Whenever traveling in social circles wherein my name is ever bandied about, do indeed be sure to ask all about me. I encourage it! For you will thereby learn precious little about moi and everything about the person speaking.





It seems, alas, that somehow I have always been such a tremendous magnet for classic projection and negative transference...


My few friends only hold me in any esteem from actually talking with me, whilst my enemies, indeed practicing as they preach by shunning me so, hold me in contempt only by talking about me so endlessly. They are vicious cronies living in their own cliquish bubble, an echo chamber of mutual reinforcement and consensus. They know which way the proverbial wind metaphorically blows, because they are so full of equivocal hot air, together always seething in the same direction, disengaged, inflated and rising untethered from all reality! They are angry vengeful perpetually self heated airheads looking for the worst place to burst! So whenever traveling in social circles where my name is bandied and buffeted about, be sure to ask all about me. You will of course thereby learn precious little about be and everything about the person speaking. Yes, it seems, alas, that somehow I have always been such a tremendous magnet for projection and negative transference.


My detractors strive to make me seem threatening enough to justify their bullying, degradation and abuse, yet by no means threatening enough actually to deter said abuse, let alone actually win the fulsome sycophantic reverence and admiration in which they so esteem true evil doers.


Therefore, they live under tacit agreement never to notice the manifest contradiction, on the one hand, to revile me as a social pigmy and a buffoon, while at the same time castigating me as some sort of dangerous predator, which one would think, even however malignantly, after all would still actually require a great deal of exactly their manner of finesse. My point is merely that their accusations or more properly: their innuendos and backbiting, are not merely hypocritical but manifestly oxymoronic!



Dear unmet friend;
     If you're not supposed to talk to me,
then what am I not supposed to tell you?       

It's probably clear enough whatever slanders and schemes they want kept secret from me! But what precisely might they have in store for you? We really must compare notes! Let it be our secret...


“If you tell the truth, sooner or later you'll be found out.  Oscar Wilde




The Completely Inane and tiresome loaded question & Ad Hominem FAQ
This compendium of rebuttal has actually proven so comprehensive that flamers have no more bait to set, only spleen to vent!


Personally, whether it's been the usual cyberstalkers hounding me from one forum to the next, or the local bully picking on me as the newbie, I have long wearied of stone-deaf monologic malicious flamers endlessly repeating themselves in their intrusive provocations and often even dangerous convoluted contortions of the truth.

And so, as my own concise personal Transactional Antithesis to flaming, in case of relational bullying against me, particularly any defamation too damaging simply to let stand, I maintain this my own personal FAQ of rebuttal, an attempt at appropriate response to typical online virulence, for quick citation of appropriately selected entries by hyperlink with bookmark, instead of becoming drawn and embroiled into the irksome futility of endlessly repeating myself in response.

Amusingly, brave as ever they remain behind my back, this strategy of response tends to piss blatant flamers off, and they have never again confronted me so directly since then, with such virulent personal attack!

Q. Aren't you being defensive?

A. Yes.

Q. This page is to save time, you say?
Let's save time by ignoring you!
A. Promises, promises!




Q. Do you make fraudulent claims?  

Flamers are hostile, repetitive and eventually therefore predictable and somewhat thick, the more so when they are being clever.

Flamers cannot be corrected, because they have no interest in accurate information or truth, let alone fairness.

Indeed, by the word 'comedy' they only denote: sheer abusive Sadism

The questions, such as they are, as are typically raised by flamers only reflect such a distorted world view that even straight answers thereto must inexorably come plummeting down the rabbit hole, even in most candid statement of the obvious!

A. No, I present hopefully viable proposals, with little in the way of claims as to the present state.
Q. Then are you a big luzer? 

A. At least acknowledge me as an honest failure.

And one remains a failure until one succeeds. Thus, the condemnation amounts to a paralytic blanket criticism that no undertaking what so ever could ever meet. Should one therefore never strive or risk at all, much less persevere? How then would one ever hope to succeed? 

I could be worse, a quitter. And there's regret


Q. Are you merely a pathetic self pitying victim of circumstance,
                                                             or will you ever admit to your legendary vast inadequacy?

A. Inadequacy is well known to be proportional to the gap between one's current situation plus power to alter said, and one's desires. And so, all frustration must needs be both circumstance and inadequacy, tautologically.

Counter question: But why press the issue?

a1) To protect others.
rebuttal: Others who should blindly trust your intimidatingly selfless motives?
a2) To help you, pathetic wretch, at last to see the light!
rebuttal: No thank you, then. For, alas, however well meaning, you are none the less misguided, neither helpful nor informative, but merely unpleasant.
a3) For amusement at your expense!
rebuttal: Ah, there's seeming honesty! And perhaps I should envy you! Because, clearly you at least seem the more sanguine being a total anal sphincter than so many of us are with our own various and sundry foibles and shortcomings. Invulnerability must be wonderful! nevertheless, all such Poisoning the Well as Appeal to Ridicule or Spite remain contemptible Ad Hominem Abusive propaganda devices, quite irrelevant, diversionaryred herrings changing the subject, and worse, insidious malignant vehicles of social mockery and ostracism.
a4) Self-justifying Existential Validation: As a matter of integrity, negative emotions, by and in and of themselves, justify our actingthem out. As vengeful pettiness is our only true pleasure in life, we are, therefore, naturally entitled. By definition, it can only be evil or unjust should we ourselves ever find ourselves on the receiving end. But our comeuppance will never come, if it never has in all this time! Indeed, we have every right to devalue your intrinsic worth, and you deserve it, because of any of the many other grievous strikes or grudges held against you.
Rebuttal / Antithesis: Asked and answered. (You are merely and repetitiously shifting to ground already well covered here in the various other FAQ entries.)


Q You are smelly and obnoxious!

A. What an altruistic public service in disseminating such vital and objective certainty. Who knows: Someone might run into me on a day when their sinuses are all stuffed up, and never realize how smelly I am without you to tell them so! Likewise, some unwary soul, perhaps roaring drunk, in a cheerful mood, or merely happy by disposition, might even have a really great time keeping company with me, and so vitally need you to alert them as to how obnoxious I am! Everyone needs to know how great and wonderful you are for defaming, hounding and harassing the likes of me! Bravo.

Q. Look, just because I persecute others so flagrantly, doesn't mean I'm an evil windbag
no better than the other bullies I imitate...!
A. Perish the very thought!
Q. Just who do you think you are?
A. Think for yourself, asshole!
Or would that be too presumptuous?
Surprisingly, jealous rage is well known to be triggered less by whatever personal assets, talents, privilege or advantage and success enjoyed by others, than by any display of by autonomy as manifest in such individual expression and striving as sheer heteronomy inhibits.
And after all, is it not the stance of claimed authority, especially to actually pass cavalier judgment upon others, that is truly the most monumentally conceited? 
Q. Why do you so disregard such feedback as that indeed you only dismiss?

A. I once actually received two enthusiastically favorable email responses to CliqueBusters, one for the wealth of information resources and the other one in profound personal emotional resonance to my prose. Both, however, absolutely refused to discuss the central topic of CliqueBusters, active nonviolent but even covert action to thwart and expose bullying. Neither, however, felt howsoever incited to resort to soft-flame tactics at all. People simply read whatever howsoever interests and influences them.

Regardless of consensus, catering to whatever silly and picayune rationalizations for thinly veiled passive hostility will never truly assuage the denied actual motivation to
heteronymous tabooistic trepidation, aversion and cognitively dissonant hostility. Only genuine criticism, however frank and harsh, is either worthy or informative to progress, which is ongoing correction and improvement. Indeed, I often find that for prose, often only direct attentive proofreading sympathetic to authorial intent, much abets miscommunication repair to begin with among anyone interested to listen in the first place.
"Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity."  — Simone Weil



Q. Verbose harsh critique, conflict (on many levels)
                                                                           and sexual content!

A. All guaranteed! Click here.


Q. Are you marketing some get rich scheme?

A. No. Quite the contrary, I am seeking to take a dedicated and serious approach to challenging and difficult aspirations, in hopes of receiving any serious response and sustaining in depth discussion and building some salient agenda.

Far from quick and easy. This is not a short attention span website. For that, look elsewhere.


Q. Do you seek to profit by cult recruiting?

A. No, I am not cult recruiting. And access to FoolQuest.com remains at no charge. Any and all profit motive is only exactly such collective deferred gratification as ever represented in each or any of the various proposals.

In any case, I advance no dogmatic articles of faith. Neither do I coerce nor beguile anyone. Every assertion or conjecture of mine remains entirely open to the rational scrutiny, logical internal consistency thinking them through for oneself or to discuss with me civilly and seriously, real world observation and experimentation that anyone one may ever care to try, all to stand or fall on their own merits.

Hence, Ad Hominem accusation remains malignant, evasive and entirely irrelevant as ever.


Q. What about those annoying pop-ups?

A. What about'm? The only pop-ups I am actually aware of in any way connected to my site, are from the free message posting boards, none my own doing or content. Feel free to become one of their "supporters" by paying up their ransom to keep the pop-ups away, or just switch on whatever your own free popup blocker as desired. By all means, if there are any other pop-ups anywhere else on my site, do please fill out a trouble report just for my own curiosity.

There may also be pop-ups associated with any of the many links offsite, again none of my doing, although I do frequently enframe offsite content. (I'm naughty that way! But there is no plagiaristic deception, seeing as there is no effort made to conceal the jarringly different styles, logos and branding clearly indicating and attributing the varied sources.)


Q. Are you a SPAMMER?

A. Only by the most unreasonable and deliberately deceptive definitions of SPAM


Q. Then: Why do you respond to so many message posting board threads by pimping your website?

A. Should one undertake the bother to check for oneself, it might be discovered how all my hyperlinks in messages posted online, be they to my own pages or citations elsewhere, are each and all strictly topic pertinent. In other words, being stated or suggested that an article hyperlinked howsoever answers whatever question or discourse at hand, discussion of said hyperlinked article becomes implicit.

For among other things, FoolQuest.com serves as my personal FAQ and resource toolbox, under continual revision, which I and sometimes others, too! reference freely as many of the same topics and questions, however silly or however fundamental and important, frequently arise again and again, however seriously or however halfbaked.

Indeed, there is nothing to scorn as impersonal in the effort that I invest. Quite to the contrary! I simply prefer to utilize recurrent themes of online discussion as opportunity for ongoing correction and improvement to refine each my own FoolQuest.com entries thereupon, and also to better focus upon anything fresh, new and interesting to me as may arise, rather than just repeating myself haphazardly in some callow pretence of spontaneity.

Indeed, appealing to Kant's categorical imperative, consider: if more people similarly cultivated and referenced personal notebooks when posting to electronic forums, would that lower or actually raise the level of discourse online?


Q. Is any one page contrived to appear as one thing actually no more that a devious and manipulative lead-in for the covert agenda of another part of the site entirely?

A. Do you mean, have I frequently associated one idea with another, discussed the relationship, expounded synergy and then reciprocally reference linked the different topics? Wow! You've caught me, Sherlock!


Q. Are you trying to scam free labor?

A. More like I am volunteering free labor of my own, as I often assume the risk of assisting others in development and pursuit of their proposals (and not just my own), on spec., even hard work and long hours without demanding up front fees.

True collaboration is a matter of reciprocity. But if this is unsuitable, the matter is negotiable and I might possibly be persuaded and retained to simply charge money.


What?? Harrumph, harrumph! No, that's not what I meant at all: 
Q. As you are the one seeking help, you the one hat in hand seeking to get off the ground, appropriately, how should I go about charging you upfront?

A. First of all, there has to be some hoped for return to justify the expense and make the proposition viable. And so, presumably this would be for something definitive in advancing my aspirations, and not just any or every sort of services rendered. No single piece of the puzzle is useful without the rest of the picture. It is disastrous to find oneself trapped in the middle, undercapitalized, with no resources remaining to stay the course and ever reach profitability.

The most dangerous thing in the world is to try to leap a chasm in two jumps.”  William Lloyd George

Thus, any fee based business model would on actuality go beyond the simple and ordinary purchase transaction of goods and services as a consumer, and somewhat surreptitiously cast me in the role, for all intents and purposes, of Venture Capitalist, investing whatever cash I can lay hands on in order to pay anyone else's consultant fees (or whatever) so as to eventually achieve my own hoped for end results.

Hence, to evaluate the proposition properly as an investment, I would absolutely require, first, to see a business plan, including cost and revenue and man hours projection and schedules, assumptions, all human resource needs, both in terms of qualification and temperament, etc. Otherwise, just forget it!

Moreover, I make no promises nor do I in any way encourage such solicitations.

And as for any model of collaboration or participation that turns out to suspiciously resemble Amway style MLM Network Marketing Pyramid schemes, there are plenty of openings for commissioned Sales Reps without actually paying for the "opportunity", indeed boasting all manner of promises and incentives for persistence at door to door or telemarketing or whatever soul destroying sales drudgery, the least of which being to cover reasonable expenses rather than saddling the unwitting, even if there are no wages and only sales commissions.

And, no, not me, not interested. I'd go Postal very quickly!


Q. Blah, blah, blah! Won't you only put off any intended audience off with such strident tone and egotistical exhibition of all them high falutin' big wurds and overblown FX gimmickry?

A. No.


Q. Are you an obscurantist?

A. How many deliberate obscurantists of your acquaintance, actually invite collaborative miscommunication repair?


Q. Are you a pseudoscientist?  

A. Expressing yourself as a true scientific rationalist, a patient and practiced adherent to honest dignified criticism, in order to better help me understand, can you cite, in context objectively and without nasty evasive ridicule, any alleged pseudoscience on my part, and cogently explain how and why the former qualifies indeed as pseudoscience?


Q. Are you bigoted against Paranormalists?

A. I don't have a problem merely with outré viewpoints, but, and decidedly, with flagrant Anti-Rationalism. Whereas, on the TV shows, even the UFO abductee characters, however haunted, are still basically reasonable, and accept full responsibility to try to persuade others with whatever the best evidence available, contra-wise, real life true believers are all too oft just the opposite in temperament, endlessly bullying and demanding of others to agree with them as if their due, or at least to abide in tactful silence.

And just such a lack of judgment, honesty and self assertion, even if it seems convenient to consensus building and cohesion, is, nevertheless, actually quite counter productive to investigation, creativity, real trust building, problem solving and effective collaboration.


Q. Do you not see that you must not be so mean as to speak so harshly?

A. Please always do me the great service as to clearly and precisely set me straight as to any statement of mine ever being untrue or in any way unjust or unwarranted, and to discuss it with me in a lucid, reasonable, rational and dispassionately flameless manner, so that I may know and amend.


Q. Why should I? Is it not enough that you might ever hurt anybody's feelings?

A. No, it is not, for such cannot be my sole concern whatsoever. Pity-playing emotional blackmail, peer pressure and agitation are simply no way to appeal to my sympathies.


Q. How do you answer for being such an irredeemably bad person?

A. I try not to.


Q. How do you answer for being such an irredeemably bad person?

A. In iambic pentameter!


Q. How do you answer for being such an irredeemably bad person?

A. By ungratefully casting your tender concern back in your face, even as you weep for my soul... !


Q. How do you answer for being such an irredeemably bad person?

A. μῦ! (null and void - so fuck off already!)


Q. How do you answer for being such an irredeemably bad person?

A. Your hatred, to matter how palpable to you subjectively, confers upon you no special rights to violate my rights nor anyone else's. My rights remain my rights, undiminished, no matter how you hate, with whatever manic intensity or cavalier nonchalance, as ever the case may be. I am a good person. My being is topic out of bounds. And so, if it is my simple being, in and of itself, or how you choose to perceive me, is enough to provoke you, than, by all that is holy, provoke you I shall! -And even laugh up my sleeve all the while! Because I haven't done anything wrong. I have the right to be myself, warts and all. For you have no say in the matter. Because who I am inside is the concern only of those who love me.

And in turn, you as anyone else, possess the inalienable right (which, as the saying goes, I will even defend to the death!) not to like or approve of me, so long as you never do anything about it, whatsoever. Because, as an adult, no matter how it galls, festers or fumes with impotence, you bear the full responsibility and obligation to swallow your dislike of me utterly, sticking in your craw, keeping your inner poison completely and totally to your own sweet self, without
acting out, ever. Otherwise, you are the bad person, unclean, a mess. Because morality entails, first of all, simple restraint from evil doing. And no flaming means no flaming.

What you flamers are doing is the equivalent of simply shitting on the floor in public, but worse, being so deliberately malicious. You certainly are not doing anything benevolent or altruistic, much as you
manipulative relational bullies may typically so stubbornly pretend, even to yourselves, or to however transparently to bolster one another. I certainly couldn't care less of your opinion of me. Seek professional help. Confide in someone who can help you! Or go waste the time of someone you actually admire, that is, if they have any more use for you than I do.

You online bullies and trolls flame on and on, endlessly, hearing nothing and saying nothing, except repetitiously spewing empty the same endless hostility to intimidate others, manipulatively and divisively, the bad driving out the good. If you must insist on making things ugly and personal, and are so plainly not interested in anything anyone else has to contribute and refuse to take things in their intended spirit, neither to offer any help, participation, input, discourse, support, pertinent critique nor cogent debate, then just move along, move along, move along, there is nothing here for you to see here, move along, move along...


Q. How do you answer for being such an irredeemably bad person?

A. How do you answer for being such an irredeemably bad person?

Q. Stop mimicking me!

A. Stop mimicking me!

Q. You!

A. You!


Q. Who's side should one believe?

Your detractors often portray you as a pest or a creep of some sort, ultimately driven off merely by your own fault, while you stand by your own allegation of conniving social exclusion, slander, discriminatory defamation and harassment, dismissing their narrative as sheer self serving.

Clearly, someone is lying, but who?

A. I can only recount, upon request, to the best of my own knowledge both Empirically and from second hand from others, any of the decidedly calculated dirty tricks and ambush outright, that I have been subjected to even whist entirely minding my own business, and about being consistently stonewalled when I come forward demanding explanation or offering to try to work things out.

I can not only strive to assay the proverbial stones thrown, but also to help map the metaphorical glass house.

Should anyone become alarmed by often somewhat extreme peer pressure? Yes, of course, because bullying is unsafe. Nevertheless, the seeds of doubt being sown, therefore, in case simply of caution and for purposes risk management to the extent of routine safety concerns regarding contact with strangers, authoritative sterling character references can be made available upon request to the extent, quite simply, that I am neither destructive nor exploitative by nature, nor for that matter, delusional. -which is always at all comforting to know with any confidence, about new contacts. After that, you're on your own. I only wish to remove any trepidation of serious danger from the equation, not to make unrealistic guarantees beyond that. Warts and all, I may simply disappointment you. Little worse.

More about me

Q. Aren't you just a bum and a lech?
A. Aren't you just a square and a prude?
Q. Are you not then, a most notorious, unrelenting and monumentally flagrant lecher?
A. Isn't everyone? And what of it?
Plain vanilla lechery is a fundamental of the human condition and an inalienable right to all.


Q. Thou lascivious fiend, canst thou not perceive that we are the true champions of virtue, and not merely an underhanded noisy gaggle of self-serving cockblockers?

A. Talk about the foxes guarding the chicken coop!


Q. You bloated old perv!
               Have you the sheer unscrupulously unmitigated gall
to write upon the puerile and scandalous topic of intergenerational intimate relations?



Q. Aren't your highfalutin proposed new business models in application of future interaction on the frontiers of advanced automated Sociometry really just all about the sex?

A. Indeed, Sigmund Freud said: "Sex is everything."


Q. Look, stop beating about the bush (so to speak)! Do you hold that society owes you or anyone else for that matter, no matter how maladapted, not only a living, but also sex?

“When work is a pleasure, life is joy!

When work is a duty, life is slavery.”

— Maxim Gorky

A. The French for word for labor is 'travail,' literally, suffering. And that, alas, about sums it up, even today, for far to many people. Sloth, then, becomes fairly easy to understand. And if anyone still needs an explanation as to lechery, surely that is a question you should have asked your parents by now! And for fear that I be even remotely so foolish as incorrigible gossips care to make me out, then quick! Run and hide! It might be catching! After all, the only folks who'd ever vouch for me at all, have been unduly influenced by personal experience and direct interaction. And we all know how thinking for oneself will only lead one astray from consensus.

But for the record, no, debt is not my paradigm of preference, here. Excepting in so far as I hold that we are all entitled to the pursuit, if, indeed, not any guarantee of attainment, of happiness, peaceably, equal in rights, unmolested, and, beyond this, that we are all somehow responsible to try each in our own way, to help bring about real progress, doing well by doing good, such ongoing improvements to any kind of democratic free market society as will make connections to all that is good in life (hot dates, dream jobs, shared interests, complementary skill sets, helpful connections and much, much more) better accessible to each individual, and better fulfill those strivings which are not only our cherished rights, but the only meaningful sign of life.

The beneficial competitiveness of creativity and growth in free markets and societies is generally preferable to the sly, sleazy vampiric and anticompetitive exclusivity of those who quickly slam shut behind them every door that ever was pried open in their own desperate ascension.

“The trouble with being in the rat race is that even if you win ….. you’re still a rat!  — Lily Tomlin.

Now, why would anyone be against people to aspire and persist, ever doing, being and becoming better, hmm... ? Indeed, just who is it, what Sophomoric malign ubiquitous puerile self anointed gatekeepers, holding themselves so high above their fellow human beings, to judge each of us our worth and worthiness for private happiness or even hope itself?

By contrast, what have I ever espoused, save in the hope in progress beneficial to all?



Q. Aren't feelings of persecution by others merely the standard paranoid excuse for personal inadequacy?

A. Isn't victim blaming, the castigation of the target of abuse the standard excuse for persecution?  

Q. There you go again, complaining!

A. Oh, pother!


Q. What, yet more of your manifesto-like drivel about bullies in collusion? Are you a Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist?

A. No, and beware!
For I am the Realist Counter-Conspiracy Architect of CliqueBusters TM  and other subversive webcontent on FoolQuest.com
What is conspiracy theory, really? Suppose, just for purposes of illustration, that three people rob a gas station together. It is always possible, however unlikely, that they all simply chose the same day by coincidence, and cooperated spontaneously. Or instead, might one tend even to assume that they planned it together from the start? And such being thus, does that mean that we are all conspiracy theorists by human nature, even so to surmise?
No, because plotting to rob a gas station remains, alas, ordinary, common and even somewhat tawdry. Therefore, in any particular circumstances, whether actually true or false as it may ever turn out, such explanation may even be deemed scientific in seeking explanation of unknown specifics in terms of known generalities. Whereas, an important feature of conspiracy theory proper, remains any far greater leap of faith in explanation of the known in terms of the unknown or at least more uncommon or grander.
Alas, however, bullying, in all of its connivance and convolution, is all too prevalent. -certainly not less so, than, for example, physical assault, mugging. And effectively seeking to dismiss the very allegation in principle even a'priori as paranoid, is nothing but typical victim blaming, a classic propaganda device, feigning ignorance that bullying even exists or occurs. But is anyone really deceived?


Q. Put up or shut up! All you proffer are vague generalities!

A. All that you offer is vague whining!
                                    Is there a question in there?


Q. But is not all nonphysical bullying merely harassment categorically no more than psychological warfare best thwarted and transcended simply by ignoring and blissfully tuning it all out? And aren't cliques exercising constitutionally protected freedom of association, with no wider detrimental impact upon social connectivity to anyone singled out, but hurtful only to those who pathetically pine for their friendship? And isn't bullying after all no more than an individual misbehavior?

A. Indeed, exactly as gossip is never anything more onerous nor devious than perfectly innocent freedom of speech, the crucial information of reputation being reliably indispensable in the evaluation of suitability in prospective transactions with strangers, peer pressure being normatively valuable to successful socialization, while abuse of power is entirely another question. --Or a rite of passage, I forget! If it ain't broke, don't fix it!  

After all, what is so-called "relational bullying" but just another needless pseudo-sociological buzzword? Problem, what problem?

Q. What about all the sheer palpable anger you express?
Bear you no trepidation as to what terrible violence of one kind or another or malfeasance whatsoever such undisguised naked emotion might ever possibly motivate or inspire?
A. Don't be such an utter pussy, but help me rock the damn boat!
Or have you any better option? Is just doing nothing truly any less dangerous?

Aside from driving home my point, my intention is to validate the righteous indignation of those who have suffered and been discounted. But yes, distortion of my intentions being ongoing as it clearly is, and the hostility clearly triggered, indeed, who knows what anyone is likely to do or to rationalize? So, yes, a worrisome consideration indeed.

Nevertheless, I also remain hopeful that the tactical options (yes!) in the alternatives both to passive endurance on the one hand and to erupting violence on the other, that CliqueBusters TM  actually proposes, may ever be understood in the spirit intended, enter into free discussion and ever come into practice so as to be helpful to anyone at all. And that'd be grand!


Q. And what is all that dorky 'Star Trek' crap?

A. There's nothing wrong with 'Star Trek'  except bad writing. And little ever right about 'Star Trek' that didn't begin from good writing.

And if one doesn't care for like 'Star Trek' then one may still brainstorm any of the other subject matter in the fiction writing sections.


Q. "Your pages make my computer act funny!"

A. The complainant of the above then refused to elaborate and became increasingly hostile.


Q. But I cannot navigate your frames pages because your buttons are so Esthetically displeasing!

A. That sort of complaint just makes no sense!
                    -And even seems somewhat passive aggressive.

Rather, let the Esthetics of Webdesign be best considered in context.

(Note: I couldn't make this one up if I tried. But that was all I was able to dig out of them!)



For clearly spelling out real technical problems and genuine usability issues in adequate specificity such that I might so much as hope to understand and locate any said glitches to then at least endeavor whatever requisite trouble shooting, please open the support page.)



Q. Why will you not accommodate us?

A. Be nice to me! You first!


Copyright Aaron Agassi 2002-2014






Vlad Tepes was soft on liars!