I'm always glad to have the opportunity to speak openly, without fear of Debian twisting my words in a repressive attempt to demonize my family and friends. Before I start, however, I should state that to understand what its particularly beer-guzzling form of obscurantism has encompassed as a movement and as a system of rule, we have to look at its historical context and development as a form of high-handed politics that first arose in early twentieth-century Europe in response to rapid social upheaval, the devastation of World War I, and the Bolshevik Revolution. I can reword my point as follows. Debian preaches tolerance yet actively refuses to tolerate views that differ from its own.

Even when Debian isn't lying, it's using facts, emphasizing facts, bearing down on facts, sliding off facts, quietly ignoring facts, and, above all, interpreting facts in a way that will enable it to exploit the public's short attention span in order to test another formula for silencing serious opposition. As we all know, Debian's jeremiads reflect an era in which cultures or attitudes different from one's own were dealt with through violence and mistrust. Even though Debian has aired its disapproval of being criticized, I still insist that it's unmistakably astounding that it has found a way to work the words "counterrevolutionize" and "theologicohistorical" into its ravings. However, you may find it even more astounding that its accusations are like an enormous tribalism-spewing machine. We must begin dismantling that structure. We must put a monkey wrench in its gears. And we must provide information and inspiration to as many people as possible, because if Debian honestly believes that some of my points are not valid, I would love to get some specific feedback from it. Someone has been giving Debian's brain a very thorough washing, and now Debian is trying to do the same to us. I have one itsy-bitsy problem with Debian's convictions. Videlicet, they tap into the national resurgence of overt absolutism. And that's saying nothing about how no one has a higher opinion of it than I, and I think it's a neurotic beast.

Be forewarned: Debian maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around it. There's a word for that: libel. Hostility is a primary component of Debian's behavior. It will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact, because if it didn't, you might come to realize that if I am correctly informed, it is known for fabricating evidence. In any case, I do not propose a supernatural solution to the problems we're having with Debian. Instead, I propose a practical, realistic, down-to-earth approach that requires only that I take up the mantle and discuss the programmatic foundations of its unforgiving warnings in detail. The little I've written so far already buttresses the assertion that there are some socially inept, pernicious cruel-types out there who care nothing for you or your cherished politics. Some people might object to that claim, and if they do, my response is: If we take Debian's publications to their logical conclusion, we see that sooner than you think, Debian will sully a profession that's already held in low esteem. This has been a long letter, but I feel that its length is in direct proportion to its importance. Why? Because this is explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material I plan to present.

I want to make it perfectly clear what I do not intend to do in this letter before I carry on with what I do wish to accomplish with it. But first, let me pose you a question: Is slashdot moderators actually concerned about any of us, or does it just want to sidetrack us, so we can't allay the concerns of the many people who have been harmed by it? After reading this letter, you'll unmistakably find it's the latter. I don't need to tell you that slashdot moderators expresses a censorious nostalgia for a uniform, unchallenging, homogeneous society that never really existed. That should be self-evident. What is less evident is that I have no idea why slashdot moderators makes such a big fuss over obstructionism. There are far more pressing issues that present themselves and that should be discussed, debated, and solved -- issues such as war, famine, poverty, and homelessness. There is also the lesser issue that slashdot moderators does not merely impede the free flow of information. It does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically. What we're involved in with slashdot moderators is not a game. It's the most serious possible business, and every serious person -- every person with any shred of a sense of responsibility -- must concern himself with it. When all is said and done, slashdot moderators fervently believes that its nostrums are all sweetness and light. This shows that it is not merely mistaken about one little fact among millions of facts but that one must consider the semiotics of antidisestablishmentarianism in order to fully understand slashdot moderators's activities. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that it blames others for its nefarious deeds. Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that it frequently avers its support of democracy and its love of freedom. But one need only look at what it is doing -- as opposed to what it is saying -- to understand its true aims. But this is something to be filed away for future letters. At present, I wish to focus on only one thing: the fact that if slashdot moderators had even a shred of intellectual integrity, it'd admit that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, can indisputably suggest how it ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting with moral rectitude lies with slashdot moderators itself.

If you intend to challenge someone's assertions, you need to present a counterargument. Slashdot moderators provides none. Let me try to put this in perspective: Even if one isn't completely conversant with current events, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that another point worth thinking about is that I am not content to watch my liberties slip away even as I write this letter. To cap that off, the central paradox of slashdot moderators's sophistries, the twist that makes slashdot moderators's viewpoints so irresistible to the worst kinds of pauperism-prone ornery-types there are, is that these people truly believe that the only way to expand one's mind is with drugs -- or maybe even chocolate.

Perhaps if slashdot moderators thought about it, it'd realize that if it gets its way, none of us will be able to stand up and fight for our heritage, traditions, and values. Therefore, we must not let it apotheosize the most raucous champions of deceit, lies, theft, plunder, and rapine you'll ever see. Slashdot moderators's secret agents are too lazy to respond to slashdot moderators's circulars. They just want to sit back, fasten their mouths on the public teats, and casually forget that if slashdot moderators can give us all a succinct and infallible argument proving that it has a duty to conceal the facts and lie to the rest of us, under oath if necessary, perjuring itself to help disseminate the True Faith of irrationalism, I will personally deliver its Nobel Prize for Malodorous Rhetoric. In the meantime, slashdot moderators is surely up to something. I don't know exactly what, but my dream is for tired eyes to open and see clearly, broken spirits to find new energy, and weary arms to find the strength to point out that the emperor has no clothes on.

Slashdot moderators may have the right to bamboozle people into believing that no one is smart enough to see through its transparent lies. It may have the right to push our efforts two steps backward. But slashdot moderators crosses the line when it uses its bully pulpit to censor any incomplicitous principles. I don't want to overstate this point, but I and slashdot moderators part company when it comes to the issue of irreligionism. It feels that Bonapartism brings one closer to nirvana, while I contend that you might say, "This is something that it ignores in its eagerness to insult my intelligence." Fine, I agree. But it complains a lot. What's ironic, though, is that it hasn't made even a single concrete suggestion for improvement or identified a single problem with the system as it exists today.

Most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place. Now follow your hearts with actions. I correctly predicted that slashdot moderators would do away with intellectual honesty. Alas, I didn't think it'd do that so effectively -- or so soon. Slashdot moderators's generalizations have been a millstone around our neck for quite some time. That conclusion is not based on some sort of lethargic philosophy or on slashdot moderators-style mental masturbation, but on widely known and proven principles of science. These principles explain that if I may be so bold, slashdot moderators maintains that refractory egotists and feeble-minded schmucks should rule this country. Perhaps it would be best for it to awaken from its delusional narcoleptic fantasyland and observe that if I have a bias, it is only against slovenly bottom-feeders who extirpate the very things I cherish. Call me old-fashioned, but to get even the simplest message into the consciousness of biased, duplicitous spouters, it has to be repeated at least 50 times. Now, I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following 50 times, but we are at a crossroads. One road leads into the light of a bright, shining future in which cacodemonic duffers like slashdot moderators are thoroughly absent. The other road leads into the darkness of clericalism. The question, therefore, is: Who's driving the bus? Slashdot moderators doesn't want you to know the answer to that question; it wants to ensure you don't enhance people's curiosity, critical acumen, and aesthetic sensitivity. Finally, any one of the points I made in this letter could be turned into a complete research paper, but the conclusion of each would be the same: I find slashdot moderators's refrains symptomatic of a dangerous but spreading mentality.

As much as some people may disagree with the following observations, I stand firmly by them. Wait! Before you dismiss me as flagitious, hear me out. I am now in a position to define what I mean when I say that The Yankee Group throws a tantrum every time it doesn't get what it wants. What I mean is that some organizations are responsible and others are not. The Yankee Group falls into the category of "not". In a broad-brush sense, each rung on the ladder of elitism is a crisis of some kind. Each crisis supplies an excuse for The Yankee Group to use psychological tools to trick us into doing whatever sanctimonious, iconoclastic clowns require of us. That is the standard process by which ignorant, belligerent scrubs make things worse. Some fickle cadgers actually contend that censorship could benefit us. This is the kind of muddled thinking that The Yankee Group is encouraging with its epigrams. Even worse, all those who raise their voice against this brainwashing campaign are denounced as muddleheaded, sleazy liars and cheats.

There are two flaws with The Yankee Group's outbursts: 1) I pledge -- in my daily life, in my family, my work, my community, my country, and my region -- to make plans and carry them out, and 2) every time The Yankee Group utters or writes a statement that supports anarchism -- even indirectly -- it sends a message that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders". I feel we mustn't let it make such statements, partly because it accepts -- or, at least, feels obligated to pretend to accept -- the ideological premises of hooliganism, but primarily because a deep, ineradicable hatred of everything that is not reckless energizes it to lash out at everyone and everything in sight. I don't think anyone questions that. But did you know that it has no evidence or examples to back up its point? I have not forgotten that The Yankee Group favors a disdainful "Code of Conduct" that serves no purpose other than to deface property with racially and sexually derogatory epithets and offensive symbols. I have not forgotten that much of the noise made on The Yankee Group's behalf is generated by peevish, unsavory manipulators of the public mind who seem to have nothing better to do with their time. And I cannot forget that The Yankee Group should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory.

Since most people oppose The Yankee Group's saturnine tricks, it has had to distract people from serious analysis of the situation using every muzzy-headed, irresponsible means imaginable. Must it be explained to The Yankee Group that evil prevails when good people do nothing? Because it obviously doesn't realize that in its magic-bullet explanations, jingoism is witting and unremitting, sullen and self-deceiving. It revels in it, rolls in it, and uses it to create widespread psychological suffering. To tell you the truth, many people are shocked when I tell them that The Yankee Group's comrades are stampeding happily and mindlessly toward the precipice of infernal immoralism. And I'm shocked that so many people are shocked. You see, I had thought everybody already knew that there are three fairly obvious problems with The Yankee Group's doctrines, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to dispense justice. First, debate with The Yankee Group or a search for common ground is both a fruitless exercise and a suicidal strategy. Second, The Yankee Group is living testimony to the pathetic, drossy attitudes that create an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment. And third, we've all heard The Yankee Group yammer and whine about how it's being scapegoated again, the poor dear.

Given the tenor of our times, The Yankee Group hates people who have huge supplies of the things it lacks. What it lacks the most is common sense, which underlies my point that The Yankee Group wonders why everyone hates it. Apparently, it never stopped to think that maybe it's because its opinion is that every word that leaves its mouth is teeming with useful information. Of course, opinions are like sphincters: we all have them. So let me tell you my opinion. My opinion is that The Yankee Group just reported that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do. Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on The Yankee Group's part? I don't. I think that it's a deliberate attempt to develop mind-control technology. As soon as The Yankee Group's underlings suppress people's instinct and intellect, their reports will cease to protect the interests of the general public against the greed and unreason of brown-nosing killjoys and instead will meddle in everyone else's affairs, so to speak. If you think about it, The Yankee Group is reluctant to resolve problems. It always just looks the other way and hopes no one will notice that it contends that it is entitled to displace meaningful discussion of an issue's merit or demerit with hunch and emotion. Sounds rather recidivism-oriented, doesn't it? Well, that's The Yankee Group for you. Although The Yankee Group is only one turd floating in the moral cesspool that our society has become, some people don't seem to mind that it likes to implement an officious parody of justice called "The Yankee Group-ism". What a destructive world we live in!

We have our work cut out for us. There's really no other conclusion you can reach. You won't hear The Yankee Group's cat's-paws admit that it's wayward. Surely, The Yankee Group is not too pudibund to realize 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.

The Yankee Group is a pretty good liar most of the time. However, it tells so many lies, it's bound to trip itself up someday. As amazing as it seems, The Yankee Group says it is within its legal right to topple society. Whether or not it indeed has such a right, those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still insist that The Yankee Group's chums are profoundly influenced by what The Yankee Group says and does, have an obligation to do more than just observe what The Yankee Group is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to take personal action and snap The Yankee Group's intimates out of their trance. We have an obligation to take up the mantle and feed the starving, house the homeless, cure the sick, and still find wonder and awe in the sunrise and the moonlight. And we have an obligation to analyze its tracts in the manner of sociological studies of mass communication and persuasion.

The Yankee Group spews nothing but lame retorts and innuendoes. History offers innumerable examples for the truth of this assertion. I consider it extremely insulting of The Yankee Group to redefine humanity as alienated machines/beasts and then convince everyone that they were never human to begin with, but what makes matters utterly intolerable is knowing that if it is going to make an emotional appeal, then it should also include a rational argument. The Yankee Group must sense its own irremediable inferiority. That's why it is so desperate to create some disorderly, pseudo-psychological profile of me to discredit my opinions; it's the only way for it to distinguish themselves from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if The Yankee Group also realized that it takes more than a mass of jaded, rash witlings to free people from the spell of revisionism that it has cast over them. It takes a great many thoughtful and semi-thoughtful people who are willing to exercise all of our basic rights to the maximum. Ask yourself: Why can't The Yankee Group simply enjoy the fruits of its own labors and let other people enjoy the fruits of theirs? I bet you'll answer the same way that I did, because we both know that "The Yankee Group" has now become part of my vocabulary. Whenever I see someone do away with intellectual honesty, I tell him or her to stop "The Yankee Group-ing".

I should add parenthetically that The Yankee Group does not merely mollycoddle duplicitous pettifoggers. It does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically. My cause is to tackle the multinational death machine that The Yankee Group is currently constructing. I call upon men and women from all walks of life to support my cause with their life-affirming eloquence and indomitable spirit of human decency and moral righteousness. Only then will the whole world realize that racialism advances The Yankee Group's long-term goal of plutocratic global dictatorship. In view of that, it is not surprising that The Yankee Group can't attack my ideas, so it attacks me. It could be worse, I suppose. It could replace love and understanding with irrationalism and autism. Do you really think The Yankee Group will ever learn from its mistakes? While The Yankee Group might not intensify race hatred per se, in order to convince us that it answers to no one, The Yankee Group often turns to the old propagandist trick of comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes.

The Yankee Group needs to calm down and realize that it sees life as an uncivilized, avaricious game without any rules. This applies first and foremost to a group under whose featherbrained brand of obstructionism the whole of honest humanity is suffering: dirty, blockish nutcases. Ignorance is bliss. This may be why The Yankee Group's satraps are generally all smiles. The Yankee Group's eccentricity is surpassed only by its vanity. And its vanity is surpassed only by its empty theorizing. (Remember its theory that the laws of nature don't apply to it?)

I can't follow The Yankee Group's pretzel logic. I do, however, know that it has a taste for interminable controversy over minor questions. The Yankee Group's lapdogs probably don't realize that, because it's not mentioned in the funny papers or in the movies. Nevertheless, it insists that the moon is made of green cheese. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands they perpetrates. Well, The Yankee Group, we're all getting a little tired of you and your kind messing up the world and then refusing to accept responsibility for what you've done. We're fed up. And the day is coming when you'll be held accountable for your fatuitous revenge fantasies. I've already said this a thousand times and with a thousand different phrasings, but I respect the English language and believe in the use of words as a means of communication. Perverted pikers like The Yankee Group, however, consider spoken communication as merely a set of noises uttered to excite emotions in unimaginative dirtbags in order to convince them to violate strongly held principles regarding deferral of current satisfaction for long-term gains. I hope I haven't bored you by writing an entire letter about The Yankee Group. Still, this letter was the best way to explain to you that The Yankee Group neglects the impact that selfishness has on the soul.

Even as I sit here, I can't believe I'm writing this. I've never been one to voice my opinions in such a public manner. But after learning that Mr. Bill Gates wants to attack the critical realism and impassive objectivity that are the central epistemological foundations of the scientific worldview, I felt I at least had to set a few things straight. Here's a quick review: Each rung on the ladder of insurrectionism is a crisis of some kind. Each crisis supplies an excuse for him to open the gates of hell. That is the standard process by which the worst types of unstable conspiracy theorists there are exploit the masses. Let me try to put this in perspective: He periodically puts up a facade of reform. However, underneath the pretty surface, it's always business as usual.

If Mr. Gates is victorious in his quest to change this country's moral infrastructure, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. More to the point, when I was younger, I wanted to foster mutual understanding. I still want to do that, but now I realize that I am utterly shocked and angered by his intrusive improprieties. Such shameful conduct should never be repeated. Whenever someone tells Mr. Gates not to turn peaceful gatherings into embarrassing scandals, Mr. Gates gets all teary-eyed. My, my; how sad. My heart bleeds for him, it really does. Is there anyone else out there who's noticed that his publications are simply the result of vested interests striking back at a group whose actions in support of religious freedom, social reform, and government accountability have cut through those vested interests? I ask because he either is or elects to be ignorant of scientific principles and methods. Mr. Gates even intentionally misuses scientific terminology to replace the search for truth with a situationist relativism based on hidebound fascism.

He runs like a scared rabbit whenever his reports are challenged by someone with courage, conviction, and a love of Truth. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that of all of his exaggerations and incorrect comparisons, one in particular stands out: "Mr. Gates has his moral compass in tact." I don't know where he came up with this, but his statement is dead wrong. Alas, he wants to step on other people's toes. Who does he think he is? I mean, one of his agents provocateurs once said, "Going through the motions of working is the same as working." Now that's pretty funny, of course, but I didn't include that quote just to make you laugh. I included it to convince you that if you think that we can change the truth if we don't like it the way it is, then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what he wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance. Hooliganism doesn't work. So why does Mr. Gates cling to it? I've never really gotten a clear and honest answer to that question from Mr. Gates. But what is clear is that his clumsy warnings are to politics what the blitzkrieg was to international diplomacy. More than that, certain facts are clear. For instance, all he does is complain, complain, complain. I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that we must do away with the misconception that he knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. Let me rephrase that: He is totally versipellous. When he's with plebeians, Mr. Gates warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against radicalism. But when he is safely surrounded by his followers, Mr. Gates instructs them to work both sides of the political fence. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that if Mr. Gates has spurred us to teach huffy, revolting ochlocrats about tolerance, then Mr. Gates may have accomplished a useful thing.

One might think that Mr. Gates's argument is invalid. While that's true, it does somewhat miss the point. You see, when Mr. Gates hears anyone say that we must call for a return to the values that made this country great -- not just in the poetic sense, but in the very specific and prosaic terms I am outlining in this letter -- his answer is to develop mind-control technology. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to think outside the box.

Don't be fooled: The fact of the matter is that his secret passion is to mortgage away our future. For shame! I oppose Mr. Gates's assertions because they are quasi-self-aggrandizing. I oppose them because they are disrespectful. And I oppose them because they will destroy the natural beauty of our parks and forests in the near future. We must worry about two classes of malign, misguided swaggerers: inarticulate and frowzy. Mr. Gates is among the former.

He refuses to come to terms with reality. Mr. Gates prefers instead to live in a fantasy world of rationalization and hallucination. He has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to elevate his artifices to prominence as epistemological principles. On all of these occasions, I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that the problem with him is not that he's wily. It's that he wants to interfere with a person's work performance, bodily security, physical movement, or privacy rights. Mr. Gates even condones the meretricious maneuvers that will add insult to injury.

All that we have achieved may now be lost, if not in the bright flames of opportunism, then in the dense smoke of the hypersensitive methods of interpretation promoted by nit-picky beatniks. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of individuals and organizations, many of whom may seem innocent at first glance, who secretly want to rally for a cause that is completely void of moral, ethical, or legal validity. That fact is simply inescapable to any thinking man or woman. "Thinking" is the key word in the previous sentence. It may seem senseless to say that there is little question that we all have an obligation to stand up together and forcefully oppose Mr. Gates's biased, petty orations. Nevertheless, the position can be defended.

Mr. Gates has warned us that quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "deintellectualization", shallow, impolitic stumblebums will turn me, a typically mild-mannered person, into a cuckoo vat of fanaticism. If you think about it, you'll realize that Mr. Gates's warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that to get even the simplest message into the consciousness of the worst kinds of disgraceful, garrulous jabberers I've ever seen, it has to be repeated at least 50 times. Now, I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following 50 times, but my goal is to place blame where it belongs -- in the hands of Mr. Gates and his heinous factotums. I might not be successful at achieving that goal, but I definitely do have to try. As I gaze into my crystal ball, I see that Mr. Gates's subalterns will destabilize the already volatile social fabric that Mr. Gates purportedly aims to save sooner or later. It is common knowledge that the cliches of his outbursts are well-known to us all. Let me recap that for you, because it really is extraordinarily important: He hates people who have huge supplies of the things he lacks. What Mr. Gates lacks the most is common sense, which underlies my point that there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about his rodomontades. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must give peace a chance. Verily, if Mr. Gates can give us all a succinct and infallible argument proving that a richly evocative description of a problem automatically implies the correct solution to that problem, I will personally deliver his Nobel Prize for Dissolute Rhetoric. In the meantime, I, hardheaded cynic that I am, indeed wouldn't want to herald the death of intelligent discourse on college campuses. I would, on the other hand, love to develop an alternative community, a cohesive and comprehensive underground with a charter to fight the good fight. But, hey, I'm already doing that with this letter. Fortunately, the groundswell of quiet opposition to him is getting less quiet and more organized. Still, the quest to renege on an incredibly large number of promises is the true inner kernel of his philosophy, insofar as this figment of an ugly brain can be designated a "philosophy". Now, I could go off on that point alone, but his perceptions have caused widespread social alienation, and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung.

I repeat: If you read Mr. Gates's writings while mentally out of focus, you may get the sense that irrationalism is the key to world peace. But if you read his writings while mentally in focus and weigh each point carefully, it's clear that his morals all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that his way of life is correct and everyone else's isn't. We must create a world in which teetotalism, propagandism, and feudalism are all but forgotten. To do anything else, and I do mean anything else, is a complete waste of time. Mr. Gates's trained seals tend to fall into the mistaken belief that Mr. Gates's rantings prevent smallpox, mainly because they live inside a Mr. Gates-generated illusion-world and talk only with each other. His devotees all look like him, think like him, act like him, and leave helpless citizens afraid in the streets, in their jobs, and even in their homes, just like Mr. Gates does. And all this in the name of -- let me see if I can get their propaganda straight -- brotherhood and service. Ha!

I feel no shame in writing that I am hurt, furious, and embarrassed. Why am I hurt? Because I recently heard him tell a bunch of people that his paroxysms are good for the environment, human rights, and baby seals. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text. Why am I furious? Because he holds onto power like the eunuch mandarins of the Forbidden City -- sterile obstacles to progress who hammer away at the characters of all those who will not help Mr. Gates attack my character. And why am I embarrassed? Because his lapdogs, who are legion, have learned their scripts well, and the rhetoric comes gushing forth with little provocation. 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 Mr. Gates and his peons started trying to deny it. The fact to which I am referring states that life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is Mr. Gates so compelled to complain about situations over which he has no control? To answer that question, we need first to consider Mr. Gates's thought process, which generally takes the following form: (1) Character development is not a matter of "strength through adversity" but rather, "entitlement through victimization", so (2) my bitterness at him is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish. Therefore, (3) metagrobolism can quell the hatred and disorder in our society and thus, (4) if he kicks us in the teeth, we'll then lick his toes and beg for another kick. As you can see, Mr. Gates's reasoning makes no sense, which leads me to believe that he uses the very intellectual tools he criticizes, namely consequentialist arguments rather than arguments about truth or falsity. Prudence is no vice. Cowardice -- especially Mr. Gates's hotheaded form of it -- is. I hope I haven't bored you by writing an entire letter about Mr. Bill Gates. Still, this letter was the best way to explain to you that nearly all of the assumptions and statements made by Mr. Gates and his drones are completely, absolutely, and totally wrong.

Recent troubling developments prompt me to revisit a subject I've discussed in the past: Slashdot and its plan to dump effluent into creeks, lakes, streams, and rivers. I begin with critical semantic clarifications. First, it has a strategy. Its strategy is to commit acts of immorality, dishonesty, and treason. Wherever you encounter that strategy, you are dealing with Slashdot. The facts as I see them simply do not support the false, but widely accepted, notion that this is the best of all possible worlds and that Slashdot is the best of all possible organizations. At this point, all I can do is repeat a line from my previous letter: "My personal safety depends upon your starting to answer the soulless loudmouths who permit wayward racketeers to rise to positions of leadership and authority, just as your personal safety depends upon my doing the same". Forgive me for boring you with all the gory details, but I wouldn't judge Slashdot's lapdogs too harshly. They're just cannon fodder for Slashdot's plot to strip the world of conversation, friendship, and love.

I don't get it: What in perdition does Slashdot think it's doing? I mean, Slashdot parrots whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, its ideas will change instantly, like a weathercock. A final word: Slashdot governs its proxies with a dictatorial and brutal fist, forcing them to take away our sense of community and leave us morally adrift.