Dear M. Olsen,

I can't argue with your investment advice. I do take issue with some of the assumptions you attempt to make about me personally. For instance, that an extra $252 a year won't enable me to enjoy a better brand of coffee, when if fact, it's precisely the difference between Yuban and Kona Sunrise per annum. The larger point is that it is no one's business but my own what I find valuable. You, or the government, suggesting that I be okay foregoing any sum of money is repugnant on the grounds that it violates my privacy. I can't find the Supreme Court Justice's name that said this, nor the exact wording, but "taxation is less a means of gaining revenue, but more a means of monitoring the citizenry."

Dear M. McCullough,

The American form of government is supposed to be responsible to the people, not the other way around. You appear to have it so backwardly lodged in your mind that you feel justified passing judgement on the definition of hardship. As Eric deduced, I earn a good living. But neither you nor anyone else has any idea what kind of hardship I'm experiencing. Let's say, for example, I have testicular cancer and I can't father my own child. That's hard. Am I then exempt from any responsibility to the government despite the figure in my bank account? The point is that there is no hardship-o-meter you can waive over people to discover who's most responsible to your form of government.

Bob Webber might have just such a device as the hardship-o-meter, because he can tell who's "ordinary" and who's not. Again, it's this classification of people based on need v.s. ability. I'm citing Atlas Shrugged - "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability." States are going bankrupt in the same fashion as depicted in Ayn Rand's book. The nation morally bankrupt likewise.

Dear M. Nielsen Hayden,

Thank you for the invitation to email you my defense, but because you put me on display and paraded me around the Village square, I'll make my case public too. I don't want my original text restored. I'm tickled by the way you chose to exercise your power. It's funny to me how your regular safe visitors can now snicker and gloat at the poor dumb conservative.

But okay, you say you disemvowled some lines on the grounds they were rude, not because you disagree with me. Let's take a closer look.

On March 12, 2002, Patrick posted in response to me [And then there's this: "The struggle for or against power is a game." Here's my question: Do you say this to everyone who's been mugged? Or are you just being a clueless git especially for us?]

Was that not uncivil? Was that not a personal attack? Frankly, I enjoyed Patrick's butt kick. I was not offended. But haven't comments like that set the tone of this forum since the inception of the comment feature? There's a double standard in here, which I have noticed is very common of the liberal mind set.

Granted that a truly malicious individual caused Patrick to remove the comment feature (which I dearly missed) and now you must police the rhetoric.

Yet, in this very thread, there are thinly veiled insults and insider jabs. One example by M. Olsen: "News for you, Mr. Roller.." The opening cliche9 is meant to imply I'm misinformed. M. Olsen started with a derogatory and condescending tone.

Another example is M. Webber applauding the deletions. What's fancy about recognizing vowels? What's funny about it? The new words didn't spell out any jokes. And what does "effective" mean? Effective at making me sound more civil, effective at minding everyone to behave, or effective at making me look ridiculous? I think the latter. There was an attack on my ideas disguise as well intentioned appropriateness.

Why were those posts not disemvolwed? Well, obviously this drama would make no sense if they were.

More importantly, there is no clear line between disrespect and satire. Any line you draw is destined to be arbitrary and subjective and will make you look petty to those of strong character but a hero to those who share your sentiments.

Again, in the liberal way of thinking, there are no rules, just shifting sentiments, like who really needs their money.

Final argument. What happened to me is in contradiction to most of the quotes on Patrick's home page.

The defense rests.

The above belongs more above. It's 4am.