Who cares about this stupid story? Nobody wants to lose time rebooting. Just run these at once. The real question is "will VMWARE support Vista"? Why Running Vista in a virtual machine? Because it's what DRM desserves.
Everybody used to tell the same when Googler came out: Nothing seemed to be possibly better than Altavista (which syntax engine remains the best). So, calm down and breath, fan boy, Google might not last forever and I might add I hope newcomers keep arriving.
And why didn't the US Secret Service bust themselves for getting a spammer to spam people? Will they way for a murderer to kill a target of their choice before arresting him?
And of coruse, you might find here a very nice example of American honesty. Fuck you, Bushists, you owethese women a signature. Land of the Free...dom-fries!
Let's talk about US of A's ventures. Let's talk about them in a very specific and personal way. The full truth of my conclusion I shall develop in the course of this letter but the conclusion's general outline is that US keeps telling everyone within earshot that the sky is falling. I'm guessing that US read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources generally indicate that he had previously claimed that he had no intention to bring this battle to a fever pitch. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what he did. Next, he denied that he would rebrand local churches as faith-based emporia teeming with impulse-buy items. We all know what happened then. Now, US would have us believe he'd never ever harm others, or even instill the fear of harm. Will he? Go figure. My view is that US's spin doctors believe that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing US and the dictatorial malingerers in his camp. This is precisely the non-equation that US is trying to patch together. What he's missing, as usual, is that if he could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that US has been known to "prove" statistically that his rodomontades are our final line of defense against tyrrany. As you might have suspected, his proof is flawed. The primary problem with it is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality. Consequently, US's "proof" demonstrates only that inasmuch as I disagree with his accusations and find his ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet his speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines. While criticizing his opponents for enforcing a brutal orthodoxy, US himself is trying to enforce a particular orthodoxy -- the orthodoxy of offensive insurrectionism. At the same time, there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about his jibes. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry, rather than by narrowing or abandoning it. What spineless thing is he going to do next? Burn his opponents at the stake? Clear forests, strip the topsoil, and turn a natural paradise into a dust bowl through a self-induced drought? Sell otherwise perfectly reasonable people the idée fixe that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance? In any case, I apologize for giving US these ideas, but he must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why US is so desperate to poke someone's eyes out; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if US also realized that I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on his part to force us to experience the full spectrum of the US of A Rainbow of Onanism when you least expect it. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that the simple ability to denounce those who claim that it's okay if US's bait-and-switch tactics initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend is a pons asinorum that US may never cross. I challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise.
US is a big fan of interrogation and torture. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me change the wo
I first read that a pirate was found driving a VW... Then I realise this is not as interesting as I hoped... As usual, except that I hope less and less and the quality drop even a faster way.
I am not writing to agree or disagree with HeavyMS. What I have to say, however, regards HeavyMS's conscious decision to funnel significant amounts of money to testy, pestiferous bums. I assume you already know that his self-declared suzerainty over ugly, obnoxious spongers may enable him to limit the terms of debate by declaring certain subjects beyond discussion, but I have something more important to tell you. He appears to have found a new tool to use to help him encourage individuals to disregard other people, to become fully self-absorbed. That tool is radicalism, and if you watch him wield it, you'll unequivocally see why he has announced his intentions to intensify or perpetuate fascism. While doing so may earn HeavyMS a gold star from the mush-for-brains jujuism crowd, once you understand his undertakings, you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting HeavyMS hasten the destruction of our civilization. I can't predict the future, but I do know this: HeavyMS has nothing but contempt for responsibility, duty, and honor. I submit that everyone should stop and mull that assertion. Then, you'll understand why HeavyMS spews nothing but lame retorts and innuendoes. That should serve as the final, ultimate, irrefutable proof that he uses big words like "scientificogeographical" to make himself sound important. For that matter, benevolent Nature has equipped another puny creature, the skunk, with a means of making itself seem important, too. Although HeavyMS's doctrines may reek like a skunk, some people don't seem to mind that HeavyMS likes to resolve a moral failure with an immoral solution. What an inarticulate world we live in! I have a tendency to report the more sensational things that HeavyMS is up to, the more shocking things, things like how he wants to wipe out delicate ecosystems. And I realize the difficulty that the average person has in coming to grips with that, but if you're interested in the finagling, double-dealing, chicanery, cheating, cajolery, cunning, rascality, and abject villainy by which he may take rights away from individuals whom only HeavyMS perceives as mealymouthed one of these days, then you'll want to consider the following very carefully. You'll especially want to consider that I can easily see HeavyMS performing the following randy acts. First, he will trick our children into adopting unconventional, disapproved-of opinions and ways of life. Then, he will embark on wholesale torture and slaughter of innocent civilians. I do not profess to know how likely is the eventuality I have outlined, but it is a distinct possibility to be kept in mind.
HeavyMS's idiotic claim that it is not only acceptable, but indeed desirable, to pursue a twofold credo of factionalism and alcoholism is just that, an idiotic claim. It's about time HeavyMS stopped claiming his officious flimflams were influenced by outside sources and just admitted he was wrong. But let's not lose perspective. If we let HeavyMS supplant national heroes with acrimonious lugs, then greed, corruption, and extremism will characterize the government. Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens. And lies and deceit will be the stock-in-trade of the media and educational institutions. In light of my stance on this issue, time cannot change his behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which HeavyMS can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, obstruct important things. It seems that no one else is telling you that to enter into philosophic disputations with such cheeky (or at least, disreputable) vulgarians is both mutinous and pharisaical. So, since the burden lies with me to tell you that, I suppose I should say a few words on the subject. To begin with, if I want to hide in a closet, that should be my prerogative. I don't need HeavyMS forcing me to.
Come on, HeavyMS; I know you're capable of thoughtful social behavior. Developing a policy of inclusion will not be easy,
Why does the media consistently refuse to acknowledge that AOL's failure to work together in an atmosphere of friendship and hope is so pusillanimous that I must protest AOL's use of illiterate diabolic-types to create division in the name of diversity? If you've ever wondered about the answer to that question, then read on. Without going into all the gory details, let's just say that there is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil organizations like AOL. I must ask that AOL's deputies wake people out of their stupor and call on them to take steps toward creating an inclusive society free of attitudinal barriers. I know they'll never do that, so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to impede the free flow of information. I admit I have a tendency to become a bit insensitive whenever I rebuke AOL for trying to pass off all sorts of jaundiced and obviously impulsive stuff on others as a so-called "inner experience". While I am desirous of mending this tiny personality flaw, AOL's disagreeable game of chess -- the brassbound chess of Marxism -- has continued for far too long. It's time to checkmate this incoherent clodpoll and show it that if it can overawe and befuddle a sufficient number of prominent individuals, then it will become virtually impossible for anyone to kick butt and take names.
Should we be concerned that AOL wants to prosecute, sentence, and label people as bloody-minded ne'er-do-wells without the benefit of any evidence whatsoever? I'll answer that question for you: Yes, we should doubtlessly be concerned, because ever since it decided to inspire a recrudescence of snotty fatuity, its consistent, unvarying line has been that I'm too appalling to give you some background information about it. If AOL opened its eyes, it'd realize that it is immovably entrenched in its heinous philosophical positions. In general, I find that piteous nudniks are no different from nefarious good-for-nothings (also known as AOL's representatives). Sure, there are exceptions, but whenever there's an argument about its devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that I am indeed weary of listening to it descant on the glories of neocolonialism. That should settle the argument pretty quickly.
Rest assured, I, for one, like to face facts. I like to look reality right in the eye and not pretend it's something else. And the reality of our present situation is this: AOL's secret police argue that it's okay to alter, rewrite, or ignore past events to make them consistent with its current "reality". These are the same vindictive, sex-crazed paranoiacs who declare a national emergency, round up everyone who disagrees with it, and put them in concentration camps. This is no coincidence; AOL's methods are much subtler now than ever before. AOL is more adept at hidden mind control and its techniques of social brainwash are much more appealingly streamlined and homogenized. When AOL was first found trying to create a factitious demand for its treacherous principles, I was scared. I was scared not only for my personal safety; I was scared for the people I love. And now that AOL is planning to attack the fabric of this nation, I'm unquestionably terrified.
AOL's obloquies manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: steal the fruits of other people's labor. Phase two: reward mediocrity.
If we're to effectively carry out our responsibilities and make a future for ourselves, we will first have to establish a supportive -- rather than an intimidating -- atmosphere for offering public comment. There is no doubt that AOL will censor any incomplicitous beliefs by the next full moon. Believe me, I would give everything I own to be wrong on that point, but the truth is that if, five years ago, I had described an organization like AOL to you and told you that in five years, it'd overthrow democratic political systems, you'd have thought me offensive. You'd have laughed at me and told me it couldn't happen. So
What I have to say will probably provoke a response from Rob Malda. He may label me "mudslinging" or even "inconsiderate". I realize and accept that as a consequence of what I am about to say. However, I hope that Malda will read everything I have to say before labeling me. Let me begin by citing a range of examples from the public sphere. For starters, Malda's prevarications all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding.
Malda's helots are too lazy to indicate in a rough and approximate way the two irritable tendencies that I believe are the main driving force of modern fanaticism. They just want to sit back, fasten their mouths on the public teats, and casually forget that Malda's statements such as "It's perfectly safe to drink and drive" indicate that we're not all looking at the same set of facts. Fortunately, these facts are easily verifiable with a trip to the library by any open and honest individual. Malda's grand plan is to agitate for indoctrination programs in local schools. I'm sure Mao Tse Tung would approve. In any case, the unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, just the other day, some of Malda's garrulous, phallocentrism-oriented devotees forced a prospectus into my hands as I walked past. The prospectus described Malda's blueprint for a world in which abhorrent survivalists (especially the brutal type) are free to exploit the public's short attention span in order to encourage men to leave their wives, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become litigious, morally crippled tyrants of various stripes. As I dropped the prospectus onto an overflowing wastebasket, I reflected upon the way that Malda wouldn't know a new idea if it hit him over the head. But the problems with Malda's principles don't end there. What I have been writing up to this point is not what I initially intended to write in this letter. Instead, I decided it would be far more productive to tell you that Malda just wants to avoid detection and punishment. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to expose injustice and puncture prejudice. Malda is one of the world's major voices of sectarianism. Although others may disagree with that claim, few would dispute that it's not the boogeyman that our children need to worry about. It's Malda. Not only is Malda more bumptious and more predaceous than any envisaged boogeyman or bugbear, but Malda knows how to lie. It's too bad he doesn't yet understand the ramifications of lying.
Malda claims that he can change his destructive ways. This is a very self-pitying and unconstructive view and moreover, is wrong in many ways. Since I have promised to be candid, I will tell you candidly that he has declared that he's staging a revolt against everyone who wants to call for proper disciplinary action against him and his subordinates. Malda's revolting all right; the very sight of him turns my stomach. All kidding aside, when I was younger, I wanted to keep his goombahs at bay. I still want to do that, but now I realize that we should not concern ourselves with his putative virtue or vice. Rather, we should concern ourselves with our own welfare and with the fact that if Malda can overawe and befuddle a sufficient number of prominent individuals, then it will become virtually impossible for anyone to advocate social change through dialogue, passive resistance, and nonviolence.
If Malda can give us all a succinct and infallible argument proving that his litanies prevent smallpox, I will personally deliver his Nobel Prize for Bestial Rhetoric. In the meantime, when I was a child, my clergyman told me, "There is another side to the issue." If you think about it you'll see his point. There's an important difference between me and Malda. Namely, I am willing to die for my cause. Malda, in c
Of course, what the reviewer hated most was that he had to take his lego-assstorm out of his ass and give up his pagan homosexuality in order to embrace the genuinely virile way of life that Gott intended him to follow.
Slashdot Mirror
Who cares about this stupid story? Nobody wants to lose time rebooting. Just run these at once. The real question is "will VMWARE support Vista"? Why Running Vista in a virtual machine? Because it's what DRM desserves.
here is Google's analytic point of view.
Sounds like it will soon get worse.
The clock is ticking.
Everybody used to tell the same when Googler came out: Nothing seemed to be possibly better than Altavista (which syntax engine remains the best). So, calm down and breath, fan boy, Google might not last forever and I might add I hope newcomers keep arriving.
And why didn't the US Secret Service bust themselves for getting a spammer to spam people?
Will they way for a murderer to kill a target of their choice before arresting him?
And of coruse, you might find here a very nice example of American honesty.
Fuck you, Bushists, you owe these women a signature.
Land of the Free...dom-fries!
Title will soon read: Chinese Beat Web Journalists With Censorship
That shall help those poor USiAns fatties that are so ignorant of their own mistakes.
Come on, get a life, fucking nerds!
How is this stuff that matters more than this???
I'm sure Io read this on Digg... Is this site some kind of online mirror or just some ranting place?
I mean, who'd actually read a story posted by a tard self-referenced as "Scuttle Monkey"?
No way!
nt
What the Hell does this mean ? Are these retards so ashamed of their families that they hide under such stupid nicks ?
This is great.
This is greater.
Let's talk about US of A's ventures. Let's talk about them in a very specific and personal way. The full truth of my conclusion I shall develop in the course of this letter but the conclusion's general outline is that US keeps telling everyone within earshot that the sky is falling. I'm guessing that US read that on some Web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources generally indicate that he had previously claimed that he had no intention to bring this battle to a fever pitch. Of course, shortly thereafter, that's exactly what he did. Next, he denied that he would rebrand local churches as faith-based emporia teeming with impulse-buy items. We all know what happened then. Now, US would have us believe he'd never ever harm others, or even instill the fear of harm. Will he? Go figure. My view is that US's spin doctors believe that free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing US and the dictatorial malingerers in his camp. This is precisely the non-equation that US is trying to patch together. What he's missing, as usual, is that if he could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that US has been known to "prove" statistically that his rodomontades are our final line of defense against tyrrany. As you might have suspected, his proof is flawed. The primary problem with it is that it replaces a legitimate claim of association with an illegitimate claim of causality. Consequently, US's "proof" demonstrates only that inasmuch as I disagree with his accusations and find his ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet his speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines. While criticizing his opponents for enforcing a brutal orthodoxy, US himself is trying to enforce a particular orthodoxy -- the orthodoxy of offensive insurrectionism. At the same time, there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about his jibes. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must invigorate the effort to reach solutions by increasing the scope of the inquiry, rather than by narrowing or abandoning it. What spineless thing is he going to do next? Burn his opponents at the stake? Clear forests, strip the topsoil, and turn a natural paradise into a dust bowl through a self-induced drought? Sell otherwise perfectly reasonable people the idée fixe that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance? In any case, I apologize for giving US these ideas, but he must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why US is so desperate to poke someone's eyes out; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if US also realized that I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on his part to force us to experience the full spectrum of the US of A Rainbow of Onanism when you least expect it. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that the simple ability to denounce those who claim that it's okay if US's bait-and-switch tactics initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend is a pons asinorum that US may never cross. I challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise.
US is a big fan of interrogation and torture. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me change the wo
all your base are belong to us !
Who just gives a fuck about this crap on a Friday ?
Give us some goatse instead!
I first read that a pirate was found driving a VW...
Then I realise this is not as interesting as I hoped... As usual, except that I hope less and less and the quality drop even a faster way.
nt
I am not writing to agree or disagree with HeavyMS. What I have to say, however, regards HeavyMS's conscious decision to funnel significant amounts of money to testy, pestiferous bums. I assume you already know that his self-declared suzerainty over ugly, obnoxious spongers may enable him to limit the terms of debate by declaring certain subjects beyond discussion, but I have something more important to tell you. He appears to have found a new tool to use to help him encourage individuals to disregard other people, to become fully self-absorbed. That tool is radicalism, and if you watch him wield it, you'll unequivocally see why he has announced his intentions to intensify or perpetuate fascism. While doing so may earn HeavyMS a gold star from the mush-for-brains jujuism crowd, once you understand his undertakings, you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting HeavyMS hasten the destruction of our civilization. I can't predict the future, but I do know this: HeavyMS has nothing but contempt for responsibility, duty, and honor. I submit that everyone should stop and mull that assertion. Then, you'll understand why HeavyMS spews nothing but lame retorts and innuendoes. That should serve as the final, ultimate, irrefutable proof that he uses big words like "scientificogeographical" to make himself sound important. For that matter, benevolent Nature has equipped another puny creature, the skunk, with a means of making itself seem important, too. Although HeavyMS's doctrines may reek like a skunk, some people don't seem to mind that HeavyMS likes to resolve a moral failure with an immoral solution. What an inarticulate world we live in! I have a tendency to report the more sensational things that HeavyMS is up to, the more shocking things, things like how he wants to wipe out delicate ecosystems. And I realize the difficulty that the average person has in coming to grips with that, but if you're interested in the finagling, double-dealing, chicanery, cheating, cajolery, cunning, rascality, and abject villainy by which he may take rights away from individuals whom only HeavyMS perceives as mealymouthed one of these days, then you'll want to consider the following very carefully. You'll especially want to consider that I can easily see HeavyMS performing the following randy acts. First, he will trick our children into adopting unconventional, disapproved-of opinions and ways of life. Then, he will embark on wholesale torture and slaughter of innocent civilians. I do not profess to know how likely is the eventuality I have outlined, but it is a distinct possibility to be kept in mind.
HeavyMS's idiotic claim that it is not only acceptable, but indeed desirable, to pursue a twofold credo of factionalism and alcoholism is just that, an idiotic claim. It's about time HeavyMS stopped claiming his officious flimflams were influenced by outside sources and just admitted he was wrong. But let's not lose perspective. If we let HeavyMS supplant national heroes with acrimonious lugs, then greed, corruption, and extremism will characterize the government. Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens. And lies and deceit will be the stock-in-trade of the media and educational institutions. In light of my stance on this issue, time cannot change his behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which HeavyMS can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, obstruct important things. It seems that no one else is telling you that to enter into philosophic disputations with such cheeky (or at least, disreputable) vulgarians is both mutinous and pharisaical. So, since the burden lies with me to tell you that, I suppose I should say a few words on the subject. To begin with, if I want to hide in a closet, that should be my prerogative. I don't need HeavyMS forcing me to.
Come on, HeavyMS; I know you're capable of thoughtful social behavior. Developing a policy of inclusion will not be easy,
Why does the media consistently refuse to acknowledge that AOL's failure to work together in an atmosphere of friendship and hope is so pusillanimous that I must protest AOL's use of illiterate diabolic-types to create division in the name of diversity? If you've ever wondered about the answer to that question, then read on. Without going into all the gory details, let's just say that there is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil organizations like AOL. I must ask that AOL's deputies wake people out of their stupor and call on them to take steps toward creating an inclusive society free of attitudinal barriers. I know they'll never do that, so here's an alternate proposal: They should, at the very least, back off and quit trying to impede the free flow of information. I admit I have a tendency to become a bit insensitive whenever I rebuke AOL for trying to pass off all sorts of jaundiced and obviously impulsive stuff on others as a so-called "inner experience". While I am desirous of mending this tiny personality flaw, AOL's disagreeable game of chess -- the brassbound chess of Marxism -- has continued for far too long. It's time to checkmate this incoherent clodpoll and show it that if it can overawe and befuddle a sufficient number of prominent individuals, then it will become virtually impossible for anyone to kick butt and take names.
Should we be concerned that AOL wants to prosecute, sentence, and label people as bloody-minded ne'er-do-wells without the benefit of any evidence whatsoever? I'll answer that question for you: Yes, we should doubtlessly be concerned, because ever since it decided to inspire a recrudescence of snotty fatuity, its consistent, unvarying line has been that I'm too appalling to give you some background information about it. If AOL opened its eyes, it'd realize that it is immovably entrenched in its heinous philosophical positions. In general, I find that piteous nudniks are no different from nefarious good-for-nothings (also known as AOL's representatives). Sure, there are exceptions, but whenever there's an argument about its devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that I am indeed weary of listening to it descant on the glories of neocolonialism. That should settle the argument pretty quickly.
Rest assured, I, for one, like to face facts. I like to look reality right in the eye and not pretend it's something else. And the reality of our present situation is this: AOL's secret police argue that it's okay to alter, rewrite, or ignore past events to make them consistent with its current "reality". These are the same vindictive, sex-crazed paranoiacs who declare a national emergency, round up everyone who disagrees with it, and put them in concentration camps. This is no coincidence; AOL's methods are much subtler now than ever before. AOL is more adept at hidden mind control and its techniques of social brainwash are much more appealingly streamlined and homogenized. When AOL was first found trying to create a factitious demand for its treacherous principles, I was scared. I was scared not only for my personal safety; I was scared for the people I love. And now that AOL is planning to attack the fabric of this nation, I'm unquestionably terrified.
AOL's obloquies manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: steal the fruits of other people's labor. Phase two: reward mediocrity.
If we're to effectively carry out our responsibilities and make a future for ourselves, we will first have to establish a supportive -- rather than an intimidating -- atmosphere for offering public comment. There is no doubt that AOL will censor any incomplicitous beliefs by the next full moon. Believe me, I would give everything I own to be wrong on that point, but the truth is that if, five years ago, I had described an organization like AOL to you and told you that in five years, it'd overthrow democratic political systems, you'd have thought me offensive. You'd have laughed at me and told me it couldn't happen. So
What I have to say will probably provoke a response from Rob Malda. He may label me "mudslinging" or even "inconsiderate". I realize and accept that as a consequence of what I am about to say. However, I hope that Malda will read everything I have to say before labeling me. Let me begin by citing a range of examples from the public sphere. For starters, Malda's prevarications all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding.
Malda's helots are too lazy to indicate in a rough and approximate way the two irritable tendencies that I believe are the main driving force of modern fanaticism. They just want to sit back, fasten their mouths on the public teats, and casually forget that Malda's statements such as "It's perfectly safe to drink and drive" indicate that we're not all looking at the same set of facts. Fortunately, these facts are easily verifiable with a trip to the library by any open and honest individual. Malda's grand plan is to agitate for indoctrination programs in local schools. I'm sure Mao Tse Tung would approve. In any case, the unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, just the other day, some of Malda's garrulous, phallocentrism-oriented devotees forced a prospectus into my hands as I walked past. The prospectus described Malda's blueprint for a world in which abhorrent survivalists (especially the brutal type) are free to exploit the public's short attention span in order to encourage men to leave their wives, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become litigious, morally crippled tyrants of various stripes. As I dropped the prospectus onto an overflowing wastebasket, I reflected upon the way that Malda wouldn't know a new idea if it hit him over the head. But the problems with Malda's principles don't end there. What I have been writing up to this point is not what I initially intended to write in this letter. Instead, I decided it would be far more productive to tell you that Malda just wants to avoid detection and punishment. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to expose injustice and puncture prejudice. Malda is one of the world's major voices of sectarianism. Although others may disagree with that claim, few would dispute that it's not the boogeyman that our children need to worry about. It's Malda. Not only is Malda more bumptious and more predaceous than any envisaged boogeyman or bugbear, but Malda knows how to lie. It's too bad he doesn't yet understand the ramifications of lying.
Malda claims that he can change his destructive ways. This is a very self-pitying and unconstructive view and moreover, is wrong in many ways. Since I have promised to be candid, I will tell you candidly that he has declared that he's staging a revolt against everyone who wants to call for proper disciplinary action against him and his subordinates. Malda's revolting all right; the very sight of him turns my stomach. All kidding aside, when I was younger, I wanted to keep his goombahs at bay. I still want to do that, but now I realize that we should not concern ourselves with his putative virtue or vice. Rather, we should concern ourselves with our own welfare and with the fact that if Malda can overawe and befuddle a sufficient number of prominent individuals, then it will become virtually impossible for anyone to advocate social change through dialogue, passive resistance, and nonviolence.
If Malda can give us all a succinct and infallible argument proving that his litanies prevent smallpox, I will personally deliver his Nobel Prize for Bestial Rhetoric. In the meantime, when I was a child, my clergyman told me, "There is another side to the issue." If you think about it you'll see his point. There's an important difference between me and Malda. Namely, I am willing to die for my cause. Malda, in c
Of course, what the reviewer hated most was that he had to take his lego-assstorm out of his ass and give up his pagan homosexuality in order to embrace the genuinely virile way of life that Gott intended him to follow.