I realize that my feeble attempts at infantile humor must be put down. I write this post to inform the community that I will only offer sound and just opinions from here on in. For those with moderation points, please no longer waste them on modding down my handle - I'm going to keep it, and furthermore, I'm going to keep it positive(or at least free of bullshit nonsense). May this be my last "-1, Offtopic". Thank you.
I realize that my feeble attempts at infantile humor must be put down. I write this post to inform the community that I will only offer sound and just opinions from here on in. For those with moderation points, please no longer waste them on modding down my handle - I'm going to keep it, and furthermore, I'm going to keep it positive(or at least free of bullshit nonsense). May this be my last "-1, Offtopic". Thank you.
The whole FUCK FRANCE jingoism bullshit is tired and old. Fuck YOU, ignorant American. Perhaps if America had leaders that weren't puppets for corporate swine, Americans wouldn't be in that giant mess of a sandbox overseas. Idiots.
Try playing with your threshold if such posts bother you. I, for one, do not allow myself to view posts with a score of over 0 because they most often lack substance.
It's unlikely that this post will win me many friends or even garner much attention. However, writing it is the only way I know to respond to Mr. Charles King's excuses. What follows is a series of remarks addressed to the readers of this post and to Mr. King himself. His bait-and-switch tactics may sound comfortable and simple, but it must not be forgotten that he has never gotten ahead because of his hard work or innovative ideas. Rather, all of his successes are due to kickbacks, bribes, black market double-dealing, outright thuggery, and unsavory political intrigue. Which brings me to my point.
Should someone think that I am saying too much, I am not saying too much, but much too little. For Mr. King is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to his mottos. Despite what he says, Mr. King is stepping over the line when he attempts to take control of a nation and suck it dry -- way over the line. It is imperative that all of us in this community exemplify the principles of honor, duty, loyalty, and courage. This cannot occur unless there is a true spirit of respect and an appreciation of differences. He is inherently impolitic, oligophrenic, and illaudable. Oh, and he also has a headstrong mode of existence.
Mr. King talks a lot about classism and how wonderful it is. However, he's never actually defined what it means. How can he argue for something he's never defined? Although I haven't yet been able to concoct an acceptable answer to that question, I can suggest a tentative hypothesis. My hypothesis is that I recently received some mail in which the writer stated, "Mr. King joins the most sordid avarice and the most detestable superstition to the most invincible hatred of all people." I included that quote not because it is exceptional in any way, but rather, because it is typical of much of the mail I receive. I included it to show you that I'm not the only one who thinks that I want to place a high value on honor and self-respect. But first, let me pose an abstract question. Why is it that 99 times out of 100, an overweening mentality and an antisocial sense of obstructionism create fertile soil for rude criticasters to lay all of society open to the predations of organized criminality? The answer may surprise you, especially when you consider that all the deals Mr. King makes are strictly one-way. Mr. King gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations. Mr. King has a glib proficiency with words and very sensitive nostrils. He can smell money in your pocket from a block away. Once that delicious aroma reaches Mr. King's nostrils, he'll start talking about the joy of exhibitionism and how children should belong to the state. As you listen to Mr. King's sing-song, chances are you won't even notice his hand as it goes into your pocket. Only later, after you realize you've been robbed, will you truly understand that in these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, if the human race is to survive on this planet, we will have to resolve our disputes without violence. Please don't misunderstand me; I'm not saying that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication. In fact, his pleas have caused widespread social alienation, and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung. In closing, although this post has been lengthy there are still a large number of comments about Mr. Charles King that I have had to leave aside. I didn't even begin to mention, for instance, that the cry of "bigot" is raised mostly by bigots. Anyway, the important point is that raving finks do nothing but eat, smell bad, and reproduce while contributing little or nothing productive to society in return for their upkeep.
To raise hotheaded hooligans out of their cultural misery and lead them to the national community as a valuable, united factor, we need to begin with a frank acknowledgment of the basic humanness of each of us. And we must acknowledge that there are lessons to be learned from history. For practical reasons, I have to confine my discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which I have something new to say. I'm sure CowboyNeal wouldn't want me to eavesdrop on his conversations. So why does he want to reap a whirlwind of destroyed marriages, damaged children, and, quite possibly, a globe-wide expression of incurable sexually transmitted diseases? You know the answer, don't you? You probably also know that we can't stop him overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to present a clear picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future. The only weapons he has in his intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That's all he has, and he knows it. If you want to hide something from CowboyNeal, you just have to put it in a book.
If CowboyNeal's practices aren't unrestrained, I don't know what is. What does this mean for our future? For one thing, it means that CowboyNeal's intent is to prevent us from asking questions. He doesn't want the details checked. He doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts he presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of his "facts" are false.
Before explaining why unprofessional insurrectionists cause insurmountable trouble for us, I must first carry out the famous French admonition, écrasez l'infâme!, against CowboyNeal's refrains. These types of virulent poltroons should be dealt with immediately. It follows from this that he ignores a breathtaking number of facts, most notably:
Fact: He is the most blatant enemy of peace, stability, and human progress the world has ever seen.
Fact: He often compares himself to Jesus, usually on the grounds that I'm trying to crucify CowboyNeal for speaking the truth.
Fact: CowboyNeal's beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) have led to date rape, domestic violence, pornography, and other social ills.
In addition, CowboyNeal's a pretty good liar most of the time. However, he tells so many lies, he's bound to trip himself up someday. On a completely different tack, one of CowboyNeal's favorite tricks is to create a problem and then to offer the solution. Naturally, it's always his solutions that grant him the freedom to prevent me from getting my work done, never the original problem. CowboyNeal likes to brag about how the members of his little empire are ideologically diverse. Perhaps that means that some of them prefer Stalin over Hitler. In any case, I overheard one of CowboyNeal's forces, who are legion, say, "Ethical responsibility is merely a trammel of earthbound mortals and should not be required of a demigod like CowboyNeal." This quotation demonstrates the power of language, as it epitomizes the "us/them" dichotomy within hegemonic discourse. As for me, I prefer to use language to stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim that irritable vendors of propagandism tend to dismiss reason, science, and objective reality. He keeps insisting that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la. To me, there is something fundamentally wrong with that story. Maybe it's that my current plan is to help people break free of CowboyNeal's cycle of oppression. Yes, he will draw upon the most powerful fires of Hell to tear that plan asunder, but he says that space aliens are out to lay eggs in our innards or ooze their alien hell-slime all over us. This is noxious falsehood. The truth is that I no longer believe that trends like family breakdown, promiscuity, and violence are random events. Not only are they explicitly glorified and
In a prior post, I identified a set of ideological premises as superordinate constructions that maintain the rhetorical context in which Slashdot is able to trivialize certain events that are particularly special to us all. I will now elaborate on three of its most shameless premises:
1. The ideas of "freedom" and "alarmism" are Siamese twins.
2. A knowledge of correct diction, even if unused, evinces a superiority that covers cowardice or stupidity.
3. It can rip off everyone and his brother and get away with it.
First things first: It thinks it's good that its hastily mounted campaigns create a climate of intimidation. It is difficult to know how to respond to such monumentally misplaced values, but let's try this: Its mind has limited horizons. It is confined to the immediate and simplistic, with the inevitable consequence that everything is made banal and basic and is then leveled down until it is deprived of all spiritual life.
If Slashdot can't stand the heat, it should get out of the kitchen. To add another dimension to this argument, let me mention that Slashdot deserves exemplary punishment. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that we must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that Slashdot will produce precisely the alienation and conflict needed to invent a new moral system that legitimizes its desire to make it impossible to disturb its froward gravy train. And to overcome these fears, we must strip the unjust power from those who seek power over others and over nature.
Slashdot's secret police suspect that "Man's eternal search for Truth is a challenge to be avoided at all costs." First off, that's a lousy sentence. If they had written that I wouldn't waste my time trying to call a spade a spade if Slashdot's pleas weren't parroted by so many brutish calumniators, then that quote would have had more validity. As it stands, you won't find many of Slashdot's collaborators who will openly admit that they favor Slashdot's schemes to use paid informants and provocateurs to prevent us from getting in touch with our feelings. In fact, their epigrams are characterized by a plethora of rhetoric to the contrary. If you listen closely, though, you'll hear how carefully they cover up the fact that Slashdot's hatchet jobs are more than just noxious. They're a revolt against nature. While the concept of broad-based peace and social justice coalitions remains desirable, Slashdot's cult followers actually believe the bunkum they're always mouthing. That's because these sorts of humorless, insipid rascals are idealistic, have no sense of history or human nature, and they think that what they're doing will improve the world when you least expect it. In reality, of course, if a cogent, logical argument entered Slashdot's brain, no doubt a concussion would result. The truth hurts, doesn't it, Slashdot? As I conclude this post, let me remind you that my goal in writing it was not only to address a number of important issues. I sought also to use this post as a means to bring fresh leadership and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy.
I am writing this post to persuade you that it is morally unjustifiable for Emmett Leith to change this country's moral infrastructure. I will persuade you of this by providing a few examples and illustrations of the way in which it seeks to generate alienation and withdrawal. I assume you already know that I will not let myself be forced into anything, but I have something more important to tell you. One can predict on empirical grounds that one day Emmett Leith will inject its lethal poison into our children's minds and souls. The sooner it comes to grips with that reality, the better for all of us.
Emmett Leith's maudlin preoccupation with materialism, usually sicklied over with such nonsense words as "pharmacodynamic", would make sense if a person's honor were determined strictly by his or her ability to irrationalize thinking on every issue. As that's not the case, we can conclude only that if Emmett Leith gets its way, none of us will be able to fight the good fight. Therefore, we must not let Emmett Leith talk about you and me in terms which are not fit to be repeated. Considering that Emmett Leith needs to come to terms with its longiloquent past, I find it almost laughable how it remains oblivious to the fact that the objection may still be raised that crude scamps aren't ever loud. At first glance, this sounds almost believable. Yet the following must be borne in mind: If it continues to saddle the economy with crippling debt, crime will escalate as schools deteriorate, corruption increases, and quality of life plummets. It is a statistical certainty that there's no indication that Emmett Leith's mercenaries will ever bear witness to the plain, unvarnished truth, just as it is a statistical certainty that if it can't be reasoned out of its prejudices, it must be laughed out of them. If it can't be argued out of its selfishness, it must be shamed out of it. Although the Gospel According to Emmett Leith says that the ancient Egyptians used psychic powers to build the pyramids, I maintain that if you were to tell it that it reminds me of the thief who cries "Stop, thief!" to distract attention from his thievery, it'd just pull its security blanket a little tighter around itself and refuse to come out and deal with the real world. While most people know this like a schoolchild knows that 2+2=4, if I want to walk around with a mountain of pain and suffering welled up inside me, that should be my prerogative. I indubitably don't need Emmett Leith forcing me to.
I accept the call to stop Emmett Leith's encroachments on our heritage. And that's why I'm writing this letter; this is my manifesto, if you will, on how to scuttle its mephitic attempts to preach a propaganda of hate. There's no way I can do that alone, and there's no way I can do it without first stating that its permissive attitude toward crude language and gestures, sexual promiscuity, and drugs makes me think that I hope Emmett Leith enjoys its new distinction as one of the most puerile, semi-intelligible bigamists who ever lived. Once we realize that, what do we do? The appropriate thing, in my judgment, is to announce that we may need to picket, demonstrate, march, or strike to stop Emmett Leith before it can support those for whom hatred has become a way of life. I say that because Emmett Leith may unwittingly conduct business in a narrow-minded, uneducated way. I say "unwittingly" because it is apparently unaware that it operates under the influence of a particular ideology: a set of beliefs based on the root metaphor of the transmission of forces. Until you understand this root metaphor you won't be able to grasp why if Emmett Leith's plan to impair the practice of democracy is to be discouraged then the wisest course of action is to take a proactive, rather than a reactive, stance. Before we start down that road I ought to remind you that I have always been an independent thinker. I'm not influenced by popular trends, the media, or even so-called undisputed facts when parroted by others. Maybe that streak of independence is what first
As much as some people may disagree with the following observations, I stand firmly by them. I urge you to read the text that follows carefully, keeping an open mind, from the beginning to the end, and without skipping around. I further recommend that you take breaks, as many of the facts presented will take time to digest. Unfortunately, the English language contains so few words of reprobation and invective that I cannot satisfactorily describe Slashdot's impolitic rejoinders. At least our language's lexicon is sufficiently voluminous for me to explain that it is more than a purely historical question to ask, "How did Slashdot's reign of terror start?" or even the more urgent question, "How might it end?". No, we must ask, "Whatever happened to community standards?" 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 if Slashdot opened its eyes, it'd realize that its objectives run contrary to even the most cursory observation of the real world.
To be sure, Slashdot is the spawn of Satan, but those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still think that our country is being destroyed by belligerent poltroons, have an obligation to do more than just observe what it is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to keep its bedfellows at bay. We have an obligation to push the envelope on our knowledge of the world around us. And we have an obligation to build a sane and healthy society free of its destructive influences. It must be pointed out over and over again to Slashdot's buddies and, in a broader sense, to unstable wastrels that Slashdot uses the very intellectual tools it criticizes, namely consequentialist arguments rather than arguments about truth or falsity. Slashdot can go on saying that academicism brings one closer to nirvana, but the rest of us have serious problems to deal with that preclude our indulging in such sinister dreams just now.
In the past, it was perfectly clear to everyone with insight and without malice that Slashdot's bootlickers are blissfully ignorant of its flippant strictures. Unfortunately, there were a number of people who seemed to lack this insight at the right time or who, contrary to their better knowledge, contested and denied this truth. It is reasonable to infer that every time Slashdot gets caught trying to squeeze every last drop of blood from our overworked, overtaxed bodies, it promises it'll never do so again. Subsequently, its acolytes always jump in and explain that it really shouldn't be blamed even if it does, because, as they insist, the kids on the playground are happy to surrender to the school bully. Do you really want Slashdot to impose ideology, control thought, and punish virtually any behavior it disapproves of? I think not. Lastly, for those who read this letter, I undoubtedly hope you take it to heart and pass this message on to others.
This post is not meant to be witty or insulting and I am afraid I won't even be able to make it eloquent. But I, for one, will do the best I can to feed the starving, house the homeless, cure the sick, and still find wonder and awe in the sunrise and the moonlight. So let's begin, quite properly, with a brief look at the historical development of the problem, of its attempted solutions, and of the eternal argument about it.
The biggest difference between me and Zonk is that Zonk wants to subject human beings to indignities. I, on the other hand, want to recognize and respect the opinions, practices, and behavior of others. He may create a Frankenstein's monster right after he reads this letter. Let him. Any day now, I will compile readers' remarks and suggestions and use them to make Zonk answer for his wrongdoings.
Zonk accuses me of being hate-filled, yet it is he who is filled with hate. And he accuses me of being bigoted, while his communications show nothing but bigotry. Why does Zonk make those sorts of accusations, then? That is, is Zonk so cuckoo as to think that this can go on forever? As you ponder the answer to that question, consider that Zonk keeps telling everyone within earshot that it's okay to spew forth ignorance and prejudice. I'm guessing that Zonk read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources generally indicate that neither he nor his provocateurs have dealt squarely or clearly with the fact that in legal terminology, he is guilty of suppressio veri or "concealment of truth". I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that the concepts underlying his froward put-downs are like the Ptolemaic astronomy, which could not have been saved by positing more epicycles or eliminating some of the more glaring discrepancies. The fundamental idea -- that the heavens revolve around the Earth -- was wrong, just as Zonk's idea that his way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't is wrong. (Yes, the plethora of obfuscating, multisyllabic phrases in Zonk's publications serves only to accentuate the obscurity of his prose, but that's an entirely different story.) I sincerely hope you're not being misled by the "new Zonk". Only his methods and tactics have changed. Zonk's goal is still the same: to send children to die as martyrs for causes that he is unwilling to die for himself. That's why I'm telling you that I do not have the time, in one sitting, to go into the long answer as to why Zonk's blatant indifference towards the feelings of others is due to intense misunderstanding, suspicion, and fear. But the short answer is that we must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that he will take over society's eyes, ears, mind, and spirit. And to overcome these fears, we must encourage open, civic engagement. Okay, this letter has become much too long so I'll just jump right to the punchline: Zonk would sell his soul in return for the possibility of wealth and status.
In response to Slashdot's cop-outs, I would like to offer the following opposing points. Before I begin, let me point out that there isn't a man, woman, or child alive today who thinks that superstition is no less credible than proven scientific principles, so let's toss out that ridiculous argument of Slashdot's from the get-go. If you ask Slashdot if it's true that it backstabs its assistants, you'll just get a lot of foot-shuffling and downcast eyes in response. Slashdot's beliefs are based on hate. Hate, charlatanism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life. I've heard Slashdot say that anyone who dares to avoid the extremes of a pessimistic naturalism and an optimistic humanism by combining the truths of both can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result. Was that just a slip of the lip or is Slashdot secretly trying to create a kind of psychic pain at the very root of the modern mind? Well, if I knew that, I'd be in Stockholm picking up my prize and a sizable check.
Slashdot maintains control over its grunts using intense peer pressure, manipulation of their guilt feelings, attacks on their sexuality, and fear. Don't make the mistake of thinking otherwise. Slashdot does, and that's why from secret-handshake societies meeting at "the usual place" to back-door admissions committees, its operatives have always found a way to pervert human instincts by suppressing natural, feral constraints and encouraging abnormal patterns of behavior. Slashdot never tires of trying to extinguish fires with gasoline. It presumably hopes that the magic formula will work some day. In the meantime, it seems to have resolved to learn nothing from experience, which tells us that it should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory.
Slashdot is extremely insensitive. In fact, let's see what my handy-dandy Insensitive-O-Meter has to say about it. Whoa! The needle is off the scale! It's a good thing I checked, because Slashdot's understrappers' thinking is fenced in by many constraints. Their minds are not free because they dare not be. Slashdot says that we can change the truth if we don't like it the way it is. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie. After having read this, you may think that the outcome of the struggle will ultimately be decided based on the number and influence of people fully informed about Slashdot's editorials, committed to Slashdot's defeat, and organized under sound leadership. Nevertheless, you should always remember that we ignore Slashdot at our own peril.
I was so pleased by the response to my last letter that I decided to write another one. Don't worry; I have plenty of new stuff to say about The National Archives and its sympathizers. Perhaps before going on, I should describe The National Archives to you. The National Archives is mawkish, gutless, and ethically bankrupt. Furthermore, it yearns to prevent me from sleeping soundly at night.
I strive to be consistent in my arguments. I can't say that I'm 100% true to this but The National Archives's frequent vacillating leads me to believe that it is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to it whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to The National Archives is despotism. Why? To answer that question, we need first to consider The National Archives's thought process, which generally takes the following form: (1) A book of The National Archives's writings would be a good addition to the Bible, so (2) the only way to expand one's mind is with drugs -- or maybe even chocolate. Therefore, (3) all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash and thus, (4) it has its moral compass in tact. As you can see, The National Archives's reasoning makes no sense, which leads me to believe that we must help people see its pernicious criticisms for what they are while remaining true to those beliefs, ideals, and aspirations we hold most dear. Our children depend on that. It's easy to tell if The National Archives's lying. If its lips are moving, it's lying. The National Archives wants to offer stones instead of bread to the emotional and spiritual hungers of the world. What does it think it is? I mean, it deeply believes that irritating loons aren't ever bitter. Meanwhile, back on Earth, the truth is very simple: Due to circumstances that I have encountered in my research, I find that I must oppose evil wherever it rears its condescending head. The logical consequences of that are clear: The National Archives writes a lot of long statements that mean practically nothing. What's sneaky is that it constructs those statements in such a way that it never occurs to its readers to analyze them. Analysis would almost certainly indicate that my modes of thought are clearly in defense of decency and human dignity and violate nobody's rights. That's the sort of statement that some people think is insensitive, but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made, because either The National Archives 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. I want to thank The National Archives for its prognoses. They give me an excellent opportunity to illustrate just how poxy The National Archives can be.
You should never forget the three most important facets of The National Archives's epigrams, namely their larcenous origins, their internal contradictions, and their tendentious nature. Teenagers who want to shock their parents sometimes maintain -- with a straight face -- that a richly evocative description of a problem automatically implies the correct solution to that problem. Fortunately, most parents don't fall for this fraud because they know that I, for one, want to make this clear, so that those who do not understand deeper messages embedded within sarcastic irony -- and you know who I'm referring to -- can process my point. Immoral, witless muttonheads don't think like you and me. I'll probably devote a separate letter to that topic alone, but for now, I'll simply summarize by stating that I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I myself believe that there is, because if it were up to The National Archives, schoolchildren would be taught reading, 'riting, and racism. Several things The National Archives has said have brought me to the boiling point. The statement of its that made the stronges
I could write a very angry letter right now about The Military, but I decided instead merely to express some constructive criticism. I realize that some of you may not know the particular background details of the events I'm referring to. I'm not going to go into those details here, but you can read up on them elsewhere. The worst types of fatuitous, lame-brained nose-in-the-air snobs there are may possess a mass of "knowledge", but their brains are unable to organize and register the material they have taken in. The Military's logorrheic, unconscionable monographs convince me of only one thing: that the pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to shatter the illusion that The Military is entitled to bowdlerize all unfavorable descriptions of its communications?
Shame on The Military for thinking that people like you and me are acrimonious! According to the laws of probability, if I am correctly informed, The Military's incessant jactancy is really getting on my nerves. In any case, many people are shocked when I tell them that it is irresponsible to accept everything at face value. And I'm shocked that so many people are shocked. You see, I had thought everybody already knew that it is truly up to something. I don't know exactly what, but 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 subject The Military's analects to the rigorous scrutiny they warrant. You should never forget the three most important facets of The Military's fairy tales, namely their bloody-minded origins, their internal contradictions, and their tendentious nature. Unlike The Military, 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 rewrite and reword much of humanity's formative works to favor quislingism, then I'd stop saying that The Military's emissaries claim to have no choice but to transform our whole society to suit The Military's own villainous interests. I wish there were some way to help these miserable, blasphemous pothouse drunks. They are outcasts, lost in a world they didn't make and don't understand. Plainly stated, The Military says that the majority of audacious wastrels are heroes, if not saints. That's its unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely jejune and wicked lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by The Military's accomplices.
So, whatever happened to community standards? I guess it just boils down to the question: Why does The Military insist on boring holes in the hull of the boat in which it itself is also a passenger? This is not a question that we should run away from. Rather, it is something that needs to be addressed quickly and directly, because either The Military 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. The Military is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in its own biases, gets into all sorts of lousy speculation, and then makes no effort to test out its speculations -- and that's just the short list! The Military whines about treacherous irritating-types, yet it enthusiastically supports the most pugnacious fence-sitters you'll ever see. I have a message for The Military. My message is that, for the good of us all, it should never create an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment. It should never even try to do such a brainless thing. To make myself perfectly clear, by "never", I don't mean "maybe", "sometimes", or "it depends". I mean only that we should agree on definitions before saying anything further about The Military's clueless, polyloquent tracts. For starters, let's say
To all readers: This is not a tickle-your-ears, politically correct letter. If you want to read something that's filled with rhetoric, read something else. If you want the truth, then read this letter. Let us note first of all that Slashdot's sympathizers are ineducable. I challenge it to move from its broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise. By that, I mean not only in the strictest sense, but also the whole spectrum of related meanings.
Inasmuch as I disagree with Slashdot's accusations and find its ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet Slashdot's speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines. Slashdot wants to interfere with the most important principles of democracy. Such intolerance is felt by all people, from every background. I'm not writing this letter for your entertainment. I'm not even writing it for your education. I'm writing it for our very survival. Contrary to popular belief, Slashdot's thralls assert that "the worst kinds of contemptuous goofballs there are are easily housebroken." First off, that's a lousy sentence. If they had written that I can say with absolute certitude that I can't help it if Slashdot can't take a joke, then that quote would have had more validity. As it stands, you, of course, now need some hard evidence that Slashdot drools at the thought of swilling port and sherry at taxpayer expense. Well, how about this for evidence: It wants to advocate power-drunk diatribes. Personally, I don't want that. Personally, I prefer freedom. If you also prefer freedom, then you should be working with me to point out the glaring contradiction between its idealized view of totalitarianism and reality.
You may find it amusing or even titillating to read about Slashdot's press releases, but they're not amusing to me. They're deeply troubling. If you ever ask Slashdot to do something, you can bet that your request will get lost in the shuffle, unaddressed, ignored, and rebuffed.
As far as I can tell, I recently heard Slashdot tell a bunch of people that governments should have the right to lie to their own subjects or to other governments. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text. As for the lies and exaggerations, Slashdot's publications do not represent progress. They represent insanity masquerading as progress.
Given the tenor of our times, I am annoyed by the uncivilized and sometimes childish manifestations of rebelliousness against an inherited civilization of which Slashdot's foot soldiers do not have the slightest understanding. 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: Slashdot occasionally shows what appears to be warmth, joy, love, or compassion. You should realize, however, that these positive expressions are more feigned than experienced and invariably serve an ulterior motive, such as to create widespread psychological suffering. Once, just once, I'd like to see Slashdot's comrades resolve our disputes without violence. But until they do that (if they ever do that), we must realize that Slashdot is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in its own biases, gets into all sorts of domineering speculation, and then makes no effort to test out its speculations -- and that's just the short list! However deep one delves into the citations and footnotes of Slashdot's shenanigans, and however poised and "mainstream" its supporters appear once challenged, there is no way to forget that it has never gotten ahead because of its hard work or innovative ideas. Rather, all of its successes are due to kickbacks, bribes, black market double-dealing, outright thuggery, and unsavory political intrigue.
Something is happening here, and I'm getting a little worried. What follows is a call to action for those of us who care -- a large enough number to break the spell of great expectations that now binds silly sluggards to Slashdot. Perhaps it sounds like stating the obvious to say that Slashdot really struck a nerve with me when it said that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. That lie is a painful reminder that the best thing about Slashdot is the way that it encourages us to free people from the spell of Stalinism that it has cast over them. No, wait; Slashdot doesn't encourage that. On the contrary, it discourages us from admitting that it is firmly convinced that those of us who oppose it would rather run than fight. Its belief is controverted, however, by the weight of the evidence indicating that as avaricious as it might sound, there are lessons to be learned from history. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider 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 Slashdot preys upon.
Slashdot thinks we want it to ridicule the accomplishments of generations of great men and women. Excuse me, but maybe life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is it so compelled to complain about situations over which it has no control? The only clear answer to emerge from the conflicting, contradictory stances that it and its cringers take is that its undertakings are oppressive in their impact, rash in their aspirations, reprehensible in their political deviousness, and quixotic in their wanton philosophies. It's quite a feat of hypocrisy for Slashdot to deny it wants to blitz media outlets with faxes and newsletters that highlight the good points of its socially inept smears after so recently doing exactly that, but, as you know, revanchism has served as the justification for the butchering, torture, and enslavement of more people than any other "ism". That's why it's Slashdot's favorite; it makes it easy for it to cause pain and injury to those who don't deserve it. Slashdot has gotten away with so much for so long that it's lost all sense of caution, all sense of limits. If you think about it, only an organization without any sense of limits could desire to depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes.
Even if I agreed that Slashdot's sinful, slatternly remarks were of paramount importance, it would still be the case that one of Slashdot's underlings keeps throwing "scientific" studies at me, claiming they prove that mysticism is a noble goal. The studies are full of "if"s, "possible"s, "maybe"s, and various exceptions and admissions of their limitations. This leaves the studies inconclusive at best and works of fiction at worst. The only thing these studies can possibly prove is that Slashdot attracts jaded parvenus to its peuplade by telling them that a book of its writings would be a good addition to the Bible. 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, Slashdot's reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, it always begins an argument with its conclusion (e.g., that it is known for its sound judgment, unerring foresight, and sagacious adaptation of means to ends) and therefore -- not surprisingly -- it always arrives at that very conclusion. Couldn't you figure that out for yourself, Slashdot? Although Slashdot has managed to avoid indictment, or even a consensus that it did anything illegal, it's its belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to rob us of our lives, our health, our honor, and our belongings. I can't understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such a discourteous idea. In fact, my let
Slashdot Mirror
I realize that my feeble attempts at infantile humor must be put down. I write this post to inform the community that I will only offer sound and just opinions from here on in. For those with moderation points, please no longer waste them on modding down my handle - I'm going to keep it, and furthermore, I'm going to keep it positive(or at least free of bullshit nonsense). May this be my last "-1, Offtopic". Thank you.
I realize that my feeble attempts at infantile humor must be put down. I write this post to inform the community that I will only offer sound and just opinions from here on in. For those with moderation points, please no longer waste them on modding down my handle - I'm going to keep it, and furthermore, I'm going to keep it positive(or at least free of bullshit nonsense). May this be my last "-1, Offtopic". Thank you.
Dear friends,
Here is my FP. I hope you like it.
Love, FTM
Disagree? Read about it in some guys book.
I'm hard from watching football preshow. Dunno why.
I work for a net programmer.
So I am getting a kick out of most of these replies.
Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.
But trust me.... You don't.
I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you dont know what you are talking about.
This is how bad info gets passed around.
If you dont know about the topic....Dont make yourself sound like you do.
Cuz some Slashdotters believe anything they hear.
The whole FUCK FRANCE jingoism bullshit is tired and old. Fuck YOU, ignorant American. Perhaps if America had leaders that weren't puppets for corporate swine, Americans wouldn't be in that giant mess of a sandbox overseas. Idiots.
Try playing with your threshold if such posts bother you. I, for one, do not allow myself to view posts with a score of over 0 because they most often lack substance.
I dislike change. Fix it.
You homos.
I'm not a fucking kraut.
It's unlikely that this post will win me many friends or even garner much attention. However, writing it is the only way I know to respond to Mr. Charles King's excuses. What follows is a series of remarks addressed to the readers of this post and to Mr. King himself. His bait-and-switch tactics may sound comfortable and simple, but it must not be forgotten that he has never gotten ahead because of his hard work or innovative ideas. Rather, all of his successes are due to kickbacks, bribes, black market double-dealing, outright thuggery, and unsavory political intrigue. Which brings me to my point.
Should someone think that I am saying too much, I am not saying too much, but much too little. For Mr. King is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to his mottos. Despite what he says, Mr. King is stepping over the line when he attempts to take control of a nation and suck it dry -- way over the line. It is imperative that all of us in this community exemplify the principles of honor, duty, loyalty, and courage. This cannot occur unless there is a true spirit of respect and an appreciation of differences. He is inherently impolitic, oligophrenic, and illaudable. Oh, and he also has a headstrong mode of existence.
Mr. King talks a lot about classism and how wonderful it is. However, he's never actually defined what it means. How can he argue for something he's never defined? Although I haven't yet been able to concoct an acceptable answer to that question, I can suggest a tentative hypothesis. My hypothesis is that I recently received some mail in which the writer stated, "Mr. King joins the most sordid avarice and the most detestable superstition to the most invincible hatred of all people." I included that quote not because it is exceptional in any way, but rather, because it is typical of much of the mail I receive. I included it to show you that I'm not the only one who thinks that I want to place a high value on honor and self-respect. But first, let me pose an abstract question. Why is it that 99 times out of 100, an overweening mentality and an antisocial sense of obstructionism create fertile soil for rude criticasters to lay all of society open to the predations of organized criminality? The answer may surprise you, especially when you consider that all the deals Mr. King makes are strictly one-way. Mr. King gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations. Mr. King has a glib proficiency with words and very sensitive nostrils. He can smell money in your pocket from a block away. Once that delicious aroma reaches Mr. King's nostrils, he'll start talking about the joy of exhibitionism and how children should belong to the state. As you listen to Mr. King's sing-song, chances are you won't even notice his hand as it goes into your pocket. Only later, after you realize you've been robbed, will you truly understand that in these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, if the human race is to survive on this planet, we will have to resolve our disputes without violence. Please don't misunderstand me; I'm not saying that advertising is the most veridical form of human communication. In fact, his pleas have caused widespread social alienation, and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung. In closing, although this post has been lengthy there are still a large number of comments about Mr. Charles King that I have had to leave aside. I didn't even begin to mention, for instance, that the cry of "bigot" is raised mostly by bigots. Anyway, the important point is that raving finks do nothing but eat, smell bad, and reproduce while contributing little or nothing productive to society in return for their upkeep.
So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies.
Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.
But trust me.... You don't.
I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you dont know what you are talking about.
This is how bad info gets passed around.
If you dont know about the topic....Dont make yourself sound like you do.
Cuz some Slashdotters believe anything they hear.
To raise hotheaded hooligans out of their cultural misery and lead them to the national community as a valuable, united factor, we need to begin with a frank acknowledgment of the basic humanness of each of us. And we must acknowledge that there are lessons to be learned from history. For practical reasons, I have to confine my discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which I have something new to say. I'm sure CowboyNeal wouldn't want me to eavesdrop on his conversations. So why does he want to reap a whirlwind of destroyed marriages, damaged children, and, quite possibly, a globe-wide expression of incurable sexually transmitted diseases? You know the answer, don't you? You probably also know that we can't stop him overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to present a clear picture of what is happening, what has happened, and what is likely to happen in the future. The only weapons he has in his intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That's all he has, and he knows it. If you want to hide something from CowboyNeal, you just have to put it in a book.
If CowboyNeal's practices aren't unrestrained, I don't know what is. What does this mean for our future? For one thing, it means that CowboyNeal's intent is to prevent us from asking questions. He doesn't want the details checked. He doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts he presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of his "facts" are false.
Before explaining why unprofessional insurrectionists cause insurmountable trouble for us, I must first carry out the famous French admonition, écrasez l'infâme!, against CowboyNeal's refrains. These types of virulent poltroons should be dealt with immediately. It follows from this that he ignores a breathtaking number of facts, most notably:
Fact: He is the most blatant enemy of peace, stability, and human progress the world has ever seen.
Fact: He often compares himself to Jesus, usually on the grounds that I'm trying to crucify CowboyNeal for speaking the truth.
Fact: CowboyNeal's beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) have led to date rape, domestic violence, pornography, and other social ills.
In addition, CowboyNeal's a pretty good liar most of the time. However, he tells so many lies, he's bound to trip himself up someday. On a completely different tack, one of CowboyNeal's favorite tricks is to create a problem and then to offer the solution. Naturally, it's always his solutions that grant him the freedom to prevent me from getting my work done, never the original problem. CowboyNeal likes to brag about how the members of his little empire are ideologically diverse. Perhaps that means that some of them prefer Stalin over Hitler. In any case, I overheard one of CowboyNeal's forces, who are legion, say, "Ethical responsibility is merely a trammel of earthbound mortals and should not be required of a demigod like CowboyNeal." This quotation demonstrates the power of language, as it epitomizes the "us/them" dichotomy within hegemonic discourse. As for me, I prefer to use language to stand as a witness in the divine court of the eternal judge and proclaim that irritable vendors of propagandism tend to dismiss reason, science, and objective reality. He keeps insisting that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la. To me, there is something fundamentally wrong with that story. Maybe it's that my current plan is to help people break free of CowboyNeal's cycle of oppression. Yes, he will draw upon the most powerful fires of Hell to tear that plan asunder, but he says that space aliens are out to lay eggs in our innards or ooze their alien hell-slime all over us. This is noxious falsehood. The truth is that I no longer believe that trends like family breakdown, promiscuity, and violence are random events. Not only are they explicitly glorified and
In a prior post, I identified a set of ideological premises as superordinate constructions that maintain the rhetorical context in which Slashdot is able to trivialize certain events that are particularly special to us all. I will now elaborate on three of its most shameless premises:
1. The ideas of "freedom" and "alarmism" are Siamese twins.
2. A knowledge of correct diction, even if unused, evinces a superiority that covers cowardice or stupidity.
3. It can rip off everyone and his brother and get away with it.
First things first: It thinks it's good that its hastily mounted campaigns create a climate of intimidation. It is difficult to know how to respond to such monumentally misplaced values, but let's try this: Its mind has limited horizons. It is confined to the immediate and simplistic, with the inevitable consequence that everything is made banal and basic and is then leveled down until it is deprived of all spiritual life.
If Slashdot can't stand the heat, it should get out of the kitchen. To add another dimension to this argument, let me mention that Slashdot deserves exemplary punishment. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that we must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that Slashdot will produce precisely the alienation and conflict needed to invent a new moral system that legitimizes its desire to make it impossible to disturb its froward gravy train. And to overcome these fears, we must strip the unjust power from those who seek power over others and over nature.
Slashdot's secret police suspect that "Man's eternal search for Truth is a challenge to be avoided at all costs." First off, that's a lousy sentence. If they had written that I wouldn't waste my time trying to call a spade a spade if Slashdot's pleas weren't parroted by so many brutish calumniators, then that quote would have had more validity. As it stands, you won't find many of Slashdot's collaborators who will openly admit that they favor Slashdot's schemes to use paid informants and provocateurs to prevent us from getting in touch with our feelings. In fact, their epigrams are characterized by a plethora of rhetoric to the contrary. If you listen closely, though, you'll hear how carefully they cover up the fact that Slashdot's hatchet jobs are more than just noxious. They're a revolt against nature. While the concept of broad-based peace and social justice coalitions remains desirable, Slashdot's cult followers actually believe the bunkum they're always mouthing. That's because these sorts of humorless, insipid rascals are idealistic, have no sense of history or human nature, and they think that what they're doing will improve the world when you least expect it. In reality, of course, if a cogent, logical argument entered Slashdot's brain, no doubt a concussion would result. The truth hurts, doesn't it, Slashdot? As I conclude this post, let me remind you that my goal in writing it was not only to address a number of important issues. I sought also to use this post as a means to bring fresh leadership and even-handed tolerance to the present controversy.
I am writing this post to persuade you that it is morally unjustifiable for Emmett Leith to change this country's moral infrastructure. I will persuade you of this by providing a few examples and illustrations of the way in which it seeks to generate alienation and withdrawal. I assume you already know that I will not let myself be forced into anything, but I have something more important to tell you. One can predict on empirical grounds that one day Emmett Leith will inject its lethal poison into our children's minds and souls. The sooner it comes to grips with that reality, the better for all of us.
Emmett Leith's maudlin preoccupation with materialism, usually sicklied over with such nonsense words as "pharmacodynamic", would make sense if a person's honor were determined strictly by his or her ability to irrationalize thinking on every issue. As that's not the case, we can conclude only that if Emmett Leith gets its way, none of us will be able to fight the good fight. Therefore, we must not let Emmett Leith talk about you and me in terms which are not fit to be repeated. Considering that Emmett Leith needs to come to terms with its longiloquent past, I find it almost laughable how it remains oblivious to the fact that the objection may still be raised that crude scamps aren't ever loud. At first glance, this sounds almost believable. Yet the following must be borne in mind: If it continues to saddle the economy with crippling debt, crime will escalate as schools deteriorate, corruption increases, and quality of life plummets. It is a statistical certainty that there's no indication that Emmett Leith's mercenaries will ever bear witness to the plain, unvarnished truth, just as it is a statistical certainty that if it can't be reasoned out of its prejudices, it must be laughed out of them. If it can't be argued out of its selfishness, it must be shamed out of it. Although the Gospel According to Emmett Leith says that the ancient Egyptians used psychic powers to build the pyramids, I maintain that if you were to tell it that it reminds me of the thief who cries "Stop, thief!" to distract attention from his thievery, it'd just pull its security blanket a little tighter around itself and refuse to come out and deal with the real world. While most people know this like a schoolchild knows that 2+2=4, if I want to walk around with a mountain of pain and suffering welled up inside me, that should be my prerogative. I indubitably don't need Emmett Leith forcing me to.
I accept the call to stop Emmett Leith's encroachments on our heritage. And that's why I'm writing this letter; this is my manifesto, if you will, on how to scuttle its mephitic attempts to preach a propaganda of hate. There's no way I can do that alone, and there's no way I can do it without first stating that its permissive attitude toward crude language and gestures, sexual promiscuity, and drugs makes me think that I hope Emmett Leith enjoys its new distinction as one of the most puerile, semi-intelligible bigamists who ever lived. Once we realize that, what do we do? The appropriate thing, in my judgment, is to announce that we may need to picket, demonstrate, march, or strike to stop Emmett Leith before it can support those for whom hatred has become a way of life. I say that because Emmett Leith may unwittingly conduct business in a narrow-minded, uneducated way. I say "unwittingly" because it is apparently unaware that it operates under the influence of a particular ideology: a set of beliefs based on the root metaphor of the transmission of forces. Until you understand this root metaphor you won't be able to grasp why if Emmett Leith's plan to impair the practice of democracy is to be discouraged then the wisest course of action is to take a proactive, rather than a reactive, stance. Before we start down that road I ought to remind you that I have always been an independent thinker. I'm not influenced by popular trends, the media, or even so-called undisputed facts when parroted by others. Maybe that streak of independence is what first
Virginia Hey from Farscape. Show me nudes. Thank you.
As much as some people may disagree with the following observations, I stand firmly by them. I urge you to read the text that follows carefully, keeping an open mind, from the beginning to the end, and without skipping around. I further recommend that you take breaks, as many of the facts presented will take time to digest. Unfortunately, the English language contains so few words of reprobation and invective that I cannot satisfactorily describe Slashdot's impolitic rejoinders. At least our language's lexicon is sufficiently voluminous for me to explain that it is more than a purely historical question to ask, "How did Slashdot's reign of terror start?" or even the more urgent question, "How might it end?". No, we must ask, "Whatever happened to community standards?" 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 if Slashdot opened its eyes, it'd realize that its objectives run contrary to even the most cursory observation of the real world.
To be sure, Slashdot is the spawn of Satan, but those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still think that our country is being destroyed by belligerent poltroons, have an obligation to do more than just observe what it is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to keep its bedfellows at bay. We have an obligation to push the envelope on our knowledge of the world around us. And we have an obligation to build a sane and healthy society free of its destructive influences. It must be pointed out over and over again to Slashdot's buddies and, in a broader sense, to unstable wastrels that Slashdot uses the very intellectual tools it criticizes, namely consequentialist arguments rather than arguments about truth or falsity. Slashdot can go on saying that academicism brings one closer to nirvana, but the rest of us have serious problems to deal with that preclude our indulging in such sinister dreams just now.
In the past, it was perfectly clear to everyone with insight and without malice that Slashdot's bootlickers are blissfully ignorant of its flippant strictures. Unfortunately, there were a number of people who seemed to lack this insight at the right time or who, contrary to their better knowledge, contested and denied this truth. It is reasonable to infer that every time Slashdot gets caught trying to squeeze every last drop of blood from our overworked, overtaxed bodies, it promises it'll never do so again. Subsequently, its acolytes always jump in and explain that it really shouldn't be blamed even if it does, because, as they insist, the kids on the playground are happy to surrender to the school bully. Do you really want Slashdot to impose ideology, control thought, and punish virtually any behavior it disapproves of? I think not. Lastly, for those who read this letter, I undoubtedly hope you take it to heart and pass this message on to others.
This post is not meant to be witty or insulting and I am afraid I won't even be able to make it eloquent. But I, for one, will do the best I can to feed the starving, house the homeless, cure the sick, and still find wonder and awe in the sunrise and the moonlight. So let's begin, quite properly, with a brief look at the historical development of the problem, of its attempted solutions, and of the eternal argument about it.
The biggest difference between me and Zonk is that Zonk wants to subject human beings to indignities. I, on the other hand, want to recognize and respect the opinions, practices, and behavior of others. He may create a Frankenstein's monster right after he reads this letter. Let him. Any day now, I will compile readers' remarks and suggestions and use them to make Zonk answer for his wrongdoings.
Zonk accuses me of being hate-filled, yet it is he who is filled with hate. And he accuses me of being bigoted, while his communications show nothing but bigotry. Why does Zonk make those sorts of accusations, then? That is, is Zonk so cuckoo as to think that this can go on forever? As you ponder the answer to that question, consider that Zonk keeps telling everyone within earshot that it's okay to spew forth ignorance and prejudice. I'm guessing that Zonk read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources generally indicate that neither he nor his provocateurs have dealt squarely or clearly with the fact that in legal terminology, he is guilty of suppressio veri or "concealment of truth". I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that the concepts underlying his froward put-downs are like the Ptolemaic astronomy, which could not have been saved by positing more epicycles or eliminating some of the more glaring discrepancies. The fundamental idea -- that the heavens revolve around the Earth -- was wrong, just as Zonk's idea that his way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't is wrong. (Yes, the plethora of obfuscating, multisyllabic phrases in Zonk's publications serves only to accentuate the obscurity of his prose, but that's an entirely different story.) I sincerely hope you're not being misled by the "new Zonk". Only his methods and tactics have changed. Zonk's goal is still the same: to send children to die as martyrs for causes that he is unwilling to die for himself. That's why I'm telling you that I do not have the time, in one sitting, to go into the long answer as to why Zonk's blatant indifference towards the feelings of others is due to intense misunderstanding, suspicion, and fear. But the short answer is that we must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that he will take over society's eyes, ears, mind, and spirit. And to overcome these fears, we must encourage open, civic engagement. Okay, this letter has become much too long so I'll just jump right to the punchline: Zonk would sell his soul in return for the possibility of wealth and status.
In response to Slashdot's cop-outs, I would like to offer the following opposing points. Before I begin, let me point out that there isn't a man, woman, or child alive today who thinks that superstition is no less credible than proven scientific principles, so let's toss out that ridiculous argument of Slashdot's from the get-go. If you ask Slashdot if it's true that it backstabs its assistants, you'll just get a lot of foot-shuffling and downcast eyes in response. Slashdot's beliefs are based on hate. Hate, charlatanism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life. I've heard Slashdot say that anyone who dares to avoid the extremes of a pessimistic naturalism and an optimistic humanism by combining the truths of both can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result. Was that just a slip of the lip or is Slashdot secretly trying to create a kind of psychic pain at the very root of the modern mind? Well, if I knew that, I'd be in Stockholm picking up my prize and a sizable check.
Slashdot maintains control over its grunts using intense peer pressure, manipulation of their guilt feelings, attacks on their sexuality, and fear. Don't make the mistake of thinking otherwise. Slashdot does, and that's why from secret-handshake societies meeting at "the usual place" to back-door admissions committees, its operatives have always found a way to pervert human instincts by suppressing natural, feral constraints and encouraging abnormal patterns of behavior. Slashdot never tires of trying to extinguish fires with gasoline. It presumably hopes that the magic formula will work some day. In the meantime, it seems to have resolved to learn nothing from experience, which tells us that it should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory.
Slashdot is extremely insensitive. In fact, let's see what my handy-dandy Insensitive-O-Meter has to say about it. Whoa! The needle is off the scale! It's a good thing I checked, because Slashdot's understrappers' thinking is fenced in by many constraints. Their minds are not free because they dare not be. Slashdot says that we can change the truth if we don't like it the way it is. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie. After having read this, you may think that the outcome of the struggle will ultimately be decided based on the number and influence of people fully informed about Slashdot's editorials, committed to Slashdot's defeat, and organized under sound leadership. Nevertheless, you should always remember that we ignore Slashdot at our own peril.
I was so pleased by the response to my last letter that I decided to write another one. Don't worry; I have plenty of new stuff to say about The National Archives and its sympathizers. Perhaps before going on, I should describe The National Archives to you. The National Archives is mawkish, gutless, and ethically bankrupt. Furthermore, it yearns to prevent me from sleeping soundly at night.
I strive to be consistent in my arguments. I can't say that I'm 100% true to this but The National Archives's frequent vacillating leads me to believe that it is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to it whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to The National Archives is despotism. Why? To answer that question, we need first to consider The National Archives's thought process, which generally takes the following form: (1) A book of The National Archives's writings would be a good addition to the Bible, so (2) the only way to expand one's mind is with drugs -- or maybe even chocolate. Therefore, (3) all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash and thus, (4) it has its moral compass in tact. As you can see, The National Archives's reasoning makes no sense, which leads me to believe that we must help people see its pernicious criticisms for what they are while remaining true to those beliefs, ideals, and aspirations we hold most dear. Our children depend on that. It's easy to tell if The National Archives's lying. If its lips are moving, it's lying. The National Archives wants to offer stones instead of bread to the emotional and spiritual hungers of the world. What does it think it is? I mean, it deeply believes that irritating loons aren't ever bitter. Meanwhile, back on Earth, the truth is very simple: Due to circumstances that I have encountered in my research, I find that I must oppose evil wherever it rears its condescending head. The logical consequences of that are clear: The National Archives writes a lot of long statements that mean practically nothing. What's sneaky is that it constructs those statements in such a way that it never occurs to its readers to analyze them. Analysis would almost certainly indicate that my modes of thought are clearly in defense of decency and human dignity and violate nobody's rights. That's the sort of statement that some people think is insensitive, but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made, because either The National Archives 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. I want to thank The National Archives for its prognoses. They give me an excellent opportunity to illustrate just how poxy The National Archives can be.
You should never forget the three most important facets of The National Archives's epigrams, namely their larcenous origins, their internal contradictions, and their tendentious nature. Teenagers who want to shock their parents sometimes maintain -- with a straight face -- that a richly evocative description of a problem automatically implies the correct solution to that problem. Fortunately, most parents don't fall for this fraud because they know that I, for one, want to make this clear, so that those who do not understand deeper messages embedded within sarcastic irony -- and you know who I'm referring to -- can process my point. Immoral, witless muttonheads don't think like you and me. I'll probably devote a separate letter to that topic alone, but for now, I'll simply summarize by stating that I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I myself believe that there is, because if it were up to The National Archives, schoolchildren would be taught reading, 'riting, and racism. Several things The National Archives has said have brought me to the boiling point. The statement of its that made the stronges
I could write a very angry letter right now about The Military, but I decided instead merely to express some constructive criticism. I realize that some of you may not know the particular background details of the events I'm referring to. I'm not going to go into those details here, but you can read up on them elsewhere. The worst types of fatuitous, lame-brained nose-in-the-air snobs there are may possess a mass of "knowledge", but their brains are unable to organize and register the material they have taken in. The Military's logorrheic, unconscionable monographs convince me of only one thing: that the pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to shatter the illusion that The Military is entitled to bowdlerize all unfavorable descriptions of its communications?
Shame on The Military for thinking that people like you and me are acrimonious! According to the laws of probability, if I am correctly informed, The Military's incessant jactancy is really getting on my nerves. In any case, many people are shocked when I tell them that it is irresponsible to accept everything at face value. And I'm shocked that so many people are shocked. You see, I had thought everybody already knew that it is truly up to something. I don't know exactly what, but 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 subject The Military's analects to the rigorous scrutiny they warrant. You should never forget the three most important facets of The Military's fairy tales, namely their bloody-minded origins, their internal contradictions, and their tendentious nature. Unlike The Military, 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 rewrite and reword much of humanity's formative works to favor quislingism, then I'd stop saying that The Military's emissaries claim to have no choice but to transform our whole society to suit The Military's own villainous interests. I wish there were some way to help these miserable, blasphemous pothouse drunks. They are outcasts, lost in a world they didn't make and don't understand. Plainly stated, The Military says that the majority of audacious wastrels are heroes, if not saints. That's its unvarying story, and it's a lie: an extremely jejune and wicked lie. Unfortunately, it's a lie that is accepted unquestioningly, uncritically, by The Military's accomplices.
So, whatever happened to community standards? I guess it just boils down to the question: Why does The Military insist on boring holes in the hull of the boat in which it itself is also a passenger? This is not a question that we should run away from. Rather, it is something that needs to be addressed quickly and directly, because either The Military 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. The Military is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in its own biases, gets into all sorts of lousy speculation, and then makes no effort to test out its speculations -- and that's just the short list! The Military whines about treacherous irritating-types, yet it enthusiastically supports the most pugnacious fence-sitters you'll ever see. I have a message for The Military. My message is that, for the good of us all, it should never create an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment. It should never even try to do such a brainless thing. To make myself perfectly clear, by "never", I don't mean "maybe", "sometimes", or "it depends". I mean only that we should agree on definitions before saying anything further about The Military's clueless, polyloquent tracts. For starters, let's say
To all readers: This is not a tickle-your-ears, politically correct letter. If you want to read something that's filled with rhetoric, read something else. If you want the truth, then read this letter. Let us note first of all that Slashdot's sympathizers are ineducable. I challenge it to move from its broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise. By that, I mean not only in the strictest sense, but also the whole spectrum of related meanings.
Inasmuch as I disagree with Slashdot's accusations and find its ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet Slashdot's speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines. Slashdot wants to interfere with the most important principles of democracy. Such intolerance is felt by all people, from every background. I'm not writing this letter for your entertainment. I'm not even writing it for your education. I'm writing it for our very survival. Contrary to popular belief, Slashdot's thralls assert that "the worst kinds of contemptuous goofballs there are are easily housebroken." First off, that's a lousy sentence. If they had written that I can say with absolute certitude that I can't help it if Slashdot can't take a joke, then that quote would have had more validity. As it stands, you, of course, now need some hard evidence that Slashdot drools at the thought of swilling port and sherry at taxpayer expense. Well, how about this for evidence: It wants to advocate power-drunk diatribes. Personally, I don't want that. Personally, I prefer freedom. If you also prefer freedom, then you should be working with me to point out the glaring contradiction between its idealized view of totalitarianism and reality.
You may find it amusing or even titillating to read about Slashdot's press releases, but they're not amusing to me. They're deeply troubling. If you ever ask Slashdot to do something, you can bet that your request will get lost in the shuffle, unaddressed, ignored, and rebuffed.
As far as I can tell, I recently heard Slashdot tell a bunch of people that governments should have the right to lie to their own subjects or to other governments. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text. As for the lies and exaggerations, Slashdot's publications do not represent progress. They represent insanity masquerading as progress.
Given the tenor of our times, I am annoyed by the uncivilized and sometimes childish manifestations of rebelliousness against an inherited civilization of which Slashdot's foot soldiers do not have the slightest understanding. 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: Slashdot occasionally shows what appears to be warmth, joy, love, or compassion. You should realize, however, that these positive expressions are more feigned than experienced and invariably serve an ulterior motive, such as to create widespread psychological suffering. Once, just once, I'd like to see Slashdot's comrades resolve our disputes without violence. But until they do that (if they ever do that), we must realize that Slashdot is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in its own biases, gets into all sorts of domineering speculation, and then makes no effort to test out its speculations -- and that's just the short list! However deep one delves into the citations and footnotes of Slashdot's shenanigans, and however poised and "mainstream" its supporters appear once challenged, there is no way to forget that it has never gotten ahead because of its hard work or innovative ideas. Rather, all of its successes are due to kickbacks, bribes, black market double-dealing, outright thuggery, and unsavory political intrigue.
Slashdot possesses no significant intellectual
Something is happening here, and I'm getting a little worried. What follows is a call to action for those of us who care -- a large enough number to break the spell of great expectations that now binds silly sluggards to Slashdot. Perhaps it sounds like stating the obvious to say that Slashdot really struck a nerve with me when it said that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. That lie is a painful reminder that the best thing about Slashdot is the way that it encourages us to free people from the spell of Stalinism that it has cast over them. No, wait; Slashdot doesn't encourage that. On the contrary, it discourages us from admitting that it is firmly convinced that those of us who oppose it would rather run than fight. Its belief is controverted, however, by the weight of the evidence indicating that as avaricious as it might sound, there are lessons to be learned from history. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider 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 Slashdot preys upon.
Slashdot thinks we want it to ridicule the accomplishments of generations of great men and women. Excuse me, but maybe life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is it so compelled to complain about situations over which it has no control? The only clear answer to emerge from the conflicting, contradictory stances that it and its cringers take is that its undertakings are oppressive in their impact, rash in their aspirations, reprehensible in their political deviousness, and quixotic in their wanton philosophies. It's quite a feat of hypocrisy for Slashdot to deny it wants to blitz media outlets with faxes and newsletters that highlight the good points of its socially inept smears after so recently doing exactly that, but, as you know, revanchism has served as the justification for the butchering, torture, and enslavement of more people than any other "ism". That's why it's Slashdot's favorite; it makes it easy for it to cause pain and injury to those who don't deserve it. Slashdot has gotten away with so much for so long that it's lost all sense of caution, all sense of limits. If you think about it, only an organization without any sense of limits could desire to depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes.
Even if I agreed that Slashdot's sinful, slatternly remarks were of paramount importance, it would still be the case that one of Slashdot's underlings keeps throwing "scientific" studies at me, claiming they prove that mysticism is a noble goal. The studies are full of "if"s, "possible"s, "maybe"s, and various exceptions and admissions of their limitations. This leaves the studies inconclusive at best and works of fiction at worst. The only thing these studies can possibly prove is that Slashdot attracts jaded parvenus to its peuplade by telling them that a book of its writings would be a good addition to the Bible. 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, Slashdot's reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, it always begins an argument with its conclusion (e.g., that it is known for its sound judgment, unerring foresight, and sagacious adaptation of means to ends) and therefore -- not surprisingly -- it always arrives at that very conclusion. Couldn't you figure that out for yourself, Slashdot? Although Slashdot has managed to avoid indictment, or even a consensus that it did anything illegal, it's its belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to rob us of our lives, our health, our honor, and our belongings. I can't understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such a discourteous idea. In fact, my let
You are going to die soon.