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.
