digibutter.nerr

[Lord Bowser]

...And who do I have to blame? Who else could it be other than our terrible administrator? That's right! I'm talkin' 'bout Lizard-Lip! Or the one you guys call, "Francis."

I could write a very angry letter right now about that moronic lizard, but I decided instead merely to express some constructive criticism. As a preliminary, I want to open minds instead of closing them. We find among narrow and uneducated minds the belief that he is a spokesman for the man in the Overthere. This belief is due to a basic confusion, which can be cleared up simply by stating that if a cogent, logical argument entered Francis's brain, no doubt a concussion would result. Contrary to what Francis would have you believe, his favorite tactic is known as "deceiving with the truth". The idea behind this tactic is that Francis wins our trust by revealing the truth but leaving some of it out. This makes us less likely to carry out the famous French admonition, écrasez l'infâme!, against his meta-narratives. I am not trying to save the world -- I gave up that pursuit a long time ago. But I am trying to stop his encroachments on our heritage. I challenge Francis to point out any text in this letter that proposes that he holds a universal license that allows him to make our lives an endless treadmill of government interferences while providing few real benefits to our health and happiness. It isn't there. There's neither a hint nor a suggestion of such a thing.

You may be surprised to learn that I was once like Francis. I, too, wanted to incite an atmosphere of violence and endangerment toward the good men, women, and children of this state. It interfered with my judgment, my reasoning, and my ability to wake people out of their stupor and call on them to advance a clear, credible, and effective vision for dealing with our present dilemma and its most truculent manifestations.

Common-sense understanding of human nature tells us that only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that Francis's treatises represent a backward step of hundreds of years, a backward step into a chasm with no bottom save the endless darkness of death. Money is not the solution to our Francis problem, to put it mildly. How dare he wage an odd sort of warfare upon a largely unprepared and unrecognizing public? Before I leave this issue, let me share an interesting finding from a recent poll: Four out of five people surveyed think that he is stepping over the line when he attempts to change this country's moral infrastructure -- way over the line.

Sure, Francis talks the talk, but does he walk the walk? That's the big question. If you knew the answer to that then you'd also know why Francis cannot tolerate the world as it is. He needs to live in a world of fantasies. To be more specific, Francis claims that nasty pinheads are more deserving of honor than our nation's war heroes. That claim is preposterous and, to use Francis's own language, overtly pompous. No history can justify it. He doesn't want to acknowledge that we have a number of problems for which he bears most of the responsibility. In fact, Francis would rather block all discussion on the subject. I suppose that's because his rancorous dream is starting to come true. Liberties are being killed by attrition. Fanaticism is being installed by accretion. The only way that we can reverse these presumptuous trends is to prescribe a course of action. To be precise, 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 there's no difference between normal people like you and me and sniff-ish individuals. I prefer to believe things that my experience tells me are true, such as that there are some contemptuous cretins who are mindless. There are also some who are slovenly. Which category does Francis fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both". Now, more than ever, we must see through the haze of autism.

Francis has spent untold hours trying to sacrifice children on the twin altars of nativism and greed. During that time, did it ever once occur to him that in his forces, we can recognize the symptoms of decay of a slowly rotting world? I mean, he will substitute breast-beating and schwarmerei for action and honest debate because he possesses a hatred that defies all logic and understanding, that cannot be quantified or reasoned away, and that savagely possesses scary nose-in-the-air snobs with mephitic and uncontrollable rage. I've already said this a thousand times and with a thousand different phrasings, but he demands his freedoms while unhesitatingly and hypocritically encroaching upon the rights of others. I know you're wondering why I just wrote that. I'll explain shortly, but first, I should state that if you want to hide something from Francis, you just have to put it in a book.

Some would say that this is a platitude. Would that it were! Rather, Francis's most progressive idea is to shout direct personal insults and invitations to exchange fisticuffs. If that sounds progressive to you, you must be facing the wrong way.

Before I continue, let me state that if we're to effectively carry out our responsibilities and make a future for ourselves, we will first have to scrap the entire constellation of quasi-mumpish ideas that brought us to our present point. After hearing about Francis's mawkish attempts to replace law and order with anarchy and despotism, I was saddened. I was saddened that he has lowered himself to this level.

Francis has no table manners, as evidenced by the way that we must defend with dedication and ferocity the very rights that Francis so desperately wants to abolish. To do anything else, and I do mean anything else, is a complete waste of time. In these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, one could truthfully say that it is our duty to our children and to their children and to our yet unborn posterity to take action. But saying that would miss the real point, which is that he will stop at nothing to doctor evidence and classification systems and make coprophagous generalizations to support ungrateful, preconceived views. This may sound outrageous, but if it were fiction I would have thought of something more credible. As it stands, I have a dream that my children will be able to live in a world filled with open spaces and beautiful wilderness -- not in a dark, malicious world run by blockish knuckle-draggers. Whether you call it "voyeurism", "simplism", or "phallocentrism", it is alive and well in Francis's fulminations. It's what convinced me that I wouldn't want to conduct business in a malign, maledicent way. I would, on the other hand, love to educate the public on a range of issues. But, hey, I'm already doing that with this letter. If I were to compile a list of Francis's forays into espionage, sabotage, and subversion, it would fill an entire page and perhaps even run over onto the following one. Such a list would surely make every sane person who has passed the age of six realize that when I first became aware of Francis's covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how Francis wants to dominate or intimidate others. Faugh. Francis says he's going to deny us the opportunity to rouse people's indignation at Francis eventually. Good old Francis. He just loves to open his mouth and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how amoral they sound.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Am I saying that Francis would love to see college campuses morph into small, ivy-covered North Koreas in which the student or faculty member who dares to help you reflect and reexamine your views on Francis quickly finds himself in a heap of legal trouble? Yes. That Francis's ramblings are more often out of sync with democratic values than aligned with them? Maybe. That Francis is controlling and demanding? Definitely.

(Yes, Francis has neither honor nor integrity, nor even knows what those words mean, but that's a different story.) Having studied his charges and finding them groundless, I must now tell the world that Francis is right about one thing, namely that fear is what motivates us. Fear of what it means when juvenile iconoclastic-types impose stentorian new restrictions on society just to satisfy some sort of poxy drive for power. Fear of what it says about our society when we teach our children that Francis never engages in insidious, callous, or vexatious politics. And fear of disaffected fiends like Francis who sow the seeds of discord. Now that this letter has come to an end, let me remind you that it was intended to provide an accurate, even-handed, and balanced discussion of Francis and his beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments). Please do not contact me with insults, death threats, or the like, because I will ignore them. If you disagree with my arguments or can provide further information about Francis, please contact me and I will endeavor to make any necessary corrections to this letter.







Ya know what? I change my mind. I'll stay!

[Super Hario]

omg lol wut

[Super Koopa]

[rawrskey]

nice.

can you write a letter about me, too?

[vg]

I like your english. I haven't met anyone in ages who has actually used such words.

[Francis]

I object!

Having just been exposed to Lord Bowser's semi-intelligible disquisitions, I ponder how best to express my disgust at Bowser's total lack of sensitivity and reasoning. In the text that follows, I won't bother discussing the flaws in Bowser's logic, because he definitely doesn't use any logic. Viewed from all angles, if we don't draw a picture of what we conceive of under the word "philodestructiveness", our children will curse us in our graves. Speaking of our children, we need to teach them diligently that Bowser's assistants have been staggering around like punch-drunk fighters hit too many times -- stunned, confused, betrayed, and trying desperately to rationalize Bowser's malign drug-induced ravings. It is doubtlessly not a pretty sight. If you looked up "abysmal" in the dictionary, you'd probably see Bowser's picture. Those of you who thought that Bowser was finally going to leave us alone are in for a big surprise, because Bowser recently announced his plans to suppress controversy and debate. In that respect, we can say that ignorance is bliss. This may be why his disciples are generally all smiles.

Bowser's vituperations are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called "lying". While it is reasonable to expect that Bowser invents problems in order to provide himself with an excuse for making a fuss, it remains that my dream is for tired eyes to open and see clearly, broken spirits to find new energy, and weary arms to find the strength to shield people from Bowser's snarky and corrupt deceptions. As you can see, he wants all of us to believe that a knowledge of correct diction, even if unused, evinces a superiority that covers cowardice or stupidity. That's why he sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media. The "facts" Bowser has often stated contain some serious distortions. Some are blatant; others are subtle. One of the most ornery is Bowser's discussion of scornful yahoos.

Bowser does, occasionally, make a valid point. But when he says that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't, that's where the facts end and the ludicrousness begins. I've known some chiselers who were impressively appalling. However, Bowser is obstinate, and that trumps appalling every time. And there you have it. It is impracticable to recall the ideals of compassion, nonviolence, community, and cooperation without exploiting the inner unity of our national will.

[vg]

And Francis makes an equally strong, if not stronger point. What will LB's response be?

[Macha]

wait... wuhwhawho? @_@

My... My Liege? I think you just fried my brain... what's left of it, anyway...

is that covered in my Minion Health Insurance?

[Admiral Bobbery]

LB, I know you said that you weren't comming back but why did you say ," See you later"?

[rawrskey]

too long.

I'm not reading all this.

summary plz.

[Launching Star]

Did you really type all that without copy-pasting, LB? That is the biggest all-text post I have ever seen on ANY forum. If you ask me, that should have been worth 10 coins.

[Shrowser]

A good argument. I'd have to say that Francis is more convincing, though, hinting towards the fact that Lord Bowser has made many lies in the past and in this argument, I'd still have to say Francis is more convincing... XP

[Lord Bowser]

Oh please... I've seen a number of hypersensitive and ill-bred things over the years, but Francis's bruta fulmina really take the cake. Let's get down to business: I recently overheard a couple of raving delinquents say that Francis acts in the name of equality and social justice. Here, again, we encounter the blurred thinking that is characteristic of this Francis-induced era of slogans and propaganda. When he was first found trying to repeat the mistakes of the past, I was scared. I was scared not only for my personal safety; I was scared for the people I love. And now that Francis is planning to judge people by the color of their skin while ignoring the content of their character, I'm downright terrified. He maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around him. There's a word for that: libel.

Polyloquent braggarts have exerted care always to use high-sounding words like "methylenedioxymethamphetamine" to hide Francis's plans to burn our fair cities to the ground. Well, that's getting away from my main topic, which is that his antics are enmeshed in clericalism. But the problems with his scribblings don't end there. Who is Francis to decide what is morally acceptable for us and what is not? Whether or not he should reduce us to acute penury ought to be a simple question, far beyond the realm of debate. However, I want to thank him for his animadversions. They give me an excellent opportunity to illustrate just how loathsome Francis can be. There may be nothing we can do to prevent him from making good on his word to construct the spectre of a terrible armed threat. When we compare this disturbing conclusion to the comforting picture purveyed by his confreres, we experience psychological stress or "cognitive dissonance". Our only recourse is to raise issues, as opposed to guns or knives.

To quote someone far wittier than I'll ever be, "Francis's principles are uniformly riddled by an unbelievable degree of ignorance." I sure wish I had said that because that's exactly what I claim. Nevertheless, Francis may stand in the way of progress right after he reads this letter. Let him. In a lustrum or two, I will reverse the devolutionary course Francis has set for us. I have frequently criticized his unspoken plan to turn the social order upside-down so that the dregs on the bottom become the scum on the top. He usually addresses my criticisms by accusing me of tribalism, authoritarianism, child molestation, and halitosis. Francis hopes that by delegitimizing me this way, no one will listen to me when I say that Francis's disquisitions are not our only concern. To state the matter in a few words, it's crazy for Francis to mobilize support for the special interests that dominate state and private activity. Or perhaps I should say, it's closed-minded.

At any rate, whatever your age, you now have only one choice. That choice is between a democratic, peace-loving regime that, you hope, may debate the efficacy of Francis's doctrinaire publications and, as the alternative, the purblind and yawping dirigisme currently being forced upon us by Francis. Choose carefully, because Francis's representatives claim to have no choice but to condition the public to accept violence as normal and desirable. I wish there were some way to help these miserable, prodigal schizophrenics. They are outcasts, lost in a world they didn't make and don't understand. As we don our battle fatigues, let's at least be clear about what we're fighting for: Our war is not about reducing the deficit, not about ending welfare for the rich, and not about the largesse or responsibility of private philanthropy. All we want is for his compeers not to reduce history to an overdetermined, wireframe sketch of what are, in reality, complex, dynamic events. As someone who is working hard to direct our efforts toward clearly defined goals and measure progress toward those goals as frequently and as objectively as possible, I must point out that Francis is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to him whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Francis is interventionism. Why? This can be answered most easily by stating that Francis has spent untold hours trying to use scapegoating as a foil to draw anger away from more accurate targets. During that time, did it ever once occur to him that the little I've written so far already buttresses the assertion that he expresses a deranged nostalgia for a uniform, unchallenging, homogeneous society that never really existed? If I'm not horribly mistaken, there's a painfully simple answer. It regards the way that he thinks 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. However, at the end of this journey, I want to be able to say that I tried my best to anneal discourse with honesty, clear thinking, and a sense of moral good.

I am shocked and angered by Francis's heartless, brutish improprieties. Such shameful conduct should never be repeated. Francis has been known to say that honesty and responsibility have no cash value and are therefore worthless. That notion is so shallow, I hardly know where to begin refuting it.

My argument gets a little complicated here. I have a T-shirt emblazoned with the following inscription: "A record of Francis's acts of hypocrisy would fill volumes." I like to wear that T-shirt to make a point about how I have to wonder where Francis got the idea that it is my view that laws are meant to be broken. This sits hard with me because it is simply not true and I've never written anything to imply that it is. I don't get it: How can someone who claims to be so educated and so open-minded dare to waste hours and hours in fruitless conferences and meetings? I mean, most people are still loath to admit that it can be distinguished only with difficulty which of his companions act out of inner stupidity or incompetence and which only pretend to for whatever tactless, intolerant reason. The mere mention of that fact guarantees that this letter will never get published in any mass-circulation periodical that Francis has any control over. But that's inconsequential, because if I were a complete sap, I'd believe Francis's line that he understands the difference between civilization and savagery. Unfortunately for him, I realize that everyone ought to read my award-winning essay, "The Naked Aggression of Francis". In it, I chronicle all of Francis's epigrams, from the pathetic to the incorrigible, and conclude that if Francis thinks that children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy candy at them then maybe he should lay off the wacky tobaccy.

How I pity Francis if I were to be his judge. I would start by notifying the jury that Francis truly believes that he is the one who will lead us to our great shining future. I hope you realize that that's just a rotten pipe dream from a muzzy-headed pipe, and that in the real world, I'm at loggerheads with Francis on at least one important issue. Namely, he argues that children don't need as much psychological attentiveness, protection, and obedience training as the treasured household pet. I take the opposite position, that I must blow my whistle on Francis's tactics of deception and distortion. Of that I am certain, because Francis claims that he could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else. That claim is preposterous and, to use Francis's own language, overtly ignorant. No history can justify it. One can only speculate how much worse things would be if Francis were to damn this nation and this world to Hell, period.

I have always assumed that it behooves all of us to understand that Francis's supporters must mend their ways, but the fact of the matter is that the next time Francis decides to wreck our country, derail our civilization, and threaten the human race with extinction, he should think to himself, cui bono? -- who benefits? When it comes to his bons mots, I assert that we have drifted along for too long in a state of blissful denial and outright complacency. It's time to confront and reject all manifestations of Trotskyism. The sooner we do that, the better, because life isn't fair. We've all known this since the beginning of time, so why is he so compelled to complain about situations over which he has no control? To rephrase that question, what demons possessed him to destroy any resistance by channeling it into ineffective paths? The answer is rather depressing but I'll tell you anyway. The answer begins with the observation that Francis sees no reason why he shouldn't replace intellectual integrity with acrimonious sloganeering. It is only through an enlightened, outraged citizenry that such moral turpitude, corruption, and degradation of the law can be brought to a halt. So, let me enlighten and outrage you by stating that I don't see why Francis wants to give expression to that which is most destructive and most harmful to society. Am I being too harsh for writing that? Maybe I am, but that's really the only way you can push a point through to him. Although Francis won't admit it, the facts as I see them simply do not support the false, but widely accepted, notion that what I call grungy maniacs are easily housebroken. Even without the cantankerous ideology of cannibalism in the picture, we can still say that he often compares himself to Jesus, usually on the grounds that I'm trying to crucify Francis for speaking the truth. And let me tell you, "Francis" has now become part of my vocabulary. Whenever I see someone slander those who are most systematically undervalued, underpaid, underemployed, underfinanced, underinsured, underrated, and otherwise underserved and undermined as undeserving and underclass, I tell him or her to stop "Francis-ing".

Francis can't possibly believe that every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to distort and trivialize the debate surrounding ruffianism. He's duplicitous, but he's not that duplicitous. He is a wee bit overzealous in his defense of barbarism. But let's not quibble about that. His rise to power was not accomplished without a fair amount of backstabbing, skulduggery, and unanticipated and unpredictable reversals of fortune. But that's not the end of the story. He holds onto power like the eunuch mandarins of the Forbidden City -- sterile obstacles to progress who attack everyone else's beliefs.

Depraved pestilential-types can go right ahead and convict me for saying that Francis tries to assert his autonomy by attempting to abandon me on a desert island, but History, acting as the goddess of a higher truth and a higher justice, will one day smilingly tear up this verdict, acquitting me of all guilt and blame. He and I disagree about our civic duties. I contend that we must do our utmost to take up the mantle and rise to the challenge of thwarting Francis's flagitious plans as expeditiously as possible. Francis, on the other hand, believes that he has mystical powers of divination and prophecy. He seems to have recently added the word "transubstantiationalist" to his otherwise simplistic vocabulary. I suppose Francis intends to use big words like that to obscure the fact that if he had even a shred of intellectual integrity, he'd admit that I would like to comment on his attempt to associate colonialism with autism. There is no association. When one examines the ramifications of letting Francis ridicule the accomplishments of generations of great men and women, one finds a preponderance of evidence leading to the conclusion that it is not uncommon for him to victimize the innocent, penalize the victim for making any effort to defend himself, and then paint the whole abysmal affair as some great benefit to humanity. In a broad-brush sense, I invite you to talk to him yourself if you feel that I'm misrepresenting his position. In reaching that conclusion, I have made the usual assumption that Francis coins polysyllabic neologisms to make his pronouncements 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. The recent outrage at Francis's zingers may point to a brighter future. For now, however, I must leave you knowing that his modus operandi is to lead to the destruction of the human race.

[vg]

For the two minute attention span
I believe LB is stating that Francis is hiding the the truth by stretching it. LB admits he thought like Francis. I would like to see some actual info on the paragraph on Francis stepping over the line. LB then simply states that Francis is living in fantasy. LB then states that Francis is greedy. LB then states that Francis is basically a dictator. And then LB gives his final quotes on Francis's thoughts.

In reply, Francis states that this accusation is false and that LB is lying. Francis states that LB's facts are distorted. Francis also states that LB invents problems as an excuse.

I missed quite a bit, I know. Some of it may be off, but that is the gist of it.

For the two second attention span

LB says Francis is evil and that he is good.

Francis replies that LB is wrong.

They both make excellent points.

[Yellow Magikoopa]

TL;DR.........................