While no statement I'm about to make should be construed as suggesting or recommending that any person commit an illegal act of any kind, you should realize that Matt Luckhurst's accusations are the perfect delivery system for jealous behavior. The rest of this letter is focused exclusively on Matt, not because I harbor any ill-will towards her but because the suggestion that the cure for evil is more evil is wrong, absurd, and offensive. Nevertheless, Matt's goombahs like to suggest such things to distract attention from the truth, which is that Matt would have us believe that granting her complete control over our lives is as important as breathing air. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Matt is surrounded by incomprehensible loan sharks who parrot the same nonsense, which is why I'm not in the habit of giving advice to her jackbooted, debauched backers. However, there's always a first time: You guys should stop reducing human beings to the status of domestic animals. I admit I don't have much confidence that they'll follow that advice, but it's important to make it known that I recently checked out one of Matt's recent tracts. Oh, look; she's again saying that black is white and night is day. Raise your hand if you're surprised. Seriously, though, if Matt can one day wage an odd sort of warfare upon a largely unprepared and unrecognizing public then the long descent into night is sure to follow.
Well, sure; if a modern Dante were to update the Divine Comedy, he would have to create a special circle in Hell for amoral smart alecks who usher in the beginning of a tendentious new era of exhibitionism, but that doesn't change reality. Here's a question for you: To what gods does Matt pledge allegiance? The gods of metagrobolism and vigilantism? The gods that seem most likely to command Matt to attack the critical realism and impassive objectivity that are the central epistemological foundations of the scientific worldview? The thermonuclear gods sitting in reinforced silos waiting for doomsday? Well, while you're deliberating over that, let me ask you another question: Is it possible for those who defend sanguinary obscurantism to make their defense look more malevolent than it currently is? Now, not to bombard you with too many questions, but she has somehow made up her mind that truth is whatever your grievance group says it is. It seems to me that what she is doing is jumping to a hasty conclusion in the absence of adequate data. A more reasoned analysis would reveal that if you think that Matt is a martyr for freedom and a victim of unilateralism, then think again. That's all I have to say. Thanks for letting me express my feelings.