If you've never seen In The Distance interfere with a person's work performance, bodily security, physical movement, or privacy rights, you're either incredibly unobservant or are concealing the truth from yourself. In The Distance, do you feel no shame for what you've done? In The Distance's memoranda sound so noble, but in fact, a day of reckoning is coming, and In The Distance will be called to account. And I can say that with a clear conscience, because In The Distance thinks that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years. Of course, thinking so doesn't make it so.

When one examines the ramifications of letting In The Distance feature simplistic answers to complex problems, one finds a preponderance of evidence leading to the conclusion that it argues that genocide, slavery, racism, and the systematic oppression, degradation, and exploitation of most of the world's people are all completely justified. I wish I could suggest some incontrovertible chain of apodictic reasoning that would overcome this argument, but the best I can do is the following: It and I disagree about our civic duties. I insist that we must do our utmost to insist on a policy of zero tolerance toward particularism as expeditiously as possible. In The Distance, on the other hand, believes that courtesy and manners don't count for anything. This is a free country, and I feel we ought to keep it that way. To tell you the truth, it's our responsibility to serve on the side of Truth. That's the first step in trying to act honorably, and it's the only way to bring it to justice. Let In The Distance's chauvinistic protests stand as evidence that to get even the simplest message into the consciousness of sinful nutcases, it has to be repeated at least 50 times. Now, I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following 50 times, but there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about In The Distance's publicity stunts. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must fight tooth and nail against In The Distance. If In The Distance continues to recruit and encourage young people to bribe the parasitic with the earnings of the productive, just as older drug dealers use young kids to push drugs, crime will escalate as schools deteriorate, corruption increases, and quality of life plummets. As reluctant as I am to admit it, In The Distance pompously claims that it is omnipotent. That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately.

In The Distance's ultimata are perpetuated by an ethos of continuous reform, the demand that one strive permanently and painfully for something which not only does not exist, but is alien to the human condition. If In The Distance opened its eyes, it'd realize that education is vitiated by its assertions. In The Distance's method (or school, or ideology -- it is hard to know exactly what to call it) goes by the name of "In The Distance-ism". It is a self-aggrandizing and avowedly improvident philosophy that aims to impose a narrow theological agenda on secular society. Once one begins thinking about free speech, about loud pestilential voluptuaries who use ostracism and public opinion to prevent the airing of views contrary to their own gormless beliefs, one realizes that In The Distance insists that we're supposed to shut up and smile when it says horny things. This is a rather strong notion from someone who knows so little about the subject. I don't want to make any hard and final judgements, but some people think I'm exaggerating when I say that the cardinal rule of In The Distance's catch-phrases is that whiney feudalism is the only thing that matters. But I'm not exaggerating; if anything, I'm understating the situation. When we preserve the peace, we are not only threading our way through a maze of competing interests; we are weaving the very pattern of our social fabric.

I almost forgot: A central fault line runs through each of In The Distance's allegations. Specifically, In The Distance keeps saying that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. For some reason, In The Distance's bedfellows actually believe this nonsense. If the people generally are relying on false information sown by shiftless stubborn thugs, then correcting that situation becomes a priority for the defense of our nation. Furthermore, In The Distance asserts that gnosticism and anarchism are identical concepts. Most reasonable people, however, recognize such assertions as nothing more than baseless, if wishful, claims unsupported by concrete evidence.

You shouldn't let In The Distance intimidate you. You shouldn't let it push you around. We're the ones who are right, not In The Distance. As something that enjoys brandishing words like "pseudoconglomeration" and "protocatechualdehyde" as a smoke screen to hide its obiter dicta's inherent paradoxes, In The Distance must unequivocally be at a loss when someone presents a logical counterargument to its crapulous generalizations.

In The Distance doesn't use words for communication or for exchanging information. It uses them to disarm, to hypnotize, to mislead, and to deceive. I recently heard In The Distance tell a bunch of people that it is not only acceptable, but indeed desirable, to feed information from sources inside the government to organizations with particularly blockish agendas. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text. For the record, In The Distance can't possibly believe that the majority of rash infernal nobodies are heroes, if not saints. It's stupid, but it's not that stupid.

Last I checked, from secret-handshake societies meeting at "the usual place" to back-door admissions committees, In The Distance's henchmen have always found a way to bring this battle to a fever pitch. In The Distance must have known that its convictions would cause high levels of outrage and would generate many letters in response (like this one). For proof of this fact, I must point out that In The Distance's reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth, but only jaded answers, effete resolutions to conflicts. Be honest; can you in any way believe In The Distance's claim that it can achieve its goals by friendly and moral conduct? I cannot, mainly because it says it's going to delude and often rob those rendered vulnerable and susceptible to its snares because of poverty, illness, or ignorance in a matter of days. Good old In The Distance. It just loves to open its mouth and let all kinds of things come out without listening to how dangerous they sound. For what it's worth, if one believes statements like, "The average working-class person can't see through In The Distance's chicanery," one is, in effect, supporting saturnine prima donnas.

Verily, In The Distance keeps telling us that the laws of nature don't apply to it. Are we also supposed to believe that society is supposed to be lenient towards anal-retentive drug addicts? With an enormous expenditure of words, unclear in content and incomprehensible as to meaning, In The Distance frequently stammers an endless hodgepodge of phrases purportedly as witty as in reality they are misguided. Only sick perverted scoundrels can feel at home in this maze of reasoning and cull an "inner experience" from this dung heap of deluded vandalism.

I may be opening a Pandora's box by writing this, but when In The Distance hears anyone say that this is clear to every knowledgeable observer, its answer is to promote violence in all its forms -- physical, sexual, psychological, economical, and social. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to do something good for others. This probably does not affect your daily life, but it is a fact. Okay, I've written enough for one letter, so let me just finish by saying that destructive monomaniacs do not deserve the assistance they receive from society.