-Pliskin-

sup dog

Dat dog.

Rottweilers are f***en awesome!

ar f

Noooo!
Plz get back online!
ARF ARF ARF!!!

What happened to your mod status?

Arf!
Some people think you're a human pretending to be a dog on the computer, but we know you're really a dog!

Arf!

Could I get a negative post count like Choknator lol

arf!!!!!!!!!

Sup dawg?

DMX here.

This letter may seem a bit long but Pliskin's deranged agendas cannot be adequately described in less than a long essay. I realize that some of you may not know the particular background details of the events I'm referring to. I'm not going to go into those details here, but you can read up on them elsewhere. Because we continue to share a common, albeit abused, atmospheric envelope, there is more at play here than Pliskin's purely political game of destroying our moral fiber. There are ideologies at work, hidden agendas to irritate an incredible number of people. By now, the reader has discerned that it is no accident that the baleful influence of pauperism is plainly evident in the palpable one-sidedness of Pliskin's politics. So let me just add that the question that's on everyone's mind these days is, "Does his oversized ego demand that he convert lush forests into arid deserts?" It's an interesting question and its examination will help us understand how Pliskin's mind works. Let me start by providing evidence that while Pliskin manufactures crises over racism, his brownshirt brigade has been giving rise to immoral stirrers.

Pliskin says it is within his legal right to crucify us on the cross of nepotism. Whether or not he indeed has such a right, Pliskin has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to resolve a moral failure with an immoral solution. On all of these occasions I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that nothing agitates and humiliates him more than when I call for a return to the values that made this country great. But what, you may ask, does any of that have to do with the theme of this letter, viz., that he views statism as a succedaneous religion that authorizes him to silence critical debate and squelch creative brainstorming? To answer that question, note that history provides a number of instructive examples for us to study. For instance, it has long been the case that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Of course, if Pliskin had learned anything from history, he'd know that he recently claimed that his jealous coalition is a respected civil-rights organization. I would have found this comment shocking had I not heard similar garbage from him a hundred times before.

While some of Pliskin's barbs are very attractive on the surface and are obviously entertaining, they ultimately serve to crush people to the earth and then claim the right to trample on them forever because they are prostrate. If Pliskin has any children, I recommend that he teach them about love, trust, cooperation, community, reason, negotiation, and compromise rather than violence, paranoia, and fear. Of course, in a discussion of this type, one should truly mention that he does not tolerate any view that differs from his own. Rather, Pliskin discredits and discards those people who contradict him along with the ideas that they represent. His hijinks have no basis in science or in human experience. Instead, they consist of apolaustic, stolid witticisms derived from a world view rooted in mutinous philistinism.

I appreciate feedback and other people's views on subjects. I don't, however, appreciate feedback when it's given in an unprofessional manner. I never used to be particularly concerned about Pliskin's quips. Any ****ed fool, or so I thought, could see that I would like nothing more than to change the minds of those who resort to ad hominem attacks on me and my family. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that Pliskin maintains that either free speech is wonderful as long as you're not bashing him and the hostile disinformation artists in his flock or that he can achieve his goals by friendly and moral conduct. Pliskin denies any other possibility.

The greatest quote I ever heard goes something like this: "Pliskin's central role in the promotion of infantile wowserism dates back a number of years." Some of the facts I'm about to present may seem shocking. This they certainly are. However, Pliskin's claim that he is a protective bulwark against the advancing tyranny of morally questionable, foolhardy hypochondriacs requires a willing suspension of disbelief, an ability to set logic aside and accept any preposterous notion that Pliskin throws at us. I can assure you that I have a dream, a mission, a set path that I would like to travel down. Specifically, my goal is to give parents the means to protect their children. Of course, the public is like a giant that he has blindfolded, drugged, and gagged. This giant has plugs in his ears and Pliskin leads him around by the nose. Clearly, such a giant needs to unmask Pliskin's true face and intentions in regard to larrikinism. That's why I feel obligated to notify the giant (i.e., the public) that it has been brought to my attention that Pliskin has always used feudalism as his moorings. While this is decidedly true, if five years ago I had described a person like Pliskin to you and told you that in five years he'd make it nearly impossible to disturb his short-sighted gravy train, you'd have thought me testy. You'd have laughed at me and told me it couldn't happen. So it is useful now to note that, first, it has happened and, second, to try to understand how it happened and how his slurs have experienced a considerable amount of evolution (or perhaps more accurately, genetic drift) over the past few weeks. They used to be simply unreasonable. Now, not only are they both exploitative and vindictive, but they also serve as unequivocal proof that Pliskin unquestionably doesn't want me to drain the swamp of influence-peddling and the system of pay-to-play. Well, I've never been a very obedient dog so I intend not only to do exactly that but also to improve the living conditions of the most vulnerable in our society—the sick, the old, the disabled, the unemployed, and our youth—all of whose lives are made miserable by Pliskin.

Although there are no formal, external validating criteria for Pliskin's brutish, biggety claims, I think we can safely say that if he can one day devalue me as a person then the long descent into night is sure to follow. Pliskin flaunts his personal orations and attitudes in front of everyone else. Let's be sure that I've made myself absolutely clear: Pliskin's argument that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point is hopelessly flawed and totally circuitous. Although the moral absolutist position is well represented by social and political activists and surely influences legislators and policy makers, the law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior. In whatever form it takes—magazines, music, propaganda, or any other form—Pliskin's rhetoric is designed to sell us fibs and fear mixed with a generous dollop of absolutism. Whereas Pliskin claims that the world is crying out to labor beneath his firm but benevolent heel, I claim that he's a psychologically defective person. He's what the psychiatrists call a constitutional psychopath or a sociopath.

Pliskin thinks that he can ignore rules, laws, and protocol without repercussion. Of course, thinking so doesn't make it so. His pledge not to do away with intellectual honesty is merely empty rhetoric, invoked on occasion for theatrical effect but otherwise studiously ignored.

Pliskin's policy of turning the trickle of blackguardism into a tidal wave must not go unchallenged. To leave it unchallenged is to condone Pliskin's grandiose plans for world hegemony, plans in which no one is free to say that we must give to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. When a friend wants to drive inebriated, you try to stop him. Well, Pliskin is drunk with power, which is why we must analyze his invectives in the manner of sociological studies of mass communication and persuasion. Clearly, he ignores the most basic ground rule of debate. In case you're not familiar with it, that rule is: attack the idea, not the person.

Not to put too fine a point on it but I once told Pliskin that his animadversions represent explicitly his overly accepting attitude towards uncivilized, pugnacious traitors. 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 the absence of necessary historiographical context makes Pliskin's strictures extremely difficult to accept. I challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise. Whenever he tries to fortify our feeble spirits with a few rehearsed words of bravado, I can't help but think that there are many roads leading to the defeat of his plans to infiltrate the media with the express purpose of disseminating wretched information. I insist that all of these roads must eventually pass through the same set of gates: the ability to tell Pliskin where he can stick it.

Pliskin prefers to see problems talked to death instead of solved, but what makes matters thoroughly intolerable is knowing that we must overcome the fears that beset us every day of our lives. We must overcome the fear that Pliskin will add insult to injury. And to overcome these fears, we must explain a few facets of this confusing world around us. It has been, and is, my great undertaking to upbraid him for being so ridiculous. In fact, I have said that to Pliskin on many occasions, and I will keep on saying it until he stops trying to break the mind and spirit, castrate the character, and kill the career of anyone whose ideas he deems to be socially inept. Flighty, morally crippled layabouts often take earthworms or similar small animals and impale them on a pin to enjoy watching them twist and writhe as they slowly die. Similarly, Pliskin enjoys watching respectable people twist and writhe whenever he threatens to challenge all I stand for. In summary, at least 80 percent of the people in this country recognize that Pliskin can't relate what he sees to any broader principle. Is anyone listening? Does anyone care?

<3 JK <3

I love your posts,.

You have 13 posts and you're a mod? nice haha
arf

hey pliskin... looking forward to introducing you to little Hal Phibes

Arf! to you too!

Arf? Arf Arf Arf, Arf Arf, Arrrrrrf

Arf Arf Arf!

You're back!

Arf!

Good boy!

*pets*

Ar f.

How do you moderate with arfs?

he hasn't been on in a month. come home boy...

I wanna be friends! Don't leave me hanging, -Pliskin-! :O

Hey, you're a mod? here, have a treat, good boy!

best mod ever.

must... friend... legendary... -pliskin-

(insert fangirl squeal here)

Hey, boy! I brought you the carcasses of all the people I've banned lately, as well as a few live ones that I hogtied after I infracted them.

Your meal is on the platter beside your royal throne. *pet*

ar fff

U got diss, arf.

Aww wrf

If you're a girl, arf once.

If you're a boy, arf twice.

hey man hey man hey

good job

Go for admin now

Woof! And congrats.

Good job getting Mod, Pliskin!

You wanna treat for getting modship?

congrats *rub ears*

Congratulations! You really deserved it.

hahahahahahaha

*pets* good mod-pliskin-

oh the hilarity.

Good job getting mod, i bet you'll do better then all the current ones combined.