BlkKnight

I don't know what to make of Scoobynet's theories. On the one hand, I can defend each and every point I've made so far. But on the other hand, it's audacious demoniacs that make spineless, atrabilious ruffianism possible. What follows is the story of how Scoobynet can be so rich in the rhetoric of democracy and yet so poor in its implementation. So far, this letter has merely identified the ways in which I cannot, in good conscience, step aside and let snotty, disrespectful goof-offs of one sort or another siphon off scarce international capital intended for underdeveloped countries. Now, let me shift gears and start telling you about how Scoobynet's smears have caused widespread social alienation, and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung. By framing the question in this way, we see that Scoobynet is not only immoral, but amoral.

While there is no evidence that I know some drossy fruitcakes who maintain they once overheard Scoobynet say, "We want to defy the law of the land in the immediate years ahead", it is clear that if you read between the lines of Scoobynet's precepts, you'll decidedly find that there is a proper place in life for hatred. Hatred of that which is wrong is a powerful and valuable tool. But when Scoobynet perverts hatred in order to pander to our worst fears, it becomes clear that it acts as if it were King of the World. This hauteur is astonishing, staggering, and mind-boggling. Scoobynet insists that its excuses enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. Sorry, Scoobynet, but, with apologies to Gershwin, "it ain't necessarily so."

Given a choice of having Scoobynet prevent people from thinking and visualizing beyond an increasingly psychologically caged existence or having my bicuspids extracted sans Novocaine, I would embrace the pliers, purchase some Polident Partials, and call it a day. It would be bad enough if Scoobynet's bedfellows were merely trying to sully my reputation. But their attempts to inject even more fear and divisiveness into political campaigns are just plain pea-brained. As a practical matter, the purpose of this letter is far greater than to prove to you how cantankerous and crapulous Scoobynet has become. The purpose of this letter is to get you to start thinking for yourself, to start thinking about how I myself can unequivocally suggest how it ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting with moral rectitude lies with Scoobynet itself.

It should be clear by this point that honest people will admit that Scoobynet subordinates rationality in decision making. Concerned people are not afraid to embrace the cause of self-determination and recognize the leading role and clearer understanding of those people for whom the quintessential struggle is an encompassing liberation movement against the totality of sensationalism. And sensible people know that we've all heard Scoobynet yammer and whine about how it's being scapegoated again, the poor dear. Scoobynet claims that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders". Predictably, it cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. Not surprisingly, Scoobynet's generalizations are merely a sideshow exhibit in the circus of pessimism. I'll probably devote a separate letter to that topic alone, but for now, I'll simply summarize by stating that unregenerate, foul-mouthed adolescents are more susceptible to Scoobynet's brainwashing tactics than are any other group. Like water, their minds take the form of whatever receptacle it puts them in. They then lose all recollection that I don't know how Scoobynet can be so vengeful. In reaching that conclusion, I have made the usual assumption that for every dollar we spend to better our communities, it'll spend a thousand more to steal the fruits of other people's labor. So let it call me scornful. I call it bleeding-heart.

Scoobynet's mingy sentiments are in full flower, and their poisonous petals of plagiarism are blooming all around us. Pardon my coarse language, but far too many people tolerate Scoobynet's words as long as they're presented in small, seemingly harmless doses. What these people fail to realize, however, is that the hour is late indeed. Fortunately, it's not yet too late to build a sane and healthy society free of Scoobynet's destructive influences. Perhaps it sounds like stating the obvious to say that if I were elected Ruler of the World, my first act of business would be to step back and consider the problem of Scoobynet's personal attacks in the larger picture of popular culture imagery. I would further use my position to inform certain segments of the Earth's population that Scoobynet claims that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years. Well, I beg to differ. Before Scoobynet spews any more psychoanalytical drivel, let me assure it that its list of sins is long and each one deserves more space than I have here. Therefore, rather than describe each one individually, I'll summarize by stating that I feel that Scoobynet has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. It obviously has none, or it wouldn't lay down diktats that force me to lose heart.

Scoobynet's expositors believe that "Scoobynet has its moral compass in tact." First off, that's a lousy sentence. If they had written that Scoobynet's catch-phrases are mired in wicked Pyrrhonism, then that quote would have had more validity. As it stands, Scoobynet has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and divert attention from its unprovoked aggression -- all by trumping up a phony emergency. This is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about Scoobynet's foul behavior, but about the way that when Scoobynet was first found trying to achieve total world domination, I was scared. I was scared not only for my personal safety; I was scared for the people I love. And now that Scoobynet is planning to use both overt and covert deceptions to reduce history to an overdetermined, wireframe sketch of what are, in reality, complex, dynamic events, I'm terrified. Scoobynet's convictions are just a rhetorical ploy to get away from the obvious fact that Scoobynet wants to get me thrown in jail. It can't cite a specific statute that I've violated, but it does believe that there must be some statute. This tells me that the point at which you discover that the crotchety, mudslinging grifters who collaborate with Scoobynet should be spat upon -- or worse -- for their lack of integrity is not only a moment of disenchantment. It is a moment of resolve, a determination that it says that going through the motions of working is the same as working. Wow! Isn't that like hiding the stolen goods in the closet and, when the cops come in, standing in front of the closet door and exclaiming, "They're not in here!"? By refusing to act, by refusing to stop defending the garrulous, feeble-minded status quo and, instead, implement a bold, new agenda for change, we are giving Scoobynet the power to promote the sort of behavior that would have made the folks in Sodom and Gomorrah blush. You might have heard the story that Scoobynet once agreed to help us purge the darkness from its heart. No one has located the document in which Scoobynet said that. No one has identified when or where Scoobynet said that. That's because it never said it. As you might have suspected, Scoobynet decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that it fears, because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility.

(Yes, an axiom among Scoobynet's apologists is that the moon is made of green cheese, but that's an entirely different story.) In spite of the fact that Scoobynet is a paragon of evil at its most wicked, I must admit that I've read only a small fraction of its writings. (As a well-known aphorism states, it is not necessary to eat all of an apple to learn that it is rotten.) Nevertheless, I've read enough of Scoobynet's writings to know that Scoobynet is willing to promote truth and justice when it's convenient. But when it threatens its creature comforts, Scoobynet throws principle to the wind. Scoobynet not only lies, but it brags about its lying to its lackeys. Given what I know about petulant cowards, I can say with confidence that if Scoobynet would abandon its name-calling and false dichotomies, it would be much easier for me to demonstrate conclusively that what Scoobynet seems to be forgetting is that it should be locked up. We must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that Scoobynet will rewrite and reword much of humanity's formative works to favor masochism. And to overcome these fears, we must ensure that we survive and emerge triumphant out of the coming chaos and destruction.

I see two problems with Scoobynet's principles on a very fundamental level. First, its stratagems are characterized by a preachy arrogance unbefitting to something that knows so little. And second, it's violent bums like it that conceal information and, occasionally, blatantly lie. An equal but opposite observation is that it occasionally writes letters accusing me and my friends of being the worst classes of backwards, dour euphuists there are. These letters are typically couched in gutter language (which is doubtless the language in which it habitually thinks) and serve no purpose other than to convince me that its statements such as "Advertising is the most veridical form of human communication" 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.

So Scoobynet thinks that an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage the crowd? Interesting viewpoint. Here's another: We must offer a framework for discussion so that we can more quickly reach a consensus. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to feed the starving, house the homeless, cure the sick, and still find wonder and awe in the sunrise and the moonlight. Anyone who follows today's debates on irreligionism and, by happenstance, is also familiar with Scoobynet's vainglorious, immoral press releases, is struck by that old truism: If you were to tell Scoobynet that careful examination of its wheelings and dealings have left me no choice but to conclude that it needs a refill of its medication, it'd just pull its security blanket a little tighter around itself and refuse to come out and deal with the real world. Scoobynet never stops boasting about its generous contributions to charitable causes. As far as I can tell, however, its claimed magnanimousness is totally chimerical and, furthermore, Scoobynet likes to descend to character assassination and name calling. Such activity can flourish only in the dark, however. If you drag it into the open, Scoobynet and its sycophants will run for cover, like cockroaches in a dirty kitchen when the light is turned on suddenly during the night. That's why we must discuss the programmatic foundations of Scoobynet's detestable utterances in detail. Scoobynet claims that vulgar skinflints are inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive. Sound suspicious? Intellectually challenged is a better word.

You've never heard that Scoobynet's intention is to create massive civil unrest? That's because its fans have been staging a massive cover-up for quite some time now. But if you keep your eyes open, you'll notice that if you were to try to tell its goons that its perversions are based on biased statistics and faulty logic, which, in turn, invalidate the conclusions Scoobynet draws from them, 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 we should delegitimize Scoobynet. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.) Once you cut through the bravado, misconceptions, and ignorance, you'll find that the hysteria and witch-hunts fueled by Scoobynet's shenanigans will violate strongly held principles regarding deferral of current satisfaction for long-term gains by the next full moon. This is all well and good, but the intent of this letter is certainly not hatred, but a probing look into an obviously significant issue. It vehemently denies that, of course. But it obviously would, because it is a psychologically defective organization. It's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath. Scoobynet disguises its iron fist with a velvet glove, and every intellectually honest person knows it. Finally, any mistakes in this letter are strictly my fault. But if you find any factual error or have more updated information on the subject of Scoobynet, Scoobynet-inspired versions of narcissism, etc., please tell me, so I can write an even stronger letter next time.

Phil

Thanks for that

BlkKnight

thought it was quite amusing

http://www.pakin.org/complaint

Trashman

The only thing worse than being ignorant is not knowing how ignorant you are. That's Bro. Blk Knight's problem. Here's my side of the story: Ever since Bro. Knight decided to institutionalize barbarism through systematic violence, distorted religion, and dubious science, his consistent, unvarying line has been that his beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) are all sweetness and light. I have to wonder where he got the idea that it is my view that he answers to no one. This sits hard with me, because it is simply not true, and I've never written anything to imply that it is. Bro. Knight's modes of thought can be rightly understood only as what some chauvinistic dunderheads have been brave enough to call them: a failure. Let's try to understand what handing over our rights to Bro. Knight will really mean. It certainly won't mean that we'll be able to freely reveal the truth about his catch-phrases. No, it will mean witchcraft, beastliness, rape, and murder will become omnipresent in our society. It will mean a descent back into the jungle. Does anybody else feel the way I do, or am I alone in my disgust with Bro. Blk Knight?

BlkKnight