Good thing you can copy and paste. You don't know the definitions of all those words much less how to spell them properly! I've seen that site before. It's funny.Snake Blackgaard wrote:May I be cynical for a bit? I hope you don't mind, but with Pepper Doyle's latest barrage of disrespectful ravings, I can't resist the urge to make a few cynical comments. First and foremost, we've tolerated Pepper Doyle's backwards, brutish Ponzi schemes long enough. It's time to lose our patience and chill our kindness. It's time to go placidly amid the noise and haste. It's time to shout to the world that if one could get a Ph.D. in Cannibalism, she would be the first in line to have one.
Pepper Doyle keeps telling everyone within earshot that anyone who disagrees with her is ultimately pugnacious. I'm guessing that Pepper Doyle read that on some web site of dubious validity. More reliable sources generally indicate that she wants to present a false image to the world by hiding unpleasant but vitally important realities about her long-term goals. Faugh.
Her beliefs are controverted, however, by the weight of the evidence indicating that Pepper Doyle is right about one thing, namely that fear is what motivates us. Fear of what it means when brainless, insidious moral weaklings rewrite and reword much of humanity's formative works to favor revanchism. Fear of what it says about our society when we teach our children that the ideas of "freedom" and "imperialism" are Siamese twins. And fear of materialistic knuckle-draggers like Pepper Doyle who defend totalitarianism, Maoism, and notions of racial superiority. Those who believe that she has the mandate of Heaven to harm others, or even instill the fear of harm, are either naive or deliberately misled.
But it goes further than that; I have absolutely no idea why she makes such a big fuss over feudalism. There are far more pressing issues that present themselves and that should be discussed, debated, and solved -- issues such as war, famine, poverty, and homelessness. There is also the lesser issue that jealous libertines serve as the priests in Pepper Doyle's cult of unbridled autism. These "priests" spend their days basking in Pepper Doyle's reflected glory, pausing only when Pepper Doyle instructs them to use our weaknesses to her advantage. What could be more inconsiderate? She doesn't want you to know the answer to that question; she wants to ensure you don't bring her to justice. In order to understand the motivation behind Pepper Doyle's bons mots, it is important first to snap Pepper Doyle's loyalists out of their trance.
This is no laughing matter, don't you think? Pepper Doyle subordinates rationality in decision making. There's really no other conclusion you can reach. Even by Pepper Doyle's own account, if we look beyond her delusions of grandeur, we see that if Pepper Doyle is victorious in her quest to fill our children's minds with unsympathetic and debasing superstitions, then her crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. It is easy for the public at large to dismiss the most treacherous casuists you'll ever see as bestial malcontents. All in all, I realize that this post has seemed incredibly bleak. However, expecting the worst from Pepper Doyle means we will never be disappointed. If we're wrong and she does not try to open the floodgates of irreligionism, we'll be relieved. If we're right and she does, we'll be prepared
Jared and Amadeo's Complaints
Fear our vernacular supenditpidy!
-
Jennifer Doyle
- An original
- Posts: 6292
- Joined: May 2005
- Location: Doyle Manor, Odyssey
- Contact:
“God grant me the courage not to give up what I think is right even though I think it is hopeless.” Chester W. Nimitz
-
Eugene Blackgaard
- Amadeo killed me!
- Posts: 5337
- Joined: April 2005
- Location: The Place to Be.
- Contact:
-
NatetheGreat
- Got Pancakes?
- Posts: 4445
- Joined: June 2005
- Contact:
The went here: http://www.pakin.org/complaint/mr.whit wrote:Could someone sum up what everyone said?
As far as I can tell... it's computer-generated nonsense in the form of English sentences.
"Sonuna" Taranimak ("Sonuna" Sharkquill) has been content lately. She admired own very fine Bed recently. She talked with a parent recently. She talked with a friend recently. She had a good meal recently. She admired a fine tastefully-arranged Desk recently.
She is a citizen of The United States of America. She is a member of The State of Minnesota. She is a member of The Town of Odyssey.
"Sonuna" Taranimak likes Bauxite, Copper, Green jade, the color navy, cloaks, ballistas, cats for their aloofness and hydras for their seven heads. When possible, she prefers to consume Dr Pepper and ramen.
She lives at a relaxed pace. She tends to avoid crowds. She has a fertile imagination. She is completely disorganized. She is very distant and reserved. She tends not to openly express emotions. She needs caffeine to get through the working day.
She is a citizen of The United States of America. She is a member of The State of Minnesota. She is a member of The Town of Odyssey.
"Sonuna" Taranimak likes Bauxite, Copper, Green jade, the color navy, cloaks, ballistas, cats for their aloofness and hydras for their seven heads. When possible, she prefers to consume Dr Pepper and ramen.
She lives at a relaxed pace. She tends to avoid crowds. She has a fertile imagination. She is completely disorganized. She is very distant and reserved. She tends not to openly express emotions. She needs caffeine to get through the working day.
-
NatetheGreat
- Got Pancakes?
- Posts: 4445
- Joined: June 2005
- Contact:
-
Azariah Ben Yaakov
- 100% Kosher
- Posts: 5746
- Joined: January 2006
- Location: Chillin. Probably sniffing your connection for passwords \:D/
- Contact:
In this letter, I will try to describe Amadeo's contrivances in such a way that my language will not offend and yet will still convey my message that the underlying reasons and causes for Amadeo's wicked protests must be defined, examined, and resolved, or they'll never cease. It may help if I begin my discussion by relating an innocuous story in order to illustrate my point: A few days ago I was arguing with a particularly dim-witted, ignominious despot who was insisting that unsympathetic, jackbooted practitioners of alcoholism aren't ever callous. I tried to convince this dysfunctional beggar that by brainwashing its dupes with barbarism, Amadeo makes them easy to lead, easy to program, and easy to enslave. I'll repeat what I've already said: I want to see all of us working together to lift the fog from Amadeo's thinking. Yes, this is an idealistic approach to actualizing our restorative goals. Nevertheless, you should realize that Amadeo is interpersonally exploitative. That is, it takes advantage of others to achieve its own deluded ends. Why does it do that? Although I haven't yet been able to concoct an acceptable answer to that question, I can suggest a tentative hypothesis. My hypothesis is that it is more concerned with the social acceptability of an idea than with its truth or falsity. Period, finis, and Q.E.D. I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that myopic Luddites with stronger voices than minds would revert to mingy behavior. But Amadeo's shills are quick to point out that because Amadeo is hated, persecuted, and repeatedly laughed at, it is the real victim here. The truth is that, if anything, Amadeo is a victim of its own success -- a success that enables Amadeo to blend together heathenism and negativism in a train wreck of monumental proportions. Amadeo has a problem not only with civil rights but also with the legal responsibility and accountability as to what is considered appropriate behavior. You might assert I'm telling you this because I like to beat up on Amadeo. Really, that isn't my principal reason. I don't especially need to beat up on it, because it is already despised by decent and knowledgeable people almost everywhere.
It may sound strange to Amadeo when I say that I'm not saying anything you don't already know about, but Amadeo will probably never understand why it scares me so much. And it does scare me: Its ploys are scary, its statements are scary, and most of all, if it can't stand the heat, it should get out of the kitchen. When you least expect it, Amadeo might be diagnosed with a special type of mental illness that is not yet recognized. But for now, be aware that it will not be easy to provide a positive, confident, and assertive vision of humanity's future and our role in it. Nevertheless, we must attempt to do exactly that, for the overriding reason that I appreciate feedback and other people's views on subjects. I don't, however, appreciate feedback when it's given in an unprofessional manner. Armed only with a white shirt, pocket protector, slide rule, thick glasses, and some other neat stuff, I have determined that every time Amadeo gets caught trying to equip inaniloquent barmpots with flame throwers, hand grenades, and heat-seeking missiles, it promises it'll never do so again. Subsequently, its sympathizers always jump in and explain that it really shouldn't be blamed even if it does, because, as they think, a knowledge of correct diction, even if unused, evinces a superiority that covers cowardice or stupidity. It's really astounding that Amadeo has found a way to work the words "unproportionableness" and "interdestructiveness" into its grievances. However, you may find it even more astounding that it contends that the boogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to its demands. Sounds rather mealymouthed, doesn't it? Well, that's Amadeo for you.
The key point here is that I feel no more personal hatred for Amadeo than I might feel for a herd of wild animals or a cluster of poisonous reptiles. One does not hate those whose souls can exude no spiritual warmth; one pities them. One of the goals of narcissism is to render meaningless the words "best" and "worst". Amadeo admires that philosophy because, by annihilating human perceptions of quality, Amadeo's own mediocrity can flourish. To restate the obvious: Two-faced busybodies all over the country are now having an absolute field day with their new-found freedoms supposedly granted by Amadeo's vaporings. That's self-evident, and even Amadeo would probably agree with me on that. Even so, metagrobolism has served as the justification for the butchering, torture, and enslavement of more people than any other "ism". That's why it's Amadeo's favorite; it makes it easy for it to inspire a recrudescence of wanton fatuity. Viewed from all angles, I indubitably hope that the truth will prevail and that justice will be served before Amadeo does any real damage. Or is it already too late? I, speaking as someone who is not a mawkish nincompoop, would venture the answer has something to do with libertinism. To elaborate, we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Amadeo's squalid histrionics, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to purge the darkness from its heart.)
As a general rule, anyone who has spent much time wading through the pious, obscurantist, jargon-filled cant that now passes for "advanced" thought in the humanities already knows that Amadeo's diatribes have been a millstone around our neck for quite some time. What may be news, however, is that it likes double standards that create division in the name of diversity. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that it wonders why everyone hates it. Apparently, it never stopped to think that maybe it's because if I wanted to brainwash and manipulate a large segment of the population, I would convince them that Amadeo has its moral compass in tact. In fact, that's exactly what Amadeo does as part of its quest to transform our little community into a global crucible of terror and gore. Amadeo wants all of us to believe that we ought to worship ridiculous renegades as folk heroes. That's why it sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media. Next time, Amadeo, you may want to check your facts correctly. It's easy enough to hate Amadeo any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that Amadeo is up to, things that ought to make a real Amadeo-hater out of you. First off, it should learn to appreciate what it has instead of feeling so oppressed because it can't do everything it wants, every time it wants to. Ask yourself: Is there anything that Amadeo can't make its peons believe? I bet you'll answer the same way that I did, because we both know that knowledge is the key that unlocks the shackles of bondage. That's why it's important for you to know that if I were elected Ruler of the World, my first act of business would be to keep our courage up. I would further use my position to inform certain segments of the Earth's population that I have begged Amadeo's proxies to step forth and think outside the box. To date, not a single soul has agreed to help in this fashion. Are they worried about how Amadeo might retaliate? Any honest person who takes the time to think about that question will be forced to conclude that if we treat the disease, not the symptoms, then the sea of unilateralism, on which Amadeo so heavily relies, will begin to dry up.
After reading everything I could find on this subject, I was forced to conclude that one of Amadeo's favorite tricks is to create a problem and then to offer the solution. Naturally, it's always its solutions that grant it the freedom to overthrow all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and the good, and instead drag people down into the sphere of its own base nature, never the original problem. I have a New Year's resolution for Amadeo: It should pick up a book before it jumps to the lecherous conclusion that its way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't. Amadeo, please spare us the angst of living in a fallen world. I will not say what is right and what is wrong when it comes to Amadeo's expositions. But I will say one thing: I have no idea why Amadeo makes such a big fuss over Pyrrhonism. There are far more pressing issues that present themselves and that should be discussed, debated, and solved -- issues such as war, famine, poverty, and homelessness. There is also the lesser issue that we should not concern ourselves with Amadeo's putative virtue or vice. Rather, we should concern ourselves with our own welfare and with the fact that I plan to ring the bells of truth. Are you with me -- or against me? Whatever you decide, if we can understand what has caused the current plague of nugatory spoiled brats, I believe that we can then build an inclusive, nondiscriminatory movement for social and political change.
Although it's easy to sit in the press box and criticize, Amadeo maintains that the most valuable skill one can have is to be able to lie convincingly. Perhaps it would be best for it to awaken from its delusional narcoleptic fantasyland and observe that it presents itself as a disinterested classicist lamenting the infusion of politically motivated methods of pedagogy and analysis into higher education. Amadeo is eloquent in its denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors the most inane big-mouths you'll ever see. And here we have the ultimate irony, because I should note that Amadeo is dead set on defending its position against what I have to say, regardless of what I have to say. I mean, think about it. Amadeo is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to it whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Amadeo is jujuism. Why? Well, I'm sure Amadeo would rather elevate parasitic gits to the sublime than answer that particular question.
Is there a way to counter Amadeo's unbalanced effusions? Oh yes, there is a way. It's really quite simple and can be done by any individual. It doesn't cost a thing, monetarily. It requires only time, diligence, and a desire to tell Amadeo how wrong it is. I feel no shame in writing that Amadeo bickers and argues over petty things. Do I blame society for this? No, I blame Amadeo.
Amadeo's propaganda machine once said that Amadeo would never establish tacit boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum of opinion. So much for credibility! If Amadeo succeeds in its attempt to have a serious destabilizing effect on our institutions, it'll have to be over my dead body. When I first became aware of Amadeo's covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how Amadeo is trying to take the focus off the real issues. Their mission? To exhibit a deep disdain for all people who are not disruptive, pernicious New Age jabberers. Amadeo's like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Pull back the curtain of materialism and you'll see a confused, fatuitous vermin hiding behind it, furiously pulling the levers of solecism in a gin-swilling attempt to further political and social goals wholly or in part through activities that involve force or violence and a violation of criminal law. That sort of discovery should make any sane person realize that if we are to increase awareness and understanding of our similarities and differences, then we must be guided by a healthy and progressive ideology, not by the mean-spirited and naive ideologies that Amadeo promotes.
The interesting point is this: Amadeo recently stated that we're supposed to shut up and smile when it says debauched things. It said that with a straight face, without even cracking a smile or suppressing a giggle. It said it as if it meant it. That's scary, because there's a time to keep silent and a time to speak. There's a time to love and a time to hate. There's a time for war and a time for peace. And, I suspect, there's a time to rise to the challenge of thwarting Amadeo's adversarial plans. Or, to put it less poetically, Amadeo sees no reason why it shouldn't wipe out delicate ecosystems. 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 Amadeo's purblind opuscula can be quite educational. By studying them, students can observe firsthand the consequences of having an organization consumed with paranoia, fear, hatred, and ignorance. It is easy for the public at large to dismiss yawping hermits as insecure, self-pitying clunks. Amadeo's planning to exploit issues such as the global economic crisis and the increase in world terrorism in order to instigate planet-wide chaos. Planet-wide chaos is its gateway to global tyranny, which will in turn enable it to obliterate our sense of identity. It is my personal opinion, based on years of observation, that Amadeo's secret agents believe that without Amadeo's superior guidance, we will go nowhere. It should not be surprising that they believe this, however. As we all know, minds that have been so maimed that they believe that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty can believe anything, especially if it's false. Perhaps it sounds like stating the obvious to say that if Amadeo thinks that it is cunctipotent, then it's sadly mistaken.
In plain, simple-to-understand English, we must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that Amadeo will discredit legitimate voices in the Maoism debate. And to overcome these fears, we must indicate in a rough and approximate way the two hidebound tendencies that I believe are the main driving force of modern factionalism. I have a tendency to report the more sensational things that Amadeo is up to, the more shocking things, things like how it wants to devastate vast acres of precious farmland. And I realize the difficulty that the average person has in coming to grips with that, but one of its bedfellows keeps throwing "scientific" studies at me, claiming they prove that corporatism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society. The studies are full of "if"s, "possible"s, "maybe"s, and various exceptions and admissions of their limitations. This leaves the studies inconclusive at best and works of fiction at worst. The only thing these studies can possibly prove is that Amadeo is still going around insisting that censorship could benefit us. Jeez, I thought I had made it perfectly clear to it that if the only way to ensure that the values for which we have labored and for which many of us have fought and sacrificed will continue in ascendancy is for me to have an identity crisis, then so be it. It would honestly be worth it because Amadeo's underlings argue that it knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. These are the same callow, raving coprophagous-types who guarantee the destruction of anything that looks like a vital community. This is no coincidence; Amadeo's faithfuls claim that no one is smart enough to see through Amadeo's transparent lies. This is precisely the non-equation that Amadeo is trying to patch together. What it's missing, as usual, is that everybody is probably familiar with the cliche that according to the dictionary, "Amadeo-ism" is "any of a set of wisecracks that instill a subconscious feeling of guilt in those of us who disagree with Amadeo's undertakings". Well, there's a lot of truth in that cliche. Will I allow Amadeo to evade responsibility? As long as there is breath in my earthly body, I assure you I will not. What I will do, however, is inform as many people as possible that what I find frightening is that some academics actually believe Amadeo's line that diseases can be defeated not through standard medical research but through the creation of a new language, one that does not stigmatize certain groups and behaviors. In this case, "academics" refers to a stratum of the residual intelligentsia surviving the recession of its demotic base, not to those seekers of truth who understand that there are many roads leading to the defeat of Amadeo's plans to create a beachhead for organized totalitarianism. I definitely feel that all of these roads must eventually pass through the same set of gates: the ability to rouse people's indignation at Amadeo. In closing, all that I ask is that you join me to stop Amadeo and upbraid Amadeo for being so malignant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan
It may sound strange to Amadeo when I say that I'm not saying anything you don't already know about, but Amadeo will probably never understand why it scares me so much. And it does scare me: Its ploys are scary, its statements are scary, and most of all, if it can't stand the heat, it should get out of the kitchen. When you least expect it, Amadeo might be diagnosed with a special type of mental illness that is not yet recognized. But for now, be aware that it will not be easy to provide a positive, confident, and assertive vision of humanity's future and our role in it. Nevertheless, we must attempt to do exactly that, for the overriding reason that I appreciate feedback and other people's views on subjects. I don't, however, appreciate feedback when it's given in an unprofessional manner. Armed only with a white shirt, pocket protector, slide rule, thick glasses, and some other neat stuff, I have determined that every time Amadeo gets caught trying to equip inaniloquent barmpots with flame throwers, hand grenades, and heat-seeking missiles, it promises it'll never do so again. Subsequently, its sympathizers always jump in and explain that it really shouldn't be blamed even if it does, because, as they think, a knowledge of correct diction, even if unused, evinces a superiority that covers cowardice or stupidity. It's really astounding that Amadeo has found a way to work the words "unproportionableness" and "interdestructiveness" into its grievances. However, you may find it even more astounding that it contends that the boogeyman is going to get us if we don't agree to its demands. Sounds rather mealymouthed, doesn't it? Well, that's Amadeo for you.
The key point here is that I feel no more personal hatred for Amadeo than I might feel for a herd of wild animals or a cluster of poisonous reptiles. One does not hate those whose souls can exude no spiritual warmth; one pities them. One of the goals of narcissism is to render meaningless the words "best" and "worst". Amadeo admires that philosophy because, by annihilating human perceptions of quality, Amadeo's own mediocrity can flourish. To restate the obvious: Two-faced busybodies all over the country are now having an absolute field day with their new-found freedoms supposedly granted by Amadeo's vaporings. That's self-evident, and even Amadeo would probably agree with me on that. Even so, metagrobolism has served as the justification for the butchering, torture, and enslavement of more people than any other "ism". That's why it's Amadeo's favorite; it makes it easy for it to inspire a recrudescence of wanton fatuity. Viewed from all angles, I indubitably hope that the truth will prevail and that justice will be served before Amadeo does any real damage. Or is it already too late? I, speaking as someone who is not a mawkish nincompoop, would venture the answer has something to do with libertinism. To elaborate, we must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize Amadeo's squalid histrionics, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to purge the darkness from its heart.)
As a general rule, anyone who has spent much time wading through the pious, obscurantist, jargon-filled cant that now passes for "advanced" thought in the humanities already knows that Amadeo's diatribes have been a millstone around our neck for quite some time. What may be news, however, is that it likes double standards that create division in the name of diversity. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that it wonders why everyone hates it. Apparently, it never stopped to think that maybe it's because if I wanted to brainwash and manipulate a large segment of the population, I would convince them that Amadeo has its moral compass in tact. In fact, that's exactly what Amadeo does as part of its quest to transform our little community into a global crucible of terror and gore. Amadeo wants all of us to believe that we ought to worship ridiculous renegades as folk heroes. That's why it sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media. Next time, Amadeo, you may want to check your facts correctly. It's easy enough to hate Amadeo any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that Amadeo is up to, things that ought to make a real Amadeo-hater out of you. First off, it should learn to appreciate what it has instead of feeling so oppressed because it can't do everything it wants, every time it wants to. Ask yourself: Is there anything that Amadeo can't make its peons believe? I bet you'll answer the same way that I did, because we both know that knowledge is the key that unlocks the shackles of bondage. That's why it's important for you to know that if I were elected Ruler of the World, my first act of business would be to keep our courage up. I would further use my position to inform certain segments of the Earth's population that I have begged Amadeo's proxies to step forth and think outside the box. To date, not a single soul has agreed to help in this fashion. Are they worried about how Amadeo might retaliate? Any honest person who takes the time to think about that question will be forced to conclude that if we treat the disease, not the symptoms, then the sea of unilateralism, on which Amadeo so heavily relies, will begin to dry up.
After reading everything I could find on this subject, I was forced to conclude that one of Amadeo's favorite tricks is to create a problem and then to offer the solution. Naturally, it's always its solutions that grant it the freedom to overthrow all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and the good, and instead drag people down into the sphere of its own base nature, never the original problem. I have a New Year's resolution for Amadeo: It should pick up a book before it jumps to the lecherous conclusion that its way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't. Amadeo, please spare us the angst of living in a fallen world. I will not say what is right and what is wrong when it comes to Amadeo's expositions. But I will say one thing: I have no idea why Amadeo makes such a big fuss over Pyrrhonism. There are far more pressing issues that present themselves and that should be discussed, debated, and solved -- issues such as war, famine, poverty, and homelessness. There is also the lesser issue that we should not concern ourselves with Amadeo's putative virtue or vice. Rather, we should concern ourselves with our own welfare and with the fact that I plan to ring the bells of truth. Are you with me -- or against me? Whatever you decide, if we can understand what has caused the current plague of nugatory spoiled brats, I believe that we can then build an inclusive, nondiscriminatory movement for social and political change.
Although it's easy to sit in the press box and criticize, Amadeo maintains that the most valuable skill one can have is to be able to lie convincingly. Perhaps it would be best for it to awaken from its delusional narcoleptic fantasyland and observe that it presents itself as a disinterested classicist lamenting the infusion of politically motivated methods of pedagogy and analysis into higher education. Amadeo is eloquent in its denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors the most inane big-mouths you'll ever see. And here we have the ultimate irony, because I should note that Amadeo is dead set on defending its position against what I have to say, regardless of what I have to say. I mean, think about it. Amadeo is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to it whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Amadeo is jujuism. Why? Well, I'm sure Amadeo would rather elevate parasitic gits to the sublime than answer that particular question.
Is there a way to counter Amadeo's unbalanced effusions? Oh yes, there is a way. It's really quite simple and can be done by any individual. It doesn't cost a thing, monetarily. It requires only time, diligence, and a desire to tell Amadeo how wrong it is. I feel no shame in writing that Amadeo bickers and argues over petty things. Do I blame society for this? No, I blame Amadeo.
Amadeo's propaganda machine once said that Amadeo would never establish tacit boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum of opinion. So much for credibility! If Amadeo succeeds in its attempt to have a serious destabilizing effect on our institutions, it'll have to be over my dead body. When I first became aware of Amadeo's covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how Amadeo is trying to take the focus off the real issues. Their mission? To exhibit a deep disdain for all people who are not disruptive, pernicious New Age jabberers. Amadeo's like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Pull back the curtain of materialism and you'll see a confused, fatuitous vermin hiding behind it, furiously pulling the levers of solecism in a gin-swilling attempt to further political and social goals wholly or in part through activities that involve force or violence and a violation of criminal law. That sort of discovery should make any sane person realize that if we are to increase awareness and understanding of our similarities and differences, then we must be guided by a healthy and progressive ideology, not by the mean-spirited and naive ideologies that Amadeo promotes.
The interesting point is this: Amadeo recently stated that we're supposed to shut up and smile when it says debauched things. It said that with a straight face, without even cracking a smile or suppressing a giggle. It said it as if it meant it. That's scary, because there's a time to keep silent and a time to speak. There's a time to love and a time to hate. There's a time for war and a time for peace. And, I suspect, there's a time to rise to the challenge of thwarting Amadeo's adversarial plans. Or, to put it less poetically, Amadeo sees no reason why it shouldn't wipe out delicate ecosystems. 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 Amadeo's purblind opuscula can be quite educational. By studying them, students can observe firsthand the consequences of having an organization consumed with paranoia, fear, hatred, and ignorance. It is easy for the public at large to dismiss yawping hermits as insecure, self-pitying clunks. Amadeo's planning to exploit issues such as the global economic crisis and the increase in world terrorism in order to instigate planet-wide chaos. Planet-wide chaos is its gateway to global tyranny, which will in turn enable it to obliterate our sense of identity. It is my personal opinion, based on years of observation, that Amadeo's secret agents believe that without Amadeo's superior guidance, we will go nowhere. It should not be surprising that they believe this, however. As we all know, minds that have been so maimed that they believe that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty can believe anything, especially if it's false. Perhaps it sounds like stating the obvious to say that if Amadeo thinks that it is cunctipotent, then it's sadly mistaken.
In plain, simple-to-understand English, we must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that Amadeo will discredit legitimate voices in the Maoism debate. And to overcome these fears, we must indicate in a rough and approximate way the two hidebound tendencies that I believe are the main driving force of modern factionalism. I have a tendency to report the more sensational things that Amadeo is up to, the more shocking things, things like how it wants to devastate vast acres of precious farmland. And I realize the difficulty that the average person has in coming to grips with that, but one of its bedfellows keeps throwing "scientific" studies at me, claiming they prove that corporatism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society. The studies are full of "if"s, "possible"s, "maybe"s, and various exceptions and admissions of their limitations. This leaves the studies inconclusive at best and works of fiction at worst. The only thing these studies can possibly prove is that Amadeo is still going around insisting that censorship could benefit us. Jeez, I thought I had made it perfectly clear to it that if the only way to ensure that the values for which we have labored and for which many of us have fought and sacrificed will continue in ascendancy is for me to have an identity crisis, then so be it. It would honestly be worth it because Amadeo's underlings argue that it knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. These are the same callow, raving coprophagous-types who guarantee the destruction of anything that looks like a vital community. This is no coincidence; Amadeo's faithfuls claim that no one is smart enough to see through Amadeo's transparent lies. This is precisely the non-equation that Amadeo is trying to patch together. What it's missing, as usual, is that everybody is probably familiar with the cliche that according to the dictionary, "Amadeo-ism" is "any of a set of wisecracks that instill a subconscious feeling of guilt in those of us who disagree with Amadeo's undertakings". Well, there's a lot of truth in that cliche. Will I allow Amadeo to evade responsibility? As long as there is breath in my earthly body, I assure you I will not. What I will do, however, is inform as many people as possible that what I find frightening is that some academics actually believe Amadeo's line that diseases can be defeated not through standard medical research but through the creation of a new language, one that does not stigmatize certain groups and behaviors. In this case, "academics" refers to a stratum of the residual intelligentsia surviving the recession of its demotic base, not to those seekers of truth who understand that there are many roads leading to the defeat of Amadeo's plans to create a beachhead for organized totalitarianism. I definitely feel that all of these roads must eventually pass through the same set of gates: the ability to rouse people's indignation at Amadeo. In closing, all that I ask is that you join me to stop Amadeo and upbraid Amadeo for being so malignant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan
I have facts for those who think and arguments for those who reason. To organize my discussion, I suggest that we take one step back in the causal chain and promote peace, prosperity, and quality of life, both here and abroad. It may be obvious but should nonetheless be acknowledged that The Town of Odyssey is typical of muddleheaded loan sharks in its wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize its shenanigans.
People have pointed out to me that The Town of Odyssey has no real regard for other people's rights, privacy, or sanity, but I still can't help but think that life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is The Town of Odyssey so compelled to complain about situations over which it has no control? This is an important question because you shouldn't let The Town of Odyssey intimidate you. You shouldn't let it push you around. We're the ones who are right, not The Town of Odyssey. Yes, I realize that it makes perfect sense that The Town of Odyssey doesn't want me to fight the good fight, but for the sake of brevity I've had to express myself in simplified terms. If anything, The Town of Odyssey's chums are quick to point out that because The Town of Odyssey is hated, persecuted, and repeatedly laughed at, it is the real victim here. The truth is that, if anything, The Town of Odyssey is a victim of its own success -- a success that enables The Town of Odyssey to truck away our freedoms for safekeeping. The sun has never shone on a more blockish and huffy organization than The Town of Odyssey. Am I being too harsh for writing that? Maybe I am, but that's really the only way you can push a point through to The Town of Odyssey.
In its annual report on horny incidents, the government concluded that The Town of Odyssey decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that it fears, because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility. The Town of Odyssey will probably respond to this letter just like it responds to all criticism. It will put me down as "improvident" or "heinous". That's its standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about it except the most fawning praise. In short, it ruffles my feathers that The Town of Odyssey wants to engage in the trafficking of human beings.
On a lighter note, I got a good laugh out of this. Thanks, all.
People have pointed out to me that The Town of Odyssey has no real regard for other people's rights, privacy, or sanity, but I still can't help but think that life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is The Town of Odyssey so compelled to complain about situations over which it has no control? This is an important question because you shouldn't let The Town of Odyssey intimidate you. You shouldn't let it push you around. We're the ones who are right, not The Town of Odyssey. Yes, I realize that it makes perfect sense that The Town of Odyssey doesn't want me to fight the good fight, but for the sake of brevity I've had to express myself in simplified terms. If anything, The Town of Odyssey's chums are quick to point out that because The Town of Odyssey is hated, persecuted, and repeatedly laughed at, it is the real victim here. The truth is that, if anything, The Town of Odyssey is a victim of its own success -- a success that enables The Town of Odyssey to truck away our freedoms for safekeeping. The sun has never shone on a more blockish and huffy organization than The Town of Odyssey. Am I being too harsh for writing that? Maybe I am, but that's really the only way you can push a point through to The Town of Odyssey.
In its annual report on horny incidents, the government concluded that The Town of Odyssey decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that it fears, because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility. The Town of Odyssey will probably respond to this letter just like it responds to all criticism. It will put me down as "improvident" or "heinous". That's its standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about it except the most fawning praise. In short, it ruffles my feathers that The Town of Odyssey wants to engage in the trafficking of human beings.
On a lighter note, I got a good laugh out of this. Thanks, all.
-
Chandler
Glad you stopped by, Sherlock! 
You gave the perfect opportunity for us fans of the stories to have a laugh.
For those who know me, they know it is a rare occurrence for me to be rendered speechless. But when I heard that Mr. Sherlock Holmes wants to redefine success and obscure failure, I must say that speechless I was. The first thing I want to bring up is that his stories about feudalism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility. He has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to destroy our youths' ability to relax, reflect, study, and meditate. On all of these occasions, I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that whenever he is blamed for conspiring to reinforce the impression that distasteful desperados -- as opposed to Holmes's disciples -- are striving to create some filthy, pseudo-psychological profile of me to discredit my opinions, Holmes blames his hangers-on. Doing so reinforces their passivity and obedience and increases their guilt, shame, terror, and conformity, thereby making them far more willing to help Holmes use terms of opprobrium such as "uneducated drongos" and "self-aggrandizing barrators" to castigate whomever he opposes. Given his propensity for repression in the service of paradigmatic integrity, it is little wonder that if you ever ask him to do something, you can bet that your request will get lost in the shuffle, unaddressed, ignored, and rebuffed. Holmes, who has posed as Savior of the World, is nothing else but the world's seducer, its destroyer, its incendiary, and its executioner. Let me rephrase that: If Holmes makes fun of me or insults me, I hear it, and it hurts. But I take solace in the fact that I am still able to make Holmes answer for his wrongdoings.
In a similar vein, it's our responsibility to scuttle Holmes's materialistic attempts to take a condescending cheap shot at a person that most obstinate dunderheads will never be in a position to condescend to. That's the first step in trying to lift our nation from the quicksand of injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood, and it's the only way to find the inner strength to bring the communion of knowledge to all of us. I unequivocally hope that the truth will prevail and that justice will be served before Holmes does any real damage. Or is it already too late? To turn that question around, is there anything that Holmes can't make his representatives believe? Please do not stop reading here, presuming that the answer is apparent and that no further knowledge is needed. Such is unquestionably not the case. In fact, I'd bet no one ever told you that if you've read this far, then you probably either agree with me or are on the way to agreeing with me. The public is like a giant that he has blindfolded, drugged, and gagged. This giant has plugs in his ears and Holmes leads him around by the nose. Clearly, such a giant needs to step back and consider the problem of Holmes's methods of interpretation in the larger picture of popular culture imagery. That's why I feel obligated to notify the giant (i.e., the public) that Holmes's understrappers believe that cameralism is a viable and vital objective for our nation's educational institutions. It should not be surprising that they believe this, however. As we all know, minds that have been so maimed that they believe that Holmes has been robbed of all he does not possess can believe anything, especially if it's false.
Holmes is reluctant to resolve problems. He always just looks the other way and hopes no one will notice that there are many roads leading to the defeat of his plans to break the mind and spirit, castrate the character, and kill the career of anyone whose ideas he deems to be depraved. I assert that all of these roads must eventually pass through the same set of gates: the ability to address a number of important issues. This is a fine example of what I've been talking about. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that his premise (that it's okay for him to indulge his every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole) is his morality disguised as pretended neutrality. Holmes uses this disguised morality to support his metanarratives, thereby making his argument self-refuting. Considering that there's no indication that his rank-and-file followers will ever discuss, openly and candidly, a vision for a harmonious, multiracial society, I find it almost laughable how he remains oblivious to the fact that he has no idea what he's doing. So what's the connection between that and his plaints? The connection is that Holmes is planning to poison the relationship between teacher and student. This does not bode well for the future, because I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that peevish election-year also-rans with stronger voices than minds would revert to empty-headed behavior. But his sound bites have merged with narcissism in several interesting ways. Both spring from the same kind of reality-denying mentality. Both promote, foster, and institute academicism. And both shatter other people's lives and dreams. The term "idiot savant" comes to mind when thinking of Holmes. Admittedly, that term applies only halfway to him, which is why I think that Holmes wants to be the one who determines what information we have access to. Yet he is also a big proponent of a particularly squalid form of frotteurism. Do you see something wrong with that picture? What I see is that the point at which you discover that Holmes is utterly -- and I mean utterly -- misoneism-prone is not only a moment of disenchantment. It is a moment of resolve, a determination that if we contradict him, we are labelled inimical tricksters. If we capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms. We can divide Holmes's histrionics into three categories: demented, mindless, and pertinacious. Regardless of the theoretical beauty of the notion that Holmes favors the idea of a country based on perquisites and privileges, there is the opposing fact that I don't need to tell you that the longer Holmes wears the mask of fascism, the harder it is to remove. That should be self-evident. What is less evident is that if Holmes truly believes that the purpose of life is self-gratification, then maybe he should enroll in Introduction to Reality 101.
I must part company with many of my peers when it comes to understanding why a well-respected professor at a nearby university, writing with the dispassionate objectivity that is a precondition of all scientific knowledge, has recently concluded that antiheroism is a growing threat to society and should be outlawed. My peers maintain that it is important to realize that Holmes's favorite activities include cheating, lying, and tricking people into believing that without his superior guidance, we will go nowhere. While this is sincerely true, I claim we must add that poison is countered only by an antidote. The mere mention of that fact guarantees that this letter will never get published in any mass-circulation periodical that Holmes has any control over. But that's inconsequential, because if I didn't think Holmes would replace Robert's Rules of Order with "facilitated consensus building" at all important meetings, I wouldn't say that implying that one can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved is no different from implying that those who disagree with him should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve. Both statements are ludicrous. Holmes's faculty for deception is so far above anyone else's, it really must be considered different in kind as well as in degree. Rancorous commercialism is the shadow cast on society by Holmes's notions, and as long as this is so, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance. To scorn and abjure reason is Holmes's objective, and voluble wowserism is his method. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but I am hurt, furious, and embarrassed. Why am I hurt? Because Holmes possesses no significant intellectual skills whatsoever and has no interest in erudition. Heck, he can't even spell or define "erudition", much less achieve it. Why am I furious? Because it's easy to tell if he's lying. If his lips are moving, he's lying. And why am I embarrassed? Because I want to direct our efforts toward clearly defined goals and measure progress toward those goals as frequently and as objectively as possible. But first, let me pose an abstract question. When he promotes one social program after the next to take care of some segment of society, is he doing it for that segment of society or is he doing it because he seeks power and position? Well, I asked the question, so I should answer it. Let me start by saying that if he can give us all a succinct and infallible argument proving that he knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli, I will personally deliver his Nobel Prize for Naive Rhetoric. In the meantime, I need your help if I'm ever to argue about Holmes's ideas. "But I'm only one person," you might protest. "What difference can I make?" The answer is: a lot more than you think. You see, Holmes's precepts are more than just cruel. They're a revolt against nature.
It should be intuitively obvious even to the most casual observer that if Holmes bites me, I will undeniably bite back. His cohorts, who are legion, perpetrate all kinds of atrocities while alleging that they are simply not capable of such activities and that therefore, the atrocities must be the product of my and your feverish and overworked imaginations. His idiotic claim that things have never been better is just that, an idiotic claim.
A complete description of the problems with Holmes's disquisitions would occupy several volumes. It is also worthy of note that Holmes's hypersensitive principles brainwash the masses into submission. Holmes then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one. Despite his evident lack of grounding in what he's talking about, by refusing to act, by refusing to complain about militant, infantile upstarts, we are giving him the power to prey on people's fear of political and economic instability.
If we are powerless to help you reflect and reexamine your views on Holmes, it is because we have allowed Holmes to replace intellectual integrity with pharisaical sloganeering. Some people think that he is swinging pretty hard on some slender evidence. Others believe that neither Holmes nor his collaborators have dealt squarely or clearly with the fact that I indubitably find Holmes's fondness for inquisitions, witch hunts, star chambers, and kangaroo courts most sententious. The truth lies somewhere inbetween, namely, that Holmes likes invectives that make serious dialogue difficult or impossible. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that his spokesmen are tools. Like a hammer or an axe, they are not inherently evil or destructive. The evil is in the force that manipulates them and uses them for destructive purposes. That evil is Sherlock Holmes, who wants nothing less than to keep essential documents hidden from the public until they become politically moot.
If Holmes thinks that he can make all of our problems go away merely by sprinkling some sort of magic pink pixie dust over everything that he considers mutinous or anti-democratic then maybe he should lay off the wacky tobaccy. He may unwittingly marginalize me based on my gender, race, or religion. 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 it's easy enough to hate Holmes any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that Holmes is up to, things that ought to make a real Holmes-hater out of you. First off, his reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, he always begins an argument with his conclusion (e.g., that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years) and therefore -- not surprisingly -- he always arrives at that very conclusion. When I first heard about Holmes's demands, I didn't know whether to laugh, because Holmes's smear tactics are so gloomy, or cry, because one does not have to impose tremendous hardships on tens of thousands of decent, hard-working individuals in order to create greater public understanding of the damage caused by Holmes's scribblings. It is an indelicate person who believes otherwise. It's not that I have anything against psychopaths in general. It's just that Holmes's like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Pull back the curtain of expansionism and you'll see a feckless carper hiding behind it, furiously pulling the levers of neopaganism in an insufferable attempt to trample over the very freedoms and rights that he claims to support. That sort of discovery should make any sane person realize that from the fog and mist of Holmes's hijinks rises the leering grimace of emotionalism. But what, you may ask, does any of that have to do with the theme of this letter, viz., that his greed will be his undoing? I mean, by allowing him to turn ignoramuses loose against us good citizens, we are allowing him to play puppet master.
Is Holmes a pious person? Yes, although his "piety" unerringly leads him to whichever dogma is best for business. Speaking of which, the only weapons Holmes has in his intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That's all he has, and he knows it. If you think that this is humorous or exaggerated, you're wrong.
What I just said is a very important point, but I'm afraid a lot of readers might miss it, so I'll say a few more words on the subject. The great irony is that I am not trying to save the world -- I gave up that pursuit a long time ago. But I am trying to kick butt and take names. I believe that whenever a will-o'-the-wisp of opportunism, however unreal, turns up anywhere, Holmes is off at a trot. Deal with it. Anyway, I hope I've made my point, which is that I can't count the number of times I've wanted to clarify and correct some of the inaccuracies present in Mr. Sherlock Holmes's equivocations.
You gave the perfect opportunity for us fans of the stories to have a laugh.
For those who know me, they know it is a rare occurrence for me to be rendered speechless. But when I heard that Mr. Sherlock Holmes wants to redefine success and obscure failure, I must say that speechless I was. The first thing I want to bring up is that his stories about feudalism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility. He has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to destroy our youths' ability to relax, reflect, study, and meditate. On all of these occasions, I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that whenever he is blamed for conspiring to reinforce the impression that distasteful desperados -- as opposed to Holmes's disciples -- are striving to create some filthy, pseudo-psychological profile of me to discredit my opinions, Holmes blames his hangers-on. Doing so reinforces their passivity and obedience and increases their guilt, shame, terror, and conformity, thereby making them far more willing to help Holmes use terms of opprobrium such as "uneducated drongos" and "self-aggrandizing barrators" to castigate whomever he opposes. Given his propensity for repression in the service of paradigmatic integrity, it is little wonder that if you ever ask him to do something, you can bet that your request will get lost in the shuffle, unaddressed, ignored, and rebuffed. Holmes, who has posed as Savior of the World, is nothing else but the world's seducer, its destroyer, its incendiary, and its executioner. Let me rephrase that: If Holmes makes fun of me or insults me, I hear it, and it hurts. But I take solace in the fact that I am still able to make Holmes answer for his wrongdoings.
In a similar vein, it's our responsibility to scuttle Holmes's materialistic attempts to take a condescending cheap shot at a person that most obstinate dunderheads will never be in a position to condescend to. That's the first step in trying to lift our nation from the quicksand of injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood, and it's the only way to find the inner strength to bring the communion of knowledge to all of us. I unequivocally hope that the truth will prevail and that justice will be served before Holmes does any real damage. Or is it already too late? To turn that question around, is there anything that Holmes can't make his representatives believe? Please do not stop reading here, presuming that the answer is apparent and that no further knowledge is needed. Such is unquestionably not the case. In fact, I'd bet no one ever told you that if you've read this far, then you probably either agree with me or are on the way to agreeing with me. The public is like a giant that he has blindfolded, drugged, and gagged. This giant has plugs in his ears and Holmes leads him around by the nose. Clearly, such a giant needs to step back and consider the problem of Holmes's methods of interpretation in the larger picture of popular culture imagery. That's why I feel obligated to notify the giant (i.e., the public) that Holmes's understrappers believe that cameralism is a viable and vital objective for our nation's educational institutions. It should not be surprising that they believe this, however. As we all know, minds that have been so maimed that they believe that Holmes has been robbed of all he does not possess can believe anything, especially if it's false.
Holmes is reluctant to resolve problems. He always just looks the other way and hopes no one will notice that there are many roads leading to the defeat of his plans to break the mind and spirit, castrate the character, and kill the career of anyone whose ideas he deems to be depraved. I assert that all of these roads must eventually pass through the same set of gates: the ability to address a number of important issues. This is a fine example of what I've been talking about. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that his premise (that it's okay for him to indulge his every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole) is his morality disguised as pretended neutrality. Holmes uses this disguised morality to support his metanarratives, thereby making his argument self-refuting. Considering that there's no indication that his rank-and-file followers will ever discuss, openly and candidly, a vision for a harmonious, multiracial society, I find it almost laughable how he remains oblivious to the fact that he has no idea what he's doing. So what's the connection between that and his plaints? The connection is that Holmes is planning to poison the relationship between teacher and student. This does not bode well for the future, because I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that peevish election-year also-rans with stronger voices than minds would revert to empty-headed behavior. But his sound bites have merged with narcissism in several interesting ways. Both spring from the same kind of reality-denying mentality. Both promote, foster, and institute academicism. And both shatter other people's lives and dreams. The term "idiot savant" comes to mind when thinking of Holmes. Admittedly, that term applies only halfway to him, which is why I think that Holmes wants to be the one who determines what information we have access to. Yet he is also a big proponent of a particularly squalid form of frotteurism. Do you see something wrong with that picture? What I see is that the point at which you discover that Holmes is utterly -- and I mean utterly -- misoneism-prone is not only a moment of disenchantment. It is a moment of resolve, a determination that if we contradict him, we are labelled inimical tricksters. If we capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms. We can divide Holmes's histrionics into three categories: demented, mindless, and pertinacious. Regardless of the theoretical beauty of the notion that Holmes favors the idea of a country based on perquisites and privileges, there is the opposing fact that I don't need to tell you that the longer Holmes wears the mask of fascism, the harder it is to remove. That should be self-evident. What is less evident is that if Holmes truly believes that the purpose of life is self-gratification, then maybe he should enroll in Introduction to Reality 101.
I must part company with many of my peers when it comes to understanding why a well-respected professor at a nearby university, writing with the dispassionate objectivity that is a precondition of all scientific knowledge, has recently concluded that antiheroism is a growing threat to society and should be outlawed. My peers maintain that it is important to realize that Holmes's favorite activities include cheating, lying, and tricking people into believing that without his superior guidance, we will go nowhere. While this is sincerely true, I claim we must add that poison is countered only by an antidote. The mere mention of that fact guarantees that this letter will never get published in any mass-circulation periodical that Holmes has any control over. But that's inconsequential, because if I didn't think Holmes would replace Robert's Rules of Order with "facilitated consensus building" at all important meetings, I wouldn't say that implying that one can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved is no different from implying that those who disagree with him should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve. Both statements are ludicrous. Holmes's faculty for deception is so far above anyone else's, it really must be considered different in kind as well as in degree. Rancorous commercialism is the shadow cast on society by Holmes's notions, and as long as this is so, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance. To scorn and abjure reason is Holmes's objective, and voluble wowserism is his method. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but I am hurt, furious, and embarrassed. Why am I hurt? Because Holmes possesses no significant intellectual skills whatsoever and has no interest in erudition. Heck, he can't even spell or define "erudition", much less achieve it. Why am I furious? Because it's easy to tell if he's lying. If his lips are moving, he's lying. And why am I embarrassed? Because I want to direct our efforts toward clearly defined goals and measure progress toward those goals as frequently and as objectively as possible. But first, let me pose an abstract question. When he promotes one social program after the next to take care of some segment of society, is he doing it for that segment of society or is he doing it because he seeks power and position? Well, I asked the question, so I should answer it. Let me start by saying that if he can give us all a succinct and infallible argument proving that he knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli, I will personally deliver his Nobel Prize for Naive Rhetoric. In the meantime, I need your help if I'm ever to argue about Holmes's ideas. "But I'm only one person," you might protest. "What difference can I make?" The answer is: a lot more than you think. You see, Holmes's precepts are more than just cruel. They're a revolt against nature.
It should be intuitively obvious even to the most casual observer that if Holmes bites me, I will undeniably bite back. His cohorts, who are legion, perpetrate all kinds of atrocities while alleging that they are simply not capable of such activities and that therefore, the atrocities must be the product of my and your feverish and overworked imaginations. His idiotic claim that things have never been better is just that, an idiotic claim.
A complete description of the problems with Holmes's disquisitions would occupy several volumes. It is also worthy of note that Holmes's hypersensitive principles brainwash the masses into submission. Holmes then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one. Despite his evident lack of grounding in what he's talking about, by refusing to act, by refusing to complain about militant, infantile upstarts, we are giving him the power to prey on people's fear of political and economic instability.
If we are powerless to help you reflect and reexamine your views on Holmes, it is because we have allowed Holmes to replace intellectual integrity with pharisaical sloganeering. Some people think that he is swinging pretty hard on some slender evidence. Others believe that neither Holmes nor his collaborators have dealt squarely or clearly with the fact that I indubitably find Holmes's fondness for inquisitions, witch hunts, star chambers, and kangaroo courts most sententious. The truth lies somewhere inbetween, namely, that Holmes likes invectives that make serious dialogue difficult or impossible. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that his spokesmen are tools. Like a hammer or an axe, they are not inherently evil or destructive. The evil is in the force that manipulates them and uses them for destructive purposes. That evil is Sherlock Holmes, who wants nothing less than to keep essential documents hidden from the public until they become politically moot.
If Holmes thinks that he can make all of our problems go away merely by sprinkling some sort of magic pink pixie dust over everything that he considers mutinous or anti-democratic then maybe he should lay off the wacky tobaccy. He may unwittingly marginalize me based on my gender, race, or religion. 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 it's easy enough to hate Holmes any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that Holmes is up to, things that ought to make a real Holmes-hater out of you. First off, his reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, he always begins an argument with his conclusion (e.g., that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years) and therefore -- not surprisingly -- he always arrives at that very conclusion. When I first heard about Holmes's demands, I didn't know whether to laugh, because Holmes's smear tactics are so gloomy, or cry, because one does not have to impose tremendous hardships on tens of thousands of decent, hard-working individuals in order to create greater public understanding of the damage caused by Holmes's scribblings. It is an indelicate person who believes otherwise. It's not that I have anything against psychopaths in general. It's just that Holmes's like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Pull back the curtain of expansionism and you'll see a feckless carper hiding behind it, furiously pulling the levers of neopaganism in an insufferable attempt to trample over the very freedoms and rights that he claims to support. That sort of discovery should make any sane person realize that from the fog and mist of Holmes's hijinks rises the leering grimace of emotionalism. But what, you may ask, does any of that have to do with the theme of this letter, viz., that his greed will be his undoing? I mean, by allowing him to turn ignoramuses loose against us good citizens, we are allowing him to play puppet master.
Is Holmes a pious person? Yes, although his "piety" unerringly leads him to whichever dogma is best for business. Speaking of which, the only weapons Holmes has in his intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That's all he has, and he knows it. If you think that this is humorous or exaggerated, you're wrong.
What I just said is a very important point, but I'm afraid a lot of readers might miss it, so I'll say a few more words on the subject. The great irony is that I am not trying to save the world -- I gave up that pursuit a long time ago. But I am trying to kick butt and take names. I believe that whenever a will-o'-the-wisp of opportunism, however unreal, turns up anywhere, Holmes is off at a trot. Deal with it. Anyway, I hope I've made my point, which is that I can't count the number of times I've wanted to clarify and correct some of the inaccuracies present in Mr. Sherlock Holmes's equivocations.