and, to use Lord Wakets's own language, overtly treacherous. No history can justify it.

The following is a preliminary attempt to establish some criteria for discussion of these complex issues. To begin with, I resent being exposed to yellow-bellied ribald-types. From this anecdotal evidence I would argue that his hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it. Lord Wakets and his henchmen are a bunch of ragabashes. As you know, ragabashes are cadgers; cadgers are litterbugs; litterbugs are megalomaniacs; and megalomaniacs all want to revile everything in the most obscene terms and drag it into the filth of the basest possible outlook. The point is that Lord Wakets might have been in a lethargic state of autointoxication when he said that his castigators are aligned with very dark and malevolent fourth-dimensional aliens known as Draconians. More likely, perhaps, is that if Lord Wakets wants to be taken seriously, he should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults. So, sorry for being so long-winded in this letter, but you won't hear Lord Crita Wakets's emissaries admit that he's linguacious.

[TableSalt]

While Nix needs no introduction, I do want to state that I refuse to kowtow to Nix's merciless cult. Read on, gentle reader, and hear what I have to say. Nix wants to replace intellectual integrity with stuck-up sloganeering. Alas, that's a mere ripple on the biggety ocean of Maoism in which Nix will drown any attempt to kick butt and take names.

Nix has never had a single new idea. He has merely gussied up old concepts in new rhetoric, most recently in the bad-tempered jargon of neopaganism. This leads to an important point: I maintain that I have a workable strategy for putting an end to malicious unilateralism. Naturally, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but I have already established that I've known a number of honorable people who have laid down their lives to prescribe a course of action. Without exception, these people understood deeply that Nix is a tribute to our collective gullibility. Promise us anything that sounds cheap, free, or too good to be true, and you've got us hooked. That's why so many people believe Nix when he says that it's okay to leave the educational and emotional needs of our children in the chauvinistic hands of repulsive gadflies. The reality, in contrast, is that our national media is controlled by uncompanionable libertines. That's why you probably haven't heard that Nix has a natural talent for complaining. He can find any aspect of life and whine about it for hours upon hours.

I'll tell you what we need to do about all the craziness Nix is mongering. We need to put the fear of God into Nix. The two things I just mentioned—the way that we have a right and an obligation to yank up satanic, incoherent vendors of boosterism from the dark rocks under which they hide and flaunt them before the bright sunshine of public exposure and the fact that he can't control his desire to have everything he wants and to have it now—may sound like they're completely unrelated, but they're not. The common link is that if he doesn't like it here, then perhaps he should go elsewhere. Wherever you look, you'll see Nix enforcing intolerance in the name of tolerance. You'll see him suppressing freedom in the name of freedom. And you'll see him crushing diversity of opinion in the name of diversity.

However much Nix may deny it, he is not a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens follow knowledge like a sinking star beyond the utmost bound of human thought. Responsible citizens honestly do not rub salt into our wounds. His biggest lie is that “the truth”, “the whole truth”, and “nothing but the truth” are three different things. Sure, he might be able to peddle that boatload of parisology to the hayseeds, but we find among narrow and uneducated minds the belief that the moon is made of green cheese. This belief is due to a basic confusion that can be cleared up simply by stating that Nix warrants that the existence and perpetuation of charlatanism is its own moral justification. Perhaps he has some sound arguments on his side, but if so he's keeping them hidden. I'd say it's far more likely that Nix claims that he has a “special” perspective on exclusionism that carries with it a “special” right to squander irreplaceable treasures. With all due credit to Nix's fertile imagination, this claim makes no concession to the facts. The truth is that Nix's posse is among the world's most dangerous and powerful forces for despotism in existence today. Of that I am certain because Nix accuses me of being a liar. The only proven liar around here, however, is Nix. Only a die-hard liar like Nix could claim that revisionism is a viable and vital objective for our nation's educational institutions. The truth, in case you haven't already figured it out, is that if I said that every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to preach fear and ignorance, I'd be a liar. But I'd be being entirely honest if I said that it's possible that by excluding any possibility of comparison, Nix can easily pass off his own treatises as works of genius. However, I cannot speculate about that possibility here because I need to devote more space to a description of how there isn't so much as a molecule of evidence that we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune. The only reason that Nix claims otherwise is that it's not necessarily difficult to put him in his place. We can begin simply by answering the splenetic, sanctimonious roisterers who attack everyone else's beliefs. See? I told you it wasn't necessarily difficult. We just need to remember that you might have heard the story that Nix once agreed to help us respond to his surmises. No one has located the document in which Nix said that. No one has identified when or where Nix said that. That's because he never said it. As you might have suspected, I clearly think that Nix is an out-of-touch rampallion. How else can I characterize a person who did all of the following and then some?

• Promote violence in all its forms—physical, loveual, psychological, economical, and social—
• Dump effluent into creeks, lakes, streams, and rivers
• Undermine liberty in the name of liberty

I could lengthen this list, but I shall rest my case. The point is that Nix plans to reduce social and cultural awareness to a dictated set of guidelines to follow. He has instructed his emissaries not to discuss this or even admit to his plan's existence. Obviously, Nix knows he has something to hide.

Nix has long wanted to prevent anyone from stating publicly that whenever he gives a speech, he is always careful to sidestep the issue of how I am skeptical of his efforts to produce a thrasonical definition of “microclimatological”. Why do I bring that up? Because by studying his repression of ideas in its extreme, unambiguous form one may more clearly understand why Nix would have us believe that he is omnipotent. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Nix is surrounded by foul knaves who parrot the same nonsense, which is why if anyone should propose a practical scheme for celebrating knowledge and truth for the sake of knowledge and truth, I should be quite disposed to incur almost any degree of expense to accomplish that object. In the meantime, let me point out that Nix should stop protesting against his weaknesses and shortcomings. Rather, he should forgive himself for them and seek to strengthen himself by facing his immature fears. Then, perhaps, Nix would stop redefining unbridled self-indulgence as a virtue, as the ultimate test of personal freedom.

What we need to do next is to provide ordinary people with the theoretical and methodological tools needed to critically brown townyze Nix's philippics from a sociological perspective. This will be difficult if you can't trust anything or if you believe that he has achieved sainthood. That's why I suggest you think about how Nix periodically puts up a façade of reform. However, underneath the pretty surface, it's always business as usual. His confidants have tried, sometimes successfully and sometimes not, to ransack people's homes. What typically stymies them in this quest is their failure to consider the fact that as long as I live and breathe, I will strive to carry out this matter to the full extent of the law. Need I say more? I don't think so, but this I will say: If you've ever read a Web site's terms of use then many characteristics of Nix's tractates will sound like the “what you're not allowed to post” section. They're unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, and otherwise objectionable. Or, to restate that concept without all the legal jargon, Nix, already oppressive with his pharisaical scare tactics, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species—if separate species we be—for his reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world. If you think that that's a frightening thought then consider that I recently informed Nix that his surrogates utilize questionable and illegal fund-raising techniques. Nix said he'd “look further into the matter”—well, not too much further. After all, many of the duplicitous blowhards I've encountered are convinced that it's illegal to shield people from Nix's profligate and insane deceptions—or, if it isn't illegal, then it ought to be. This view is brutal by any stretch of the imagination and reflects how we must improve the world. This call to action begins with you. You must be the first to call a spade a spade. You must be the one to take a strong position on Nix's sottises, which, after all, make us too confused, demoralized, and disunited to put up an effective opposition to Nix's crotchets. And you must inform your fellow man that there is a format Nix should follow for his next literary endeavor. It involves a topic sentence and supporting facts.

Many institutions define “harassment” as “unwanted conduct that annoys, threatens, or alarms a person or group.” Based on that definition, Nix's advocating foul-mouthed flights of fancy is surely a sullen form of harassment. We need to make people aware of his harassing behavior and, more specifically, inform them that if his attempts to encourage and exacerbate passivity in some people who might otherwise be active and responsible citizens have spurred us to dispel ignorance, then Nix may have accomplished a useful thing. Lest you think that I'm talking out of my hat here, I should point out that his votaries are engaged in perpetual one-upmanship over who more deeply enjoys his plans for the future. These are the sorts of people who can't stomach the fact that those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still warrant that we must always be looking towards the future while keeping the past in mind, have an obligation to do more than just observe what Nix is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to pronounce the truth and renounce the lies. We have an obligation to take vengeance on him as being the fomenter of what is a universal plague throughout the civilized world. And we have an obligation to champion the poor and oppressed against the evil of Nix.

Maybe it's not fair to call Nix's supporters “crime-stained” just because they take us all on a thoroughly reckless ride into the unknown, but remember that Nix's love affair with Stalinism is so puerile that it knows no bounds. That fact may not be pleasant, but it is a fact regardless of our wishes on the matter. Honor means nothing to Nix. Principles mean nothing to Nix. All he cares about is how best to stifle the free inquiry of science and the application of its discoveries towards bettering the lot of mankind. I act based on what I think is right, not who I think is right. That's why I try always to extend the compass of democracy to sinful leeches. It's also why I say that what I wrote just a moment ago is not the paranoid rambling of a verbally incontinent wacko. It's a fact.

Nix does not often exhibit tact or flexibility. Some people might object to that claim, and if they do, my response is: I can't make heads or tails of Nix's endeavors. I mean, does he want to use obscurantism as a weapon for systematic political cleansing of the population, or doesn't he? You've heard me say that his accomplices are all the most incorrigible preachers of solipsism you'll ever see. True, that's a cheap shot, but too often they do think and behave in ways that reinforce that image.

Society must soon decide either to empower the oppressed to control their own lives or else to let Nix accelerate our descent into the cesspool of special interestism. The decision is one of life or death, peaceful existence or perpetual social fever. I can hope only that those in charge realize that the way Nix orders around his coadjutors causes them to turn inward, reinforcing their own feelings of victimization and loyalty. They typically turn outward only to grasp at straws, trying to find increasingly scabrous ways to abet ethnic genocide, dictatorships, and slaphappy common criminals. Although Nix has no problem with that, he has delivered exactly the opposite of what he had previously promised us. Most notably, Nix's vows of liberation turned out to be masks for oppression and domination. And, almost as troubling, his vows of equality did little more than convince people that he says that society is screaming for his solutions. As usual, he can be counted on to wrap every actual fact in six layers of embellishment. The truth is that it seems that no one else is telling you that Nix is guilty of a shocking display of dishonesty and sophistry. So, since the burden lies with me to tell you that, I suppose I should say a few words on the subject. To begin with, diabolism doesn't work. So why does Nix cling to it? We should be able to look into our own souls for the answer. If we do, I suspect we'll find that Nix's sound bites, when taken as a whole, are carnaptious. Confronted with this pile of words, the reader may be inclined to nod and move on. However, I ask that you stop for a moment and look: Nix has no sense of personal boundaries. Why does that matter? It matters because Nix is more than obscene. He's mega-obscene. In fact, to understand just how obscene Nix is, you first need to realize that mankind needs to do more to carry out the famous French admonition, écrasez l'infâme!, against his slogans. Understand, I am not condemning mankind for not doing enough; I am merely stating that I avouch that there are in fact many people who possess the intelligence, wisdom, talent, and ability to comment on Nix's sentiments. My goal is to locate those people and encourage them to help me put an end to Nix's evildoing. Does anybody else feel the way I do, or am I alone in my disgust with Nix?
hey you loving disgrace down there you forget to capitalize the S you expired chicken nugget

[ZeÜberMedic!]

In this letter I'm going to discuss Stalinism. I'm going to delve into great detail about Tablesalt's merciless sentiments. I'm going to talk at length about how Tablesalt has been parlaying personal and political conspiracy theories into a multimillion-dollar financial empire. In short, this is not a letter for children or the overly sensitive. But first, I'm going to jump ahead a bit and talk in general terms about how his fustian squibs are a field of misspellings and misprisions. Then, I'll back up and fill in some of the details. Okay, so to start with the general stuff, there are three fairly obvious problems with his announcements, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to beat him at his own game. First, he, like a playground bully with no friends, gets high from controlling, manipulating, and harming other people. Second, his central role in the promotion of pushy Tartuffism dates back a number of years. And third, he wants to have more impact on Earth's biological, geological, and chemical systems during our lifetime and our children's than all preceding human generations had together. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is Tablesalt's gossamer grasp of reality.

Tablesalt must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why Tablesalt accuses me of admitting that the sky is falling. What I actually said is that you should check out some of the things Tablesalt is saying about insurrectionism. The litany of inaccuracies, half-truths, made-up “facts”, and downright falsehoods will shock you. And I won't even bother mentioning that Tablesalt once said that the health effects of secondhand smoke are negligible. His comrades and others capable of little more than rote psittacism are now saying that too. In contrast, I say that before Tablesalt initiated an adventurism flap to help promote his combative half-measures, people everywhere were expected to enable all people to achieve their potential as human beings. Nowadays, it's the rare person indeed who realizes that we must give to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.

Why does Tablesalt hate our country? Well, gee, I'm glad you asked. Well, once you begin to see the light, you'll realize that people used to think I was exaggerating whenever I said that Tablesalt's taradiddles are really uncalled for. After seeing Tablesalt exploit the masses these same people now realize that I wasn't exaggerating at all. In fact, they even realize that Tablesalt's hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it.

Tablesalt is inherently mentally deficient, dotty, and odious. Oh, and he also has an inane mode of existence. There is a proper place in life for hatred. Hatred of that which is wrong is a powerful and valuable tool. But when Tablesalt perverts hatred in order to impale us on the pike of caciquism, it becomes clear that he insists that only one or two members of his entire klatch of vengeful noddies are shrewish stumblebums. Only one or two members? This is, to put it charitably, an understatement of the facts. It would be far more accurate to say that Tablesalt's operatives are engaged in perpetual one-upmanship over who more deeply enjoys Tablesalt's apothegms. These are the sorts of people who can't stomach the fact that Tablesalt deeply believes that everyone who is winning the culture war and saving this country has a dark, ulterior motive for doing so. It may suit his world view to assume that the intentions of his nemeses are malicious, but unless Tablesalt can read minds, it's difficult to impossible for anyone to verify that assumption. Hence, let me make the counterproposal that the reality is that Tablesalt welcomes public debate as long as all of the debaters agree with his personal ethos. That represents yet more evidence—as if we needed more—that deception, flattering, lying, deluding, talking behind the back, putting up a false front, living in borrowed splendor, wearing a mask, hiding behind convention, playing a role for others and for oneself—in short, a continuous fluttering around the solitary flame of vanity—is so much the rule and the law among his disaffected disciples that I can draw but one conclusion. As you can probably guess, my conclusion is that I am a law-and-order kind of person. I hate to see crimes go unpunished. That's why I unquestionably hope that Tablesalt serves a long prison term for his illegal attempts to mete out harsh and arbitrary punishment against his opponents until they're intimidated into a benumbed, neutralized, impotent, and non-functioning mass.

Tablesalt's personal interest in seeing his sermons shoved down people's throats is ethically bankrupt, but that's to be expected of him. Developing a policy of inclusion will not be easy because I find it necessary, if I am to meet my reader on something like a common ground of understanding, to point out that ignorance is bliss. This may be why Tablesalt's vicegerents are generally all smiles. I beg of you: Use your head for something more meaningful than being a delivery system for Tablesalt's rude viewpoints. Use it for thinking about how Tablesalt is a pretty good liar most of the time. However, he tells so many lies, he's bound to trip himself up someday.

I may be questioning the regnant conventional wisdom by stating this, but maybe Tablesalt wants to tinker about with a lot of halfway prescriptions. Alas, that's a mere ripple on the costive ocean of simplism in which Tablesalt will drown any attempt to redefine in practical terms the immutable ideals that have guided us from the beginning. He wants to tell us how to live, what to say, what to think, what to know, and—most importantly—what not to know. Such intolerance is felt by all people, from every background.

I seethe with anger whenever I think about Tablesalt's abhorrent calumnies. Or, to express that sentiment without all of the emotionally charged lingo, Tablesalt is willing to promote truth and justice when it's convenient. But when it threatens his creature comforts, Tablesalt throws principle to the wind. I am not embarrassed to admit that I have neither the training, the experience, the license, nor the clinical setting necessary to properly dismantle the system of intrusive forces that he deploys in the name of national defense. Nevertheless, I do have the will to honor our nation's glorious mosaic of cultures and ethnicities. That's why I truly insist that he pretends to put power into the hands of the people while actually distorting the facts. The logical consequences of that are clear: Tablesalt is out to erect a shrine of resistentialism. And when we play his game, we become accomplices.

If it were up to me, I would create a political atmosphere in which the zero-sum model of group competition gives way to coalitions among groups so that they can work together to resolve a number of lingering problems. At a minimum, I would like to see more people acknowledge that one could trace Satan's hoofprints right up to Tablesalt's door. If you don't believe me, see for yourself. To those few who disagree with some of the things I've written, I ask for your tolerance.

Many experts now believe that we must understand that Tablesalt fits the stereotypical image of a loud preacher of irrationalism. And we must formulate that understanding into as clear and cogent a message as possible. I have seen numerous mealymouthed spivs scrawl pro-ruffianism graffiti over everything. What's sad is that Tablesalt tolerates (relishes?) this flagrant violation of democratic principles and the rule of law. That just goes to show that Tablesalt is an inspiration to shiftless agelasts everywhere. They panegyrize his crusade to produce precisely the alienation and conflict needed to stonewall on issues in which taxpayers see a vital public interest, and, more importantly, they don't realize that this view dangerously underestimates the childish quality of conformism. You don't believe me? Well, consider that Tablesalt's execrations are a zero-sum game. That is, what helps Tablesalt and his claque inevitably harms us. What benefits us must hurt them. The logical conclusion to draw is that Tablesalt has conceived the project of reigning over opinions and of conquering neither kingdoms nor provinces but the human mind. If this project succeeds then quisquilious, insidious hierophants of authoritarianism will be free to diminish society's inducements to good behavior. Even worse, it will be illegal for anyone to say anything about how if Tablesalt can't be reasoned out of his prejudices, he must be laughed out of them. If Tablesalt can't be argued out of his selfishness, he must be shamed out of it.

I have often maintained that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Unfortunately, when dealing with Tablesalt and his spinmeisters, that claim assumes facts not in evidence. So let me claim instead that if you hear Tablesalt spouting off about how he has an absolute right to be intolerant in the name of tolerance, you should tell him that he embraces alarmism with open arms. Better yet, tell him to stop getting his opinions from self-aggrandizing vandals and start doing some research of his own. He spouts the same bile in everything he writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue Tablesalt is excited about this week is exclusivism, which says to me that he hates me for my determination and my aggressive stance for what is right. Tablesalt's peeps probably don't realize that because it's not mentioned in the funny papers or in the movies. Nevertheless, I don't know what to do about the rise in Oblomovism I see all around me. Tablesalt's solution. not surprisingly, is to put political correctness ahead of scientific rigor. This is one case in which the cure is honestly worse than the disease. Tablesalt has no table manners. Do give that some thought.

[Kringleberg]

This letter is not a debate contest in which I convince you to agree with me or vice versa. This letter is concerned only with establishing the truth about Rabbi Ze Über Medic! II. Before I launch into my main topic, I want to make a few matters crystal-clear: (1) Rabbi Medic!'s ability to flap his gums greatly exceeds his cognitive skills, and (2) as a result of that, morally crippled scrubs like Rabbi Medic! are all alike. Now that you know where I stand on those issues, I can safely say that Rabbi Medic!'s credos are some of the most bloody-minded, diabolic, and obtrusive I've ever encountered. It's also true that our country is being destroyed by the most psychotic putterers you'll ever see, but that'll have to be a subject for another letter.

Concrete examples abound of ways to reverse the devolutionary course that Rabbi Medic! has set for us. For instance, consider that an armed revolt against Rabbi Medic! is morally justified. However, I aver that it is not yet strategically justified. I could write a hundred letters about how his anecdotes have a tendency to nourish lusk ideologies. I can tell innumerable stories about his desire to flush all my hopes and dreams down the toilet. And I can show you that he works like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow and advancing his noiseless step like a thief until he manages to erect a shrine of cameralism. Regardless of what I do, however, Rabbi Medic! must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why Rabbi Medic! accuses me of admitting that he serves as wisdom to the mighty and succor to the brave. What I actually said is that I'm at loggerheads with Rabbi Medic! on at least one important issue. Namely, he argues that he has a “special” perspective on tribalism that carries with it a “special” right to set our national thermostat to its maximum degree of communism. I take the opposite position, that Rabbi Medic!'s faculty for deception is so far above anyone else's, it really must be considered different in kind as well as in degree.

Reasonable expectation dictates that Rabbi Medic! would never replace our timeless traditions with his lackluster ones. Reasonable expectation, however, is regularly disappointed. In point of fact, relative to just a few years ago, lascivious school dropouts are nearly ten times as likely to believe that Rabbi Medic!'s opinions represent the opinions of the majority—or even a plurality. This is neither a coincidence nor simply a sign of the times. Rather, it reflects a sophisticated, psychological warfare program designed by Rabbi Medic! to destroy any resistance by channeling it into ineffective paths. He does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when he says that national-security interests can and should be sidestepped whenever his personal interests are at stake, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins.

I have no problem with the manifestly obvious statement that Rabbi Medic!'s virulent, worthless coalition has its origins in the Jewish Kabala, Babylonian mystery cults, Templars, Freemasons, Illuminati, and assorted interests dedicated to Satanic worship and absolute power. I have no problem with the idea that a “respected” member of Rabbi Medic!'s moral relativism outfit recently said (to closely paraphrase), “'The norm' shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel”. And I have no problem with the special privileges occasionally granted to barbaric prevaricators. What I do have a problem with are Rabbi Medic!'s huffy diegeses. When I say that Rabbi Medic!'s annunciations are dictatorial, I mean it. I don't mean that they remind me of something dictatorial or that they have one or two dictatorial characteristics. I mean that they are dictatorial. In fact, the most dictatorial thing about them is the way that they prevent people from seeing that the real question here is not, “Does Rabbi Medic! contend that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years because it fits his political agenda or because he's too ignorant of the facts to know that his pranks form a vast brainwashing and brain-contaminating machine, which has worked, on the whole, with great efficiency?”. The real question is rather, “How can he do everything possible to keep uncontrollable, fork-tongued crumbums costive and noxious and then turn around and shed tears for those who got hurt as a result?” The answer to this riddle lies in the observation that I have to laugh when Rabbi Medic! says that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding. Where in the world did he get that idea? Not only does that idea contain absolutely no substance whatsoever, but he is utterly unperturbed by headstrong, oppugnant theologasters inflicting more death and destruction than Genghis Khan's hordes. Every time I strike that note, which I guess I do a lot, I hear from people calling me jackbooted or beer-guzzling. Here's my answer: If a cogent, logical argument entered Rabbi Medic!'s brain, no doubt a concussion would result.

More to the point, we must undoubtedly make some changes here. Does that sound extremist? Is it too annoying for you? I'm sorry if it seems that way, but that's life. Rabbi Medic! is too incorrigible to read the writing on the wall. This writing warns that I warrant that we should let him prattle on about how without his superior guidance, we will go nowhere. At this point, such exsufflicate jibber jabber is harmless enough, albeit a little unsettling. Nevertheless, it does demonstrate how I have no set opinion as to whether or not within a short period of time, Rabbi Medic! will turn his back on those who need him the most. I do, however, unmistakably profess that for those of us who make our living trying to create a world in which rowdyism, Stalinism, and sectarianism are all but forgotten, it is important to consider that the picture I am presenting need not be confined to Rabbi Medic!'s declamations. It applies to everything he says and does. Lastly, I can't end this letter without mentioning that Rabbi Ze Über Medic! II's disquisitions ebb and flow with the tides of pharisaism.

[startacker]

There are many unstable pantywaists who want to usher in the beginning of a crass new era of fainéantism. One—Mr. Kringleberg—is so fatuous, he deserves special mention. To begin with an illustrative case, Kringleberg insists that it is patriotic to tear down all theoretical frameworks for addressing the issue. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands he perpetrates. Does he really know anything about the publications he claims to support? No, he doesn't.

Kringleberg's belief is that he should be free to up the ante considerably. Hey, Kringleberg! Satan just called; he wants his worldview back.

In all the torrents of rhetorical hot air thus far expended, it's hard to find a single sentence from Kringleberg that acknowledges that if he successfully prevents us from challenging his outlandish premises and dubious motives, we will rise up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. We will enable adversaries to meet each other and establish direct personal bonds that contradict the stereotypes they rely upon to power their vulgar op-ed pieces. We will ensure that everyone knows that if we're to effectively carry out our responsibilities and make a future for ourselves, we will first have to express our concerns about Kringleberg's self-satisfied ruses. When Kringleberg's spleenful, infelicific utterances are translated into plain, words-mean-things English, he appears to be saying that the few of us who complain regularly about his ethics are simply spoiling the party. For me, this unsympathetic, tartarean moonshine serves only to emphasize how Kringleberg has, shall we say, questionable priorities. That represents yet more evidence—as if we needed more—that he has convinced a generation of people that he should be a given a direct pipeline to the national treasury. One must pause in admiration at this triumph of media manipulation.

With all due respect, despite Kringleberg's self-image as the primary civilizing force of modern times, Kringleberg wants to construct the spectre of a terrible armed threat. This desire is implanted in a part of his brain that's immune to reason or argument. Consequently, there's no chance that we can get him to see that if we do nothing, he will keep on shoving the nation towards lexiphanicism. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can subject Kringleberg's tactics to the rigorous scrutiny they warrant.

Kringleberg keeps trying to deceive us into thinking that no one is smart enough to see through his transparent lies. The purpose of this deception may be to increase alienation and delinquency among our young people. Or maybe the purpose is to invent a new moral system that legitimizes Kringleberg's desire to dissolve the bonds that join individuals to their natural communities. Oh what a tangled web he weaves when first he practices to deceive. Although I respect his right to free speech just as I respect it for two-faced slobs, drossy, truculent hippies, and dimwitted skinflints, Kringleberg's support for freedom of speech extends only to those who agree with him. That is, he believes in “free speech for me but not for thee”. I guess that's not too surprising when one considers that Kringleberg maintains that his allocutions are Right with a capital R. Given Kringleberg's proclivity to make claims first and check facts later, this is an absurd untruth and means nothing. A more honest statement would be that I like to speak of Kringleberg as “self-pitying”. That's a reasonable term to use, I assert, but let's now try to understand it a little better. For starters, this is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Let me therefore state that I welcome Kringleberg's comments. However, Kringleberg needs to realize that he insists that he has no choice but to foster suspicion—if not hatred—of “outsiders”. His reasoning is that he is the way, the truth, and the light. Yes, I realize that that argument makes no sense, but Kringleberg claims that a book's value to the reader is somehow influenced by the color of the author's skin. You should realize that absolutely no empirical evidence obtained by scientific means exists to support that claim. Alas, that doesn't stop Kringleberg from vandalizing our neighborhoods. Last but not least, Mr. Kringleberg's plenipotentiaries are in league with meddlesome recreants who censor by caricature and preempt discussion by stereotype.

[Notorious B.I.G.]

One word. Dumb. i dont need a complaint generator

EDIT : 600000th post on Forum Games

[Eon]

So here I am taking time out of my busy schedule to let you and maybe a few other people know that Notorious B.I.G., like many other mendacious used-car salesmen, has joined in with the chorus of furies who have been tearing away at the remains of rationality since the dawn of Derrida. To address this in a pedantic manner, in the rest of this letter, factual information will be prefaced as such and my own opinions will be clearly stated as opinions. For instance, it is a fact that every time Notorious B.I.G. gets caught trying to substitute pap for art, he promises he'll never do so again. Subsequently, his cringers always jump in and explain that he really shouldn't be blamed even if he does because, as they maintain, his values will spread enlightenment to the masses, nurture democracy, reestablish the bonds of community, bring us closer to God, and generally work to the betterment of Man and society. By opting for the easy, short-term, feel-good path, he will place soulless counterproductive-types at the head of a nationwide kakistocracy one of these days. I do not say that lightly. Remember, in order to establish a supportive—rather than an intimidating—atmosphere for offering public comment we must feed the starving, house the homeless, cure the sick, and still find wonder and awe in the sunrise and the moonlight. And that's just the first step. Remember, Notorious B.I.G. has tried tossing sops to the egos of the deplorable. He has also tried confusing, disorienting, and disunifying. Why does Notorious B.I.G. do such things? If your answer is unthinking and automatic, you may be in trouble. You may be parroting back some of the concepts that Notorious B.I.G. has injected into your head instead of giving serious thought to the notion that Notorious B.I.G.'s admirers have been seen collapsing the society that sustains us all. Notorious B.I.G. claimed he would take responsibility for this hypocritical behavior, but in fact he did nothing to fix matters or punish the culprits. This proves that Notorious B.I.G. avers that the peak of fashion is to criticize other people's beliefs, fashion sense, and lifestyle. Perhaps he has some sound arguments on his side, but if so he's keeping them hidden. I'd say it's far more likely that I don't want to build castles in the air. I don't want to plan things that I can't yet implement. But I do want to throw down the gauntlet and challenge Notorious B.I.G.'s sycophants to encourage students to be bold, independent, and creative thinkers because doing so clearly demonstrates how he avouches that the sun rises just for him. That concept is, of course, complete bunk by any stretch of the imagination. However, it is bunk that has survived virtually unchanged from when it was first proposed nearly half a century ago by tetchy, vitriolic ochlocrats to its present incarnation in Notorious B.I.G.'s disorderly orations.

While Notorious B.I.G. puts on a good dog-and-pony show, he has a stout belief in astrology, the stars representing the twinkling penumbra of Notorious B.I.G.'s incandescent belief in immoralism. I, not being one of the many hidebound, hostile New Age libertines of this world, plan to work within the system to persuade my fellow citizens that as part of his latest power grab, he has been diverting us from proclaiming what in our innermost conviction is absolutely necessary, not because I lack the courage for more drastic steps but because he seeks scapegoats for his own shortcomings by blaming the easiest target he can find, that is, irresponsible franions. I recently read a book confirming what I've been saying for years, that I have absolutely no idea why Notorious B.I.G. makes such a big fuss over Leninism. There are far more pressing issues that present themselves and that should be discussed, debated, and solved—issues such as war, famine, poverty, and homelessness. There is also the lesser issue that I wonder what would happen if Notorious B.I.G. really did muster enough force to silence the truth. There's a spooky thought. Although I agree with those who avow that what he is doing is simplism in its most nettlesome form, nevertheless, I cannot agree with the subject matter and attitude that is woven into every one of his insane, unruly ethics. Notorious B.I.G. considers all of his enemies to be sick vendors of antipluralism—or worse. When describing them, Notorious B.I.G. lets some of the most besotted, benighted, and exploitative words I've ever heard pass through his lips, words that serve no purpose other than to bring home the point that while Notorious B.I.G. has been beating the drums of McCarthyism, I've been trying to maximize our individual potential for effectiveness and success in combatting Notorious B.I.G.. In doing so, I've learned that it would be highly inaccurate to assume that it is not only acceptable but indeed desirable to convince others that peremptory, cantankerous suborners of perjury are the “chosen people” of scriptural prophecy. But what, you may ask, does any of that have to do with the theme of this letter, viz., that his emissaries are more determined than most offensive hectors? It is bootless to speculate on the matter, but it should be noted that Notorious B.I.G. appears to have found a new tool to use to help him move scurrilous moral relativism from the conniving fringe into a realm of respectability. That tool is obstructionism, and if you watch him wield it you'll really see why he motivates people to join his flock by using words like “humanity”, “compassion”, and “unity”. This is a great deception. What Notorious B.I.G. really wants to do is accelerate our descent into the cesspool of savagism. That's why I, for one, defy the jackbooted spoiled brats who treat traditional values as if they were violent crimes, and I defy the powers of darkness that they represent.

If you hear Notorious B.I.G. spouting off about how he was chosen by God as the trustee of His wishes and desires, you should tell him that his wretched sentiments are the cherry atop the mordacious sundae of priggism. Better yet, tell him to stop getting his opinions from neo-phlegmatic, imperious spongers and start doing some research of his own. If he had lived the short, sickly, miserable life of a chattel serf in the ages “before technocracy” he wouldn't be so keen to take us all on a thoroughly reckless ride into the unknown. Maybe he'd even begin to realize that his brown townects would have more impact if they were more concise and organized. Instead of trying to be as clear as possible to get his point across, Notorious B.I.G. seems to like bandying about all kinds of fancy terms that no one's ever heard and that completely diminish his point. Our freedom to expose all of his filthy, subversive, and destructive activities is not merely something desirable in theory. This freedom must be protected and promoted by actions—and not just words—if we are to brush away the cobwebs of snobbism. We must start by acknowledging that Notorious B.I.G. has accused me of writing that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel. I would truly hope that even the worst sorts of meretricious nobodies there are realize that when you put words in someone else's mouth, you're obviously bound to hear exactly the conclusions you wanted.

Society must soon decide either to serve on the side of Truth or else to let Notorious B.I.G. grasp at straws, trying to find increasingly condescending ways to sentence more and more people to poverty, prison, and early death. The decision is one of life or death, peaceful existence or perpetual social fever. I can hope only that those in charge realize that Notorious B.I.G.'s reports are a sociopolitical tragicomedy. On the one hand, they foster suspicion—if not hatred—of “outsiders”, but on the other hand, they punish dissent through intimidation, public ridicule, economic exclusion, imprisonment, and most extremely, death. The most entertaining part, though, is that I can guarantee the readers of this letter that one of Notorious B.I.G.'s followers once said, “Notorious B.I.G. never engages in aggressive, scornful, or malefic politics.” Now that's pretty funny, of course, but I didn't include that quote just to make you laugh. I included it to convince you that I want to give Notorious B.I.G. a rhadamanthine warning not to put political correctness ahead of scientific rigor. That may seem simple enough, but he is guided by the ignis fatuus of authoritarianism. Now that's a strong conclusion to draw just from the evidence I've presented in this letter so let me corroborate it by saying that as far as Notorious B.I.G. is concerned, facts and evidence are subordinate to, and mediated by, a “discourse”. There are no right or wrong answers, just competitive discourses. If that's the case, then perhaps Notorious B.I.G. would like to explain why he disbelieves that I realize that the tone of this letter may be making some people feel uneasy. However, even if you're somewhat uncomfortable reading about Notorious B.I.G.'s vagarious, unrealistic jobations, please don't blame me for them. I'm not the one destroying our sense of safety in the places we ordinarily imagine we can flee to. I'm not the one taking advantage of human fallibility to detach individuals from traditional sources of strength and identity—family, class, private associations. And I'm not the one wasting natural resources.

Notorious B.I.G. maintains that the media should “create” news rather than report it. As you can no doubt determine from comments like that, facts and Notorious B.I.G. are like oil and water. Imagine a world in which he could marginalize me based on my gender, race, or religion whenever he felt like it. Believe me, I certainly don't want to give him a chance to reconstitute society on the basis of arrested development and envious malevolence. Notorious B.I.G. does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when he says that we should all bear the brunt of his actions, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins.

In the past, when I complained that Notorious B.I.G. was attempting to shame my name, I was told that I was just being heinous. But nowadays, people realize that birdbrained, psychotic grifters are somehow fascinated by his bumptious diablerie, just as a dove is sometimes charmed by a glittering serpent. Unfortunately for such people, Notorious B.I.G. wants to prevent us from going placidly amid the noise and haste. If he manages to do that, he'll have plenty of time to focus on his core mission: shifting blame from those who benefit from oppression to those who suffer from it. His argument is invalid. Then again, that notion has been popular for as long as exclusivism has existed.

I am clearly annoyed with Notorious B.I.G.'s insistence that the rules don't apply to him. Sorry, Notorious B.I.G., but that's not a fact. That's intellectual dishonesty bordering on lunacy. If Notorious B.I.G. wanted to speak the truth, he should have said that if we don't enhance people's curiosity, critical acumen, and aesthetic sensitivity, our children will curse us in our graves. Speaking of our children, we need to teach them diligently that Notorious B.I.G. is doubtlessly proud of himself for conconcting such a “brilliant” scheme for tipping the scales in his favor. In my opinion, however, that's the worst idea in the long, sad history of bad ideas. Much better would be to condemn—without hesitation, without remorse—all those who pooh-pooh the reams of solid evidence pointing to the existence and operation of a hateful coterie of neocolonialism.

If I'm not mistaken, Notorious B.I.G. just blathered something to the effect of how anyone who dares to build a true community of spirit and purpose based on mutual respect and caring can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result. Alas, I don't speak Crazy. Maybe if Notorious B.I.G. could translate what he stated into English, we'd be able to determine if he was simply trying to deny that his snotty, ignominious wheelings and dealings give expression to that which is most destructive and most harmful to society. Notorious B.I.G. then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one.

Faith is harder to shake than knowledge, love succumbs less to change than respect, hate is more enduring than aversion, and Notorious B.I.G. has so frequently lied about how he's simply misunderstood and is actually interested only in peace that some weaker-minded people are starting to believe it. We need to explain to such people that I'm not writing this letter for your entertainment. I'm not even writing it for your education. I'm writing it for our very survival.

I wish I didn't have to be the one to break the news that Notorious B.I.G. has no conception of our moral and ethical standards. Nevertheless, I cannot afford to pass by anything that may help me make my point. So let me just state that Notorious B.I.G. has recently stated that representative government is an outmoded system that should be replaced by a system of overt terrorism. Such statements, like his earlier writings and pronouncements, are a contemptible insult to all decent and feeling people. One can consecrate one's life to the service of a noble idea or a glorious ideology. Notorious B.I.G., however, is more likely to teach students the “right” way of thinking by giving them facts that are skewed in one direction. It's hectoring for him to waste everyone else's time. Or perhaps I should say, it's raving. I conclude this letter with an appropriate quote: “There is not a single word in that sentence that Notorious B.I.G. can take exception to.” I believe we all know who said that, don't we?

[Metalliku]

Cleverly hidden within this letter, for added incentive to read onward, is one lie. Not a lie of statistical or grammatical error but a ludicrous falsehood at once so absurd as to strike the reader as an insult to human intelligence and yet so silly as to convince the reader that small minds are little troubled by this. Let me begin by observing that the proverbs of Theognis, like those of Solomon, are observations on human nature, ordinary life, and civil society, with moral reflections on the facts. I quote him as a witness of the fact that feelings of inferiority are characteristic of obtuse smart alecks. I'll stand by that controversial statement and even assume that most readers who bring their own real-life experience will agree with it. At a bare minimum, we've all heard Eon yammer and whine about how he's being scapegoated again, the poor dear.

Eon has recently been observed using resistentialism as a weapon for systematic political cleansing of the population. There is an eerie parallel here with Eon's previous attempts to punish dissent through intimidation, public ridicule, economic exclusion, imprisonment, and most extremely, death. The only difference is that even when the facts don't fit, he sometimes tries to use them anyway. He still maintains, for instance, that he would never dream of perpetuating what we all know is a corrupt system.

When I was little, my father would sometimes pick me up, put me on his knee, and say “Eon's primary source of amusement is to gain a respectable foothold for his debauched, detestable arguments.” Epistemic collaborationism weakens political determination and gives comfort to anarchism. To overcome this the question of the role played by Eon's cabal must be broached directly. Let me suggest we do by examining the way that Eon posits his sentiments as anti-Bourbonism. In reality, though, they're not anti-Bourbonism at all but rather post-Bourbonism. That is, they're a step beyond Bourbonism in that Eon uses them as an excuse to pit race against race, religion against religion, and country against country. Many of the pharisaical, insufferable cheapskates I've encountered are convinced that it's illegal to listen, find compassion, and collaborate—or, if it isn't illegal, then it ought to be. This view is primitive by any stretch of the imagination and reflects how Eon finds reality too difficult to swallow. Or maybe it just gets lost between the sports and entertainment pages. In either case, Eon frequently accuses his competitors of curtailing human potential. This is yet another example of the growing lack of civility in our civil discourse that ranges from the pea-brained to the pathetic and even crime-stained. In a more proper debate, one would instead politely point out that those who get involved with Eon's inerudite habitués are seldom aware of Eon's dealings with the worst types of flighty, mudslinging slimeballs there are, so to speak. Although Eon is a walking time bomb of absolutism, when you look back over the text of this letter, it should be clear that I have defeated this lackluster ivory-tower academic with my words. Just imagine what I could have done with my fire-breathing fists.

[Marios]

There are a number of things I could have chosen to write about in this letter. I could have chosen to write about how I know how most of you feel. Or I might have chosen to write something about the way that Metalliku's principles lack internal moral consistency. But, instead, I've decided to devote this entire letter to explaining how Metalliku's speeches tend to be more phatic than illustrative. With this letter, I hope to introduce an important but underrepresented angle on Metalliku's biased inclinations. But first, I would like to make the following introductory remark: When I hear Metalliku's secret police parrot the party line—that black is white and night is day—I see them not as people but as machines. The appropriate noises are coming out of their larynges, but their brains are not involved as they would be if they were thinking about how in asserting that the existence and perpetuation of adventurism is its own moral justification, Metalliku demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision.

Metalliku finds it convenient to blame all of society's woes on militant, debauched pococurantes. Doing so fits with the rest of his populist sloganeering and takes less intellectual effort than investigating the structural factors and material practices that may in fact be the true reason that Metalliku thinks that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point. Of course, thinking so doesn't make it so. He believes that his god is more caring and compassionate than your god, and to prove it, Metalliku's god wants him to blackmail politicians into wasting natural resources. Yeah, that makes sense. Next, Metalliku will be telling us that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. As this letter draws to a close, I want to challenge you, the reader, to question authority. That's what I intend to do until my last breath.

[joe411]

I unequivocally can't let Officer Marios Of friendown V's misinformation and misguided arguments about tribalism go by without comment. But first, let me pose you a question: Is Marios actually concerned about any of us or does he just want to delude and often rob those rendered vulnerable and susceptible to his snares because of poverty, illness, or ignorance? After reading this letter, you'll indeed find it's the latter. I am not au fait with his latest theories. I am, however, quite familiar with the manner in which Marios has been forcing us to bow down low before bossy inebriates. In particular, I know that his drones genuflect before all of his prank phone calls, even the most uninformed. It may be more correct, however, to say that we need to rally the troops to put forth new exertions and proportion all associated efforts to the exigency of the times. Note that any such campaign involves four basic steps: negotiation, self-purification, direct action, and collection of the facts to determine whether we are at war. Don't think we're not just because you're not stepping over dead bodies in the streets. We're at war with Marios's pompous words. We're at war with his goofy, lewd ideas. And we're at war with his ornery refrains. As in any war, we ought to be aware of the fact that there is doubtlessly an atrabilious dimension to Marios's slurs. Or, if “atrabilious” is too narrow of a term, perhaps you'd prefer “illiterate”. In any case, Marios insists that better governance can be achieved by granting profitable concessions, permits, waivers, zoning variances, monopolies, and other such political machinations to his cabal. Although I've already discussed the abject fallaciousness of that argument, the fact remains that all of his slaves are thieves—idle, envious, and ready to plunder and enslave their weaker neighbors. It's therefore not surprising that Marios contends that he can make all of our problems go away merely by sprinkling some sort of magic pink pixie dust over everything that he considers sniveling or offensive. Has anyone, at any time, ever been more wrong? Apparently, even know-it-all Marios doesn't know the answer to that one. It wouldn't even matter if he did, given that he is right about one thing, namely that fear is what motivates us. Fear of what it means when inane sensualists toy with our opinions. Fear of what it says about our society when we teach our children that the majority of demented, lazy champions of deceit, lies, theft, plunder, and rapine are heroes, if not saints. And fear of yawping election-year also-rans like Marios who hurt others physically or emotionally.

Marios has stated that he has the authority to issue licenses for practicing anarchism. One clear inference from that statement—an inference that is never really disavowed—is that people don't mind having their communities turned into war zones. Now that's just humorless. His hatchet men actually believe the bunkum they're always mouthing. That's because these sorts of morally corrupt clunks are idealistic, have no sense of history or human nature, and they think that what they're doing will somehow improve the world eventually. In reality, of course, Marios's ill-bred, self-serving jeers form an “ideology” in Marx's sense. That is, they represent a system of ideas designed to cloak, rationalize, and defend an unjust set of relationships. For instance, Marios's ideology denies that Marios is totally insolent, as he has proved to my complete satisfaction.

Marios plans to saddle the economy with crippling debt. I don't know if Marios's satraps are complicit in that scheme or are merely clueless. I do know, however, that Marios's idea of elitism is not, as you might expect, a mild paraphrase for paralyzing needed efforts to bring the communion of knowledge to all of us. It is something else entirely: an ossified doctrine of antipathy towards those who express our concerns about Marios's pesky ethics. As evidence, consider that it's easy to tell if he's lying. If his lips are moving, he's lying.

So despicable are Marios's conceited ultimata that Marios has been made a pariah by the international media, and his reportages have been condemned by numerous government officials. He is the type of person that turns up his nose at people like you and me. I guess that's because we haven't the faintest notion about the things that really matter such as why it would be good for Marios to defy the law of the land. He has been trying to trick people into believing that he and his compeers should ultimately decide what opinions are acceptable or unacceptable. Apparently, he has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams with empty-headed loobies; they're now fully convinced that terrorism is a noble cause.

Marios may believe that he can lie with impunity. He may even have gotten away with telling more lies than we can count. But Marios acts aggressively, irresponsibly, and disgustingly towards people with different views from his. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that he's known for poking someone's eyes out. This is not only a grotesque betrayal of the principles that Marios himself claims to uphold but a clear demonstration of how what really irks me is that Marios has presented us with a Hobson's choice. Either we let him give expression to that which is most destructive and most harmful to society or he'll paint pictures of deluded worlds inhabited by sordid barbarians. Call me insensitive if you'd like; I will still do everything in my power to call your attention to the problem of tasteless, hotheaded hectors. Then, I will announce to the world that Marios's ruses unmistakably qualify for the most vile and contemptuous pejoratives that I have in my arsenal. Regular readers of my letters probably take that for granted, but if I am to free people from the fetters of Bourbonism's poisonous embrace, I must explain to the population at large that in a tacit concession of defeat, Marios is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what his philopolemical sottises have failed at.

For the nonce, Marios is content to shove angst-laden Maoism down our collective throats. But any day now, he will write off whole sections of society. His claim that the government (and perhaps he himself) should have sweeping powers to arrest and hold people indefinitely on flimsy grounds requires a willing suspension of disbelief, an ability to set logic aside and accept any preposterous notion that Marios throws at us. The things that he says about adventurism range from the trivial and inarticulate to the ignorant and incoherent—and Marios knows it. Never forget: Debauched scurrilous-types are like putty in his hands. Marios effortlessly molds them into loyal gofers who don't think twice about removing society's moral barriers and allowing perversion to prosper.

The justification Marios gave for insisting that our society be infested with solipsism, emotionalism, mysticism, and an impressive swarm of other “isms” was one of the most treacherous justifications I've ever heard. It was so treacherous, in fact, that I will not repeat it here. Even without hearing the details you can still see my point quite clearly: Marios craves more power. I say we should give him more power—preferably, 10,000 volts of it.

If I may be permitted to make an observation, Marios has been trying to raise funds for scientific studies that “prove” that all literature that opposes rowdyism was forged by malign chawbacons. This is what's called “advocacy research” or “junk science” because it's funded by choleric spoilsports who have already decided that it is patriotic to panic irrationally and overreact completely. Annoying Orangeeted so many times, his fulminations have begun to feed on themselves, to generate their own publicity, to cow Marios's detractors not by argument but by sheer repetition, and to purge the land of every non-sententious person, gene, idea, and influence.

Epistemic desperadoism weakens political determination and gives comfort to allotheism. To overcome this the question of the role played by Marios's peuplade must be broached directly. Let me suggest we do by examining the way that deception, flattering, lying, deluding, talking behind the back, putting up a false front, living in borrowed splendor, wearing a mask, hiding behind convention, playing a role for others and for oneself—in short, a continuous fluttering around the solitary flame of vanity—is so much the rule and the law among Marios's callow, jealous fans that I can draw but one conclusion. As you can probably guess, my conclusion is that we must give to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of individuals and organizations, many of whom may seem innocent at first glance, who secretly want to drive us into a state of apoplexy.

Marios wants to collapse the society that sustains us all. It gets better: He actually believes that going through the motions of working is the same as working. I guess no one's ever told him that his perversions are more than just cold-blooded. They're a revolt against nature. Let's play a little game. Deduct one point from your I.Q. if you fell for his ridiculous claim that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point. Deduct another point if you failed to notice that when I was a child my clergyman told me, “A recent fact-finder's report revealed that Marios's biases are pockmarked with prudish prætorianism and other assorted ills.” If you think about it you'll see his point. To reiterate the main message of this letter, Officer Marios Of friendown V exhibits an insatiable lust for treating anyone who doesn't agree with him to a torrent of vitriol and vilification.

[Foopster]

gay