Replies

It is imperative that I give you the following information, which Lazamataz wants concealed from the public. Let me preface my discussion by quickly reasserting a familiar theme of my previous letters: There are three fairly obvious problems with Lazamataz's pronouncements, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to think outside the box. First, Lazamataz has no ground and no right to scapegoat easy, unpopular targets, thereby diverting responsibility from more culpable parties. Second, just because you can do something does not mean it's okay to do it. And third, even the most rigorous theoretical framework he could put forward would not leave him in the position of generalizing with the certainty to which he is prone in his ideas. But let's not lose sight of the larger, more important issue here: his pestiferous scare tactics.

It seems that no one else is telling you that he makes so many laughably soulless statements, it boggles the mind to think about them. So, since the burden lies with me to tell you that, I suppose I should say a few words on the subject. To begin with, it is immature and stupid of Lazamataz to dump effluent into creeks, lakes, streams, and rivers. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to do something about the continuing -- make that the escalating -- effort on his part to attack the very fabric of this nation, and that's why I say that in order to nourish children with good morals and self-esteem, we must analyze his pleas in the manner of sociological studies of mass communication and persuasion. And that's just the first step. Remember, Lazamataz managed to convince a bunch of obnoxious litterbugs to help him dismantle the guard rails that protect society from the superficial elements in its midst. What was the quid pro quo there? No, don't guess; this isn't audience participation day. I'll just tell you. But before I do, you should note that he is sincerely up to something. I don't know exactly what, but Lazamataz uses the very intellectual tools he criticizes, namely consequentialist arguments rather than arguments about truth or falsity.

Lazamataz is operating under the misguided assumption that you and I are inferior to obstreperous deadbeats. Only true-blue worthless, barbaric marauders or those who are thoroughly clueless about McCarthyism could claim otherwise. Laughable, sullen frotteurism is a disgrace to humanity, but it cannot be eliminated by moral lectures or by pious intentions. No, it can be eradicated only if we recall the ideals of compassion, nonviolence, community, and cooperation.

He is typical of pretentious louts in his wild invocations to the irrational, the magic, and the fantastic to dramatize his wisecracks. On the other hand, as long as the beer keeps flowing and the paychecks keep coming, Lazamataz's surrogates don't really care that he says it is within his legal right to put the gods of heaven into the corner as obsolete and outmoded and, in their stead, burn incense to the idol Mammon. Whether or not he indeed has such a right, Lazamataz 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 Lazamataz is deconstructionism. Why? Here's the answer, albeit in a somewhat circuitous and roundabout style: If I may be so bold, after hearing about Lazamataz's pathological attempts to remove society's moral barriers and allow perversion to prosper, I was saddened. I was saddened that he has lowered himself to this level.

I indubitably cannot emphasize enough how much I resent Lazamataz's sophistries. Worst of all, our children's children would never forgive us for letting Lazamataz label everyone he doesn't like as a racist, sexist, fascist, communist, or some equally terrible "-ist". Like I said, his "compromises" will have consequences -- very serious consequences. And we ought to begin doing something about that.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we lived in a world without refractory calumniators? I, hardheaded cynic that I am, attribute the social and psychological problems of modern society to the fact that Lazamataz is addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, he has no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people he desires to lead.

Maybe it's just me, but don't you think that for every dollar we spend to better our communities, he'll spend a thousand more to blame our societal problems on handy scapegoats? You might object to my claim that he, perhaps more than anyone, should take seriously the challenge to reinforce notions of positive self esteem. But bear in mind that he wants us to believe that all literature which opposes obscurantism was forged by stingy spongers. How stupid does he think we are? Well, if I knew that, I'd be in Stockholm picking up my prize and a sizable check.

At first, you might be unsure as to whether Lazamataz's use of callow hellions is unmistakably pathetic. But on deeper inspection, you'll undoubtedly conclude that Lazamataz's reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, he always begins an argument with his conclusion (e.g., that his ballyhoos won't be used for political retribution) and therefore -- not surprisingly -- he always arrives at that very conclusion. Lazamataz's presence makes people nervous, anxious, fearful, and angry, but that's really beside the point. In Lazamataz's anecdotes, phallocentrism is witting and unremitting, uncompromising and nutty. He revels in it, rolls in it, and uses it to mold your mind and have you see the world not as it is, but as he wants you to see it. Be careful not to be charmed by Lazamataz's musings. All they do is pander to our worst fears.

You, of course, now need some hard evidence that I regard Lazamataz the way I would the sort of stinking filth I might have to clean off my boots after a careless walk in a dog kennel. Well, how about this for evidence: As that last sentence suggests, I challenge him to point out any text in this letter that proposes that he is always being misrepresented and/or persecuted. It isn't there. There's neither a hint nor a suggestion of such a thing. Lazamataz's most progressive idea is to impede the free flow of information. If that sounds progressive to you, you must be facing the wrong way. This makes Lazamataz's politics seem invidious and even a bit wretched. That's pretty transparent. What's not so transparent is the answer to the following question: Whatever happened to community standards? A clue might be that if Lazamataz wants to be taken seriously, he should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults. Don't be intimidated by his threat to teach the next generation how to hate -- and whom to hate. Lazamataz's comrades portray themselves as fervent believers in freedom of speech and expression, but are loath to reveal that the first lies that Lazamataz told us were relatively benign. Still, they have been progressing. And they will continue to progress until there is no more truth; his lies will grow until they blot out the sun.

His machinations may not be traditional for all vindictive nincompoops, but if I seem a bit perverted, it's only because I'm trying to communicate with him on his own level. I'm not writing this letter for your entertainment. I'm not even writing it for your education. I'm writing it for our very survival. One could truthfully say that our situation is snowballing. But saying that would miss the real point, which is that of all of his exaggerations and incorrect comparisons, one in particular stands out: "It's perfectly safe to drink and drive." I don't know where he came up with this, but his statement is dead wrong. Shame on Lazamataz for thinking that people like you and me are demented! I could accept, perhaps, ethics backed by the forces of logic and powerful reasoning. Ruses marked with hypocrisy and contradiction, however, merit none of my respect.

The important point here is not that his reports, while ideologically grounded in a rhetoric and practice of fogyism, are surrounded by a cloak of secrecy and "plausible denial". The vital matter is that most people want to be nice; they want to be polite; they don't want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness, they step aside and let Lazamataz prevent me from sleeping soundly at night. In all fairness, he says that he defends the real needs of the working class. That is the most despicable lie I have ever heard in my entire life. Innocent children have been brainwashed by Lazamataz's revolting slogans, at least insofar as this essay is concerned. Lazamataz has a hidden agenda. Of course, this sounds simple, but in reality, the real issue is simple: His canards are pauperism at its worst. My eventual goal for this letter is to honor our nation's glorious mosaic of cultures and ethnicities. I'm counting on you for your support.

WHooops it says Complement !?!?!? I thought it said Complaint !...........never mind Laz !!

Your new wife sure is purdy :o) .....And you are da MAN Laz !!! My Freepin Hero !

He he he ......this is gonna be a great thread !

Stay Safe !~

LOL! Tell me you wrote that yourself!

This is what happens when you put the lyrics to the song “Who Are You” by The Who through the Babelfish language translator, translate from English to French and back again.

Who is you? Who that which that which that which? Who is you? Who that which that which that which? Who is you? Who that which that which that which? Who is you? Who that which that which that which? I took care in Soho of the entry has police knew my name which it "can go to the house you sleep evening said this, if you rise far and outward journey capacity" I varied return to the basement and the Breeze roasted return my hair which I point out above throwin ' copies me around and preachin ' of my chair the good am that which him? (that which is you? That which, that, that, that?) I would like to really know (that which is you? That which, that, that, that?) do you declare me which you are? (that which is you? That which, that, that, that?) ' Cause which I would like to really know (that which is you? That which, that, that, that?) I took the pipe avoids city in Rollin ' a pin of return that me little with the same one dying clown with a band of tin tin Rin I believed developed return and me hiccupped and of return my day employed eleven hours in, the tin bucket looked at the god, to receive there, another manner of being with the good am that which it? (that which is you? That which, that, that, that?) OH - that which is you? (that which is you? That which, that, that, that?) concerned you declare me who you are? (that which is you? That which, that, that, that?) Ampèreheure that which is Bumsen you? (that which is you? That which, that, that, that?) Of are Whoooooooo you? Ooh wa ooh wa ooh wa ooh wa... Who is you? Who that which that which that which? Who is you? Who that which that which that which? Who is you? Who that which that which that which? Who is you? Who that which that which that which? I would like to really know (that which is you? That which, that, that, that?) I would like to really know (that which is you? That which, that, that, that?) concerned you declare me who you are? (that which is you? That which, that, that, that?) ' Cause which I would like to really know (that which is you? That which, that, that, that?) I know am a place there that you went, where cases of love of the trees my heart as a defective basin am me only on my knees feel to enough me spit, as a drilling of sewer receives outside however still your kiss, as I measurements until everyone can now after such a love? It to good be that which it? (that which is you? That which, that, that, that?) concerned you declare me who you are? (that which is you? That which, that, that, that?) I would like to really know? (that which is you? That which, that, that, that?) do you declare me, declare me you which you are? (that which is you? That which, that, that, that?) do you concern, concern you? (that which is you? That which, that, that, that?) Ampèreheure that which is Bumsen you? (that which is you? That which, that, that, that?) Who is you? (that which is you? That which, that, that, that?) A ampèreheure' to explain to explain me who you are? (that which is you? Would Wer........) I like to really know (that........) of Oh- me (with which me expliquedessus........) to come which is you would like to really know? (that which is........) you you?