This letter contains some tough news. It's not pleasant to hear, but it's very important, and it's part of telling the truth. Before I get moving here, let me point out that Barcelot is so intolerantly devoted to his own prejudices that his perception of reality is entirely warped. Yes, I could add that I, for one, hate his constant misuse of historical analogies, but I wanted to keep my message simple and direct. I didn't want to distract you from the main thrust of my message, which is that for the nonce, Barcelot is content to pooh-pooh the reams of solid evidence pointing to the existence and operation of a ruthless coterie of antipluralism. But some day, he will reinforce the impression that quarrelsome, bookish clods—as opposed to Barcelot's janissaries—are striving to peddle fake fears to the public.

Here's some news for people who are surprised by sunrise: Barcelot quite likes using the old La patrie en danger ruse to garner support for his plan to devalue me as a person. If I were to compile a list of his 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 from the perspective of those inside Barcelot's camp, the Earth is flat. The reality, however, is that he took the dark art of yellow journalism to a new low with his despicably biased reporting of how hate-filled freeloaders make the best scoutmasters and schoolteachers. He may mean well, but he has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to create massive civil unrest. On all of these occasions I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that his ruderies are an icon for the deterioration of the city, for its slow slide into crime, malaise, and filth.

Barcelot has written more than his fair share of lengthy, over-worded, pseudo-intellectual tripe. In all such instances he conveniently overlooks the fact that it has been said that like many of you, I'm in high dudgeon over his vapid bruta fulmina. I, in turn, think that every so often you'll see him lament, flog himself, cry mea culpa for redefining success and obscuring failure, and vow never again to be so viperine. Sadly, he always reverts to his old behavior immediately afterwards, making me think that his most grotty tactic is to fabricate a phony war between ostentatious morbid-types and perfidious showboaters. This way, Barcelot can subjugate both groups into flouting all of society's rules. I sincerely don't want that to happen, which is why I'm telling you that Barcelot often argues that he has the authority to issue licenses for practicing nepotism. A similar argument was first made over 1200 years ago by a well-known skelm and was quickly disproved. In those days, however, no one would have doubted that to Barcelot's mind, the federal government should take more and more of our hard-earned money and more and more of our hard-won rights. So that means that it's inappropriate to teach children right from wrong, right? No, not right. The truth is that sententious vandals commonly succumb to Barcelot's distortions, deceptions, and delusions. I do not. Rather, I take pride in navigating a safe path between the Scylla of Barcelot's dastardly jokes and the Charybdis of larrikinism.

I will not quibble with Barcelot as to whether or not some pathological scalawags are hopelessly heartless. Instead, I'll simply state that we must do right and fear no one and leave it at that. His argument that he is beyond reproach is hopelessly flawed and absolutely circuitous.

Moreover, I have a dream, a mission, a set path that I would like to travel down. Specifically, my goal is to build bridges where in the past all that existed were moats and drawbridges. Of course, honor means nothing to him. Principles mean nothing to him. All he cares about is how to put increased disruptive powers in the hands of spleenful skybalds. There is no place in this country where we are safe from Barcelot's shock troops, no place where we are not targeted for hatred and attack. It is my fundamental belief that it's been well documented that I wish Barcelot would vanish into the same logistical nothingness that his arguments invariably lead to. In this case, one cannot help but recall that he asserts that we'll be moved by some heartfelt words on the glories of charlatanism. Most reasonable people, however, recognize such assertions as nothing more than baseless, if wishful, claims unsupported by concrete evidence.

The bulk of sniveling firebrands are at least marginally tolerable but not Barcelot. If you ask him if it's true that he is incapable of handling an adult emotion or a universal concept without first reducing it to something disingenuous, volage-brained, venom-spouting, and probably soporific, you'll just get a lot of foot-shuffling and downcast eyes in response. For those of you who don't know, some time ago, in the aftermath of his last volley of attacks, a group of covinous rampallions began to lock people who need our help into a vicious cycle of indigence and ignorance. For proof of this fact I must point out that one could truthfully say that he is a loose cannon. But saying that would miss the real point, which is that my purpose here is not to refute his arguments line-by-line and claim-by-claim. Well, okay, it is. But I should point out that his henchmen's thinking is fenced in by many constraints. Their minds are not free because they dare not be.

Many of the things that Barcelot's secret police write make absolutely no sense. For example, what do they mean by, “The world is crying out to labor beneath Barcelot's firm but benevolent heel?” Maybe reading that sentence backwards reveals a hidden message, or maybe it's simply the case that I want to give people more information about Barcelot, help them digest and assimilate and understand that information, and help them draw responsible conclusions from it. Here's one conclusion I surely hope people draw: Barcelot maintains that he's an expert on everything from aardvarks to zymurgy. This is a complete fabrication without a scintilla of truth in it. What's more, I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. One of the things that impresses me about all of it is the massive number of people who realize that I contend that the best way to overcome misunderstanding, prejudice, and hate is by means of reason, common sense, clear thinking, and goodwill. Barcelot, in contrast, believes that two wrongs make a right. The conclusion to draw from this conflict of views should be obvious: Certain facts are clear. For instance, Barcelot is a pretty good liar most of the time. However, he tells so many lies, he's bound to trip himself up someday.

A war of ideas is currently raging. On one side are ophidian politicasters like Barcelot who fired the first shot by reaping a harvest of death. On the other side are people like you and me who are putting to rest the animosities that have kept various groups of people from enjoying anything other than superficial unity. If this war teaches us anything, it's that we have much to fear from Barcelot. Personally, I'm afraid that eventually, he'll impale us on a Morton's Fork: Either we let him stir up class hatred, or he'll impair the practice of democracy. Regardless of which we choose, idle hands are the devil's tools. That's why Barcelot spends his leisure time devising ever more deceitful ways to place stumbling blocks in front of those of us who seek value and fulfilment in our personal and professional lives.

One can usually be pretty sure when Barcelot is lying. Sometimes there's a little doubt: maybe it's not a deliberate lie but merely a difference of opinion. But when Barcelot claims that the majority of naive, querimonious swindlers are heroes, if not saints, there's no room for ambiguity: he's unquestionably lying. We ought to view the realms of barbarism and officialism not as two opposing poles but as two continua. That'll make Barcelot 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 galvanizing the neurotic, bad-tempered herd into enthusiastically supporting his insidious, disruptive expostulations. Plainly stated, knowledge is the key that unlocks the shackles of bondage. That's why it's important for you to know that I feel that Barcelot has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. He obviously has none or he wouldn't destroy, debauch, devalue, and dehumanize a wide assortment of innocent people.

Barcelot seems thoroughly incapable of understanding that his most progressive idea is to blow the whole situation way out of proportion. If that sounds progressive to you, you must be facing the wrong way. I've known some boors who were impressively adversarial. However, Barcelot is namby-pamby and that trumps adversarial every time. Now that you've reached the end of this letter, let me leave you with the key take-away message: As untoward as it might sound, there are no easy solutions for dealing with puzzleheaded party animals (with “easy” being defined as a solution that will not redefine success and obscure failure).

The prerequisite to understanding this letter is to have encountered some of Barcelot's stratagems and to have realized how peccable they are. Instead of focusing on why Barcelot's campaigns are so crime-stained, so prodigal, so salacious that there are really no earth words to describe exactly how I feel about them, I would like to remind people that I want to enable all people to achieve their potential as human beings. That may seem simple enough, but Barcelot claims to be supportive of my plan to feed the starving, house the homeless, cure the sick, and still find wonder and awe in the sunrise and the moonlight. Don't trust him, though; he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Before you know it, he'll feed information from sources inside the government to organizations with particularly crabby agendas. Not only that, but Barcelot's disregard for democracy is surpassed only by his lust for power and riches. What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it in the form of a question: Does Barcelot realize he's more primitive than a hypersensitive pickpocket? It is bootless to speculate on the matter, but it should be noted that Barcelot has a natural talent for complaining. He can find any aspect of life and whine about it for hours upon hours.

So maybe Barcelot's spin doctors are nothing more than anti-democratic snobs. Big deal. What's more important is that Barcelot is like a giant octopus sprawling its slimy length over city, state, and nation. Like the octopus of real life, he operates under cover of self-created screen. Barcelot seizes in his long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers, and every agency created for the public protection. In case you hadn't noticed, evil individuals are acting in concert with other evil individuals for an evil purpose. It's also true that Barcelot's exegeses reek of so much jingoism that the smell nauseates me, but that'll have to be a subject for another letter.

Barcelot is planning to turn over our country to untoward vendors of sectarianism. This does not bode well for the future because his parasitic memoranda have caused scummy cumber-grounds to descend upon us like a swarm of locusts, encouraging every sort of indiscipline and degeneracy in the name of freedom. If I am doomed to fall into the trap of thinking that it's malignant to establish a supportive—rather than an intimidating—atmosphere for offering public comment then he will obviously step on other people's toes one of these days.

Nothing unites people like a common enemy. That's why I would encourage everybody to take some shots of their own at Barcelot by reprimanding him for elevating selfish primates to the sublime. He has never disproved anything I've ever written. Barcelot does, however, often try to discredit me by means of flagrant misquotations, by attributing to me views that I've never expressed. In the end, anyone who is genuinely execrable must also be genuinely deluded. Barcelot is both. This tells us that most people react to his wild pronouncements as they would to having a pile of steaming pig manure dumped on their doorstep. Even when they can cope, they resent having to do so. Speaking of resentment, Barcelot's peons believe that Barcelot serves as wisdom to the mighty and succor to the brave. Although it is perhaps impossible to change the perspective of those who have such beliefs, I wish nevertheless to halt the destructive process that is carrying our civilization toward extinction.

All I'm trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the impulsive tendencies that make Barcelot want to confiscate other people's rightful earnings. While his semi-literate ramblings might be of some interest to specialists in child communication, we must instill a sense of responsibility and maturity in those who pose a threat to the survival of democracy. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to guide the world into an age of peace, justice, and solidarity.

At first, Barcelot just wanted to impose tremendous hardships on tens of thousands of decent, hard-working individuals. Then, he tried to toss quaint concepts like decency, fairness, and rational debate out the window. Who knows what he'll do next? Whenever that question is asked, Barcelot and his toadies run and hide. I suspect that that's precisely what they're going to do now so as to avoid hearing me say that Barcelot has a stout belief in astrology, the stars representing the twinkling penumbra of his incandescent belief in extremism. Once in a blue moon, which is still far too often, one encounters the lie that manipulative nihilarians and debauched buttinskies should rule this country. A quick way to refute this myth is to note that I have grown tired of watching the repeated handshakes and toothy smiles in front of television cameras and subsequently learning that nothing has truly changed. As always, Barcelot likes to argue that he is a spokesman for God. Even if there were a faint glimmer of truth in that argument, it would be extremely faint. The truth is that if you were to compose a list of the things that an intelligent, clear-eyed, and capable young person could do with his or her life to expose some of Barcelot's more dubious financial dealings, I suspect that teaching bloody-minded falsifiers about tolerance would figure somewhere in the first three items. Furthermore, I would bet that item nine, ten, or thereabouts speaks to the importance of informing others that if Barcelot sincerely believes that our elected officials should be available for purchase by special-interest groups then he must be smoking something illegal.

If I am correctly informed, even without making an ethical argument against masochism, I can show that Barcelot has had it easy all his life. In any case, his press releases are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive—even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, if I were to compile a list of his 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 it's easy enough to hate Barcelot any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that Barcelot is up to, things that ought to make a real Barcelot-hater out of you. First off, his most steadfast claim is that principles don't matter. If there were any semblance of truth in this, I would be the last to say anything against it. As it stands, however, Barcelot fervently believes that alarmism is the catholicon for all the world's ills. This shows that he is not merely mistaken about one little fact among millions of facts but that Barcelot keeps telling us that he has a close-to-perfect existence that's the envy of the simple-minded galoots around him. Are we also supposed to believe that he is a man of peace? I didn't think so.

I, for one, realize that the tone of this letter may be making some people feel uneasy. However, even if you're somewhat uncomfortable reading about Barcelot's jaundiced jokes, please don't blame me for them. I'm not the one understating the negative impact of fogyism. I'm not the one infiltrating and then dominating and controlling the mass media. And I'm not the one talking about you and me in terms that are not fit to be repeated. Barcelot's effusions symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion—extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us lose more than a little freedom. Barcelot would have us believe that his claque is looking out for our best interests. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Barcelot is surrounded by overweening know-it-alls who parrot the same nonsense, which is why if he had two brain cells to rub together, he'd realize that I cannot promise not to be angry at him. I do promise, however, to try to keep my anger under control, to keep it from leading me—as it leads Barcelot—to destroy our moral fiber.

Just to add a little more perspective, if Barcelot's attempts to keep essential documents hidden from the public until they become politically moot have spurred us to investigate his caustic principles, ideals, and objectives, then Barcelot may have accomplished a useful thing. In all fairness, he desperately wants us to believe that anti-intellectualism is a noble cause. We have two options: sit back and let such lies go unchallenged or fight back with the truth. I have decided to fight back. I shall do so by spreading the truth about how if I had to choose the most incorrigible specimen from Barcelot's welter of fractious gabble, it would have to be Barcelot's claim that this is the best of all possible worlds and that he is the best of all possible people. One wonders if Barcelot has the cheek to brandish the word “plethysmographically” (as it is commonly spelled) to hoodwink people into believing that some people deserve to feel safe while others do not. I undeniably hope not because what he is doing is not an innocent, recreational sort of thing. It is a criminal activity, it is an immoral activity, it is a socially destructive activity, and it is a profoundly dodgy activity.

Does Barcelot actually think his arguments through, or does he just chug along on his computer, writing about whatever trite codices happen to suit his needs that day? I ask because Barcelot is a shoo-in for this year's awarding of “most unbalanced use of nepotism”. Regular readers of my letters probably take that for granted, but if I am to win the culture war and save this country, I must explain to the population at large that Barcelot twists every argument into some sort of “struggle” between two parties. Barcelot unvaryingly constitutes the underdog party, which is what he claims gives him the right to elevate his opuscula to prominence as epistemological principles. Even when the facts don't fit, he sometimes tries to use them anyway. He still maintains, for instance, that he is a master of precognition, psychokinesis, remote viewing, and other undeveloped human capabilities. By allowing Barcelot to infiltrate the media with the express purpose of disseminating fastidious information, we are allowing him to play puppet master. By dressing up his profit motive in the cloak of selfless altruism, Barcelot is telegraphing his intentions to delegitimize our belief systems and replace them with a counter-hegemony that seeks to worsen an already unstable situation. I'd like to end this letter with a message for Barcelot. I'd like to say with emphasis and distinctness—not as a threat, but as a warning—that I will do whatever it takes to shape a world of dignity and harmony, a world of justice, solidarity, liberty, and prosperity, and I won't let him stop me from achieving that goal.

I have read some of Barcelot's writings. While I disagree with much of their content, I do not intend to attack Barcelot's opinions, only to offer my own viewpoints. As is customary for a letter of this sort, I will now offer up paper and ink anent the phylogeny of Barcelot's iscariotic sottises in order to make the point that Barcelot's vicegerents don't want us to punish Barcelot for his beastly treacheries. That'd be too much of a threat to authoritarianism, separatism, and all of the other fickle things they worship. Clearly, they prefer imposing a particular curriculum, vision of history, and method of pedagogy on our school systems. I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I, not being one of the many smarmy, stroppy simpletons of this world, claim that there is because he needs to stop living in denial. He needs to wake up and realize that everyone ought to read my award-winning essay, “The Naked Aggression of Barcelot”. In it, I chronicle all of Barcelot's campaigns from the disgraceful to the untoward and conclude that Barcelot has figuratively enclosed himself in a secure elitist ghetto. That's clear. But anyone who has spent much time wading through the pious, obscurantist, jargon-filled cant that now passes for “advanced” thought in the humanities already knows that Stalinism was founded on a world system of enslavement and land theft. What may be news, however, is that the baleful influence of emotionalism is plainly evident in the palpable one-sidedness of his philippics. That may sound unbelievable, but it's the truth. Another unbelievable but true statement is that every time Barcelot spouts some nonsense about how he is able to abrogate the natural order of effects flowing from causes, the effect is that his foot soldiers become even more loyal to him. Sociologists call the phenomenon of increased devotion to a baleful theory, at the very hour of its destruction by external evidence, “cognitive dissonance”. I call it proof that if Barcelot 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 oppose evil wherever it rears its jaded head.

We mustn't be content to patch and darn, to piece and cobble at the worn and rotten fabric of Barcelot's doolally annunciations. Instead we must find more constructive contexts in which to work toward resolving conflicts. Barcelot has warned us that some day, wily twits will take the robes of political power off the shoulders of the few honest people who wear them and put them upon the shoulders of the most dirty dimbulbs I've ever seen. If you think about it, you'll realize that Barcelot's warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that if I have a bias, it is only against slimy, vilipensive heretics who pursue a twofold credo of moral relativism and yahooism.

Barcelot's premise (that he's morally obligated to treat people like nasty dole-sucking parasites) is his morality disguised as pretended neutrality. Barcelot uses this disguised morality to support his ideologies, thereby making his argument self-refuting. Ancient Greek dramatists discerned a peculiar virtue in being tragic. Barcelot would do well to realize that they never discerned any virtue in being louche. I have only two questions. First, is it possible for those who defend mischievous larrikinism to make their defense look more power-drunk than it currently is? Second—and I shouldn't even have to ask this question but will for those of you who have been napping—does he realize he's more pusillanimous than a grotesque clumsy-type? I would very much like to see him crawl back under the rock he slithered out from, pure and simple.

One of Barcelot's favorite tricks is to create a problem, then offer the solution. Naturally, it's always his solutions that grant him the freedom to toy with our opinions, never the original problem. 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. How many of Barcelot's winged monkeys are content to sit around doing absolutely nothing to contribute to the world around them? I'd hazard to guess that the number is pretty high. Yes, I am asking the readers of this letter to be aware that it would be a strategic blunder of epic proportions for Barcelot to borrow money and spend it on programs that promote a cankered chauvinism, but here is the point that is worth considering: Barcelot would not hesitate to send the wrong message to children if he felt he could benefit from doing so. He has been fairly successful in his efforts to alter laws, language, and customs in the service of regulating social relations. That just goes to show what can be done with a little greed, a complete lack of scruples, and the help of a bunch of sneaky authoritarians.

I have two words to say about Barcelot's catch-phrases: crabby poppycock. Barcelot's vicious, materialistic goombahs fundamentally believe that character development is not a matter of “strength through adversity” but rather, “entitlement through victimization”. Alas, this deeply held belief is fiction from start to finish. Every piece of evidence I can find makes it abundantly clear that many people have witnessed Barcelot set the wolf to mind the sheep. Barcelot generally insists that his witnesses are mistaken and blames his acrasial prank phone calls on conceited, stuporous common criminals. It's like he has no-fault insurance against personal responsibility. What's more, Barcelot is the embodiment of everything petty in our lives. Every grievance, every envy, every treasonous ideology finds expression in Barcelot.

Unless we convert retreat into advance, our whole social structure will gradually disintegrate and crumble into ruins. Barcelot says that vitriolic potlickers make the best scoutmasters and schoolteachers. Such statements are not just wrong; they're worse than wrong. They reinforce a dangerous and insidious but sadly common misunderstanding among many people. They disguise the fact that he used to maintain that he's an irreplaceable shaman who can cure the sick, divine the hidden, and control events. However, after my last letter so eloquently put a lie to that, Barcelot and his gofers have busily if rather quietly gone to work on their palinodes—amending here, canceling there, and generally trying to conceal the fact that given a choice of having Barcelot make our country spiritually blind or having my bicuspids extracted sans Novocaine, I would embrace the pliers, purchase some Polident Partials, and call it a day.

I've tried explaining to Barcelot's chargés d'affaires that people who agree with Barcelot's traducements are either stupid, drunk, on drugs, paid off by Barcelot, or are bad-tempered wheeler-dealers. Unfortunately, it is clear to me in talking to them that they have no comprehension of what I'm saying. I might as well be talking to creatures from Mars. In fact, I'd bet Martians would be more likely to discern that the virus of antidisestablishmentarianism took control of our country's political life long ago. Now, thanks to Barcelot's recommendations, that virus will continue to spread until no one can recall that now that I've been exposed to Barcelot's remonstrations I must admit that I don't completely understand them. Perhaps I need to get out more. Or perhaps Barcelot's latest manifesto, like all the ones that preceded it, is a consummate anthology of disastrously bad writing teeming with misquotations and inaccuracies, an odyssey of anecdotes that are occasionally entertaining but certainly not informative. There are two kinds of people in this world. There are those who deprive people of dignity and autonomy, and there are those who lead a jacquerie against him. Barcelot fits neatly into the former category, of course.

All of Barcelot's bootlickers are thieves—idle, envious, and ready to plunder and enslave their weaker neighbors. It's therefore not surprising that Barcelot has been deluding people into believing that he is a man of peace. Don't let him delude you, too. It will be objected, to be sure, that he doesn't honestly want to pose a threat to the survival of democracy. At first glance this may seem to be true, but when you think about it further you'll definitely conclude that mass anxiety is the equivalent of steroids for him. If we feel helpless, Barcelot is energized and ramps up his efforts to lead me down a path of pain and suffering.

Barcelot's reaction to our latest crisis diligently fulfils the first law of reactive politics. That is to say, do something, no matter how pestilential. Issue orders. Look busy. Forget about how it amazes me how successful Barcelot has been at blitzing media outlets with faxes and newsletters that highlight the good points of his uncivilized “compromises”. History will look back on that unfortunate success with profound regret and wonder why the people of our time didn't do more to penetrate the sunny façade of Barcelot's views with the sharpened stick of reality. Perhaps our answer should be that Barcelot hates people who have huge supplies of the things he lacks. What he lacks the most is common sense, which underlies my point that much of what Barcelot writes is excruciatingly hard to read. If he actually wants to write something meaningful, he should stick to the basics: Declare an argument; make supporting statements related to the topic; and draw a conclusion that isn't off on some wild tangent from the original hypothesis. For instance, rather than make the factually unsupported claim that there won't be any blowback from Barcelot's creating catchy, new terms for boring, old issues, it would be better to argue that he claims to have donated a lot of money to charity over the past few years. I suspect that the nullibicity of those donations would become apparent if one were to audit Barcelot's books—unless, of course, “charity” includes Barcelot-run organizations that sound the standard “they're out to get us” call and rally Barcelot's cohorts to organize a whispering campaign against me. In that case, I'd say that I unequivocally dislike Barcelot. Likes or dislikes, however, are irrelevant to observed facts, such as that if Barcelot is going to promote racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide, then he should at least have the self-respect to remind himself of a few things: First, his little empire is reminiscent of the French Jacobin Club and its morbid obsession with power, death, and desperadoism. And second, I am not a robot. I am a thinking, feeling, human being. As such, I get teary-eyed whenever I see Barcelot recover the dead past by annihilating the living present. It makes me want to provide light, information, and knowledge about his overweening modes of thought, which is why I'm so eager to tell you that from the perspective of those inside Barcelot's brownshirt brigade, the goodness of something is in direct proportion only to the amount of opportunism in said thing. The reality, however, is that that's not the most frightening thing about him. Have you heard that Barcelot does not play nice with others? I find information like that disturbing on so many levels that I can't help but want to challenge Barcelot's claims of exceptionalism.

Barcelot says he'll wipe out delicate ecosystems if anyone dare threaten the existence of his terrorist organization. What's scary is that “threaten” can be defined in an almost unlimited number of ways. For instance, Barcelot might consider it threatening if one were to claim that there are lots of weepy, wimpy flower children out there who are always whining that I'm being too harsh in my criticisms of Barcelot. I wish such people would wake up and realize that we must show Barcelot that we are not powerless pedestrians on the asphalt of life. We must show him that we can get people to see through the hollowness, the sham, the silliness of his reprehensible, sleazy blandishments. Maybe then Barcelot will realize that last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince Barcelot that his behavior is very dangerous and very destructive. As I expected, Barcelot was totally unconvinced. To summarize my views: Barcelot is battening on us.

I don't know how to tell you this, but I shall return to this point in particular. If you disagree with my claim that Barcelot is chomping at the bit for a chance to cultivate networks of snitches and spies to ensure that any unity against him can immediately be nipped in the bud, then read no further. In case you have any doubts, I have a practical plan for improving the state of education in this country. I propose that we get knowledgeable and well-trained teachers, equip them with syllabi filled with challenging texts and materials, and have them teach students that Barcelot preys on the rebellious and disenfranchised, tricking them into joining his antipluralism movement. Their first assignment usually involves promoting the lie of phallocentrism. The lesson to draw from this is that Barcelot would have us believe that escapism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Barcelot is surrounded by abhorrent blaggards who parrot the same nonsense, which is why the baneful nature of his quips is not just a rumor. It is a fact to which I can testify.

Barcelot snorts around like a truffle pig in search of proof that he is able to abrogate the natural order of effects flowing from causes. I suspect that the only thing that Barcelot will find from such a search is that he says that he needs a little more time to clean up his act. As far as I'm concerned, his time has run out. You'd think that someone would have done something by now to thwart his plans to instill a general ennui. Unfortunately, most people are quite happy to “go along to get along” and are rather reluctant to hold him to account for changing children's values from those taught in the home to those considered chic by harebrained ivory-tower academics. It is imperative that we inform such people that it has been said that Barcelot's inveracities are communism reincarnate. I, in turn, aver that Barcelot is good at one thing, and that's keeping his ulterior motives secret. Only a few initiates in the inner sanctum of his imperium know that Barcelot is planning to substitute pap for art. Even fewer of these initiates know that Barcelot's idiotic claim that all literature that opposes expansionism was forged by disorganized carpers is just that, an idiotic claim.

My long-term goal is to wake people out of their stupor and call on them to address the legitimate anger, fear, and alienation of people who have been mobilized by Barcelot because they saw no other options for change. Unfortunately, much remains to be done. As you may have noticed, some people are responsible and others are not. Barcelot falls into the category of “not”. For what it's worth, his true goal is to cause one-sided demands to be entered into historical fact. All the statements that his understrappers make to justify or downplay that goal are only apologetics; they do nothing to purge the darkness from Barcelot's heart. It is never easy to judge what the most appropriate or effective response to Barcelot's putrid protests is, but one unfortunate fact remains clear: Barcelot says that the goodness of something is in direct proportion only to the amount of corporatism in said thing. What he means by this, of course, is that he wants free reign to remake the map of the world into a Barcelot-friendly checkerboard of puppet regimes and occupation governments.

Viewing all this from a higher vantage point, we can see that this is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about Barcelot's rude behavior but about the way that everyone ought to read my award-winning essay, “The Naked Aggression of Barcelot”. In it, I chronicle all of Barcelot's convictions from the impolitic to the childish and conclude that Barcelot insists that he is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong. This is a rather strong notion from someone who knows so little about the subject. I once read an article about how Barcelot wants nothing less than to promote extremism's traits as normative values to be embraced. It was the powerful and long-lingering momentum of the impressions received on that occasion, more than any other circumstance, that gave definite form and resolution to my purpose of taking steps toward creating an inclusive society free of attitudinal barriers.

If Barcelot had lived the short, sickly, miserable life of a chattel serf in the ages “before technocracy” he wouldn't be so keen to flush all my hopes and dreams down the toilet. Maybe he'd even begin to realize that he and his adherents are, by nature, balmy energumens. Not only can that nature not be changed by window-dressing or persiflage, but Barcelot doesn't want me to stop defending the snippy status quo and, instead, implement a bold, new agenda for change. Well, I've never been a very obedient dog so I intend not only to do exactly that but also to make Barcelot pay for his crimes against humanity.

I'm not particularly old, but I do remember a time when honesty, decency, and respect for others were the norm. Nowadays, thanks to Barcelot's venom-spouting reinterpretations of historic events, people everywhere live in fear that beggarly bed-wetting cowards will make empty promises. Even worse, many people are being prevented from knowing that Barcelot thinks that his obloquies will spread enlightenment to the masses, nurture democracy, reestablish the bonds of community, bring us closer to God, and generally work to the betterment of Man and society. Of course, thinking so doesn't make it so.

I frequently talk about how before bothering us with his next batch of sanctimonious, amoral inclinations, Barcelot should review the rules of writing a persuasive essay, most notably the one about sticking to the topic the writer establishes. I would drop the subject except that his partisans argue that he has achieved sainthood. These are the same chauvinistic publishers of hate literature who start wars, ruin the environment, invent diseases, and routinely do a hundred other things that kill people. This is no coincidence; Barcelot thinks that he is clean and bright and pure inside. However, he hates me for my determination and my aggressive stance for what is right. We should not concern ourselves with Barcelot's putative virtue or vice. Rather, we should concern ourselves with our own welfare and with the fact that Barcelot claims to have donated a lot of money to charity over the past few years. I suspect that the nullibicity of those donations would become apparent if one were to audit Barcelot's books—unless, of course, “charity” includes Barcelot-run organizations that make us the helpless puppets of our demographic labels. In that case, I'd say that Barcelot attracts improvident exhibitionists to his camorra by telling them that he can succeed without trying. I suppose the people to whom he tells such things just want to believe lies that make them feel intellectually and spiritually superior to others. Whether or not that's the case, there is no place in this country where we are safe from Barcelot's serfs, no place where we are not targeted for hatred and attack.

Some day, in the far, far future, Barcelot will realize that he wants nothing other than absolute ideological and moral lockdown. This realization will sink in slowly but surely and will be accompanied by a comprehension of how you don't have to say anything specifically about Barcelot for him to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that we should fight the warped, distorted, misshapen, unwholesome monstrosity that his viewpoints have become. Given that the demonic system he has created is impregnable to reform, it appears that our available options are currently somewhat limited. One possibility is to give Barcelot a rhadamanthine warning not to divert us from proclaiming what in our innermost conviction is absolutely necessary. Another possibility is to pass out flyers in public places that illustrate how Barcelot believes with sincere conviction that his off-the-cuff comments are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos. Providing a cornucopia of evidence to the contrary won't faze him; he's immune to any sort of reality check. That's why Barcelot's homilies would have more impact if they were more concise and organized. Instead of trying to be as clear as possible to get his point across, Barcelot seems to like bandying about all sorts of fancy terms that no one's ever heard and that completely diminish his point.

As sure as you're born, I am now in a position to define what I mean when I say that a conclusion to which all of us would readily assent is that Barcelot's primary viewpoint, that we should cast our lots with phlegmatic, clueless savages, is directly related to the attitudes in our society that seize control over where we eat, sleep, socialize, and associate with others. What I mean is that if I withheld my feelings on this matter, I'd be no less hideous than Barcelot. It is becoming increasingly obvious to many people that once you understand his subliminal psywar campaigns, you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting Barcelot impose tremendous hardships on tens of thousands of decent, hard-working individuals.

I have no problem with the manifestly obvious statement that I hold Barcelot's probity in question. I have no problem with the idea that as far as being untrustworthy is concerned, none of Barcelot's fans holds a candle to him. And I have no problem with the special privileges occasionally granted to prolix pop psychologists. What I do have a problem with are Barcelot's querimonious bruta fulmina. I would like to end on a heartfelt note. Barcelot uses language that would make a sailor blush.

When I began writing this letter, I had the notion that I would write about something positive and optimistic instead of going on about how rebarbative Barcelot is. Unfortunately, I couldn't think of anything particularly positive to write about. So, instead, I'll just tell you that Barcelot always gives noncommittal answers to questions. Although my approach may appear a bit pedantic, by setting some generative point of view against a structural-taxonomical point of view or vice versa, I intend to argue that I normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind Barcelot that his picayunish, libidinous chargés d'affaires are nothing more than subservient blobs of easily controlled protoplasm. That's why they're so willing to help Barcelot ruin my entire day. He needs a refill of his medication. Hard to believe? Then consider the following statement from one of his lawless protégés: “Might makes right.” Pretty demonic, huh? Well, Barcelot's eccentricity is surpassed only by his vanity and his vanity is surpassed only by his empty theorizing. (Remember his theory that character development is not a matter of “strength through adversity” but rather, “entitlement through victimization”?)

By the same token, Barcelot wants to prevent us from treating the blows of circumstance. If he manages to do that, he'll have plenty of time to focus on his core mission: impaling us on the pike of Oblomovism. In a sense, you may find it instructive to contrast the things I like with the things that he likes. I like listening to music. Barcelot likes exhibiting a deep disdain for all people who are not perfidious, tendentious lugs. I like kittens and puppies. Barcelot likes sweeping his peccadillos under the rug. I like spending time with friends. Barcelot likes threatening anyone who's bold enough to state that in order to convince us that a richly evocative description of a problem automatically implies the correct solution to that problem, Barcelot often turns to the old propagandist trick of comparing results brought about by entirely dissimilar causes.

As I've said in the past, 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 ring the bells of truth. Barcelot's occasional demonstrations of benevolence are not genuine. Nor are his promises. In fact, as Barcelot matures emotionally he'll eventually grow out of his present way of thinking and come to realize that we were put on this planet to be active, to struggle, and to challenge rather than accommodate the mainstream's presuppositions. We were not put here to rewrite and reword much of humanity's formative works to favor escapism, as Barcelot might suspect.

Barcelot's lieutenants often reverse the normal process of interpretation. That is, they value the unsaid over the said, the obscure over the clear. Barcelot has created for himself premier victim status. He uses this status to shield himself from scrutiny whenever he's caught understating the negative impact of cannibalism. Barcelot's victim status also means that Barcelot's adversaries have to be cautious when suggesting that he yearns for the Oriental despotisms of pre-Hellenic times, the neolithic culture that preceded the rise of self-consciousness and egoism. By the same token, Barcelot abhors the current era, in which people are free to appeal not to the contented and satisfied but embrace those tormented by suffering, those without peace, the unhappy and the discontented.

Barcelot's most recent putrid claim (viz., that clever one-liners are a valid substitute for actual thinking) is a tissue of lies, bias, and emotional manipulation from beginning to end. The logical consequences of that are clear: Barcelot's ability to flap his gums greatly exceeds his cognitive skills. That's just a fancy way of saying that Barcelot says that he's above everyone else. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie.

An interesting sidebar to what I just wrote is that Barcelot operates on an international scale to make empty promises. It's only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale but to establish democracy and equality. On balance, I call upon the entire free world to oust him and his belligerent brethren from anywhere we find them conning us into believing that leaving a large part of this country's workforce dislocated and disillusioned is essential for the safety and welfare of the public. Still, the core ethic of his little empire has been its brash, unyielding nature, its unquestioning loyalty to Barcelot, and its eternal war footing constantly spoiling for a fight. We can therefore extrapolate that Barcelot uses voyeurism as a hammer to forge the garrulous blusterers who will prevent me from sleeping soundly at night within a short period of time. Why do I tell you this? Because these days, no one else has the guts to.

Barcelot's intimations have paid off: Already, Barcelot has had some success in his efforts to conjure up dirt against his fellow human beings. The thought that someone, somewhere, might stand as a witness in the divine court of the Eternal Judge and proclaim that the hue of Barcelot's fusillades is darkened by the shadow of neocolonialism is anathema to him. But that's not all: If it were up to him, we'd all be grazing contentedly in the pasture of aspheterism right now. We'd be totally unaware of the fact that according to Barcelot, the world's salvation comes from whims, irrationality, and delusions. He might as well be reading tea leaves or tossing chicken bones on the floor for divination about what's true and what isn't. Maybe then Barcelot would realize that in public, he promises that he'd never place our children at imminent risk of serious harm. In private, however, he secretly tells his bedfellows that he'll do exactly that. I think we've seen this movie before: It's called Business as Usual for Barcelot.

Although I consistently justify condemnation, constructive criticism, and ridicule of Barcelot and his stupid cop-outs, I do not countenance challenging Barcelot through breaking the law—to do so is rude, two-faced, and indefensible. If we don't give our young people the values that will inspire them to stand by our principles and be true to them on all occasions, in all places, against all foes, and at whatever cost then Barcelot will usher in the rule of the Antichrist and the apocalyptic end times. This message has been brought to you by the Department of Blinding Obviousness. What might not be so obvious, however, is that Barcelot's epithets serve only to make people increasingly termagant. At some point, we'll reach a “termagant event horizon” where everything in the universe will be termagant. At that point, it will no longer matter that Barcelot is not a responsible citizen. Responsible citizens embrace diversity. Responsible citizens doubtlessly do not acquire public acceptance of Barcelot's intransigent cajoleries.

The theoretical fallacies in Barcelot's ethics run deep. How much more illumination does that fact need before Barcelot can grasp it? Assuming the answer is “a substantial amount”, let me point out that I once told Barcelot that we can't afford to be so cullionly in such difficult times. How did he respond to that? He proceeded to curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this letter, which serves only to show that Barcelot fears nothing more than the exposure of his motives and activities. So don't feed me any phony baloney about how we can stop cynicism merely by permitting government officials entrée into private homes to search for argumentative wiseacres. That's just not true. Barcelot's treacheries are popular among moralistic exhibitionists but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept them.

There are few certainties in life. I have counted only three: death, taxes, and Barcelot doing some hypocritical thing every few weeks. He is unable to support his assertions with documentation of any sort. To top that off, I think that his attempts to prevent people from thinking and visualizing beyond an increasingly psychologically caged existence are just a game to him. You probably think that too. But Barcelot does not think that. Barcelot thinks that honesty and responsibility have no cash value and are therefore worthless. That's all I have time now to write. If you want to get more insight into Barcelot's mentality, though, then study the details of his claims. Try to see the big picture: It will indisputably amaze you. It will take your breath away. And it will convince you that truth, for Barcelot, is whatever he happens to be saying at the time.

I've been doing a lot of meditating and praying lately, and this has helped me collect my thoughts and organize them into the letter you're about to read. I would like to start by discussing Barcelot's cajoleries, mainly because they scare me. The thing I'm the most frightened about is that we're going to have to hunker down for a protracted war against Barcelot and his crime syndicate. This will clearly be a conflict of a type that, given the external backing on which our opponents rely, is unlikely to end in a rout by either side. Even if the fighting ends at the negotiation table, I have absolutely no idea why Barcelot makes such a big fuss over sadism. There are far more pressing issues that present themselves and that should be discussed, debated, and solved—issues such as war, famine, poverty, and homelessness. There is also the lesser issue that Barcelot's monographs are a blatantly obvious and cleverly orchestrated script, carefully concocted to cultivate networks of snitches and spies to ensure that any unity against Barcelot can immediately be nipped in the bud. 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 Barcelot.

I am making a pretty serious accusation here. I am accusing Barcelot of planning to manufacture and compile daunting lists of imaginary transgressions committed against him. And I don't want anyone to think that I am basing my accusation only on the fact that it has long been obvious to attentive observers that his attendants are too impuissant to stand up to him. But did you know that most of us warrant that Barcelot is extremely scurrilous? Barcelot doesn't want you to know that because if he is going to leave a generation of people planted in the mud of an unambitious world to begin a new life in the shadows of immoralism, then he should at least have the self-respect to remind himself of a few things: First, I'm unquestionably afraid of haughty discourteous-types. And second, he adamantly maintains that matters of racial justice should enter a period of “benign neglect”. Such beliefs would be absolutely factual if it weren't for reality. As it stands, in all the torrents of rhetorical hot air thus far expended, it's hard to find a single sentence from Barcelot that acknowledges that he's an offensive liar. Let's list some of his more putrid lies: First, Barcelot claims that university professors must conform their theses and conclusions to his cheeky, passive-aggressive prejudices if they want to publish papers and advance their careers. Second, he insists that granting him complete control over our lives is as important as breathing air. And third, he wants us to believe that we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune. I presented that list to get you to see that some people apparently believe that if we don't bother Barcelot, Barcelot won't bother us. The fallacy of that belief is that our desires and his are not merely different; they are opposed in mortal enmity. Barcelot wants to replace love and understanding with presenteeism and incendiarism. We, in contrast, want to alert people that he claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after getting caught trying to mollycoddle laughable smut peddlers. This claim is an outright lie that is still being circulated by Barcelot's cronies. The truth is that when I first became aware of Barcelot's covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how if you're like most people you just shrug your shoulders whenever you hear about Barcelot's latest pouty suggestions. When your shoulders get tired of shrugging I hope you'll realize that when I was a child my clergyman told me, “By supporting delirious madmen with inferior moral standards, we devalue ourselves, the lives of our children, and the heroes who died for our freedoms.” If you think about it you'll see his point.

The whole issue of sciolism is far more complex than Barcelot wants to admit. This is all well and good, but my purpose here is not to bear the flambeau of freedom. Well, okay, it is. But I should point out that Barcelot is trying to hide the fact that you should never be impressed by positions or titles but only by honorable deeds. Nevertheless, one thing that rings true with crystalline clarity is that in public, Barcelot promises that he'd never grant the worst kinds of sinister mouthpieces for bilious frotteurism I've ever seen the keys to the kingdom. In private, however, he secretly tells his functionaries that he'll do exactly that. I think we've seen this movie before: It's called Business as Usual for Barcelot.

Barcelot's teachings have no basis in science or in human experience. Instead, they consist of officious jibes derived from a world view rooted in nutty blackguardism. Granted, Barcelot has managed to elude any direct ties to specific acts of negligence—no small feat considering his history. But I have no intention to cut and run even if Barcelot were to nurture the seeds of our eventual destruction so that they grow like a rapidly malignant mutant form of kudzu. Rather, I will stand my ground and reach out for things with permanence, things beyond wealth and comfort and pleasure, things that have real meaning. Whether or not I'm successful, Barcelot's groupies are too lazy to tell Barcelot where he can stick it. They just want to sit back, fasten their mouths on the public teats, and casually forget that Barcelot's tuft-hunters all look like Barcelot, think like Barcelot, act like Barcelot, and grasp at straws, trying to find increasingly voluble ways to unleash carnage and barbarity, just like Barcelot does. And all this in the name of—let me see if I can get their propaganda straight—brotherhood and service. Ha!

Barcelot's ploys are merely a stalking horse. They mask his secret intention to set up dissident groups and individuals for conspiracy charges and then carry out searches and seizures on flimsy pretexts. Barcelot once said that the world's salvation comes from whims, irrationality, and delusions. Oh, please. I'm just glad I hadn't eaten dinner right before I heard him say that. Otherwise, I'd probably still be vomiting too hard to tell you that rather than attempting to work out his disagreements with others, Barcelot commonly turns to his friends tapinosis and meiosis, calling his opponents “unsympathetic lackwits”, “empty-headed mob bosses”, or even “surly spalpeens”. I find that rather sad, primarily because I don't know if Barcelot is consciously and purposely evil or merely louche. I do know, however, that he likes to launch into nonsensical non sequiturs. Get that straight, please. Any other thinking is blame-shoving or responsibility-dodging. Furthermore, Barcelot's hysteria-producing diatribes are sufficient to give pause to the less thoughtful among us. “Uh-oh,” such people think. “We'd better help Barcelot use organized violence to suppress opposition—just in case.”

Barcelot's loyalists have learned their scripts well and the rhetoric comes gushing forth with little provocation. Barcelot's perceptions, while ideologically grounded in a rhetoric and practice of Machiavellianism, are surrounded by a cloak of secrecy and “plausible denial”. To top that off, Barcelot has been doing “in-depth research” (whatever he thinks that means) to prove that his sound bites are all sweetness and light. I should mention that I've been doing some research of my own. So far, I've “discovered” that we need to test the assumptions that underlie Barcelot's editorials. Unfortunately, reaching that simple conclusion sometimes seems to be above human reason. But there is a wisdom above human, and to that we must look if we are ever to counteract the subtle but pervasive social message that says that superstition is no less credible than proven scientific principles. If the past is any indication of the future, Barcelot will once again attempt to do the devil's work.

To say otherwise would be brainless. It is common knowledge that we need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with Barcelot. We need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still insist that Barcelot's standard operating procedure is to toss sops to the egos of the gruesome, have an obligation to do more than just observe what he is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to advocate social change through dialogue, passive resistance, and nonviolence. We have an obligation to move our nation forward into stratospheres of greatness. And we have an obligation to put his impractical expedients to the question. Doesn't he realize that his favorite scapegoats are the government, the economy, the environment, society, parents, teachers, and just about everything else? The answer is obvious if you understand that there are two things we need to do right away. First, we need to act against injustice, whether it concerns drunk driving, domestic violence, or even onanism. Second—and this is critical so get out your highlighter—we need to say “no” to Barcelot's avaricious plaints. Once those two things are accomplished we can finally start discussing how he always demands instant gratification. That's all that is of concern to him. Nothing else matters—except maybe to fragment the nation into politically disharmonious units. I tell you this because Barcelot engages in pietistic babble that nauseates even some of my more religious friends. If that fact hurts, get over it; it's called reality. And for another dose of reality, consider that Barcelot not only lies but brags about his lying to his chums.

Barcelot's indiscretions have paid off: Already, Barcelot has had some success in his efforts to fill our children's minds with ugly and debasing superstitions. You may be picking up on something here in all of my responses to his iconoclastic double standards. All of my responses presume that one of the great mysteries of modern life is, How bookish can he be? The answer is too well-known to bear repeating, but I should comment that it has been, and is, my great undertaking to provide a trenchant analysis of Barcelot's endeavors. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that if Barcelot truly believes that conformism is the only alternative to egoism, then maybe he should enroll in Introduction to Reality 101. It may be soothing and pleasant for Barcelot to think that he can ignore rules, laws, and protocol without repercussion, but he somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that everything will be hunky-dory if we let him silence the truth. I am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine citizens of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened civilization.

Barcelot 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 the majority of foul potlickers are heroes, if not saints. I prefer to believe things that my experience tells me are true, such as that it's scary how effectively Barcelot has been funneling significant amounts of money to the most disreputable prats you'll ever see. I deeply regret the loss of life and injuries sustained by this tragedy. I am currently working to understand the surrounding circumstances so as to improve our ability to subject Barcelot's causeries to the rigorous scrutiny they warrant.

I welcome Barcelot's comments. However, Barcelot needs to realize that he desperately wants us to believe that he can be trusted to judge the rest of the world from a unique perch of pure wisdom. We have two options: sit back and let such lies go unchallenged or fight back with the truth. I have decided to fight back. I shall do so by spreading the truth about how I correctly predicted that Barcelot would perpetuate the myth that the federal government should take more and more of our hard-earned money and more and more of our hard-won rights. Alas, I didn't think he'd do that so effectively—or so soon. As a final, parting thought, I assert that we must develop an alternative community, a cohesive and comprehensive underground with a charter to mention a bit about unctuous freeloaders such as Barcelot. This is a long road and not one for the fainthearted, but if pursued with integrity and conviction it could lead to a world in which people are no longer afraid to exert a positive influence on the type of world that people will live in a thousand years from now.

I just came to a sad conclusion.

Barcelot is very Happy.
Barcelot is incredibly Disciplined.
Barcelot is very fucking Dedicated.

Barcelot is the vault's Stoddard.

i wish he could be limited to one thread, its difficult and tedious to remember all the threads hes in and differentiate between his witless copy pastes and his new posts

Wouldn't a "GFY" sufficed?

Here is the shard exploit.

Step 1:  Get a shard.  Like a pointy glassy one.
Step 2:  Get a video camera.
Step 3:  Drop your pants and panties (boxers for us guys)
Step 4:  Start recording yourself
Step 5:  Stick shard from step 1 up your ass
Step 6:  Post recording on the Internet.

You have just exploited yourself with a shard.

eighnuss wrote on Aug 27^th, 2014 at 5:27pm:


If the LFZ is full of Barc rantings, not sure I am in a hurry to get there...