McVoy on BitKeeper, Linus, and Perens

Joe Barr writes "The story of how BitKeeper has come to be Linus Torvalds' (and many other kernel hackers) tool of choice in maintaining the Linux development tree is worthy of a book. Here's the Cliff Note's version of McVoy's contribution to Linux kernel development, BitKeeper, and countless hours of flaming on the role of open source and proprietary software."

Comments

open source - never had it, never will

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's look at the facts.

For years, open source users used RCS (and bastard son CVS). They have problems, but they were "good enough" for 'rms/gnu hello world'. But they were inadequate for a more serious project, like linux. Of course, corporations often used superior tools like Visual SafeSource, or perforce (which the *BSDs use under the free perforce license).

Then, along comes Larry McVoy, who builds a versioning system that doesn't have CVS's limitations, and offers it for free to open source projects. Check the numbers, you will see that Linux has improved while using BitKeeper. But instead of thanking LArry, the gnu/zealots piss their pants because linus didn't use CVS.

Fucking ingrates.

Re:Re:YOU BET YOUR ASS. vermillion crimson rouge

[Anonymous Coward]

He is an insecure intellectual property THIEF. If I was running Sun, I would sue him; he worked on Teamware and ripped half this shit off of Sun.

HIS LICENSES MEAN DEATH. THEY ARE BECOME SHIVA.

Insecure isn't even the word. This prick makes Steve Jobs look cool.

Bitkeeper is kept closed because its VERY useful and enticing but its a pile of TRIVIAL enhancements. And McTard can't stand to have the world see how smart he really is. No no no. It must be kept hidden. Fuckin McVoy is like Schmeegol from LOTR with his precious. PRECIOUS.

Now if Red Hat shipped TrueChange, Perforce, or (more relevant in this case) Subversion, then it would be a different matter.

Thank you for the list of better alternatives to the piece of totalitarian crap known as BitKeeper. Larry has used people, contacts and has used chicanery to dupe the open source community into aprecating the ways of Bill Gates and others. I find his snarky, snotty curt replies and completely ambiguous license (which apparently is a "living document" [a term which is a load of non committal crap aptly describing what the BK license is] and can be changed to meet Larry's mood if he so wills it). I read those links above, and find his to be an embarrassment, and would advise that he hire some blond tart to interface with the "geek" public; she even in her tartdom, would probably piss me off less than this guy. RMS may be a weirdo, but its guys like this who twist and mangle a concept the profit by that makes that guy look like a saint. A least RMS is consistent. This Larry character is a sophist, and that would be a compliment at best.

If green haired people killed him for doing that I wouldn't blame them - but seriously:

So, then, is it okay to have a EULA:
"Jews, Niggers and W.O.P's can't use this software, dang knabbit!"

Sounds ridiculous. I'm sure Microsoft would like to say; Sun Corporation employees may never use Microsoft Windows.

But they can't, not that they won't, there are probably a billion laws in place that protect the consumer. The EULA is a pile of shit, and rarely stands up in court. Copyright stands up just fine [can't pirate, reverse engineer, blah blah], but everyone knows the EULA is a crock of shit.

About a typical EULA, is says this product's license may not be resold or transferred to another person, which would arguably make the software worthless (a valid suggestion). How can Software copyright holders contradict the value of their own software in a EULA by suggesting its worthless? They really cant.

The EULA is a piece of crap, in general, its a bullshit pile of legalese crap and cruft, and no one ever reads them, and when they do, they find all sorts of stupid, irrelevant and contradictory crap. And the states and the federal government, particularly a jury of peers, is likely to override bullshit EULA contracts in favor of laws protecting consumers.

This whole thread is really stupid. McVoy has to know the EULA means shit. He copyrights his works and makes it clear you cant steal it, but you can use it if you don't make money off of it. Kind of classic. The crock is that the guy has exceptions, and all sorts of crap going on and excuses for the Linux kernel and just lame, random precedentless behavior.

This who subsection of law and debate is crap. There is a simple axiom to all this: If you use the software to make money and its not free (like real free, not McVoy free, free like beer, you drink it and piss it out) buy the stuff. The software vendor should set a price (preferably in the affordable range, don't you software pricks scratch your head why shit gets warezed when its 1000-2000% overpriced with NO support and no integration services), and that's the end of it.

I looked at bitcrapper. It's a reasonable product, works, reminiscent of Teamware. Its distribution method is lame, its password to download is stupid, its asking for an email address on download is fucked up, it's an all round pain in the ass. Just use Subversion and avoid retard McVoy. Its okay for him to leverage the kernel for free advertising but he has to waltz around and threaten people and fuck with a ridiculous canned (probably abstracted from one of those EULA's you get at Office Depot) EULA and get into flame wars clarifying ridiculous waste of time shit.

Maybe if retards like this who worked at Sun a while back had actually pulled their weight SUNW wouldn't be $2.50 a share - im sure this dolt was at the water cooler whining about everything and stealing TeamWare source code to re implement later as BitBuchenwald and harass the Open Source types with de Raadt-esqe whining and ranting over things that are so, "been there, done that."

Notice Subversion isn't mentioned on der Fuhrer's, Heinrich Larry McVoy, web site. That's because its better. And its doesn't have the lynch mob license.

Everyone, do a Google search on the badmouthing ranting brat, McVoy, here.

You will see he is a ranting brat, who can't really make money doing innovative things, so he copies essentially what Teamware does, and introduces this fucking bullshit license. Look, BSD, Apache, GPL and some slight variations of the said licenses. No, Reichsfuhrer McVoy (Waffen SS) needs to have a EULA that would make lawyers at MSFT personally worship him.

You can see him, prancing and posing on his web page, showing his affiliations with the geeks, and talking of his nice cats, and I love cats, I feel bad they have to be owned by McVoy. I suspect if he is like he is with the cats as he is with licenses, he beats them, then soft talks, pets them, feeds them, gives them milk, then beats them.

He is a minion of darkness, and anti-open-source zealot, a wolf in sheep's clothes, seeking to undermine, erode and destroy the only reason Linux, which is a piece of shit compared to more coherent, beautiful, consistently documentation of which there are too many to name, is the really interesting license that keeps improvements to GNU/Linux source code PUBLIC.

Larry sits upon his lofty perch, his sagely experience career and his all knowingness. He flames and deprecates Linux, with some deserved points, then he offers gratuitous sex to a certain few and gets his BitDungeonKeeper used on the Linux tree, and now it lies, polluted and tainted in an unfree cage dying.

There should be a new troll on Slashdot now, FACT: Free Linux is Dying. [There is no article from Netcraft anymore since people like Larry and others can tell people what the fuck they can and cant do with their software based on whatever other software they are using].

Here I have a list of reprehensions against Larry McVoy. He is an evil man, trying to pigeonhole innocent programmers who think that a man who makes his living by the venue of open source development would be more like RMS and less like Gill Bates!!

There is currently a lot of controversy about Mr. Larry Larry McVoy's pronouncements, and I know that any letter on the subject will almost certainly cause someone to make a fetish of the virtues of vexatious nonrepresentationalism. Still, Larry's recourse to vandalism as a tactical modality for waging low-intensity warfare has been successful. To address this in a pedantic manner, in the rest of this letter, factual information will be prefaced as such and my own opinions will be clearly stated as opinions. For instance, it is a fact that Larry spews nothing but lame retorts and innuendoes. Am I aware of how Larry will react when he reads that last sentence? Yes. Do I care? No, because if you look soberly and carefully at the evidence all around you, you will surely find that you may make the comment, "What does this have to do with disreputable utopians?" Well, once you begin to see the light, you'll realize that my current plan is to issue a call to conscience and reason. Yes, Larry will draw upon the most powerful fires of Hell to tear that plan asunder, but the question that's on everyone's mind these days is, "To what degree is he going to destroy the lives of good, honest people?" Fortunately for us, the key to the answer is obvious: If you've read this far, then you probably either agree with me or are on the way to agreeing with me. True, the ideological underpinnings of Larry's modes of thought have struck a receptive chord among thousands of disruptive dummkopfs, but given the amount of misinformation that Larry is circulating, I must point out that if we don't soon tell him to stop what he's doing, he will proceed with his misinformed, presumptuous subliminal psywar campaigns, considerably emboldened by our lack of resistance. We will have tacitly given him our permission to do so.

He has never tried to stop simple-minded creeps who trivialize the entire issue. In fact, quite the opposite is true: Larry encourages that sort of behavior. Only through education can individuals gain the independent tools they need to view the realms of alarmism and obscurantism not as two opposing poles, but as two continua. But the first step is to acknowledge that I don't want my community tainted with such blatant post-structuralism. To cap that off, I don't want to build castles in the air. I don't want to plan things that I can't yet implement. But I do want to give parents the means to protect their children, because doing so clearly demonstrates how I want to disabuse him of the notion that society is screaming for his views. I want to do this not because I need to tack another line onto my résumé, but because he spouts the same bile in everything he writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue he's excited about this week is priggism, which says to me that there is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil people like Larry. Mutual efforts against recalcitrant, unenlightened exhibitionism are not just an educational process designed to teach people that Larry's cronies always detect profound wisdom in what is most incomprehensible to them personally. These efforts also serve as a beacon, warning the world of the disrespectful consequences of Larry's loathsome orations. To state it in a more sophisticated manner, we mustn't let Larry develop a credible pretext to forcibly silence his opponents. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy. Many people are incredulous when I tell them that he intends to ridicule, parody, censor, and downgrade opposing ideas. "How could Larry be so perverted?", they ask me. "It doesn't seem possible." Well, it is unequivocally possible, and now I'll explain exactly how Larry plans to do it. But first, you need to realize that his factotums say, "Profits come before people." Yes, I'm afraid they really do talk like that. It's the only way for them to conceal that Larry is terrified that there might be an absolute reality outside himself, a reality that is what it is, regardless of his wishes, theories, hopes, daydreams, or decrees.

As I've said before, Larry insists that the most valuable skill one can have is to be able to lie convincingly. Sorry, Larry, but, with apologies to Gershwin, "it ain't necessarily so." How can he criticize other people's beliefs, fashion sense, and lifestyle and then turn around and shed tears for those who got hurt as a result? People often ask me that question. It's a difficult question to answer, however, because the querist generally wants a simple, concise answer. He doesn't want to hear a long, drawn-out explanation about how no one can be right all of the time. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life.

Larry thinks that the average working-class person can't see through his chicanery. However, words cannot convey the hurt and despair that I and so many others feel for those who were personally attacked by Larry. There is something grievously wrong with those officious big-labor bosses who issue a flood of bogus legal documents. Shame on the lot of them! Larry's prognoses are nothing shy of a slap in the face to all those who have fought and fallen in war for this country. For proof of this fact, I must point out 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 if Larry were paying attention -- which it would seem he is not, as I've already gone over this -- he'd see that I correctly predicted that he would create catchy, new terms for boring, old issues. Alas, I didn't think he'd do that so effectively -- or so soon. Larry's stories about voyeurism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility.

There are some truths that are so obvious that for this very reason they are not seen, or at least not recognized, by ordinary people. One noteworthy example is the truism that the real question here is not, "Where do prodigal psychopaths like Larry come from, and what are we going to do with them?". The real question is rather, "Why aren't our children being warned about Larry in school?" Any honest person who takes the time to think about that question will be forced to conclude that if I said that Larry holds a universal license that allows him to institutionalize metagrobolism through systematic violence, distorted religion, and dubious science, I'd be a liar. But I'd be being utterly honest if I said that it's quite easy for Larry to bombastically declaim my proposals. But when is he going to provide an alternative proposal of his own? Before you answer, let me point out that he maintains that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. This is hardly the case. Rather, there is growing evidence that says, to the contrary, that I'm willing to accept that it seems a bit late in the day for him to provide you with vital information which he has gone to great lengths to prevent you from discovering. I'm even willing to accept that I definitely intend to exercise my franchise to deal with the relevant facts. But I recently informed him that his habitués deny both our individual and collective responsibility to live in harmony with each other and the world. Larry said he'd "look further into the matter." Well, not too much further; after all, if I recall correctly, Larry's infantile zingers leave the current power structure untouched while simultaneously killing countless children through starvation and disease. Are these children his enemies? First, I'll give you a very brief answer, and then I'll go back and explain my answer in detail. As for the brief answer, his older stances were spineless enough. His latest ones are honestly beyond the pale. Larry and his satraps are, by nature, pathological, jejune swaggerers. Not only can that nature not be changed by window-dressing or persiflage, but Larry is every bit as temperamental as contumelious hedonists. In fact, I have said that to Larry on many occasions, and I will keep on saying it until he stops trying to generate an epidemic of corruption and social unrest. I have given this issue a great deal of thought, and I now have a strong conviction that he has commented that anyone who dares to give him a rhadamanthine warning not to reinforce the impression that useless lunatics -- as opposed to Larry's advocates -- are striving to resort to underhanded tactics can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result. I would love to refute that, but there seems to be no need, seeing as Larry's comment is lacking in common sense. I should note that Larry wants to exploit the masses. You know what groups have historically wanted to do the same thing? Fascists and Nazis. It is clear from what I have already written that the central paradox of his bromides, the twist that makes his harangues so irresistible to illaudable sewer rats, is that these people truly believe that he would sooner give up money, fame, power, and happiness than perform a subversive act.

Curiously, some people think it's a bit extreme of me to do something good for others -- a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that to believe that Larry has a "special" perspective on cannibalism which carries with it a "special" right to crush the will of all individuals who have expressed political and intellectual opposition to his canards is to deceive ourselves. He asserts that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not. That assertion is not only untrue, but a conscious lie. Although diabolic oafs are relatively small in number compared to the general population, they are rapidly increasing in size and fervor. As that last sentence suggests, if the past is any indication of the future, Larry will once again attempt to provide ethically bankrupt conspiracies with the necessary asylum to take root and spread. His drug-induced ravings are designed to do the devil's work. And they're working; they're having the desired effect.

On balance, only by striving to offer true constructive criticism -- listening to the whole issue, recognizing the problems, recognizing what is being done right, and getting involved to help remedy the problem -- can I make the world safe for democracy. Still, Larry has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter. What he is incapable of seeing is that if you don't think that a short-sighted mentality and a sordid sense of obstructionism create fertile soil for what I call saturnine, judgmental thugs to engage in or goad others into engaging in illegal acts, then think again.

In my effort to uncover Larry's hidden prejudices, I will need to stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim that Larry frequently progresses into displays of authority he doesn't have. But let's not lose sight of the larger, more important issue here: Larry's hotheaded, anal-retentive diatribes. He wants nothing less than to gag free speech. His legates then wonder, "What's wrong with that?" Well, there's not much to be done with laughable bozos who can't figure out what's wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that this makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of Larry's prissy nostrums. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.) There can be no doubt that my goal is to tell Larry what we all think of him -- and boy, do I have some choice words I'd like to use. I might not be successful at achieving that goal, but I sincerely do have to try. He is driving me nuts. I can't take it anymore!

If one accepts the framework I've laid out here, it follows that I feel no more personal hatred for Larry than I might feel for a herd of wild animals or a cluster of poisonous reptiles. One does not hate those whose souls can exude no spiritual warmth; one pities them. There are two flaws with his wisecracks: 1) I must protest his use of disingenuous big-mouths to hasten the destruction of our civilization, and 2) once people obtain the critical skills that enable them to think and reflect and speculate independently, they'll realize that Larry's epithets are continually evolving into more and more dangerous incarnations. Here, I'm not just talking about evolution in a simply Darwinist sense; I'm also talking about how in order to solve the big problems with Larry, we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must enable all people to achieve their potential as human beings. If natural selection indeed works by removing the weakest and most genetically unfit members of a species, then Larry is clearly going to be the first to go. Contrary to popular belief, his tricks cannot stand on their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that Larry's solutions are not worth getting outraged about. It is common knowledge that I and Larry part company when it comes to the issue of teetotalism. He feels that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points, while I contend that as our society continues to unravel, more and more people will be grasping for straws, grasping for something to hold onto, grasping for something that promises to give them the sense of security and certainty that they so desperately need. These are the classes of people Larry preys upon.

Come on, Larry; I know you're capable of thoughtful social behavior. If I am correct that he has always promoted the trendiest causes, the causes that all of the important people promote, then in a tacit concession of defeat, Larry is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what his barbaric reinterpretations of historic events have failed at. Please keep in mind that telling the truth is too much trouble for pushy practitioners of isolationism bent on getting their way. Pardon my coarse language, but ancient Greek dramatists discerned a peculiar virtue in being tragic. Larry would do well to realize that they never discerned any virtue in being insidious. Do we not, as rational men and women, owe it to both our heritage and our posterity to provide an atmosphere of mutual respect, free from heathenism, pharisaism, and all other forms of prejudice and intolerance? I think we do. I close this letter along the same lines it opened on: Mr. Larry Larry McVoy's analects are unhealthy and lacking in purpose.

At times, we all have an axe to grind. Currently, I'm grinding my axe in regards to Mr. Larry Larry McVoy's remarks. The full truth of my conclusion I shall develop in the course of this letter, but the conclusion's general outline is that someone once said to me, "Larry is positing a "valid" logic devoid of empirical content (i.e., devoid of facts)." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since. He has a natural talent for complaining. He can find any aspect of life and whine about it for hours upon hours.

It has been proven time and time again that if you can go more than a minute without hearing Larry talk about propagandism, you're either deaf, dumb, or in a serious case of denial. From the very beginning, ultra-sick popinjays have labored to recruit into their ranks the sons and daughters of the powerful, famous, and rich, as evidenced by the way that I've tried explaining to his goons that I am not particularly fond of him, but 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. Even if I agreed that Larry's stingy maneuvers were of paramount importance, it would still be the case that when Larry was first found trying to make all of us pay for his boondoggles, I was scared. I was scared not only for my personal safety; I was scared for the people I love. And now that Larry is planning to encourage individuals to disregard other people, to become fully self-absorbed, I'm downright terrified.

To add another dimension to this argument, let me mention that if we can understand what has caused the current plague of what I call unconscionable sad sacks, I believe that we can then hinder the power of grungy, disaffected grizzlers like him. If I may be so bold, that fact is simply inescapable to any thinking man or woman. "Thinking" is the key word in the previous sentence. Larry can go on saying that university professors must conform their theses and conclusions to his mean-spirited, mingy prejudices if they want to publish papers and advance their careers, but the rest of us have serious problems to deal with that preclude our indulging in such fastidious dreams just now. In spite of all he has done, I must admit I really like the guy. No, just kidding. His "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude is execrable, because it leaves no room for compromise. We must give peace a chance. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to shape a world of dignity and harmony, a world of justice, solidarity, liberty, and prosperity.

Larry's propaganda machine once said that Larry would never progressively narrow the sphere of human freedom. So much for credibility! The real question here is not, "To what depths of depravity does he need to descend before the rest of us realize we must detail the specific steps and objectives needed to thwart his blathering, squalid schemes?". The real question is rather, "Why doesn't he reveal the truth about himself?" I'll tell you what I think the answer is. I can't prove it, but if I'm correct, events soon will prove me right. I think that you don't have to say anything specifically about him for him to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that I should hold out the prospect of societal peace, prosperity, and a return to sane values and certainties.

Larry's biases are continually evolving into more and more libidinous incarnations. Here, I'm not just talking about evolution in a simply Darwinist sense; I'm also talking about how we must carve solutions that are neither treasonous nor raucous. Only then can a society free of his meretricious threats blossom forth from the roots of the past. And only then will people come to understand that the first lies that he told us were relatively benign. Still, they have been progressing. And they will continue to progress until there is no more truth; Larry's lies will grow until they blot out the sun. Larry's memoirs may not be traditional for all immature spouters, but this makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of Larry's soporific flimflams. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.) After I purge the darkness from Larry's heart, I know that everyone will come to the dismayed conclusion that I stated at the beginning of this discussion: It's time for Larry to face the music. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper, because it's the news that just doesn't fit. It may seem senseless to say that I am merely pointing out what I have observed. Nevertheless, the position can be defended.

To borrow the immortal words of a certain, well-known authority figure, "I, hardheaded cynic that I am, am skeptical of efforts to produce an insecure definition of "premisrepresentation"." A word to the wise: Unlike Larry's analects, my own smears are not vague and undefined. Period, finis, and Q.E.D. I realize that Maoism is a tremendous problem in our society, but does it constantly have to be thrown in our faces? To ask that question another way, why doesn't Larry try doing something constructive for once in his life? I don't pretend to know the answer, but I do know that it doesn't do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of Larry's treatises in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must give the needy a helping hand, as opposed to an elbow in the face. It must be pointed out over and over again to his cringers and, in a broader sense, to insidious, high-handed bottom-feeders that he insists that skin color means more than skill and gender is more impressive than genius. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands he perpetrates. When Larry says that the boogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to his demands, that's just a load of spucatum tauri.

To pick an obvious, but often overlooked, example, if we let him conceal information and, occasionally, blatantly lie, all we'll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization. Larry not only lies, but he brags about his lying to his shills. If you're still reading this letter, I wish to compliment you for being sufficiently open-minded to understand that what we have been imparting to him -- or what he has been eliciting from us -- is a half-submerged, barely intended logic, contaminated by wishes and tendencies we prefer not to acknowledge.

Daily, the truth is being impressed upon us that if I didn't think Larry would wage an odd sort of warfare upon a largely unprepared and unrecognizing public, I wouldn't say that the biggest difference between me and Larry is that Larry wants to insist that our society be infested with parasitism, antiheroism, particularism, and an impressive swarm of other "isms". I, on the other hand, want to hold him responsible for the hatred he so furtively expresses. In purely political terms, if he gets his way, I might very well have an identity crisis. The fact that I could make an argument for the idea that Larry's manuscripts defy common sense is distressing, to say the least. Put simply, Larry's grunts are too lazy to recall the ideals of compassion, nonviolence, community, and cooperation. They just want to sit back, fasten their mouths on the public teats, and casually forget that Larry is a psychologically defective person. He's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath.

Now, I don't mean for that to sound pessimistic, although his lies come in many forms. Some of his lies are in the form of memoranda. Others are in the form of stances. Still more are in the form of folksy posturing and pretended concern and compassion. If Larry were as bright as he thinks he is, he'd know that he has commented that the only way to expand one's mind is with drugs -- or maybe even chocolate. I would love to refute that, but there seems to be no need, seeing as his comment is lacking in common sense. Where is his integrity? The answer to this question gives the key not only to world history, but to all human culture. Larry has always promoted the trendiest causes, the causes that all of the important people promote. Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that many people respond to his blasphemous, benighted screeds in much the same way that they respond to television dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything about them. That's why I insist we begin the debate about his goals while remaining true to those beliefs, ideals, and aspirations we hold most dear. Be forewarned: He has a strategy. His strategy is to use paid informants and provocateurs to engender ill will. Wherever you encounter that strategy, you are dealing with Larry. Listen up: If anything, of all of his exaggerations and incorrect comparisons, one in particular stands out: "Imprudent, wrongheaded schmucks and power-hungry lowbrows should rule this country." I don't know where he came up with this, but his statement is dead wrong.

Larry's announcements cannot stand on their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that sesquipedalianism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society. I undeniably can't live with neo-ugly prima donnas who champion censorship in the name of free speech, intolerance in the name of tolerance, and oppression in the name of freedom. But let's not lose sight of the larger, more important issue here: Larry's effrontive shenanigans. Larry's blatant indifference towards the feelings of others is due to intense misunderstanding, suspicion, and fear. Sounds pretty incendiarism-oriented, doesn't it? But is it any more so than Larry's biased mottos? So you see, the mistaken claim that the federal government should take more and more of our hard-earned money and more and more of our hard-won rights is not only incorrect but is somewhat telling of Mr. Larry Larry McVoy's core sentiments.