Note: There are an unlimited number of
reasons not to subscribe.
I'm happy that John Galt was able to locate one.
Dear Lord Bartcop,
Standard Bearer For The American Left:
I imagine I will receive a similar non-response
to this my farewell address to your Lordship, Sir Bart. I have , admittedly,
perused your webpage with regularity for the better part of a year and
have waited in breathless anticipation for you to tread "across the rubicon,"
as a certain Mr. Ruppert would put it, as it relates to, presently, two
issues of what I consider the highest import.
Specifically, the events of 11 September,
2001 and the recently completed theft of the 2004 election are where you
have demonstrated a complete and total lack of sand which you conveniently
rationalize as simply not having enough proof/information that would enable
you to form an opinion ie., take a stand. My rhetorical and wholly absurd
question to you is:
Don't you have a f'n computer?
As I'm certain you do, let me make a suggestion,
f'n use it.
Rather than waste my time in pointing out to
you the myriad sites that have the statistical information to prove the
latter, or the similar host of sources affirming the former to anyone
with the half a brain (which I believe your self-proclaimed IQ should still
constitute), I will make my third and final appeal to you to show some
sack and debate your's truly in a live chatroom at the date and time of
your choosing.
It is painfully obvious to me that this, your
favorite challenge to the "monkeys" who send their woeful screeds for you
to easily dissect are the only imbeciles you care to invite to such a contest.
Are the only people you engage in a game of poker as inept? Do you only
shoot pool against legally blind parapelegics?
In order to intice you to the public humiliation
you so richly deserve, I offer these terms: 1. The debate must have a clear
winner and loser as determined by a random selection of members to your
site and chosen, of course, by you ( I will trust you are man enough to
do this with absolute impartiality). 2. Should you win, to the victor go
the spoils, namely, you will have in your possesion a pre-dated check in
the amount of $1,000 written on my account at B of A which you can immediately
cash upon being determined the winner. 3. Should I emerge victorious, you
will hire me as a full-time editorialist without pay and allow me a minimum
of 1000 words published monthly on your web-site ( you will certainly have
the last word on content, however, unless you can show a reasonable doubt
as to what is being espoused in said editorial, it will remain and be published
as submitted).
That's it. I believe I've put your back up against
the proverbial wall. Is this not a win-win scenario? Can you really ignore
me for yet a third time given that I have, if I may be so bold, proved
my worthiness as a writer in this brief note and am willing to take you
at your word as to your acceptance of the terms. It seems to me your worst
possible outcome would be having to finally get off that fence you're straddling
(your insistance on which, after all, may be the reason you have difficulty
showing those balls you claim to possess).
In any event, if I do not hear from you within
the week I will assume that my opinion of you must remain as it is. I,
however, will make it a point to exact my revenge by raping your Okie ass
at one of your vaunted poker parties at some point in the future, or if
I'm incredibly lucky, I will catch you on a pool table and have you expose
said ass in the manner of Newman in The Color of Money.
I look forward to your response.
Regards,
John Galt