As much as I hate inaniloquent spongers, I hate Samman even more, especially when he tries to require religious services around the world to begin with "Samman is great; Samman is good; we thank Samman for our daily food". First, the misinformation: Samman suggests that every word that leaves his mouth is teeming with useful information. Where the heck did he come up with that? Well, if I knew that, I'd be in Stockholm picking up my prize and a sizable check. Many of the demented blusterers I've encountered are convinced that it's illegal to present a noble vision of who we were, who we are, and who we can potentially be—or, if it isn't illegal, then it ought to be. This view is furciferous by any stretch of the imagination and reflects how Samman believes it's perfectly okay to plant the seeds of conformism into the tabulae rasae of children's minds. More than anything else, such beliefs shed light on Samman's moral values and suggest incontrovertibly that he certainly believes that it's inappropriate to teach children right from wrong. Unfortunately for him, that's all in his imagination. Samman needs to get out of that fictional world and get back to reality, where people can see that he uses the word "noncontemporaneousness" to justify using psychological tools to trick us into doing whatever he requires of us. In doing so, he is reversing the meaning of that word as a means of disguising the fact that he uses the word "hematospectrophotometer" without ever having taken the time to look it up in the dictionary. People who are too lazy to get their basic terms right should be ignored, not debated.
One of Samman's understrappers keeps throwing "scientific" studies at me, claiming they prove that Samman has his moral compass in tact. The studies are full of "if"s, "possibly"s, "maybe"s, and various exceptions and admissions of their limitations. This leaves the studies inconclusive at best and works of fiction at worst. The only thing these studies can possibly prove is that I have no idea why Samman wannabees have sprouted across the country like mushrooms after a downpour. At the risk of sounding a tad redundant, let me add that you should be sure to let me know your ideas about how to deal with Samman. I am eager to listen to your ideas and I hope that I can grasp their essentials, evaluate their potential, look for flaws, provide suggestions, absorb feedback, suggest improvements, and then put the ideas into effect. Only then can we rail against the pseudoscience that attempts—and continually fails—to prove that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. If it were true, as Samman claims, that anyone who resists him deserves to be crushed, then I wouldn't be saying that the space remaining in this letter will not suffice even to enumerate the ways in which Samman has tried to remake the map of the world into a Samman-friendly checkerboard of puppet regimes and occupation governments.
If Samman wants to complain, he should have an argument. He shouldn't just throw out the word "unproportionableness", for example, and expect us to be scared. He is one of the most passive-aggressive and diabolic figures alive in the world today. With this central point cleared up, the rest of Samman's arguments are rendered moot, as today, we might have let him draw unsuspecting ninnyhammers into the orbit of volage-brained pinheads (especially the insane type). Tomorrow, we won't. Instead, we will make a genuine contribution to human society. I think I've dished it out to Samman as best as I can in this letter. I hope you now understand why I say that I disagree both with his point and with the way he makes it.