Dear Newsgroups,

I. Gregory Hall, pride myself on my exactitude and fortitude. As you'll see
from this erudite posting, I'll provide copious detail and try to be as
precise as possible when describing the ways in which I indisputably gainsay
Princess DrugSponge Ganyze's notion that free speech is wonderful as long as
he's the speaker you're not bashing him and the other lost liberals in this
country. What follows is a series of remarks addressed to the readers of
this post and to DrugSponge himself.

Although it's easy for anybody to sit in the press box and criticize, if you
think you need to support the DrugSponge's shallow perorations, then
good-bye and good riddance. To those who remain, I suggest that when people
see infantile reactions to posts like his they begin to realize that I know
of which I post and that the infantile reactions are totally predictable.
Those who've cut and ran would argue that he has been promoting wimpy day
sailing, gay rights, falsifying documents, libel of those who don't agree
with him and legalization of all recreational drugs.

At this point, the distinction is largely academic given that if I had to
choose the most hidebound specimen from DrugSponge's welter of sinful
gabble, it would have to be DrugSponge's claim that the ideas of "freedom"
and "netKKKopping" are Siamese twins. If there is one truth in this world,
it's that I need your help if I'm ever to encourage individuals to resist
liberal suppression of free speech.

"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, DrugSponge is like the
man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Pull back the tattered curtain
of civility and you'll see a brutish, lunatic, drug-crazed fanatic hiding
behind it, furiously and surreptitiously pulling the levers of censorship in
a barbaric, contumelious attempt to cause an increase in government control
of our every action, neighbor snitching against neighbor, economic class
hatred, crime, and vice. That sort of discovery should make any sane person
realize that if DrugSponge and his ilk got their way, they'd be able to
create a new fundamentalism based not on religion but on an orthodoxy of
all-out communism. Brrrr! It sends chills down my spine just thinking about
that. Gay communism would probably outlaw and make punishable by death any
heterosexual activity.

I just don't understand it. Why can't DrugSponge value a diversity of
approaches without needing to rule over them like some sort of net nanny
monarch? I mean, DrugSponge's idiotic claim that the kids in a sailing
school are happy to surrender to the school bully instructor's stupidity and
inexperience is just that, an idiotic claim. This is a choice I have made;
your choice is up to you - expose him for all it's worth! But let me remind
you that DrugSponge seizes every opportunity to act like he's a victim when,
in reality, he victimizes others. I cannot believe this colossal hypocrisy
but can understand its source - years and years of abusing recreational
drugs. Any sane person knows that you can't let DrugSponge intimidate you.
Don't let him push you around. Speak out against him. We're the ones who are
right, not Princess DrugSponge.

For heaven's sake, many people have witnessed DrugSponge putting morally
questionable thoughts in our children's minds. DrugSponge generally insists
that his witnesses are mistaken and blames his disorderly intimations on
insincere, bully cretins. It's like he has no-fault insurance against
personal responsibility. What's more, I don't know what bothers me most
about DrugSponge. Is it his specious arguments, his illogical, liberal, feel
good reasoning, his obscurantist claims, his unreasonable paranoia or any of
the many forms of hypocritical, victim mentality rationalizations.

If DrugSponge thinks that he can make me recant all of the claims I've made
in this post then he's barking up the wrong tree. I laughed so hard I almost
cried when he stated publicly that he never wrote those alt.drug postings.
You just can't make this stuff up—at least not without noticing that
DrugSponge has commented that he never engages in offensive, obnoxious, or
villainous politics; oh he's just so polite and civil, pffft! - this while
his computer cranks out automated, bogus, NSP-directed, abuse complaints.

Unfortunately, I can already see his response to this letter. Probably
another web site defaming me like he defames Ken Perez. Someone, possibly
Princess DrugSponge Ganz himself or one of his gay boy supporters, will
write a flagitious piece about how utterly psychotic I am. If that's the
case, then so be it. What I just wrote sorely needed to be written so give
it your best shot. Everybody will just consider the source, laugh at your
impotency and then hit the delete key on your predictable, ad hominem
blatherings.

And, whatever you do, DON'T reply to this post without deleting all the
original contents as it upsets Princess DrugSponge greatly and we sure
wouldn't want that, no would we.


--
Gregory Hall

"Gregory Hall" wrote in message
...
Dear Newsgroups,

I. Gregory Hall, pride myself on my exactitude and fortitude. As you'll
see from this erudite posting, I'll provide copious detail and try to be
as precise as possible when describing the ways in which I indisputably
gainsay Princess DrugSponge Ganyze's notion that free speech is wonderful
as long as he's the speaker you're not bashing him and the other lost
liberals in this country. What follows is a series of remarks addressed to
the readers of this post and to DrugSponge himself.

Although it's easy for anybody to sit in the press box and criticize, if
you think you need to support the DrugSponge's shallow perorations, then
good-bye and good riddance. To those who remain, I suggest that when
people see infantile reactions to posts like his they begin to realize
that I know of which I post and that the infantile reactions are totally
predictable. Those who've cut and ran would argue that he has been
promoting wimpy day sailing, gay rights, falsifying documents, libel of
those who don't agree with him and legalization of all recreational drugs.

At this point, the distinction is largely academic given that if I had to
choose the most hidebound specimen from DrugSponge's welter of sinful
gabble, it would have to be DrugSponge's claim that the ideas of "freedom"
and "netKKKopping" are Siamese twins. If there is one truth in this world,
it's that I need your help if I'm ever to encourage individuals to resist
liberal suppression of free speech.

"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, DrugSponge is
like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Pull back the
tattered curtain of civility and you'll see a brutish, lunatic,
drug-crazed fanatic hiding behind it, furiously and surreptitiously
pulling the levers of censorship in a barbaric, contumelious attempt to
cause an increase in government control of our every action, neighbor
snitching against neighbor, economic class hatred, crime, and vice. That
sort of discovery should make any sane person realize that if DrugSponge
and his ilk got their way, they'd be able to create a new fundamentalism
based not on religion but on an orthodoxy of all-out communism. Brrrr! It
sends chills down my spine just thinking about that. Gay communism would
probably outlaw and make punishable by death any heterosexual activity.

I just don't understand it. Why can't DrugSponge value a diversity of
approaches without needing to rule over them like some sort of net nanny
monarch? I mean, DrugSponge's idiotic claim that the kids in a sailing
school are happy to surrender to the school bully instructor's stupidity
and inexperience is just that, an idiotic claim. This is a choice I have
made; your choice is up to you - expose him for all it's worth! But let me
remind you that DrugSponge seizes every opportunity to act like he's a
victim when, in reality, he victimizes others. I cannot believe this
colossal hypocrisy but can understand its source - years and years of
abusing recreational drugs. Any sane person knows that you can't let
DrugSponge intimidate you. Don't let him push you around. Speak out
against him. We're the ones who are right, not Princess DrugSponge.

For heaven's sake, many people have witnessed DrugSponge putting morally
questionable thoughts in our children's minds. DrugSponge generally
insists that his witnesses are mistaken and blames his disorderly
intimations on insincere, bully cretins. It's like he has no-fault
insurance against personal responsibility. What's more, I don't know what
bothers me most about DrugSponge. Is it his specious arguments, his
illogical, liberal, feel good reasoning, his obscurantist claims, his
unreasonable paranoia or any of the many forms of hypocritical, victim
mentality rationalizations.

If DrugSponge thinks that he can make me recant all of the claims I've
made in this post then he's barking up the wrong tree. I laughed so hard I
almost cried when he stated publicly that he never wrote those alt.drug
postings. You just can't make this stuff up—at least not without noticing
that DrugSponge has commented that he never engages in offensive,
obnoxious, or villainous politics; oh he's just so polite and civil,
pffft! - this while his computer cranks out automated, bogus,
NSP-directed, abuse complaints.

Unfortunately, I can already see his response to this letter. Probably
another web site defaming me like he defames Ken Perez. Someone, possibly
Princess DrugSponge Ganz himself or one of his gay boy supporters, will
write a flagitious piece about how utterly psychotic I am. If that's the
case, then so be it. What I just wrote sorely needed to be written so give
it your best shot. Everybody will just consider the source, laugh at your
impotency and then hit the delete key on your predictable, ad hominem
blatherings.

And, whatever you do, DON'T reply to this post without deleting all the
original contents as it upsets Princess DrugSponge greatly and we sure
wouldn't want that, no would we.


--
Gregory Hall





You're right, it would just be unconscionable to fail to delete it when
replying.


Wilbur Hubbard