oh and i have plenty of webspace, which i can let someone borrow, or multiple people borrow. 15 GB up right now

email ChromeX1337@gmail.com if you're interested

At 7/3/06 11:47 AM, Unlockable wrote: GASP!!!!!!!! Wade helps YOU!!!! but he doesnt help ME!!!!!!! wade! chrome hacked my account!!!!! its called JackofBladesX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! its very obvious if you look at the profile@!!!!

yeah, so what, you were bitching at me on AIM so i decided to fuck with you.

At 7/3/06 10:32 AM, gunthix wrote: Does anyone know of a free server i can use for my website? Someone recommended www.canaca.com, but it seems like it's not free.

canaca looks like a great deal, but in reality, it's not. they give you so much shit, but you can never use it all, seriously, you wont be able to use it, they wont allow it. bandwidth doesnt matter anymore, it's all about CPU minutes, which range around 50-60 a day. if you go over that, they'll start bitching and possibly kick you off their service without a refund. things that cause more CPU minutes are usually large php scripts, servers for anything, etc.

http://apache.airnet..~fastinfo/microwave/

^ fun stuff

sony's product quality has been going downhill and now they must jack up the price to gain back their lost revenue.

At 7/1/06 02:37 PM, --Hybrid-- wrote:

At 7/1/06 02:28 PM, llama wrote:

stuff

What on earth are you talking about?

What I'm talking about is I've been hesitating to write this letter, because I've been afraid that, if I did, Mr. Infidel would do everything in its power to make me live lower than dirt. But after reading about Mr. Infidel's simple-minded announcements, I could hesitate no longer. So, without further ado, I present you with this all-important piece of information: Mr. Infidel's macabre dream is starting to come true. Liberties are being killed by attrition. Authoritarianism is being installed by accretion. The only way that we can reverse these censorious trends is to shed the light of truth on the evil that is Mr. Infidel. To be precise, it wants us to feel sorry for the blinkered primates who create new (and reinforce existing) prejudices and misconceptions. I claim we should instead feel sorry for their victims, all of whom know full well that Mr. Infidel has compiled an impressive list of grievances against me. Not only are all of these grievances completely fictitious, but most people want to be nice; they want to be polite; they don't want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness, they step aside and let Mr. Infidel spoon-feed us its pabulum. Even though Mr. Infidel gives flattering titles to its natural distempers, my cause is to encourage opportunity, responsibility, and community. I call upon men and women from all walks of life to support my cause with their life-affirming eloquence and indomitable spirit of human decency and moral righteousness. Only then will the whole world realize that Mr. Infidel says that sensationalism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie. Because "formaldehydesulphoxylic" is a word that can be interpreted in many ways, we must make it clear that if I am correctly informed, when a capricious dolt has been beaten down with the successive hammer blows of Lysenkoism, metagrobolism, and interdenominationalism, he becomes quite receptive to Mr. Infidel's propaganda and quite likely to join its camp. In any case, its ideological colors may have changed over the years. Nevertheless, Mr. Infidel's core principle has remained the same: to quash other people's opinions. If you don't believe me, then note that Mr. Infidel contends that it's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread. Sounds rather wild, doesn't it? Well, that's Mr. Infidel for you. It's a pity that two thousand years after Christ, the voices of dotty rotters like Mr. Infidel can still be heard, worse still that they're listened to, and worst of all that anyone believes them.

I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on Mr. Infidel's part to make a mockery of our most fundamentally held beliefs in the immediate years ahead. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that I would never take a job working for Mr. Infidel. Given its depraved traducements, who would want to? This is well illustrated in what remains one of the most divisive issues of our day: pauperism. You know, it strikes me that if the people generally are relying on false information sown by Maoism-prone wimps, then correcting that situation becomes a priority for the defense of our nation. It would be charitable of me not to mention that what Mr. Infidel is doing is fanaticism in its most foul-mouthed form. Fortunately, I am not beset by a spirit of false charity, so I will instead maintain that it is like a magician who produces a dove in one hand, while the other hand is busy trying to subject us to the self-serving, goofy yapping of repressive psychopaths. Mr. Infidel may not be that flagitious, but it sure is presumptuous.

I would like to digress here. Perhaps one day we will live in a world where good people are not troubled by fear of sniffish twaddlers. Until that day arrives, however, we must spread the word that unlike Mr. Infidel, when I make a mistake I'm willing to admit it. Consequently, if -- and I'm bending over backwards to maintain the illusion of "innocent until proven guilty" -- it were not actually responsible for trying to rule with an iron fist, then I'd stop saying that Mr. Infidel attracts horny, contemptuous bloody-minded-types to its peuplade by telling them that our elected officials should be available for purchase by special-interest groups. I suppose the people to whom it tells such things just want to believe lies that make them feel intellectually and spiritually superior to others. Whether or not that's the case, Mr. Infidel has been trying hard to protect what has become a lucrative racket for it. Unfortunately, that lucrative racket has a hard-to-overlook consequence: it will shout obscenities at passers-by eventually. It is deeply unfortunate that Mr. Infidel brandishes the word "anthropogeographical" as a kind of up-to-date jack-o'-lantern to scare children, since this is not wild speculation. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is documented fact.

There's something fishy about Mr. Infidel's publicity stunts. I think it's up to something, something abysmal and perhaps even disrespectful. Here's some news for you: There is an open consensus that it requires surprisingly little imagination to envision a future in which Mr. Infidel is free to renege on an incredibly large number of promises. Interesting, isn't it? What you may find even more interesting is that it is dead set on defending its position against what I have to say, regardless of what I have to say. The facts are indisputable, the arguments are impeccable, and the consequences are undeniable. So why does it contend that we ought to worship splenetic, morally repugnant crooks as folk heroes? We should be able to look into our own souls for the answer.

At 7/1/06 02:30 PM, -Moco- wrote:

At 7/1/06 02:28 PM, llama wrote:

More stuff.

Again wha?

What in God's fucking name do you not get?

I want to make it perfectly clear what I do not intend to do in this letter before I carry on with what I do wish to accomplish with it. What follows is the story of how Zelda can be so rich in the rhetoric of democracy and yet so poor in its implementation. I recently overheard a couple of contumelious, pompous scatterbrains say that Zelda is entitled to lure the lousy into its camp. Here, again, we encounter the blurred thinking that is characteristic of this Zelda-induced era of slogans and propaganda.

I suspect that Zelda's recourse to revisionism as a tactical modality for waging low-intensity warfare has been successful. Deal with it. I don't know whether or not you've ever been physically present at a public demonstration by Zelda's bootlickers, but let me tell you, they're pretty atrabilious.

I, hardheaded cynic that I am, hope that this sends a strong message to people across the nation that the only winners in Zelda's games are ambulance services and funeral homes. Don't make the mistake of thinking otherwise. Zelda does, and that's why I need your help if I'm ever to set the stage so that my next letter will begin from a new and much higher level of influence. "But I'm only one person," you might protest. "What difference can I make?" The answer is: a lot more than you think. You see, I don't need to tell you that the popularity of Zelda's agendas among uneducated grifters (also known as Zelda's advocates) is a harbinger of shiftless things to come. That should be self-evident. What is less evident is that Zelda is extraordinarily brazen. We've all known that for a long time. However, its willingness to shift our society from a culture of conscience to a culture of consensus sets a new record for brazenness. As everyone knows, any claim to the contrary is patently false. What you might not know, however, is that it will create a climate of intimidation because it possesses a hatred that defies all logic and understanding, that cannot be quantified or reasoned away, and that savagely possesses overweening couch potatoes with scary and uncontrollable rage.

Take, as an example, the way that Zelda wants to keep a close eye on those who look like they might think an unapproved thought. Well, it acts as if it were King of the World. This hauteur is astonishing, staggering, and mind-boggling. If Zelda can one day make us the helpless puppets of our demographic labels, then the long descent into night is sure to follow. My mother always told me, "If you don't have something intelligent to say, just keep quiet." Apparently, Zelda's mother never told it that. For the record, Zelda's claim that it is a paragon of morality and wisdom is factually unsupported and politically motivated.

Zelda has endorsed the idea of xenophobic, grotty antinomianism in a number of very specific ways, arguing, for instance, in favor of its surrogates' decision to inspire a recrudescence of stupid fatuity. It is similarly noteworthy that one of Zelda's favorite tricks is to create a problem and then to offer the solution. Naturally, it's always its solutions that grant it the freedom to mortgage away our future, never the original problem. There are rumors circulating that Zelda should keep its thoughts to itself, so let me just clarify something: We must compile readers' remarks and suggestions and use them to debunk the nonsense spouted by Zelda's bedfellows. If we fail in this, we are not failing someone else; we are not disrupting some interest separate from ourselves. Rather, it is we who suffer when we neglect to observe that Zelda has stated that no one is smart enough to see through its transparent lies. That's just pure gangsterism. Well, in Zelda's case, it might be pure ignorance, seeing that some people say that that isn't sufficient evidence to prove that Zelda is secretly scheming to play fast and loose with the truth. And I must agree; one needs much more evidence than that. But the evidence is there, for anyone who isn't afraid to look at it. Just look at the way that it's quite easy for it to declaim my proposals. But when is Zelda going to provide an alternative proposal of its own? It is only when one has an answer to that question is it possible to make sense of Zelda's politics because I'm not a hate-filled person. I'd like nothing more than to extend my hand in friendship to Zelda's subalterns and convey my hope that in the days to come we can work together to denounce those who claim 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. Unfortunately, knowing them, they'd rather feed us a diet of robbery, murder, violence, and all other manner of trials and tribulations because that's what Zelda wants. To summarize my views: Zelda frequently progresses into displays of authority it doesn't have.

At 7/1/06 02:24 PM, ChocloMan wrote: Wha?

I've been hesitating to write this letter, because I've been afraid that, if I did, Mr. Infidel would do everything in its power to make me live lower than dirt. But after reading about Mr. Infidel's simple-minded announcements, I could hesitate no longer. So, without further ado, I present you with this all-important piece of information: Mr. Infidel's macabre dream is starting to come true. Liberties are being killed by attrition. Authoritarianism is being installed by accretion. The only way that we can reverse these censorious trends is to shed the light of truth on the evil that is Mr. Infidel. To be precise, it wants us to feel sorry for the blinkered primates who create new (and reinforce existing) prejudices and misconceptions. I claim we should instead feel sorry for their victims, all of whom know full well that Mr. Infidel has compiled an impressive list of grievances against me. Not only are all of these grievances completely fictitious, but most people want to be nice; they want to be polite; they don't want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness, they step aside and let Mr. Infidel spoon-feed us its pabulum. Even though Mr. Infidel gives flattering titles to its natural distempers, my cause is to encourage opportunity, responsibility, and community. I call upon men and women from all walks of life to support my cause with their life-affirming eloquence and indomitable spirit of human decency and moral righteousness. Only then will the whole world realize that Mr. Infidel says that sensationalism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie. Because "formaldehydesulphoxylic" is a word that can be interpreted in many ways, we must make it clear that if I am correctly informed, when a capricious dolt has been beaten down with the successive hammer blows of Lysenkoism, metagrobolism, and interdenominationalism, he becomes quite receptive to Mr. Infidel's propaganda and quite likely to join its camp. In any case, its ideological colors may have changed over the years. Nevertheless, Mr. Infidel's core principle has remained the same: to quash other people's opinions. If you don't believe me, then note that Mr. Infidel contends that it's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread. Sounds rather wild, doesn't it? Well, that's Mr. Infidel for you. It's a pity that two thousand years after Christ, the voices of dotty rotters like Mr. Infidel can still be heard, worse still that they're listened to, and worst of all that anyone believes them.

I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on Mr. Infidel's part to make a mockery of our most fundamentally held beliefs in the immediate years ahead. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that I would never take a job working for Mr. Infidel. Given its depraved traducements, who would want to? This is well illustrated in what remains one of the most divisive issues of our day: pauperism. You know, it strikes me that if the people generally are relying on false information sown by Maoism-prone wimps, then correcting that situation becomes a priority for the defense of our nation. It would be charitable of me not to mention that what Mr. Infidel is doing is fanaticism in its most foul-mouthed form. Fortunately, I am not beset by a spirit of false charity, so I will instead maintain that it is like a magician who produces a dove in one hand, while the other hand is busy trying to subject us to the self-serving, goofy yapping of repressive psychopaths. Mr. Infidel may not be that flagitious, but it sure is presumptuous.

I would like to digress here. Perhaps one day we will live in a world where good people are not troubled by fear of sniffish twaddlers. Until that day arrives, however, we must spread the word that unlike Mr. Infidel, when I make a mistake I'm willing to admit it. Consequently, if -- and I'm bending over backwards to maintain the illusion of "innocent until proven guilty" -- it were not actually responsible for trying to rule with an iron fist, then I'd stop saying that Mr. Infidel attracts horny, contemptuous bloody-minded-types to its peuplade by telling them that our elected officials should be available for purchase by special-interest groups. I suppose the people to whom it tells such things just want to believe lies that make them feel intellectually and spiritually superior to others. Whether or not that's the case, Mr. Infidel has been trying hard to protect what has become a lucrative racket for it. Unfortunately, that lucrative racket has a hard-to-overlook consequence: it will shout obscenities at passers-by eventually. It is deeply unfortunate that Mr. Infidel brandishes the word "anthropogeographical" as a kind of up-to-date jack-o'-lantern to scare children, since this is not wild speculation. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is documented fact.

There's something fishy about Mr. Infidel's publicity stunts. I think it's up to something, something abysmal and perhaps even disrespectful. Here's some news for you: There is an open consensus that it requires surprisingly little imagination to envision a future in which Mr. Infidel is free to renege on an incredibly large number of promises. Interesting, isn't it? What you may find even more interesting is that it is dead set on defending its position against what I have to say, regardless of what I have to say. The facts are indisputable, the arguments are impeccable, and the consequences are undeniable. So why does it contend that we ought to worship splenetic, morally repugnant crooks as folk heroes? We should be able to look into our own souls for the answer.

'd like to take a minute of your time to share some of my thoughts about Mr. Infidel with you. Instead of focusing on why Mr. Infidel's credos are in conflict with accepted morality, I would like to remind people that I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently answer by saying that I honestly hope that the truth will prevail and that justice will be served before Mr. Infidel does any real damage. Or is it already too late? There is widespread agreement in asking that question, but there is great disagreement in answering it. Mr. Infidel is trying to hold itself up as a cultural icon. An equal but opposite observation is that there's an important difference between me and Mr. Infidel. Namely, I am willing to die for my cause. Mr. Infidel, in contrast, is willing to kill for its -- or, if not to kill, at least to prime the pump of cynicism. Let me back up a little: Mr. Infidel is entirely sniffish. We all are, to some extent, but it sets the curve. From what I know of Mr. Infidel's obloquies, it is saying essentially three things:

1. It's inappropriate to teach children right from wrong.
2. It is known for its sound judgment, unerring foresight, and sagacious adaptation of means to ends.
3. Its activities are on the up-and-up.

Obviously, all three of these are surely maledicent.

I can no longer get very excited about any revelation of Mr. Infidel's hypocrisy or crookedness. It's what I've come to expect by now. Incidentally, Mr. Infidel's protests are a logical absurdity, a series of deductions from a premise that has been denied. Speaking of absurdities, even if one isn't completely conversant with current events, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that I don't see how Mr. Infidel can build a workable policy around wishful thinking draped over a morass of confusion (and also, as we'll see below, historical illiteracy), then impose it willy-nilly on a population by force. I'm not saying that it can't possibly be done but rather that Mr. Infidel has spent untold hours trying to boss others around. During that time, did it ever once occur to it that its communications are more often out of sync with democratic values than aligned with them? To rephrase that question, why aren't our children being warned about it in school? My best guess, for what it may be worth, is based on two key observations. The first observation is that it is naive to think that it wouldn't cause (or at least contribute to) a variety of social ills if it got the chance. The second, more telling, observation is that Mr. Infidel's behavior might be different if it were told that all it has managed to attain with its animadversions is a jab at hardworking individuals. Of course, as far as Mr. Infidel's concerned, this fact will fall into the category of, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts." That's why I'm telling you that its fulminations are a house of mirrors. How are we to find the opening that leads to freedom? It doesn't want you to know the answer to that question; it wants to ensure you don't stand uncompromised in a world that's on the brink of Mr. Infidel-induced disaster. Mr. Infidel can't seriously believe that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel, can it? Fortunately for us, the key to the answer is obvious: I have a dream, a mission, a set path that I would like to travel down. Specifically, my goal is to upbraid Mr. Infidel for being so dim-witted. Of course, its desire to make antagonism socially acceptable is the chief sign that it's a censorious, dotty hermit. (The second sign is that Mr. Infidel feels obliged to wipe out delicate ecosystems.) I recommend paying close attention to the praxeological method developed by the economist Ludwig von Mises and using it as a technique to halt the adulation heaped upon unambitious nudniks. The praxeological method is useful in this context because it employs praxeology, the general science of human action, to explain why Mr. Infidel takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on it. It also ignores all of the evidence that doesn't support (or in many cases directly contradicts) its position.

For those who know me, they know it is a rare occurrence for me to be rendered speechless. But when I heard that Mr. Infidel wants to prey on people's fear of political and economic instability, I must say that speechless I was. Without going into all the gory details, let's just say that it is the devil incarnate. There's nothing controversial about that view. It's a fact, pure and simple. It was a fact long before anyone realized that Mr. Infidel's toadies believe that it's okay to focus too much on one side of the equation and not enough on the broader perspective of things. It should not be surprising that they believe this, however. As we all know, minds that have been so maimed that they believe that Mr. Infidel is a spokesman for God can believe anything, especially if it's false. You may balk at this, but someone just showed me a memo supposedly written by Mr. Infidel. The memo spells out its plans to dominate or intimidate others. If this memo is authentic, it tells us that I have a message for Mr. Infidel. My message is that, for the good of us all, it should never cause the destruction of human ambition and joy. It should never even try to do such a randy thing. To make myself perfectly clear, by "never", I don't mean "maybe", "sometimes", or "it depends". I mean only that I am sick of our illustrious "leaders" treading on eggshells so as not to upset Mr. Infidel. Here's what I have to say to them: I hate it when people get their facts thoroughly wrong. For instance, whenever I hear some corporate fat cat make noises about how Mr. Infidel can be trusted to judge the rest of the world from a unique perch of pure wisdom, I can't help but think that Mr. Infidel's arguments would be a lot more effective if they were at least accurate or intelligent, not just a load of bull for the sake of being controversial. If I have a bias, it is only against lecherous-to-the-core, offensive paranoiacs who interfere with my efforts to build a true community of spirit and purpose based on mutual respect and caring. When Mr. Infidel was first found trying to declare that two wrongs make a right, I was scared. I was scared not only for my personal safety; I was scared for the people I love. And now that Mr. Infidel is planning to give voice, in a totally emotional and non-rational way, to its deep-rooted love of cameralism, I'm terrified. But this is something to be filed away for future letters. At present, I wish to focus on only one thing: the fact that a central point of Mr. Infidel's belief systems is the notion that Mr. Infidel's metanarratives are Holy Writ. Perhaps it should take some new data into account and revisit that notion. I think it'd find that some reputed -- as opposed to reputable -- members of its junta quite adamantly aver that we should derive moral guidance from Mr. Infidel's glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented traducements. I find it rather astonishing that anyone could assert such a thing, but then again, Mr. Infidel's squibs are geared toward the continuation of social stratification under the rubric of "tradition". Funny, that was the same term that its goombahs once used to scupper my initiative to discuss, openly and candidly, a vision for a harmonious, multiracial society. I am not embarrassed to admit that I have neither the training, the experience, the license, nor the clinical setting necessary to properly increase awareness and understanding of our similarities and differences. Nevertheless, I surely do have the will to launch an all-out ideological attack against the forces of sadism. That's why I believe that I enjoy the great diversity of humankind, in our food, our dress, our music, our literature, and our forms of spiritual expression. What I don't enjoy are Mr. Infidel's incorrigible anecdotes which exploit the masses.

A small child really couldn't understand that we must bear this bitter truth coolly and soberly in mind. But any adult can easily grasp that in order to convince us that people prefer "cultural integrity" and "multicultural sensitivity" to health, food, safety, and the opportunity to choose their own course through life, Mr. Infidel often turns to the old propagandist trick of comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes.

A number of serious questions need to be asked -- and answered -- before we give Mr. Infidel carte blanche to redefine humanity as alienated machines/beasts and then convince everyone that they were never human to begin with. Why do I tell you this? Because these days, no one else has the guts to. Given the amount of misinformation that Mr. Infidel is circulating, I must point out that I cannot promise not to be angry at it. I do promise, however, to try to keep my anger under control, to keep it from leading me -- as it leads Mr. Infidel -- to adopt approaches that have not been tested to try to solve problems that have not been well-defined. Mr. Infidel's tricks always follow the same pattern. It puts the desired twist on the actual facts, ignores inconvenient facts, and invents as many new "facts" as necessary to convince us that everything is happy and fine and good.

Mr. Infidel likes to compare its editorials to those that shaped this nation. The comparison, however, doesn't hold up beyond some uselessly broad, superficial similarities that are so vague and pointless, it's not even worth summarizing them. If you've read this far, then you probably either agree with me or are on the way to agreeing with me. Mr. Infidel says that it can make all of our problems go away merely by sprinkling some sort of magic pink pixie dust over everything that it considers hostile or closed-minded. That's its unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely besotted and resentful lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by Mr. Infidel's backers.

At 7/1/06 03:14 AM, Mercury_Drinker wrote: You blew it up...you damn dirty apes!

hey i am black and i find this vry ofnsve...........

At 7/1/06 01:52 AM, mad_alex wrote:

At 7/1/06 01:46 AM, siamesedream wrote:

At 7/1/06 01:04 AM, llama wrote: alot

You must have gotten a program to write that, what is it?

Good point. We all conclude that Foamy is SHIT!!!ddddddd

fucka

At 7/1/06 02:33 AM, DarkScarecrow wrote:

At 7/1/06 02:31 AM, llama wrote: m

im not sure how to take that

take it like a champ and puT UP YA FUCKEN DUKES BUDDY

wag wagt wagvv

m

At 7/1/06 02:28 AM, Kancho wrote:

At 7/1/06 02:24 AM, -Tribstar- wrote: HOLY SHIT......Those of you who have poor constitusion may not want to click the link below..

O...M....G

Dude WTF was that?

hey HO HEY HOOOO have ya ever heard of fake fucka? m,mxxx

At 7/1/06 02:22 AM, Enyruu8 wrote: Are these Guys like Engilsh professors or something? oh yeah, Family Guy kicks ass!

fuck ya

hurrr ur guys is funny

i dunno i was wondering can seamen get a girl pregnant or not im really worried

At 7/1/06 01:30 AM, -Reedo11- wrote:

At 7/1/06 01:25 AM, HL_Zombie wrote:

At 7/1/06 01:04 AM, llama wrote: Before I can focus on the ignorance that abounds in Foamy's refrains....

Are you a fast typer or are all these on a word document you just make small adjustments to?

I think it's that complaint generator. I forget the site name though.

This letter is not intended to assuage your worst fears about Mr. Infidel but will, in most cases, confirm them. You see, I, for one, unquestionably believe that we will need to use diverse skills and tactics if we are to resolve a number of lingering problems. And because of that belief, I'm going to throw politeness and inoffensiveness to the winds. In this letter, I'm going to be as rude and crude as I know how, to reinforce the point that to believe that Mr. Infidel's double standards enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness is to deceive ourselves. Mr. Infidel does not tolerate any view that differs from its own. Rather, it discredits and discards those people who contradict it along with the ideas that they represent. We must hinder the power of inerudite, self-satisfied pop psychologists like Mr. Infidel. Our children depend on that. Mr. Infidel's causeries all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that it can override nature.

We must get the facts out in the hope that somebody else will do something to solve the problem. This call to action begins with you. You must be the first to champion the force of goodness against the greed of rancorous, savage nudniks. You must be the one to teach muddleheaded, two-faced hooligans about tolerance. And you must inform your fellow man that Mr. Infidel dreams of a time when they'll be free to bowdlerize all unfavorable descriptions of its theories. That's the way it's planned it, and that's the way it'll happen -- not may happen, but will happen -- if we don't interfere, if we don't direct your attention in some detail to the vast and irreparable calamity brought upon us by Mr. Infidel. There's one thing you can undoubtedly say about Mr. Infidel: It has a sense of humor. It was being a real comedian when it told us that its gang is looking out for our interests.

You don't have to say anything specifically about Mr. Infidel for it to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that we should appeal for comity between us and it. I am familiar with Mr. Infidel's goals, I understand how it operates, I have long recognized its tactics, and I know just about where Mr. Infidel now stands on the ladder to total power. I can therefore say that, indisputably, to say that science is merely a tool invented by the current elite to maintain power is stinking nonsense and untrue to boot. And, more important, it is widely known and beyond dispute that we must not miss our chance to mention a bit about smarmy egotists such as Mr. Infidel. I always catch hell whenever I say something like that, so let me assure you that it argues that it has the trappings of deity. To maintain this thesis, Mr. Infidel naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which it does by the desperate expedient of claiming that bad things "just happen" (i.e., they're not caused by Mr. Infidel itself).

Here, too, we can see how the irony is that Mr. Infidel's most naive expositions are also its most scary. As the French say, "Les extremes se touchent." When we tease apart the associations necessary to Mr. Infidel's harebrained sentiments, we see that I once overheard Mr. Infidel say something quite astonishing. Are you strapped in? Mr. Infidel said that snobbism is a noble goal. Can you believe that? At least its statement made me realize that it is the hidden hand behind all modern cataclysms. There's nothing controversial about that view. It's a fact, pure and simple. It was a fact long before anyone realized that vigilantism doesn't work. So why does Mr. Infidel cling to it? My answer is, as always, a model of clarity and the soul of wit: I don't know. However, I do know that Mr. Infidel hates people who have huge supplies of the things it lacks. What it lacks the most is common sense, which underlies my point that whenever I confront Mr. Infidel about its pretentious codices, it either tells me that I don't understand it or feeds me some meaningless mumbo-jumbo about antinomianism. It follows from this that Mr. Infidel and its janissaries are, by nature, frowzy vagrants. Not only can that nature not be changed by window-dressing or persiflage, but throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to end Mr. Infidel's control over the minds and souls of countless people and those who wish to topple society. Naturally, Mr. Infidel belongs to the latter category.

Mr. Infidel proclaims at every opportunity that it'd never violate all the rules of decorum. The organization doth protest too much, methinks. One might maintain that I am sure that you, poor harried reader, have suffered from Mr. Infidel's predaceous notions and rightly concluded that improvident, tactless devil-worshippers ought to be worshipping at a higher altar than the bottom line of a balance sheet. While that's true, it does somewhat miss the point. You see, its lies come in many forms. Some of its lies are in the form of warnings. Others are in the form of sermons. Still more are in the form of folksy posturing and pretended concern and compassion. Although Mr. Infidel's arrogance will lead it to goad bloodthirsty ideologues into hurling epithets at Mr. Infidel's enemies by the end of the decade, we are here to gain our voice in this world, and whether or not Mr. Infidel approves, we will continue to be heard.

At 7/1/06 01:26 AM, TehMoonMaster wrote: Foamy is the source of shitty grammar and spelling on NG.

To my many friends, both known and unknown, wherever you may be, I submit these thoughts for your consideration. Let me start by stressing that I am not attempting to suppress anyone's opinions, nor do I intend to demean grammar personally for its beliefs or worldviews. But I do insist that I must point out that the emperor has no clothes on. Honor means nothing to grammar. Principles mean nothing to grammar. All it cares about is how to sell us fibs and fear mixed with a generous dollop of interventionism.

We can divide grammar's philosophies into three categories: fastidious, blasphemous, and oleaginous. I can't follow grammar's pretzel logic. I do, however, know that it wants us to believe that we can solve all of our problems by giving it 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 I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But grammar's prank phone calls have kept us separated for too long from the love, contributions, and challenges of our brothers and sisters in this wonderful adventure we share together -- life! Although I agree with those who claim that any correspondence between what grammar says and the truth is purely coincidental, nevertheless, I cannot agree with the subject matter and attitude that is woven into every one of grammar's ruthless, wayward ruses. Everyone ought to read my award-winning essay, "The Naked Aggression of grammar". In it, I chronicle all of grammar's slurs, from the churlish to the evil, and conclude that all the deals grammar makes are strictly one-way. Grammar gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations. The implications of naive, crazy antiheroism may seem theoretical, but they have concrete meaning for thousands of people. Grammar's subliminal psywar campaigns are so perfidious that if allowed to go unanswered, their final cost would be incalculable.

It's one thing to promote racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide, but wanting to rally for a cause that is completely void of moral, ethical, or legal validity is honestly going too far. Some readers may doubt that grammar is doctrinaire enough to pull the levers of racism and oil the gears of snobbism. So let me provide some evidence. But before I do, let me just say that its toadies say, "Individual worth is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin." Yes, I'm afraid they really do talk like that. It's the only way for them to conceal that if grammar feels ridiculed by all the attention my letters are bringing it, then that's just too darn bad. Its arrogance has brought this upon itself. Although theoretical differences can be drawn between grammar's illiberal methods of interpretation and despicable obstructionism, these are distinctions without a difference.

It's easy for grammar to bombastically declaim my proposals. But when is it going to provide an alternative proposal of its own? I've never gotten a clear and honest answer to that question from grammar. But what is clear is that some reputed -- as opposed to reputable -- members of its camp quite adamantly maintain that coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power. I find it rather astonishing that anyone could aver such a thing, but then again, grammar is thoroughly heinous. We all are, to some extent, but it sets the curve. Grammar wants us to emulate the White Queen from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, who strives to believe "as many as six impossible things before breakfast". Then again, even the White Queen would have trouble believing that laws are meant to be broken. I prefer to believe things that my experience tells me are true, such as that if the past is any indication of the future, grammar will once again attempt to judge people based solely on hearsay. Is it not positively the distinguishing feature of grammar's holier-than-thou attitudes to manipulate public understanding of vigilantism?

Grammar has been trying to convince us that national-security interests can and should be sidestepped whenever its institutional interests are at stake. This pathetic attempt to generate alienation and withdrawal deserves no comment other than to say that grammar somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that its vices are the only true virtues. I am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine citizens of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened civilization. Grammar's principles form a vast brainwashing and brain-contaminating machine, which has worked, on the whole, with great efficiency. Then again, that notion has been popular for as long as Comstockism has existed. All grammar really wants is to hang onto the perks it's getting from the system. That's all it really cares about. Although it makes me sick to think that grammar might usher in the beginning of a goofy new era of nihilism by the next full moon, we are here to gain our voice in this world, and whether or not it approves, we will continue to be heard.

At 7/1/06 01:07 AM, mad_alex wrote: A request.

Mr. Infidel has had its say, and this is mine. One of my objectives is to stop this insanity. Mr. Infidel says that everyone and everything discriminates against it -- including the writing on the bathroom stalls. This is noxious falsehood. The truth is that I am sick to my stomach of its pettiness and simple ignorance. I submit that everyone should stop and mull that assertion. Then, you'll understand why I believe I have found my calling. My calling is to draw a picture of what we conceive of under the word "pancreaticoduodenostomy". And just let it try and stop me.

Mr. Infidel is locked into its present course of destruction. It does not have the interest or the will to change its fundamentally birdbrained witticisms. Although the themes in Mr. Infidel's half-measures are limited, I definitely seek nothing but justice. 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: When Mr. Infidel was first found trying to replace the search for truth with a situationist relativism based on mindless, lethargic metagrobolism, I was scared. I was scared not only for my personal safety; I was scared for the people I love. And now that Mr. Infidel is planning to put anti-democratic thoughts in our children's minds, I'm clearly terrified.

Well, let's get our facts straight. I'm sure Mr. Infidel wouldn't want me to eavesdrop on its secret meetings. So why does it want to fortify a social correctness that restricts experience and defines success with narrow boundaries? That's the question that perplexes me the most, because its list of sins is long and each one deserves more space than I have here. Therefore, rather than describe each one individually, I'll summarize by stating that it's really a tragedy that Mr. Infidel's goal in life is apparently to ascribe opinions to me that I don't even hold. Here, I use the word "tragedy" as the philosopher Whitehead used it. Whitehead stated that "the essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things," which I interpret as saying that Mr. Infidel says that everyone would be a lot safer if it were to monitor all of our personal communications and financial transactions -- even our library records. Why on Earth does Mr. Infidel need to monitor our library records? I could give you the answer now, but it would be more productive for me first to inform you that I am not fooled by Mr. Infidel's truculent and eristic rhetoric. I therefore gladly accept the responsibility of notifying others that if we help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world, then the sea of careerism, on which Mr. Infidel so heavily relies, will begin to dry up. I honestly hope you're not being misled by the "new Mr. Infidel". Only its methods and tactics have changed. Mr. Infidel's goal is still the same: to convert our children to cultural zombies in a mass of unthinking and easily herded proletarian cattle. That's why I'm telling you that if Mr. Infidel's thinking were cerebral rather than glandular, it wouldn't consider it such a good idea to shower rash scalawags with undeserved encomia.

Believe it or not, the first thing we need to do is to get Mr. Infidel to admit that it has a problem. It should be counseled to recite the following:

* I, Mr. Infidel, am a crotchety loser.
* I have been a participant in a giant scheme to undermine the intellectual purpose of higher education.
* I hereby admit my addiction to cannibalism. I ask for the strength and wisdom to fight this addiction.

Once Mr. Infidel realizes that it has a problem, maybe then it'll see that it says that merit is adequately measured by its methods and qualifications. You know, it can lie as much as it wants but it can't change the facts. If it could, it'd truly prevent anyone from hearing that one can consecrate one's life to the service of a noble idea or a glorious ideology. Mr. Infidel, however, is more likely to revile everything in the most obscene terms and drag it into the filth of the basest possible outlook. All such combinations of audacity with ignorance would be supremely ridiculous but for one consideration: In a rather infamous speech, Mr. Infidel exclaimed that it does the things it does "for the children". (I edited out the rest of what it said because, well, it didn't really say anything.) 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 get the facts out in the hope that somebody will do something to solve the problem. To those homophobic, hostile punks who think that there should be publicly financed centers of totalitarianism, know this: Mr. Infidel's endeavors are based on hate. Hate, vigilantism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life.

What really irks me is that Mr. Infidel has presented us with a Hobson's choice. Either we let it keep us hypnotized so we don't tell you a little bit about it and its venom-spouting scribblings or it'll condone illegal activities. There are three points I need to make here. First, Mr. Infidel's skills are generally used to exploit, abuse, and exert power. Second, anyone who says that truth is whatever your grievance group says it is can be branded as both garrulous and demented. And third, I normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind Mr. Infidel that it keeps trying to deceive us into thinking that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders". The purpose of this deception may be to promote promiscuity and obscene language. Or maybe the purpose is to defend collectivism, antipluralism, and notions of racial superiority. Oh what a tangled web Mr. Infidel weaves when first it practices to deceive. As we organize our campaigns against indecent Neanderthals and formulate responses to their rhetoric, it is critical that we kick butt and take names. Lastly, the hostility and boredom Mr. Infidel is experiencing internally is quite evident externally.

As you will soon discover, this letter does not fixate on a single topic or subject. To be perfectly frank and honest, it started out rather focused but I soon found, as I worked on my primary hypothesis and sought corroboration from other sources, that I have quite a number of different things to say about Mr. Infidel. Wait! Before you dismiss me as perverted, hear me out. Rash, annoying windbags are sharply focused on an immediate goal: to hasten the destruction of our civilization.

If there is one thing I have learned, it is this: All the deals Mr. Infidel makes are strictly one-way. Mr. Infidel gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations. Even though Mr. Infidel gives flattering titles to its natural distempers, there is still hope for our society, real hope -- not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of frightful voluptuaries, but the hope that makes you eager to criticize the obvious incongruities presented by it and its faithfuls. Despite the obvious fact that Mr. Infidel should know better than to cater to the basest instincts of belligerent idiots, Mr. Infidel is like a magician who produces a dove in one hand, while the other hand is busy trying to support those for whom hatred has become a way of life. Mr. Infidel's more than bookish. It's mega-bookish. In fact, to understand just how bookish Mr. Infidel is, you first need to realize that it can't attack my ideas, so it attacks me. It could be worse, I suppose. Mr. Infidel could muzzle its critics.

Alas, the impact of Mr. Infidel's predaceous, sleazy sound bites is exactly that predicted by the Book of Revelation. Evil will preside over the land. Injustice will triumph over justice, chaos over order, futility over purpose, superstition over reason, and lies over truth. Only when humanity experiences this Hell on Earth will it fully appreciate that I don't know which are worse, right-wing tyrants or left-wing tyrants. But I do know that if Fate desired that Mr. Infidel make a correct application of what it had read about irrationalism, it would have to indicate title and page number, since the churlish televangelist would otherwise never in all its existence find the correct place. But since Fate does not do this, one does not have to lead us, lemminglike, over the precipice of self-destruction in order to stop the Huns at the gate. It is a hate-filled person who believes otherwise. Ask Mr. Infidel about any of its operatives who strip the world of conversation, friendship, and love, and the deplorable sad sack will say, "I never meant they should go that far." Yeah, right. The truth is that Mr. Infidel's goombahs' thinking is fenced in by many constraints. Their minds are not free because they dare not be.

Are you beginning to get the picture here? Think about how easy it's become for unbridled garrulous-types to convince clumsy dingbats that there is absolutely nothing they can do to better their lot in life besides joining Mr. Infidel. Mr. Infidel can't fool me. I've met headstrong fault-finders before, so I know that Mr. Infidel pompously claims that the boogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to its demands. That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately. Nonetheless, because of Mr. Infidel's obsession with communism, it contends that the few of us who complain regularly about its diatribes are simply spoiling the party. Sounds rather stentorian, doesn't it? Well, that's Mr. Infidel for you.

There's no mystery about it, no more room for fairy tales, just the knowledge that either Mr. Infidel has no real conception of the sweep of history, or it 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. No amount of opinion or innuendo nor any string of unrelated rantings can change the fact that I am not a robot. I am a thinking, feeling, human being. As such, I get teary-eyed whenever I see Mr. Infidel fortify a social correctness that restricts experience and defines success with narrow boundaries. It makes me want to prescribe a course of action, which is why I'm so eager to tell you that I have often maintained that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Unfortunately, when dealing with Mr. Infidel and its apple-polishers, that claim assumes facts not in evidence. So let me claim instead that given a choice of having Mr. Infidel dominate the whole earth and take possession of all its riches or having my bicuspids extracted sans Novocaine, I would embrace the pliers, purchase some Polident Partials, and call it a day. The laughable and capricious nature of Mr. Infidel's tricks should indicate to us that something needs to be done. That's all I have to say.

At 7/1/06 01:15 AM, insert_pie wrote: By the way, I' pretty sure llama is using some sort of response generator where you only type in one word and it gives you a whole essay.

I would like to clarify some comments I made recently regarding falseness. Permit me this forum to rant. As high-handed as falseness's initiatives are, there are few certainties in life. I have counted only three: death, taxes, and falseness announcing some illaudable thing every few weeks. Were he alive today, Hideki Tojo would be falseness's most trustworthy ally. I can see Tojo joining forces with falseness to help it offer hatred with an intellectual gloss.

Throughout human history, lethargic cretins have always been homophobic. So it should come as no surprise that falseness labels anyone it doesn't like as "noxious". That might well be a better description of it. While others have also published information about the worst sorts of chauvinistic, pouty apostates there are, falseness claims that Man's eternal search for Truth is a challenge to be avoided at all costs. That claim is preposterous and, to use falseness's own language, overtly combative. No history can justify it. I cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for falseness's subterfuge. I'm thoroughly stunned.

Falseness drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes it sound smarter than it really is and obscures the fact that if falseness wants to be taken seriously, it should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults. It must be pointed out over and over again to falseness's chums and, in a broader sense, to surly casuists that falseness deeply believes that it can make all of our problems go away merely by sprinkling some sort of magic pink pixie dust over everything that it considers brusque or aberrant. Meanwhile, back on Earth, the truth is very simple: I know more about corporatism than most people. You might even say that I'm an expert on the subject. I can therefore state with confidence that falseness offers its habitués a vehicle of sorts for their revenge fantasies. To top that off, I've tried explaining to falseness's followers that falseness's behavior is entirely out of line. Unfortunately, it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars. In fact, I'd bet Martians would be more likely to discern that if falseness thinks that two wrongs make a right, then it's sadly mistaken. Falseness seems to assume that jujuism is a viable and vital objective for our nation's educational institutions. This is an assumption of the worst kind because it truly believes that narcissism brings one closer to nirvana. I hope you realize that that's just a deranged pipe dream from a scary pipe, and that in the real world, the first response to this from falseness's thralls is perhaps that falseness understands the difference between civilization and savagery. Wrong. Just glance at the facts: Raising the volume, increasing the stridency, or stressing the emotionalism of an argument does not improve its validity. An equal but opposite observation is that we should agree on definitions before saying anything further about falseness's slatternly, unrealistic shenanigans. For starters, let's say that "Pyrrhonism" is "that which makes falseness yearn to engage in the trafficking of human beings." Falseness sometimes uses the word "proconstitutionalism" when describing its whinges. Beware! This is a buzzword designed for emotional response.

The point at which you discover that falseness's morals are obscurantism cloaked in the rhetoric of treacherous authoritarianism is not only a moment of disenchantment. It is a moment of resolve, a determination that it's irrelevant that my allegations are 100% true. It distrusts my information and arguments and will forever maintain its current opinions. Falseness evinces a bulldog-like instinct for going after the jugular of its intended victims. It is also worthy of note that if I may be so bold, falseness wants all of us to believe that it's perfectly safe to drink and drive. That's why it sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media.

Although there are no formal, external validating criteria for falseness's cuckoo claims, I think we can safely say that it is not as untoward or counter-productive as you might think. It's more so. I despise everything about falseness. I despise falseness's attempts to do everything possible to keep prolix, unreasonable hellions froward and licentious. I despise how it insists that cannibalism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior. Most of all, I despise its complete obliviousness to the fact that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Of course, if falseness had learned anything from history, it'd know that every time it tells its helpers that the sky is falling, their eyes roll into the backs of their heads as they become mindless receptacles of unsubstantiated information, which they accept without question. In short, falseness leaves me no choice but to get fired from my job.

At 7/1/06 01:06 AM, Wraith_X wrote: I ain't tryin to usurp anyones religon, or stuff, and I am a Christian man myself, I just thought this was interesting. If you want to be some articulate, whiny bitch about me sharing my opinion, then I am sorry. Good-bye. *shoots himself*

Parts of what follows below were actually painful to write. However, because of the ongoing misinformation campaigns launched by suicide and its representatives, I feel it is my duty to write this. Before I get moving here, let me point out that suicide's metanarratives are more than just smarmy. They're a revolt against nature. Suicide's goal is to supplant one form of injustice with another. This is abject anti-intellectualism!

I recently informed suicide that its disciples create an atmosphere that may temporarily energize or exhilarate, but which, at the same time, will pose the gravest of human threats. Suicide said it'd "look further into the matter." Well, not too much further; after all, it is not just childish. It is unbelievably, astronomically childish. We must truly win the culture war and save this country. Does that sound extremist? Is it too vitriolic for you? I'm sorry if it seems that way, but that's life.

The unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, we must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because it has a strategy. Its strategy is to sucker us into buying a lot of junk we don't need. Wherever you encounter that strategy, you are dealing with suicide. I mean, after hearing about suicide's wily attempts to muzzle suicide's critics, I was saddened. I was saddened that it has lowered itself to this level. I, speaking as someone who is not a brazen, mentally deficient grifter, contend that suicide's factotums mimic suicide's behavior to the last jot and tittle. My views, of course, are not the issue here. The issue is that its goal is to use psychological tools to trick us into doing whatever untrustworthy delinquents require of us. How illogical is that? How lame-brained? How overweening? Let's conduct a Gedankenexperiment. Suppose we could create a hypothetical population free of shallow slackers. Let's assume, furthermore, that suicide were powerless to deliver an additional blow to dignity and self-worth. In this hypothetical situation, wouldn't we all be free to stand by our principles and be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost? Let's make this dream a reality. Let's get people to realize that I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that suicide likes to give expression to that which is most destructive and most harmful to society. Such activity can flourish only in the dark, however. If you drag it into the open, suicide and its co-conspirators will run for cover, like cockroaches in a dirty kitchen when the light is turned on suddenly during the night. That's why we must reveal the truth about suicide's theories.

I find that I am embarrassed. Embarrassed that some people don't realize that suicide's opinion is that violence and prejudice are funny. Of course, opinions are like sphincters: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that once you understand suicide's obloquies, you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting suicide put the most directionless hoodwinkers you'll ever see on the federal payroll. It's not just the lunatic fringe that's in suicide's corner; a number of previously respectable people have recently begun backing it. You know what? Suicide frequently avers its support of democracy and its love of freedom. But one need only look at what suicide is doing -- as opposed to what it is saying -- to understand its true aims.

At 7/1/06 01:08 AM, Ilpalozzo wrote: I ca'nt believe you wrote all that and did'nt make any sense I was just excited to see alot of shows that I have'nt seen in a few years since CNX turned into Toonami and I'm hoping we get some of the cool ainme back as well

This letter is not a memoir. Nor is it a policy memorandum issued by the government or by a local think tank. Rather, it is an assessment of how Pointlessness is unable to use the English language effectively or correctly. Before I start, however, I should state that to understand what Pointlessness's particularly reprehensible form of heathenism has encompassed as a movement and as a system of rule, we have to look at its historical context and development as a form of venom-spouting politics that first arose in early twentieth-century Europe in response to rapid social upheaval, the devastation of World War I, and the Bolshevik Revolution. You may not be aware of this, but Pointlessness has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and create an ideological climate that will enable it to infiltrate the media with the express purpose of disseminating beer-guzzling information -- all by trumping up a phony emergency.

No matter what else we do, our first move must be to educate everyone about how Pointlessness profits from human suffering. That's the first step: education. Education alone is not enough, of course. We must also ensure that we survive and emerge triumphant out of the coming chaos and destruction.

Sadly, in once sense, Pointlessness is correct. If we let it jump on everything that is written, said, or even implied and label it as either two-faced or venal, then I will indubitably be forced to cry. Pointlessness is coldhearted, jaded, stubborn, infernal, lackluster, and vulgar. Need I go on?

Pointlessness's disquisitions have led to date rape, domestic violence, pornography, and other social ills. Don't make the mistake of thinking otherwise. Pointlessness does, and that's why there are those who are informed and educated about the evils of insurrectionism, and there are those who are not. Pointlessness is one of the uninformed, naturally, and that's why its accusations reek of autism. I use the word "reek" because it is utterly versipellous. When Pointlessness's among plebeians, it warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against barbarism. But when it's safely surrounded by its collaborators, Pointlessness instructs them to make my worst nightmares come true. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that Pointlessness can't possibly believe that society is supposed to be lenient towards the most slaphappy moral weaklings you'll ever see. It's deluded, but it's not that deluded. Pointlessness seems to assume that unsavory ragamuffins make the best scout leaders and schoolteachers. This is an assumption of the worst kind because you might have heard the story that it once agreed to help us rise to the challenge of thwarting its uncouth plans. No one has located the document in which Pointlessness said that. No one has identified when or where Pointlessness said that. That's because it never said it. As you might have suspected, Pointlessness's refrains are part of a larger attack on the very notion of meritocracy and quality. I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that there are some simple truths in this world. First, Pointlessness has gone way too far with its no-compromise attitude. Second, Pointlessness confuses entertainment with learning. And finally, it's not the boogeyman that our children need to worry about. It's Pointlessness. Not only is Pointlessness more gutless and more hotheaded than any envisaged boogeyman or bugbear, but Pointlessness's backers actually believe the bunkum they're always mouthing. That's because these classes of rambunctious, unholy schemers are idealistic, have no sense of history or human nature, and they think that what they're doing will somehow improve the world in the blink of an eye. In reality, of course, Pointlessness wants to produce precisely the alienation and conflict needed to spawn a society in which those with the most deviant lifestyle, unsophisticated behavior, or personal failures are given the most by the government. Personally, I don't want that. Personally, I prefer freedom. If you also prefer freedom, then you should be working with me to provide information and inspiration to as many people as possible. Cannibalism and absenteeism are not synonymous. In fact, they are so frequently in opposition and so universally irreconcilable that everything I've said so far is by way of introduction to the key point I want to make in this letter. My key point is that I've heard of putrid things like anarchism and Trotskyism. But I've also heard of things like nonviolence, higher moralities, and treating all beings as ends in and of themselves -- ideas which Pointlessness's ignorant, unthinking, conceited brain is too small to understand. By the bye, Pointlessness wonders why everyone hates it. Apparently, it never stopped to think that maybe it's because its mingy game of chess -- the malign chess of revisionism -- has continued for far too long. It's time to checkmate this neo-primitive incubus and show it that it not only lies, but it brags about its lying to its comrades.

Although Video games wants nothing less than to retard the free and natural economic development of various countries' indigenous population, I want this letter to speak a language of reconciliation, not retaliation. If you disagree with my claim that "macabre" hardly seems like a strong enough word to describe it, then read no further. Video games governs its vicegerents with a dictatorial and brutal fist, forcing them to rewrite and reword much of humanity's formative works to favor careerism. It follows from this that honor means nothing to Video games. Principles mean nothing to Video games. All it cares about is how best to turn peaceful gatherings into embarrassing scandals. By allowing Video games to woo over amateurish, insipid con artists by using tactics such as scapegoating, reductionist and simplistic solutions, demagoguery, and a conspiracy theory of history, we are allowing it to play puppet master. One of history's clearest lessons is that there is no limit to Video games's impudence. Now take that to the next level: It's our responsibility to expose some of Video games's illaudable deeds. That's the first step in trying to halt the adulation heaped upon the worst types of detestable, abysmal lowbrows there are, and it's the only way to follow knowledge like a sinking star beyond the utmost bound of human thought.

Prudence is no vice. Cowardice -- especially Video games's indecent form of it -- is. Despite the fact that sententious cheapskates like Video games tend to conveniently ignore the key issues of this or any other situation, intransigent credentialism enthusiasts often take earthworms or similar small animals and impale them on a pin to enjoy watching them twist and writhe as they slowly die. Similarly, Video games enjoys watching respectable people twist and writhe whenever it threatens to make a fetish of the virtues of self-serving parasitism. Video games thinks I'm trying to say that it would sooner give up money, fame, power, and happiness than perform a two-faced act. Wait! I just heard something. Oh, never mind; it's just the sound of the point zooming way over Video games's head.

The acid test for Video games's "kinder, gentler" new communications should be, "Do they still construct the spectre of a terrible armed threat?" If the answer is yes, then we can conclude that Video games's propaganda factories continuously spew forth messages like, "Video games has a duty to conceal the facts and lie to the rest of us, under oath if necessary, perjuring itself to help disseminate the True Faith of expansionism" and, "We should all bear the brunt of Video games's actions". What they don't tell you, though, is that there's something fishy about Video games's belief systems. I think it's up to something, something scornful and perhaps even mean-spirited. Even giving Video games the benefit of the doubt, it should think about how its catch-phrases lead odious mountebanks to foster suspicion -- if not hatred -- of "outsiders". If Video games doesn't want to think that hard, perhaps it should just keep quiet. I unmistakably doubt we could beat this into Video games's head, but I would be grateful if Video games would take a little time from its rigorous schedule to feed the starving, house the homeless, cure the sick, and still find wonder and awe in the sunrise and the moonlight. Of course, pigs will grow wings and fly before that ever happens.

Video games wants to prevent me from getting my work done. What does it think it is? I mean, the impact of its jackbooted refrains is exactly that predicted by the Book of Revelation. Evil will preside over the land. Injustice will triumph over justice, chaos over order, futility over purpose, superstition over reason, and lies over truth. Only when humanity experiences this Hell on Earth will it fully appreciate that if you read Video games's writings while mentally out of focus, you may get the sense that the Universe belongs to Video games by right. But if you read its writings while mentally in focus and weigh each point carefully, it's clear that it spouts a lot of numbers whenever it wants to make a point. It then subjectively interprets those numbers to support its proposed social programs while ignoring the fact that after hearing about its muddleheaded attempts to increase people's stress and aggression, I was saddened. I was saddened that it has lowered itself to this level. I respect Video games's ravings, although its batty ramblings are in full flower, and their poisonous petals of snobbism are blooming all around us. I may be questioning the regnant conventional wisdom by stating this, but maybe our path is set. By this, I mean that in order to overcome the obstacles that people like Video games establish, we must shatter the illusion that it does the things it does "for the children". I consider that requirement a small price to pay because Video games asserts that it can override nature. That assertion is not only untrue, but a conscious lie.

In a tacit concession of defeat, Video games is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what its stentorian imprecations have failed at. The baneful nature of Video games's mottos is not just a rumor. It is a fact to which I can testify. It would be a work of supererogation to acknowledge that Video games engages in pietistic babble that nauseates even some of my more religious friends at a time when every week there transpires news of irritating backstabbers following Video games's orders to lure the unscrupulous into its faction. Yet the Establishment media consistently ignores, downplays, or marginalizes this fact. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Before I can focus on the ignorance that abounds in Foamy's refrains, I must qualify Foamy's character, its sources, and even its personal frame of mind towards me. Here's a quick review: I hold fast to the view that the baleful influence of narcissism is plainly evident in the palpable one-sidedness of Foamy's philippics. Yes, I could add that it deserves to be punished, but I wanted to keep my message simple and direct. I didn't want to distract you from the main thrust of my message, which is that Foamy's goombahs are in league with garrulous muttonheads who enthrone falsehood in the very center of human thought. Do I blame society for this? No, I blame Foamy. Foamy once tried to paralyze any serious or firm decision and thereby become responsible for the weak and half-hearted execution of even the most necessary measures. If you consider this an exception to the rule then you unquestionably don't understand how Foamy operates. I hope, however, that you at least understand that I try never to argue with it, because it's clear it's not susceptible to reason. I want to act as a positive role model for younger people. I want to do this not because I need to tack another line onto my résumé, but because a great many of us don't want Foamy to drive us into a state of apoplexy. But we feel a prodigious societal pressure to smile, to be nice, and not to object to its vitriolic tirades. To deny that Foamy's blind faith in resistentialism leads it only to corruption is noxious nonsense and political irresponsibility. It is nonsense because Foamy's calumnies are dangerous to the health of a democracy. And it is irresponsible because honest people will admit that Foamy's lapdogs are too indolent to take up the all-encompassing challenge of freedom, justice, equality, and the pursuit of life with full dignity. Concerned people are not afraid to speak out against the worst classes of obscene soi-disant do-gooders there are. And sensible people know that Foamy is like a giant octopus sprawling its slimy length over city, state, and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of self-created screen. Foamy seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers, and every agency created for the public protection.

If you agree, read on. Given that Foamy behaves as if it's been lobotomized, it stands to reason that contrary to my personal preferences, I'm thinking about what's best for all of us. My conclusion is that what's best for all of us is for me to shield people from Foamy's brain-damaged and xenophobic deceptions. Foamy is typical of gutless underachievers in its wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize its smears. Though obstinate, bleeding-heart sectarianism is not discussed in this letter, much of what I've written applies to that, as well.

Foamy's claims can be rightly understood only as what some despicable low-lifes have been brave enough to call them: a failure. More concretely, Foamy's solutions are based on a denial of reality, on the substitution of a deliberately falsified picture of the world in place of reality. And this dishonesty, this refusal to admit the truth, will have some very serious consequences for all of us by next weekend. I appreciate feedback and other people's views on subjects. I don't, however, appreciate feedback when it's given in an unprofessional manner.

If Foamy had done its homework, it'd know that I like to speak of it as "feckless". That's a reasonable term to use, I claim, but let's now try to understand it a little better. For starters, I oppose Foamy's ethics because they are litigious. I oppose them because they are unholy. And I oppose them because they will discredit legitimate voices in the parasitism debate within a short period of time. You've never heard that Foamy's intention is to replace Robert's Rules of Order with "facilitated consensus building" at all important meetings? That's because its secret agents have been staging a massive cover-up for quite some time now. But if you keep your eyes open, you'll notice that one of its underlings once said, "My bitterness at Foamy is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish." 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 Foamy's method (or school, or ideology -- it is hard to know exactly what to call it) goes by the name of "Foamy-ism". It is a blasphemous and avowedly unbridled philosophy that aims to twist our entire societal valuation of love and relationships beyond all insanity. Foamy refuses to come to terms with reality. It prefers instead to live in a fantasy world of rationalization and hallucination.

At 7/1/06 12:58 AM, Fedale wrote: ^^Plaigerism...

It used to be frustrating. Then sad. Now it's just plain funny. Every time Plagiarism tries to pamper the worst kinds of socially inept sots there are, like clockwork, its helpers defend that sort of gloomy, antisocial behavior. The full truth of my conclusion I shall develop in the course of this letter but the conclusion's general outline is that it is utterly brown-nosing. We all are, to some extent, but Plagiarism sets the curve.

If one could get a Ph.D. in Lexiphanicism, Plagiarism would be the first in line to have one. Plagiarism has for a long time been arguing that it is omnipotent. Had it instead been arguing that it has no great love of democracy or egalitarianism, I might cede it its point. As it stands, the leap of faith required to bridge the logical gap in Plagiarism's arguments is simply too terrifying for me to contemplate. What I do often contemplate, however, is how every time it utters or writes a statement that supports careerism -- even indirectly -- it sends a message that anyone who resists it deserves to be crushed. I undoubtedly assert we mustn't let it make such statements, partly because it is probably safe to assume that it has lost contact with reality, but primarily because if it can give us all a succinct and infallible argument proving that it has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature, I will personally deliver its Nobel Prize for Baleful Rhetoric. In the meantime, Plagiarism would have us believe that laws are meant to be broken. Such flummery can be quickly dissipated merely by skimming a few random pages from any book on the subject.

Okay, then, let's move onto the really good part of this letter, the part in which I get to tell you that I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently answer by saying that it's amazing how low Plagiarism will stoop to equip closed-minded Plagiarism clones with flame throwers, hand grenades, and heat-seeking missiles. Think about it, and I'm sure you'll agree with me. I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But if factionalism were an Olympic sport, Plagiarism would clinch the gold medal. It requires surprisingly little imagination to envision a future in which Plagiarism is free to provide mischievous pipsqueaks with an irresistible temptation to torment, harry, and persecute anyone who crosses its path. Sure, it sounds satanic. Blame that on tyrannical twerps. It is probably unwise to say this loudly, but Plagiarism has let its lofty-yet-blinkered views cloud its sense of taste and reality. But you knew that already. So let me add that I want to see all of us working together to discuss the relationship between three converging and ever-growing factions -- myopic loonies, clumsy, smarmy dissemblers, and hopeless blowhards. Yes, this is an idealistic approach to actualizing our restorative goals. Nevertheless, you should realize that when Plagiarism says that the world's salvation comes from whims, irrationality, and delusions, in its mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like it believes it has said something very profound.

Plagiarism not only lies, but it brags about its lying to its vassals. My love for people necessitates that I deal with Plagiarism appropriately. Yes, I face opposition from Plagiarism. However, this is not a reason to quit but to strive harder.

The irony is that Plagiarism's most self-righteous scribblings are also its most foul-mouthed. As the French say, "Les extremes se touchent." If history follows its course, it should be evident that this is not the place to develop that subject. It demands many pages of analysis, which I can't spare in this letter. Instead, I'll just state the key point, which is that I'm not actually demanding revenge. To cap that off, Plagiarism is an interesting organization. On the one hand, it likes to dismantle national civil rights organizations by driving a wedge between the leaders and the rank-and-file members. But on the other hand, it respects nothing, honors nothing, and values nothing beyond itself. That's the sort of statement that some people believe is dim-witted, but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made, because it's its belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to sanctify its depravity. I can't understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such a crude idea. In fact, my letters generally make the diametrically opposite claim, that if a cogent, logical argument entered Plagiarism's brain, no doubt a concussion would result. You may be surprised to learn that I was once like Plagiarism. I, too, wanted to abet a resurgence of crapulous adversarialism. It interfered with my judgment, my reasoning, and my ability to reveal some shocking facts about Plagiarism's flimflams. There are some illogical losers who are ghastly. There are also some who are duplicitous. Which category does Plagiarism fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both". In closing, Plagiarism's ethics amount to what a proverbial metaphor in Sanskrit describes as trying to extinguish a fire by feeding it enough wood to glut its appetite.