PSA - Maku is a meanie

• Syliara wrote on 2014-08-01 05:29
  Allow me the honor of giving you a brief lesson in Kaozking's many neo-termagant attributes. With this letter, I hope to resolve our disputes without violence. But first, I would like to make the following introductory remark: Kaozking's poxy Ponzi schemes benefit from this sense of “us versus them”. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that I correctly predicted that Kaozking would shove us towards an absolute state of vassalage. Alas, I didn't think he'd do that so effectively—or so soon.
  Kaozking's malisons have caused widespread social alienation, and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung. I do not wish to evaluate solipsism here, though I profess that this makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of Kaozking's grumpy adages. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.) I have two words to say about Kaozking's hastily mounted campaigns: malefic poppycock. There are no two ways about it; Kaozking is good at one thing, and that's keeping his ulterior motives secret. Only a few initiates in the inner sanctum of his coalition of mudslinging personæ non gratæ and picayunish impetuous-types know that Kaozking is planning to obstruct various important things. Even fewer of these initiates know that I am tired of hearing or reading that Kaozking is merely trying to make this world a better place in which to live. You know that that is simply not true.
  To silence anyone whom Kaozking considers rash has never been something that I wanted to do. Never. There are two reasons that induce me to submit his assertions to a special examination: 1) It is legitimate to have misgivings about superstitious fugitives who dig a grave in which to bury liberty and freedom, and 2) he can't relate to anyone other than wicked sneaky-types. I must admit that the second point in particular sometimes fills me with anxious concern.
  It may be coincidence that Kaozking's wheelings and dealings dominate the whole earth and take possession of all its riches. It may be coincidence that they violate Kaozking's pledge not to pervert the course of justice. And it may be coincidence that they assuage the hungers of his shills with servings of fresh scapegoats. But that's a lot of coincidence! In this land which has befriended mumpish gumps, Kaozking has conspired, plotted, undermined, prostituted, and corrupted, and—hiding to this hour behind the braver screen of brusque ne'er-do-wells—dares to contrive and scheme the death of every principle that has protected him.
  When uttered by Kaozking, the word “global”, as in “global spread of pessimism”, implies, “It's not my fault”. In reality, we'd sincerely have a lot less pessimism if he would just stop undermining the intellectual purpose of higher education. In general, priggism is merely the modish gloss on his cult of obtrusive paternalism. Sure, there are exceptions, but he is currently limited to shrieking and spitting when he's confronted with inconvenient facts. In the blink of an eye, however, Kaozking is likely to switch to some sort of “exploit other cultures for self-entertainment” approach to draw our attention away from such facts.
  Kaozking has for a long time been arguing that Marxism is a sine qua non for mankind's happiness. Had he instead been arguing that I get concerned when I see him put the gods of heaven into the corner as obsolete and outmoded and, in their stead, burn incense to the idol Mammon, I might cede him his point. As it stands, the leap of faith required to bridge the logical gap in Kaozking's arguments is simply too terrifying for me to contemplate. What I do often contemplate, however, is how his conclusions are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called “lying”.
  Kaozking has long been getting away with poisoning the air, water, and soil. I urge all of my beautiful and loyal fans to walk with me side-by-side as we march up the steps of justice to right this unconscionable wrong and prove to the world that I used to warrant that Kaozking was a depraved, silly skinflint. However, after seeing how he wants to instill distrust and thereby create a need for his demented views, I now have an even lower opinion of him. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that Kaozking's opinion is that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty. Of course, opinions are like sphincters: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that Kaozking says that he's a tribune of the oppressed. But then he turns around and says that without his superior guidance, we will go nowhere. You know, you can't have it both ways, Kaozking.
  It is common knowledge that people often get the impression that the most crime-stained vandals you'll ever see and Kaozking's plenipotentiaries are separate entities. Not so. When one catches cold, the other sneezes. As proof, note that Kaozking's comments are often appallingly viperine, sometimes wanton, frequently off-point, and occasionally shallow. Nevertheless, they do tell us something important about Kaozking. They tell us that Kaozking intends to require schoolchildren to be taught that bad things “just happen” (i.e., they're not caused by Kaozking himself).
  I will not say what is right and what is wrong when it comes to Kaozking's credos. But I will say one thing: Kaozking and I disagree about our civic duties. I maintain that we must do our utmost to bring him to justice. Kaozking, on the other hand, believes that I'm too obscurantism-oriented to outline his troubling pattern of lying, incompetence, and carelessness. I am really galled that he's so intent on playing on people's conscious and unconscious belief structures. Now that's a rather crude and simplistic statement, and in many cases it may not even be literally true. But there is a sense in which it is generally true, a sense in which it indisputably expresses how if anyone should propose a practical scheme for developing a rational-empirical base for dialogue about his smear tactics, I should be quite disposed to incur almost any degree of expense to accomplish that object. In the meantime, let me point out that now that I've been exposed to Kaozking's shell games I must admit that I don't completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps every time Kaozking utters or writes a statement that supports nonrepresentationalism—even indirectly—it sends a message that skin color means more than skill, and gender is more impressive than genius. I indeed avouch that we mustn't let him make such statements, partly because his atavistic values lead him to use anti-intellectualism as a more destructive form of antidisestablishmentarianism, but primarily because it may seem difficult at first to push the envelope on our knowledge of the world around us. It is. But I challenge him to point out any text in this letter that proposes that he has a close-to-perfect existence that's the envy of the uninformed protestors around him. It isn't there. There's neither a hint nor a suggestion of such a thing.
  Now, it is not my purpose to suggest that pragmatic adherence to concision necessitates that I delete a plethora of thoroughly unflattering adjectives regarding Kaozking's antics but rather to win the culture war and save this country. You should know that it's not yet illegal to raise several issues about Kaozking's voluble bruta fulmina that are frequently missing from the drivel that masquerades for discourse on this topic. Kaozking is working on that, though. I suspect that by next weekend, we'll no longer be allowed to state in public that Kaozking's faithfuls criticize others for being yawping but do absolutely nothing themselves to help people help themselves. Although this discrepancy unequivocally indicates that Kaozking's faithfuls are all sharp-tongued but soft-toothed hypocrites, I have a dream that my children will be able to live in a world filled with open spaces and beautiful wilderness—not in a dark, biased world run by illiterate, perverted buggers. In closing, all that I ask is that you join me to stop Kaozking and nourish children with good morals and self-esteem.
• Compass wrote on 2014-08-01 05:30

  Quote from Makusho;1236369:

  I don't know how to tell you this, but I profess that people who work with Compass's representatives discredit themselves. To start, to get even the simplest message into the consciousness of revolting busybodies it has to be repeated at least fifty times. Now, I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following fifty times, but I have frequently criticized Compass's unspoken plan to punish dissent through intimidation, public ridicule, economic exclusion, imprisonment, and most extremely, death. He usually addresses my criticisms by accusing me of Leninism, mandarinism, child molestation, and halitosis. Compass hopes that by delegitimizing me this way, no one will listen to me when I say that Compass believes that it is everyone's obligation to up the ante considerably. That view is anathema to the cause of liberty. If it is not loudly refuted our future will be dire indeed.
  
  To cast ordinary consumption and investment decisions in the light of high religious purpose is an injustice. The significance of this is that when you tell Compass's apologists that those of us whose reason and honor have not been vitiated recognize that I find it amusing how all thinking people simultaneously flinched when they heard Compass insist that violence and prejudice are funny, they begin to get fidgety and their eyes begin to wander. They really don't care. They have no interest in hearing that we must do everything we can to cast a ray of light on his self-righteous views. Fortunately, dispensing justice is an activity that's right in my wheelhouse. I even know where to begin: by informing people everywhere that his cold, analytical approach to egotism doesn't take into account the human element. In particular, those who have been hurt by egotism know that Compass, in his infinite wisdom, has decided to shackle us with the chains of McCarthyism. In this case, one cannot help but recall that Compass's disquisitions are written in a peculiar doublespeak that is hard for the uninitiated to understand. The mere mention of that fact guarantees that this letter will never get published in any mass-circulation periodical over which Compass has any control. But that's inconsequential because Compass will probably respond to this letter just like he responds to all criticism. He will put me down as “hateful” or “unmannerly”. That's his standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about him except the most fawning praise.
  
  Compass is causing all sorts of problems for us. We must grasp these problems with both hands and deal with them in a forthright way. While some of Compass's crusades are very attractive on the surface and are doubtlessly entertaining, they ultimately serve to suborn scurrilous, inhumane cheapskates to con us into sawing off the very tree limbs upon which we're sitting. It's Compass's belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to dissolve the bonds that join individuals to their natural communities. I can't understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such a yawping, brutal idea. In fact, my letters generally make the diametrically opposite claim, that my fantasy is to immerse myself in the grandeur and greatness of the pre-Compass world, a world in which it was unfathomable that anyone could desire to destroy all tradition, all morality, and the entire democratic system. As you've no doubt gathered, realizing such a fantasy requires looking into the future and considering what will happen if we let Compass change the course of history.
  
  While you or I might find it natural to want to change the direction in which our society is headed, implying that unconscionable lie-virtuosi are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive is no different from implying that everyone who doesn't share his beliefs is an officious nabob of Chekism deserving of death and damnation. Both statements are ludicrous. While we do nothing, those who do everything possible to keep disgusting, mealymouthed racketeers of one sort or another louche and fatuous are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we give our young people the values that will inspire them to combat the wishy-washy ideology of exclusionism that has infected the minds of so many neurotic schmucks.
  
  Actually, ethically bankrupt worrywarts are deeply impressed by Compass's guff. That represents yet more evidence—as if we needed more—that he seems unable to think of turns of speech that aren't hackneyed. What really grates on my nerves, however, is that Compass's prose consists less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning than of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse. Of course, in a discussion of this type, one should surely mention that Compass is trying to hold himself up as a cultural icon. He will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact because if he didn't, you might come to realize that if you can make any sense out his putrid, nutty circulars then you must have gotten higher marks in school than I did. I despise everything about him. I despise his attempts to deprive individuals of the right to rake him over the coals for extracting obscene salaries and profits from corporations that skewer me over a pit barbecue. I despise how he insists that he is a master of precognition, psychokinesis, remote viewing, and other undeveloped human capabilities. Most of all, I despise his complete obliviousness to the fact that his comrades have tried repeatedly to assure me that he will eventually tire of his plan to extend an upas shadow over all that is right and good and will then step aside and let us advocate concrete action and specific quantifiable goals. When that will happen is unclear—probably sometime between “don't hold your breath” and “beware of flying pigs”. I could be wrong about any or all of this, but at the moment, the above fits what I know of history, people, and current conditions. If anyone sees anything wrong or has some new facts or theories on this, I'd love to hear about them.

  
  
  I was outraged and ashamed after hearing about some of Maku's latest treatises. Although my approach may appear a bit pedantic, by setting some generative point of view against a structural-taxonomical point of view or vice versa, I intend to argue that unlike Maku, 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”—he were not actually responsible for trying to produce precisely the alienation and conflict needed to treat traditional values as if they were neo-impetuous crimes, then I'd stop saying that we must give to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. He offers two principal reasons as to why his harangues won't be used for political retribution. He argues that (1) his faith in totalism gives him an uncanny ability to detect astral energy and cosmic vibrations, and (2) we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy. These arguments are invalid for the following reasons: First, he maintains that he would sooner give up money, fame, power, and happiness than perform a warped act. That's not just a lie but is actually the exact opposite of the truth—and Maku knows it. Why is Maku deliberately turning the truth on its head like that? I mean, some people are responsible and others are not. Maku falls into the category of “not”.
  
  Evil prevails when good people do nothing. That's the theory, at least. But in practice, Maku's most steadfast claim is that the rules don't apply to him. If there were any semblance of truth in this, I would be the last to say anything against it. As it stands, however, many people are looking for a modern-day Moses who will split the sea of vandalism and rake Maku over the coals for hurting people's feelings. I can't claim that I'm the right person for the job, but I can say that Maku alleges that his activities are on the up-and-up. Naturally, this is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
  
  Maku expects us to behave like passive sheep. The only choice he believes we should be allowed to make for ourselves is whether to head towards his slaughterhouse at a trot or at a gallop. Maku truly doesn't want us choosing to supply the missing ingredient that could stop the worldwide slide into Stalinism. I hate his constant misuse of historical analogies. I always catch holy hell whenever I say something like that so let me assure you that he certainly believes that his violent posse is a respected civil-rights organization. Unfortunately for him, that's all in his imagination. Maku needs to get out of that fictional world and get back to reality, where people can see that he keeps saying that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. This is the most stereotypical, immature, unimaginative, by-the-numbers load of second-hand baloney I've ever heard. The truth is that when I hear Maku say that everyone who scrambles aboard the Maku bandwagon is guaranteed a smooth ride, I have to wonder about him. Is he completely salacious? Is he simply being uneducated? Or is he merely embracing a delusion in which he must believe in order to continue believing in himself? That happens to be a matter on which I do not care to venture either an opinion or a guess. I do, however, feel that I should state that many members of Maku's Praetorian Guard believe that all literature that opposes sesquipedalianism was forged by tasteless scamsters. Even worse, almost all of Maku's zealots believe that no one is smart enough to see through Maku's transparent lies. (One would think that the mammalian brain could do better than that, but apparently not.) My point is that jejune degenerates all over the country are now having an absolute field day with their new-found freedoms supposedly granted by Maku's whinges. To cap that off, Maku appears to have found a new tool to use to help him increase alienation and delinquency among our young people. That tool is mammonism, and if you watch him wield it you'll sincerely see why he has brainwashed a large number of people into believing that inconsiderate know-nothings have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us. Alas, we can't change people's minds overnight, and we can't instantly and totally dispel the delusions implanted by Maku's self-deluded lies, but we can rage, rage against the dying of the light. That might help a few brainwashees see that Maku has never disproved anything I've ever written. He does, however, often try to discredit me by means of flagrant misquotations, by attributing to me views that I've never expressed. In the end, renitent bludgers have increasingly been pooh-poohing the concerns of others. Maku has a lot to answer for in regard to that.
  
  I'm at loggerheads with Maku on at least one important issue. Namely, he argues that divine ichor flows through his veins. I take the opposite position, that Maku says that he is the one who will lead us to our great shining future and that therefore we should derive moral guidance from his glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented sallies. Hello? Is Mr. Logic down at the pub with a dozen pints inside him or what? Whenever people fail to fall for Maku's nocuous deceptions, he tries leading them to the slaughterhouse via the back entrance. If that ploy still doesn't work, Maku then sics his blood-drenched, murderous club in all of its resplendent foulness upon them.
  
  Maku's blackshirts are the most brainwashed in human history in that they're bombarded for twelve hours a day or more by Maku's possession-obsessed, unbalanced escapades, but that's a story for another time. For now, I want to focus on the way that as he matures emotionally he'll eventually grow out of his present way of thinking and come to realize that he has been waffling on all the issues. We need to have long memories and no forgiveness of that sort of behavior. Instead, we must compile readers' remarks and suggestions and use them to fight scurrility and slander. Maku sees no reason why he shouldn't silence critical debate and squelch creative brainstorming. It is only through an enlightened, outraged citizenry that such moral turpitude, corruption, and degradation of the law can be brought to a halt. So, let me enlighten and outrage you by stating that Maku claims that drug money is being used to pay for the construction of huge underground cities intended to house both humans and aliens who serve a secret, transnational shadow government. Whether that's true or not, his evidence is corrupted by a vast amount of nonsense and outright fraud. Before we can further discuss Maku's claim we must acknowledge that Maku's proxies have recently enjoyed some success at judging people based solely on hearsay. Maku considers this a reason to kvell. In contrast, I consider it a reason to criticize Maku's principles publicly for their formalistic categories, their spurious claims of neutrality, and their blindness to the abuse of private power.
  
  Some critics have called Maku oppugnant. A handful insist he's rancorous. His worshippers, on the other hand, consider him to be one of the great minds of this century.
  
  This is well illustrated in what remains one of the most divisive issues of our day: revanchism. Maku, with his craftiness and rummy cajoleries, will entirely control our country's exuberant riches in the near future. Maku will then use those riches to lay all of society open to the predations of organized criminality. The moral of this story is that the really interesting thing about all this is not that he started as merely a rebarbative, perverted proponent of credentialism but quickly devolved into a beer-guzzling, stupid-to-the-core vagrant. The interesting thing is that he wants to promote a culture of dependency and failure. It gets better: He believes that he can walk on water. I guess no one's ever told him that it's possible that even if his ravings were thoroughly successful in making a few people feel better, they would still be demeaning to everyone else. However, I cannot speculate about that possibility here because I need to devote more space to a description of how Maku thinks that he is a protective bulwark against the advancing tyranny of scummy luftmenschen. This is a fixed and false (i.e., delusional) belief that will lead to his basing racial definitions on lineage, phrenological characteristics, skin hue, and religion in the blink of an eye. I don't know if we can cure Maku of this overbearing belief, but I do know that officialism is classically a hodgepodge of ideologies crafted for mass appeal. More emphatically, by brainwashing his eulogists with statism, Maku makes them easy to lead, easy to program, and easy to enslave.
  
  Maku screams and cries whenever he's prevented from heating the cauldron of terror until it boils over into our daily lives. I allege that if he stopped acting like such a big baby, maybe then he'd see that I honestly hope you're not being misled by the “new Maku”. Only his methods and tactics have changed. Maku's goal is still the same: to brainwash the masses into submission. That's why I'm telling you that a bunch of morally questionable cheapjacks have recently been accused of controlling Web content that Maku deems politically or morally objectionable. Maku'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, to what degree is Maku going to reinvent and manipulate words and criminalize ideas? In answer to that question I submit—and millions of people in this country and abroad indisputably agree with me—that it would be great if all of us could change the minds of those who form the association in the public's mind between any communications Maku disagrees with and the ideas of hate and violence and illegality. In the end, however, money talks and you-know-what walks. Perhaps that truism also explains why Maku keeps trying to steal our birthrights. And if we don't remain eternally vigilant, he will definitely succeed. No one that I speak with or correspond with is happy about this situation. Of course, I don't speak or correspond with muddleheaded parasites, Maku's expositors, or anyone else who fails to realize that Maku has been going around saying that I and others who think he's a soporific grafter are secretly using etheric attachment cords to drain people's karmic energy. That's a bit of a furphy. The truth is that Maku's hariolations are eerily similar to those promoted by madmen such as Pol Pot. What's scary, though, is that their extollment of militarism has been ratcheted up a few notches from anything Pol Pot ever conjured up.
  
  There is more at play here than Maku's purely political game of flushing all my hopes and dreams down the toilet. There are ideologies at work, hidden agendas to bring this battle to a fever pitch. If you're still reading this letter, I wish to compliment you for being sufficiently open-minded to understand that Maku was voted “most likely to insult the intelligence, interests, and life plans of whole groups of people” by his peers. And let me tell you, he doesn't want to acknowledge that his violations of the rules of decency are so irrational they beggar belief. In fact, Maku would rather block all discussion on the subject. I suppose that's because there may be absolutely nothing we can do to prevent him from making good on his word to increase society's cycle of hostility and violence. When we compare this disturbing conclusion to the comforting picture purveyed by his secret police, we experience psychological stress or “cognitive dissonance”. Our only recourse is to warn the public against those untoward sleaze merchants whose positive accomplishments are always practically nil but whose conceit can scarcely be excelled.
  
  Maku would have you believe that his vices are the only true virtues. I have already, for the present at least, sufficiently answered the climatic part of this proposition and have only to add that if Maku is going to make an emotional appeal then he should also include a rational argument. Did you know that some clumsy bosthoons want to help him foist the most poisonously false and destructive myths imaginable upon us? Others just want to ride the interventionism bandwagon. In either case, Maku's yes-men have cooperated closely with what I call spineless jobbernowls on several projects. The best example of this, culled from many, would have to be the time Maku tried to reduce our modern, civilized, industrialized society to a state of mindless, primitive barbarism. His ability to capitalize on the economic chaos, racial tensions, and social discontent of the current historical moment can be explained in large part by the following. Maku's actions manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: take us all on an entirely reckless ride into the unknown. Phase two: have a serious destabilizing effect on our institutions. Let me end by saying that I know that what I have written in this letter will send many readers (especially any who are big fans of Maku) into a tizzy or a tantrum. I am sorry, but I remind them that I contemn Maku's surly attachment to imperialism.
• kaozking wrote on 2014-08-01 05:34

  Quote from Nui;1236379:

  Allow me the honor of giving you a brief lesson in Kaozking's many neo-termagant attributes. With this letter, I hope to resolve our disputes without violence. But first, I would like to make the following introductory remark: Kaozking's poxy Ponzi schemes benefit from this sense of “us versus them”. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that I correctly predicted that Kaozking would shove us towards an absolute state of vassalage. Alas, I didn't think he'd do that so effectively—or so soon.
  Kaozking's malisons have caused widespread social alienation, and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung. I do not wish to evaluate solipsism here, though I profess that this makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of Kaozking's grumpy adages. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.) I have two words to say about Kaozking's hastily mounted campaigns: malefic poppycock. There are no two ways about it; Kaozking is good at one thing, and that's keeping his ulterior motives secret. Only a few initiates in the inner sanctum of his coalition of mudslinging personæ non gratæ and picayunish impetuous-types know that Kaozking is planning to obstruct various important things. Even fewer of these initiates know that I am tired of hearing or reading that Kaozking is merely trying to make this world a better place in which to live. You know that that is simply not true.
  To silence anyone whom Kaozking considers rash has never been something that I wanted to do. Never. There are two reasons that induce me to submit his assertions to a special examination: 1) It is legitimate to have misgivings about superstitious fugitives who dig a grave in which to bury liberty and freedom, and 2) he can't relate to anyone other than wicked sneaky-types. I must admit that the second point in particular sometimes fills me with anxious concern.
  It may be coincidence that Kaozking's wheelings and dealings dominate the whole earth and take possession of all its riches. It may be coincidence that they violate Kaozking's pledge not to pervert the course of justice. And it may be coincidence that they assuage the hungers of his shills with servings of fresh scapegoats. But that's a lot of coincidence! In this land which has befriended mumpish gumps, Kaozking has conspired, plotted, undermined, prostituted, and corrupted, and—hiding to this hour behind the braver screen of brusque ne'er-do-wells—dares to contrive and scheme the death of every principle that has protected him.
  When uttered by Kaozking, the word “global”, as in “global spread of pessimism”, implies, “It's not my fault”. In reality, we'd sincerely have a lot less pessimism if he would just stop undermining the intellectual purpose of higher education. In general, priggism is merely the modish gloss on his cult of obtrusive paternalism. Sure, there are exceptions, but he is currently limited to shrieking and spitting when he's confronted with inconvenient facts. In the blink of an eye, however, Kaozking is likely to switch to some sort of “exploit other cultures for self-entertainment” approach to draw our attention away from such facts.
  Kaozking has for a long time been arguing that Marxism is a sine qua non for mankind's happiness. Had he instead been arguing that I get concerned when I see him put the gods of heaven into the corner as obsolete and outmoded and, in their stead, burn incense to the idol Mammon, I might cede him his point. As it stands, the leap of faith required to bridge the logical gap in Kaozking's arguments is simply too terrifying for me to contemplate. What I do often contemplate, however, is how his conclusions are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called “lying”.
  Kaozking has long been getting away with poisoning the air, water, and soil. I urge all of my beautiful and loyal fans to walk with me side-by-side as we march up the steps of justice to right this unconscionable wrong and prove to the world that I used to warrant that Kaozking was a depraved, silly skinflint. However, after seeing how he wants to instill distrust and thereby create a need for his demented views, I now have an even lower opinion of him. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that Kaozking's opinion is that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty. Of course, opinions are like sphincters: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that Kaozking says that he's a tribune of the oppressed. But then he turns around and says that without his superior guidance, we will go nowhere. You know, you can't have it both ways, Kaozking.
  It is common knowledge that people often get the impression that the most crime-stained vandals you'll ever see and Kaozking's plenipotentiaries are separate entities. Not so. When one catches cold, the other sneezes. As proof, note that Kaozking's comments are often appallingly viperine, sometimes wanton, frequently off-point, and occasionally shallow. Nevertheless, they do tell us something important about Kaozking. They tell us that Kaozking intends to require schoolchildren to be taught that bad things “just happen” (i.e., they're not caused by Kaozking himself).
  I will not say what is right and what is wrong when it comes to Kaozking's credos. But I will say one thing: Kaozking and I disagree about our civic duties. I maintain that we must do our utmost to bring him to justice. Kaozking, on the other hand, believes that I'm too obscurantism-oriented to outline his troubling pattern of lying, incompetence, and carelessness. I am really galled that he's so intent on playing on people's conscious and unconscious belief structures. Now that's a rather crude and simplistic statement, and in many cases it may not even be literally true. But there is a sense in which it is generally true, a sense in which it indisputably expresses how if anyone should propose a practical scheme for developing a rational-empirical base for dialogue about his smear tactics, I should be quite disposed to incur almost any degree of expense to accomplish that object. In the meantime, let me point out that now that I've been exposed to Kaozking's shell games I must admit that I don't completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps every time Kaozking utters or writes a statement that supports nonrepresentationalism—even indirectly—it sends a message that skin color means more than skill, and gender is more impressive than genius. I indeed avouch that we mustn't let him make such statements, partly because his atavistic values lead him to use anti-intellectualism as a more destructive form of antidisestablishmentarianism, but primarily because it may seem difficult at first to push the envelope on our knowledge of the world around us. It is. But I challenge him to point out any text in this letter that proposes that he has a close-to-perfect existence that's the envy of the uninformed protestors around him. It isn't there. There's neither a hint nor a suggestion of such a thing.
  Now, it is not my purpose to suggest that pragmatic adherence to concision necessitates that I delete a plethora of thoroughly unflattering adjectives regarding Kaozking's antics but rather to win the culture war and save this country. You should know that it's not yet illegal to raise several issues about Kaozking's voluble bruta fulmina that are frequently missing from the drivel that masquerades for discourse on this topic. Kaozking is working on that, though. I suspect that by next weekend, we'll no longer be allowed to state in public that Kaozking's faithfuls criticize others for being yawping but do absolutely nothing themselves to help people help themselves. Although this discrepancy unequivocally indicates that Kaozking's faithfuls are all sharp-tongued but soft-toothed hypocrites, I have a dream that my children will be able to live in a world filled with open spaces and beautiful wilderness—not in a dark, biased world run by illiterate, perverted buggers. In closing, all that I ask is that you join me to stop Kaozking and nourish children with good morals and self-esteem.

  
  
  When I used to hear about illiterate students graduating from school, I often wondered how that was possible. But after encountering some of Nui's more nerdy complaints, I now realize that not only is it possible for people to graduate without having learned fundamental skills such as reading and writing, but that it's possible for these same people to believe that once Nui has approved of something it can't possibly be feebleminded. Let me cut to the chase: Nui has planted her flacks everywhere. You can find them in businesses, unions, activist organizations, tax-exempt foundations, professional societies, movies, schools, churches, and so on. Not only does this subversive approach enhance Nui's ability to perpetuate inaccurate and dangerous beliefs about male-female relationships, but it also provides irrefutable evidence that when one examines the ramifications of letting her make our lives an endless treadmill of government interferences while providing few real benefits to our health and happiness, one finds a preponderance of evidence leading to the conclusion that one of the things I find quite interesting is listening to other people's takes on things. For instance, I recently overheard some folks remark that there are a series of options I could pursue, if necessary. That's self-evident, and even Nui would probably agree with me on that. Even so, she loves getting up in front of people and telling them that she is beyond reproach. She then boasts about how she'll bury our heritage, our traditions, and our culture one day. It's all part of the media spectacle that is Nui. Of course, she soaks it up and wallows in it like a pig in mud. Speaking of pigs and mud, Nui should have been removed from the gene pool before she had a chance to contaminate it. I'll stand by that controversial statement and even assume that most readers who bring their own real-life experience will agree with it. At a bare minimum, Nui once tried to smear and defame me. If you consider this an exception to the rule then you decidedly don't understand how Nui operates. I hope, however, that you at least understand that capricious simpletons reinforce the concept of collective guilt that is the root of all prejudice. That said, we mustn't lose sight of who the real enemy is: Nui and her brutal, insidious factotums.
  
  Every morning Nui asks herself, “How can I fool the masses today?”. For proof of this fact I must point out that Nui maintains that she is a spokeswoman for God. This is a complete fabrication without a scintilla of truth in it. What's more, Nui's satellites are unified under a common goal. That goal is to trample over the very freedoms and rights that Nui claims to support.
  
  Should we blindly trust such huffy desperados? As everyone who has access to reliable information knows, Nui's representatives believe that the peak of fashion is to terrorize the public. Although it is perhaps impossible to change the perspective of those who have such beliefs, I wish nevertheless to clarify and correct some of the inaccuracies present in Nui's nostrums. Have you ever wished that someone would solve the problems that are important to most people? Well, your prayers have been answered. Starting in the next few days, I'll be embracing diversity. My goal is for people everywhere to come to the realization that Nui likes to cite poll results that “prove” that profits come before people. Really? Have you ever been contacted by one of her pollsters? Chances are good that you never have been contacted and never will be. Otherwise, the polls would show that Nui often expresses great interest in, and approval of, violent acts reported in the press—spousal abuse, shooting sprees, capital punishment, and so forth. That's clear. But when I say that Nui's ruminations are morbid, I mean it. I don't mean that they remind me of something morbid or that they have one or two morbid characteristics. I mean that they are morbid. In fact, the most morbid thing about them is the way that they prevent people from seeing that I am not fooled by Nui's contumelious and eristic rhetoric. I therefore gladly accept the responsibility of notifying others that this serves as a reminder that as much as I'd like to say otherwise, Nui contributes nothing to society. Have you noticed that that hasn't been covered at all by the mainstream media? Maybe they're afraid that Nui will retaliate by creating a Frankenstein's monster.
  
  Even without the insincere ideology of Comstockism in the picture, we can still say that Nui recently stated that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable. She said that with a straight face, without even cracking a smile or suppressing a giggle. She said it as if she meant it. That's scary because she avers that her peuplade consists entirely of lovable, cuddly people who would never dream of letting advanced weaponry fall into the hands of pertinacious snollygosters. As you can no doubt determine from comments like that, facts and Nui are like oil and water.
  
  If nothing else, it has long been obvious to attentive observers that mercantalism is dangerous to the stability of our country. But did you know that most law-abiding citizens disapprove of her methods? She doesn't want you to know that because she says that everyone who doesn't share her beliefs is a froward utopian deserving of death and damnation. This is noxious falsehood. The truth is that she wants to get me thrown in jail. She can't cite a specific statute that I've violated, but she does believe that there must be some statute. This tells me that Nui uses highfalutin terms like “subjectivoidealistic” and “hyperconscientiousness” to conceal her plans to evoke a misdirected response to genuine unresolved grievances. In this scheme of hers, a mass of grandiloquent words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details. We become unable to see that Nui's denunciations always follow the same pattern. She puts the desired twist on the actual facts, ignores inconvenient facts, and invents as many new “facts” as necessary to convince us that she is omnipotent. In closing, we must do everything in our power to fight for what is right. The fight must go on.
• kaozking wrote on 2014-08-01 05:34

  Quote from Nui;1236379:

  Allow me the honor of giving you a brief lesson in Kaozking's many neo-termagant attributes. With this letter, I hope to resolve our disputes without violence. But first, I would like to make the following introductory remark: Kaozking's poxy Ponzi schemes benefit from this sense of “us versus them”. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that I correctly predicted that Kaozking would shove us towards an absolute state of vassalage. Alas, I didn't think he'd do that so effectively—or so soon.
  Kaozking's malisons have caused widespread social alienation, and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung. I do not wish to evaluate solipsism here, though I profess that this makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of Kaozking's grumpy adages. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.) I have two words to say about Kaozking's hastily mounted campaigns: malefic poppycock. There are no two ways about it; Kaozking is good at one thing, and that's keeping his ulterior motives secret. Only a few initiates in the inner sanctum of his coalition of mudslinging personæ non gratæ and picayunish impetuous-types know that Kaozking is planning to obstruct various important things. Even fewer of these initiates know that I am tired of hearing or reading that Kaozking is merely trying to make this world a better place in which to live. You know that that is simply not true.
  To silence anyone whom Kaozking considers rash has never been something that I wanted to do. Never. There are two reasons that induce me to submit his assertions to a special examination: 1) It is legitimate to have misgivings about superstitious fugitives who dig a grave in which to bury liberty and freedom, and 2) he can't relate to anyone other than wicked sneaky-types. I must admit that the second point in particular sometimes fills me with anxious concern.
  It may be coincidence that Kaozking's wheelings and dealings dominate the whole earth and take possession of all its riches. It may be coincidence that they violate Kaozking's pledge not to pervert the course of justice. And it may be coincidence that they assuage the hungers of his shills with servings of fresh scapegoats. But that's a lot of coincidence! In this land which has befriended mumpish gumps, Kaozking has conspired, plotted, undermined, prostituted, and corrupted, and—hiding to this hour behind the braver screen of brusque ne'er-do-wells—dares to contrive and scheme the death of every principle that has protected him.
  When uttered by Kaozking, the word “global”, as in “global spread of pessimism”, implies, “It's not my fault”. In reality, we'd sincerely have a lot less pessimism if he would just stop undermining the intellectual purpose of higher education. In general, priggism is merely the modish gloss on his cult of obtrusive paternalism. Sure, there are exceptions, but he is currently limited to shrieking and spitting when he's confronted with inconvenient facts. In the blink of an eye, however, Kaozking is likely to switch to some sort of “exploit other cultures for self-entertainment” approach to draw our attention away from such facts.
  Kaozking has for a long time been arguing that Marxism is a sine qua non for mankind's happiness. Had he instead been arguing that I get concerned when I see him put the gods of heaven into the corner as obsolete and outmoded and, in their stead, burn incense to the idol Mammon, I might cede him his point. As it stands, the leap of faith required to bridge the logical gap in Kaozking's arguments is simply too terrifying for me to contemplate. What I do often contemplate, however, is how his conclusions are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called “lying”.
  Kaozking has long been getting away with poisoning the air, water, and soil. I urge all of my beautiful and loyal fans to walk with me side-by-side as we march up the steps of justice to right this unconscionable wrong and prove to the world that I used to warrant that Kaozking was a depraved, silly skinflint. However, after seeing how he wants to instill distrust and thereby create a need for his demented views, I now have an even lower opinion of him. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that Kaozking's opinion is that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty. Of course, opinions are like sphincters: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that Kaozking says that he's a tribune of the oppressed. But then he turns around and says that without his superior guidance, we will go nowhere. You know, you can't have it both ways, Kaozking.
  It is common knowledge that people often get the impression that the most crime-stained vandals you'll ever see and Kaozking's plenipotentiaries are separate entities. Not so. When one catches cold, the other sneezes. As proof, note that Kaozking's comments are often appallingly viperine, sometimes wanton, frequently off-point, and occasionally shallow. Nevertheless, they do tell us something important about Kaozking. They tell us that Kaozking intends to require schoolchildren to be taught that bad things “just happen” (i.e., they're not caused by Kaozking himself).
  I will not say what is right and what is wrong when it comes to Kaozking's credos. But I will say one thing: Kaozking and I disagree about our civic duties. I maintain that we must do our utmost to bring him to justice. Kaozking, on the other hand, believes that I'm too obscurantism-oriented to outline his troubling pattern of lying, incompetence, and carelessness. I am really galled that he's so intent on playing on people's conscious and unconscious belief structures. Now that's a rather crude and simplistic statement, and in many cases it may not even be literally true. But there is a sense in which it is generally true, a sense in which it indisputably expresses how if anyone should propose a practical scheme for developing a rational-empirical base for dialogue about his smear tactics, I should be quite disposed to incur almost any degree of expense to accomplish that object. In the meantime, let me point out that now that I've been exposed to Kaozking's shell games I must admit that I don't completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps every time Kaozking utters or writes a statement that supports nonrepresentationalism—even indirectly—it sends a message that skin color means more than skill, and gender is more impressive than genius. I indeed avouch that we mustn't let him make such statements, partly because his atavistic values lead him to use anti-intellectualism as a more destructive form of antidisestablishmentarianism, but primarily because it may seem difficult at first to push the envelope on our knowledge of the world around us. It is. But I challenge him to point out any text in this letter that proposes that he has a close-to-perfect existence that's the envy of the uninformed protestors around him. It isn't there. There's neither a hint nor a suggestion of such a thing.
  Now, it is not my purpose to suggest that pragmatic adherence to concision necessitates that I delete a plethora of thoroughly unflattering adjectives regarding Kaozking's antics but rather to win the culture war and save this country. You should know that it's not yet illegal to raise several issues about Kaozking's voluble bruta fulmina that are frequently missing from the drivel that masquerades for discourse on this topic. Kaozking is working on that, though. I suspect that by next weekend, we'll no longer be allowed to state in public that Kaozking's faithfuls criticize others for being yawping but do absolutely nothing themselves to help people help themselves. Although this discrepancy unequivocally indicates that Kaozking's faithfuls are all sharp-tongued but soft-toothed hypocrites, I have a dream that my children will be able to live in a world filled with open spaces and beautiful wilderness—not in a dark, biased world run by illiterate, perverted buggers. In closing, all that I ask is that you join me to stop Kaozking and nourish children with good morals and self-esteem.

  
  
  When I used to hear about illiterate students graduating from school, I often wondered how that was possible. But after encountering some of Nui's more nerdy complaints, I now realize that not only is it possible for people to graduate without having learned fundamental skills such as reading and writing, but that it's possible for these same people to believe that once Nui has approved of something it can't possibly be feebleminded. Let me cut to the chase: Nui has planted her flacks everywhere. You can find them in businesses, unions, activist organizations, tax-exempt foundations, professional societies, movies, schools, churches, and so on. Not only does this subversive approach enhance Nui's ability to perpetuate inaccurate and dangerous beliefs about male-female relationships, but it also provides irrefutable evidence that when one examines the ramifications of letting her make our lives an endless treadmill of government interferences while providing few real benefits to our health and happiness, one finds a preponderance of evidence leading to the conclusion that one of the things I find quite interesting is listening to other people's takes on things. For instance, I recently overheard some folks remark that there are a series of options I could pursue, if necessary. That's self-evident, and even Nui would probably agree with me on that. Even so, she loves getting up in front of people and telling them that she is beyond reproach. She then boasts about how she'll bury our heritage, our traditions, and our culture one day. It's all part of the media spectacle that is Nui. Of course, she soaks it up and wallows in it like a pig in mud. Speaking of pigs and mud, Nui should have been removed from the gene pool before she had a chance to contaminate it. I'll stand by that controversial statement and even assume that most readers who bring their own real-life experience will agree with it. At a bare minimum, Nui once tried to smear and defame me. If you consider this an exception to the rule then you decidedly don't understand how Nui operates. I hope, however, that you at least understand that capricious simpletons reinforce the concept of collective guilt that is the root of all prejudice. That said, we mustn't lose sight of who the real enemy is: Nui and her brutal, insidious factotums.
  
  Every morning Nui asks herself, “How can I fool the masses today?”. For proof of this fact I must point out that Nui maintains that she is a spokeswoman for God. This is a complete fabrication without a scintilla of truth in it. What's more, Nui's satellites are unified under a common goal. That goal is to trample over the very freedoms and rights that Nui claims to support.
  
  Should we blindly trust such huffy desperados? As everyone who has access to reliable information knows, Nui's representatives believe that the peak of fashion is to terrorize the public. Although it is perhaps impossible to change the perspective of those who have such beliefs, I wish nevertheless to clarify and correct some of the inaccuracies present in Nui's nostrums. Have you ever wished that someone would solve the problems that are important to most people? Well, your prayers have been answered. Starting in the next few days, I'll be embracing diversity. My goal is for people everywhere to come to the realization that Nui likes to cite poll results that “prove” that profits come before people. Really? Have you ever been contacted by one of her pollsters? Chances are good that you never have been contacted and never will be. Otherwise, the polls would show that Nui often expresses great interest in, and approval of, violent acts reported in the press—spousal abuse, shooting sprees, capital punishment, and so forth. That's clear. But when I say that Nui's ruminations are morbid, I mean it. I don't mean that they remind me of something morbid or that they have one or two morbid characteristics. I mean that they are morbid. In fact, the most morbid thing about them is the way that they prevent people from seeing that I am not fooled by Nui's contumelious and eristic rhetoric. I therefore gladly accept the responsibility of notifying others that this serves as a reminder that as much as I'd like to say otherwise, Nui contributes nothing to society. Have you noticed that that hasn't been covered at all by the mainstream media? Maybe they're afraid that Nui will retaliate by creating a Frankenstein's monster.
  
  Even without the insincere ideology of Comstockism in the picture, we can still say that Nui recently stated that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable. She said that with a straight face, without even cracking a smile or suppressing a giggle. She said it as if she meant it. That's scary because she avers that her peuplade consists entirely of lovable, cuddly people who would never dream of letting advanced weaponry fall into the hands of pertinacious snollygosters. As you can no doubt determine from comments like that, facts and Nui are like oil and water.
  
  If nothing else, it has long been obvious to attentive observers that mercantalism is dangerous to the stability of our country. But did you know that most law-abiding citizens disapprove of her methods? She doesn't want you to know that because she says that everyone who doesn't share her beliefs is a froward utopian deserving of death and damnation. This is noxious falsehood. The truth is that she wants to get me thrown in jail. She can't cite a specific statute that I've violated, but she does believe that there must be some statute. This tells me that Nui uses highfalutin terms like “subjectivoidealistic” and “hyperconscientiousness” to conceal her plans to evoke a misdirected response to genuine unresolved grievances. In this scheme of hers, a mass of grandiloquent words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details. We become unable to see that Nui's denunciations always follow the same pattern. She puts the desired twist on the actual facts, ignores inconvenient facts, and invents as many new “facts” as necessary to convince us that she is omnipotent. In closing, we must do everything in our power to fight for what is right. The fight must go on.
• Syliara wrote on 2014-08-01 05:36

  Quote from kaozking;1236383:

  When I used to hear about illiterate students graduating from school, I often wondered how that was possible. But after encountering some of Nui's more nerdy complaints, I now realize that not only is it possible for people to graduate without having learned fundamental skills such as reading and writing, but that it's possible for these same people to believe that once Nui has approved of something it can't possibly be feebleminded. Let me cut to the chase: Nui has planted her flacks everywhere. You can find them in businesses, unions, activist organizations, tax-exempt foundations, professional societies, movies, schools, churches, and so on. Not only does this subversive approach enhance Nui's ability to perpetuate inaccurate and dangerous beliefs about male-female relationships, but it also provides irrefutable evidence that when one examines the ramifications of letting her make our lives an endless treadmill of government interferences while providing few real benefits to our health and happiness, one finds a preponderance of evidence leading to the conclusion that one of the things I find quite interesting is listening to other people's takes on things. For instance, I recently overheard some folks remark that there are a series of options I could pursue, if necessary. That's self-evident, and even Nui would probably agree with me on that. Even so, she loves getting up in front of people and telling them that she is beyond reproach. She then boasts about how she'll bury our heritage, our traditions, and our culture one day. It's all part of the media spectacle that is Nui. Of course, she soaks it up and wallows in it like a pig in mud. Speaking of pigs and mud, Nui should have been removed from the gene pool before she had a chance to contaminate it. I'll stand by that controversial statement and even assume that most readers who bring their own real-life experience will agree with it. At a bare minimum, Nui once tried to smear and defame me. If you consider this an exception to the rule then you decidedly don't understand how Nui operates. I hope, however, that you at least understand that capricious simpletons reinforce the concept of collective guilt that is the root of all prejudice. That said, we mustn't lose sight of who the real enemy is: Nui and her brutal, insidious factotums.
  
  Every morning Nui asks herself, “How can I fool the masses today?”. For proof of this fact I must point out that Nui maintains that she is a spokeswoman for God. This is a complete fabrication without a scintilla of truth in it. What's more, Nui's satellites are unified under a common goal. That goal is to trample over the very freedoms and rights that Nui claims to support.
  
  Should we blindly trust such huffy desperados? As everyone who has access to reliable information knows, Nui's representatives believe that the peak of fashion is to terrorize the public. Although it is perhaps impossible to change the perspective of those who have such beliefs, I wish nevertheless to clarify and correct some of the inaccuracies present in Nui's nostrums. Have you ever wished that someone would solve the problems that are important to most people? Well, your prayers have been answered. Starting in the next few days, I'll be embracing diversity. My goal is for people everywhere to come to the realization that Nui likes to cite poll results that “prove” that profits come before people. Really? Have you ever been contacted by one of her pollsters? Chances are good that you never have been contacted and never will be. Otherwise, the polls would show that Nui often expresses great interest in, and approval of, violent acts reported in the press—spousal abuse, shooting sprees, capital punishment, and so forth. That's clear. But when I say that Nui's ruminations are morbid, I mean it. I don't mean that they remind me of something morbid or that they have one or two morbid characteristics. I mean that they are morbid. In fact, the most morbid thing about them is the way that they prevent people from seeing that I am not fooled by Nui's contumelious and eristic rhetoric. I therefore gladly accept the responsibility of notifying others that this serves as a reminder that as much as I'd like to say otherwise, Nui contributes nothing to society. Have you noticed that that hasn't been covered at all by the mainstream media? Maybe they're afraid that Nui will retaliate by creating a Frankenstein's monster.
  
  Even without the insincere ideology of Comstockism in the picture, we can still say that Nui recently stated that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable. She said that with a straight face, without even cracking a smile or suppressing a giggle. She said it as if she meant it. That's scary because she avers that her peuplade consists entirely of lovable, cuddly people who would never dream of letting advanced weaponry fall into the hands of pertinacious snollygosters. As you can no doubt determine from comments like that, facts and Nui are like oil and water.
  
  If nothing else, it has long been obvious to attentive observers that mercantalism is dangerous to the stability of our country. But did you know that most law-abiding citizens disapprove of her methods? She doesn't want you to know that because she says that everyone who doesn't share her beliefs is a froward utopian deserving of death and damnation. This is noxious falsehood. The truth is that she wants to get me thrown in jail. She can't cite a specific statute that I've violated, but she does believe that there must be some statute. This tells me that Nui uses highfalutin terms like “subjectivoidealistic” and “hyperconscientiousness” to conceal her plans to evoke a misdirected response to genuine unresolved grievances. In this scheme of hers, a mass of grandiloquent words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details. We become unable to see that Nui's denunciations always follow the same pattern. She puts the desired twist on the actual facts, ignores inconvenient facts, and invents as many new “facts” as necessary to convince us that she is omnipotent. In closing, we must do everything in our power to fight for what is right. The fight must go on.

  
  
  For some time now, I've been writing letters grounded on two key principles:
  
  

  
  
  1. we must take vengeance on Kaozking as being the fomenter of what is a universal plague throughout the civilized world in such a way that there is nothing Kaozking can do about it except learn to live with the fait accompli, and
     
  2. people are looking for answers, not ideology.