I've got a beef with you BlooDz. When writing this letter, I had originally intended to segregate the pure errors of fact in BlooDz's comments from the assertions of questionable judgment where there could be room for dispute. I eventually decided against that approach because if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why BlooDz would want to waste everyone else's time. When you tell BlooDz's co-conspirators that some time ago, in the aftermath of BlooDz's last volley of attacks, a group of inimical smear merchants began to coordinate a revolution, they begin to get fidgety and their eyes begin to wander. They really don't care. They have no interest in hearing that there isn't a man, woman, or child alive today who thinks that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point, so let's toss out that ridiculous argument of BlooDz's from the get-go. BlooDz sincerely doesn't want me to renew those institutions of civil society—like families, schools, churches, and civic groups—that shine a light on his efforts to make us dependent on juvenile polemics for political representation, economic support, social position, and psychological approval. Well, I've never been a very obedient dog so I intend not only to do exactly that but also to unveil the semiotic patterns that BlooDz utilizes to inflict more death and destruction than Genghis Khan's hordes.

There can be no doubt that over the years, I've enjoyed a number of genuinely pleasurable (and pleasurably genuine) conversations with a variety of people who understand that my earnest denunciation of BlooDz's obiter dicta must have failed to register with him as being legitimate sentiment. In one such conversation, someone pointed out to me that BlooDz should work with us, not step in at the eleventh hour and hog all the glory. Couldn't you figure that out for yourself, BlooDz? He attributes the most distorted, bizarre, and ludicrous "meanings" to ordinary personality characteristics. For example, if you're shy, BlooDz calls you "fearful and withdrawn". If, instead, you're the outgoing and active type, he says you're "acting out due to trauma". Why does BlooDz say such things? I apologize if this disappoints you but my intent was only to elucidate the question, not to answer it. I shall therefore state only that there are three fairly obvious problems with BlooDz's proposed social programs, each of which needs to be addressed by any letter that attempts to carve solutions that are neither cynical nor barbaric. First, BlooDz lives in a world of privileged emotion devoid of any connectable empirical dots. Second, squalid obstructionism and untrustworthy, indecent extremism are a matched pair. And third, I can guarantee the readers of this letter that BlooDz 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.

BlooDz uses his victim status as a kind of magic incantation to stifle debate, disparage critical analysis, and persuade us that intellectually challenged authoritarians and the worst classes of disgraceful crumbums I've ever seen should rule this country. More than that, he presents himself as a disinterested classicist lamenting the infusion of politically motivated methods of pedagogy and analysis into higher education. BlooDz is eloquent in his denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors unsavory nincompoops. And here we have the ultimate irony because BlooDz makes it sound like he knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. That's the rankest sort of pretense I've ever heard. The reality is that this is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about BlooDz's doctrinaire behavior but about the way that it's quite easy for BlooDz to declaim my proposals. But when is he going to provide an alternative proposal of his own? Any honest person who takes the time to think about that question will be forced to conclude that no matter how bad you think his ideologies are, I assure you that they are far, far worse than you think.

It's best to ignore most of the quotes that BlooDz so frequently cites. He takes quotes of of context; uses misleading, irrelevant, and out-of-date quotes; and, presents quotes from legitimate authorities used misleadingly to support contentions that they did not intend and that are not true. In short, if you intend to challenge someone's assertions, you need to present a counterargument. BlooDz provides none.

So we're supposed to give BlooDz permission to nail people to trees and hope he's rational enough not to do so? How incredibly naive! He will do everything in his power to concoct labels for people, objects, and behaviors in order to manipulate the public's opinion of them. No wonder corruption is endemic to our society; if you think that BlooDz's activities are on the up-and-up then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what BlooDz wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance such as that his grand plan is to sow the seeds of discord. I'm sure Mao Tse Tung would approve. In any case, BlooDz is not only immoral, but amoral. All in all, I realize that this letter has seemed incredibly bleak. However, expecting the worst from BlooDz means we will never be disappointed. If we're wrong and BlooDz does not try to restructure the social, political, and economic relationships that exist throughout our entire society, we'll be relieved. If we're right and he does, we'll be prepared.