Complaints (Jooooooke)

[Jenkar]

This letter is neither an encomium of Zanzarino nor a panegyric to its bunco games. Instead, it is a fact-filled reportage intended to convince you that Zanzarino's machinations emphasize the formation of small units of cheeky toadies that can avoid detection by authorities, strike quickly and disperse, and, to some extent, perpetuate the myth that illogical yutzes and hostile jackanapes should rule this country. Let me begin by citing a range of examples from the public sphere. For starters, I find it sickening to watch Zanzarino humiliate, subjugate, and eventually eliminate everyone who wants to raise rambunctious knuckleheads out of their cultural misery and lead them to the national community as a valuable, united factor. Yes, I could add that I am sick to my stomach of its pettiness and simple ignorance, but I wanted to keep my message simple and direct. I didn't want to distract you from the main thrust of my message, which is that Zanzarino maintains that embracing a system of antiheroism will make everything right with the world. This is complete—or at least, incomplete—baloney. For instance, Zanzarino fails to mention that we've tolerated its cantankerous, tendentious crusades long enough. It's time to lose our patience and chill our kindness. It's time to admonish Zanzarino not seven times, but seventy times seven. It's time to shout to the world that it seeks scapegoats for its own shortcomings by blaming the easiest target it can find, that is, pathetic party animals (especially the appalling type).

Zanzarino's latest manifesto, like all the ones that preceded it, is a consummate anthology of disastrously bad writing teeming with misquotations and inaccuracies, an odyssey of anecdotes that are occasionally entertaining but certainly not informative. What so many people find difficult to grasp is that Zanzarino's claim that the rigors that its victims have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity but an assault on the human mind. Zanzarino, does the word "incontrovertibleness" mean anything to you? I assert I am not alone when I say that somebody has to suggest the kind of politics and policies that are needed to restore good sense to this important debate. That somebody can be you. In any case, I defy the adversarial bohemians who commit confrontational, in-your-face acts of violence, intimidation, and incivility, and I defy the powers of darkness that they represent.

Zanzarino's fairy tales are based on a denial of reality, on the substitution of a deliberately falsified picture of the world in place of reality. And this dishonesty, this refusal to admit the truth, will have some very serious consequences for all of us quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "indistinguishableness". "What's that?", I hear you ask. "Is it true that sinister guttersnipes have an insatiable appetite for Zanzarino's dulcet but infantile piffle?" Why, yes, it is. The fact that I'm obviously afraid of obstinate, piteous headcases is distressing, to say the least. Zanzarino's credos have no basis in science or in human experience. Instead, they consist of aberrant, wicked revenge fantasies derived from a world view rooted in insane feudalism. My rejoinders are clearly in defense of decency and human dignity and violate nobody's rights. And that's all I have to say. Unless you're a newly hatched pod person you already know that Countess Scaredgirl The Admin is capable of going berserk without notice. But let me add that the above statement is entirely suited to Scaredgirl, who here, as elsewhere, does not possess a single creative idea for the future but lives only in the past. What follows is the story of how Scaredgirl can be so rich in the rhetoric of democracy and yet so poor in its implementation. Think about that for a moment.

Only through education can individuals gain the independent tools they need to raise issues, as opposed to guns or knives. But the first step is to acknowledge that I can easily see her performing the following grotty, drossy acts. First, Scaredgirl will increase society's cycle of hostility and violence. Then, she will make a big deal out of nothing. 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. I find her mottos rather putrid, don't you?

The point is that if everyone spent just five minutes a day thinking about ways to call your attention to the problem of childish, peremptory desperados, we'd all be a lot better off. Is five minutes a day too much to ask for the promise of a better tomorrow? I sure hope not, but then again, Scaredgirl 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 her whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Scaredgirl is diabolism. Why? Fortunately for us, the key to the answer is obvious: Scaredgirl is causing all sorts of problems for us. We must grasp these problems with both hands and deal with them in a forthright way. In short, Countess Scaredgirl The Admin's unsympathetic, ignorant communiqués have done much to address what is, in the end, a nonexistent problem. I propose, therefore, that we respond by doing what we can to recognize and respect the opinions, practices, and behavior of others.

[ZergKing]

Some of my colleagues recommended that I write a letter about how the vastly inflated humanitarian forecasts of Jenkar the Person's artifices are unrecognizable when compared to their inevitable outcome. This is that letter. I begin with critical semantic clarifications. First, Jenkar is a hard worker. He works hard to prevent anyone from commenting on his unpleasant, disorderly canards. This is of course most illuminating, but what if we wish to engage rather in eristic search for truth, or in heuristic debate, or perhaps in paromologetic illation? In my experience, the tone of Jenkar's apologues is eerily reminiscent of that of antihumanist prophets of libertinism of the late 1940s in the sense that Jenkar's reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth but only purblind answers, harebrained resolutions to conflicts.

Jenkar may be sincere, but he is also sincerely lackluster. Some readers may doubt that he is peremptory enough to create an intimidating, hostile, and demeaning environment. So let me provide some evidence. But before I do, let me just say that he's a financial predator who preys on the elderly, the gullible, and the vulnerable. Jenkar seeks their assets to support his own lavish lifestyle. Keep that in mind while I state the following: He's often accused of defiling the air and water in the name of profit. His acolytes usually respond with a message along the lines of, "So what? At least Jenkar isn't paralyzing any serious or firm decision and thereby becoming responsible for the weak and half-hearted execution of even the most necessary measures." I suppose there's an argument to be made for that, but aren't we forgetting that I can't, for the life of me, see why Jenkar wants to destroy the sovereignty of all nations and every feeling or expression of patriotism?

Well, Jenkar, we're all getting a little tired of you and your kind messing up the world and then refusing to accept responsibility for what you've done. We're fed up. And the day is coming when you'll be held accountable for your hypocritical rodomontades.

Jenkar is hooked on designer victimology but fails to notice the real victims: the entire next generation. Although he babbles on and on about exhibitionism, Jenkar has no more conception of it than any other officious, headlong protestor. He extricates himself from difficulty by intrigue, by chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming, by an untruth, by an injustice. I claim that he is absolutely unperturbed by obtrusive prevaricators planting the seeds of adventurism into the tabulae rasae of children's minds. Deal with it. If we let Jenkar impose flighty new restrictions on society just to satisfy some sort of anti-democratic drive for power, all we'll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization. Despite what he says, Jenkar will let advanced weaponry fall into the hands of voluble, capricious wackos because he possesses a hatred that defies all logic and understanding, that cannot be quantified or reasoned away, and that savagely possesses detestable hell-raisers with dotty and uncontrollable rage.

Jenkar's recklessness and greed have led him to initiate a reign of cynical terror. This implies that if you were to try to tell his trained seals that he honestly dropped a clanger by admitting that he wants to utilize legal, above-ground organizing in combination with illegal, underground tactics to give expression to that which is most destructive and most harmful to society, even though, for most people, this desire is neither necessary nor instinctive, they'd close their eyes and put their hands over their ears. They are, as the psychologists say, in denial. They don't want to hear that some people believe that one day Jenkar's protégés will attack Jenkar's malice and hypocrisy. Such people are doomed to disappointment, especially when one considers that Jenkar has warned us that by next weekend, intellectually challenged, vile hypochondriacs will numb the public to the simplism and injustice in mainstream politics. If you think about it, you'll realize that Jenkar's warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that Jenkar's desire to cast dissent as treason and criticism as espionage is the chief sign that he's an illaudable exhibitionist. (The second sign is that Jenkar feels obliged to leave a large part of this country's workforce dislocated and disillusioned.)

Let me relate to you the most incontrovertibly true statement I've ever heard: "When all discoverable facts and experience fly in the face of Jenkar's nutty world view, Jenkar stubbornly holds onto his ignorance as his birthright." Whoever said that clearly understood that a central fault line runs through each of Jenkar's jokes. Specifically, I, hardheaded cynic that I am, have to laugh when Jenkar says that his opinions represent the opinions of the majority—or even a plurality. Where in the world did he get that idea? Not only does that idea contain absolutely no substance whatsoever, but his ebullitions can be subtle. They can be so subtle that many people never realize they're being influenced by them. That's why we must proactively notify humanity that Jenkar's childish "Mine! Mine! Mine! Now! Now! Now!" attitude makes me think that maybe his purpose is not to enlighten but to deceive. In fact, I have said that to Jenkar on many occasions, and I will keep on saying it until he stops trying to encourage the acceptance of scapegoating and demonization.

Is it important that sexist degenerates thrive on hatred rather than love? Of course it's important. But what's more important is that this is a free country, and I allege we ought to keep it that way. Assume for a moment that Jenkar's sycophants are once again out begging for signatures for some abysmal petition that makes it legal for Jenkar to make excessive use of foul language. It therefore follows logically that he demands that his barbs be discussed in only the most positive light. To ensure that this demand is met, Jenkar sends his army of impulsive thugs after anyone who fails to show the utmost deference when planting big, wet, sloppy kisses on Jenkar's behind.

Some people consider Jenkar's tracts a necessary evil, but the truth is that my cause is to place a high value on honor and self-respect. I call upon men and women from all walks of life to support my cause with their life-affirming eloquence and indomitable spirit of human decency and moral righteousness. Only then will the whole world realize that while Jenkar is out borrowing money and spending it on programs that perpetuate inaccurate and dangerous beliefs about male-female relationships, the general public is shouldering the bill. Sadly, this is a bill of shattered minds, broken hearts and homes, depression and all its attendant miseries, and a despondency about Jenkar's attempts to bring sadism to this country in the name of anti-sadism.

When I first became aware of Jenkar's covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how inherent in our legal construction of barbarism is the notion that it's time for Jenkar to stop his systematic assault on religious freedom. For that reason, he is begging the question when he says that teetotalism is the key to world peace. For the benefit of any doubting Thomases I will prove that point via an explanation of how Jenkar's statements such as "Jenkar can take away our sense of community and leave us morally adrift and get away with it" 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.

True, it would be better for Jenkar to do nothing than to muzzle his foes, but I appreciate feedback and other people's views on subjects. I don't, however, appreciate feedback when it's given in an unprofessional manner. I am not fooled by his blasphemous and eristic rhetoric. I therefore gladly accept the responsibility of notifying others that many people think of Jenkar's inattentive philosophies as a joke, as something only half-serious. In fact, they're deadly serious. They're the tool by which hopeless slimeballs will have a serious destabilizing effect on our institutions quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "syncategorematically". A second all-too-serious item is that Jenkar relies heavily on "useful idiots", that is, people who unwittingly do Jenkar's dirty work for him. Without his swarms of useful idiots, Jenkar would not have been able to conceal the fact that his lackeys say, "It is better that a hundred thousand people should perish than that Jenkar should be even slightly inconvenienced." Yes, I'm afraid they really do talk like that. It's the only way for them to conceal that Jenkar's namby-pamby actions are intended to rot out the minds of all freedom-loving, free-thinking people. Once that's accomplished, he can replace such people with compliant, Jenkar-controlled, and, above all, obedient robots who would never think to announce that we may need to picket, demonstrate, march, or strike to stop him before he can support international crime while purporting to oppose it. These automata will regiment the public mind as much as an army regiments the bodies of its soldiers as soon as our backs are turned. That's the end of this letter. If I was unable to convince you that I stand foursquare in defense of liberty, freedom of speech, and the right to criticize callous enemies of the people, then you should definitely consider contacting me with your supporting or refuting evidence, opinions, personal stories, etc., so that I can make a better argument in my next letter.

[Camoninja]

My wall of text beats your wall of text! Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there.

(BTW I did read all three)

[ZergKing]

did you read it?

[Jenkar]

did you read it?

I did. I'm sad to find that i agree with about a tenth of it

[ZergKing]

lol.


Let me introduce myself. I am the president and founder of the Anti Camoninja Association. In the text that follows, I will explain why stopping Camoninja is fundamental to the survival of our society. Let me begin by citing a range of examples from the public sphere. For starters, Camoninja's brainless prank phone calls leave the current power structure untouched while simultaneously killing countless children through starvation and disease. Are these children his enemies? We must surely ask ourselves questions like that before it's too late, before Camoninja gets the opportunity to create problems that our grandchildren will have to live with. He has been promoting door-to-door roundups of "troublemakers" (meaning people who resist being inducted into the ranks of his band) and their delivery into concentration camps (more accurately: liquidation camps). But it goes further than that; he loves generating drama and conflict. That's why Camoninja repeatedly insists that we ought to worship effrontive malcontents as folk heroes. It's also why he believes in making people suspicious of those who speak the truth.

I apologize if what I'm saying sounds painfully obvious, painfully self-evident. However, it is so extremely important that I must unmistakably say it. Camoninja claims that the laws of nature don't apply to him. I, however, aver that that's a load of crud. Yes, there is absolutely no evidence to support his accusations, but just because he and his peons don't like being labelled as "vainglorious, doctrinaire vermin" or "filthy wantwits" doesn't mean the shoe doesn't fit.

Is it not positively the distinguishing feature of Camoninja's ideologies to do the devil's work? Camoninja's warped historical perspective makes for a consistent if quasi-twisted view of absolutism. Now take that to the next level: A bunch of the most goofy rotters you'll ever see have recently been accused of muzzling Camoninja's foes. Camoninja's fingerprints are all over that operation. Even if it turns out that he is not ultimately responsible for instigating it, the sheer amount of his involvement demands answers. For instance, is Camoninja so backwards as to think that this can go on forever? Perhaps the answer is best saved for another letter. Let me simply note that Camoninja's claim that the moon is made of green cheese requires a willing suspension of disbelief, an ability to set logic aside and accept any preposterous notion that Camoninja throws at us.

Camoninja's premise (that he has achieved sainthood) is his morality disguised as pretended neutrality. Camoninja uses this disguised morality to support his obloquies, thereby making his argument self-refuting. I never used to be particularly concerned about his tirades. Any damned fool, or so I thought, could see that he must have recently made a huge withdrawal from the First National Bank of Lies. How else could Camoninja manage to tell us that our unalienable rights are merely privileges that he can dole out or retract? Here's an idea: Instead of giving him the ability to reconstitute society on the basis of arrested development and envious malevolence, why don't we show some backbone? If we do, we'll then be able to stick to the facts and offer only those arguments that can be supported by those facts.

It's Camoninja's deep-seated belief that anyone who disagrees with him is ultimately unambitious. Sure, he might be able to justify conclusions like that—using biased or one-sided information, of course—but I prefer to know the whole story. In this case, the whole story is that my dream is for tired eyes to open and see clearly, broken spirits to find new energy, and weary arms to find the strength to examine the social and cultural conditions that lead Camoninja to promote the total destruction of individuality in favor of an all-powerful group. The struggle against brutish, rapacious demoniacs must be a struggle against wowserism, cameralism, and oligarchism, or it is doomed to failure. Camoninja's propaganda factories continuously spew forth messages like, "Camoninja has his moral compass in tact" and, "The Eleventh Commandment is, 'Thou shalt shower balmy pantywaists with undeserved encomia'". What they don't tell you, though, is that Camoninja's factotums resist seeing that I allege that it needs to be taken into account that Camoninja doesn't care whose lives he destroys while he enriches himself in an imprudent display of gluttony and venal avarice. They resist seeing such things because to see them, to examine them, to think about them and draw conclusions from them is to think outside the box.

It seems that no one else is telling you that to join Camoninja's claque, one must deal with membership rules, brainwashing rituals, huge amounts of money, and meeting locations enveloped in secrecy. 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, Camoninja acts as if he were King of the World. This hauteur is astonishing, staggering, and mind-boggling. He coins polysyllabic neologisms to make his false-flag operations sound like they're actually important. In fact, his treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary.

Do you really want Camoninja to egg on negative externalities in the form of evasion, collusion, and corruption? I think not. However shameless the national picture already is, he has the nerve to call those of us who reach out to the poor, the marginalized, and those unfortunate enough to have been labeled as rebarbative by Camoninja's propaganda machine "conspiracy theorists". No, we're "conspiracy revealers" because we reveal that I deeply believe that it's within our grasp to embrace the cause of self-determination and recognize the leading role and clearer understanding of those people for whom the quintessential struggle is an encompassing liberation movement against the totality of heathenism. Be grateful for this first and last tidbit of comforting news. The rest of this letter will center around the way that we can and we must protect ourselves by any means necessary against the exploitative bestiality of the worst kinds of slimy, insidious pseudo-intellectuals I've ever seen. Get that straight, please. Any other thinking is blame-shoving or responsibility-dodging. Furthermore, Camoninja likes upping the ante considerably. That's the most damnable thing about him. It's also why if you ever ask Camoninja to do something, you can bet that your request will get lost in the shuffle, unaddressed, ignored, and rebuffed.

Because "undemonstrativeness" is a word that can be interpreted in many ways, we must make it clear that Camoninja thinks it would be a great idea to draw unsuspecting marauders into the orbit of uppity, incompetent hypochondriacs. Even if we overlook the logistical impossibilities of such an idea, the underlying premise is still flawed. Not surprisingly, ever since he decided to usher in the beginning of a benighted new era of absenteeism, his consistent, unvarying line has been that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do. Once, just once, I'd like to see Camoninja's legatees hold out the prospect of societal peace, prosperity, and a return to sane values and certainties. But until they do that (if they ever do that), we must realize that Camoninja may unwittingly prostrate the honor, power, independence, laws, and property of entire countries. I say "unwittingly" because he is apparently unaware that he 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 the baneful nature of Camoninja's expedients is not just a rumor. It is a fact to which I can testify.

Please remember that you should never forget the three most important facets of Camoninja's accusations, namely their insecure origins, their internal contradictions, and their tendentious nature. The foregoing greatly simplifies the real situation but it does indicate in a rough, general way that I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But I'm convinced that Camoninja will advocate fatalistic acceptance of a blockish, snarky new world order in the immediate years ahead. No, I'm not in tinfoil-hat land; I have abundant evidence from reliable sources that this is the case. For instance, if you want to hide something from Camoninja, you just have to put it in a book.

Camoninja says it is within his legal right to pooh-pooh the concerns of others. Whether or not he indeed has such a right, whenever Camoninja attempts to deploy enormous resources in a war of attrition against helpless citizens, he looks around waiting for applause as if he's done something decent and moral rather than impulsive and batty. Conclaves of his partisans have all the dissent found in a North Korean communist party meeting. That's why no one there will ever admit that if Camoninja gets his way, I might very well sell my soul to the devil. To recapitulate, Camoninja often starts with a preconceived story and then plugs in supposed "information" in order to create a somewhat believable tale.

[ZergKing]

Most people probably think they already know all they need to know about Santa, but I have some new information to bring to light. Please note that many of the conclusions I'm about to draw are based on cogent and virtually incontrovertible evidence provided by a set of people who have suffered immensely on account of Santa. Given that his retorts to criticism are so rehearsed that Santa may be almost unconscious of what he's saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church, isn't it fairly obvious that Santa considers "honesty" to be a dirty word? This is not to say that he is guilty of a shocking display of dishonesty and sophistry. It is merely to point out that he is planning to fund, assemble, and train soulless pamphleteers to get everyone to march in lockstep with his spleeny companions. This does not bode well for the future because most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place. Now follow your hearts with actions.

What we have been imparting to Santa—or what he has been eliciting from us—is a half-submerged, barely intended logic, contaminated by wishes and tendencies we prefer not to acknowledge. As someone who is working hard to penetrate the sunny façade of his manuscripts with the sharpened stick of reality, I must point out that I can reword my point as follows. Santa's hariolations are a load of claptrap. Santa is an interesting character. On the one hand, he likes to deny minorities a cultural voice. But on the other hand, we've tolerated his mentally deficient expositions long enough. It's time to lose our patience and chill our kindness. It's time to break the neck of Santa's policy of chauvinism once and for all. It's time to shout to the world that he somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that he answers to no one. I am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine citizens of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened civilization.

Unsettling as that is, the more infuriating fact is that Santa wants us to think of him as a do-gooder. Keep in mind, though, that he wants to "do good" with other people's money and often with other people's lives. If Santa really wanted to be a do-gooder, he could start by admitting that he might distort the facts one day. What are we to do then? Place blinders over our eyes and hope we don't see the horrible outcome? Although I've been called every name in the book for saying this, he seems to have recently added the word "indistinguishableness" to his otherwise simplistic vocabulary. I suppose Santa intends to use big words like that to obscure the fact that the irony is that his most indecent obloquies are also his most audacious. As the French say, "Les extremes se touchent."

Santa can write anything he wants about how things would be different were we to give into his demands and let him abet ethnic genocide, dictatorships, and the worst types of hideous, meretricious fault-finders there are, but that's just one side of the coin. The other side is that his goal is to diminish society's inducements to good behavior. How counterproductive is that? How despicable? How sex-crazed?

People who draw attention to Santa's self-absorbed rejoinders are systematically labeled by Santa's cronies as "brown-nosing big-labor bosses" or terms synonymous therewith. Surely, Santa is not too rotten to realize that. Even as I write those words I can feel Santa cringe. That's okay. Cringe. I don't care because if I withheld my feelings on this matter, I'd be no less infernal than Santa.

While criticizing his nemeses for enforcing a squalid orthodoxy, Santa himself is trying to enforce a particular orthodoxy: the orthodoxy of filthy, unimaginative separatism. My argument is that he is fixated on anarchism. Ridiculous? Not so.

Santa's devotees have the gall to accuse me of rallying for a cause that is completely void of moral, ethical, or legal validity. Were these intemperate, anti-democratic bourgeoisie born without a self-awareness gene? A complete answer to that question would take more space than I can afford, so I'll have to give you a simplified answer. For starters, pauperism is the driving force behind Santa's orations. (Actually, Santa doesn't care whose lives he destroys while he enriches himself in a thrasonical display of gluttony and venal avarice, but that's not important now.) Although he would rather I discuss the personality flaws of unwed, pregnant teenagers, Santa's moral immaturity is a perilous failing and an insult to the celebrated virtues of our ancestors. I could write pages on the subject, but the following should suffice. There are two observations that one can make here. The first is that Santa is trying to sell us a pig in a poke. The second observation is that I definitely refuse to kowtow to Santa's daft cult. These shards of empirical evidence suggest that it seems clear that you probably know exactly what I mean. But we ought to look at the matter in a broader framework before we draw final conclusions on the subject: We see that Santa finds reality too difficult to swallow. Or maybe it just gets lost between the sports and entertainment pages. In either case, conversations with Santa are no more intellectual than a game of darts at the local pub. It follows from this that all the deals he makes are strictly one-way. Santa gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations.

Can you really blame me for suggesting that most other stiff-necked franions are not as pudibund as they seem? When I was a child my clergyman told me, "Trying to bury our heritage, our traditions, and our culture is just as lackluster as trying to agitate for indoctrination programs in local schools." If you think about it you'll see his point. The gloss that Santa's goombahs put on Santa's principles unfortunately does little to maintain the great principles of virtue, truth, right, and honor. My intention here is not just to put the kibosh on Santa's maneuvers but also to arraign Santa at the tribunal of public opinion.

Santa likes to brag about how the members of his entourage are ideologically diverse. Perhaps that means that some of them prefer Stalin over Hitler. In any case, you, of course, now need some hard evidence that Santa's objectives are way off base. Well, how about this for evidence: He keeps trying to deceive us into thinking that sin is good for the soul. The purpose of this deception may be to treat people's bona fide personal devastation as bathos. Or maybe the purpose is to impugn the patriotism of Santa's adversaries. Oh what a tangled web Santa weaves when first he practices to deceive.

Santa has a talent for inventing fantasy worlds in which he never engages in rambunctious, sanctimonious, or litigious politics. Then again, just because Santa is a prolific fantasist doesn't mean that showing a clear lack of respect not just for those brave souls who fought and died for what they believed in but also for you, the readers of this letter, is essential for the safety and welfare of the public. He has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter. There is no excuse for the innumerable errors of fact, the slovenly and philistine artistic judgments, the historical ineptitude, the internal contradictions, and the various half-truths, untruths, and gussied-up truths that litter every one of Santa's essays from the first word to the last. In any decent society, Santa would be just another pesky cozener standing on a streetcorner braying his nonsensical diatribes from atop a soapbox. Nevertheless, he has managed to gain some credibility among querulous carpers because they relate to her message that his ebullitions can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality. Now that you've read my entire letter, I hope you've concluded that my plan to convince pestilential televangelists to stop supporting Santa and tolerating his sophistries is deserving of serious consideration.

[Malignant]

I can't even understand most of the words.

[ZergKing]

I can't even understand most of the words.

i can.