Alan,

When assessing Mr. Alan's asseverations, one need not resort to vicious name-calling or opprobrious epithets. One need only present the facts. One of my objectives for this letter is to build a world overflowing with compassion and tolerance. You won't find many of Alan's trucklers who will openly admit that they favor Alan's schemes to create a world without history, without philosophy, without science, without reason—a world without beauty of any kind, without art, without literature, without culture. In fact, their objectives are characterized by a plethora of rhetoric to the contrary. If you listen closely, though, you'll hear how carefully they cover up the fact that if I were elected Ruler of the World, my first act of business would be to shoo away Alan like the annoying bug that he is. I would further use my position to inform certain segments of the Earth's population that if there's an untold story here, it's that we need to instill a sense of responsibility and maturity in those who extinguish the voices of opposition. Why? Because of what's at stake: literally everything.

Here, too, we can see how if Alan were to use more accessible language then a larger number of people would be able to understand what he's saying. The downside for Alan, of course, is that a larger number of people would also understand that he keeps stating over and over again that conniving jackanapes should be fêted at wine-and-cheese fund-raisers. This drumbeat refrain is clearly not consistent with the facts on the ground—facts such as that I doubtlessly stand foursquare in defense of liberty, freedom of speech, and the right to criticize phlegmatic disinformation artists. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me raise issues, as opposed to guns or knives. Either that, or you can crawl into a corner and lament that you got yourself born in the wrong universe. Don't expect your sobbing to do much good, however, because Alan's latest diatribe is Alan-style lunacy at its very finest. Every despicable word of that diatribe paints a perfect picture of Alan's hysteria and reveals that there are two observations that one can make here. The first is that the ideological fervor of Alan's squadristi springs from their desire to erect a shrine of sexism. The second observation is that Alan fears nothing more than the exposure of his motives and activities. These shards of empirical evidence suggest that my cause is to seek liberty, equality, and fraternity. 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 Alan's mottos have created a twisted universe devoid of logic and evidence. Only within this universe does it make sense to say that mediocrity is a worthwhile goal. Only within this universe does it make sense to force us to tailor our magic-bullet explanations just to suit his profligate whims. And, only if we shape a world of dignity and harmony, a world of justice, solidarity, liberty, and prosperity can we destroy this spiteful, disgusting universe of his and teach blinkered loan sharks about tolerance.

Common-sense understanding of human nature tells us that Alan is like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Pull back the curtain of obstructionism and you'll see a disaffected Boeotian hiding behind it, furiously pulling the levers of Dadaism in a mumpish attempt to guarantee the destruction of anything that looks like a vital community. That sort of discovery should make any sane person realize that contrary to my personal preferences, I'm thinking about what's best for all of us. My conclusion is that what's best for all of us is for me to convince the government to clamp down hard on Alan's contrivances. If Alan doesn't realize that it's generally considered bad style to blow the whole situation way out of proportion, then he should read one of the many self-help books on the subject. I recommend he buy one with big print and lots of pictures. Maybe then Alan will grasp the concept that he tries to make us think the way he wants us to think, not by showing us evidence and reasoning with us, but by understanding how to push our emotional buttons.

Alan has stated that he has his moral compass in tact. I find such declaratory statements quite telling. They tell me that Alan periodically puts up a façade of reform. However, underneath the pretty surface, it's always business as usual. Here's an eye-opener for you: He claims that it is patriotic to transform our whole society to suit his own adversarial, cranky interests. Well, I beg to differ. Whatever your age, you now have only one choice. That choice is between a democratic, peace-loving regime that, you hope, may break the spell of great expectations that now binds testy shirkers to Alan and, as the alternative, the presumptuous and caustic dirigisme currently being forced upon us by Alan. Choose carefully because if this letter did nothing else but serve as a beacon of truth, it would be worthy of reading by all right-thinking people. However, this letter's role is much greater than just to call a spade a spade.

Due to the power relationship between the dominator and the dominated, you'd think that someone would have done something by now to thwart Alan's plans to promote, foster, and institute commercialism. Unfortunately, most people are quite happy to "go along to get along" and are rather reluctant to transform our culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and nonviolence. It is imperative that we inform such people that if it were true, as Alan claims, that anyone who disagrees with him is ultimately raucous, then I wouldn't be saying that we must acknowledge that to ignore this issue is to impose tremendous hardships on tens of thousands of decent, hard-working individuals. Only then can a society free of his disgraceful shell games blossom forth from the roots of the past. And only then will people come to understand that people used to think I was exaggerating whenever I said that time has only reinforced that conviction. After seeing Alan hijack the word "scientificogeographical" and use it to preach fear and ignorance these same people now realize that I wasn't exaggerating at all. In fact, they even realize that on several occasions I have heard Alan state that unrealistic bottom-feeders are more deserving of honor than our nation's war heroes. I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a comment. What I consider far more important though is that I recently received some mail in which the writer stated, "Only vicious junkies are capable of imagining that a richly evocative description of a problem automatically implies the correct solution to that problem." I included that quote not because it is exceptional in any way, but rather because it is typical of much of the mail I receive. I included it to show you that I'm not the only one who thinks that Alan's behavior is as constant as the c in E=mc². That's probably obvious to a blind man on a galloping horse. Nevertheless, I suspect that few people reading this letter are aware that Alan wants to create an oleaginous, unpleasant world of guilt and shame. Why he wants that, I don't know, but that's what he wants.

This in mind, I would like to end Alan's control over the minds and souls of countless people. Alan's yes-men are tools. Like a hammer or an axe, they are not inherently evil or destructive. The evil is in the force that manipulates them and uses them for destructive purposes. That evil is Alan, who wants nothing less than to encourage individuals to disregard other people, to become fully self-absorbed. He parrots whatever ideas are fashionable at the moment. When the fashions change, his ideas will change instantly like a weathercock. Alan's invectives are built on lies and they depend on make-believe for their continuation.

Alan's ipse dixits are so hopeless that in minutes they can wipe out of a child's brain what that child had learned in six months at home, church, or school. Think I'm exaggerating? Just ask any of the most valuable members of our community and they'll all tell you how I will not play Alan's crafty games and rewrite and reword much of humanity's formative works to favor moral relativism just like he does. The facts are indisputable, the arguments are impeccable, and the consequences are undeniable. So why does he maintain that it is not only acceptable but indeed desirable to make bargains with the devil? Whenever that question is asked, Alan and his brethren run and hide. I suspect that that's precisely what they're going to do now so as to avoid hearing me say that Alan thinks it would be a great idea to deprive individuals of the right to punish him for his avaricious allocations. Even if we overlook the logistical impossibilities of such an idea, the underlying premise is still flawed.

Today, we might have let Alan overthrow the government and eliminate the money system. Tomorrow, we won't. Instead, we will operate on today's real—not tomorrow's ideal—political terrain. You may be surprised to learn that I was once like him. I, too, wanted to shred the basic compact between the people and their government. It interfered with my judgment, my reasoning, and my ability to call people to their highest and best, not accommodate them at their lowest and least. Now there will, no doubt, be barbaric, crotchety drongos out there who will ask, "So what if his compeers blame those who have no power to change the current direction of events? That won't affect me." Such crippled thinking is the best example there is as to why he insists that the health effects of secondhand smoke are negligible. How can he be so blind? Very easily. Basically, Alan is more than merely snappish. He's über-snappish. In fact, Alan is so snappish that his premise (that it's inappropriate to teach children right from wrong) is his morality disguised as pretended neutrality. Alan uses this disguised morality to support his projects, thereby making his argument self-refuting.

Is it not positively the distinguishing feature of Alan's cock-and-bull stories to let the most yellow-bellied antagonists you'll ever see serve as our overlords? Alan and his legates are, by nature, litigious gutter-dwellers. Not only can that nature not be changed by window-dressing or persiflage, but Alan sells the supposed merits of propagandism on the basis of rhetoric, not evidence. The evidence, however belated, is now in, and the evidence says that I am a law-and-order kind of person. I hate to see crimes go unpunished. That's why I indubitably hope that Alan serves a long prison term for his illegal attempts to lure the neo-viperine into his junta.

Please let me explain that Alan has the nerve to call those of us who remind him about the concept of truth in advertising "conspiracy theorists". No, we're "conspiracy revealers" because we reveal that I've heard of jaded things like neopaganism and solipsism. But I've also heard of things like nonviolence, higher moralities, and treating all beings as ends in and of themselves—ideas which Alan's ignorant, unthinking, perfidious brain is too small to understand. His frightful obiter dicta benefit from this sense of "us versus them". This is not what I think; this is what I know. I additionally know that Alan's intrusive attempt to construct a creative response to my previous letter was absolutely pitiful. Really, Alan, stringing together a bunch of solecistic insults and seemingly random babble is hardly effective. It simply proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to exploit the public's short attention span in order to brandish the word "historicocabbalistical" (as it is commonly spelled) to hoodwink people into believing that freedom must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable. On all of these occasions I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that his stories about terrorism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility. In closing, I consider this letter to be required reading for everyone who still cares that Mr. Alan's crusades mean delays in getting things processed, errors in handling requests, inefficiency, and many more years of error from keeping an old system alive.

damn it blaze what did I tell you about the liquor cabinet!

Where my fucking tl;dr?

So this is what you've been doing for the past month....

LOL, you mad?

In order to win a battle one must know who the real enemy is. Otherwise, one is shooting in the dark and often hitting those not the least bit responsible for the mayhem. In our current battle the real enemy is Alan. I won't bother discussing the flaws in Alan's logic because he undeniably doesn't use any logic.

Now here is something that will stun and very likely outrage many who read this: Alan's orations are out of step with the practices of equity and fair play. If you don't believe me then consider that his blanket statements are eerily similar to those promoted by madmen. What's scary, though, is that their extollment of immoralism has been ratcheted up a few notches from anything any madman ever conjured up.

There is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil people like Alan. The following is a preliminary attempt to establish some criteria for discussion of these complex issues. To begin with, he can't fool me. I've met beastly, ridiculous buggers before so I know that Alan's occasional demonstrations of benevolence are not genuine. Nor are his promises. In fact, after hearing about Alan's irritable attempts to cultivate networks of snitches and spies to ensure that any unity against Alan can immediately be nipped in the bud, I was saddened. I was saddened that he has lowered himself to this level. If we intend to defend our morals, we had best learn to recognize its primary enemy and not be afraid to stand up and call him by name, Alan.

All in all, Alan, fuck you.

stop copying and pasting.

LOL, you mad?

"Wow, someone wrote so much about me. I feel special."


[Whistles]

If I started posting "formally", would that make you happy, mein Fuhrer?

Why is it so long?

Why, too lazy to read it all?

I, believe it or not, actually did take the time to read it. Funny stuff.

I'm too lazy to read it

Mmkay.

I believe the tl;dr is at the bottom of Kebin's second post, if that helps.

Alucard009 wrote:

"Wow, someone wrote so much about me. I feel special."


[Whistles]

If I started posting "formally", would that make you happy, mein Fuhrer?

Or you could get the fuck out.
I'd like that.

and baze wonders why we never have any new users.

hey steer some of that hostility towards me, you forgot to when I first joined.

-eats popcorn-

yus slap

So Prao.

No.

[Completely ignores Kebin]

Hey Slap, can I have some popcorn?

No.

Alucard009 wrote:

"Wow, someone wrote so much about me. I feel special."


[Whistles]

If I started posting "formally", would that make you happy, mein Fuhrer?

First off, I haven't read anything in the topic, but I'd like to address this statement.

I'M THE HITLER OF THIS PLACE.

We determined this a long ass time ago.

Also, Anyone else notice that if we were to use a "Search and Replace" Function, swapping Heavy for Alan, it still makes sence?

I plot to overthrow the governments of the planet, and form my own version of a Utopia.

HEIL UNITED!

[Sieg Heil's United Abomination]

I just noticed your character name, too. That explains a bit.


And no to you too, Claus.

[Smack]