my first pit of hell rant...

In the text that follows, I won't bother discussing the flaws in Harrisonized's logic because he doubtlessly doesn't use any logic.

That is contradictory. How can I use logic if I don't have any? That's like saying I can use money if I don't have any money to start with.

From a public-policy perspective, he has repeatedly threatened to recruit and encourage young people to exhibit cruelty to animals, just as older drug dealers use young kids to push drugs. Maybe that's just for maximum scaremongering effect.

I don't encourage exhibiting cruelty to animals. I promote indifference to them. There's a difference in the two.

Or maybe it's because Harrisonized accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does he think I'm narrow-minded because I refuse to accept his claim that ethnocentrism is a viable and vital objective for our nation's educational institutions? If so, then I guess I'm as narrow-minded as I could possibly be.

Don't assume you know me. I didn't accuse you of anything. Rather, it's the other way around, where you're accusing me. Or maybe you're just projecting your own flaws onto me.

I have the following advice for Harrisonized: If you can't manage to be grateful for all the things we've done for you, at least have a little dignity, don't whine, and don't expect to be treated like a fragile doll just because you have a theatrically hypersensitive soul and delusions of entitlement.

I don't whine and I don't "expect to be treated like a fragile doll". When people do something for me, I generally am grateful for it and I remember it. I don't recall you doing ANYTHING for me, other than giving me infraction points, closing off my discussions, and now attacking me. Do tell me of what you have "done for me".

I believe, way deep down, that I act based on what I think is right, not who I think is right. That's why I try always to embark on a new path towards change.

That's again, a contradiction. On a forum, there are two dimensions. The first one is the words that are spoken. The second is the person who spoke the words. You cannot dissociate the two, therefore, you can't act on what you think is right without affecting who you think is right, nor vice versa.

It's also why I say that Harrisonized demands that we make a choice. Either we let him shrink the so-called marketplace of ideas down to convenience-store size or he'll palliate and excuse the atrocities of his emissaries.

Shrink me then. I don't see how my ideas are atrocities, even though you may dismiss them or repulse at them, doesn't mean you should misuse your power to eliminate anybody with an opposing view.

This "choice" exemplifies what is commonly known as a "false dichotomy" or "the fallacy of the excluded middle" because it denies other alternatives, such as that Harrisonized's maneuvers are a parody of original thought.

Or I can continue posting my ideas where I wish them to be posted. Really you have no right as a moderator to censor any opposition to your own ideas.

I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that due to circumstances that I have encountered in my research, I find that I must inculcate in the reader an inquisitive spirit and a skepticism about beliefs that Harrisonized's forces take for granted.

I'm surprised you did research on me. Anyways, I welcome skepticism, as that's what keeps a thread moving.

To cap that off, Harrisonized claims that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la. I would say that that claim is 70% folderol, 20% twaddle, and 10% another dastardly attempt to sentence more and more people to poverty, prison, and early death.

I said nothing of the sort. Do not put words in my mouth.

If we don't rake Harrisonized over the coals for breaking down our communities, our children will curse us in our graves. Speaking of our children, we need to teach them diligently that Harrisonized's most recent perceptions are irreverent, in bad taste, and inappropriate.

Do tell me how my perceptions are "irrelevant" or "inappropriate". I reply on-topic material. Also, you're welcome to believe my perceptions may be "in bad taste" and refute it, but you're not welcome to come flame me about it, such as in this post.

As an interesting experiment, try to point this out to him. (You might want to don safety equipment first.) I think you'll find that by refusing to act, by refusing to direct our efforts toward clearly defined goals and measure progress toward those goals as frequently and as objectively as possible, we are giving Harrisonized the power to cashier anyone who tries to draw an accurate portrait of his ideological alignment. I challenge you to ponder this subject with the broadest vision possible.

And I ponder it as well. It's really laughable how me, an insignificant forum poster, can cause such feelings of control within a forum. Again, I'm merely posting my ideas, your welcome to either agree or refute what I say. Stop forming conspiracies around me.