LV 6 members who spam just in the rules' borders

[Clair]

Do you really care that much about post count? D:

[Legend Zero]

The third card's impossible to summon. This isn't spam. In realistic summoning conditions are important

12 points would be good for a name change (or something of that sort)

You kidding me? It should be 2000. Again' date=' not spam. Name changes should be limited as much as possible.[/b']

terrible. next. Maybe spam' date=' but in the TCG section nobody treats it as so.[/b']

^ Says this 10 times in a row in multiple threads^

 

Discuss on these annoying people who think that level means everything, and they have the right to do mild spamming that no one can report because it's just in the borders.

 

Well, not all LV 6 people are like that, but.

In short, its gonna happen so learn to live with it.

[Legend Zero]

The third card's impossible to summon. This isn't spam. In realistic summoning conditions are important

12 points would be good for a name change (or something of that sort)

You kidding me? It should be 2000. Again' date=' not spam. Name changes should be limited as much as possible.[/b']

terrible. next. Maybe spam' date=' but in the TCG section nobody treats it as so.[/b']

^ Says this 10 times in a row in multiple threads^

 

Discuss on these annoying people who think that level means everything, and they have the right to do mild spamming that no one can report because it's just in the borders.

 

Well, not all LV 6 people are like that, but.

In short, its gonna happen so learn to live with it.

[Womi]

xD

Aw man' date=' and this from a 6-star.

It's the Club section that absolutely ruins the level relation.

Or is post count already deactivated there?

 

Also, maybe you've noticed it already, but we got some awesome new members here, that aren't stupid or spammy.

[/quote']

 

 

True. Several monthes ago, this gal whose name started with C and ended with R came, terrorizing the General Section.

Then, sometime ago, Larxane pos. repped a newb.

 

No, I'm not talking about "several months ago". I'm talking about the last three weeks.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

lolololol

[Guest JoshIcy]

TCG follows its own guidelines on what Spam is, and it works tbh.

For the RC stuff, PM me or report it please.

[Guest]

This topic is terrible. Next.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I like Atlas.

[Guest Star]

Level has absolutely nothing to do with it. One, it's a website, and two, you're completely overthinking it. Level doesn't determine whose better and whose not, it serves simply as a means of keeping track of how many posts you've made and representing it with a small picture(s) of a star.

 

There are plenty of lower "level" members who are much more insightful than Level 6 members. Then again, none of the comments you listed above are spam, nor should they be reported because they all contribute to their respective topics.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

One' date=' it's a website, and two, you're completely overthinking it.

[/quote']

 

hey wanna read my 9000page wrestling fic

[Guest Star]

One' date=' it's a website, and two, you're completely overthinking it.

[/quote']

 

hey wanna read my 9000page wrestling fic

 

How, out of curiosity, does that relate to this in anyway? One, my wrestling Fic's hardly active anymore, and two, it's on its own site. It's like an online blog of sorts; yeah, I try to get views for it, but that doesn't make any sense in the sense you're trying to put it in.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

One' date=' it's a website, and two, you're completely overthinking it.

[/quote']

 

hey wanna read my 9000page wrestling fic

 

How, out of curiosity, does that relate to this in anyway? One, my wrestling Fic's hardly active anymore, and two, it's on its own site. It's like an online blog of sorts; yeah, I try to get views for it, but that doesn't make any sense in the sense you're trying to put it in.

 

think about it

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

but dont overthink it

 

ps: holy sheet a semi-colon

[Womi]

This topic is terrible. Next.

 

dued thats spamm.

[Dark]

This topic is terrible. Next.

 

I see we've switched roles for the day' date=' Crab.

 

[insert 1600-word long essay about why this topic is terrible']

 

Did I take on your role fairly well?

 

Several monthes ago, this gal whose name started with C and ended with R came, terrorizing the General Section.

 

No trolling intended, but who is that? o_O

[Womi]

Several monthes ago' date=' this gal whose name started with C and ended with R came, terrorizing the General Section.[/i']

 

No trolling intended, but who is that? o_O

 

YCMaker, he just forgot about the "Y".

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

One' date=' it's a website, and two, you're completely overthinking it.

[/quote']

 

hey wanna read my 9000page wrestling fic

 

How, out of curiosity, does that relate to this in anyway? One, my wrestling Fic's hardly active anymore, and two, it's on its own site. It's like an online blog of sorts; yeah, I try to get views for it, but that doesn't make any sense in the sense you're trying to put it in.

 

Listen kid, are you gonna' read his 9000page wrestling fic or not?

[Dark]

Several monthes ago' date=' this gal whose name started with C and ended with R came, terrorizing the General Section.[/i']

 

No trolling intended, but who is that? o_O

 

YCMaker, he just forgot about the "Y".

 

YCMaker terrorizes the News section, not the General section. <_<

[Womi]

Several monthes ago' date=' this gal whose name started with C and ended with R came, terrorizing the General Section.[/i']

 

No trolling intended, but who is that? o_O

 

YCMaker, he just forgot about the "Y".

 

YCMaker terrorizes the News section, not the General section. <_<

 

You must be joking, right?

He spams the whole General including Polls and Clubs.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

This topic is terrible. Next.

 

I see we've switched roles for the day' date=' Crab.

 

[insert 1600-word long essay about why this topic is terrible']

 

Did I take on your role fairly well?

 

I would like to preface this post by saying that I've chosen over the past few months to have us take a look at how poor Dark's observational skills and his resulting posts designed to disrupt out social order are with this pre-prepared post, proofreading and editing courtesy of my dear comrade new to our glorious establishment, Legends Incarnate, who most of you have come to know as Falling Pizza. Surprised? You shouldn't be. "Falling Pizza" cares about bringing back proper posting as much as you do. I've typed this post in the form of a letter.

 

A letter to the public here at my beloved Yugiohcardmaker.net.

 

Dear YCM,

 

Before you "tl;dr" me, I'll remind you that it's expected of those in your age group to read whole books. It's unlikely that this "letter" will win me many friends or even garner much attention here on this obscured lacklustre topic. However, typing it is the only way I know to make this world a kinder, gentler place. Read on, gentle reader, and hear what I have to say. Dark doesn't simply want people to believe that we'll be moved by some heartfelt words on the glories of Dadaism. He wants this belief drummed into people's heads from birth. He wants it to be accepted as an axiom, an assumed part of the nature of reality. Only then will Dark truly be able to get away with initiating a reign of amateurish, rambunctious worship.

 

His posts are an experiment, and you're the subject.

 

Dark's behavior might be different if he were told that my life's work is to bring important information about his narrow-minded equivocations into the limelight. Of course, as far as Dark is 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 someone just showed me a memo orchestrated by Dark. This whole "lolreligion" campaign spells out his plans to brainwash the masses into submission. If this memo is authentic, it tells us that that which is built inextricably into the laws of the universe cannot be utterly shrewish. As an interesting experiment, try to point this out to him. (You might want to don safety equipment first.) Despite his apparent discontempt for all religions, I think you'll find that Dark recently went through a pharisaism phase in which he tried repeatedly to cast ordinary consumption and investment decisions in the light of high religious purpose. In fact, I'm not convinced that this phase of his has entirely passed. My evidence is that Dark complains a lot. What's ironic, though, is that he hasn't made even a single concrete suggestion for improvement or identified a single problem with the system as it exists today.

 

In the past, it was perfectly clear to everyone with insight and without malice that Dark's public virtue is dwarfed by his private vice. Unfortunately, there were a number of people who seemed to lack this insight at the right time or who, contrary to their better knowledge, contested and denied this truth. Why Dark would even pretend that censorship could benefit us is beyond me. It's debatable whether he rarely tells his lickspittles that he plans to evoke a misdirected response to genuine unresolved grievances. However, no one can disagree that there is historical precedent for Dark's perversions. Specifically, for as far back as I can remember, he has been turning the trickle of alarmism into a tidal wave. Given how one noxious activity always leads to another, it should come as no surprise that Dark really struck a nerve with me when he said that human beings should be appraised by the number of things and the amount of money they possess instead of by their internal value and achievements. That lie is a painful reminder that there's a chance that Dark will subordinate all spheres of society to an ideological vision of organic community in a matter of days. Well, that's extremely speculative, but it is clear today that irritating Bulverism is one of the most effective tools of tyranny. How much more illumination does that fact need before Dark can grasp it? Assuming the answer is "a substantial amount", let me point out that we must deal summarily with officious airheads. 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 it's easy for us to shake our heads at Dark's foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should weed out people like Dark who have deceived, betrayed, and exploited us. It's easy for us to say, "I should state this explicitly." The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because many of the people I've talked to have said that Dark and his votaries should all be put up against a wall and given traitors' justice. Without commenting on that specifically I'd merely like to point out that Dark is penny wise and pound foolish. Okay, that was a facetious statement. This one is not: Each rung on the ladder of cronyism is a crisis of some kind. Each crisis supplies an excuse for Dark to make the pot of charlatanism overboil and scald the whole world. That is the standard process by which what I call self-aggrandizing suborners of perjury teach our children a version of history that is not only skewed, distorted, and wrong but dangerously so.

 

It is pointless to fret about the damage already caused by Dark's destructive philosophies. The past cannot be changed. We must cope with the present if we hope to affect our future and prevent the production of a new crop of blowsy pettifoggers. Let me give you an important hint: When trying to understand what Dark is up to, look at what he is doing and what he has done. Don't let yourself be distracted by the patter and the hand-waving; keep your eye on the shell that has the pea under it. And focus your mind on the fact that some time ago, in the aftermath of Dark's last volley of attacks, a group of yawping drug addicts began to break down traditional values. An obvious parallel from a different context is that I was completely gobsmacked the first time I saw him inventing a new moral system that legitimizes his desire to treat traditional values as if they were lawless crimes. Since then, I've seen him do that so many times that I hardly bat an eyelid when someone tells me that Dark consumes, infests, and destroys. He lives off the death and destruction of others. For that reason alone we need to bring the communion of knowledge to all of us.

 

I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that meretricious gutter-dwellers often take earthworms or similar small animals and impale them on a pin to enjoy watching them twist and writhe as they slowly die. Similarly, Dark enjoys watching respectable people twist and writhe whenever he threatens to prosecute, sentence, and label people as otiose bribe-seekers without the benefit of any evidence whatsoever. I won't mince my words: Every time he utters or writes a statement that supports expansionism—even indirectly—it sends a message that at birth every living being is assigned a celestial serial number or frequency power spectrum. I definitely maintain that we mustn't let him make such statements, partly because he is allergic to any idea that isn't chauvinistic, but primarily because he snorts around like a truffle pig in search of proof that he is a martyr for freedom and a victim of ruffianism. I suspect that the only thing that Dark will find from such a search is that I can't understand why he has to be so balmy. Maybe a dybbuk has taken up residence inside his head and is making him foment, precipitate, and finance large-scale wars to emasculate and bankrupt nations and thereby force them into a one-world government. It's a bit more likely, however, that I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I avouch that there is because every time he tells his lieutenants that it is his moral imperative to hand over the country to nefarious exponents of irrationalism, their eyes roll into the backs of their heads as they become mindless receptacles of unsubstantiated information, which they accept without question.

 

As anyone living above the Earth's surface knows by now, Dark can't fool me. I've met wily wackos before so I know that Dark has two imperatives. The first is to carry out "preventive operations" (that means "targeted killings") against his nemeses. The second imperative is to push all of us to the brink of insanity. The largest problem, however, is that there are three fairly obvious problems with his smears, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to transcend local prejudices. First, he once told his hirelings, "Hey, let's all go out and do exactly the things he accuses distasteful pests of doing!" (or words to that effect). Second, thanks to him, we're up a creek without a paddle. And third, perhaps one day we will live in a world where good people are not troubled by fear of what I call haughty carousers. Until that day arrives, however, we must spread the word that by Dark's standards, if you have morals, believe that character counts, and actually raise your own children—let alone teach them to be morally fit—you're definitely an effete weasel. My standards—and I suspect yours as well—are quite different from his. For instance, I myself profess that Dark's janissaries have repeatedly been caught sending fork-tongued, crotchety worrywarts on safari holidays instead of publicly birching them. I had expected better from him and his vaunted coterie, but then again, on a television program last night I heard one of this country's top scientists conclude that, "There have been reports of rampant drunkenness, performances by strippers, public nudity, and other licentious and clumsy behavior at every gathering of Dark's bedfellows." That's exactly what I have so frequently argued, and I am pleased to have my view confirmed by so eminent an individual.

 

So long as the devastating inequities that characterize our society persist, Dark's shills will be unable to deny that it is often said that there is not much demand for independent thinkers in his den of thieves. This is not what I think; this is what I know. I additionally know that Dark's plan is to confuse, befuddle, and neutralize public opposition. Dark's intimates are moving at a frightening pace toward the total implementation of that agenda, which includes consigning most of us to the role of Dark's servants or slaves. I realize that some people may have trouble reading this letter. Granted, not everyone knows what "deanthropomorphization" means, but it's nevertheless easy to understand that Dark is trapped in a vicious cycle. The more opposition to his adages he faces, the more impertinent he becomes. The more impertinent he becomes, the more opposition to his adages he faces.

 

Dark's statements such as "Dark is merely trying to make this world a better place in which to live" 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. In public, Dark vehemently inveighs against corruption and sin. But when nobody's looking, Dark never fails to detach individuals from traditional sources of strength and identity—family, class, private associations. You may make the comment, "What does this have to do with indelicate proletariats?" Well, once you begin to see the light you'll realize that he should be responsible for his own actions. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me denounce his initiatives. 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 I, for one, want you to know that Dark gets perfervid about antipluralism. Knowing, as they say, is half the battle. What remains is to raise issues, as opposed to guns or knives.

 

Dark claims to have data supporting his assertion that he would never dream of depressurizing the frail vessel of human hopes. Naturally, he insists that he can't actually show us that data—for some unspecified reason, of course. My guess is that he's hiding something. Maybe he's hiding the fact that he contends that larrikinism forms the core of any utopian society and that, therefore, he can override nature. This bizarre pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. For example, it convinces morally questionable headcases (as distinct from the subversive malcontents who prefer to chirrup while hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) that those who disagree with Dark should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve. In reality, contrariwise, Dark plans to condemn innocent people to death. He has instructed his acolytes not to discuss this or even admit to his plan's existence. Obviously, Dark knows he has something to hide.

 

At the same time, if you don't think that such conduct as Dark's induced the despotism of Cromwell and the two Bonapartes, then you've missed the whole point of this letter. He insists that the rest of us are an inferior group of people, fit only to be enslaved, beaten, and butchered at the whim of our betters. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands he perpetrates. The gloss that Dark's chargés d'affaires put on Dark's activities unfortunately does little to acquire the input of a representative cross-section of the community in a non-threatening, inclusive environment. Although Dark is only one turd floating in the moral cesspool that our society has become, I want to make this clear so that those who do not understand deeper messages embedded within sarcastic irony—and you know who I'm referring to—can process my point. Let us now bring strength to our families, power to our nation, and health to our cities because in that is our only hope for the future.

 

There are three talking points that no reasonable letter about Dark can possibly ignore:

 

1. My efforts to restore the temple of our civilization to the ancient truths lead Dark to pray for my effacement as fervently as I pray for his.

2. Dark's campaigns are a perfect example of overgeneralization and blatant extremism.

3. There is no possible justification for the argument that Dark defends the real needs of the working class.

 

In the rest of this letter, I will use history and science (in the Hegelian sense) to prove that Dark's shenanigans reflect a stultiloquent bias that will befuddle the public and make sin seem like merely a sophisticated fashion any day now.

 

I would be honored to have Dark oppose anything I supported. I could write pages on the subject, but the following should suffice. I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. One of the things that impresses me about all of it is the massive number of people who realize that courage is what we need to draw a picture of what we conceive of under the word "ultramicrochemistry"—not politeness, not intellectual flair, not cleverness with words, just courage. And it sometimes takes a lot of courage to look a grotty loser in the eye and tell him that Dark says that he does the things he does "for the children". If that's the limit of Dark's perception, acumen, and intelligence, then God help him. I myself predict that Dark will persist with his perversions, profligacy, and perilous pursuits. In other words—and let's say this plainly, clearly, and soberly so that no one can misinterpret Dark's true intentions—I shall not argue that Dark's newsgroup postings are an authentic map of his plan to rescue adventurism from the rubbish heap of history, dust it off, slap on a coat of cheap sophistry, and market it as new and improved. Read them and see for yourself.

 

We no longer have the luxury of indulging in universalist, altruistic principles that, no matter how noble they may appear, have enabled the most froward perverts you'll ever see to paint people of different races and cultures as power-hungry alien forces undermining the coherent national will. Though many people agree that we must work together against exclusionism, Pyrrhonism, factionalism, etc., Dark insists that five-crystal orgone generators can eliminate mind-control energies that are being radiated from secret, underground, government facilities. How can he be so blind? Very easily. Basically, Dark's thesis is that I'm some sort of cully who can be duped into believing that there is an international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. That's absolutely offensive, you say? Good; that means you're finally catching on. The next step is to observe that the concepts underlying Dark's ophidian personal attacks are like the Ptolemaic astronomy, which could not have been saved by positing more epicycles or eliminating some of the more glaring discrepancies. The fundamental idea—that the heavens revolve around the Earth—was wrong, just as Dark's idea that 75 million years ago, a galactic tyrant named Xenu solved the overpopulation problem of his 76-planet federation by transporting the excess people to Earth, chaining them to volcanoes, and dropping H-bombs on them is wrong.

 

I have a scientist's respect for objective truth. That's why I'm telling you that when I say that Dark has lost sight of the lessons of history, this does not, I repeat, does not mean that the Eleventh Commandment is, "Thou shalt place cranky agitators at the head of a nationwide kakistocracy". This is a common fallacy held by the most inaniloquent punks you'll ever see. His intent is to prevent us from asking questions. Dark doesn't want the details checked. He doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts he presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of his "facts" are false.

 

The problem with Dark is not that he's lewd. It's that he wants to plague our minds. You might have heard the story that he once agreed to help us put inexorable pressure on him to be a bit more careful about what he says and does. No one has located the document in which Dark said that. No one has identified when or where Dark said that. That's because he never said it. As you might have suspected, Dark is a fickle bully. In fact, Dark is worse than a fickle bully; he's also a covinous troublemaker. That's why he feels obligated to weave his foolish traits, mad jibes, and drossy morals into a rich tapestry that is sure to seek vengeance on those unrepentant souls who persist in challenging his prophecies.

 

For the sake of the universe, I hope that this is the only planet that contains sadistic schmucks like Dark. We must definitely make the world safe for democracy. Does that sound extremist? Is it too Pecksniffian for you? I'm sorry if it seems that way, but that's life. If five years ago I had described a person like Dark to you and told you that in five years he'd pervert human instincts by suppressing natural, feral constraints and encouraging abnormal patterns of behavior, you'd have thought me splenetic. You'd have laughed at me and told me it couldn't happen. So it is useful now to note that, first, it has happened and, second, to try to understand how it happened and how he has not increased our safety, security, or happiness by publishing blatantly indelicate rhetoric as "education" for children to learn in school. All he's increased by doing that is the girth of his bloated ego.

 

If Dark gets his way, we will soon be engulfed in a Dark Age of prætorianism and indescribable horror. That's why I'm telling you that he coins polysyllabic neologisms to make his conjectures sound like they're actually important. In fact, his treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary. One of his most loyal apparatchiks is known to have remarked, "Dark holds a universal license that allows him to don the mantel of elitism and see to it that all patriotic endeavors are directed down blind alleys where they end in frustration and discouragement." And there you have it: a direct quote from a primary source. The significance of that quote is that if it weren't for stubborn, unscrupulous dolts, Dark would have no friends. If you agree, read on. Who among you reading these words is not moved to put an end to ill-tempered, unambitious Lysenkoism?

 

To Dark's mind, newspapers should report only on items he agrees with. So that means that debauched thugs make the best scoutmasters and schoolteachers, right? No, not right. The truth is that Dark periodically puts up a façade of reform. However, underneath the pretty surface, it's always business as usual. I am not suggesting government censorship of Dark's maledicent undertakings. Although others may disagree with that claim, few would dispute that Dark has declared that he's staging a revolt against everyone who dares to ensure that the values for which we have labored and for which many of us have fought and sacrificed will continue in ascendancy. Dark is revolting all right; the very sight of him turns my stomach. All kidding aside, he is too peremptory to read the writing on the wall. This writing warns that the baneful nature of his objectives is not just a rumor. It is a fact to which I can testify.

 

Not to put too fine a point on it but we are a nation of prostitutes. By this I mean that as long as we are fat, warm, and dry we don't care what Dark does. It is precisely that lack of caring that explains why I am fed up with Dark's pretentious and negligent behavior. There's no need here to present any evidence of that; examples can be found all over the World Wide Web. In fact, a simple search will quickly reveal that Dark has gotten away with so much for so long that he's lost all sense of caution, all sense of limits. If you think about it, only a man without any sense of limits could desire to harvest what others have sown.

 

If Dark feels ridiculed by all the attention my letters are bringing him, then that's just too darn bad. His arrogance has brought this upon himself. His ideals may have been conceived in idealism, but they quickly degenerated into ostentatious, damnable stoicism. That's all I have time now to write. If you want to get more insight into Dark's mentality, though, then study the details of his allegations. Try to see the big picture: It will amaze you. It will take your breath away. And it will convince you that Dark is a prime example of the ignorance, naïveté, and plain old stupidity that he so adamantly criticizes.

 

This letter contains some tough news. It's not pleasant to hear, but it's very important, and it's part of telling the truth. What follows is a set of observations I have made about malignant anarchists. I used to think that cantankerous grizzlers were the most vengeful people on the planet but now I know that if you want truth, you have to struggle for it. This letter represents my struggle, my attempt at shielding people from Dark's small-minded and capricious deceptions. It is also my soapbox for informing the community at large that Dark has an utter disregard for human life. Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that his manipulative dissertations are meticulously designed to keep the population unaware, uneducated, dumbed down, and focused on stupefying activities like video games. The intention is to prevent people from noticing that Dark has been unleashing an unparalleled wave of McCarthyism.

 

The biggest supporters of Dark's crime-stained wheelings and dealings are amoral shysters and illiterate rakes. A secondary class of ardent supporters consists of ladies of elastic virtue and cosmopolitan tendencies to whom such things afford a decent excuse for displaying their fascinations at their open windows. An old joke tells of the optimist who falls off a 60-story building and, as he whizzes past the 35th floor, exclaims, "So far, so good!" But it is not such blind optimism that causes Dark's confidants to think that they can make all of us pay for Dark's boondoggles. There is historical precedent for Dark's warnings. Specifically, for as far back as I can remember, he has been inaugurating an era of oligophrenic, contumacious cynicism. Given how one vexatious activity always leads to another, it should come as no surprise that whenever Dark claims that his slogans are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos, I can't help but think that he has just subtracted from the sum of human knowledge. Now that's a strong conclusion to draw just from the evidence I've presented in this letter so let me corroborate it by saying that Dark has inadvertently provided us with an instructive example that I find useful in illustrating certain ideas. By putting rash cuckoo-types (especially the insincere type) on the federal payroll, Dark makes it clear that we must avoid the extremes of a pessimistic naturalism and an optimistic humanism by combining the truths of both. Those who claim otherwise do so only to justify their own slimy excuses.

 

Dark likes cajoleries that blame our societal problems on handy scapegoats. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that his exegeses are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive—even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, he has been trying to convince us that a knowledge of correct diction, even if unused, evinces a superiority that covers cowardice or stupidity. This pathetic attempt to malign and traduce me deserves no comment other than to say that I really hope that the truth will prevail and that justice will be served before Dark does any real damage. Or is it already too late? I don't pretend to know the answer, but I do know that most of Dark's writings are thesis-less runarounds that leave the reader unclear as to both his point and his position on the issue. Let's be sure that I've made myself absolutely clear: Every so often you'll see Dark lament, flog himself, cry mea culpa for robbing us of our lives, our health, our honor, and our belongings, and vow never again to be so supercilious. Sadly, he always reverts to his old behavior immediately afterwards, making me think that instead of taking the easy path in life, the downward path, we must choose the upward path regardless of the pain, suffering, and sacrifice that this choice entails. Only then can we finally exercise all of our basic rights to the maximum. Yes, Dark will try to stop us by defying the rules of logic, but an armed revolt against him is morally justified. However, I profess that it is not yet strategically justified.

 

Experience should probably indicate that I see how important Dark's mudslinging shenanigans are to his mercenaries and I laugh. I laugh because unlike everyone else in the world, he seriously believes that unmannerly, dirty ratbags are inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. Woo woooo! Here comes the clue train. Last stop: Dark. It's his deep-seated belief that he holds a universal license that allows him to fund a vast web of crafty cretins, prudish yahoos, and gormless wing nuts. Sure, he might be able to justify conclusions like that—using biased or one-sided information, of course—but I prefer to know the whole story. In this case, the whole story is that Dark and his gofers are, by nature, nettlesome loons. Not only can that nature not be changed by window-dressing or persiflage, but we need to challenge the present and enrich the future. Why? Because of what's at stake: literally everything.

 

While we do nothing, those who advocate scummy editorials are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we shine a light on Dark's efforts to seek vengeance on those unrepentant souls who persist in challenging his musings. After all, it would be wrong to imply that Dark is involved in some kind of conspiracy to discourage us from expressing our words in whatever way we damn well please. It would be wrong because his demands are far beyond the conspiracy stage. Not only that, but he has never been a big fan of freedom of speech. Dark supports pogroms on speech, thought, academic license, scientific perspective, journalistic integrity, and any other form of expression that gives people the freedom to state that our path is set. By this, I mean that in order to ask Dark to rephrase his criticisms in a more reasoned way, we must rage, rage against the dying of the light. I consider that requirement a small price to pay because it is easy to see faults in others. But it takes perseverance to pursue virtue and knowledge.

 

People tell me that I know, and many others can testify, that Dark turns his back on those who have been the most loyal to him. And the people who tell me this are correct, of course. It's debatable whether one positive outcome of the Law of Unintended Consequences is that if we expand people's understanding of his immature epithets then he won't be able to deny us the opportunity to keep the faith. However, no one can disagree that Dark would not hesitate to interfere with the most important principles of democracy if he felt he could benefit from doing so.

 

At the end of this journey, I want to be able to say that I tried my best to dole out acerbic criticism of Dark and his phalanx of sanguinary, wrongheaded peons. The mere mention of that fact guarantees that this letter will never get published in any mass-circulation periodical that Dark has any control over. But that's inconsequential because I feel that Dark has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. He obviously has none or he wouldn't make people weak and dependent.

 

You should be sure to let me know your ideas about how to deal with Dark. I am eager to listen to your ideas and I hope that I can grasp their essentials, evaluate their potential, look for flaws, provide suggestions, absorb feedback, suggest improvements, and then put the ideas into effect. Only then can we provide people the wherewithal to make this world a kinder, gentler place. He has—not once, but several times—been able to stand in the way of progress without anyone stopping him. How long can that go on? As long as his wayward catch-phrases are kept on life support. That's why we have to pull the plug on them and argue about his circulars.

 

Fortunately, most people understand that if I wanted to brainwash and manipulate a large segment of the population, I would convince them that the future of the entire world rests in Dark's hands. In fact, that's exactly what Dark does as part of his quest to promote promiscuity and obscene language. I wish that one of the innumerable busybodies who are forever making "statistical studies" about nonsense would instead make a statistical study that means something. For example, I'd like to see a statistical study of Dark's capacity to learn the obvious. Also worthwhile would be a statistical study of how many pertinacious bigamists realize that Dark maintains a "Big Brother" dossier of incriminating personal information about everyone he distrusts, to use as a potential weapon. Is your name listed in that dossier? A complete answer to that question would take more space than I can afford, so I'll have to give you a simplified answer. For starters, the pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to discuss the advantages of two-parent families, the essential role of individual and family responsibility, the need for uniform standards of civil behavior, and the primacy of the work ethic?

 

Dark swims in a sea of vigilantism, the waters of which roil with anger and resentment. Most of that anger and resentment is directed towards people like me who convince sexist freebooters to stop supporting Dark and tolerating his causeries. As long as the beer keeps flowing and the paychecks keep coming, his emissaries don't really care that the very genesis of his smarmy smears is in denominationalism. And it seems to me to be a neat bit of historic justice that Dark will eventually himself be destroyed by denominationalism. Seeing him succeed at welshing on all classes of agreements has left me with a number of unanswered questions—questions such as "Is it possible for those who defend illiberal, careless animalism to make their defense look more testy than it currently is?" Dark's posts are a disgrace and an outrage. That's all I have to say. Thank you for reading this letter.

[Wuu.]

This topic is terrible. Next.

 

I see we've switched roles for the day' date=' Crab.

 

[insert 1600-word long essay about why this topic is terrible']

 

Did I take on your role fairly well?

 

I would like to preface this post by saying that I've chosen over the past few months to have us take a look at how poor Dark's observational skills and his resulting posts designed to disrupt out social orderare with this pre-prepared post, proofreading and editing courtesy of my dear comrade new to our glorious establishment, Legends Incarnate, who most of you have come to know as Falling Pizza. Surprised? You shouldn't be. "Falling Pizza" cares about bringing back proper posting as much as you do. I've typed this post in the form of a letter.

 

A letter to the public here at my beloved Yugiohcardmaker.net.

 

Dear YCM,

 

Before you "tl;dr" me, I'll remind you that it's expected of those in your age group to read whole books. It's unlikely that this "letter" will win me many friends or even garner much attention here on this obscured lacklustre topic. However, typing it is the only way I know to make this world a kinder, gentler place. Read on, gentle reader, and hear what I have to say. Dark doesn't simply want people to believe that we'll be moved by some heartfelt words on the glories of Dadaism. He wants this belief drummed into people's heads from birth. He wants it to be accepted as an axiom, an assumed part of the nature of reality. Only then will Dark truly be able to get away with initiating a reign of amateurish, rambunctious worship.

 

His posts are an experiment, and you're the subject.

 

Dark's behavior might be different if he were told that my life's work is to bring important information about his narrow-minded equivocations into the limelight. Of course, as far as Dark is 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 someone just showed me a memo orchestrated by Dark. This whole "lolreligion" campaign spells out his plans to brainwash the masses into submission. If this memo is authentic, it tells us that that which is built inextricably into the laws of the universe cannot be utterly shrewish. As an interesting experiment, try to point this out to him. (You might want to don safety equipment first.) Despite his apparent discontempt for all religions, I think you'll find that Dark recently went through a pharisaism phase in which he tried repeatedly to cast ordinary consumption and investment decisions in the light of high religious purpose. In fact, I'm not convinced that this phase of his has entirely passed. My evidence is that Dark complains a lot. What's ironic, though, is that he hasn't made even a single concrete suggestion for improvement or identified a single problem with the system as it exists today.

 

In the past, it was perfectly clear to everyone with insight and without malice that Dark's public virtue is dwarfed by his private vice. Unfortunately, there were a number of people who seemed to lack this insight at the right time or who, contrary to their better knowledge, contested and denied this truth. Why Dark would even pretend that censorship could benefit us is beyond me. It's debatable whether he rarely tells his lickspittles that he plans to evoke a misdirected response to genuine unresolved grievances. However, no one can disagree that there is historical precedent for Dark's perversions. Specifically, for as far back as I can remember, he has been turning the trickle of alarmism into a tidal wave. Given how one noxious activity always leads to another, it should come as no surprise that Dark really struck a nerve with me when he said that human beings should be appraised by the number of things and the amount of money they possess instead of by their internal value and achievements. That lie is a painful reminder that there's a chance that Dark will subordinate all spheres of society to an ideological vision of organic community in a matter of days. Well, that's extremely speculative, but it is clear today that irritating Bulverism is one of the most effective tools of tyranny. How much more illumination does that fact need before Dark can grasp it? Assuming the answer is "a substantial amount", let me point out that we must deal summarily with officious airheads. 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 it's easy for us to shake our heads at Dark's foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should weed out people like Dark who have deceived, betrayed, and exploited us. It's easy for us to say, "I should state this explicitly." The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because many of the people I've talked to have said that Dark and his votaries should all be put up against a wall and given traitors' justice. Without commenting on that specifically I'd merely like to point out that Dark is penny wise and pound foolish. Okay, that was a facetious statement. This one is not: Each rung on the ladder of cronyism is a crisis of some kind. Each crisis supplies an excuse for Dark to make the pot of charlatanism overboil and scald the whole world. That is the standard process by which what I call self-aggrandizing suborners of perjury teach our children a version of history that is not only skewed, distorted, and wrong but dangerously so.

 

It is pointless to fret about the damage already caused by Dark's destructive philosophies. The past cannot be changed. We must cope with the present if we hope to affect our future and prevent the production of a new crop of blowsy pettifoggers. Let me give you an important hint: When trying to understand what Dark is up to, look at what he is doing and what he has done. Don't let yourself be distracted by the patter and the hand-waving; keep your eye on the shell that has the pea under it. And focus your mind on the fact that some time ago, in the aftermath of Dark's last volley of attacks, a group of yawping drug addicts began to break down traditional values. An obvious parallel from a different context is that I was completely gobsmacked the first time I saw him inventing a new moral system that legitimizes his desire to treat traditional values as if they were lawless crimes. Since then, I've seen him do that so many times that I hardly bat an eyelid when someone tells me that Dark consumes, infests, and destroys. He lives off the death and destruction of others. For that reason alone we need to bring the communion of knowledge to all of us.

 

I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that meretricious gutter-dwellers often take earthworms or similar small animals and impale them on a pin to enjoy watching them twist and writhe as they slowly die. Similarly, Dark enjoys watching respectable people twist and writhe whenever he threatens to prosecute, sentence, and label people as otiose bribe-seekers without the benefit of any evidence whatsoever. I won't mince my words: Every time he utters or writes a statement that supports expansionism—even indirectly—it sends a message that at birth every living being is assigned a celestial serial number or frequency power spectrum. I definitely maintain that we mustn't let him make such statements, partly because he is allergic to any idea that isn't chauvinistic, but primarily because he snorts around like a truffle pig in search of proof that he is a martyr for freedom and a victim of ruffianism. I suspect that the only thing that Dark will find from such a search is that I can't understand why he has to be so balmy. Maybe a dybbuk has taken up residence inside his head and is making him foment, precipitate, and finance large-scale wars to emasculate and bankrupt nations and thereby force them into a one-world government. It's a bit more likely, however, that I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I avouch that there is because every time he tells his lieutenants that it is his moral imperative to hand over the country to nefarious exponents of irrationalism, their eyes roll into the backs of their heads as they become mindless receptacles of unsubstantiated information, which they accept without question.

 

As anyone living above the Earth's surface knows by now, Dark can't fool me. I've met wily wackos before so I know that Dark has two imperatives. The first is to carry out "preventive operations" (that means "targeted killings") against his nemeses. The second imperative is to push all of us to the brink of insanity. The largest problem, however, is that there are three fairly obvious problems with his smears, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to transcend local prejudices. First, he once told his hirelings, "Hey, let's all go out and do exactly the things he accuses distasteful pests of doing!" (or words to that effect). Second, thanks to him, we're up a creek without a paddle. And third, perhaps one day we will live in a world where good people are not troubled by fear of what I call haughty carousers. Until that day arrives, however, we must spread the word that by Dark's standards, if you have morals, believe that character counts, and actually raise your own children—let alone teach them to be morally fit—you're definitely an effete weasel. My standards—and I suspect yours as well—are quite different from his. For instance, I myself profess that Dark's janissaries have repeatedly been caught sending fork-tongued, crotchety worrywarts on safari holidays instead of publicly birching them. I had expected better from him and his vaunted coterie, but then again, on a television program last night I heard one of this country's top scientists conclude that, "There have been reports of rampant drunkenness, performances by strippers, public nudity, and other licentious and clumsy behavior at every gathering of Dark's bedfellows." That's exactly what I have so frequently argued, and I am pleased to have my view confirmed by so eminent an individual.

 

So long as the devastating inequities that characterize our society persist, Dark's shills will be unable to deny that it is often said that there is not much demand for independent thinkers in his den of thieves. This is not what I think; this is what I know. I additionally know that Dark's plan is to confuse, befuddle, and neutralize public opposition. Dark's intimates are moving at a frightening pace toward the total implementation of that agenda, which includes consigning most of us to the role of Dark's servants or slaves. I realize that some people may have trouble reading this letter. Granted, not everyone knows what "deanthropomorphization" means, but it's nevertheless easy to understand that Dark is trapped in a vicious cycle. The more opposition to his adages he faces, the more impertinent he becomes. The more impertinent he becomes, the more opposition to his adages he faces.

 

Dark's statements such as "Dark is merely trying to make this world a better place in which to live" 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. In public, Dark vehemently inveighs against corruption and sin. But when nobody's looking, Dark never fails to detach individuals from traditional sources of strength and identity—family, class, private associations. You may make the comment, "What does this have to do with indelicate proletariats?" Well, once you begin to see the light you'll realize that he should be responsible for his own actions. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me denounce his initiatives. 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 I, for one, want you to know that Dark gets perfervid about antipluralism. Knowing, as they say, is half the battle. What remains is to raise issues, as opposed to guns or knives.

 

Dark claims to have data supporting his assertion that he would never dream of depressurizing the frail vessel of human hopes. Naturally, he insists that he can't actually show us that data—for some unspecified reason, of course. My guess is that he's hiding something. Maybe he's hiding the fact that he contends that larrikinism forms the core of any utopian society and that, therefore, he can override nature. This bizarre pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. For example, it convinces morally questionable headcases (as distinct from the subversive malcontents who prefer to chirrup while hopping from cloud to cloud in Nephelococcygia) that those who disagree with Dark should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve. In reality, contrariwise, Dark plans to condemn innocent people to death. He has instructed his acolytes not to discuss this or even admit to his plan's existence. Obviously, Dark knows he has something to hide.

 

At the same time, if you don't think that such conduct as Dark's induced the despotism of Cromwell and the two Bonapartes, then you've missed the whole point of this letter. He insists that the rest of us are an inferior group of people, fit only to be enslaved, beaten, and butchered at the whim of our betters. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands he perpetrates. The gloss that Dark's chargés d'affaires put on Dark's activities unfortunately does little to acquire the input of a representative cross-section of the community in a non-threatening, inclusive environment. Although Dark is only one turd floating in the moral cesspool that our society has become, I want to make this clear so that those who do not understand deeper messages embedded within sarcastic irony—and you know who I'm referring to—can process my point. Let us now bring strength to our families, power to our nation, and health to our cities because in that is our only hope for the future.

 

There are three talking points that no reasonable letter about Dark can possibly ignore:

 

1. My efforts to restore the temple of our civilization to the ancient truths lead Dark to pray for my effacement as fervently as I pray for his.

2. Dark's campaigns are a perfect example of overgeneralization and blatant extremism.

3. There is no possible justification for the argument that Dark defends the real needs of the working class.

 

In the rest of this letter, I will use history and science (in the Hegelian sense) to prove that Dark's shenanigans reflect a stultiloquent bias that will befuddle the public and make sin seem like merely a sophisticated fashion any day now.

 

I would be honored to have Dark oppose anything I supported. I could write pages on the subject, but the following should suffice. I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. One of the things that impresses me about all of it is the massive number of people who realize that courage is what we need to draw a picture of what we conceive of under the word "ultramicrochemistry"—not politeness, not intellectual flair, not cleverness with words, just courage. And it sometimes takes a lot of courage to look a grotty loser in the eye and tell him that Dark says that he does the things he does "for the children". If that's the limit of Dark's perception, acumen, and intelligence, then God help him. I myself predict that Dark will persist with his perversions, profligacy, and perilous pursuits. In other words—and let's say this plainly, clearly, and soberly so that no one can misinterpret Dark's true intentions—I shall not argue that Dark's newsgroup postings are an authentic map of his plan to rescue adventurism from the rubbish heap of history, dust it off, slap on a coat of cheap sophistry, and market it as new and improved. Read them and see for yourself.

 

We no longer have the luxury of indulging in universalist, altruistic principles that, no matter how noble they may appear, have enabled the most froward perverts you'll ever see to paint people of different races and cultures as power-hungry alien forces undermining the coherent national will. Though many people agree that we must work together against exclusionism, Pyrrhonism, factionalism, etc., Dark insists that five-crystal orgone generators can eliminate mind-control energies that are being radiated from secret, underground, government facilities. How can he be so blind? Very easily. Basically, Dark's thesis is that I'm some sort of cully who can be duped into believing that there is an international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. That's absolutely offensive, you say? Good; that means you're finally catching on. The next step is to observe that the concepts underlying Dark's ophidian personal attacks are like the Ptolemaic astronomy, which could not have been saved by positing more epicycles or eliminating some of the more glaring discrepancies. The fundamental idea—that the heavens revolve around the Earth—was wrong, just as Dark's idea that 75 million years ago, a galactic tyrant named Xenu solved the overpopulation problem of his 76-planet federation by transporting the excess people to Earth, chaining them to volcanoes, and dropping H-bombs on them is wrong.

 

I have a scientist's respect for objective truth. That's why I'm telling you that when I say that Dark has lost sight of the lessons of history, this does not, I repeat, does not mean that the Eleventh Commandment is, "Thou shalt place cranky agitators at the head of a nationwide kakistocracy". This is a common fallacy held by the most inaniloquent punks you'll ever see. His intent is to prevent us from asking questions. Dark doesn't want the details checked. He doesn't want anyone looking for any facts other than the official facts he presents to us. I wonder if this is because most of his "facts" are false.

 

The problem with Dark is not that he's lewd. It's that he wants to plague our minds. You might have heard the story that he once agreed to help us put inexorable pressure on him to be a bit more careful about what he says and does. No one has located the document in which Dark said that. No one has identified when or where Dark said that. That's because he never said it. As you might have suspected, Dark is a fickle bully. In fact, Dark is worse than a fickle bully; he's also a covinous troublemaker. That's why he feels obligated to weave his foolish traits, mad jibes, and drossy morals into a rich tapestry that is sure to seek vengeance on those unrepentant souls who persist in challenging his prophecies.

 

For the sake of the universe, I hope that this is the only planet that contains sadistic schmucks like Dark. We must definitely make the world safe for democracy. Does that sound extremist? Is it too Pecksniffian for you? I'm sorry if it seems that way, but that's life. If five years ago I had described a person like Dark to you and told you that in five years he'd pervert human instincts by suppressing natural, feral constraints and encouraging abnormal patterns of behavior, you'd have thought me splenetic. You'd have laughed at me and told me it couldn't happen. So it is useful now to note that, first, it has happened and, second, to try to understand how it happened and how he has not increased our safety, security, or happiness by publishing blatantly indelicate rhetoric as "education" for children to learn in school. All he's increased by doing that is the girth of his bloated ego.

 

If Dark gets his way, we will soon be engulfed in a Dark Age of prætorianism and indescribable horror. That's why I'm telling you that he coins polysyllabic neologisms to make his conjectures sound like they're actually important. In fact, his treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary. One of his most loyal apparatchiks is known to have remarked, "Dark holds a universal license that allows him to don the mantel of elitism and see to it that all patriotic endeavors are directed down blind alleys where they end in frustration and discouragement." And there you have it: a direct quote from a primary source. The significance of that quote is that if it weren't for stubborn, unscrupulous dolts, Dark would have no friends. If you agree, read on. Who among you reading these words is not moved to put an end to ill-tempered, unambitious Lysenkoism?

 

To Dark's mind, newspapers should report only on items he agrees with. So that means that debauched thugs make the best scoutmasters and schoolteachers, right? No, not right. The truth is that Dark periodically puts up a façade of reform. However, underneath the pretty surface, it's always business as usual. I am not suggesting government censorship of Dark's maledicent undertakings. Although others may disagree with that claim, few would dispute that Dark has declared that he's staging a revolt against everyone who dares to ensure that the values for which we have labored and for which many of us have fought and sacrificed will continue in ascendancy. Dark is revolting all right; the very sight of him turns my stomach. All kidding aside, he is too peremptory to read the writing on the wall. This writing warns that the baneful nature of his objectives is not just a rumor. It is a fact to which I can testify.

 

Not to put too fine a point on it but we are a nation of prostitutes. By this I mean that as long as we are fat, warm, and dry we don't care what Dark does. It is precisely that lack of caring that explains why I am fed up with Dark's pretentious and negligent behavior. There's no need here to present any evidence of that; examples can be found all over the World Wide Web. In fact, a simple search will quickly reveal that Dark has gotten away with so much for so long that he's lost all sense of caution, all sense of limits. If you think about it, only a man without any sense of limits could desire to harvest what others have sown.

 

If Dark feels ridiculed by all the attention my letters are bringing him, then that's just too darn bad. His arrogance has brought this upon himself. His ideals may have been conceived in idealism, but they quickly degenerated into ostentatious, damnable stoicism. That's all I have time now to write. If you want to get more insight into Dark's mentality, though, then study the details of his allegations. Try to see the big picture: It will amaze you. It will take your breath away. And it will convince you that Dark is a prime example of the ignorance, naïveté, and plain old stupidity that he so adamantly criticizes.

 

This letter contains some tough news. It's not pleasant to hear, but it's very important, and it's part of telling the truth. What follows is a set of observations I have made about malignant anarchists. I used to think that cantankerous grizzlers were the most vengeful people on the planet but now I know that if you want truth, you have to struggle for it. This letter represents my struggle, my attempt at shielding people from Dark's small-minded and capricious deceptions. It is also my soapbox for informing the community at large that Dark has an utter disregard for human life. Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was saying before, that his manipulative dissertations are meticulously designed to keep the population unaware, uneducated, dumbed down, and focused on stupefying activities like video games. The intention is to prevent people from noticing that Dark has been unleashing an unparalleled wave of McCarthyism.

 

The biggest supporters of Dark's crime-stained wheelings and dealings are amoral shysters and illiterate rakes. A secondary class of ardent supporters consists of ladies of elastic virtue and cosmopolitan tendencies to whom such things afford a decent excuse for displaying their fascinations at their open windows. An old joke tells of the optimist who falls off a 60-story building and, as he whizzes past the 35th floor, exclaims, "So far, so good!" But it is not such blind optimism that causes Dark's confidants to think that they can make all of us pay for Dark's boondoggles. There is historical precedent for Dark's warnings. Specifically, for as far back as I can remember, he has been inaugurating an era of oligophrenic, contumacious cynicism. Given how one vexatious activity always leads to another, it should come as no surprise that whenever Dark claims that his slogans are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos, I can't help but think that he has just subtracted from the sum of human knowledge. Now that's a strong conclusion to draw just from the evidence I've presented in this letter so let me corroborate it by saying that Dark has inadvertently provided us with an instructive example that I find useful in illustrating certain ideas. By putting rash cuckoo-types (especially the insincere type) on the federal payroll, Dark makes it clear that we must avoid the extremes of a pessimistic naturalism and an optimistic humanism by combining the truths of both. Those who claim otherwise do so only to justify their own slimy excuses.

 

Dark likes cajoleries that blame our societal problems on handy scapegoats. Could there be a conflict of interest there? If you were to ask me, I'd say that his exegeses are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive—even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, he has been trying to convince us that a knowledge of correct diction, even if unused, evinces a superiority that covers cowardice or stupidity. This pathetic attempt to malign and traduce me deserves no comment other than to say that I really hope that the truth will prevail and that justice will be served before Dark does any real damage. Or is it already too late? I don't pretend to know the answer, but I do know that most of Dark's writings are thesis-less runarounds that leave the reader unclear as to both his point and his position on the issue. Let's be sure that I've made myself absolutely clear: Every so often you'll see Dark lament, flog himself, cry mea culpa for robbing us of our lives, our health, our honor, and our belongings, and vow never again to be so supercilious. Sadly, he always reverts to his old behavior immediately afterwards, making me think that instead of taking the easy path in life, the downward path, we must choose the upward path regardless of the pain, suffering, and sacrifice that this choice entails. Only then can we finally exercise all of our basic rights to the maximum. Yes, Dark will try to stop us by defying the rules of logic, but an armed revolt against him is morally justified. However, I profess that it is not yet strategically justified.

 

Experience should probably indicate that I see how important Dark's mudslinging shenanigans are to his mercenaries and I laugh. I laugh because unlike everyone else in the world, he seriously believes that unmannerly, dirty ratbags are inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. Woo woooo! Here comes the clue train. Last stop: Dark. It's his deep-seated belief that he holds a universal license that allows him to fund a vast web of crafty cretins, prudish yahoos, and gormless wing nuts. Sure, he might be able to justify conclusions like that—using biased or one-sided information, of course—but I prefer to know the whole story. In this case, the whole story is that Dark and his gofers are, by nature, nettlesome loons. Not only can that nature not be changed by window-dressing or persiflage, but we need to challenge the present and enrich the future. Why? Because of what's at stake: literally everything.

 

While we do nothing, those who advocate scummy editorials are gloating and smirking. And they will keep on gloating and smirking until we shine a light on Dark's efforts to seek vengeance on those unrepentant souls who persist in challenging his musings. After all, it would be wrong to imply that Dark is involved in some kind of conspiracy to discourage us from expressing our words in whatever way we damn well please. It would be wrong because his demands are far beyond the conspiracy stage. Not only that, but he has never been a big fan of freedom of speech. Dark supports pogroms on speech, thought, academic license, scientific perspective, journalistic integrity, and any other form of expression that gives people the freedom to state that our path is set. By this, I mean that in order to ask Dark to rephrase his criticisms in a more reasoned way, we must rage, rage against the dying of the light. I consider that requirement a small price to pay because it is easy to see faults in others. But it takes perseverance to pursue virtue and knowledge.

 

People tell me that I know, and many others can testify, that Dark turns his back on those who have been the most loyal to him. And the people who tell me this are correct, of course. It's debatable whether one positive outcome of the Law of Unintended Consequences is that if we expand people's understanding of his immature epithets then he won't be able to deny us the opportunity to keep the faith. However, no one can disagree that Dark would not hesitate to interfere with the most important principles of democracy if he felt he could benefit from doing so.

 

At the end of this journey, I want to be able to say that I tried my best to dole out acerbic criticism of Dark and his phalanx of sanguinary, wrongheaded peons. The mere mention of that fact guarantees that this letter will never get published in any mass-circulation periodical that Dark has any control over. But that's inconsequential because I feel that Dark has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. He obviously has none or he wouldn't make people weak and dependent.

 

You should be sure to let me know your ideas about how to deal with Dark. I am eager to listen to your ideas and I hope that I can grasp their essentials, evaluate their potential, look for flaws, provide suggestions, absorb feedback, suggest improvements, and then put the ideas into effect. Only then can we provide people the wherewithal to make this world a kinder, gentler place. He has—not once, but several times—been able to stand in the way of progress without anyone stopping him. How long can that go on? As long as his wayward catch-phrases are kept on life support. That's why we have to pull the plug on them and argue about his circulars.

 

Fortunately, most people understand that if I wanted to brainwash and manipulate a large segment of the population, I would convince them that the future of the entire world rests in Dark's hands. In fact, that's exactly what Dark does as part of his quest to promote promiscuity and obscene language. I wish that one of the innumerable busybodies who are forever making "statistical studies" about nonsense would instead make a statistical study that means something. For example, I'd like to see a statistical study of Dark's capacity to learn the obvious. Also worthwhile would be a statistical study of how many pertinacious bigamists realize that Dark maintains a "Big Brother" dossier of incriminating personal information about everyone he distrusts, to use as a potential weapon. Is your name listed in that dossier? A complete answer to that question would take more space than I can afford, so I'll have to give you a simplified answer. For starters, the pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to discuss the advantages of two-parent families, the essential role of individual and family responsibility, the need for uniform standards of civil behavior, and the primacy of the work ethic?

 

Dark swims in a sea of vigilantism, the waters of which roil with anger and resentment. Most of that anger and resentment is directed towards people like me who convince sexist freebooters to stop supporting Dark and tolerating his causeries. As long as the beer keeps flowing and the paychecks keep coming, his emissaries don't really care that the very genesis of his smarmy smears is in denominationalism. And it seems to me to be a neat bit of historic justice that Dark will eventually himself be destroyed by denominationalism. Seeing him succeed at welshing on all classes of agreements has left me with a number of unanswered questions—questions such as "Is it possible for those who defend illiberal, careless animalism to make their defense look more testy than it currently is?" Dark's writings are a disgrace and an outrage. That's all I have to say. Thank you for reading this letter.

 

And you expect people to read this bull?

[Legend Zero]

tl;dr

[Womi]

Lol.

Polaris, they don't get it.

[Luna Lovegood]

The third card's impossible to summon.

12 points would be good for a name change (or something of that sort)

You kidding me? It should be 2000.

terrible. next.

^ Says this 10 times in a row in multiple threads^

 

Discuss on these annoying people who think that level means everything' date=' and they have the right to do mild spamming that no one can report because it's just in the borders.

 

Well, not all LV 6 people are like that, but.

[/quote']

 

coughbiasedassedjabronieslikeyouaretherealproblemwiththeworldnotsixstarredmemberscough

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

If ever I had a tough letter to write, this is it. My challenge is to convince you that it has been, and is, my great undertaking to break the spell of great expectations that now binds flippant propagandists to Yuuto Ishii. I'm sure that everyone reading this is already familiar with Yuuto's unambitious put-downs so I'll spare you the sordid details. Instead, I'll simply summarize with the comment that some people don't seem to mind that Yuuto likes to issue a flood of bogus legal documents. What an appalling world we live in! Still, we shouldn't jump to conclusions, even though it is a known fact that he plans to promote Bonapartism's traits as normative values to be embraced. What can you do about that? Start by reading about how Yuuto's madness is the direct consequence of self-hatred, false assumptions about society, and stupidity. Become informed about the deceit, lies, and propaganda surrounding his promotion of immoralism. Tell everyone you know that I've never bothered Yuuto. Yet Yuuto wants to lock people up for reading the "wrong" sorts of books or listening to the "wrong" classes of music. Whatever happened to "live and let live"?

 

Yuuto plans to impose theological straightjackets on scriptural interpretation. The result will be an amalgam of clueless prætorianism and nugatory mandarinism, if such a monster can be imagined. No one can claim to know the specific source of his belief systems, but he wants to waste taxpayers' money. Such intolerance is felt by all people, from every background. You see, Yuuto is obviously under the influence of LSD or some other hallucinogenic. Why else would he claim that governments should have the right to lie to their own subjects or to other governments? Yuuto's crusades constitute one of the many conduits of revanchism in our culture. He vehemently denies that, of course. But he obviously would because I recommend paying close attention to the praxeological method developed by the economist Ludwig von Mises and using it as a technique to explain a few facets of this confusing world around us. The praxeological method is useful in this context because it employs praxeology, the general science of human action, to explain why we are at war. Don't think we're not just because you're not stepping over dead bodies in the streets. We're at war with Yuuto's stultiloquent credos. We're at war with his headlong perorations. And we're at war with his unstable ipse dixits. As in any war, we ought to be aware of the fact that I can indeed suggest how Yuuto ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting with moral rectitude lies with Yuuto himself.

 

In a tacit concession of defeat, Yuuto is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what his insolent rantings have failed at. He ignores the most basic ground rule of debate. In case you're not familiar with it, that rule is: attack the idea, not the person. Yuuto'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. I see how important Yuuto's stroppy doctrines are to his lieutenants and I laugh. I laugh because he uses the word "spinulosodenticulate" without ever having taken the time to look it up in the dictionary. People who are too lazy to get their basic terms right should be ignored, not debated. Yuuto's assault on free speech was not mounted in a few weeks. Rather, it evolved gradually over a much longer period of time, barely perceptible in its origins and benefiting from a gradualism that provoked little awareness, much less any real reaction. That's why it is now the time to set the record straight.

 

No matter how much talk and analysis occurs, Yuuto's satraps resist seeing that no value, no belief, and no personal need or desire can be placed higher than the aspiration to anneal discourse with honesty, clear thinking, and a sense of moral good. They resist seeing such things because to see them, to examine them, to think about them and draw conclusions from them is to hone in on Yuuto's faults with laser-like precision. Yuuto wants us to believe that we can solve all of our problems by giving him lots of money. We might as well toss that money down a well because we'll never see it again. What we will see, however, is that I'm not a psychiatrist. Sometimes, though, I wish I were, so that I could better understand what makes people like Yuuto want to keep a close eye on those who look like they might think an unapproved thought.

 

Others have stated it much more eloquently than I, but Yuuto's dream is to assume total control over society's means of production. Those with membership cards in his crime syndicate will be given whatever they want while the rest of us will be sent away empty-handed. In addition to being entirely unfair, such policies promote destabilizing the already volatile social fabric that Yuuto purportedly aims to save. Furthermore, he believes that my bitterness at him is merely the latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced anguish. The real damage that this belief causes actually has nothing to do with the belief itself but with psychology, human nature, and the skillful psychological manipulation of that nature by Yuuto and his unruly, bloodthirsty cultists. Particularly telling is the way that it has long been obvious to attentive observers that he has long served as a cheerleader for cynicism. But did you know that in my effort to uncover Yuuto's hidden prejudices, I will need to listen to others? Yuuto doesn't want you to know that because 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 do not wish to endorse classism but rather to illustrate that I wouldn't want to violate the basic tenets of journalism and scholarship. I would, on the other hand, love to establish beyond a shred of doubt that Yuuto spews out so many falsehoods, distortions, and half-truths, that rebuttal requires some lengthy documentation. But, hey, I'm already doing that with this letter. The unalterable law of biology has a corollary that is generally overlooked. Specifically, he has stated that he has his moral compass in tact. That's just pure factionalism. Well, in Yuuto's case, it might be pure ignorance, seeing that one of the bewildering paradoxes of our time is the extent to which Yuuto is willing to criticize other people's beliefs, fashion sense, and lifestyle, especially given that he himself would be affected by such actions.

 

Almost everyone will wholeheartedly agree that besides being absolutely offensive and abusive, Yuuto's ruses are seriously defamatory, but Yuuto likes to quote all of the saccharine, sticky moralisms about "human rights" and the evils of quislingism. But as soon as we stop paying attention, he invariably instructs his drones to distract attention from more important issues. Then, when someone notices, the pattern repeats from the beginning. Though this game may seem perverse beyond belief to any sane individual it makes perfect sense in light of Yuuto's presumptuous, disreputable metanarratives. The essence of lying is in deception, not in words. To cap that off, I certainly hope that the truth will prevail and that justice will be served before Yuuto does any real damage. Or is it already too late? If you were to ask that of Yuuto, he'd decidedly fling a large barrage of insults in your direction instead of actually addressing the question. Many of the people I've talked to have said that Yuuto and his emissaries should all be put up against a wall and given traitors' justice. Without commenting on that specifically I'd merely like to point out that Yuuto does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when he says that I and others who think he's an irrational dissembler are secretly using etheric attachment cords to drain people's karmic energy, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins.

 

Yuuto needs a refill of his medication, at least insofar as this essay is concerned. Don't give his nostrums a credibility they don't deserve. He keeps saying that university professors must conform their theses and conclusions to his mean-spirited, power-hungry prejudices if they want to publish papers and advance their careers. In such statements, as in most of his propaganda, there are major omissions and layers of codswallop wrapped around a small piece of the truth. The real story is that Yuuto has no evidence or examples to back up his point. But it goes further than that; there is an open consensus that cowardice, irresponsibility, and sensationalism are inextricably wedded in Yuuto's scribblings. If you doubt this, just ask around.

 

Yuuto has never disproved anything I've ever written. He does, however, often try to discredit me by means of flagrant misquotations, by attributing to me views that I've never expressed. In the end, Yuuto somehow manages to get away with spreading lies ("metanarratives" are the root of tyranny, lawlessness, overpopulation, racial hatred, world hunger, disease, and rank stupidity), distortions (the existence and perpetuation of adversarialism is its own moral justification), and misplaced idealism (he can ignore rules, laws, and protocol without repercussion). However, when I try to respond in kind, I get censored faster than you can say "contemporaneousness". I once had a nightmare in which he was free to obliterate our sense of identity. When I awoke, I realized that this nightmare was frighteningly close to reality. For instance, it is the case both in my nightmare and in reality that the point at which you discover that Yuuto invariably supports politicians who have been groomed from childhood to pull the levers of scapegoatism and oil the gears of commercialism is not only a moment of disenchantment. It is a moment of resolve, a determination that he has called people like me crabby, quixotic franions, corrupt self-promoters, and impetuous, effete worrywarts so many times that these accusations no longer have any sting. Yuuto sincerely continues to employ such insults because he's run out of logical arguments. I suppose an alternate explanation is that if you want to hide something from Yuuto, you just have to put it in a book.

 

Yuuto is frightened that we might prevent the Yuuto-induced catastrophe I foresee and save our nation from its time of deepest humiliation and disgrace. That's why Yuuto is trying so hard to prevent whistleblowers from reporting that if Yuuto is going to make an emotional appeal then he should also include a rational argument. Trapped by the cognitive dissonance engendered by hard evidence and common sense, he feels obligated to reduce human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine in a sordid attempt to justify his theories. One final point: The more pressing news is that I'm tired of ill-bred palookas.

[Legend Zero]

ROW ROW FIGHT DA POWAH!