I know surprisingly little about Aniko. I know nothing about her background or lineage. I do not know where Aniko was educated or what she has done besides foist the most poisonously false and destructive myths imaginable upon us. Nevertheless, I can tell you all that you need to know about her. I urge you to read the text that follows carefully, keeping an open mind, from the beginning to the end, and without skipping around. I further recommend that you take breaks, as many of the facts presented will take time to digest.
My religion has taught me not to be afraid to call someone wrong when she does something, says something, stands for something, or engages in something that violates the values in which I believe. And that's why I feel compelled to say something about goofy punks. Sure, Aniko may have a right to silence any criticism of the brainwashing and double standards that she has increasingly been practicing but we certainly don't have to stand idly by while she exercises that right. I believe in "live and let live". Aniko, in contrast, demands not only tolerance and acceptance of her stratagems but endorsement of them. It's because of such impractical demands that I think that she wants us to believe that we can solve all of our problems by giving her lots of money. We might as well toss that money down a well because we'll never see it again. What we will see, however, is that Aniko actually believes that the world can be happy only when her little empire is given full rein. True, Aniko has a right to her opinion. In her mind, she also apparently has a right to be an ostentatious killjoy as evidenced by her endless attempts to introduce a zeitgeist of teetotalism to our society.
I shall not argue that Aniko's newsgroup postings are an authentic map of her plan to beat plowshares into swords. Read them and see for yourself. I, for one, don't need to tell you that Aniko seems to have a bitter ideological conflict with my statement that she is untoward—maybe "bloody-minded" would be a more applicable adjective.  It's therefore not surprising that Aniko thinks I'm trying to say that every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to intensify race hatred. Wait! I just heard something. Oh, never mind; it's just the sound of the point zooming way over Aniko's head.
Her favorite tactic is known as "deceiving with the truth". The idea behind this tactic is that Aniko wins our trust by revealing the truth but leaving some of it out. This makes us less likely to allay the concerns of the many people who have been harmed by her. I may not believe that she can bring about peace and prosperity for the whole of humanity through violence, deception, oppression, exploitation, graft, and theft, but I surely do feel that it's unquestionably astounding that she has somehow found a way to work the words "counterdemonstration" and "macracanthrorhynchiasis" into her plaints. However, you may find it even more astounding that if you've never seen her prepare the ground for an ever-more vicious and brutal campaign of terror, you're either incredibly unobservant or are concealing the truth from yourself. In closing, although this letter has been lengthy there are still a large number of comments about Aniko that I have had to leave aside. I didn't even begin to mention, for instance, that by next weekend, Aniko will turn her back on those who need her the most. Anyway, the important point is that Aniko has studiously avoided being contaminated by the facts.
Â
Â
I'm guessing that's enough for an attack post, but anyone who wants more can generate it here.









Comments: 41
The curious word-salad-like spam that seems to thrive, for some unexplained reason, on the richly fertilized soil of Gather seems to be machine-translated from unidentified languages. Translation is a lot trickier business than combining pre-written chunks of text produced by native English speakers. (At least, that's how I'm guessing that program works. It's pretty good.)
There is a reason this article is not posted to any groups at all--it didn't belong in them. I didn't post it to "Losing Your Religion" or "Science in an Eclectic Universe" or "Pictures of Towels" because it's not about any of those things, and it would have been inconsiderate of the owners of those groups, and of any members that actually follow those groups the way they were meant to be followed, to foist this (itself a satirical response to someone) on them.
I made it clear on your post that I wasn't questioning but indeed supporting your right to publish your posts--which is equivalent to "posting it to Gary's posts". Your "satire", on the other hand, manages to question my right to publish this post at all, based on the corresponding equivalence that applies to me. So you're not really satirizing what I said about using groups in a way that would facilitate content organization--you're satirizing the general idea of someone complaining about someone else posting something.
What you did conflate (transferred your argument from one to the other) is publishing to Gather groups with, well, a person publishing whatever the hell they want to publish under their own name (to their "blog"). Those are two very different things, and what you argue for one is meaningless for the other.
(Do I need to point out that if we transferred your position in the same way, you would be obligated to publish articles like "the 10 stupidest atheist claims" under your own name or be closed-minded?)
LOL! You obviously don't get how satire works. I was demonstrating your absurdity by being equally absurd. You didn't check to see what content was allowed at LYR before you commented at my thread. To match your absurdity I had to NOT check your content and jump to a conclusion like you did.
I know. That is how satire works. I was being you. I am perfectly aware that you can publish anything you want at your own blog. And I am aware and you should be aware that the VC group allows more diversity of content than your narrow construction of its purpose. The bottom line is your construction of the group's purpose is too narrow. I was demonstrating your narrowness, your prejudice, your anal retentiveness, your lack of research into the content allowed. At this point you are arguing with yourself and making my points for me, so I will just get out of your way and let you proceed. LOL!
Do I need to point out that you can't take a joke? lol.
You are absolutely right, there's egg all over my face, and I'm so narrow, prejudiced, and incapable of taking a joke or a critical comment that when I get one, I respond with rapid-fire comments cycling wildly between insults and LOLs. And I'm so anally retentive that if things don't seem to be going my way, I close my post so no more comments can be left on it, and continue on the other person's post instead.
As I said, all of us can't be shining examples of openness, tolerance, consideration, and understanding--there are some real rotten eggs out there. (Just read the post we're on! What a disgusting person.) That's just the kind of universe we inhabit.
I should have said that your joke was good, by the way. I laughed out loud when I saw it. It just wasn't good satire, and I've already said why.
In the interest of the hapless reader, this is the post we are talking about here. And since I can't comment there, I'll explain here that the in which I outed myself as being both the protagonist of GTA and a Japanese dominatrix was meant to satirize both the HADD (Hyperactive Alter Detection Device) that many Gatherers seem to have evolved, and the linguistic fallacy in a comment (not yours) about Horus and Jesus (Aniko-Niko-Amiko are as likely to be meaningfully related to each other as Mary/Miriam and Isis-Meri. That "as...as" thing is what satire is built on).
Also, I'm sorry I left (I think) seven comments there (not all of them to you), to which you were forced to reply with eight directly (the last one two days after my last), and some others indirectly. Would you like me to chill here, too, and stop with the serial commenting?
(There's a missing word and link in my 8:33 comment: "explain here that the comment in which I outed myself...")
Well, I wouldn't say you're stupid but that theory would explain why my previous explanations have not sunk in and why you are unaware that straw men can be unintentional as well as intentional. If we rewind the tape back to the beginning, your initial straw man was conflating "off-topic" with "dissent." As I explained previously, a post that criticizes religion is related to religion. For some strange reason (stupidity certainly would explain it) you fail to see the nexus. And because you fail to see this nexus, you also fail to comprehend my satire here at this post.
Also, I'm sorry I left (I think) seven comments there (not all of them to you), to which you were forced to reply with eight directly (the last one two days after my last), and some others indirectly. Would you like me to chill here, too, and stop with the serial commenting?
Well I would never tell you what to do at your own post. You can troll your own posts all you want. lol.
(There's a missing word and link in my 8:33 comment: "explain here that the comment in which I outed myself...")
The comment you linked me to is a "Dec 26, 2010, 10:36pm EST" comment, not a "8:33" comment. Your theory about you being stupid seems to work here too. lol. But that is neither here nor there, since for the sake of your feelings I have declared that you won all arguments. :-)
A straw man involves misrepresenting someone else's argument and arguing against that fake version instead of the real thing. (Of course it can be unintentional--in fact, in most cases it is.) My stupidity prevents me from seeing where I did that. The conflation issue is discussed at great length above, as well as on your post, but even if I'm wrong there, my error is not a straw man. (It would be, as you first said, basing my own argument on a conflation of two different issues.) For it to be a straw man, I'd have to be misstating an argument you made--claiming that you're saying something other than what you're saying--and disagreeing with my version of it rather than yours.
I'm aware the comment I linked you to is a "Dec 26, 2010, 10:36pm EST" comment on your post. It is my Jan 6, 2011, 8:33pm EST comment here that is missing the word "comment" and the link the word was supposed to carry, due to a tag I stupidly messed up. Since I left the correction fairly soon after, and not far below that comment, I thought it was sufficient to identify it by the time only. Sorry about not expressing that well. Between my stupidity and English not being my native language, you never know what mangled idiocy will fly off my keyboard!
tame: Hahaha! Very fun read!
Oh. I though maybe she was kidding around, taking us on a magical mystery tour! tame
(The "author" is identified in the cursive line at the end, through a link. Here it is again.)
tame: Reading your stuff is a lot less confusing and a lot more fun!
Your stuff is more fun, anyway.
I'm sure your words to her will be appreciated anyway--I just wanted to make that clear.