|
In Reply to: Re: John, I think someone was spoofing posted by Joseph on March 18, 2005 at 10:25:33:
Here's the complaint this website generated for the name "King Peter".:
I need to get something out of the way before I begin. I must say that King Peter has never been accused of objectivity. Let us note first of all that Peter should think about how his sermons lead ghastly imbeciles to lead to the destruction of the human race. If Peter doesn't want to think that hard, perhaps he should just keep quiet. Notice the pestiferous tendency of his diatribes. From secret-handshake societies meeting at "the usual place" to back-door admissions committees, his faithfuls have always found a way to slow scientific progress. A recent series of hearings, lawsuits, and media reports demonstrates that we must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that Peter will censor any incomplicitous invectives. And to overcome these fears, we must take a proactive, rather than a reactive, stance.
Plainly stated, there is no place in this country where we are safe from his assistants, no place where we are not targeted for hatred and attack. It's precisely because there are lessons to be learned from history that we can divide Peter's credos into three categories: pretentious, crapulous, and meretricious.
While it is not my purpose to incriminate or exculpate or vindicate or castigate, Peter is always trying to change the way we work. This annoys me, because his previous changes have always been for the worse. I'm positive that Peter's new changes will be even more censorious, because he is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to his animadversions. Those of us who are too lazy or disinterested to get him off our backs have no right to complain when he and his understrappers heat the cauldron of terror until it boils over into our daily lives. We must halt the destructive process that is carrying our civilization toward extinction. If we fail in this, we are not failing someone else; we are not disrupting some interest separate from ourselves. Rather, it is we who suffer when we neglect to observe that Peter has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to spawn a society in which those with the most deviant lifestyle, incorrigible behavior, or personal failures are given the most by the government. On all of these occasions, I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that it has long been obvious to attentive observers that he has let his ophidian nature get the better of him. But did you know that Peter's argument is invalid? Peter doesn't want you to know that, because he is utterly gung-ho about elitism because he lacks more pressing soapbox issues. Until we address this issue, we will never move beyond it.
