It will surely surprise some people to hear me say this, but to make up for all of the time it's wasted blathering, Prince.org should step aside and let me provide an antidote to contemporary manifestations of combative misoneism. Let me start by stressing that I am not attempting to suppress anyone's opinions, nor do I intend to demean it personally for its beliefs or worldviews. But I do assert that I must enable adversaries to meet each other and establish direct personal bonds which contradict the stereotypes they rely upon to power their ultra-catty catch-phrases.

This is not the first time I've wanted to give you some background information about Prince.org. But it is the first time I realized that it has values that are antagonistic to a traditional, moral society. 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 I normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind Prince.org that a central point of its belief systems is the notion that profits come before people. Perhaps Prince.org should take some new data into account and revisit that notion. I think it'd find that I must ask that its helots do what comes naturally. I know they'll never do that, so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to let down ladders which the ethically bankrupt, pharisaical, and twisted scramble to climb. Prince.org says it's going to topple society by the next full moon. Is it out of its disgraceful mind? The answer is fairly obvious when you consider that its reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth, but only unbalanced answers, careless resolutions to conflicts.

Although the moral absolutist position is well represented by social and political activists and indisputably influences legislators and policy makers, I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I feel that there is, because someone has been giving Prince.org's brain a very thorough washing, and now Prince.org is trying to do the same to us. Even if callow dorks join Prince.org's band with the best of intentions, they will still poke someone's eyes out one of these days. Not all, I hasten to add, do join with the best of intentions. Prince.org's subalterns internalize and adapt to the unwritten realities they must work under. And that's the honest truth.

http://www.pakin.org/complaint

Oh, I can do better than that. Here's my complaint about myself:

Before I can focus on the ignorance that abounds in Matt's ideas, I must qualify Matt's character, his sources, and even his personal frame of mind towards me. For complete details, I refer you to my forthcoming book on the subject. I shall here mention only a few random items that may be new or especially interesting to you. For instance, in a recent essay, Matt stated that those of us who oppose him would rather run than fight. Since the arguments he made in the rest of his essay are based in part on that assumption, he should be aware that it just isn't true. Not only that, but I want to thank him for his vituperations. They give me an excellent opportunity to illustrate just how deluded Matt can be. He truly believes that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication. I hope you realize that that's just an inhumane pipe dream from an inane pipe, and that in the real world, if history follows its course, it should be evident that the first lies that Matt 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.


If one accepts the framework I've laid out here, it follows that Matt is always trying to change the way we work. This annoys me, because his previous changes have always been for the worse. I'm positive that Matt's new changes will be even more unregenerate, because he decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that Matt fears, because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility. Do not let inflammatory rhetoric and misleading and inaccurate statements decide your position on this issue. Matt has a natural talent for complaining. He can find any aspect of life and whine about it for hours upon hours. He wants us to believe that we can solve all of our problems by giving him lots of money. We might as well toss that money down a well, because we'll never see it again. What we will see, however, is that Matt is an opportunist. That is, he is an ideological chameleon, without any real morality, without a soul.


While he has a right, as do we all, to believe whatever he wants about radicalism, ever since he decided to empty garbage pails full of the vilest slanders and defamations on the clean garments of honorable people, his consistent, unvarying line has been that the boogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to his demands. Better, far better, that Man were without the gift of speech than that he use it as Matt does. Better that Man could neither read nor write than have his head and heart perverted by the immature and unpatriotic tommyrot that oozes from Matt's pen. And better that the cut of Man's coat and the number of his buttons were fixed by statute and enforced by penalties than that Matt should suppress all news that portrays him in a bad light.


We've all heard him yammer and whine about how he's being scapegoated again, the poor dear. If I were elected Ruler of the World, my first act of business would be to answer the dim-witted evil-doers who teach the next generation how to hate -- and whom to hate. I would further use my position to inform certain segments of the Earth's population that last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince Matt that many of the distinctions between oppressive dummkopfs and Matt's slaves have dissolved. As I expected, he was entirely unconvinced. You might not care that he is at least partially right in that I am starting a grassroots campaign with the sole purpose of stopping Matt, but you'd better start caring if you don't want Matt to conduct business in a laughable, intolerant way. After reading everything I could find on this subject, I was forced to conclude that if we are to detail the specific steps and objectives needed to thwart his obstreperous schemes, then we must be guided by a healthy and progressive ideology, not by the vile and mawkish ideologies that Matt promotes. He should think about how his platitudes lead wild knee-biters to create a climate in which it will be assumed that our achievements reflect not individual worth, talent, or skill, but special consideration. If Matt doesn't want to think that hard, perhaps he should just keep quiet. If natural selection indeed works by removing the weakest and most genetically unfit members of a species, then he is clearly going to be the first to go.


Though treacherous, hectoring irrationalism is not discussed in this letter, much of what I've written applies to that, as well. In this case, the obvious solution is also the correct one. Surely, Matt is not too mudslinging to realize that. Considering that the chief difficulty in writing about him is that he is not above the law, I find it almost laughable how Matt remains oblivious to the fact that his writings all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that the few of us who complain regularly about his modes of thought are simply spoiling the party. His vainglorious solutions scar little children's self-image. News of this deviousness must spread like wildfire if we are ever to demonstrate conclusively that I find his tricks to be a perversion of the truth.


In my view, everybody is probably familiar with the cliche that most acts of neocolonialism are committed not by sententious psychics but by Matt's minions in an attempt to trample over the very freedoms and rights that Matt claims to support. Well, there's a lot of truth in that cliche. It's easy for us to shake our heads at his foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should establish clear, justifiable definitions of neopaganism and totalitarianism, so that you can defend a decision to take action when his votaries tour the country promoting careless hedonism in lectures and radio talk show interviews. It's easy for us to say, "Those who are the most sensitive about this are not the average wayward, vicious slumlords, but a minority of addlepated perjurers." The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because I, for one, oppose Matt's jokes because they are salacious. I oppose them because they are militant. And I oppose them because they will force us to adopt rigid social roles that compromise our inner code of ethics in the immediate years ahead. Does Matt have trouble living with himself, knowing that I like to throw darts at Matt's picture? If you need help in answering that question, you may note that if Matt wanted to, he could cultivate the purest breed of irresponsibility. He could sanctify his depravity. And he could sensationalize all of the issues. We must not allow Matt to do any of these.


The most sobering aspect of his "compromises" is that he is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks. There is an inherent contradiction between Matt's lackadaisical, goofy form of denominationalism and basic human rights. It is tempting to look for simple solutions to that problem, but there are no simple solutions. It's easy for Matt to bombastically declaim my proposals. But when is he going to provide an alternative proposal of his own? Well, I'm sure Matt would rather rewrite history to reflect or magnify an imaginary "victimhood" than answer that particular question.


I can assure you that his position that cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior is based upon a specious argument without any substantive basis. (Actually, he is a walking time bomb of Jacobinism, but that's not important now.) Ten years ago, it was resentful demoniacs. Today, it's loquacious lowbrows who turn peaceful gatherings into embarrassing scandals. Matt is inherently splenetic, snooty, and crotchety. Oh, and he also has an addlepated mode of existence. He says that sin is good for the soul. I've seen more plausible things scrawled on the bathroom walls in elementary schools.


Matt is just making a mug of himself when he says that anyone who resists him deserves to be crushed. Interestingly, he doesn't seem to care about that. I'll tell you what we need to do about all the craziness he is mongering. We need to study the problem and recommend corrective action. Now, I'm going to be honest here. I unmistakably dislike him. Likes or dislikes, however, are irrelevant to observed facts, such as that the next time Matt decides to borrow money and spend it on programs that replace law and order with anarchy and despotism, he should think to himself, cui bono? -- who benefits?


He wants us to believe that the purpose of life is self-gratification. How stupid does he think we are? A complete answer to that question would take more space than I can afford, so I'll have to give you a simplified answer. For starters, I want to give people more information about Matt, help them digest and assimilate and understand that information, and help them draw responsible conclusions from it. Here's one conclusion I decidedly hope people draw: I would doubtlessly like to comment on Matt's attempt to associate sensationalism with incendiarism. There is no association. Matt says that he needs a little more time to clean up his act. As far as I'm concerned, Matt's time has run out. Of perhaps even more concern is that in order to expose his proposed social programs for what they really are, we must carve solutions that are neither impertinent nor mad. And that's just the first step. Remember, it has been brought to my attention that Matt is consistently inconsistent. While this is sincerely true, at no time in the past did disrespectful, capricious boeotians shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them. A final word: Cranky ideas are continually escaping the confines of Matt's (obviously very weak) mind.

Sdldawn said:

[Racist comment snipped. --Matt]
[Edited 11/18/04 6:54am]

anbesol said:

awww did someone hit a nerve with u last week?

I LOVE THIS

hahaha

and by the way, thats like the umpteenth time u have referred to my avator.. dude, dudet.. whatever.. u have a real problem


HAHAHA
[Edited 11/17/04 22:23pm]
[Edited 11/18/04 6:54am]

Oh...don't even get me started...

My complaint about Nik

I kept my silence when Nik announced she wanted to organize a whispering campaign against me. I did nothing when she tried to pamper sniffish carousers. But her latest criticisms are the straw that breaks the camel's back. Before examining the present situation, however, it is important that I analyze her snow jobs in the manner of sociological studies of mass communication and persuasion. She says that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. Yet she also wants to reconstitute society on the basis of arrested development and envious malevolence. Am I the only one who sees the irony there? I ask because someone just showed me a memo supposedly written by Nik. The memo spells out her plans to condemn innocent people to death. If this memo is authentic, it tells us that Nik's circulars are designed to create a global workers plantation overseen by transnational corporations who have no more concern for the human rights of those who produce their products or services than Nik has for her cronies. And they're working; they're having the desired effect.

I want to draw two important conclusions from this. The first is that there are disagreeable, ignorant insurrectionists in our midst, and the second is that if she believes that her opinions represent the opinions of the majority -- or even a plurality -- then it's obvious why she thinks that society is screaming for her bons mots. In Nik's confreres, we can recognize the symptoms of decay of a slowly rotting world. 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 there are two sorts of people in this world. There are those who create problems that our grandchildren will have to live with, and there are those who exert a positive influence on the type of world that people will live in a thousand years from now. Nik fits neatly into the former category, of course. Every time she tries, Nik gets increasingly successful in her attempts to incite pogroms, purges, and other mayhem. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought, but for imagination as well.

She says that she needs a little more time to clean up her act. As far as I'm concerned, her time has run out. Nik has no discernible talents. The only things she has unquestionably mastered are biological functions. Well, I suppose she's good at convincing people that it's inappropriate to teach children right from wrong, but Nik says it is within her legal right to feed us ever-larger doses of her lies and crackpot assumptions. Whether or not she indeed has such a right, Nik accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does she believe I'm narrow-minded because I refuse to accept her claim that it's okay for her to indulge her every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole? If so, then I guess I'm as narrow-minded as I could possibly be. One does not have to deprive people of dignity and autonomy in order to give direction to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality. It is a gutless person who believes otherwise. I never cease to be amazed at the way that Nik never tires of trying to extinguish fires with gasoline. She presumably hopes that the magic formula will work some day. In the meantime, she seems to have resolved to learn nothing from experience, which tells us that her brutal campaigns can be quite educational. By studying them, students can observe firsthand the consequences of having a mind consumed with paranoia, fear, hatred, and ignorance.

The gloss that her cohorts put on her ultimata unfortunately does little to indicate in a rough and approximate way the two obstreperous tendencies that I believe are the main driving force of modern sexism. In a sense, Nik is addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, she has no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people she desires to lead. Does she do research before she reports things, or does she just guess and hope she's right? The reason I ask is that some people don't seem to mind that she likes to impose amoral new restrictions on society just to satisfy some sort of uncompromising drive for power. What a Pecksniffian world we live in!

The intransigent-to-the-core revanchism I've been writing about is not primarily the fault of naive galoots, nor of the wild, peevish bourgeoisie who judge people based solely on hearsay. It is the fault of Nik. I'll let you in on a little secret: I am tired of hearing or reading that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel. You know that that is simply not true. Her eccentricity is surpassed only by her vanity. And Nik's vanity is surpassed only by her empty theorizing. (Remember her theory that everyone who doesn't share her beliefs is a despicable infidel deserving of death and damnation?) Nik is like a magician who produces a dove in one hand, while the other hand is busy trying to tour the country promoting perverted larrikinism in lectures and radio talk show interviews.

Someone once said to me, "Until we combat the loathsome ideology of recidivism that has infected the minds of so many repressive yobbos, Nik will continue to palliate and excuse the atrocities of her adulators." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since. She is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks. According to Nik's crotchety logic, it would be beneficial for logorrheic profiteers to replace discourse and open dialogue with ghastly proposed social programs and blatant ugliness. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life. If you think about it, Nik wants to practice human sacrifice on a grand scale in some sort of combative death cult. Who does she think she is? I mean, if it weren't for irritating desperados, she would have no friends.

She doesn't want us to know about her plans to attack the fabric of this nation. Otherwise, we might do something about that. Although Nik demonstrates a great deal of ignorance and presumption when she says that she is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong, she is frightened that we might seek some structure in which the cacophony introduced by her pleas might be systematized, reconciled, and made rational. That's why she's trying so hard to prevent whistleblowers from reporting that her scare tactics are a house of mirrors. How are we to find the opening that leads to freedom? Well, if I knew that, I'd be in Stockholm picking up my prize and a sizable check. While everybody believes in something, her simple faith in propagandism will truly interfere with my efforts to embark on a new path towards change. Intellectually challenged vigilantes are sharply focused on an immediate goal: to feed on the politics of resentment, alienation, frustration, anger, and fear. Although it's easy to sit in the press box and criticize, we must put inexorable pressure on Nik to be a bit more careful about what she says and does. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to carry out the famous French admonition, écrasez l'infâme!, against Nik's ramblings.

When a political condition of greed, massive corruption, and diversity of objective is coupled to a social condition of drugs, violence, and discontent, therein exists the perfect environment for Nik to twist our entire societal valuation of love and relationships beyond all insanity. The problem is, if she wanted to, she could infringe upon our most important constitutional rights. She could hasten the destruction of our civilization. And she could create a world without history, without philosophy, without science, without reason -- a world without beauty of any kind, without art, without literature, without culture. We must not allow Nik to do any of these. If I have characterized her trucklers up to now as impetuous and uncivilized, it is only because her backers consider her writings a breath of fresh air. I, however, find them more like the fetid odor of isolationism.

After I bring a fresh perspective and new ideas to the current debate, I know that everyone will come to the dismayed conclusion that I stated at the beginning of this discussion: Perhaps one day we will live in a world where good people are not troubled by fear of biased bribe-seekers. Until that day arrives, however, we must spread the word that Nik once told her henchmen, "Hey, let's all go out and convert houses of worhip into houses of sectarianism!" (or words to that effect). Do I blame society for this? No, I blame Nik. Now the surprising news: We find among narrow and uneducated minds the belief that the Eleventh Commandment is, "Thou shalt throw away our freedom, our honor, and our future". This belief is due to a basic confusion, which can be cleared up simply by stating that I am not making a generalization when I say that Nik's approach is generally to seize upon an anecdote or a narrow and limited manifestation and/or purpose, and then totally blow it out of proportion to justify her cruel arguments. She will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact, because if she didn't, you might come to realize that when she was first found trying to destabilize the already volatile social fabric that she purportedly aims to save, I was scared. I was scared not only for my personal safety; I was scared for the people I love. And now that Nik is planning to rally for a cause that is completely void of moral, ethical, or legal validity, I'm indisputably downright terrified. Nik has gotten away with so much for so long that she's lost all sense of caution, all sense of limits. If you think about it, only a woman without any sense of limits could desire to agitate for indoctrination programs in local schools. I am not trying to save the world -- I gave up that pursuit a long time ago. But I am trying to provide some balance to her one-sided taradiddles.

I almost forgot: Nik is completely brutish. We all are, to some extent, but she sets the curve. Let me back up a little: She should show some class. Let me recap that for you, because it really is extraordinarily important: It would be charitable of me not to mention that scrutinizing her prognoses may be instructive in this regard. Fortunately, I am not beset by a spirit of false charity, so I will instead maintain 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. Nik's belief systems are a load of bunk. I use this delightfully pejorative term, "bunk" -- an alternative from the same page of my criminal-slang lexicon would serve just as well -- because Nik argues that I am heartless for wanting to advance a clear, credible, and effective vision for dealing with our present dilemma and its most hidebound manifestations. I should point out that this is almost the same argument that was made against Copernicus and Galileo almost half a millennium ago. According to the laws of probability, I have a dream, a mission, a set path that I would like to travel down. Specifically, my goal is to speak out against resentful backstabbers of one sort or another. Of course, I stand by what I've written before, that she has two imperatives. The first is to engender ill will. The second imperative is to lead a loquacious jihad against those who oppose her. My eventual goal for this letter is to reveal some shocking facts about Nik's propositions. I'm counting on you for your support.

Sdldawn said:

yeah, its called love... who did you leave standing at the alter?

sosgemini said:

Its people like this that make this place interesting i suppose.

The theme of this letter is not "Ms. Eve L latest 'revelation' (really, hallucination) is that bad things 'just happen' (i.e., they're not caused by Eve herself)." By now, you've already heard countless arguments running in that vein and are probably pretty sick of them. The theme of this letter is "Chauvinistic, baleful nymphomaniacs have exerted care always to use high-sounding words like 'piezocrystallization' to hide Eve's plans to make a mockery of the term 'barothermohygrograph'." Here's my side of the story: Eve's viewpoints are continually evolving into more and more filthy incarnations. Here, I'm not just talking about evolution in a simply Darwinist sense; I'm also talking about how Eve refers to a variety of things using the word "cinephotomicrography". Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. Basically, she's saying that she has the mandate of Heaven to attack the very fabric of this nation. At any rate, her faculty for deception is so far above anyone else's, it really must be considered different in kind as well as in degree. Eve's intolerance for those assumed to hold different value systems from hers is so great, so mentally debilitating, so handicapping to her thought processes that she has never gotten ahead because of her hard work or innovative ideas. Rather, all of her successes are due to kickbacks, bribes, black market double-dealing, outright thuggery, and unsavory political intrigue. I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to improve the lot of humankind.

Eve has endorsed the idea of viperine antagonism in a number of very specific ways, arguing, for instance, in favor of her grunts' decision to meddle in everyone else's affairs. So, how will her expositors react when they discover that she wants to support those for whom hatred has become a way of life? I guess it just boils down to the question: Does she believe, deep in the adytum of her own mind, that we should derive moral guidance from her glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented circulars? There aren't enough hours in the day to fully answer that question, but consider this: If I didn't think Eve would reduce human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine, I wouldn't say that I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But she is a psychologically defective person. She's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath. Couldn't you figure that out for yourself, Eve? She should be in better control of her hormones. This is the flaw in her jokes. She doesn't understand that there are few certainties in life. I have counted only three: death, taxes, and Eve doing some uncontrollable thing every few weeks.

Maybe she has a reason for acting the way she does, but I doubt it. I know very few gruesome disorderly-types personally, but I know them well enough to surmise that she claims that it is damnable to question her contrivances. I would say that that claim is 70% folderol, 20% twaddle, and 10% another supercilious attempt to promulgate partisan prejudice against others. It should scarcely seem questionable to anyone that we must inculcate in the reader an inquisitive spirit and a skepticism about beliefs that Eve's factotums take for granted -- not just in the poetic sense, but in the very specific and prosaic terms I am outlining in this letter. Now take that to the next level: There is no compelling moral or economic reason why Eve should marginalize me based on my gender, race, or religion. We can therefore extrapolate that the point at which you discover that she has more understanding of beer and milk regulations than of farsighted plans for the future is not only a moment of disenchantment. It is a moment of resolve, a determination that she should slither back under whatever rock she crawled out from. Excuse me; that's not entirely correct. What I meant to say is that when I say that the long-term goals that Eve's forces are so proud of are woefully brain-damaged, this does not, I repeat, does not mean that she has a "special" perspective on mandarinism which carries with it a "special" right to precipitate riots. This is a common fallacy held by merciless champions of deceit, lies, theft, plunder, and rapine. Finally, if this letter generates a response from someone of opposing viewpoints, I would hope that the author(s) concentrate on offering objections to my ideas while refraining from attacks on my person or my intelligence. I've gotten enough of that already from Ms. Eve L
[Edited 11/18/04 6:53am]

This is hilarious shit by the way thanks

I'm always glad to have the opportunity to speak openly, without fear of Ms. Sweeny twisting my words in a self-serving attempt to divert attention from her unprovoked aggression. First off, the unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, by working together, we can draw an accurate portrait of her ideological alignment. Well, that's a bit too general of a statement to have much meaning, I'm afraid. So let me instead explain my point as follows: A central point of her belief systems is the notion that we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune. Perhaps Sweeny should take some new data into account and revisit that notion. I think she'd find that 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 Sweeny has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and take away our sense of community and leave us morally adrift -- all by trumping up a phony emergency. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of individuals and organizations, many of whom may seem innocent at first glance, who secretly want to withhold information and disseminate half truths and whole lies. In the end, the most telling thing is that Sweeny's vicegerents are quick to point out that because Sweeny is hated, persecuted, and repeatedly laughed at, she is the real victim here. The truth is that, if anything, Sweeny is a victim of her own success -- a success that enables Sweeny to accelerate the natural tendency of civilization to devolve from order to chaos, liberty to tyranny, and virtue to vice. What a cunning coup on the part of her votaries, who set out to progressively narrow the sphere of human freedom and got as far as they did without anyone raising an eyebrow. I guess what I really mean to say is that you don't have to say anything specifically about her for her to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that we should take steps against the whole sniffish brotherhood of avaricious ogres.

Sweeny is typical of hostile four-flushers in her wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize her solutions. Even though supposedly distancing herself from predatory, uppity lackwits, she has really not changed her spots at all. In the past, when I complained that she was attempting to poison the relationship between teacher and student, I was told that I was just being vainglorious. But nowadays, people realize that she is too moonstruck to read the writing on the wall. This writing warns that her philippics are an icon for the deterioration of the city, for its slow slide into crime, malaise, and filth.

I honestly contend that Sweeny should take more responsibility for her actions. To top that off, if Sweeny's nostrums get any more yawping, I expect they'll grow legs and attack me in my sleep. Someone has been giving her brain a very thorough washing, and now Sweeny is trying to do the same to us. Either she has no real conception of the sweep of history, or she is merely intent on winning some debating pin by trying to pierce a hole in my logic with "facts" that are taken out of context. Sweeny's claim that granting her complete control over our lives is as important as breathing air is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind. From this perspective, Sweeny contends that we can change the truth if we don't like it the way it is. Excuse me, but where exactly did this little factoid come from? What I had wanted for this letter was to write an analysis of Ms. Sweeny's sound bites. Not an exhortation or a shrill denunciation, but an analysis. I hope I have succeeded at that.

It's all fucking true I tell ya

I am awaiting the release of the novel

My little complaint about someone we all "know" and "love":

Unless you're a newly hatched pod person, you already know that compared to these incoherent, grotty finks, every pimp is a man of honor. But let me add that Mr. Larry Graham has a hidden agenda. To plunge right into it, Mr. Graham will probably never understand why he scares me so much. And he does scare me: His whinges are scary, his comments are scary, and most of all, if we lend support to the thesis that he is not only woefully indecent, but terribly laughable, then the sea of vigilantism, on which he so heavily relies, will begin to dry up. In these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, he is locked into his present course of destruction. He does not have the interest or the will to change his fundamentally foolhardy principles. Mr. Graham really struck a nerve with me when he said that jujuism is a noble goal. That lie is a painful reminder that I have absolutely no idea why Mr. Graham makes such a big fuss over Dadaism. 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 if everyone does his own, small part, together we can do what comes naturally. Is that such a difficult concept? If Mr. Graham continues to perpetuate harmful stereotypes, crime will escalate as schools deteriorate, corruption increases, and quality of life plummets. Although the proper definition of "interchangeableness" is hotly disputed, he has been trying for some time to convince people that he can absorb mana by devouring his nemeses' brains. Don't believe his hype! Mr. Graham has just been offering that line as a means to use rock music, with its savage, tribal, orgiastic beat, to overthrow the government and eliminate the money system.

Think about that for a moment. His opinion is that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy. Of course, opinions are like sphincters: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I assert that there is, because once one begins thinking about free speech, about licentious, irritable pests who use ostracism and public opinion to prevent the airing of views contrary to their own putrid beliefs, one realizes that after hearing about Mr. Graham's hateful attempts to take the focus off the real issues, I was saddened. I was saddened that he has lowered himself to this level. I am on an important mission to defy Mr. Graham. If I don't accomplish that mission, Mr. Graham's plans to befuddle the public and make sin seem like merely a sophisticated fashion could well succeed. It indubitably shouldn't be necessary to have to say such things, but he says that he needs a little more time to clean up his act. As far as I'm concerned, his time has run out.

There is no doubt that he will deny the obvious any day now. Believe me, I would give everything I own to be wrong on that point, but the truth is that if a cogent, logical argument entered Mr. Graham's brain, no doubt a concussion would result. What Mr. Graham is doing is not an innocent, recreational sort of thing. It is a criminal activity, it is an immoral activity, it is a socially destructive activity, and it is a profoundly scurrilous activity. Unfortunately, his obstreperous newsgroup postings neglect to take one important factor into consideration: human nature. I want to compile readers' remarks and suggestions and use them to shatter the illusion that human life is expendable. I want to do this not because I need to tack another line onto my résumé, but because he uses the word "teleoroentgenography" without ever having taken the time to look it up in the dictionary. People who are too lazy to get their basic terms right should be ignored, not debated. Did Mr. Graham cancel his plans to play on people's conscious and unconscious belief structures because he had a change of heart, or is he continuing the same battle on another front? It would appear to be the latter.

He accuses me of being hate-filled, yet it is he who is filled with hate. And he accuses me of being bigoted, while his epigrams show nothing but bigotry. Why does Mr. Graham make those sorts of accusations, then? On the surface, it would seem to have something to do with the way that this is one letter that Mr. Graham doesn't want you to read. But upon further investigation, one will find that he will probably respond to this letter just like he responds to all criticism. He will put me down as "sophomoric" or "dour". That's his standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about him except the most fawning praise. As a practical matter, once people obtain the critical skills that enable them to think and reflect and speculate independently, they'll realize that if one dares to criticize even a single tenet of Mr. Graham's revenge fantasies, one is promptly condemned as intolerant, haughty, jealous, or whatever epithet Mr. Graham deems most appropriate, usually without much explanation. I apologize if what I'm saying sounds painfully obvious, painfully self-evident. However, it is so extremely important that I must certainly say it.

If, today, the urge of Mr. Graham's war-soul can prompt him to provide dictatorial spoiled brats with a milieu in which they can grant a free ride to the undeserving, then imagine, if you can, how that same soul will express itself through the thousandfold-more-shiftless Mr. Graham of tomorrow. Before I continue, let me state that if this letter did nothing else but serve as a beacon of truth, it would be worthy of reading by all right-thinking people. However, this letter's role is much greater than just to replace today's chaos and lack of vision with order and a supreme sense of purpose. Because we continue to share a common, albeit abused, atmospheric envelope, he masterminded last year's now-infamous attempt to rob us of our lives, our health, our honor, and our belongings. But there is a further-reaching implication: When I first became aware of Mr. Graham's covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how I welcome Mr. Graham's comments. However, Mr. Graham needs to realize that I have a problem with his use of the phrase, "We all know that...". With this phrase, Mr. Graham doesn't need to prove his claim that censorship could benefit us; he merely accepts it as fact. To put it another way, if he wants to complain, he should have an argument. He shouldn't just throw out the word "anthropomorphologically", for example, and expect us to be scared. By that, I mean not only in the strictest sense, but also the whole spectrum of related meanings. Mr. Graham should hide his head in shame before the judgment of future generations, whose tongue it will no longer be possible to stop and which, therefore, will say what today all of us know to be true: Mr. Graham is doing everything in his power to make me tear off all my clothes and run naked down the street. The only reason I haven't yet is that I believe in the four P's: patience, prayer, positive thinking, and perseverance. This is far from all I have to say on the topic, but it's certainly enough for now. Just remember one thing: Mr. Larry Graham has a certain fondness for insensitive nincompoops.

...I would, however, like to remind Erin that she is planning to wage a clandestine guerilla war against many basic human rights. This does not bode well for the future, because the really interesting thing about all this is not that she has a hidden agenda. The interesting thing is that she is not just stupid. She is unbelievably, astronomically stupid. Erin is the embodiment of everything petty in our lives. Every grievance, every envy, every larcenous ideology finds expression in Erin Hazard.

Sdldawn said:

hmmm. to make things clearer i translated Sdldawn's text from english into italian, italian into french, and french into english. hope this helps!

June7 said: