digibutter.nerr

[Super Ultimario]

I read LB and Francis's first posts, and I didn't understand Lord Bowser's. But thanks to vg's summary, I do.

I'm not going to bother with LB's second post. @_@

[vg]

You make interesting points LB. I would like to see quotes though. A lot of it seems to be fabricated and almost a joke. No offense. I am simply being the Devil's advocate from here on.

[Popple]

LB totally ripped this off somewhere and replaced whoever it was talking about with Francis XD

[Francis]

Oh paaaallleeeeeze...

Lord Bowser and others may conclude that it is too late for me to successfully lead digibutter and that Bowser should take charge. But those who take that pessimistic view understand neither Lord Bowser nor his current rung on the ladder to total power. By way of introduction, let me just say that if I want to self-censor my critique of Bowser, that should be my prerogative. I don't need Bowser forcing me to. I'm willing to accept that he exists in a state of intellectual hibernation. I'm even willing to accept that he has no ground and no right to sully my reputation. But he takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on him. Bowser also ignores all of the evidence that doesn't support (or in many cases directly contradicts) his position. I'll give you an example of this, based on my own experience. As you know, he pompously claims that he is as innocent as a newborn lamb. That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately.

Bowser does not tolerate any view that differs from his own. Rather, he discredits and discards those people who contradict him along with the ideas that they represent. He makes free and liberal use of chicanery, deceit, intolerance, lust, persecution, and oppression. End of story. Actually, I should add that he seeks scapegoats for his own shortcomings by blaming the easiest target he can find, that is, the worst types of gutless, contemptible bureaucrats there are. By brainwashing his cheerleaders with corporatism, Bowser makes them easy to lead, easy to program, and easy to enslave. I do not wish to evaluate absolutism here, though I aver that Bowser's jibes promote a redistribution of wealth. This is always an appealing proposition for Bowser's satraps because much of the redistributed wealth will undoubtedly end up in the hands of the redistributors as a condign reward for their loyalty to Bowser.

Sometime in the future Bowser will replace love and understanding with chauvinism and vandalism. Fortunately, that hasn't happened...yet. But it will doubtlessly happen if we don't condemn Bowser's criminal ineptitude.

Bowser loves getting up in front of people and telling them that sin is good for the soul. He then boasts about how he'll alter, rewrite, or ignore past events to make them consistent with his current "reality" eventually. It's all part of the media spectacle that is Bowser. Of course, he soaks it up and wallows in it like a pig in mud. Speaking of pigs and mud, I'm at loggerheads with Bowser on at least one important issue. Namely, he argues that his recommendations epitomize wholesome family entertainment. I take the opposite position, that there's no shortage of sin in the world today. It's been around since the Garden of Eden and will clearly persist as long as Bowser continues to terrorize our youngsters.

There are some truths that are so obvious that for this very reason they are not seen, or at least not recognized, by ordinary people. One noteworthy example is the truism that I can't possibly believe Bowser's claim that his decisions are based on reason. If someone can convince me otherwise, I'll eat my hat. Heck, I'll eat a whole closetful of hats. That's a pretty safe bet because Bowser's argument that his polity is looking out for our interests is hopelessly flawed and thoroughly circuitous. The biggest difference between me and Bowser is that Bowser wants to offer stones instead of bread to the emotional and spiritual hungers of the world. I, on the other hand, want to follow through on the critical work that has already begun. I guess I really can't blame him for wanting to remake the world to suit his own disaffected needs. After all, if he can't be reasoned out of his prejudices, he must be laughed out of them. If he can't be argued out of his selfishness, he must be shamed out of it. Help me ensure that we survive and emerge triumphant out of the coming chaos and destruction. Join your hands with mine in this, the greatest cause of our time.

[Lord Bob]

Long... Wall... of text... so... boring... murder... to my... attention span... I don't think you need to say whatever you said in OVER 9000! words.

[vg]

My continued summarization

LB states that he heard people over talking about equality and LB argues back with the idea that Francis uses slogans and propaganda. LB then states that Francis is segregating the people and degrades the people around him. LB then states that Francis is over controlling. (I'd like to know why you picked MDMA as a point LB just out of curiosity) LB then states that we need to raise issues instead of fight. LB then states that Francis does not run a democracy but instead a dictatorship. LB states that Francis believes that honesty and responsibility are worthless. The next paragraph almost seems like a joke, sorry. I'd like to see this essay. Ditch the rest. LB states that Francis is trying to destroy the human race and that Francis lets anyone change a debate.

In my opinion, this seems like a joke and probably is.
But it did give me something to do.

For Francis's side, Francis simply states that LB is selfish and tries to change things to his own ideas. Francis states that Bowser isn't innocent. Francis states that LB finds scapegoats. Francis ends with the fact that he is offering real results instead of imaginary results.

Short version

LB says Francis is an evil dictator

Francis says that LB is selfish and tries to get out of anything and everything.

[Paper_Waluigi]

tl;dr, but I laughed my ass off at the little I did read.

[Lord Bowser]

If ever I had an easy letter to write, this is it. My challenge is to convince you that Francis explains everything through the lens of his own myopic and ideologically loaded notions. If you disagree with my claim that we can't let irritable slumlords ram Francis's perceptions down our throats, then read no further. I could go on for pages listing innumerable examples of Francis's scornful jibes and meretricious expositions. I have already written enough, surely, to convince you that for those of us who make our living trying to put an end to Francis's evildoing, it is important to consider that his rantings all stem from one, simple, faulty premise -- that he is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative.

If Francis makes fun of me or insults me, I hear it, and it hurts. But I take solace in the fact that I am still able to provide you with vital information which Francis has gone to great lengths to prevent you from discovering. I almost forgot: His favorite buzzword these days is "crisis". Francis likes to tell us that we have a crisis on our hands. He then argues that the only reasonable approach to combat this crisis is for him to deprive people of dignity and autonomy. In my opinion, the real crisis is the dearth of people who understand that Francis's attendants think that "Francis's commentaries are good for the environment, human rights, and baby seals." First off, that's a lousy sentence. If they had written that the notion that Francis is so tied up in his personal dreams that he is oblivious to what is happening in the world around him is pervasive, then that quote would have had more validity. As it stands, when I say that dichotomous thinking has stymied Francis's ability to reach solutions, this does not, I repeat, does not mean that everyone with a different set of beliefs from his is going to get a one-way ticket to Hell. This is a common fallacy held by wrongheaded, barbaric roustabouts. Francis has written volumes about how we have too much freedom. Don't believe a word of it, though. The truth is that his ruses are a load of bunk. I use this delightfully pejorative term, "bunk" -- an alternative from the same page of my criminal-slang lexicon would serve just as well -- because his prank phone calls are a logical absurdity, a series of deductions from a premise that has been denied. Speaking of absurdities, 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 build a society in which people have a sense of permanence and stability, not chaos and uncertainty.

We ought to purge the darkness from Francis's heart. That'll make Francis think once -- I would have said "twice" but I don't see any indication that he has previously given any thought to the matter -- before trying to infiltrate the media with the express purpose of disseminating venal information. He frequently avers his support of democracy and his love of freedom. But one need only look at what he is doing -- as opposed to what he is saying -- to understand his true aims.

Francis maintains that either everything is happy and fine and good or that he is cunctipotent. Francis denies any other possibility. He claims that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. I respond that his maneuvers are a cesspool of Dadaism. Francis's generalizations are an icon for the deterioration of the city, for its slow slide into crime, malaise, and filth. We can divide Francis's roorbacks into three categories: caustic, intrusive, and inane.

Francis's platitudes deserve to be criticized because they reopen wounds that seem scarcely healed. Francis makes assertions that strain credulity. In just a moment I'll discuss some important recent developments based on this fundamental truth. First, however, I want to add a bit to what I wrote previously. The ultimate aim of Francis's lamentations is to restructure society as a pyramid with Francis at the top, Francis's cheerleaders directly underneath, the most daft cockalorums you'll ever see beneath them, and the rest of at the bottom. This new societal structure will enable Francis to exploit the general public's short attention span in order to make my worst nightmares come true, which makes me realize that he coins polysyllabic neologisms to make his morals 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.

Francis presents one face to the public, a face that tells people what they want to hear. Then, in private, he devises new schemes to flush all my hopes and dreams down the toilet. His view 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 sheer make-believe. While this lighthearted statement adds sorely needed humor to an otherwise tense situation, he is firmly convinced that his den of thieves is looking out for our best interests. His belief is controverted, however, by the weight of the evidence indicating that Francis has a certain fondness for selfish dolts. An equal but opposite observation is that I once overheard Francis say something quite astonishing. Are you strapped in? Francis said that he can override nature. Can you believe that? At least his statement made me realize that the purpose of this letter is far greater than to prove to you how rebarbative and stingy he has become. The purpose of this letter is to get you to start thinking for yourself, to start thinking about how it is easy to see faults in others. But it takes perseverance to embrace diversity. Francis weeps crocodile tears for those who suffer as a result of his sermons. Let's remember that.

Whatever Francis claims to the contrary, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Of course, if Francis had learned anything from history, he'd know that if, five years ago, I had described a person like Francis to you and told you that in five years, he'd impugn the patriotism of his opponents, you'd have thought me insensate. You'd have laughed at me and told me it couldn't happen. So it is useful now to note that, first, it has happened and, second, to try to understand how it happened and how he talks a lot about collectivism and how wonderful it is. However, he's never actually defined what it means. How can Francis argue for something he's never defined? You know the answer, don't you? You probably also know that the picture I am presenting need not be confined to Francis's manuscripts. It applies to everything he says and does. I undoubtedly hope that the truth will prevail and that justice will be served before Francis does any real damage. Or is it already too late? The only clear answer to emerge from the conflicting, contradictory stances that Francis and his shock troops take is that I refuse to indulge Francis's foibles. There are rumors circulating that he treats serious issues callously and somewhat flippantly, so let me just clarify something: If he were to support hostile governments known for human rights abuses, wrongful imprisonment, and slavery, social upheaval and violence would follow. It is therefore clear that Francis is a standard-bearer for the unbearable. But you knew that already. So let me add that I am intellectually honest enough to admit my own previous ignorance in that matter. I only wish that Francis had the same intellectual honesty.

I want to make this clear, so that those who do not understand deeper messages embedded within sarcastic irony -- and you know who I'm referring to -- can process my point. Francis gets perfervid about totalitarianism. In fact, I have said that to Francis on many occasions and I will keep on saying it until he stops trying to blitz media outlets with faxes and newsletters that highlight the good points of his presumptuous half-measures.

Francis's musings don't accomplish anything useful because they don't deal with the real issue. The real issue is that the time is always right to do what is right. That's why we must face our problems realistically, get to the root of our problems, and be determined to solve them. The first step in that process is to realize that every time he utters or writes a statement that supports negativism -- even indirectly -- it sends a message that the federal government should take more and more of our hard-earned money and more and more of our hard-won rights. I feel we mustn't let him make such statements, partly because he equates non-cooperation and solitariness with individuality, but primarily because he occasionally writes letters accusing me and my friends of being the worst classes of vainglorious xenophobic-types there are. These letters are typically couched in gutter language (which is doubtless the language in which he habitually thinks) and serve no purpose other than to convince me that his henchmen consider his dissertations a breath of fresh air. I, however, find them more like the fetid odor of favoritism. If we oppose our human vices wherever they may be found -- arrogance, hatred, jealousy, unfaithfulness, avarice, and so on -- then the sea of mercantalism, on which Francis so heavily relies, will begin to dry up. There are three points I need to make here. First, he is wrong. Second, he faces moral disaster in his neighborhood, political disaster in his country, and an impending world catastrophe with a blank and smiling countenance. And third, he is not a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens step back and consider the problem of Francis's warnings in the larger picture of popular culture imagery. Responsible citizens undeniably do not shrink the so-called marketplace of ideas down to convenience-store size.

Francis's effusions can be rightly understood only as what some immoral malcontents have been brave enough to call them: a failure. You won't find many of Francis's lapdogs who will openly admit that they favor Francis's schemes to divert our attention from serious issues. In fact, their plans for the future are characterized by a plethora of rhetoric to the contrary. If you listen closely, though, you'll hear how carefully they cover up the fact that there is no such thing as evil in the abstract. It exists only in the evil deeds of evil people like Francis. I'd like to finish with a quote from a private e-mail message sent to me by a close friend of mine: "A lot of people may end up getting hurt before the final spasm of Francis's rage is played out".

[vg]

I'm not going to translate it. LB simply states that Francis has done things that he never could have possibly done... unless the two happen to be related. And one question. Find me an actual link where Francis says crisis.

[Lord Bob]

Oh god... even LARGER wall of text... gotta get outta here afore my brain asplodes!

[vg]

Pretty good... You can type 120 words per minute

[Plastic Mario]

I would like to attempt to dissuade potential future seemingly intellectual conversations about antidisestablishmentarian with the following.

lolwut?

[Francis]

Let me break this down for you...

[Lord Bob]

[Plastic Mario]