A true burnage

[kingkitty]

So a person on the ds soldat forums named cancer had a topic called "burn me" so here's a reply from a person named souless who gave cancer a burn.

Here. Burn:

Whatever happened to Cancer's sense of humanity? If you've ever wondered about the answer to that question, then read on. First, the misinformation: Cancer suggests that all literature which opposes diabolism was forged by impulsive, quixotic kooks. Where the heck did he come up with that? The answer should be self-evident, so let me just point out that the cronyism "debate" is not a debate. It is a harangue, a politically motivated, brilliantly publicized, wayward attack on progressive ideas.

I am not particularly fond of Cancer. Although others may disagree with that claim, few would dispute that Cancer motivates people to join his flock by using words like "humanity", "compassion", and "unity". This is a great deception. What Cancer really wants to do is usher in the rule of the Antichrist and the apocalyptic end times. That's why whenever Cancer is blamed for conspiring to substitute breast-beating and schwarmerei for action and honest debate, he blames his acolytes. Doing so reinforces their passivity and obedience and increases their guilt, shame, terror, and conformity, thereby making them far more willing to help Cancer pursue a twofold credo of masochism and solipsism.

The biggest difference between me and Cancer is that Cancer wants to toy with our opinions. I, on the other hand, want to fight for our freedom of speech. Whenever there's an argument about his devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that his projects are based on some deep-rooted personality disorder. That should settle the argument pretty quickly. Strictly speaking, Cancer 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 grant a free ride to the undeserving. He thinks we want him to cause people to betray one another and hate one another. Excuse me, but maybe his claim that the most brazen spivs you'll ever see are inherently good, sensitive, creative, and inoffensive is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind.

In a rather infamous speech, Cancer exclaimed that everyone who doesn't share his beliefs is a repressive palooka deserving of death and damnation. (I edited out the rest of what he said because, well, it didn't really say anything.) His stories about academicism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility.

There is no defense against ridicule. As an interesting experiment, try to point this out to him. (You might want to don safety equipment first.) I think you'll find that Cancer's statements such as "Truth is whatever your grievance group says it is" 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 order to understand the motivation behind Cancer's mottos, it is important first to give parents the means to protect their children. It's not the boogeyman that our children need to worry about. It's Cancer. Not only is Cancer more quasi-hotheaded and more sadistic than any envisaged boogeyman or bugbear, but we must undoubtedly call a spade a spade. Does that sound extremist? Is it too villainous for you? I'm sorry if it seems that way, but that's life. We will have to become much more vigilant to ensure that he doesn't preach hatred.

I need your help if I'm ever to institute change and encourage others to do the same. "But I'm only one person," you might protest. "What difference can I make?" The answer is: a lot more than you think. You see, all the deals Cancer makes are strictly one-way. Cancer gets all the rights, and the other party gets all the obligations.

I could accept, perhaps, causeries backed by the forces of logic and powerful reasoning. Imprecations marked with hypocrisy and contradiction, however, merit none of my respect. Given Cancer's current mind-set, I suppose it's predictable, though terribly sad, that peevish petulant-types with stronger voices than minds would revert to incorrigible behavior. But Cancer 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.

More fundamentally, honest people will admit that we have already fallen into Cancer's trap. Concerned people are not afraid to discuss the programmatic foundations of Cancer's cynical vituperations in detail. And sensible people know that if Cancer could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to lead a dirty jihad against those who oppose him. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that if I were a complete sap, I'd believe Cancer's line that "metanarratives" are the root of tyranny, lawlessness, overpopulation, racial hatred, world hunger, disease, and rank stupidity. Unfortunately for him, I realize that Cancer is absolutely determined to believe that he answers to no one, and he's not about to let facts or reason get in his way. How can Cancer live with himself, knowing that society should recognize that his nutty snow jobs have been found incompatible with personal security and the rights of property? As you no doubt realize, that's a particulary timely question. In fact, just half an hour ago, I heard someone express the opinion that it's possible that Cancer doesn't realize this because he has been ingrained with so much of materialism's propaganda. If that's the case, I recommend that we make an impartial and well-informed evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of his prank phone calls. It has been revealed that he plans to mold your mind and have you see the world not as it is, but as he wants you to see it. First reaction yields that thanks to him, our national and individual sovereignty is fluttering precariously in the wind. A little more thought leads to the more accurate conclusion that on several occasions I have heard Cancer state that he should be a given a direct pipeline to the National Treasury. I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a comment. What I consider far more important, though, is that nonrepresentationalism is not merely an attack on our moral fiber. It is also a politically motivated attack on knowledge.

Ten years ago, it was repugnant radicals. Today, it's what I call heartless champions of deceit, lies, theft, plunder, and rapine who gag the innocent accused from protesting gangsterism-motivated prosecutions. There are situations where certain rodomontades are appropriate and there are situations where they are not. Cancer's assertions all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that he has a duty to conceal the facts and lie to the rest of us, under oath if necessary, perjuring himself to help disseminate the True Faith of pauperism. Cancer insists that his decisions are based on reason. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands he perpetrates. He must be suffering from some severe mental strabismus to think that his aberrent little empire is a benign and charitable agency. Only a true-blue anal-retentive huckster or one who is absolutely clueless about radicalism could claim otherwise.

Cancer and others of his ilk are symbols of stolid unilateralism. The destruction of the Tower of Babel, be it a literal truth, an allegory, or a mere story based upon cultural archetypes, illustrates this truth plainly. If I have a bias, it is only against effrontive lummoxes who prime the pump of cynicism. His patter is smooth and quite practiced. He can fast-talk you into believing you'd be better off if you participated in his effort to cultivate the purest breed of irresponsibility. However, Cancer's perorations fall apart upon reflection. Because Cancer is so caught up in trying to manipulate the public like a puppet dangling from strings, I'd like to conclude this letter by quoting to him the last line of R. M. Rilke's poem, "Archaic Torso of Apollo": "You must change your life."

[Eagles_Arrows]

I know Soulless.  Played him several times in da servers.

I bet he's an Ivy League student.

[CardBoardWarrior]

Nice.

[Graham]

WAYYY too long to read for a chuckle...

[Krillious]

ye way too long.. and the part i tried to read didn't make much sense

[Kyklis]

I think he might have just found big words in the dictionary and randomly worked them in somewhere.

Also, what † said.

[Dascoo]

I'm to lazy to read....btw, that isn't an ivy league student. that was a 12 year old.

[Didimow]

cant be bothered to read.

[n00bface]

Oooh what a burnage, he used an automated complain generator.
http://www.pakin.org/complaint/

[UGK]

I know Soulless.  Played him several times in da servers.

I bet he's an Ivy League student.

I know souless too....he owes me a hug...

[kingkitty]

I have a few points of contention with Princess Noobface j. Labada III. I realize that some of you may not know the particular background details of the events I'm referring to. I'm not going to go into those details here, but you can read up on them elsewhere. He has a staggering number of licentious spokesmen. One way to lower their numbers, if not eradicate them entirely, is simple. We just inform them that he once tried convincing me that human life is expendable. Does he think I was born yesterday? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that Princess Labada is terrified that there might be an absolute reality outside himself, a reality that is what it is, regardless of his wishes, theories, hopes, daydreams, or decrees.

I myself decidedly dislike Princess Labada. Likes or dislikes, however, are irrelevant to observed facts, such as that Princess Labada spews out so many falsehoods, distortions, and half-truths, that rebuttal requires some lengthy documentation. His lickspittles probably don't realize that, because it's not mentioned in the funny papers or in the movies. Nevertheless, some overbearing freaks of nature are actually considering helping Princess Labada crush the will of all individuals who have expressed political and intellectual opposition to his endeavors. How quickly such people forget that they were lied to, made fun of, and ridiculed by Princess Labada on numerous occasions. I predict that before long, people will generally agree that Princess Labada often starts with a preconceived story and then plugs in supposed "information" in order to create a somewhat believable tale. This is a prediction that will not be true in all cases, but it is expected to become more common as time passes. I'm not normally one to criticize but the tone of his reports is eerily reminiscent of that of intrusive egotists of the late 1940s, in the sense that he wants us to believe that his opinions are Holy Writ. How stupid does he think we are? To ask that question another way, why is he so compelled to complain about situations over which he has no control? Well, if I knew that, I'd be in Stockholm picking up my prize and a sizable check. Princess Labada says that he needs a little more time to clean up his act. As far as I'm concerned, Princess Labada's time has run out. Whenever he tries to condition the public -- or, more precisely, brainwash the public -- into believing that embracing a system of Trotskyism will make everything right with the world, so do ornery nebbishes. Similarly, whenever he attempts to purge the land of every non-horny person, gene, idea, and influence, petulant wisenheimers typically attempt the same. I do not seek to draw any causal scheme from these correlations. I mention them only because he is stepping over the line when he attempts to drive us into a state of apoplexy -- way over the line.

Princess Labada keeps telling us that he has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature. Are we also supposed to believe that an open party with unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage the crowd? I didn't think so.

My argument gets a little complicated here. Princess Labada never tires of trying to extinguish fires with gasoline. He presumably hopes that the magic formula will work some day. In the meantime, he seems to have resolved to learn nothing from experience, which tells us that his sycophants don't represent an ideology. They don't represent a legitimate political group of people. They're just flat slaphappy. His detractors are correct in their observation that I'm not actually demanding revenge, but I guess nobody ever explained that to his secret agents. The simple, regrettable truth is that Princess Labada'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.

I have taken the liberty of letting Princess Labada know that given a choice of having him guarantee the destruction of anything that looks like a vital community or having my bicuspids extracted sans Novocaine, I would embrace the pliers, purchase some Polident Partials, and call it a day. Last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince Princess Labada that you can sincerely chalk up incidents such as the ones I've described to the beer-guzzling nature of his dissertations. As I expected, Princess Labada was unconvinced.

Writing letters like this one has earned me more hate mail from Princess Labada than you would care to hear about. That sounds really sinful, but I maintain that it's an accurate assessment of the situation. Some reputed -- as opposed to reputable -- members of his camp quite adamantly aver that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty. I find it rather astonishing that anyone could think such a thing, but then again, Princess Labada sometimes has trouble convincing people that his mistakes are always someone else's fault. When he has such trouble, he usually trots out a few jaundiced numskulls to constate authoritatively that we can change the truth if we don't like it the way it is. Whether or not that trick of his works, it's still the case that Princess Labada has been deluding people into believing that he is known for his sound judgment, unerring foresight, and sagacious adaptation of means to ends. Don't let him delude you, too. The following is a preliminary attempt to establish some criteria for discussion of these complex issues. To begin with, Princess Labada 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.

Some of us have an opportunity to come in contact with what I call vexatious hucksters on a regular basis at work or in school. We, therefore, may be able to gain some insight into the way they think, into their values; we may be able to understand why they want to pit race against race, religion against religion, and country against country. Princess Labada seems to have no trouble sweet-talking the most morally repugnant turncoats I've ever seen into helping him gain a respectable foothold for his grotesque, disingenuous sentiments. I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that he knows that performing an occasional act of charity will make some people forgive -- or at least overlook -- all of his pretentious excesses. My take on the matter is that Princess Labada's op-ed pieces have experienced a considerable amount of evolution (or perhaps more accurately, genetic drift) over the past few weeks. They used to be simply grumpy. Now, not only are they both dotty and polyloquent, but they also serve as unequivocal proof that I appreciate feedback and other people's views on subjects. I don't, however, appreciate feedback when it's given in an unprofessional manner.

The pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to admonish Princess Labada not seven times, but seventy times seven? You may find it amusing or even titillating to read about his treatises, but they're not amusing to me. They're deeply troubling.

It's not easy for me to say this, but Princess Labada wants a central organization for his international world swindle, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other countries -- a haven for what I call oleaginous psychics and a university for budding dissolute, brain-damaged braggarts. There, I said it. Now I can continue with my previous point, which is that the first response to this from Princess Labada's assistants is perhaps that it's okay if Princess Labada's contrivances initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend. Wrong. Just glance at the facts: Princess Labada's claim 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 is factually unsupported and politically motivated.

I surely hope that humanity will rid this earth of the most coldhearted radicals I've ever seen with the greatest dispatch, since otherwise, the earth might well become rid of humanity. It is hard to decide what is stronger in Princess Labada: his incredible stupidity as far as any real knowledge or ability is concerned, or the immoral insolence of his behavior. I used to think that passive-aggressive, amateurish racketeers were the most ruthless people on the planet, but now I know that the irony is that Princess Labada's most demonic threats are also his most intransigent. As the French say, "Les extremes se touchent." His rejoinders have caused widespread social alienation, and from this alienation a thousand social pathologies have sprung. As I noted at the beginning of this letter, I have to wonder where Princess Labada got the idea that it is my view that a book of his writings would be a good addition to the Bible. This sits hard with me because it is simply not true and I've never written anything to imply that it is. His goal is to devalue me as a person. This is abject pessimism! Before you read this letter, you might have thought that the best way to reduce cognitive dissonance and restore homeostasis to one's psyche is to transform our whole society to suit Princess Noobface j. Labada III's own lubricious interests. Now you know that his legates "solve" all our problems by talking them to death for dubious reasons or for no reason at all.

Mmm your right noobface.

[Captain Ben]

This letter has three main sections. In the first, I argue that the big parlor game among Miss King Gay Kitty, Esq.'s allies is guessing which of them was the first to suborn the most laughable hermits you'll ever see to require schoolchildren to be taught that Kitty is omnipotent. In the second, I make it clear that Kitty prefers defamation to dialogue. And in the third and final section, I conclude that there is an inherent contradiction between Kitty's spleeny form of unilateralism and basic human rights. Without going into all the gory details, let's just say that somebody has to make an impartial and well-informed evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of Kitty's flimflams. That somebody can be you. In any case, Kitty proclaims at every opportunity that she'd never pose a threat to the survival of democracy. The lady doth protest too much, methinks. She has vowed that when you least expect it, she'll violate values so important to our sense of community. This is hardly news; Kitty has been vowing that for months with the regularity of a metronome. What is news is that some people say that that isn't sufficient evidence to prove that she is secretly scheming to prey on people's fear of political and economic instability. And I must agree; one needs much more evidence than that. But the evidence is there, for anyone who isn't afraid to look at it. Just look at the way that that fact is simply inescapable to any thinking man or woman. "Thinking" is the key word in the previous sentence. I have now said everything there is to say. So, to summarize it all, as far as being larcenous is concerned, none of Miss King Gay Kitty, Esq.'s bedfellows holds a candle to her.

[MofoNofo]

I was so pleased by the response to my last letter that I decided to write another one. Don't worry; I have plenty of new stuff to say about Electronic Arts and its habitués. One of my objectives is to perform noble deeds. There isn't a man, woman, or child alive today who thinks that Electronic Arts's the best thing to come along since the invention of sliced bread, so let's toss out that ridiculous argument of Electronic Arts's from the get-go. Comments on the above are welcome, but please think them out first.