My Complaint about Conquer Club...

[DirtyDishSoap]

exactly what i was thinking

[Hitman079]

instead of complaining about CC how bout you go and finish that essay on the three little pigs you're supposed to be writing

[Fircoal]

did u write that out? or does the website do messed up stuff as well?

I just pasted chewey's complaint into a translator.

link?

[Iliad]

instead of complaining about CC how bout you go and finish that essay on the three little pigs you're supposed to be writing

you realize it's randomly generated?

[Fircoal]

What it's really fighting for, however, is equality in degradation, by which I mean that I plan to point out that the emperor has no clothes on.

Looks like Lack is in the game.

[reverend_kyle]

my rebuttal

Coleman, allow me to introduce myself. I'm one of the victims of your macabre rodomontades. As a note of explanation for other readers of this letter: Most of us assert that Coleman is extremely ugly. You see, I obviously believe that I am highly critical of those who tolerate or apologize for people who work with Coleman. And because of that belief, I'm going to throw politeness and inoffensiveness to the winds. In this letter, I'm going to be as rude and crude as I know how, to reinforce the point that Coleman should step down from its gilded pedestal. I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that it would be wrong to imply that Coleman is involved in some kind of conspiracy to grasp at straws, trying to find increasingly illiterate ways to deny both our individual and collective responsibility to live in harmony with each other and the world. It would be wrong because its equivocations are far beyond the conspiracy stage. Not only that, but it is not only immoral, but amoral.

I'm merely suggesting that you should never forget the three most important facets of Coleman's witticisms, namely their treacherous origins, their internal contradictions, and their tendentious nature. Coleman's policies are designed to produce a new generation of malodorous duffers whose opinions and prejudices, far from being enlightened and challenged, are simply legitimized. And they're working; they're having the desired effect.

Coleman's endeavors are rife with contradictions and difficulties; they're completely cynical, meet no objective criteria, and are unsuited for a supposedly educated population. And as if that weren't enough, Coleman 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. Do you ever get the feeling that Coleman has no moral courage, nor even a desire to be honest and forthright? Well, you should, because I am indeed not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that Coleman's favorite tactic is known as "deceiving with the truth". The idea behind this tactic is that it wins our trust by revealing the truth but leaving some of it out. This makes us less likely to address the continued social injustice shown by hectoring sods. While we may all pray for a perfect utopian world in which everyone is holding hands and singing "We Are the World" in perfect harmony, the reality is that I strive to be consistent in my arguments. I can't say that I'm 100% true to this but Coleman's frequent vacillating leads me to believe that it knows perfectly well that it should slither back under whatever rock it crawled out from. Let me rephrase that: My conscience compels me to mention a bit about rebarbative, shallow vendors of pessimism such as Coleman. So let Coleman call me two-faced. I call it hopeless.

Coleman somehow manages to get away with spreading lies (it is omnipotent), distortions ("the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel), and misplaced idealism (a book of its writings would be a good addition to the Bible). However, when I try to respond in kind, I get censored faster than you can say "anthropomorphotheist". Coleman thinks I'm trying to say that its vices are the only true virtues. Wait! I just heard something. Oh, never mind; it's just the sound of the point zooming way over Coleman's head.

Let's be honest here: I can guarantee the readers of this letter that Coleman has the nerve to call those of us who set the stage so that my next letter will begin from a new and much higher level of influence "conspiracy theorists". No, we're "conspiracy revealers" because we reveal that Coleman acts as if it were King of the World. This hauteur is astonishing, staggering, and mind-boggling. Coleman says that truth is merely a social construct. The inference is that Man's eternal search for Truth is a challenge to be avoided at all costs. I'm happy to report that I can't follow that logic. Coleman's latest manifesto, like all the ones that preceded it, is a consummate anthology of disastrously bad writing teeming with misquotations and inaccuracies, an odyssey of anecdotes that are occasionally entertaining, but certainly not informative.

Coleman's slurs are a load of bunk. I use this delightfully pejorative term, "bunk" -- an alternative from the same page of my criminal-slang lexicon would serve just as well -- because Coleman has nothing but contempt for you, and you don't even know it. That's why I feel obligated to inform you that someone once said to me, "Human life is full of artificiality, perversion, and misery, much of which is caused by supercilious dweebs." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since. I can say one thing about Coleman. It understands better than any of us that psychological impact is paramount -- not facts, not anybody's principles, not right and wrong. I'm not suggesting that we behave likewise. I'm suggesting only that all the deals Coleman makes are strictly one-way. Coleman gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations. I will not say what is right and what is wrong when it comes to Coleman's expostulations. But I will say one thing: Coleman is guilty of at least one criminal offense. In addition, it frequently exhibits less formal criminal behavior, such as deliberate and even gleeful cruelty, explosive behavior, and a burning desire to create a climate of intimidation.

That's a very important point; Coleman's delusional personal attacks inculcate the hermeneutics of suspicion in otherwise open-minded people. Coleman then blames us for that. Now there's a prizewinning example of psychological projection if I've ever seen one. It's my hunch that Coleman's statements such as "The few of us who complain regularly about Coleman's politics are simply spoiling the party" indicate that we're not all looking at the same set of facts. Fortunately, these facts are easily verifiable with a trip to the library by any open and honest individual. No matter what else we do, our first move must be to educate everyone about how you can observe a definite bias in Coleman's assertions relating to the worst sorts of selfish, vengeful schemers there are. That's the first step: education. Education alone is not enough, of course. We must also knock some sense into Coleman.

My only goal in writing this letter and others concerning Coleman is to wage war on credentialism. Don't make the mistake of thinking otherwise. Coleman does, and that's why its plans for the future can be subtle. They can be so subtle that many people never realize they're being influenced by them. That's why we must proactively notify humanity that Coleman's thesis is that two wrongs make a right. That's absolutely complacent, you say? Good; that means you're finally catching on. The next step is to observe that in these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, I call upon Coleman to stop its oppression, lies, immorality, and debauchery. I call upon it to be an organization of manners, principles, honour, and purity. And finally, I call upon it to forgo its desire to guarantee the destruction of anything that looks like a vital community. Coleman talks loudly about family values and personal responsibility, but when it comes to backing up those words with actions, all it does is calumniate helpless pop psychologists. Coleman has -- not once, but several times -- been able to annihilate a person's personality, individuality, will, and character without anyone stopping it. How long can that go on? As long as its virulent hypnopompic insights are kept on life support. That's why we have to pull the plug on them and show it how it is as wrong as wrong can be.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Of course, if Coleman had learned anything from history, it'd know that some people say that that isn't sufficient evidence to prove that it is secretly scheming to progressively narrow the sphere of human freedom. And I must agree; one needs much more evidence than that. But the evidence is there, for anyone who isn't afraid to look at it. Just look at the way that if it feels ridiculed by all the attention my letters are bringing it, then that's just too darn bad. Coleman's arrogance has brought this upon itself. I'm willing to accept that Coleman seems to have trouble constructing a grammatically correct sentence. I'm even willing to accept that domineering defeatism is its preferred quick-fix solution to complex cultural problems. But it insists that it knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. How can it be so blind? Very easily. Basically, if Coleman were as bright as it thinks it is, it'd know that it deeply believes that it is known for its sound judgment, unerring foresight, and sagacious adaptation of means to ends. Meanwhile, back on Earth, the truth is very simple: Those of us who are too lazy or disinterested to guide the world into an age of peace, justice, and solidarity have no right to complain when it and its lackeys cast the world into nuclear holocaust. From a purely technical point of view, I overheard one of Coleman's disciples say, "Society is supposed to be lenient towards the most self-righteous drongos I've ever seen." This quotation demonstrates the power of language, as it epitomizes the "us/them" dichotomy within hegemonic discourse. As for me, I prefer to use language to improve the living conditions of the most vulnerable in our society -- the sick, the old, the disabled, the unemployed, and our youth -- all of whose lives are made miserable by Coleman. Although Coleman occasionally exhibits a passable simulacrum of rationality, it either is or elects to be ignorant of scientific principles and methods. Coleman even intentionally misuses scientific terminology to take a condescending cheap shot at a person that most polyloquent dummkopfs will never be in a position to condescend to.

The facts as I see them simply do not support the false, but widely accepted, notion that Coleman can inflict untold misery, suffering, and distress and get away with it. Coleman says that everyone would be a lot safer if it were to monitor all of our personal communications and financial transactions -- even our library records. Why on Earth does Coleman need to monitor our library records? My best guess, for what it may be worth, is based on two key observations. The first observation is that resistentialism is Coleman's main weapon and its chief means of convincing its functionaries to perpetuate inaccurate and dangerous beliefs about male-female relationships. The second, more telling, observation is that we must work together to give direction to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality. What can you do to help? For starters, you might want to speak out against behavior and speech that is intended to keep essential documents hidden from the public until they become politically moot. I personally derive great satisfaction in doing that sort of thing because I'm sticking out my neck a bit in talking about Coleman's criticisms. It's quite likely it will try to retaliate against me for my telling you that I certainly dislike it. Likes or dislikes, however, are irrelevant to observed facts, such as that Coleman's activities are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that every word that leaves Coleman's mouth is teeming with useful information. And they promote the mistaken idea that it's perfectly safe to drink and drive. If nothing else, if you think you can escape from Coleman's dodgy mottos, then good-bye and good luck. To the rest of you I suggest that the spectrum of views between alarmism and gnosticism is not a line but a circle at which vicious, sadistic carpetbaggers and intrusive liars and cheats meet. To properly place Coleman somewhere in that spectrum, one needs to realize that Coleman says that it is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose. What it means by this, of course, is that it wants free reign to muddy the word "anticonstitutionally". Everybody loves a good game of hide-and-seek: find the person, find the hidden item, or, in Coleman's case, find the hidden agenda. All of this once again proves the old saying that Coleman's manipulative retinue has its origins in the Jewish Kabala, Babylonian mystery cults, Templars, Freemasons, Illuminati, and assorted interests dedicated to Satanic worship and absolute power.

[Fircoal]

My religion has taught me not to be afraid to call someone wrong when it does something, says something, stands for something, or engages in something that violates the values in which I believe. I want to share this with you because Spamalot's behavior might be different if it were told that it has become so morally and ideologically degraded, so acclimated to extremism and demagogism, that it wants to repeat the mistakes of the past. Of course, as far as Spamalot's concerned, this fact will fall into the category of, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts." That's why I'm telling you that last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince Spamalot that its remonstrations are worthy of a good flush down the toilet. As I expected, Spamalot was absolutely unconvinced. I will not quibble with Spamalot as to whether or not perception becomes reality if one is brainwashed for long enough. Instead, I'll simply state that Spamalot's desire to foist the most poisonously false and destructive myths imaginable upon us is both a cause and an effect of what we now see as a global increase in despotism and leave it at that. Having said that, let me add that Spamalot wants to replace discourse and open dialogue with execrable pleas and blatant ugliness. Such intolerance is felt by all people, from every background.

We must do something good for others. If we fail in this, we are not failing someone else; we are not disrupting some interest separate from ourselves. Rather, it is we who suffer when we neglect to observe that if I didn't think Spamalot would impugn the patriotism of its opponents, I wouldn't say that it holds onto power like the eunuch mandarins of the Forbidden City -- sterile obstacles to progress who twist my words six ways for Sunday. Spamalot, as usual, you prove yourself to be mentally deficient.

Whenever Spamalot tries to sanctify its depravity, so do incomprehensible palookas. Similarly, whenever it attempts to declare martial law, suspend elections, and round up dissidents (i.e., anyone who does not buy its lie that embracing a system of irreligionism will make everything right with the world), the most damnable nose-in-the-air snobs you'll ever see typically attempt the same. I do not seek to draw any causal scheme from these correlations. I mention them only because it would have us believe that it is a paragon of morality and wisdom. Such flummery can be quickly dissipated merely by skimming a few random pages from any book on the subject.

In the past, organizations like Spamalot would have been tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail for trying to undermine the foundations of society until a single thrust suffices to make the entire edifice collapse. I'm not one to criticize but Spamalot's cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good. Spamalot cannot tolerate the world as it is. It needs to live in a world of fantasies. To be more specific, Spamalot's hirelings have learned their scripts well and the rhetoric comes gushing forth with little provocation. In spite of all Spamalot has done, I must admit I really like the organization. No, just kidding.

"Subhuman", "delirious", and "ostentatious" seem the most appropriate adjectives to describe Spamalot's magic-bullet explanations. Now take that to the next level: Throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to provide an antidote to contemporary manifestations of scurrilous blackguardism and those who wish to enact new laws forcing anyone who's not one of its satraps to live in an environment that can, at best, be described as contemptuously tolerant. Naturally, Spamalot belongs to the latter category. Spamalot seizes every opportunity to bury our heritage, our traditions, and our culture. I cannot believe this colossal clownishness. Any sane person knows that Spamalot likes to posture as a guardian of virtue and manners. However, when it comes right down to it, what it is pushing is both anal-retentive and churlish. If I said that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance, I'd be a liar. But I'd be being thoroughly honest if I said that we must mention a bit about aberrant porn stars such as Spamalot. Those who claim otherwise do so only to justify their own disdainful disquisitions. Spamalot is still going around insisting that the ideas of "freedom" and "absenteeism" are Siamese twins. Jeez, I thought I had made it perfectly clear to it that its antics manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: regulate interdenominationalism. Phase two: stifle dissent. In whatever form it takes -- magazines, music, propaganda, or any other form -- Spamalot's rhetoric is designed to revive an arcadian past that never existed.

Now that I've been exposed to Spamalot's zingers, I must admit that I don't completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps Spamalot should think twice before it decides to turn once-flourishing neighborhoods into zones of violence, decay, and moral disregard. 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 clearly expresses how it has compiled an impressive list of grievances against me. Not only are all of these grievances completely fictitious, but this is where the rubber hits the road. That conclusion is not based on some sort of sententious, impetuous philosophy or on Spamalot-style mental masturbation, but on widely known and proven principles of science. These principles explain that some people think I'm exaggerating when I say that Spamalot's inclinations are a textbook example of distortion and deceit. But I'm not exaggerating; if anything, I'm understating the situation. Spamalot exists for one reason and for one reason only: to waste hours and hours in fruitless conferences and meetings. Spamalot is the type of organization that turns up its nose at people like you and me. I guess that's because we haven't the faintest notion about the things that really matter, such as why it would be good for it to sue people at random.

While choleric wankers claim to defend traditional values, they actually eroticize relations of dominance and subordination. Who else but Spamalot would have the brass to strip people of their rights to free expression and individuality? No one. And where does that brass come from? It comes from a sure knowledge that it can retreat into its "victim" status if anyone calls it to account.

It may not seem to be very important right now, but it has been brought to my attention that bestial beggars in general, and Spamalot in particular, intend to provide evil Philistines with a milieu in which they can perpetuate harmful stereotypes. While this is undeniably true, if Spamalot had done its homework, it'd know that it presents one face to the public, a face that tells people what they want to hear. Then, in private, Spamalot devises new schemes to lure the hate-filled into its pharisaism movement. Though nit-picky alcoholism is not discussed in this letter, much of what I've written applies to that, as well. No matter how bad you think Spamalot's smear tactics are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think. To state it in stark and simple terms, when Spamalot was first found trying to encourage and exacerbate passivity in some people who might otherwise be active and responsible citizens, I was scared. I was scared not only for my personal safety; I was scared for the people I love. And now that Spamalot is planning to gum up what were once great ideas, I'm downright terrified.

Given the tenor of our times, if Spamalot can overawe and befuddle a sufficient number of prominent individuals, then it will become virtually impossible for anyone to acquire the input of a representative cross-section of the community in a non-threatening, inclusive environment. I could tell Spamalot that under the guise of stimulating debate and illuminating diverse perspectives, its politics actually embark on wholesale torture and slaughter of innocent civilians, although it obviously doesn't care. I could tell it that I challenge it to tell me what, if anything, in this letter is not completely truthful, but it wouldn't believe me. It probably also doesn't care that people who agree with its ideas are either stupid, drunk, on drugs, paid off by Spamalot, or are rummy, impudent addlepated-types. So let me appeal to whatever small semblance of reason Spamalot may be capable of when I tell it that in order to scrap the entire constellation of larcenous ideas that brought us to our present point, we must dole out acerbic criticism of Spamalot and its phalanx of illiterate legatees. And that's just the first step. Remember, its victims have been speaking out for years. Unfortunately, their voices have long been silenced by the roar and thunder of Spamalot's confreres, who loudly proclaim that Spamalot's tricks are good for the environment, human rights, and baby seals. Regardless of those destructive proclamations, the truth is that there is an unpleasant fact, painful to the tender-minded, that one can deduce from the laws of nature. This fact is also conclusively established by direct observation. It is a fact so obvious that rational people have always known it and no one doubted it until Spamalot and its flunkies started trying to deny it. The fact to which I am referring states that Spamalot should think about how its hijinks lead tyrannical survivalists to vilify our history, character, values, and traditions. If Spamalot doesn't want to think that hard, perhaps it should just keep quiet.

To put it crudely, Spamalot is the type of organization that can look you right in the eye and, with an expression of the utmost sincerity, tell you any kind of whopper that suits its purpose. The mere mention of that fact guarantees that this letter will never get published in any mass-circulation periodical that Spamalot has any control over. But that's inconsequential, because I've tried explaining to Spamalot's associates that we must unequivocally feed the starving, house the homeless, cure the sick, and still find wonder and awe in the sunrise and the moonlight without the slightest consideration for any screams and complaints that might arise. Unfortunately, it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars. In fact, I'd bet Martians would be more likely to discern that Spamalot's attempts to impose a one-size-fits-all model on how society should function are much worse than mere fascism. They are hurtful, malicious, criminal behavior and deserve nothing less than our collective condemnation. Spamalot's eccentricity is surpassed only by its vanity. And its vanity is surpassed only by its empty theorizing. (Remember its theory that it is entitled to give voice, in a totally emotional and non-rational way, to its deep-rooted love of commercialism?) Unlike Spamalot's witticisms, my own expositions are not vague and undefined. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper because it's the news that just doesn't fit. Spamalot's more than cruel. It's mega-cruel. In fact, to understand just how cruel Spamalot is, you first need to realize that it would help if it realized that education and wisdom aren't necessarily the same thing. The logical consequences of that are clear: This is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about Spamalot's annoying behavior, but about the way that if anything, the real question here is not, "What provoked Spamalot to defy the rules of logic?". The real question is rather, "What does it hope to achieve by repeatedly applying its lips to the posteriors of obtuse devil-worshippers?" If I'm not mistaken, there's a painfully simple answer. It regards the way that its apologues have caused widespread social alienation, and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung. I'd like to finish with a quote from a private e-mail message sent to me by a close friend of mine: "It would be nugatory to discuss Spamalot's editorials without first mentioning that passion precludes Spamalot's ability to ignore trivialities and to concentrate on the important aspects of the problem".

I'll get right to the point. The ineluctable outcome of Spamalot's announcements is a world in which the most malignant geeks I've ever seen expose and neutralize Spamalot's enemies rather than sit at the same table and negotiate. As this letter will make clear, once you understand Spamalot's beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments), you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting Spamalot talk about you and me in terms which are not fit to be repeated. Spamalot has never satisfactorily proved its assertion that it is a refined organization with the soundest ethics and morals you can imagine. It has merely justified that assertion with the phrase, "Because I said so." The dominant characteristic of Spamalot's endeavors is not that they feed on the politics of resentment, alienation, frustration, anger, and fear, but that, in the bargain, they subject us to the mawkish, peevish yapping of petulant voluptuaries. Strictly speaking, I welcome Spamalot's comments. However, Spamalot needs to realize that it, already oppressive with its unrestrained inclinations, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species -- if separate species we be -- for its reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world. If you think that that's a frightening thought, then consider that Spamalot may be reasonably cunning with words. However, it is absolutely self-aggrandizing with everything else. Now, I'm no fan of Spamalot's, but still, Spamalot's comrades fail to recognize that Spamalot's rantings are a stuck-up, insane carnival of hedonism. Period, finis, and Q.E.D.

The whole premise of Spamalot's politics is false, and its arguments are specious at best. It may seem senseless to say that Spamalot's shock troops are delighted with the potential for violent confrontation. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. In a sense, Spamalot says that my bitterness at it is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish. What it means by this, of course, is that it wants free reign to regulate fogyism. I mean, really. Does Spamalot actually think its arguments through, or does it just chug along on its computer writing about whatever trite claims happen to suit its needs that day? I ask, because Spamalot shouldn't convict me without trial, jury, or reading one complete paragraph of this letter. That would be like asking a question at a news conference and, too angry and passionate to wait for the answer, exiting the auditorium before the response. Both of those actions propound ideas that are widely perceived as representing outright solipsism.

No doubt, Spamalot needs to step out of the dark ages. But Spamalot can get away with lies (e.g., that its decisions are based on reason) because the average person cannot imagine anyone lying so brazenly. Not one person in a hundred will actually check out the facts for himself and discover that Spamalot is lying. Is it any wonder that in every country, there are pesky scalawags who are every bit as socially inept as Spamalot? For proof of this ongoing tragedy, one has only to realize that I am not embarrassed to admit that I have neither the training, the experience, the license, nor the clinical setting necessary to properly build a world overflowing with compassion and tolerance. Nevertheless, I honestly do have the will to present a noble vision of who we were, who we are, and who we can potentially be. That's why I claim that Spamalot asserts that sin is good for the soul. Most reasonable people, however, recognize such assertions as nothing more than baseless, if wishful, claims unsupported by concrete evidence.

Spamalot does not merely put a superstitious spin on important issues. It does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically. You see, Spamalot knows that performing an occasional act of charity will make some people forgive -- or at least overlook -- all of its insensitive excesses. My take on the matter is that it operates on an international scale to worsen an already unstable situation. It's only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale, but to reinforce notions of positive self esteem.

While there are many crafty anthropophagi, Spamalot is the most disorderly of the lot. Spamalot's put-downs are not the solution to our problem. They are the problem. Whether or not you realize this, Spamalot argues that mediocrity is a worthwhile goal. I wish I could suggest some incontrovertible chain of apodictic reasoning that would overcome this argument, but the best I can do is the following: It is a supporter of everything that was trendy in America in the 1960s -- the marvelous effects of LSD and other psychedelic drugs, pyramid power, various oriental religious cults, transcendental meditation, UFOs and extraterrestrials, CIA conspiracies, you name it. I could write pages on the subject, but the following should suffice. Because of Spamalot's obsession with Stalinism, it wants to sully a profession that's already held in low esteem. You know what groups have historically wanted to do the same thing? Fascists and Nazis.

Never have I seen such a gross error in judgment as Spamalot's decision to open the gates of Hell. Most people don't realize this, but Spamalot has, in fact, presented evidence in support of its claim that it is better that a hundred thousand people should perish than that it should be even slightly inconvenienced. Of course, its evidence has been rather flimsy in the credibility department. It's generally a lot easier to find evidence that Spamalot has recently been going around claiming that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not. You really have to tie your brain in knots to be gullible enough to believe that junk. We must reach out to people with the message that Spamalot should be forced to wear a scarlet "W" for "Wants to work both sides of the political fence". We must alert people of that. We must educate them. We must inspire them. And we must encourage them to discuss, openly and candidly, a vision for a harmonious, multiracial society.

I oppose, deplore, and disavow discrimination, extremism, and hatred of every kind. The same holds true for delirious, unconscionable unpleasant-types. What's interesting is that Spamalot uses sadism as a hammer to forge the nutty, unrealistic muttonheads who will declare that its apothegms prevent smallpox in the immediate years ahead. Get that straight, please. Any other thinking is blame-shoving or responsibility-dodging. Furthermore, if anything, there may be absolutely nothing we can do to prevent Spamalot from making good on its word to plague our minds. When we compare this disturbing conclusion to the comforting picture purveyed by its subalterns, we experience psychological stress or "cognitive dissonance". Our only recourse is to pronounce the truth and renounce the lies. It's acrimonious carousers like Spamalot that overthrow western civilization through the destruction of its four pillars -- family, nation, religion, and democracy. Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that 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. Furthermore, Spamalot will do everything in its power to trivialize certain events that are particularly special to us all. No wonder corruption is endemic to our society; Spamalot claims to be supportive of my plan to supply the missing ingredient that could stop the worldwide slide into ageism. Don't trust it, though; it's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Before you know it, it'll obliterate our sense of identity. Not only that, but Spamalot's fantasy is to give me reason to hang myself by the neck until dead. It dreams of a world that grants it such a freedom with no strings attached. Welcome to the world of interventionism! In that nightmare world it has long since been forgotten that Spamalot's claque appears to be growing in number. I pray that this is analogous to the flare-up of a candle just before extinction yet I keep reminding myself that Spamalot would not hesitate to trample into the mud all that is fine and noble and beautiful if it felt it could benefit from doing so.

Spamalot is totally versipellous. When it's among plebeians, Spamalot warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against priggism. But when Spamalot's safely surrounded by its devotees, it instructs them to demand that Earth submit to the dominion of the most fork-tongued thugs you'll ever see. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that Spamalot sees itself as a postmodern equivalent of Marx's proletariat, revolutionizing the world by wresting it from its oppressors (viz., those who keep our courage up). Spamalot assigns blame to everyone but itself. History offers innumerable examples for the truth of this assertion. There's a special, dark corner of Hell for the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Spamalot. This means, in particular, that statements like, "According to Spamalot, anyone who points this out is guilty of spreading lies, smears, and stoicism" accurately express the feelings of most of us here.

I plan to work within the system to persuade my fellow citizens that I find Spamalot's editorials rather minatory, not because I lack the courage for more drastic steps, but because if we contradict Spamalot, we are labelled self-satisfied junkies. If we capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms. I have a soft spot for illaudable yokels: a bog not too far from here. There is no possible justification for the argument that Spamalot is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative. 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 sincerely expresses how I've tried explaining to Spamalot's votaries that the "freedom" that Spamalot is always so keen to talk about is a sheep's freedom to choose the patch of grass in which it will graze while growing wool and mutton for its owners. Unfortunately, it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars. In fact, I'd bet Martians would be more likely to discern that Spamalot has no discernible talents. The only things it has indeed mastered are biological functions. Well, I suppose Spamalot's also good at convincing people that the cure for evil is more evil, but my point is that Spamalot has convinced a lot of people that you and I are inferior to the most haughty upstarts you'll ever see. One must pause in admiration at this triumph of media manipulation.

Spamalot can push me only so far and no farther. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that Spamalot finds reality too difficult to swallow. Or maybe it just gets lost between the sports and entertainment pages. In either case, I undeniably hope you're not being misled by the "new Spamalot". Only its methods and tactics have changed. Spamalot's goal is still the same: to trick us into trading freedom for serfdom. That's why I'm telling you that it's unfortunate that Spamalot has no real morals. It's impossible to debate important topics with organizations that are so ethically handicapped. Spamalot's idiotic claim that those of us who oppose it would rather run than fight is just that, an idiotic claim. In order to solve the big problems with Spamalot, we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must demand a thoughtful analysis and resolution of our problems with Spamalot. Spamalot's prognoses cannot stand on their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that cold-blooded wastrels should be fêted at wine-and-cheese fund-raisers. One might conclude that it is cowardice on Spamalot's part to shatter other people's lives and dreams. Alternatively, one might conclude that I hope it enjoys its new distinction as one of the most dirty low-lifes who ever lived. In either case, it is always trying to change the way we work. This annoys me, because Spamalot's previous changes have always been for the worse. I'm positive that its new changes will be even more sanctimonious, because Spamalot is nuttier than squirrel dung. And I can say that with a clear conscience because some people don't seem to mind that Spamalot likes to replace our timeless traditions with its slaphappy, insolent ones. What a poxy, mad world we live in! By supporting iconoclastic jabberers with inferior moral standards, we devalue ourselves, the lives of our children, and the heroes who died for our freedoms. Do give that some thought.

The following letter is inspired by a quote from Thomas Paine: "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." And that's why I feel compelled to say something about petulant deadheads. Spamalot's argument that it is a martyr for freedom and a victim of gangsterism is hopelessly flawed and totally circuitous.

More concretely, you'd think that someone would have done something by now to thwart Spamalot's plans to slander those who are most systematically undervalued, underpaid, underemployed, underfinanced, underinsured, underrated, and otherwise underserved and undermined as undeserving and underclass. Unfortunately, most people are quite happy to "go along to get along" and are rather reluctant to launch an all-out ideological attack against the forces of racism. It is imperative that we inform such people that if Spamalot has spurred us to show you, as dispassionately as possible, what kind of avaricious, obnoxious thoughts it is thinking about these days, then Spamalot may have accomplished a useful thing. Now is the time to redefine the rhetoric and make room for meaningful discussion. Of course, this sounds simple, but in reality, the real issue is simple: It is not above the law.

If we take Spamalot's threats to their logical conclusion, we see that as soon as our backs are turned, Spamalot will deflect attention from its unwillingness to support policies that benefit the average citizen. Spamalot believes that clever one-liners are a valid substitute for actual thinking. Unfortunately, as long as it believes such absurdities, it will continue to commit atrocities. It's not the boogeyman that our children need to worry about. It's Spamalot. Not only is Spamalot more obstreperous and more huffy than any envisaged boogeyman or bugbear, but there's no shortage of sin in the world today. It's been around since the Garden of Eden and will definitely persist as long as Spamalot continues to undermine serious institutional and economic analyses and replace them with a diverting soap opera of patronizing conspiracies. Spamalot can go on saying that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel, but the rest of us have serious problems to deal with that preclude our indulging in such untrustworthy dreams just now. Purists may object to my failure to present specific examples of Spamalot's impudent hatchet jobs. Fortunately, I do have an explanation for this omission. The explanation demands an understanding of how Spamalot wants to rid the world of "defective" people. That's just a fancy way of saying that Spamalot has spent untold hours trying to engage in the trafficking of human beings. During that time, did it ever once occur to it that it would be nugatory to discuss its exegeses without first mentioning that there's always been suffering in the world, and wrongs have been and will continue to be committed? The answer is quite simple. I already listed several possibilities, but because Spamalot lacks the ability to remember beyond the last two seconds of its existence, I will restate what I said before, for its sake: Certain facts are clear. For instance, it is too malignant to read the writing on the wall. This writing warns that one of the goals of exclusionism is to render meaningless the words "best" and "worst". Spamalot admires that philosophy because, by annihilating human perceptions of quality, Spamalot's own mediocrity can flourish.

Spamalot wants us to think of it as a do-gooder. Keep in mind, though, that it wants to "do good" with other people's money and often with other people's lives. If Spamalot really wanted to be a do-gooder, it could start by admitting that I'm not writing this letter for your entertainment. I'm not even writing it for your education. I'm writing it for our very survival. I've already said this a thousand times and with a thousand different phrasings, but griping about Spamalot will not make it stop trying to supplant one form of injustice with another. But even if it did, it would just find some other way to instill distrust and thereby create a need for its disaffected views.

To say otherwise would be craven. What shall we do? We have several options. We might make some changes here. We might stop the Huns at the gate. Or, we might increase awareness and understanding of our similarities and differences. Any of these options, I believe, are acceptable. Still, we must choose one of them or else Spamalot will leave helpless citizens afraid in the streets, in their jobs, and even in their homes by the end of the decade.

I frequently wish to tell Spamalot that I never asked it to tell me how to live my life. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue. I hope I don't need to remind you that boosterism is irrelevant here, but it's still true, and we must do something about it. While it's true that it is not possible fully to understand the present except as a projection of the past, it has yet to acknowledge that fact. Spamalot has an amazing ability to disengage its intellect. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation.

Spamalot's rejoinders are based on some deep-rooted personality disorder. Spamalot may mean well but if anything will free us from the shackles of its nepotism-oriented mottos, it's knowledge of the world as it really is. It's knowledge that Spamalot has nothing but contempt for you, and you don't even know it. That's why I feel obligated to inform you that documents written by its bedfellows typically include the line, "Quislingism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society", in large, 30-point type, as if the size of the font gives weight to the words. In reality, all that that fancy formatting really does is underscore the fact that I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to push a consistent vision that responds to most people's growing fears about vengeful, impulsive nose-in-the-air snobs. I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. And one of the things that impresses me about it is the massive number of people who realize that for the time being, this is not a major issue. From this anecdotal evidence, I would argue that it will not be easy to give parents the means to protect their children. Nevertheless, we must attempt to do exactly that, for the overriding reason that this is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to muster enough force to borrow money and spend it on programs that exercise control through indirect coercion or through psychological pressure or manipulation. Not yet, at least. But if Spamalot is victorious in its quest to undermine everyone's capacity to see, or change, the world as a whole, then its crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. If we look beyond Spamalot's delusions of grandeur, we see that it claims to be fighting for equality. What Spamalot's really fighting for, however, is equality in degradation, by which I mean that Spamalot maintains that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point. This is hardly the case. Rather, there is growing evidence that says, to the contrary, that I can reword my point as follows. I experienced quite an epiphany when I first realized that I have come to know Spamalot's adulators too well not to feel the profoundest disgust for their nerdy animadversions. I, speaking as someone who is not a callow, fastidious wimp, am cognizant that Spamalot's hastily mounted campaigns bespeak a spiritual crassness, a materialistic and short-sighted stupidity that will put the gods of heaven into the corner as obsolete and outmoded and, in their stead, burn incense to the idol Mammon by next weekend, but I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I myself think that there is, because it is easy to see from the foregoing that common sense should render unwarranted any claim that Spamalot's way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't. 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, we should reach the broadest possible audience with the message that our problem -- and make no mistake about it, it is a severe predicament -- is that we currently lack the resources needed to rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.)

It may sound strange to Spamalot when I say that it is so confident in its own intellectual and cultural paradigm that it is blind to global realities, but in a tacit concession of defeat, Spamalot is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what its nasty "compromises" have failed at. For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, I must say that if you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance. Never have I seen such a gross error in judgment as Spamalot's decision to make serious dialogue difficult or impossible. Yes, I intend to exercise my franchise to encourage individuals to come out of their cocoons and flourish, but here is the point that is worth considering: Most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place. Now follow your hearts with actions.

Spamalot should get a life and stay out of mine, but what makes matters completely intolerable is knowing that Spamalot must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why Spamalot accuses me of admitting that it never engages in pea-brained, shallow, or prissy politics. What I actually said is that there are two related questions in this matter. The first is to what extent Spamalot has tried to take us over the edge of the abyss of conformism. The other is whether or not Spamalot's behavior might be different if it were told that its hatred knows no bounds. Of course, as far as Spamalot's concerned, this fact will fall into the category of, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts." That's why I'm telling you that it motivates people to join its band by using words like "humanity", "compassion", and "unity". This is a great deception. What Spamalot really wants to do is defy the law of the land. That's why if I were elected Ruler of the World, my first act of business would be to encourage our spirits to soar. I would further use my position to inform certain segments of the Earth's population that the only weapons Spamalot has in its intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That's all it has, and it knows it. Essentially, jaundiced clodpolls are more susceptible to Spamalot's brainwashing tactics than are any other group. Like water, their minds take the form of whatever receptacle it puts them in. They then lose all recollection that if Spamalot gets its way, I might very well swallow its inveracities whole, without question or quibble. Spamalot says that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding. Wow! Isn't that like hiding the stolen goods in the closet and, when the cops come in, standing in front of the closet door and exclaiming, "They're not in here!"?

Believe me, I certainly don't want to give Spamalot a chance to suppress people's instinct and intellect. The word "honesty" does not exist in Spamalot's vocabulary. Equally important is the fact that Spamalot's utterances are a disgrace and an outrage. And I can say that with a clear conscience because if Spamalot wants to be taken seriously, it should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults. Spamalot extricates itself from difficulty by intrigue, by chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming, by an untruth, by an injustice. If I had to choose the most repressive specimen from Spamalot's welter of hate-filled gabble, it would have to be Spamalot's claim that it has been robbed of all it does not possess. While this letter hasn't provided anything in the way of a concrete plan of action, it may help us focus our thinking a little better when we do work out a plan. For now, we must give direction to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality. I will unequivocally be happy to have your help in this endeavor.

In summary, I WILL KILL YOU ALL!

from the SPamalot thread.

[Iliad]

My religion has taught me not to be afraid to call someone wrong when it does something, says something, stands for something, or engages in something that violates the values in which I believe. I want to share this with you because Spamalot's behavior might be different if it were told that it has become so morally and ideologically degraded, so acclimated to extremism and demagogism, that it wants to repeat the mistakes of the past. Of course, as far as Spamalot's concerned, this fact will fall into the category of, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts." That's why I'm telling you that last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince Spamalot that its remonstrations are worthy of a good flush down the toilet. As I expected, Spamalot was absolutely unconvinced. I will not quibble with Spamalot as to whether or not perception becomes reality if one is brainwashed for long enough. Instead, I'll simply state that Spamalot's desire to foist the most poisonously false and destructive myths imaginable upon us is both a cause and an effect of what we now see as a global increase in despotism and leave it at that. Having said that, let me add that Spamalot wants to replace discourse and open dialogue with execrable pleas and blatant ugliness. Such intolerance is felt by all people, from every background.

We must do something good for others. If we fail in this, we are not failing someone else; we are not disrupting some interest separate from ourselves. Rather, it is we who suffer when we neglect to observe that if I didn't think Spamalot would impugn the patriotism of its opponents, I wouldn't say that it holds onto power like the eunuch mandarins of the Forbidden City -- sterile obstacles to progress who twist my words six ways for Sunday. Spamalot, as usual, you prove yourself to be mentally deficient.

Whenever Spamalot tries to sanctify its depravity, so do incomprehensible palookas. Similarly, whenever it attempts to declare martial law, suspend elections, and round up dissidents (i.e., anyone who does not buy its lie that embracing a system of irreligionism will make everything right with the world), the most damnable nose-in-the-air snobs you'll ever see typically attempt the same. I do not seek to draw any causal scheme from these correlations. I mention them only because it would have us believe that it is a paragon of morality and wisdom. Such flummery can be quickly dissipated merely by skimming a few random pages from any book on the subject.

In the past, organizations like Spamalot would have been tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail for trying to undermine the foundations of society until a single thrust suffices to make the entire edifice collapse. I'm not one to criticize but Spamalot's cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good. Spamalot cannot tolerate the world as it is. It needs to live in a world of fantasies. To be more specific, Spamalot's hirelings have learned their scripts well and the rhetoric comes gushing forth with little provocation. In spite of all Spamalot has done, I must admit I really like the organization. No, just kidding.

"Subhuman", "delirious", and "ostentatious" seem the most appropriate adjectives to describe Spamalot's magic-bullet explanations. Now take that to the next level: Throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to provide an antidote to contemporary manifestations of scurrilous blackguardism and those who wish to enact new laws forcing anyone who's not one of its satraps to live in an environment that can, at best, be described as contemptuously tolerant. Naturally, Spamalot belongs to the latter category. Spamalot seizes every opportunity to bury our heritage, our traditions, and our culture. I cannot believe this colossal clownishness. Any sane person knows that Spamalot likes to posture as a guardian of virtue and manners. However, when it comes right down to it, what it is pushing is both anal-retentive and churlish. If I said that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance, I'd be a liar. But I'd be being thoroughly honest if I said that we must mention a bit about aberrant porn stars such as Spamalot. Those who claim otherwise do so only to justify their own disdainful disquisitions. Spamalot is still going around insisting that the ideas of "freedom" and "absenteeism" are Siamese twins. Jeez, I thought I had made it perfectly clear to it that its antics manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: regulate interdenominationalism. Phase two: stifle dissent. In whatever form it takes -- magazines, music, propaganda, or any other form -- Spamalot's rhetoric is designed to revive an arcadian past that never existed.

Now that I've been exposed to Spamalot's zingers, I must admit that I don't completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps Spamalot should think twice before it decides to turn once-flourishing neighborhoods into zones of violence, decay, and moral disregard. 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 clearly expresses how it has compiled an impressive list of grievances against me. Not only are all of these grievances completely fictitious, but this is where the rubber hits the road. That conclusion is not based on some sort of sententious, impetuous philosophy or on Spamalot-style mental masturbation, but on widely known and proven principles of science. These principles explain that some people think I'm exaggerating when I say that Spamalot's inclinations are a textbook example of distortion and deceit. But I'm not exaggerating; if anything, I'm understating the situation. Spamalot exists for one reason and for one reason only: to waste hours and hours in fruitless conferences and meetings. Spamalot is the type of organization that turns up its nose at people like you and me. I guess that's because we haven't the faintest notion about the things that really matter, such as why it would be good for it to sue people at random.

While choleric wankers claim to defend traditional values, they actually eroticize relations of dominance and subordination. Who else but Spamalot would have the brass to strip people of their rights to free expression and individuality? No one. And where does that brass come from? It comes from a sure knowledge that it can retreat into its "victim" status if anyone calls it to account.

It may not seem to be very important right now, but it has been brought to my attention that bestial beggars in general, and Spamalot in particular, intend to provide evil Philistines with a milieu in which they can perpetuate harmful stereotypes. While this is undeniably true, if Spamalot had done its homework, it'd know that it presents one face to the public, a face that tells people what they want to hear. Then, in private, Spamalot devises new schemes to lure the hate-filled into its pharisaism movement. Though nit-picky alcoholism is not discussed in this letter, much of what I've written applies to that, as well. No matter how bad you think Spamalot's smear tactics are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think. To state it in stark and simple terms, when Spamalot was first found trying to encourage and exacerbate passivity in some people who might otherwise be active and responsible citizens, I was scared. I was scared not only for my personal safety; I was scared for the people I love. And now that Spamalot is planning to gum up what were once great ideas, I'm downright terrified.

Given the tenor of our times, if Spamalot can overawe and befuddle a sufficient number of prominent individuals, then it will become virtually impossible for anyone to acquire the input of a representative cross-section of the community in a non-threatening, inclusive environment. I could tell Spamalot that under the guise of stimulating debate and illuminating diverse perspectives, its politics actually embark on wholesale torture and slaughter of innocent civilians, although it obviously doesn't care. I could tell it that I challenge it to tell me what, if anything, in this letter is not completely truthful, but it wouldn't believe me. It probably also doesn't care that people who agree with its ideas are either stupid, drunk, on drugs, paid off by Spamalot, or are rummy, impudent addlepated-types. So let me appeal to whatever small semblance of reason Spamalot may be capable of when I tell it that in order to scrap the entire constellation of larcenous ideas that brought us to our present point, we must dole out acerbic criticism of Spamalot and its phalanx of illiterate legatees. And that's just the first step. Remember, its victims have been speaking out for years. Unfortunately, their voices have long been silenced by the roar and thunder of Spamalot's confreres, who loudly proclaim that Spamalot's tricks are good for the environment, human rights, and baby seals. Regardless of those destructive proclamations, the truth is that there is an unpleasant fact, painful to the tender-minded, that one can deduce from the laws of nature. This fact is also conclusively established by direct observation. It is a fact so obvious that rational people have always known it and no one doubted it until Spamalot and its flunkies started trying to deny it. The fact to which I am referring states that Spamalot should think about how its hijinks lead tyrannical survivalists to vilify our history, character, values, and traditions. If Spamalot doesn't want to think that hard, perhaps it should just keep quiet.

To put it crudely, Spamalot is the type of organization that can look you right in the eye and, with an expression of the utmost sincerity, tell you any kind of whopper that suits its purpose. The mere mention of that fact guarantees that this letter will never get published in any mass-circulation periodical that Spamalot has any control over. But that's inconsequential, because I've tried explaining to Spamalot's associates that we must unequivocally feed the starving, house the homeless, cure the sick, and still find wonder and awe in the sunrise and the moonlight without the slightest consideration for any screams and complaints that might arise. Unfortunately, it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars. In fact, I'd bet Martians would be more likely to discern that Spamalot's attempts to impose a one-size-fits-all model on how society should function are much worse than mere fascism. They are hurtful, malicious, criminal behavior and deserve nothing less than our collective condemnation. Spamalot's eccentricity is surpassed only by its vanity. And its vanity is surpassed only by its empty theorizing. (Remember its theory that it is entitled to give voice, in a totally emotional and non-rational way, to its deep-rooted love of commercialism?) Unlike Spamalot's witticisms, my own expositions are not vague and undefined. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper because it's the news that just doesn't fit. Spamalot's more than cruel. It's mega-cruel. In fact, to understand just how cruel Spamalot is, you first need to realize that it would help if it realized that education and wisdom aren't necessarily the same thing. The logical consequences of that are clear: This is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about Spamalot's annoying behavior, but about the way that if anything, the real question here is not, "What provoked Spamalot to defy the rules of logic?". The real question is rather, "What does it hope to achieve by repeatedly applying its lips to the posteriors of obtuse devil-worshippers?" If I'm not mistaken, there's a painfully simple answer. It regards the way that its apologues have caused widespread social alienation, and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung. I'd like to finish with a quote from a private e-mail message sent to me by a close friend of mine: "It would be nugatory to discuss Spamalot's editorials without first mentioning that passion precludes Spamalot's ability to ignore trivialities and to concentrate on the important aspects of the problem".

I'll get right to the point. The ineluctable outcome of Spamalot's announcements is a world in which the most malignant geeks I've ever seen expose and neutralize Spamalot's enemies rather than sit at the same table and negotiate. As this letter will make clear, once you understand Spamalot's beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments), you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting Spamalot talk about you and me in terms which are not fit to be repeated. Spamalot has never satisfactorily proved its assertion that it is a refined organization with the soundest ethics and morals you can imagine. It has merely justified that assertion with the phrase, "Because I said so." The dominant characteristic of Spamalot's endeavors is not that they feed on the politics of resentment, alienation, frustration, anger, and fear, but that, in the bargain, they subject us to the mawkish, peevish yapping of petulant voluptuaries. Strictly speaking, I welcome Spamalot's comments. However, Spamalot needs to realize that it, already oppressive with its unrestrained inclinations, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species -- if separate species we be -- for its reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world. If you think that that's a frightening thought, then consider that Spamalot may be reasonably cunning with words. However, it is absolutely self-aggrandizing with everything else. Now, I'm no fan of Spamalot's, but still, Spamalot's comrades fail to recognize that Spamalot's rantings are a stuck-up, insane carnival of hedonism. Period, finis, and Q.E.D.

The whole premise of Spamalot's politics is false, and its arguments are specious at best. It may seem senseless to say that Spamalot's shock troops are delighted with the potential for violent confrontation. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. In a sense, Spamalot says that my bitterness at it is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish. What it means by this, of course, is that it wants free reign to regulate fogyism. I mean, really. Does Spamalot actually think its arguments through, or does it just chug along on its computer writing about whatever trite claims happen to suit its needs that day? I ask, because Spamalot shouldn't convict me without trial, jury, or reading one complete paragraph of this letter. That would be like asking a question at a news conference and, too angry and passionate to wait for the answer, exiting the auditorium before the response. Both of those actions propound ideas that are widely perceived as representing outright solipsism.

No doubt, Spamalot needs to step out of the dark ages. But Spamalot can get away with lies (e.g., that its decisions are based on reason) because the average person cannot imagine anyone lying so brazenly. Not one person in a hundred will actually check out the facts for himself and discover that Spamalot is lying. Is it any wonder that in every country, there are pesky scalawags who are every bit as socially inept as Spamalot? For proof of this ongoing tragedy, one has only to realize that I am not embarrassed to admit that I have neither the training, the experience, the license, nor the clinical setting necessary to properly build a world overflowing with compassion and tolerance. Nevertheless, I honestly do have the will to present a noble vision of who we were, who we are, and who we can potentially be. That's why I claim that Spamalot asserts that sin is good for the soul. Most reasonable people, however, recognize such assertions as nothing more than baseless, if wishful, claims unsupported by concrete evidence.

Spamalot does not merely put a superstitious spin on important issues. It does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically. You see, Spamalot knows that performing an occasional act of charity will make some people forgive -- or at least overlook -- all of its insensitive excesses. My take on the matter is that it operates on an international scale to worsen an already unstable situation. It's only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale, but to reinforce notions of positive self esteem.

While there are many crafty anthropophagi, Spamalot is the most disorderly of the lot. Spamalot's put-downs are not the solution to our problem. They are the problem. Whether or not you realize this, Spamalot argues that mediocrity is a worthwhile goal. I wish I could suggest some incontrovertible chain of apodictic reasoning that would overcome this argument, but the best I can do is the following: It is a supporter of everything that was trendy in America in the 1960s -- the marvelous effects of LSD and other psychedelic drugs, pyramid power, various oriental religious cults, transcendental meditation, UFOs and extraterrestrials, CIA conspiracies, you name it. I could write pages on the subject, but the following should suffice. Because of Spamalot's obsession with Stalinism, it wants to sully a profession that's already held in low esteem. You know what groups have historically wanted to do the same thing? Fascists and Nazis.

Never have I seen such a gross error in judgment as Spamalot's decision to open the gates of Hell. Most people don't realize this, but Spamalot has, in fact, presented evidence in support of its claim that it is better that a hundred thousand people should perish than that it should be even slightly inconvenienced. Of course, its evidence has been rather flimsy in the credibility department. It's generally a lot easier to find evidence that Spamalot has recently been going around claiming that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not. You really have to tie your brain in knots to be gullible enough to believe that junk. We must reach out to people with the message that Spamalot should be forced to wear a scarlet "W" for "Wants to work both sides of the political fence". We must alert people of that. We must educate them. We must inspire them. And we must encourage them to discuss, openly and candidly, a vision for a harmonious, multiracial society.

I oppose, deplore, and disavow discrimination, extremism, and hatred of every kind. The same holds true for delirious, unconscionable unpleasant-types. What's interesting is that Spamalot uses sadism as a hammer to forge the nutty, unrealistic muttonheads who will declare that its apothegms prevent smallpox in the immediate years ahead. Get that straight, please. Any other thinking is blame-shoving or responsibility-dodging. Furthermore, if anything, there may be absolutely nothing we can do to prevent Spamalot from making good on its word to plague our minds. When we compare this disturbing conclusion to the comforting picture purveyed by its subalterns, we experience psychological stress or "cognitive dissonance". Our only recourse is to pronounce the truth and renounce the lies. It's acrimonious carousers like Spamalot that overthrow western civilization through the destruction of its four pillars -- family, nation, religion, and democracy. Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that 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. Furthermore, Spamalot will do everything in its power to trivialize certain events that are particularly special to us all. No wonder corruption is endemic to our society; Spamalot claims to be supportive of my plan to supply the missing ingredient that could stop the worldwide slide into ageism. Don't trust it, though; it's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Before you know it, it'll obliterate our sense of identity. Not only that, but Spamalot's fantasy is to give me reason to hang myself by the neck until dead. It dreams of a world that grants it such a freedom with no strings attached. Welcome to the world of interventionism! In that nightmare world it has long since been forgotten that Spamalot's claque appears to be growing in number. I pray that this is analogous to the flare-up of a candle just before extinction yet I keep reminding myself that Spamalot would not hesitate to trample into the mud all that is fine and noble and beautiful if it felt it could benefit from doing so.

Spamalot is totally versipellous. When it's among plebeians, Spamalot warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against priggism. But when Spamalot's safely surrounded by its devotees, it instructs them to demand that Earth submit to the dominion of the most fork-tongued thugs you'll ever see. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that Spamalot sees itself as a postmodern equivalent of Marx's proletariat, revolutionizing the world by wresting it from its oppressors (viz., those who keep our courage up). Spamalot assigns blame to everyone but itself. History offers innumerable examples for the truth of this assertion. There's a special, dark corner of Hell for the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Spamalot. This means, in particular, that statements like, "According to Spamalot, anyone who points this out is guilty of spreading lies, smears, and stoicism" accurately express the feelings of most of us here.

I plan to work within the system to persuade my fellow citizens that I find Spamalot's editorials rather minatory, not because I lack the courage for more drastic steps, but because if we contradict Spamalot, we are labelled self-satisfied junkies. If we capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms. I have a soft spot for illaudable yokels: a bog not too far from here. There is no possible justification for the argument that Spamalot is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative. 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 sincerely expresses how I've tried explaining to Spamalot's votaries that the "freedom" that Spamalot is always so keen to talk about is a sheep's freedom to choose the patch of grass in which it will graze while growing wool and mutton for its owners. Unfortunately, it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars. In fact, I'd bet Martians would be more likely to discern that Spamalot has no discernible talents. The only things it has indeed mastered are biological functions. Well, I suppose Spamalot's also good at convincing people that the cure for evil is more evil, but my point is that Spamalot has convinced a lot of people that you and I are inferior to the most haughty upstarts you'll ever see. One must pause in admiration at this triumph of media manipulation.

Spamalot can push me only so far and no farther. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that Spamalot finds reality too difficult to swallow. Or maybe it just gets lost between the sports and entertainment pages. In either case, I undeniably hope you're not being misled by the "new Spamalot". Only its methods and tactics have changed. Spamalot's goal is still the same: to trick us into trading freedom for serfdom. That's why I'm telling you that it's unfortunate that Spamalot has no real morals. It's impossible to debate important topics with organizations that are so ethically handicapped. Spamalot's idiotic claim that those of us who oppose it would rather run than fight is just that, an idiotic claim. In order to solve the big problems with Spamalot, we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must demand a thoughtful analysis and resolution of our problems with Spamalot. Spamalot's prognoses cannot stand on their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that cold-blooded wastrels should be fêted at wine-and-cheese fund-raisers. One might conclude that it is cowardice on Spamalot's part to shatter other people's lives and dreams. Alternatively, one might conclude that I hope it enjoys its new distinction as one of the most dirty low-lifes who ever lived. In either case, it is always trying to change the way we work. This annoys me, because Spamalot's previous changes have always been for the worse. I'm positive that its new changes will be even more sanctimonious, because Spamalot is nuttier than squirrel dung. And I can say that with a clear conscience because some people don't seem to mind that Spamalot likes to replace our timeless traditions with its slaphappy, insolent ones. What a poxy, mad world we live in! By supporting iconoclastic jabberers with inferior moral standards, we devalue ourselves, the lives of our children, and the heroes who died for our freedoms. Do give that some thought.

The following letter is inspired by a quote from Thomas Paine: "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." And that's why I feel compelled to say something about petulant deadheads. Spamalot's argument that it is a martyr for freedom and a victim of gangsterism is hopelessly flawed and totally circuitous.

More concretely, you'd think that someone would have done something by now to thwart Spamalot's plans to slander those who are most systematically undervalued, underpaid, underemployed, underfinanced, underinsured, underrated, and otherwise underserved and undermined as undeserving and underclass. Unfortunately, most people are quite happy to "go along to get along" and are rather reluctant to launch an all-out ideological attack against the forces of racism. It is imperative that we inform such people that if Spamalot has spurred us to show you, as dispassionately as possible, what kind of avaricious, obnoxious thoughts it is thinking about these days, then Spamalot may have accomplished a useful thing. Now is the time to redefine the rhetoric and make room for meaningful discussion. Of course, this sounds simple, but in reality, the real issue is simple: It is not above the law.

If we take Spamalot's threats to their logical conclusion, we see that as soon as our backs are turned, Spamalot will deflect attention from its unwillingness to support policies that benefit the average citizen. Spamalot believes that clever one-liners are a valid substitute for actual thinking. Unfortunately, as long as it believes such absurdities, it will continue to commit atrocities. It's not the boogeyman that our children need to worry about. It's Spamalot. Not only is Spamalot more obstreperous and more huffy than any envisaged boogeyman or bugbear, but there's no shortage of sin in the world today. It's been around since the Garden of Eden and will definitely persist as long as Spamalot continues to undermine serious institutional and economic analyses and replace them with a diverting soap opera of patronizing conspiracies. Spamalot can go on saying that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel, but the rest of us have serious problems to deal with that preclude our indulging in such untrustworthy dreams just now. Purists may object to my failure to present specific examples of Spamalot's impudent hatchet jobs. Fortunately, I do have an explanation for this omission. The explanation demands an understanding of how Spamalot wants to rid the world of "defective" people. That's just a fancy way of saying that Spamalot has spent untold hours trying to engage in the trafficking of human beings. During that time, did it ever once occur to it that it would be nugatory to discuss its exegeses without first mentioning that there's always been suffering in the world, and wrongs have been and will continue to be committed? The answer is quite simple. I already listed several possibilities, but because Spamalot lacks the ability to remember beyond the last two seconds of its existence, I will restate what I said before, for its sake: Certain facts are clear. For instance, it is too malignant to read the writing on the wall. This writing warns that one of the goals of exclusionism is to render meaningless the words "best" and "worst". Spamalot admires that philosophy because, by annihilating human perceptions of quality, Spamalot's own mediocrity can flourish.

Spamalot wants us to think of it as a do-gooder. Keep in mind, though, that it wants to "do good" with other people's money and often with other people's lives. If Spamalot really wanted to be a do-gooder, it could start by admitting that I'm not writing this letter for your entertainment. I'm not even writing it for your education. I'm writing it for our very survival. I've already said this a thousand times and with a thousand different phrasings, but griping about Spamalot will not make it stop trying to supplant one form of injustice with another. But even if it did, it would just find some other way to instill distrust and thereby create a need for its disaffected views.

To say otherwise would be craven. What shall we do? We have several options. We might make some changes here. We might stop the Huns at the gate. Or, we might increase awareness and understanding of our similarities and differences. Any of these options, I believe, are acceptable. Still, we must choose one of them or else Spamalot will leave helpless citizens afraid in the streets, in their jobs, and even in their homes by the end of the decade.

I frequently wish to tell Spamalot that I never asked it to tell me how to live my life. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue. I hope I don't need to remind you that boosterism is irrelevant here, but it's still true, and we must do something about it. While it's true that it is not possible fully to understand the present except as a projection of the past, it has yet to acknowledge that fact. Spamalot has an amazing ability to disengage its intellect. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation.

Spamalot's rejoinders are based on some deep-rooted personality disorder. Spamalot may mean well but if anything will free us from the shackles of its nepotism-oriented mottos, it's knowledge of the world as it really is. It's knowledge that Spamalot has nothing but contempt for you, and you don't even know it. That's why I feel obligated to inform you that documents written by its bedfellows typically include the line, "Quislingism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society", in large, 30-point type, as if the size of the font gives weight to the words. In reality, all that that fancy formatting really does is underscore the fact that I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to push a consistent vision that responds to most people's growing fears about vengeful, impulsive nose-in-the-air snobs. I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. And one of the things that impresses me about it is the massive number of people who realize that for the time being, this is not a major issue. From this anecdotal evidence, I would argue that it will not be easy to give parents the means to protect their children. Nevertheless, we must attempt to do exactly that, for the overriding reason that this is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to muster enough force to borrow money and spend it on programs that exercise control through indirect coercion or through psychological pressure or manipulation. Not yet, at least. But if Spamalot is victorious in its quest to undermine everyone's capacity to see, or change, the world as a whole, then its crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. If we look beyond Spamalot's delusions of grandeur, we see that it claims to be fighting for equality. What Spamalot's really fighting for, however, is equality in degradation, by which I mean that Spamalot maintains that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point. This is hardly the case. Rather, there is growing evidence that says, to the contrary, that I can reword my point as follows. I experienced quite an epiphany when I first realized that I have come to know Spamalot's adulators too well not to feel the profoundest disgust for their nerdy animadversions. I, speaking as someone who is not a callow, fastidious wimp, am cognizant that Spamalot's hastily mounted campaigns bespeak a spiritual crassness, a materialistic and short-sighted stupidity that will put the gods of heaven into the corner as obsolete and outmoded and, in their stead, burn incense to the idol Mammon by next weekend, but I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I myself think that there is, because it is easy to see from the foregoing that common sense should render unwarranted any claim that Spamalot's way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't. 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, we should reach the broadest possible audience with the message that our problem -- and make no mistake about it, it is a severe predicament -- is that we currently lack the resources needed to rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.)

It may sound strange to Spamalot when I say that it is so confident in its own intellectual and cultural paradigm that it is blind to global realities, but in a tacit concession of defeat, Spamalot is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what its nasty "compromises" have failed at. For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, I must say that if you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance. Never have I seen such a gross error in judgment as Spamalot's decision to make serious dialogue difficult or impossible. Yes, I intend to exercise my franchise to encourage individuals to come out of their cocoons and flourish, but here is the point that is worth considering: Most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place. Now follow your hearts with actions.

Spamalot should get a life and stay out of mine, but what makes matters completely intolerable is knowing that Spamalot must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why Spamalot accuses me of admitting that it never engages in pea-brained, shallow, or prissy politics. What I actually said is that there are two related questions in this matter. The first is to what extent Spamalot has tried to take us over the edge of the abyss of conformism. The other is whether or not Spamalot's behavior might be different if it were told that its hatred knows no bounds. Of course, as far as Spamalot's concerned, this fact will fall into the category of, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts." That's why I'm telling you that it motivates people to join its band by using words like "humanity", "compassion", and "unity". This is a great deception. What Spamalot really wants to do is defy the law of the land. That's why if I were elected Ruler of the World, my first act of business would be to encourage our spirits to soar. I would further use my position to inform certain segments of the Earth's population that the only weapons Spamalot has in its intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That's all it has, and it knows it. Essentially, jaundiced clodpolls are more susceptible to Spamalot's brainwashing tactics than are any other group. Like water, their minds take the form of whatever receptacle it puts them in. They then lose all recollection that if Spamalot gets its way, I might very well swallow its inveracities whole, without question or quibble. Spamalot says that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding. Wow! Isn't that like hiding the stolen goods in the closet and, when the cops come in, standing in front of the closet door and exclaiming, "They're not in here!"?

Believe me, I certainly don't want to give Spamalot a chance to suppress people's instinct and intellect. The word "honesty" does not exist in Spamalot's vocabulary. Equally important is the fact that Spamalot's utterances are a disgrace and an outrage. And I can say that with a clear conscience because if Spamalot wants to be taken seriously, it should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults. Spamalot extricates itself from difficulty by intrigue, by chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming, by an untruth, by an injustice. If I had to choose the most repressive specimen from Spamalot's welter of hate-filled gabble, it would have to be Spamalot's claim that it has been robbed of all it does not possess. While this letter hasn't provided anything in the way of a concrete plan of action, it may help us focus our thinking a little better when we do work out a plan. For now, we must give direction to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality. I will unequivocally be happy to have your help in this endeavor.

In summary, I WILL KILL YOU ALL!

from the SPamalot thread.

LAME!

[Fircoal]

My religion has taught me not to be afraid to call someone wrong when it does something, says something, stands for something, or engages in something that violates the values in which I believe. I want to share this with you because Spamalot's behavior might be different if it were told that it has become so morally and ideologically degraded, so acclimated to extremism and demagogism, that it wants to repeat the mistakes of the past. Of course, as far as Spamalot's concerned, this fact will fall into the category of, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts." That's why I'm telling you that last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince Spamalot that its remonstrations are worthy of a good flush down the toilet. As I expected, Spamalot was absolutely unconvinced. I will not quibble with Spamalot as to whether or not perception becomes reality if one is brainwashed for long enough. Instead, I'll simply state that Spamalot's desire to foist the most poisonously false and destructive myths imaginable upon us is both a cause and an effect of what we now see as a global increase in despotism and leave it at that. Having said that, let me add that Spamalot wants to replace discourse and open dialogue with execrable pleas and blatant ugliness. Such intolerance is felt by all people, from every background.

We must do something good for others. If we fail in this, we are not failing someone else; we are not disrupting some interest separate from ourselves. Rather, it is we who suffer when we neglect to observe that if I didn't think Spamalot would impugn the patriotism of its opponents, I wouldn't say that it holds onto power like the eunuch mandarins of the Forbidden City -- sterile obstacles to progress who twist my words six ways for Sunday. Spamalot, as usual, you prove yourself to be mentally deficient.

Whenever Spamalot tries to sanctify its depravity, so do incomprehensible palookas. Similarly, whenever it attempts to declare martial law, suspend elections, and round up dissidents (i.e., anyone who does not buy its lie that embracing a system of irreligionism will make everything right with the world), the most damnable nose-in-the-air snobs you'll ever see typically attempt the same. I do not seek to draw any causal scheme from these correlations. I mention them only because it would have us believe that it is a paragon of morality and wisdom. Such flummery can be quickly dissipated merely by skimming a few random pages from any book on the subject.

In the past, organizations like Spamalot would have been tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail for trying to undermine the foundations of society until a single thrust suffices to make the entire edifice collapse. I'm not one to criticize but Spamalot's cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good. Spamalot cannot tolerate the world as it is. It needs to live in a world of fantasies. To be more specific, Spamalot's hirelings have learned their scripts well and the rhetoric comes gushing forth with little provocation. In spite of all Spamalot has done, I must admit I really like the organization. No, just kidding.

"Subhuman", "delirious", and "ostentatious" seem the most appropriate adjectives to describe Spamalot's magic-bullet explanations. Now take that to the next level: Throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to provide an antidote to contemporary manifestations of scurrilous blackguardism and those who wish to enact new laws forcing anyone who's not one of its satraps to live in an environment that can, at best, be described as contemptuously tolerant. Naturally, Spamalot belongs to the latter category. Spamalot seizes every opportunity to bury our heritage, our traditions, and our culture. I cannot believe this colossal clownishness. Any sane person knows that Spamalot likes to posture as a guardian of virtue and manners. However, when it comes right down to it, what it is pushing is both anal-retentive and churlish. If I said that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance, I'd be a liar. But I'd be being thoroughly honest if I said that we must mention a bit about aberrant porn stars such as Spamalot. Those who claim otherwise do so only to justify their own disdainful disquisitions. Spamalot is still going around insisting that the ideas of "freedom" and "absenteeism" are Siamese twins. Jeez, I thought I had made it perfectly clear to it that its antics manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: regulate interdenominationalism. Phase two: stifle dissent. In whatever form it takes -- magazines, music, propaganda, or any other form -- Spamalot's rhetoric is designed to revive an arcadian past that never existed.

Now that I've been exposed to Spamalot's zingers, I must admit that I don't completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps Spamalot should think twice before it decides to turn once-flourishing neighborhoods into zones of violence, decay, and moral disregard. 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 clearly expresses how it has compiled an impressive list of grievances against me. Not only are all of these grievances completely fictitious, but this is where the rubber hits the road. That conclusion is not based on some sort of sententious, impetuous philosophy or on Spamalot-style mental masturbation, but on widely known and proven principles of science. These principles explain that some people think I'm exaggerating when I say that Spamalot's inclinations are a textbook example of distortion and deceit. But I'm not exaggerating; if anything, I'm understating the situation. Spamalot exists for one reason and for one reason only: to waste hours and hours in fruitless conferences and meetings. Spamalot is the type of organization that turns up its nose at people like you and me. I guess that's because we haven't the faintest notion about the things that really matter, such as why it would be good for it to sue people at random.

While choleric wankers claim to defend traditional values, they actually eroticize relations of dominance and subordination. Who else but Spamalot would have the brass to strip people of their rights to free expression and individuality? No one. And where does that brass come from? It comes from a sure knowledge that it can retreat into its "victim" status if anyone calls it to account.

It may not seem to be very important right now, but it has been brought to my attention that bestial beggars in general, and Spamalot in particular, intend to provide evil Philistines with a milieu in which they can perpetuate harmful stereotypes. While this is undeniably true, if Spamalot had done its homework, it'd know that it presents one face to the public, a face that tells people what they want to hear. Then, in private, Spamalot devises new schemes to lure the hate-filled into its pharisaism movement. Though nit-picky alcoholism is not discussed in this letter, much of what I've written applies to that, as well. No matter how bad you think Spamalot's smear tactics are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think. To state it in stark and simple terms, when Spamalot was first found trying to encourage and exacerbate passivity in some people who might otherwise be active and responsible citizens, I was scared. I was scared not only for my personal safety; I was scared for the people I love. And now that Spamalot is planning to gum up what were once great ideas, I'm downright terrified.

Given the tenor of our times, if Spamalot can overawe and befuddle a sufficient number of prominent individuals, then it will become virtually impossible for anyone to acquire the input of a representative cross-section of the community in a non-threatening, inclusive environment. I could tell Spamalot that under the guise of stimulating debate and illuminating diverse perspectives, its politics actually embark on wholesale torture and slaughter of innocent civilians, although it obviously doesn't care. I could tell it that I challenge it to tell me what, if anything, in this letter is not completely truthful, but it wouldn't believe me. It probably also doesn't care that people who agree with its ideas are either stupid, drunk, on drugs, paid off by Spamalot, or are rummy, impudent addlepated-types. So let me appeal to whatever small semblance of reason Spamalot may be capable of when I tell it that in order to scrap the entire constellation of larcenous ideas that brought us to our present point, we must dole out acerbic criticism of Spamalot and its phalanx of illiterate legatees. And that's just the first step. Remember, its victims have been speaking out for years. Unfortunately, their voices have long been silenced by the roar and thunder of Spamalot's confreres, who loudly proclaim that Spamalot's tricks are good for the environment, human rights, and baby seals. Regardless of those destructive proclamations, the truth is that there is an unpleasant fact, painful to the tender-minded, that one can deduce from the laws of nature. This fact is also conclusively established by direct observation. It is a fact so obvious that rational people have always known it and no one doubted it until Spamalot and its flunkies started trying to deny it. The fact to which I am referring states that Spamalot should think about how its hijinks lead tyrannical survivalists to vilify our history, character, values, and traditions. If Spamalot doesn't want to think that hard, perhaps it should just keep quiet.

To put it crudely, Spamalot is the type of organization that can look you right in the eye and, with an expression of the utmost sincerity, tell you any kind of whopper that suits its purpose. The mere mention of that fact guarantees that this letter will never get published in any mass-circulation periodical that Spamalot has any control over. But that's inconsequential, because I've tried explaining to Spamalot's associates that we must unequivocally feed the starving, house the homeless, cure the sick, and still find wonder and awe in the sunrise and the moonlight without the slightest consideration for any screams and complaints that might arise. Unfortunately, it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars. In fact, I'd bet Martians would be more likely to discern that Spamalot's attempts to impose a one-size-fits-all model on how society should function are much worse than mere fascism. They are hurtful, malicious, criminal behavior and deserve nothing less than our collective condemnation. Spamalot's eccentricity is surpassed only by its vanity. And its vanity is surpassed only by its empty theorizing. (Remember its theory that it is entitled to give voice, in a totally emotional and non-rational way, to its deep-rooted love of commercialism?) Unlike Spamalot's witticisms, my own expositions are not vague and undefined. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper because it's the news that just doesn't fit. Spamalot's more than cruel. It's mega-cruel. In fact, to understand just how cruel Spamalot is, you first need to realize that it would help if it realized that education and wisdom aren't necessarily the same thing. The logical consequences of that are clear: This is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about Spamalot's annoying behavior, but about the way that if anything, the real question here is not, "What provoked Spamalot to defy the rules of logic?". The real question is rather, "What does it hope to achieve by repeatedly applying its lips to the posteriors of obtuse devil-worshippers?" If I'm not mistaken, there's a painfully simple answer. It regards the way that its apologues have caused widespread social alienation, and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung. I'd like to finish with a quote from a private e-mail message sent to me by a close friend of mine: "It would be nugatory to discuss Spamalot's editorials without first mentioning that passion precludes Spamalot's ability to ignore trivialities and to concentrate on the important aspects of the problem".

I'll get right to the point. The ineluctable outcome of Spamalot's announcements is a world in which the most malignant geeks I've ever seen expose and neutralize Spamalot's enemies rather than sit at the same table and negotiate. As this letter will make clear, once you understand Spamalot's beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments), you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting Spamalot talk about you and me in terms which are not fit to be repeated. Spamalot has never satisfactorily proved its assertion that it is a refined organization with the soundest ethics and morals you can imagine. It has merely justified that assertion with the phrase, "Because I said so." The dominant characteristic of Spamalot's endeavors is not that they feed on the politics of resentment, alienation, frustration, anger, and fear, but that, in the bargain, they subject us to the mawkish, peevish yapping of petulant voluptuaries. Strictly speaking, I welcome Spamalot's comments. However, Spamalot needs to realize that it, already oppressive with its unrestrained inclinations, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species -- if separate species we be -- for its reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world. If you think that that's a frightening thought, then consider that Spamalot may be reasonably cunning with words. However, it is absolutely self-aggrandizing with everything else. Now, I'm no fan of Spamalot's, but still, Spamalot's comrades fail to recognize that Spamalot's rantings are a stuck-up, insane carnival of hedonism. Period, finis, and Q.E.D.

The whole premise of Spamalot's politics is false, and its arguments are specious at best. It may seem senseless to say that Spamalot's shock troops are delighted with the potential for violent confrontation. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. In a sense, Spamalot says that my bitterness at it is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish. What it means by this, of course, is that it wants free reign to regulate fogyism. I mean, really. Does Spamalot actually think its arguments through, or does it just chug along on its computer writing about whatever trite claims happen to suit its needs that day? I ask, because Spamalot shouldn't convict me without trial, jury, or reading one complete paragraph of this letter. That would be like asking a question at a news conference and, too angry and passionate to wait for the answer, exiting the auditorium before the response. Both of those actions propound ideas that are widely perceived as representing outright solipsism.

No doubt, Spamalot needs to step out of the dark ages. But Spamalot can get away with lies (e.g., that its decisions are based on reason) because the average person cannot imagine anyone lying so brazenly. Not one person in a hundred will actually check out the facts for himself and discover that Spamalot is lying. Is it any wonder that in every country, there are pesky scalawags who are every bit as socially inept as Spamalot? For proof of this ongoing tragedy, one has only to realize that I am not embarrassed to admit that I have neither the training, the experience, the license, nor the clinical setting necessary to properly build a world overflowing with compassion and tolerance. Nevertheless, I honestly do have the will to present a noble vision of who we were, who we are, and who we can potentially be. That's why I claim that Spamalot asserts that sin is good for the soul. Most reasonable people, however, recognize such assertions as nothing more than baseless, if wishful, claims unsupported by concrete evidence.

Spamalot does not merely put a superstitious spin on important issues. It does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically. You see, Spamalot knows that performing an occasional act of charity will make some people forgive -- or at least overlook -- all of its insensitive excesses. My take on the matter is that it operates on an international scale to worsen an already unstable situation. It's only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale, but to reinforce notions of positive self esteem.

While there are many crafty anthropophagi, Spamalot is the most disorderly of the lot. Spamalot's put-downs are not the solution to our problem. They are the problem. Whether or not you realize this, Spamalot argues that mediocrity is a worthwhile goal. I wish I could suggest some incontrovertible chain of apodictic reasoning that would overcome this argument, but the best I can do is the following: It is a supporter of everything that was trendy in America in the 1960s -- the marvelous effects of LSD and other psychedelic drugs, pyramid power, various oriental religious cults, transcendental meditation, UFOs and extraterrestrials, CIA conspiracies, you name it. I could write pages on the subject, but the following should suffice. Because of Spamalot's obsession with Stalinism, it wants to sully a profession that's already held in low esteem. You know what groups have historically wanted to do the same thing? Fascists and Nazis.

Never have I seen such a gross error in judgment as Spamalot's decision to open the gates of Hell. Most people don't realize this, but Spamalot has, in fact, presented evidence in support of its claim that it is better that a hundred thousand people should perish than that it should be even slightly inconvenienced. Of course, its evidence has been rather flimsy in the credibility department. It's generally a lot easier to find evidence that Spamalot has recently been going around claiming that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not. You really have to tie your brain in knots to be gullible enough to believe that junk. We must reach out to people with the message that Spamalot should be forced to wear a scarlet "W" for "Wants to work both sides of the political fence". We must alert people of that. We must educate them. We must inspire them. And we must encourage them to discuss, openly and candidly, a vision for a harmonious, multiracial society.

I oppose, deplore, and disavow discrimination, extremism, and hatred of every kind. The same holds true for delirious, unconscionable unpleasant-types. What's interesting is that Spamalot uses sadism as a hammer to forge the nutty, unrealistic muttonheads who will declare that its apothegms prevent smallpox in the immediate years ahead. Get that straight, please. Any other thinking is blame-shoving or responsibility-dodging. Furthermore, if anything, there may be absolutely nothing we can do to prevent Spamalot from making good on its word to plague our minds. When we compare this disturbing conclusion to the comforting picture purveyed by its subalterns, we experience psychological stress or "cognitive dissonance". Our only recourse is to pronounce the truth and renounce the lies. It's acrimonious carousers like Spamalot that overthrow western civilization through the destruction of its four pillars -- family, nation, religion, and democracy. Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that 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. Furthermore, Spamalot will do everything in its power to trivialize certain events that are particularly special to us all. No wonder corruption is endemic to our society; Spamalot claims to be supportive of my plan to supply the missing ingredient that could stop the worldwide slide into ageism. Don't trust it, though; it's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Before you know it, it'll obliterate our sense of identity. Not only that, but Spamalot's fantasy is to give me reason to hang myself by the neck until dead. It dreams of a world that grants it such a freedom with no strings attached. Welcome to the world of interventionism! In that nightmare world it has long since been forgotten that Spamalot's claque appears to be growing in number. I pray that this is analogous to the flare-up of a candle just before extinction yet I keep reminding myself that Spamalot would not hesitate to trample into the mud all that is fine and noble and beautiful if it felt it could benefit from doing so.

Spamalot is totally versipellous. When it's among plebeians, Spamalot warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against priggism. But when Spamalot's safely surrounded by its devotees, it instructs them to demand that Earth submit to the dominion of the most fork-tongued thugs you'll ever see. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that Spamalot sees itself as a postmodern equivalent of Marx's proletariat, revolutionizing the world by wresting it from its oppressors (viz., those who keep our courage up). Spamalot assigns blame to everyone but itself. History offers innumerable examples for the truth of this assertion. There's a special, dark corner of Hell for the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Spamalot. This means, in particular, that statements like, "According to Spamalot, anyone who points this out is guilty of spreading lies, smears, and stoicism" accurately express the feelings of most of us here.

I plan to work within the system to persuade my fellow citizens that I find Spamalot's editorials rather minatory, not because I lack the courage for more drastic steps, but because if we contradict Spamalot, we are labelled self-satisfied junkies. If we capitulate, however, we forfeit our freedoms. I have a soft spot for illaudable yokels: a bog not too far from here. There is no possible justification for the argument that Spamalot is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative. 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 sincerely expresses how I've tried explaining to Spamalot's votaries that the "freedom" that Spamalot is always so keen to talk about is a sheep's freedom to choose the patch of grass in which it will graze while growing wool and mutton for its owners. Unfortunately, it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars. In fact, I'd bet Martians would be more likely to discern that Spamalot has no discernible talents. The only things it has indeed mastered are biological functions. Well, I suppose Spamalot's also good at convincing people that the cure for evil is more evil, but my point is that Spamalot has convinced a lot of people that you and I are inferior to the most haughty upstarts you'll ever see. One must pause in admiration at this triumph of media manipulation.

Spamalot can push me only so far and no farther. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that Spamalot finds reality too difficult to swallow. Or maybe it just gets lost between the sports and entertainment pages. In either case, I undeniably hope you're not being misled by the "new Spamalot". Only its methods and tactics have changed. Spamalot's goal is still the same: to trick us into trading freedom for serfdom. That's why I'm telling you that it's unfortunate that Spamalot has no real morals. It's impossible to debate important topics with organizations that are so ethically handicapped. Spamalot's idiotic claim that those of us who oppose it would rather run than fight is just that, an idiotic claim. In order to solve the big problems with Spamalot, we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must demand a thoughtful analysis and resolution of our problems with Spamalot. Spamalot's prognoses cannot stand on their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that cold-blooded wastrels should be fêted at wine-and-cheese fund-raisers. One might conclude that it is cowardice on Spamalot's part to shatter other people's lives and dreams. Alternatively, one might conclude that I hope it enjoys its new distinction as one of the most dirty low-lifes who ever lived. In either case, it is always trying to change the way we work. This annoys me, because Spamalot's previous changes have always been for the worse. I'm positive that its new changes will be even more sanctimonious, because Spamalot is nuttier than squirrel dung. And I can say that with a clear conscience because some people don't seem to mind that Spamalot likes to replace our timeless traditions with its slaphappy, insolent ones. What a poxy, mad world we live in! By supporting iconoclastic jabberers with inferior moral standards, we devalue ourselves, the lives of our children, and the heroes who died for our freedoms. Do give that some thought.

The following letter is inspired by a quote from Thomas Paine: "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." And that's why I feel compelled to say something about petulant deadheads. Spamalot's argument that it is a martyr for freedom and a victim of gangsterism is hopelessly flawed and totally circuitous.

More concretely, you'd think that someone would have done something by now to thwart Spamalot's plans to slander those who are most systematically undervalued, underpaid, underemployed, underfinanced, underinsured, underrated, and otherwise underserved and undermined as undeserving and underclass. Unfortunately, most people are quite happy to "go along to get along" and are rather reluctant to launch an all-out ideological attack against the forces of racism. It is imperative that we inform such people that if Spamalot has spurred us to show you, as dispassionately as possible, what kind of avaricious, obnoxious thoughts it is thinking about these days, then Spamalot may have accomplished a useful thing. Now is the time to redefine the rhetoric and make room for meaningful discussion. Of course, this sounds simple, but in reality, the real issue is simple: It is not above the law.

If we take Spamalot's threats to their logical conclusion, we see that as soon as our backs are turned, Spamalot will deflect attention from its unwillingness to support policies that benefit the average citizen. Spamalot believes that clever one-liners are a valid substitute for actual thinking. Unfortunately, as long as it believes such absurdities, it will continue to commit atrocities. It's not the boogeyman that our children need to worry about. It's Spamalot. Not only is Spamalot more obstreperous and more huffy than any envisaged boogeyman or bugbear, but there's no shortage of sin in the world today. It's been around since the Garden of Eden and will definitely persist as long as Spamalot continues to undermine serious institutional and economic analyses and replace them with a diverting soap opera of patronizing conspiracies. Spamalot can go on saying that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel, but the rest of us have serious problems to deal with that preclude our indulging in such untrustworthy dreams just now. Purists may object to my failure to present specific examples of Spamalot's impudent hatchet jobs. Fortunately, I do have an explanation for this omission. The explanation demands an understanding of how Spamalot wants to rid the world of "defective" people. That's just a fancy way of saying that Spamalot has spent untold hours trying to engage in the trafficking of human beings. During that time, did it ever once occur to it that it would be nugatory to discuss its exegeses without first mentioning that there's always been suffering in the world, and wrongs have been and will continue to be committed? The answer is quite simple. I already listed several possibilities, but because Spamalot lacks the ability to remember beyond the last two seconds of its existence, I will restate what I said before, for its sake: Certain facts are clear. For instance, it is too malignant to read the writing on the wall. This writing warns that one of the goals of exclusionism is to render meaningless the words "best" and "worst". Spamalot admires that philosophy because, by annihilating human perceptions of quality, Spamalot's own mediocrity can flourish.

Spamalot wants us to think of it as a do-gooder. Keep in mind, though, that it wants to "do good" with other people's money and often with other people's lives. If Spamalot really wanted to be a do-gooder, it could start by admitting that I'm not writing this letter for your entertainment. I'm not even writing it for your education. I'm writing it for our very survival. I've already said this a thousand times and with a thousand different phrasings, but griping about Spamalot will not make it stop trying to supplant one form of injustice with another. But even if it did, it would just find some other way to instill distrust and thereby create a need for its disaffected views.

To say otherwise would be craven. What shall we do? We have several options. We might make some changes here. We might stop the Huns at the gate. Or, we might increase awareness and understanding of our similarities and differences. Any of these options, I believe, are acceptable. Still, we must choose one of them or else Spamalot will leave helpless citizens afraid in the streets, in their jobs, and even in their homes by the end of the decade.

I frequently wish to tell Spamalot that I never asked it to tell me how to live my life. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue. I hope I don't need to remind you that boosterism is irrelevant here, but it's still true, and we must do something about it. While it's true that it is not possible fully to understand the present except as a projection of the past, it has yet to acknowledge that fact. Spamalot has an amazing ability to disengage its intellect. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation.

Spamalot's rejoinders are based on some deep-rooted personality disorder. Spamalot may mean well but if anything will free us from the shackles of its nepotism-oriented mottos, it's knowledge of the world as it really is. It's knowledge that Spamalot has nothing but contempt for you, and you don't even know it. That's why I feel obligated to inform you that documents written by its bedfellows typically include the line, "Quislingism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society", in large, 30-point type, as if the size of the font gives weight to the words. In reality, all that that fancy formatting really does is underscore the fact that I want my life to count. I want to be part of something significant and lasting. I want to push a consistent vision that responds to most people's growing fears about vengeful, impulsive nose-in-the-air snobs. I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. And one of the things that impresses me about it is the massive number of people who realize that for the time being, this is not a major issue. From this anecdotal evidence, I would argue that it will not be easy to give parents the means to protect their children. Nevertheless, we must attempt to do exactly that, for the overriding reason that this is not Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, where the state would be eager to muster enough force to borrow money and spend it on programs that exercise control through indirect coercion or through psychological pressure or manipulation. Not yet, at least. But if Spamalot is victorious in its quest to undermine everyone's capacity to see, or change, the world as a whole, then its crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. If we look beyond Spamalot's delusions of grandeur, we see that it claims to be fighting for equality. What Spamalot's really fighting for, however, is equality in degradation, by which I mean that Spamalot maintains that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point. This is hardly the case. Rather, there is growing evidence that says, to the contrary, that I can reword my point as follows. I experienced quite an epiphany when I first realized that I have come to know Spamalot's adulators too well not to feel the profoundest disgust for their nerdy animadversions. I, speaking as someone who is not a callow, fastidious wimp, am cognizant that Spamalot's hastily mounted campaigns bespeak a spiritual crassness, a materialistic and short-sighted stupidity that will put the gods of heaven into the corner as obsolete and outmoded and, in their stead, burn incense to the idol Mammon by next weekend, but I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I myself think that there is, because it is easy to see from the foregoing that common sense should render unwarranted any claim that Spamalot's way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't. 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, we should reach the broadest possible audience with the message that our problem -- and make no mistake about it, it is a severe predicament -- is that we currently lack the resources needed to rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.)

It may sound strange to Spamalot when I say that it is so confident in its own intellectual and cultural paradigm that it is blind to global realities, but in a tacit concession of defeat, Spamalot is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what its nasty "compromises" have failed at. For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, I must say that if you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance. Never have I seen such a gross error in judgment as Spamalot's decision to make serious dialogue difficult or impossible. Yes, I intend to exercise my franchise to encourage individuals to come out of their cocoons and flourish, but here is the point that is worth considering: Most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place. Now follow your hearts with actions.

Spamalot should get a life and stay out of mine, but what makes matters completely intolerable is knowing that Spamalot must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why Spamalot accuses me of admitting that it never engages in pea-brained, shallow, or prissy politics. What I actually said is that there are two related questions in this matter. The first is to what extent Spamalot has tried to take us over the edge of the abyss of conformism. The other is whether or not Spamalot's behavior might be different if it were told that its hatred knows no bounds. Of course, as far as Spamalot's concerned, this fact will fall into the category of, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts." That's why I'm telling you that it motivates people to join its band by using words like "humanity", "compassion", and "unity". This is a great deception. What Spamalot really wants to do is defy the law of the land. That's why if I were elected Ruler of the World, my first act of business would be to encourage our spirits to soar. I would further use my position to inform certain segments of the Earth's population that the only weapons Spamalot has in its intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That's all it has, and it knows it. Essentially, jaundiced clodpolls are more susceptible to Spamalot's brainwashing tactics than are any other group. Like water, their minds take the form of whatever receptacle it puts them in. They then lose all recollection that if Spamalot gets its way, I might very well swallow its inveracities whole, without question or quibble. Spamalot says that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding. Wow! Isn't that like hiding the stolen goods in the closet and, when the cops come in, standing in front of the closet door and exclaiming, "They're not in here!"?

Believe me, I certainly don't want to give Spamalot a chance to suppress people's instinct and intellect. The word "honesty" does not exist in Spamalot's vocabulary. Equally important is the fact that Spamalot's utterances are a disgrace and an outrage. And I can say that with a clear conscience because if Spamalot wants to be taken seriously, it should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults. Spamalot extricates itself from difficulty by intrigue, by chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming, by an untruth, by an injustice. If I had to choose the most repressive specimen from Spamalot's welter of hate-filled gabble, it would have to be Spamalot's claim that it has been robbed of all it does not possess. While this letter hasn't provided anything in the way of a concrete plan of action, it may help us focus our thinking a little better when we do work out a plan. For now, we must give direction to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality. I will unequivocally be happy to have your help in this endeavor.

In summary, I WILL KILL YOU ALL!

from the SPamalot thread.

LAME!

IT was extra long because you deserved it.

[Coleman]

Do you relly expect me to read that?

No.

[Skittles!]

You created something that needed to stay out of the forums...

[Iliad]

You created something that needed to stay out of the forums...

it is such a potent spam weapon. We could spam a whole page with barely any work! And very quickly!

[Skittles!]

You created something that needed to stay out of the forums...

it is such a potent spam weapon. We could spam a whole page with barely any work! And very quickly!

But it takes up so much fucking room.

[Iliad]

You created something that needed to stay out of the forums...

it is such a potent spam weapon. We could spam a whole page with barely any work! And very quickly!

But it takes up so much fucking room.

That's why it is such a powerful spam weapon. Consider it the nuke of spam.

[Skittles!]

Consider it. No. Don't do it, or I'll suicide 1000 times -999 and then I'll just.. Fly away

[Iliad]

Consider it. No. Don't do it, or I'll suicide 1000 times -999 and then I'll just.. Fly away

I didn't exactly get that.

[Skittles!]

You weren't meant to

[b.k. barunt]

I have to sat that anything is a welcome break from bigfalcon and xtratabasco.