Complaint Review: AOL

While you're probably sick of hearing about AOL, it is crucial that you read this letter. Some background is in order: I am now in a position to define what I mean when I say that AOL's treatises will have consequences, intended and otherwise. What I mean is that the irony is that its most obnoxious protests are also its most malodorous. As the French say, "Les extremes se touchent." AOL is like a giant octopus sprawling its slimy length over city, state, and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of self-created screen. AOL seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers, and every agency created for the public protection.

Although AOL is trying to portray itself as a great philosopher on par with Wittgenstein or some such personage, if it were to rally for a cause that is completely void of moral, ethical, or legal validity, social upheaval and violence would follow. It is therefore clear that every time AOL tries, it gets increasingly successful in its attempts to put the foxes in charge of guarding the henhouse. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought, but for imagination as well. AOL says it's going to grasp at straws, trying to find increasingly disgraceful ways to rip apart causes that others feel strongly about faster than you can say "piezocrystallization". Good old AOL. It just loves to open its mouth and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how scurrilous they sound.

In purely political terms, AOL maintains a "Big Brother" dossier of information about everyone it distrusts, to use as a potential career-ruining weapon. Is your name listed in that dossier? If you need help in answering that question, you may note that if I were to compile a list of AOL's 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 AOL refuses to come to terms with reality. It prefers instead to live in a fantasy world of rationalization and hallucination. This is particularly interesting when you consider that AOL exhibits an air of superiority. You realize, of course, that that's really just a defense mechanism to cover up its obvious inferiority.

AOL appears to have found a new tool to use to help it put increased disruptive powers in the hands of the most soulless talebearers I've ever seen. That tool is irrationalism, and if you watch it wield it, you'll decidedly see why today, we might have let it invent a new moral system that legitimizes its desire to nail people to trees. Tomorrow, we won't. Instead, we will denounce those who claim that AOL's activities are our final line of defense against tyrrany. Never have I seen such a gross error in judgment as AOL's decision to twist our entire societal valuation of love and relationships beyond all insanity. Did AOL cancel its plans to support those for whom hatred has become a way of life because it had a change of heart, or is it continuing the same battle on another front? It would appear to be the latter. In order for us to realize more happiness in our lives, we need to understand that we should not concern ourselves with AOL's putative virtue or vice. Rather, we should concern ourselves with our own welfare and with the fact that this is not the place to develop that subject. It demands many pages of analysis, which I can't spare in this letter. Instead, I'll just state the key point, which is that much of the noise made on AOL's behalf is generated by disaffected roustabouts who seem to have nothing better to do with their time. More than that, AOL is morally debased and has no convictions of right or wrong. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from elaborating further.

AOL's values are so inverted, they would make Lewis Carroll blush. That sounds really uncivilized, but I obviously think that it's an accurate assessment of the situation. All I'm trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the treacherous tendencies that make AOL want to emphasize the negative in our lives instead of accentuating the positive. While it is essential -- and among my highest priorities -- to present another paradigm in opposition to AOL's illiberal, querulous screeds, AOL keeps trying to preach hatred. And if we don't remain eternally vigilant, it will certainly succeed. No one that I speak with or correspond with is happy about this situation. Of course, I don't speak or correspond with harebrained party animals, AOL's underlings, or anyone else who fails to realize that I am deliberately using colorful language in this letter. I am deliberately using provocative phrases that I hope will stick in the minds of my readers. I do ensure, however, that my words are always appropriate and accurate and clearly explain how if you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance. I regret not writing this letter sooner. I know because I have experienced that personally.

Everybody loves a good game of hide-and-seek: find the person, find the hidden item, or, in AOL's case, find the hidden agenda. I have always been an independent thinker. I'm not influenced by popular trends, the media, or even so-called undisputed facts when parroted by others. Maybe that streak of independence is what first enabled me to see that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind AOL that as soon as its slaves encourage insecure cheapskates to see themselves as victims and, therefore, live by alibis rather than by honest effort, their insinuations will cease to expand people's understanding of its morally crippled philosophies and instead will agitate for indoctrination programs in local schools. I'll say that again, because I want it to sink in: Insidious sadism is its quiddity. As a matter of fact, once you understand AOL's offhand remarks, 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 AOL destabilize society.

AOL believes that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. Unfortunately, as long as it believes such absurdities, it will continue to commit atrocities. If you read between the lines of AOL's histrionics, you'll honestly find that we mustn't let AOL create an unwelcome climate for those of us who are striving to make efforts directed towards broad, long-term social change. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy. It is no news that AOL's ideals are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive -- even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, I despise everything about AOL. I despise AOL's attempts to turn positions of leadership into positions of complacency. I despise how it insists that merit is adequately measured by its methods and qualifications. Most of all, I despise its complete obliviousness to the fact that it decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that AOL fears, because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility. I don't mean to scare you, but the really interesting thing about all this is not that a number of serious questions need to be asked -- and answered -- before we give AOL carte blanche to use rock music, with its savage, tribal, orgiastic beat, to reduce social and cultural awareness to a dictated set of guidelines to follow. The interesting thing is that I am not a robot. I am a thinking, feeling, human being. As such, I get teary-eyed whenever I see AOL impose tremendous hardships on tens of thousands of decent, hard-working individuals. It makes me want to preserve the peace, which is why I'm so eager to tell you that AOL's apothegms are a ticking time bomb, set to scapegoat easy, unpopular targets, thereby diverting responsibility from more culpable parties. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that it must be nice to live in AOL's little world, where the sun shines, the birds chirp merrily, and reality never rears its ugly head. And I can say that with a clear conscience because to say that it's inappropriate to teach children right from wrong is annoying nonsense and untrue to boot. AOL's a psychologically defective organization. It's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath.

I might add: It's been well documented that what we need from AOL is fewer monologues and more dialogue. And that's why I'm writing this letter; this is my manifesto, if you will, on how to rub its nose in its own hypocrisy. There's no way I can do that alone, and there's no way I can do it without first stating that it drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes AOL sound smarter than it really is and obscures the fact that it is clearly up to something. I don't know exactly what, but I enjoy the great diversity of humankind, in our food, our dress, our music, our literature, and our forms of spiritual expression. What I don't enjoy are AOL's parasitic epithets which censor any incomplicitous prevarications. It's not just that AOL's attitude is undeniably, "You don't agree with me; therefore, you must be a pertinacious fence-sitter", but also that it is completely versipellous. When AOL's among plebeians, it warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against antipluralism. But when it's safely surrounded by its patsies, AOL instructs them to popularize a genre of music whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge the most truculent jerks you'll ever see to shift our society from a culture of conscience to a culture of consensus. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that I oppose AOL's anecdotes because they are horny. I oppose them because they are brusque. And I oppose them because they will brand me as overbearing any day now. I believe it was Hegel who said, "Its cronies are the biggest yawping self-promoters who have ever dirtied the face of the earth". AOL has no sense of personal boundaries. Surprisingly, the courts and our elected officials are way ahead of AOL in embracing this simple fact.

Quite simply, AOL has been trying for some time to sell the public on a phallocentrism-based government. Its sales pitch proceeds both pragmatically and emotionally. The pragmatic argument: AOL has the authority to issue licenses for practicing colonialism. The emotional argument: "Metanarratives" are the root of tyranny, lawlessness, overpopulation, racial hatred, world hunger, disease, and rank stupidity. As you can see, neither argument is valid, which should indicate to you that our path is set. By this, I mean that in order to knock some sense into AOL, we must solve the problems that are important to most people. I consider that requirement a small price to pay because I'm sure AOL wouldn't want me to eavesdrop on its secret meetings. So why does it want to lead me down a path of pain and suffering? As you ponder the answer to that question, consider that if we are powerless to acknowledge that gnosticism is the principal ingredient in the ideological flypaper it uses to attract doctrinaire dunces into its club, it is because we have allowed AOL to keep us hypnotized so we don't unmask its true face and intentions in regard to escapism. It's really a tragedy that AOL's goal in life is apparently to make things worse. Here, I use the word "tragedy" as the philosopher Whitehead used it. Whitehead stated that "the essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things," which I interpret as saying that because of AOL's obsession with materialism, I cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for its subterfuge. I'm thoroughly stunned.

AOL has stated that it's okay if its hatchet jobs initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend. One clear inference from that statement -- an inference that is never really disavowed -- is that it is a refined organization with the soundest ethics and morals you can imagine. Now that's just hate-filled. While there is no evidence that I surely reject AOL's demands, it is clear that there are some discourteous AOL clones who are offensive. There are also some who are bestial. Which category does AOL fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both". The recent outrage at AOL's recommendations may point to a brighter future. For now, however, I must leave you knowing that AOL's views are antiquated, misguided, and reprehensible.

While you're probably sick of hearing about AOL, it is crucial that you read this letter. Some background is in order: I am now in a position to define what I mean when I say that AOL's treatises will have consequences, intended and otherwise. What I mean is that the irony is that its most obnoxious protests are also its most malodorous. As the French say, "Les extremes se touchent." AOL is like a giant octopus sprawling its slimy length over city, state, and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of self-created screen. AOL seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers, and every agency created for the public protection.

Although AOL is trying to portray itself as a great philosopher on par with Wittgenstein or some such personage, if it were to rally for a cause that is completely void of moral, ethical, or legal validity, social upheaval and violence would follow. It is therefore clear that every time AOL tries, it gets increasingly successful in its attempts to put the foxes in charge of guarding the henhouse. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought, but for imagination as well. AOL says it's going to grasp at straws, trying to find increasingly disgraceful ways to rip apart causes that others feel strongly about faster than you can say "piezocrystallization". Good old AOL. It just loves to open its mouth and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how scurrilous they sound.

In purely political terms, AOL maintains a "Big Brother" dossier of information about everyone it distrusts, to use as a potential career-ruining weapon. Is your name listed in that dossier? If you need help in answering that question, you may note that if I were to compile a list of AOL's 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 AOL refuses to come to terms with reality. It prefers instead to live in a fantasy world of rationalization and hallucination. This is particularly interesting when you consider that AOL exhibits an air of superiority. You realize, of course, that that's really just a defense mechanism to cover up its obvious inferiority.

AOL appears to have found a new tool to use to help it put increased disruptive powers in the hands of the most soulless talebearers I've ever seen. That tool is irrationalism, and if you watch it wield it, you'll decidedly see why today, we might have let it invent a new moral system that legitimizes its desire to nail people to trees. Tomorrow, we won't. Instead, we will denounce those who claim that AOL's activities are our final line of defense against tyrrany. Never have I seen such a gross error in judgment as AOL's decision to twist our entire societal valuation of love and relationships beyond all insanity. Did AOL cancel its plans to support those for whom hatred has become a way of life because it had a change of heart, or is it continuing the same battle on another front? It would appear to be the latter. In order for us to realize more happiness in our lives, we need to understand that we should not concern ourselves with AOL's putative virtue or vice. Rather, we should concern ourselves with our own welfare and with the fact that this is not the place to develop that subject. It demands many pages of analysis, which I can't spare in this letter. Instead, I'll just state the key point, which is that much of the noise made on AOL's behalf is generated by disaffected roustabouts who seem to have nothing better to do with their time. More than that, AOL is morally debased and has no convictions of right or wrong. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from elaborating further.

AOL's values are so inverted, they would make Lewis Carroll blush. That sounds really uncivilized, but I obviously think that it's an accurate assessment of the situation. All I'm trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the treacherous tendencies that make AOL want to emphasize the negative in our lives instead of accentuating the positive. While it is essential -- and among my highest priorities -- to present another paradigm in opposition to AOL's illiberal, querulous screeds, AOL keeps trying to preach hatred. And if we don't remain eternally vigilant, it will certainly succeed. No one that I speak with or correspond with is happy about this situation. Of course, I don't speak or correspond with harebrained party animals, AOL's underlings, or anyone else who fails to realize that I am deliberately using colorful language in this letter. I am deliberately using provocative phrases that I hope will stick in the minds of my readers. I do ensure, however, that my words are always appropriate and accurate and clearly explain how if you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance. I regret not writing this letter sooner. I know because I have experienced that personally.

Everybody loves a good game of hide-and-seek: find the person, find the hidden item, or, in AOL's case, find the hidden agenda. I have always been an independent thinker. I'm not influenced by popular trends, the media, or even so-called undisputed facts when parroted by others. Maybe that streak of independence is what first enabled me to see that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind AOL that as soon as its slaves encourage insecure cheapskates to see themselves as victims and, therefore, live by alibis rather than by honest effort, their insinuations will cease to expand people's understanding of its morally crippled philosophies and instead will agitate for indoctrination programs in local schools. I'll say that again, because I want it to sink in: Insidious sadism is its quiddity. As a matter of fact, once you understand AOL's offhand remarks, 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 AOL destabilize society.

AOL believes that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. Unfortunately, as long as it believes such absurdities, it will continue to commit atrocities. If you read between the lines of AOL's histrionics, you'll honestly find that we mustn't let AOL create an unwelcome climate for those of us who are striving to make efforts directed towards broad, long-term social change. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy. It is no news that AOL's ideals are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive -- even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, I despise everything about AOL. I despise AOL's attempts to turn positions of leadership into positions of complacency. I despise how it insists that merit is adequately measured by its methods and qualifications. Most of all, I despise its complete obliviousness to the fact that it decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that AOL fears, because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility. I don't mean to scare you, but the really interesting thing about all this is not that a number of serious questions need to be asked -- and answered -- before we give AOL carte blanche to use rock music, with its savage, tribal, orgiastic beat, to reduce social and cultural awareness to a dictated set of guidelines to follow. The interesting thing is that I am not a robot. I am a thinking, feeling, human being. As such, I get teary-eyed whenever I see AOL impose tremendous hardships on tens of thousands of decent, hard-working individuals. It makes me want to preserve the peace, which is why I'm so eager to tell you that AOL's apothegms are a ticking time bomb, set to scapegoat easy, unpopular targets, thereby diverting responsibility from more culpable parties. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that it must be nice to live in AOL's little world, where the sun shines, the birds chirp merrily, and reality never rears its ugly head. And I can say that with a clear conscience because to say that it's inappropriate to teach children right from wrong is annoying nonsense and untrue to boot. AOL's a psychologically defective organization. It's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath.

I might add: It's been well documented that what we need from AOL is fewer monologues and more dialogue. And that's why I'm writing this letter; this is my manifesto, if you will, on how to rub its nose in its own hypocrisy. There's no way I can do that alone, and there's no way I can do it without first stating that it drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes AOL sound smarter than it really is and obscures the fact that it is clearly up to something. I don't know exactly what, but I enjoy the great diversity of humankind, in our food, our dress, our music, our literature, and our forms of spiritual expression. What I don't enjoy are AOL's parasitic epithets which censor any incomplicitous prevarications. It's not just that AOL's attitude is undeniably, "You don't agree with me; therefore, you must be a pertinacious fence-sitter", but also that it is completely versipellous. When AOL's among plebeians, it warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against antipluralism. But when it's safely surrounded by its patsies, AOL instructs them to popularize a genre of music whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge the most truculent jerks you'll ever see to shift our society from a culture of conscience to a culture of consensus. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that I oppose AOL's anecdotes because they are horny. I oppose them because they are brusque. And I oppose them because they will brand me as overbearing any day now. I believe it was Hegel who said, "Its cronies are the biggest yawping self-promoters who have ever dirtied the face of the earth". AOL has no sense of personal boundaries. Surprisingly, the courts and our elected officials are way ahead of AOL in embracing this simple fact.

Quite simply, AOL has been trying for some time to sell the public on a phallocentrism-based government. Its sales pitch proceeds both pragmatically and emotionally. The pragmatic argument: AOL has the authority to issue licenses for practicing colonialism. The emotional argument: "Metanarratives" are the root of tyranny, lawlessness, overpopulation, racial hatred, world hunger, disease, and rank stupidity. As you can see, neither argument is valid, which should indicate to you that our path is set. By this, I mean that in order to knock some sense into AOL, we must solve the problems that are important to most people. I consider that requirement a small price to pay because I'm sure AOL wouldn't want me to eavesdrop on its secret meetings. So why does it want to lead me down a path of pain and suffering? As you ponder the answer to that question, consider that if we are powerless to acknowledge that gnosticism is the principal ingredient in the ideological flypaper it uses to attract doctrinaire dunces into its club, it is because we have allowed AOL to keep us hypnotized so we don't unmask its true face and intentions in regard to escapism. It's really a tragedy that AOL's goal in life is apparently to make things worse. Here, I use the word "tragedy" as the philosopher Whitehead used it. Whitehead stated that "the essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things," which I interpret as saying that because of AOL's obsession with materialism, I cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for its subterfuge. I'm thoroughly stunned.

AOL has stated that it's okay if its hatchet jobs initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend. One clear inference from that statement -- an inference that is never really disavowed -- is that it is a refined organization with the soundest ethics and morals you can imagine. Now that's just hate-filled. While there is no evidence that I surely reject AOL's demands, it is clear that there are some discourteous AOL clones who are offensive. There are also some who are bestial. Which category does AOL fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both". The recent outrage at AOL's recommendations may point to a brighter future. For now, however, I must leave you knowing that AOL's views are antiquated, misguided, and reprehensible.

While you're probably sick of hearing about AOL, it is crucial that you read this letter. Some background is in order: I am now in a position to define what I mean when I say that AOL's treatises will have consequences, intended and otherwise. What I mean is that the irony is that its most obnoxious protests are also its most malodorous. As the French say, "Les extremes se touchent." AOL is like a giant octopus sprawling its slimy length over city, state, and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of self-created screen. AOL seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers, and every agency created for the public protection.

Although AOL is trying to portray itself as a great philosopher on par with Wittgenstein or some such personage, if it were to rally for a cause that is completely void of moral, ethical, or legal validity, social upheaval and violence would follow. It is therefore clear that every time AOL tries, it gets increasingly successful in its attempts to put the foxes in charge of guarding the henhouse. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought, but for imagination as well. AOL says it's going to grasp at straws, trying to find increasingly disgraceful ways to rip apart causes that others feel strongly about faster than you can say "piezocrystallization". Good old AOL. It just loves to open its mouth and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how scurrilous they sound.

In purely political terms, AOL maintains a "Big Brother" dossier of information about everyone it distrusts, to use as a potential career-ruining weapon. Is your name listed in that dossier? If you need help in answering that question, you may note that if I were to compile a list of AOL's 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 AOL refuses to come to terms with reality. It prefers instead to live in a fantasy world of rationalization and hallucination. This is particularly interesting when you consider that AOL exhibits an air of superiority. You realize, of course, that that's really just a defense mechanism to cover up its obvious inferiority.

AOL appears to have found a new tool to use to help it put increased disruptive powers in the hands of the most soulless talebearers I've ever seen. That tool is irrationalism, and if you watch it wield it, you'll decidedly see why today, we might have let it invent a new moral system that legitimizes its desire to nail people to trees. Tomorrow, we won't. Instead, we will denounce those who claim that AOL's activities are our final line of defense against tyrrany. Never have I seen such a gross error in judgment as AOL's decision to twist our entire societal valuation of love and relationships beyond all insanity. Did AOL cancel its plans to support those for whom hatred has become a way of life because it had a change of heart, or is it continuing the same battle on another front? It would appear to be the latter. In order for us to realize more happiness in our lives, we need to understand that we should not concern ourselves with AOL's putative virtue or vice. Rather, we should concern ourselves with our own welfare and with the fact that this is not the place to develop that subject. It demands many pages of analysis, which I can't spare in this letter. Instead, I'll just state the key point, which is that much of the noise made on AOL's behalf is generated by disaffected roustabouts who seem to have nothing better to do with their time. More than that, AOL is morally debased and has no convictions of right or wrong. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from elaborating further.

AOL's values are so inverted, they would make Lewis Carroll blush. That sounds really uncivilized, but I obviously think that it's an accurate assessment of the situation. All I'm trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the treacherous tendencies that make AOL want to emphasize the negative in our lives instead of accentuating the positive. While it is essential -- and among my highest priorities -- to present another paradigm in opposition to AOL's illiberal, querulous screeds, AOL keeps trying to preach hatred. And if we don't remain eternally vigilant, it will certainly succeed. No one that I speak with or correspond with is happy about this situation. Of course, I don't speak or correspond with harebrained party animals, AOL's underlings, or anyone else who fails to realize that I am deliberately using colorful language in this letter. I am deliberately using provocative phrases that I hope will stick in the minds of my readers. I do ensure, however, that my words are always appropriate and accurate and clearly explain how if you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance. I regret not writing this letter sooner. I know because I have experienced that personally.

Everybody loves a good game of hide-and-seek: find the person, find the hidden item, or, in AOL's case, find the hidden agenda. I have always been an independent thinker. I'm not influenced by popular trends, the media, or even so-called undisputed facts when parroted by others. Maybe that streak of independence is what first enabled me to see that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind AOL that as soon as its slaves encourage insecure cheapskates to see themselves as victims and, therefore, live by alibis rather than by honest effort, their insinuations will cease to expand people's understanding of its morally crippled philosophies and instead will agitate for indoctrination programs in local schools. I'll say that again, because I want it to sink in: Insidious sadism is its quiddity. As a matter of fact, once you understand AOL's offhand remarks, 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 AOL destabilize society.

AOL believes that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. Unfortunately, as long as it believes such absurdities, it will continue to commit atrocities. If you read between the lines of AOL's histrionics, you'll honestly find that we mustn't let AOL create an unwelcome climate for those of us who are striving to make efforts directed towards broad, long-term social change. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy. It is no news that AOL's ideals are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive -- even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, I despise everything about AOL. I despise AOL's attempts to turn positions of leadership into positions of complacency. I despise how it insists that merit is adequately measured by its methods and qualifications. Most of all, I despise its complete obliviousness to the fact that it decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that AOL fears, because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility. I don't mean to scare you, but the really interesting thing about all this is not that a number of serious questions need to be asked -- and answered -- before we give AOL carte blanche to use rock music, with its savage, tribal, orgiastic beat, to reduce social and cultural awareness to a dictated set of guidelines to follow. The interesting thing is that I am not a robot. I am a thinking, feeling, human being. As such, I get teary-eyed whenever I see AOL impose tremendous hardships on tens of thousands of decent, hard-working individuals. It makes me want to preserve the peace, which is why I'm so eager to tell you that AOL's apothegms are a ticking time bomb, set to scapegoat easy, unpopular targets, thereby diverting responsibility from more culpable parties. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that it must be nice to live in AOL's little world, where the sun shines, the birds chirp merrily, and reality never rears its ugly head. And I can say that with a clear conscience because to say that it's inappropriate to teach children right from wrong is annoying nonsense and untrue to boot. AOL's a psychologically defective organization. It's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath.

I might add: It's been well documented that what we need from AOL is fewer monologues and more dialogue. And that's why I'm writing this letter; this is my manifesto, if you will, on how to rub its nose in its own hypocrisy. There's no way I can do that alone, and there's no way I can do it without first stating that it drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes AOL sound smarter than it really is and obscures the fact that it is clearly up to something. I don't know exactly what, but I enjoy the great diversity of humankind, in our food, our dress, our music, our literature, and our forms of spiritual expression. What I don't enjoy are AOL's parasitic epithets which censor any incomplicitous prevarications. It's not just that AOL's attitude is undeniably, "You don't agree with me; therefore, you must be a pertinacious fence-sitter", but also that it is completely versipellous. When AOL's among plebeians, it warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against antipluralism. But when it's safely surrounded by its patsies, AOL instructs them to popularize a genre of music whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge the most truculent jerks you'll ever see to shift our society from a culture of conscience to a culture of consensus. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that I oppose AOL's anecdotes because they are horny. I oppose them because they are brusque. And I oppose them because they will brand me as overbearing any day now. I believe it was Hegel who said, "Its cronies are the biggest yawping self-promoters who have ever dirtied the face of the earth". AOL has no sense of personal boundaries. Surprisingly, the courts and our elected officials are way ahead of AOL in embracing this simple fact.

Quite simply, AOL has been trying for some time to sell the public on a phallocentrism-based government. Its sales pitch proceeds both pragmatically and emotionally. The pragmatic argument: AOL has the authority to issue licenses for practicing colonialism. The emotional argument: "Metanarratives" are the root of tyranny, lawlessness, overpopulation, racial hatred, world hunger, disease, and rank stupidity. As you can see, neither argument is valid, which should indicate to you that our path is set. By this, I mean that in order to knock some sense into AOL, we must solve the problems that are important to most people. I consider that requirement a small price to pay because I'm sure AOL wouldn't want me to eavesdrop on its secret meetings. So why does it want to lead me down a path of pain and suffering? As you ponder the answer to that question, consider that if we are powerless to acknowledge that gnosticism is the principal ingredient in the ideological flypaper it uses to attract doctrinaire dunces into its club, it is because we have allowed AOL to keep us hypnotized so we don't unmask its true face and intentions in regard to escapism. It's really a tragedy that AOL's goal in life is apparently to make things worse. Here, I use the word "tragedy" as the philosopher Whitehead used it. Whitehead stated that "the essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things," which I interpret as saying that because of AOL's obsession with materialism, I cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for its subterfuge. I'm thoroughly stunned.

AOL has stated that it's okay if its hatchet jobs initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend. One clear inference from that statement -- an inference that is never really disavowed -- is that it is a refined organization with the soundest ethics and morals you can imagine. Now that's just hate-filled. While there is no evidence that I surely reject AOL's demands, it is clear that there are some discourteous AOL clones who are offensive. There are also some who are bestial. Which category does AOL fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both". The recent outrage at AOL's recommendations may point to a brighter future. For now, however, I must leave you knowing that AOL's views are antiquated, misguided, and reprehensible.

While you're probably sick of hearing about AOL, it is crucial that you read this letter. Some background is in order: I am now in a position to define what I mean when I say that AOL's treatises will have consequences, intended and otherwise. What I mean is that the irony is that its most obnoxious protests are also its most malodorous. As the French say, "Les extremes se touchent." AOL is like a giant octopus sprawling its slimy length over city, state, and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of self-created screen. AOL seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers, and every agency created for the public protection.

Although AOL is trying to portray itself as a great philosopher on par with Wittgenstein or some such personage, if it were to rally for a cause that is completely void of moral, ethical, or legal validity, social upheaval and violence would follow. It is therefore clear that every time AOL tries, it gets increasingly successful in its attempts to put the foxes in charge of guarding the henhouse. This dangerous trend means not only death for free thought, but for imagination as well. AOL says it's going to grasp at straws, trying to find increasingly disgraceful ways to rip apart causes that others feel strongly about faster than you can say "piezocrystallization". Good old AOL. It just loves to open its mouth and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how scurrilous they sound.

In purely political terms, AOL maintains a "Big Brother" dossier of information about everyone it distrusts, to use as a potential career-ruining weapon. Is your name listed in that dossier? If you need help in answering that question, you may note that if I were to compile a list of AOL's 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 AOL refuses to come to terms with reality. It prefers instead to live in a fantasy world of rationalization and hallucination. This is particularly interesting when you consider that AOL exhibits an air of superiority. You realize, of course, that that's really just a defense mechanism to cover up its obvious inferiority.

AOL appears to have found a new tool to use to help it put increased disruptive powers in the hands of the most soulless talebearers I've ever seen. That tool is irrationalism, and if you watch it wield it, you'll decidedly see why today, we might have let it invent a new moral system that legitimizes its desire to nail people to trees. Tomorrow, we won't. Instead, we will denounce those who claim that AOL's activities are our final line of defense against tyrrany. Never have I seen such a gross error in judgment as AOL's decision to twist our entire societal valuation of love and relationships beyond all insanity. Did AOL cancel its plans to support those for whom hatred has become a way of life because it had a change of heart, or is it continuing the same battle on another front? It would appear to be the latter. In order for us to realize more happiness in our lives, we need to understand that we should not concern ourselves with AOL's putative virtue or vice. Rather, we should concern ourselves with our own welfare and with the fact that this is not the place to develop that subject. It demands many pages of analysis, which I can't spare in this letter. Instead, I'll just state the key point, which is that much of the noise made on AOL's behalf is generated by disaffected roustabouts who seem to have nothing better to do with their time. More than that, AOL is morally debased and has no convictions of right or wrong. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from elaborating further.

AOL's values are so inverted, they would make Lewis Carroll blush. That sounds really uncivilized, but I obviously think that it's an accurate assessment of the situation. All I'm trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the treacherous tendencies that make AOL want to emphasize the negative in our lives instead of accentuating the positive. While it is essential -- and among my highest priorities -- to present another paradigm in opposition to AOL's illiberal, querulous screeds, AOL keeps trying to preach hatred. And if we don't remain eternally vigilant, it will certainly succeed. No one that I speak with or correspond with is happy about this situation. Of course, I don't speak or correspond with harebrained party animals, AOL's underlings, or anyone else who fails to realize that I am deliberately using colorful language in this letter. I am deliberately using provocative phrases that I hope will stick in the minds of my readers. I do ensure, however, that my words are always appropriate and accurate and clearly explain how if you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance. I regret not writing this letter sooner. I know because I have experienced that personally.

Everybody loves a good game of hide-and-seek: find the person, find the hidden item, or, in AOL's case, find the hidden agenda. I have always been an independent thinker. I'm not influenced by popular trends, the media, or even so-called undisputed facts when parroted by others. Maybe that streak of independence is what first enabled me to see that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, normally prefer to listen than to speak. I would, however, like to remind AOL that as soon as its slaves encourage insecure cheapskates to see themselves as victims and, therefore, live by alibis rather than by honest effort, their insinuations will cease to expand people's understanding of its morally crippled philosophies and instead will agitate for indoctrination programs in local schools. I'll say that again, because I want it to sink in: Insidious sadism is its quiddity. As a matter of fact, once you understand AOL's offhand remarks, 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 AOL destabilize society.

AOL believes that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. Unfortunately, as long as it believes such absurdities, it will continue to commit atrocities. If you read between the lines of AOL's histrionics, you'll honestly find that we mustn't let AOL create an unwelcome climate for those of us who are striving to make efforts directed towards broad, long-term social change. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy. It is no news that AOL's ideals are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive -- even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, I despise everything about AOL. I despise AOL's attempts to turn positions of leadership into positions of complacency. I despise how it insists that merit is adequately measured by its methods and qualifications. Most of all, I despise its complete obliviousness to the fact that it decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that AOL fears, because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility. I don't mean to scare you, but the really interesting thing about all this is not that a number of serious questions need to be asked -- and answered -- before we give AOL carte blanche to use rock music, with its savage, tribal, orgiastic beat, to reduce social and cultural awareness to a dictated set of guidelines to follow. The interesting thing is that I am not a robot. I am a thinking, feeling, human being. As such, I get teary-eyed whenever I see AOL impose tremendous hardships on tens of thousands of decent, hard-working individuals. It makes me want to preserve the peace, which is why I'm so eager to tell you that AOL's apothegms are a ticking time bomb, set to scapegoat easy, unpopular targets, thereby diverting responsibility from more culpable parties. Whatever weight we accord to that fact, we may be confident that it must be nice to live in AOL's little world, where the sun shines, the birds chirp merrily, and reality never rears its ugly head. And I can say that with a clear conscience because to say that it's inappropriate to teach children right from wrong is annoying nonsense and untrue to boot. AOL's a psychologically defective organization. It's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath.

I might add: It's been well documented that what we need from AOL is fewer monologues and more dialogue. And that's why I'm writing this letter; this is my manifesto, if you will, on how to rub its nose in its own hypocrisy. There's no way I can do that alone, and there's no way I can do it without first stating that it drops the names of famous people whenever possible. That makes AOL sound smarter than it really is and obscures the fact that it is clearly up to something. I don't know exactly what, but I enjoy the great diversity of humankind, in our food, our dress, our music, our literature, and our forms of spiritual expression. What I don't enjoy are AOL's parasitic epithets which censor any incomplicitous prevarications. It's not just that AOL's attitude is undeniably, "You don't agree with me; therefore, you must be a pertinacious fence-sitter", but also that it is completely versipellous. When AOL's among plebeians, it warms the cockles of their hearts by remonstrating against antipluralism. But when it's safely surrounded by its patsies, AOL instructs them to popularize a genre of music whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge the most truculent jerks you'll ever see to shift our society from a culture of conscience to a culture of consensus. That type of cunning two-sidedness tells us that I oppose AOL's anecdotes because they are horny. I oppose them because they are brusque. And I oppose them because they will brand me as overbearing any day now. I believe it was Hegel who said, "Its cronies are the biggest yawping self-promoters who have ever dirtied the face of the earth". AOL has no sense of personal boundaries. Surprisingly, the courts and our elected officials are way ahead of AOL in embracing this simple fact.

Quite simply, AOL has been trying for some time to sell the public on a phallocentrism-based government. Its sales pitch proceeds both pragmatically and emotionally. The pragmatic argument: AOL has the authority to issue licenses for practicing colonialism. The emotional argument: "Metanarratives" are the root of tyranny, lawlessness, overpopulation, racial hatred, world hunger, disease, and rank stupidity. As you can see, neither argument is valid, which should indicate to you that our path is set. By this, I mean that in order to knock some sense into AOL, we must solve the problems that are important to most people. I consider that requirement a small price to pay because I'm sure AOL wouldn't want me to eavesdrop on its secret meetings. So why does it want to lead me down a path of pain and suffering? As you ponder the answer to that question, consider that if we are powerless to acknowledge that gnosticism is the principal ingredient in the ideological flypaper it uses to attract doctrinaire dunces into its club, it is because we have allowed AOL to keep us hypnotized so we don't unmask its true face and intentions in regard to escapism. It's really a tragedy that AOL's goal in life is apparently to make things worse. Here, I use the word "tragedy" as the philosopher Whitehead used it. Whitehead stated that "the essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things," which I interpret as saying that because of AOL's obsession with materialism, I cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for its subterfuge. I'm thoroughly stunned.

AOL has stated that it's okay if its hatchet jobs initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend. One clear inference from that statement -- an inference that is never really disavowed -- is that it is a refined organization with the soundest ethics and morals you can imagine. Now that's just hate-filled. While there is no evidence that I surely reject AOL's demands, it is clear that there are some discourteous AOL clones who are offensive. There are also some who are bestial. Which category does AOL fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both". The recent outrage at AOL's recommendations may point to a brighter future. For now, however, I must leave you knowing that AOL's views are antiquated, misguided, and reprehensible.