I am quite certain that this letter I have received today is serious. I consult you Massassi, to guide me to a wise retaliatory attempt. I apologize for the length, but it is necessary for you guys to get the full story.

[QUOTE=My inbox] Allow me to introduce myself. I'm the founder of the Anti-Mr. Alan Sullivan Society. In this letter, I will tell you what made me form such an organization and how I plan to use it to search for solutions that are more creative and constructive than the typically prudish ones championed by crass rapscallions. As a preliminary, I want to resolve a number of lingering problems. Mr. Alan Sullivan doesn't care about freedom, as he can neither eat it nor put it in the bank. It's just a word to him. He got into a snit the last time I pointed out that the choice we face as a nation is whether to run our country ourselves or let condescending busybodies run it for us. And if that seems like a modest claim, I disagree. It's the most radical claim of all.

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, we are observing the change in our society's philosophy and values from freedom and justice to corruption, decay, cynicism, and injustice. All of these "values" are artistically incorporated in one person: Alan Sullivan. Only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that you might say, "False denials, pleas for sympathy, and a base campaign for smearing others with his own crimes constitute his whole method of defense." Fine, I agree. But he wants us to emulate the White Queen from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, who strives to believe "as many as six impossible things before breakfast". Then again, even the White Queen would have trouble believing that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. I prefer to believe things that my experience tells me are true, such as that Alan's tirades are a perfect example of overgeneralization and blatant frotteurism. Of course, this sounds simple, but in reality, the real issue is simple: Crime unpunished is crime rewarded. Anyone who has spent much time wading through the pious, obscurantist, jargon-filled cant that now passes for "advanced" thought in the humanities already knows that that is no excuse for anything. What may be news, however, is that I've known some popinjays who were impressively misinformed. However, Alan is delirious, and that trumps misinformed every time. He uses deception to trick people into voting against things that they, in fact, support. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that given a choice of having him distract people from serious analysis of the situation or having my bicuspids extracted sans Novocaine, I, speaking as someone who is not an insensitive egotist, would embrace the pliers, purchase some Polident Partials, and call it a day. Who is Alan to say that he is a refined gentleman with the soundest education and morals you can imagine? The most sobering aspect of his animadversions is that he likes to posture as a guardian of virtue and manners. However, when it comes right down to it, what Alan is pushing is both yellow-bellied and mischievous. Looking at it on the bright side, he has no right to be here. The sooner he comes to grips with that reality, the better for all of us.

Purists may object to my failure to present specific examples of Alan's pugnacious, self-satisfied crotchets. Fortunately, I do have an explanation for this omission. The explanation demands an understanding of how when one examines the ramifications of letting Alan devastate vast acres of precious farmland, one finds a preponderance of evidence leading to the conclusion that I am not embarrassed to admit that I have neither the training, the experience, the license, nor the clinical setting necessary to properly build bridges where in the past all that existed were moats and drawbridges. Nevertheless, I unquestionably do have the will to tell you things that Alan doesn't want you to know. That's why I decidedly suspect that a person who wants to get ahead should try to understand the long-range consequences of his/her actions. Alan has never had that faculty. He always does what he wants to do at the moment and figures he'll be able to lie himself out of any problems that arise. Alan likes to imply that he should be a given a direct pipeline to the National Treasury. This is what his sound bites amount to, although, of course, they're daubed over with the viscid slobber of coprophagous drivel devised by his allies and mindlessly multiplied by hypersensitive, wanton flimflammers. Even his apple-polishers couldn't deal with the full impact of his publicity stunts. That's why they created "Alan-ism," which is just a rash excuse to put lethargic numskulls on the federal payroll.

Here's an eye-opener for you: Alan somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that his contrivances are all sweetness and light. I am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine citizens of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened civilization. I can't help but wonder: Why does everyone hate him? Is it because of his business practices, exclusivity, disloyalty, disrespect, or because he keeps trying to impose a "glass ceiling" that limits our opportunities for promotions in most jobs? I've never gotten a clear and honest answer to that question from Alan. But what is clear is that his cronies say, "Alan has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature." Yes, I'm afraid they really do talk like that. It's the only way for them to conceal that there is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil people like Alan.

Alan once heard a vapid schmuck say, "We can change the truth if we don't like it the way it is." What's amazing is that Alan was then able to use that quotation plus some anecdotal evidence to convince his henchmen that he could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else, which sincerely makes me wonder, "What exactly is he trying to hide?" I'll tell you the answer in a moment. But first, let me just say that his maudlin preoccupation with antidisestablishmentarianism, usually sicklied over with such nonsense words as "protobasidiomycetous", would make sense if a person's honor were determined strictly by his or her ability to inject even more fear and divisiveness into political campaigns. As that's not the case, we can conclude only that he sometimes has trouble convincing people that censorship could benefit us. When he has such trouble, he usually trots out a few temperamental sideshow barkers to constate authoritatively that it's okay to desecrate religious objects. Whether or not that trick of his works, it's still the case that it would not be out of character for Alan to treat anyone who doesn't agree with him to a torrent of vitriol and vilification. But that's not all: When he tells us that his decisions are based on reason, he somehow fails to mention that an increasing number of people abhor his unscrupulous platitudes and are looking for alternatives, like the truth. He fails to mention that he equates non-cooperation and solitariness with individuality. And he fails to mention 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 embark on a new path towards change. Alan says that he never engages in lewd, indecent, or refractory politics. But then he turns around and says that his perversions prevent smallpox. You know, you can't have it both ways, Alan.

Fortunately, the groundswell of quiet opposition to Alan is getting less quiet and more organized. Still, I am obviously not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that Alan's desire to turn our country into an infernal cesspool overrun with scum, disease, and crime is the chief sign that he's a viperine philosophaster. (The second sign is that Alan feels obliged to put the foxes in charge of guarding the henhouse.) Okay, now it's time to offend a few people. Actually, I hope not to offend anyone, although I hate it when people get their facts totally wrong. For instance, whenever I hear some corporate fat cat make noises about how Alan has answers to everything, I can't help but think that when I observe Alan's peons' behavior, I can't help but recall the proverbial expression, "monkey see, monkey do". That's because, like him, they all want to set the hoops through which we all must jump. Also, while a monkey might think that those of us who oppose Alan would rather run than fight, the fact remains that I know more about Stalinism than most people. You might even say that I'm an expert on the subject. I can therefore state with confidence that ignoring the problem of paternalism will not make it go away. I challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise. Each of these issues is central to the fogyism debate. Now take that to the next level: If I had to choose between chopping onions and helping Alan address what is, in the end, a nonexistent problem, I'd be in the kitchen in an instant. Although both alternatives make me cry, the deciding factor for me is that it appears that, for Alan, "open-mindedness" isn't a policy or a belief, but a flag to wave when he feels like it, and one to hide when it doesn't suit his purposes. I don't think anyone questions that. But did you know that he uses his ignorance as grounds for belligerence?

I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. And one of the things that impresses me about it is the massive number of people who realize that Alan can't, for the life of him, understand why anyone would prefer so much as one minute of solitude to the company of a churlish gang of the most jealous vagabonds you'll ever see. Let me recap that for you, because it really is extraordinarily important: Some squalid bribe-seekers are actually considering helping Alan deny citizens the ability to become informed about the destruction that he is capable of. How quickly such people forget that they were lied to, made fun of, and ridiculed by Alan on numerous occasions. Alan's older words were vexatious enough. His latest ones are clearly beyond the pale. We can divide Alan's smear tactics into three categories: unimaginative, foolhardy, and wretched. Who else but Alan would have the brass to turn once-flourishing neighborhoods into zones of violence, decay, and moral disregard? No one. And where does that brass come from? It comes from a sure knowledge that he can retreat into his "victim" status if anyone calls him to account.

Now the surprising news: Alan's most progressive idea is to dilute the nation's sense of common purpose and shared sacrifice. If that sounds progressive to you, you must be facing the wrong way. Although some diabolic evil-doers reluctantly concede that I cannot think of any satisfactory rationale Alan could put forward that would justify his decision to create a new fundamentalism based not on religion but on an orthodoxy of fascism, they invariably deny that if he is going to make an emotional appeal, then he should also include a rational argument. I might add: He says he's going to sue people at random sooner or later. Good old Alan. He just loves to open his mouth and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how cold-blooded they sound.

Viewing all this from a higher vantage point, we can see that it's easy for armchair philosophers to theorize about Alan and about hypothetical solutions to our Alan problem. It's an entirely more difficult matter, however, when one considers that it has been said that with that kind of thinking, his doctrines obfuscate any attempt to locate responsibility for the consequential decisions of those who have access to the means of power. I believe that to be true. I also believe that Alan keeps saying that we have too much freedom. Isn't that claim getting a little shopworn? I mean, if he thinks that he has the trappings of deity then maybe he should lay off the wacky tobaccy. We should speak out against logorrheic franions. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.) Far too many people tolerate Alan's communications as long as they're presented in small, seemingly harmless doses. What these people fail to realize, however, is that the concepts underlying Alan's ruthless, impulsive indiscretions 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 Alan's idea that what I call barbaric blockheads are easily housebroken is wrong. Though many people agree that we must work together against philistinism, solecism, vandalism, etc., the first lies that Alan told us were relatively benign. Still, they have been progressing. And they will continue to progress until there is no more truth; his lies will grow until they blot out the sun.

I'm not saying this to be closed-minded, but rather to explain that if you've never seen Alan create a beachhead for organized pauperism, you're either incredibly unobservant or are concealing the truth from yourself. A good friend of mine once said that we should all make technical preparations for the achievement of freedom and human independence. Amen to that! In fact, I even informed my friend that Alan's compeers maintain that laws are meant to be broken. I say to them, "Prove it" -- not that they'll be able to, of course, but because sometime in the future Alan will weaken family ties. Fortunately, that hasn't happened...yet. But it will surely happen if we don't counteract the subtle, but pervasive, social message that says that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel. As I have indicated, I have no idea why he makes such a big fuss over nativism. There are far more pressing issues that present themselves and that should be discussed, debated, and solved -- issues such as war, famine, poverty, and homelessness. There is also the lesser issue that if we let Alan harvest what others have sown, then greed, corruption, and interventionism will characterize the government. Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens. And lies and deceit will be the stock-in-trade of the media and educational institutions. To conclude, even the most rigorous theoretical framework Mr. Alan Sullivan could put forward would not leave him in the position of generalizing with the certainty to which he is prone in his ventures.[/QUOTE]

wth

are you... Alan Sullivan the politician? if yes. then you should worry if not, this is another emo thread (why emo? dont know...)

+ ever tried giving it a thought that there are hundreds of Alan Sullivan's.

whoosh.

It's not real, it's from a complaint generator, where you put in the person's name and maybe some details, and pick a style or something, then it fills in the blanks and makes a really long complaint letter for you...might even be this exact one here: http://www.pakin.org/complaint

Dr. Massassi Forum, Ph.D.'s cock-and-bull stories require a two-part response: first, a clarification of the prognosis implied by my previous letter; and second, a commentary on Massassi's own prognoses. For starters, Massassi has stated that Man's eternal search for Truth is a challenge to be avoided at all costs. One clear inference from that statement -- an inference that is never really disavowed -- is that the federal government should take more and more of our hard-earned money and more and more of our hard-won rights. Now that's just deranged. On a more personal note, if we don't listen to others, our children will curse us in our graves. Speaking of our children, we need to teach them diligently that if you look back over some of my older letters, you'll see that I predicted that Massassi would confuse the catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian government in our minds. And, as I predicted, he did. But you know, that was not a difficult prediction to make. Anyone who has bothered to learn even a little about Massassi could have made the same prediction. In the past, when I complained that he was attempting to sell quack pharmaceutical supplies (and you should be suspicious whenever you hear such tell-tale words and phrases as "breakthrough", "miracle", "secret remedy", "exclusive", and "clinical studies prove that..."), I was told that I was just being beer-guzzling. But nowadays, people realize that he sees himself as a postmodern equivalent of Marx's proletariat, revolutionizing the world by wresting it from its oppressors (viz., those who get Massassi off our backs). Why does lexiphanicism exist? What causes it? And does Massassi realize he's more putrid than a conniving bottom-feeder? To understand the answers to those questions, you first have to realize that Massassi once tried to promote violence in all its forms -- physical, sexual, psychological, economical, and social. If you consider this an exception to the rule then you unquestionably don't understand how Massassi operates. I hope, however, that you at least understand that we are at a crossroads. One road leads into the light of a bright, shining future in which jaded pip-squeaks like Massassi are completely absent. The other road leads into the darkness of resistentialism. The question, therefore, is: Who's driving the bus? After days of agonized pondering and reflection, I finally came to the conclusion that Massassi spouts the same bile in everything he writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue he's excited about this week is jingoism, which says to me that Massassi occasionally writes letters accusing me and my friends of being the most exploitative slanderers I've ever seen. These letters are typically couched in gutter language (which is doubtless the language in which Massassi habitually thinks) and serve no purpose other than to convince me that if he had done his homework, he'd know that he craves more power. I say we should give Massassi more power -- preferably, 10,000 volts of it.

How can Massassi live with himself, knowing that I know how most of you feel? I'll tell you what I think the answer is. I can't prove it, but if I'm correct, events soon will prove me right. I think that it's his belief that my letters demonstrate a desire to heat the cauldron of terror until it boils over into our daily lives. I can't understand how anyone could go from anything I ever wrote to such a peremptory idea. In fact, my letters generally make the diametrically opposite claim, that Massassi says that his mistakes are always someone else's fault. What balderdash! What impudence! What treachery! I could tell him that one loses count of the number of times he has tried to relabel millions of people as "power-drunk", although he obviously doesn't care. I could tell him that you should never allow a day to go by in which you do not bring this fundamental truth to at least one new person, but he wouldn't believe me. He probably also doesn't care that it's presumptuous, damnable libertines like him that kill the goose bearing the golden egg. So let me appeal to whatever small semblance of reason Massassi may be capable of when I tell him that I frequently talk about how his protests are the opiate of the insane. I would drop the subject, except that we must transform our culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and nonviolence. Our children depend on that. Whatever else may be the case, it is certain that there are two related questions in this matter. The first is to what extent he has tried to sow the seeds of discord. The other is whether or not ignorance is bliss. This may be why Massassi's cringers are generally all smiles.

When you reflect upon this, you'll realize that if I had to choose between chopping onions and helping Massassi destroy our youths' ability to relax, reflect, study, and meditate, I'd be in the kitchen in an instant. Although both alternatives make me cry, the deciding factor for me is that Massassi likes to posture as a guardian of virtue and manners. However, when it comes right down to it, what he is pushing is both predaceous and recalcitrant. Whenever anyone states the obvious -- that what we need from him is fewer monologues and more dialogue -- discussion naturally progresses towards the question, "Is his lack of intelligence genetic or the result of too much time spent with disloyal airheads?" To ask that question another way, where do unconscionable, raving spoilsports like him come from, and what are we going to do with them? I could give you the answer now, but it would be more productive for me first to inform you that he recently claimed that clever one-liners are a valid substitute for actual thinking. I would have found this comment shocking had I not heard similar garbage from him a hundred times before. I acknowledge freely and make no apology for the fact that I once considered it reasonable for untoward control freaks to rescue irreligionism from the rubbish heap of history, dust it off, slap on a coat of cheap sophistry, and market it as new and improved. But now I know that Massassi's a psychologically defective person. He's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath.

I, hardheaded cynic that I am, indisputably don't want to have to listen to Massassi's stingy billingsgate. It is no more complicated than that. Massassi's idea of spineless particularism is no political belief. It is a fierce and burning gospel of hatred and intolerance, of murder and destruction, and the unloosing of a tasteless, libidinous blood-lust. It is, in every literal sense, a muzzy-headed and pagan religion that incites its worshippers to a mischievous frenzy and then prompts them to dupe his co-conspirators into believing that black is white and night is day. I want to talk about the big picture: we could opt to sit back and let Massassi open the floodgates of neocolonialism. Most people, however, would argue that the cost in people's lives and self-esteem is an extremely high price to pay for such inaction on our part.

Every time Massassi gets caught trying to make life less pleasant for us, he promises he'll never do so again. Subsequently, his legates always jump in and explain that he really shouldn't be blamed even if he does, because, as they claim, obtuse hooligans are all inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. If you think that he has mystical powers of divination and prophecy, then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what Massassi wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance, such as that if you were to tell him that his complaints are fatally fissiparous, he'd just pull his security blanket a little tighter around himself and refuse to come out and deal with the real world. We must summon up the courage to challenge his inhumane assumptions about merit in such as way that there is nothing he can do about it except learn to live with the fait accompli. Massassi will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact, because if he didn't, you might come to realize that if you read between the lines of his epithets, you'll unequivocally find that in a recent essay, he stated that profits come before people. Since the arguments he made in the rest of his essay are based in part on that assumption, he should be aware that it just isn't true. Not only that, but he is out to impose tremendous hardships on tens of thousands of decent, hard-working individuals. And when we play his game, we become accomplices. Massassi has certainly never given evidence of thinking extensively. Or at all, for that matter. He talks loudly about family values and personal responsibility, but when it comes to backing up those words with actions, all Massassi does is reduce history to an overdetermined, wireframe sketch of what are, in reality, complex, dynamic events. He practically breaks his arm patting himself on the back when he says, "It takes courage to go down into the muddy trenches and cater to the basest instincts of nasty blackguards." As if that were something to be proud of. Summa summarum, Dr. Massassi Forum, Ph.D. favors manipulative psychological techniques over honest discussion.

interesting... :em321:

Before Jedi Knight Forum starts ripping tendons and ligaments with its typical knee-jerk reaction to my letters, it should realize that its theories are sheer hypothesis -- speculation with not even a scintilla of circumstantial evidence to support them. The following paragraphs are intended as an initial, open-ended sketch of how bad the current situation is. Jedi Knight Forum's recommendations are based on hate. Hate, paternalism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life. I do not wish to evaluate diabolism here, though I contend that Jedi Knight Forum wants nothing less than to display an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations, hence its repeated, almost hypnotic, insistence on the importance of its pushy positions. Please note that when I finish writing this letter you might not hear from me again for a while. I simply don't have enough strength left to replace today's chaos and lack of vision with order and a supreme sense of purpose. Nevertheless, Jedi Knight Forum's arguments would be a lot more effective if they were at least accurate or intelligent, not just a load of bull for the sake of being controversial.

For those of you who don't know, I don't care what others say about Jedi Knight Forum. It's still abysmal, treacherous, and it intends to exploit the public's short attention span in order to achieve total world domination. Jedi Knight Forum wants you to believe that it is a model organization. You should be wary of such claims. Be aware! Be skeptical! Think! Do not be diverted, deceived, or mesmerized by Jedi Knight Forum's jejune assertions.

I had a brief conversation recently with some effrontive politicasters who were trying to foster wowserism at every opportunity. That conversation convinced me that Jedi Knight Forum's compeers believe that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel. It should not be surprising that they believe this, however. As we all know, minds that have been so maimed that they believe that everything Jedi Knight Forum says is thoroughly and entirely true can believe anything, especially if it's false. I'll try not to dwell on this, but if you were to try to tell Jedi Knight Forum's legatees that the Jedi Knight Forum Foundation's latest report on mendacious, hideous collectivism is filled with fabrications, half-truths, innuendo, and guilt by association, they'd close their eyes and put their hands over their ears. They are, as the psychologists say, in denial. They don't want to hear that Jedi Knight Forum has a knack for convincing coldhearted rubes that its suggestions are our final line of defense against tyrrany. That's called marketing. The underlying trick is to use sesquipedalian terms like "ultramicrochemistry" and "extraterritoriality" to keep its sales pitch from sounding ungrateful. That's why you really have to look hard to see that Jedi Knight Forum's stooges are unified under a common goal. That goal is to instill a subconscious feeling of guilt in those of us who disagree with Jedi Knight Forum's memoranda. A final note: Jedi Knight Forum is out of touch with reality.


hahah

sorry this is fun lol a complaint generator

This thread is chock full of tl;dr

I have something important I need to tell you. I anticipate it will result in my receiving a barrage of angry e-mail from Mr. Rob accusing me of being inconsiderate, but compassion and moral principle are not the main motives for Rob's actions. Let's get down to business: We can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we decidedly have to give direction to a universal human development of culture, ethics, and morality. I can't follow his pretzel logic. I do, however, know that Rob is utterly mistaken if he believes that we can stop commercialism merely by permitting government officials entrée into private homes to search for ophidian opportunists. Anyway, that's it for this letter. Let Mr. Rob read it and weep.

Check this out. It seemed like it was premade [Its WAY TO UNCANNILY CORRECT]

tl,dr.

very much afraid to ask : P

but. what's tl;dr? (i cant know everything )

Too long, didn't read.

ah...

thread's full of them.

lmao

This is hilarious!

BORING

TLDR! KTHXBAI.

Damn, I thought he was being amazingly imaginitive. What an ******.

Agreed. Let's find him and kill him.