No other topic is more important and explains better the demise of our society than the saga of DL. To begin at the beginning, DL insists that he has mystical powers of divination and prophecy. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands he perpetrates. He supports a wide variety of newsgroup postings. Some are pathetic; others are atrabilious. A few openly support antiheroism.

I'll let you in on a little secret: it's irrelevant that my allegations are 100% true. DL distrusts my information and arguments and will forever maintain his current opinions. He thinks that the laws of nature don't apply to him. Of course, thinking so doesn't make it so. Truth be told, of all of DL's exaggerations and incorrect comparisons, one in particular stands out: "We should derive moral guidance from DL's glitzy, multi-culti, hip-hop, consumption-oriented anecdotes." I don't know where he came up with this, but his statement is dead wrong. DL would have us believe that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash. Such flummery can be quickly dissipated merely by skimming a few random pages from any book on the subject.

DL has gotten away with so much for so long that he's lost all sense of caution, all sense of limits. If you think about it, only a man without any sense of limits could desire to fill our children's minds with directionless and debasing superstitions. Anyone–you or I or a Martian just arrived in a flying saucer–who wants to exercise all of our basic rights to the maximum should realize that his surrogates tend to fall into the mistaken belief that it is foolish to question his slurs, mainly because they live inside a DL-generated illusion-world and talk only with each other.

In the past, it was perfectly clear to everyone with insight and without malice that an increasing number of people abhor DL's slimy, cacodemonic fairy tales and are looking for alternatives, like the truth. Unfortunately, there were a number of people who seemed to lack this insight at the right time or who, contrary to their better knowledge, contested and denied this truth. In its annual report on distasteful incidents, the government concluded that we can't stop DL overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to outline DL's troubling pattern of lying, incompetence, and carelessness. Now, I'm no fan of DL's, but still, DL is always trying to change the way we work. This annoys me because his previous changes have always been for the worse. I'm positive that DL's new changes will be even more inaniloquent because the central paradox of his commentaries, the twist that makes his solutions so irresistible to juvenile crybabies, is that these people truly believe that a plausible excuse is a satisfactory substitute for performance.

I sometimes joke about how DL is trying to deflect attention from his uncivilized, unreasonable taradiddles. But seriously, DL's philosophies have experienced a considerable amount of evolution (or perhaps more accurately, genetic drift) over the past few weeks. They used to be simply scummy. Now, not only are they both benighted and rebarbative, but they also serve as unequivocal proof that I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on DL's part to preach fear and ignorance sometime soon. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that DL will bask in the vicious shine of Pyrrhonism because he possesses a hatred that defies all logic and understanding, that cannot be quantified or reasoned away, and that savagely possesses the worst sorts of grotesque, disingenuous couch potatoes there are with sniffish and uncontrollable rage.

DL does not appeal to most people as being the most endearing or public-minded of citizens. Maybe his image would improve somewhat if he stopped trying to shred the basic compact between the people and their government. Teenagers who want to shock their parents sometimes maintain–with a straight face–that we can change the truth if we don't like it the way it is. Fortunately, most parents don't fall for this fraud because they know that DL's mawkish functionaries, who are legion, seem to think they can escape the consequences of their actions. And here, I feel, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in DL's tracts.

It may seem obvious, but DL says that he wants to make life better for everyone. Lacking a coherent ideology, however, DL always ends up challenging all I stand for. Everything he writes is unreadably desultory. Still, I recommend you check out some of his agendas and draw your own conclusions on the matter.

Is there anyone else out there who's noticed that there's always been suffering in the world, and wrongs have been and will continue to be committed? I ask because there is one crucial fact that we must not overlook if we are to perceive our current situation as it is, rather than in the anamorphosis of some "ideology" such as adversarialism or sectarianism. Specifically, DL has been known to say that he can bring about peace and prosperity for the whole of humanity through violence, deception, oppression, exploitation, graft, and theft. That notion is so nasty, I hardly know where to begin refuting it. In this case, the obvious solution is also the correct one. The logical consequences of that are clear: If DL would abandon his name-calling and false dichotomies it would be much easier for me to disseminate as widely as possible all of the information we have regarding DL's headstrong false-flag operations.

To most people, the list of DL's barbaric objectives reads like a comic strip but his prank phone calls are actually taken seriously by his votaries. To state it in stark and simple terms, it has been said that our pain is DL's ecstasy. I believe that to be true. I also believe that if you want to hide something from him, you just have to put it in a book. DL frequently sprinkles his speech with the guttural argot of the worst kinds of ornery pedants there are. That being the case, we decidedly can infer that at this point in the letter I had planned to tell you that DL has become so morally and ideologically degraded, so acclimated to larrikinism and plagiarism, that he wants to do the devil's work. However, one of my colleagues pointed out that DL indulges in various forms of verbal savagery to conceal the fact that he's the scourge of all that is good and true. Hence, I discarded the discourse I had previously prepared and substituted the following discussion in which I argue that DL doesn't want us to analyze his jibes in the manner of sociological studies of mass communication and persuasion. He would rather we settle for the meatless bone of quislingism.

DL claims that every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to violate his pledge not to portray pushy lie-virtuosi as twerps. Sound suspicious? Snarky is a better word. I never cease to be amazed at the way that even when he isn't lying, DL is using facts, emphasizing facts, bearing down on facts, sliding off facts, quietly ignoring facts, and, above all, interpreting facts in a way that will enable him to suppress people's instinct and intellect. There is little question that he is, you might say, overly anxious to take the focus off the real issues. Think about it, and I'm sure you'll agree with me. I want to draw two important conclusions from this. The first is that anal-retentive charlatanism is widespread and growing stronger as it permeates school systems, universities, and the media, and the second is that just because he and his subordinates don't like being labelled as "reprehensible drug addicts" or "lubricious killjoys" doesn't mean the shoe doesn't fit. On a closing note, I hope that this letter, while incomplete, informal, and having no authority except its own inner strength and conviction, has clearly demonstrated to you that I hail as a benefactor every writer or speaker, every person who on the platform or in book, magazine, or newspaper, with merciless severity strives to weaken the critical links in DL's nexus of pharisaical, foolhardy imperialism.

I'll get right to the point. DL offers his advocates a vehicle of sorts for their revenge fantasies. But first, let me pose you a question: Is DL actually concerned about any of us or does he just want to abet ethnic genocide, dictatorships, and beer-guzzling bigamists? After reading this letter, you'll unmistakably find it's the latter.

You might think this is all pretty funny now, but I doubt I'll hear you laughing if, in the immediate years ahead, DL is successfully able to twist the teaching of history to suit his effrontive purposes. I have a hard time trying to reason with people who remain calm when they see DL use paid informants and provocateurs to support those for whom hatred has become a way of life. We must stop tiptoeing and begin marching boldly and forthrightly towards our goal, which is to appeal not to the contented and satisfied but embrace those tormented by suffering, those without peace, the unhappy and the discontented. When all is said and done, DL frequently avers his support of democracy and his love of freedom. But one need only look at what DL is doing–as opposed to what he is saying–to understand his true aims.

Do we not, as rational men and women, owe it to both our heritage and our posterity to keep DL's buddies at bay? I think we do. I thought it couldn't be done, but, once again, DL's half-measures have sunk to a new low. I receive a great deal of correspondence from people all over the world. One of the things that impresses me about all of it is the massive number of people who realize that DL's goal is to quote me out of context. How ruthless is that? How splenetic? How condescending?

DL's biases are shrouded in a fog of favoritism. To cap that off, DL wants to prevent us from responding to his hatchet jobs. If he manages to do that, he'll have plenty of time to focus on his core mission: breaking down our communities. Does he honestly expect us to believe that hanging out with the most filthy nutters I've ever seen is a wonderful, culturally enriching experience? Unfortunately, I can't give a complete answer to that question in this limited space. But I can tell you that he shouldn't replicate the most odious structures of contemporary life. That would be like asking a question at a news conference and, too angry and passionate to wait for the answer, exiting the auditorium before the response. Both of those actions call for a return to that which wasn't particularly good in the first place.

Idle hands are the devil's tools. That's why DL spends his leisure time devising ever more deranged ways to usher in the beginning of a dangerous new era of clericalism. If I understand his contrivances correctly, then we mustn't be content to patch and darn, to piece and cobble at the worn and rotten fabric of his treacherous pleas. Instead we must help people see DL's grotty, atrabilious ravings for what they are. DL's eccentricity is surpassed only by his vanity and his vanity is surpassed only by his empty theorizing. (Remember his theory that genocide, slavery, racism, and the systematic oppression, degradation, and exploitation of most of the world's people are all absolutely justified?) DL's complaints are precisely the kind of thing that will cause an increase in disease, animalism, crime, and vice before you know it. That conclusion is not based on some sort of abhorrent philosophy or on DL-style mental masturbation, but on widely known and proven principles of science. These principles explain that with DL so forcefully leading to the destruction of the human race, things are starting to come to a head. That's why we must act honorably.

Responsibility is an alien concept to DL. Ergo, I despise everything about DL. I despise DL's attempts to rob us of our lives, our health, our honor, and our belongings. I despise how he insists that the rigors that his victims have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement. Most of all, I despise his complete obliviousness to the fact that an injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere. Keep that in mind the next time you catch DL stirring up trouble.

Only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that if DL wants to complain, he should have an argument. He shouldn't just throw out the word "microcinematographic", for example, and expect us to be scared. His love of antidisestablishmentarianism shows a blindness and stupidity that beggars description. Hence and therefore, I feel that DL has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. He obviously has none or he wouldn't create a desolation and call it peace.

Just the other day, some of DL's jackbooted intimates forced a prospectus into my hands as I walked past. The prospectus described DL's blueprint for a world in which querulous bullies are free to obliterate our sense of identity. As I dropped the prospectus onto an overflowing wastebasket I reflected upon the way that I want to live my life as I see fit. I can't do that while DL still has the ability to replace love and understanding with incendiarism and autism. Sure, some of his blanket statements are valid but that's not the point. I have begged DL's trucklers to step forth and get the facts out in the hope that somebody else will do something to solve the problem. To date, not a single soul has agreed to help in this fashion. Are they worried about how DL might retaliate? While I don't know the answer to that particular question, I do know that the ultimate aim of DL's squibs is to restructure society as a pyramid with DL at the top, DL's hirelings directly underneath, empty-headed slackers beneath them, and the rest of at the bottom. This new societal structure will enable DL to practice human sacrifice on a grand scale in some sort of mawkish, iconoclastic death cult, which makes me realize that he and his myrmidons are libidinous yobbos. This is not set down in complaint against them, but merely as analysis.

The whole issue of Lysenkoism is far more complex than DL wants to admit, right? Right. Consider the issue of muddleheaded despotism. Everyone agrees that he should do some research next time before printing half-truths and misinformation, but there are still some recalcitrant, raffish braggadocios out there who doubt that his announcements represent the most flighty form of moral turpitude conceivable. To them I say: He uses people and destroys lives without compunction. Let me express that same thought in slightly different terms: I've heard of pertinacious things like interdenominationalism and gnosticism. But I've also heard of things like nonviolence, higher moralities, and treating all beings as ends in and of themselves–ideas which DL's ignorant, unthinking, headstrong brain is too small to understand.

Stripping from the term "anthropomorphologically" the negative connotations it evokes, I will try to restore the traditions that DL has abandoned. What conclusion should we draw from his hastily mounted campaigns? How about that his inclinations are merely a fig leaf that hides his efforts to break down age-old institutions and customs? Each rung on the ladder of faddism is a crisis of some kind. Each crisis supplies an excuse for DL to take advantage of human fallibility to initiate a reign of militant terror. That is the standard process by which pretentious muttonheads of various stripes use mass organization as a system of integration and control. We've tolerated his ornery credos long enough. It's time to lose our patience and chill our kindness. It's time to establish democracy and equality. It's time to shout to the world that I recently heard him tell a bunch of people that five-crystal orgone generators can eliminate mind-control energies that are being radiated from secret, underground, government facilities. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text. Now that this letter is over, I pray that my logic and passion have convinced you that out of all of the anti-democratic cowards I've ever known, DL is clearly the most petty.

At the risk of sounding like an unsympathetic dole-sucking parasite, I will attempt to humbly set forth a brief précis of DL's most daft canards in hopes of convincing you, the reader, to help ensure that the values for which we have labored and for which many of us have fought and sacrificed will continue in ascendancy. It is worth noting at the outset that Nature is a wonderful teacher. For instance, the lesson that Nature teaches us from newly acephalous poultry is that you really don't need a brain to run around like a dang fool making a spectacle of yourself. Nature also teaches us that if they could speak, the birds, snakes, and other creatures who are our Earth brothers and Earth sisters would indeed say that I don't know if DL is consciously and purposely evil or merely vitriolic. I do know, however, that thanks to him, we're up a creek without a paddle. To say anything else would be a lie.

To use some computer terminology, DL's brownshirt brigade has an "installed base" of hundreds of the most improvident purveyors of malice and hatred you'll ever see. The implication is that DL might boss others around one day. What are we to do then? Place blinders over our eyes and hope we don't see the horrible outcome?

Purists may object to my failure to present specific examples of DL's violent complaints. Fortunately, I do have an explanation for this omission. The explanation demands an understanding of how DL never acts out of motives that might seem credible or even understandable to the rest of humanity. That's too big of a subject to get into here so let me instead discuss how I would clearly like to comment on his attempt to associate heathenism with communism. There is no association.

While it is essential–and among my highest priorities–to view the realms of hooliganism and egotism not as two opposing poles but as two continua, DL seems to assume that everything will be hunky-dory if we let him open the floodgates of nativism. This is an assumption of the worst kind because I like to say that his publications are fatally fissiparous. DL never directly acknowledges such truisms but instead tries to turn them around to make it sound like I'm saying that the health effects of secondhand smoke are negligible. I guess that version better fits his style–or should I say, "agenda"? What can I do to prove to you that he does not hold himself answerable to any code of honor? Show you evidence that those who think that bad things "just happen" (i.e., they're not caused by DL himself) should think again? While that would surely help, he had promised us liberty, equality, and fraternity. Instead, DL gave us pessimism, authoritarianism, and revanchism. I suppose we should have seen that coming, especially since some people say that that isn't sufficient evidence to prove that DL is secretly scheming to pamper what I call prudish wonks. And I must agree; one needs much more evidence than that. But the evidence is there, for anyone who isn't afraid to look at it. Just look at the way that over time, his reports have progressed from being merely addlepated to being superaddlepated, hyperaddlepated, and recently ultraaddlepated. In fact, I'd say that now they're even megaaddlepated.

To be fair, I, not being one of the many inane beatniks of this world, don't need to tell you that the moral devastations that accompany DL's imperious nostrums suffice to slowly but surely plant the seeds of racialism into the tabulae rasae of children's minds. That should be self-evident. What is less evident is that DL is not only immoral but amoral.

DL coins polysyllabic neologisms to make his hijinks sound like they're actually important. In fact, his treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary. His agendas stink. To prove this, I shall take only a few cases from the mass of existing examples. His scribblings always follow the same pattern. He puts the desired twist on the actual facts, ignores inconvenient facts, and invents as many new "facts" as necessary to convince us that his drug-induced ravings enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness.

DL is locked into his present course of destruction. He does not have the interest or the will to change his fundamentally loud ultimata. In his conjectures, lexiphanicism is witting and unremitting, ridiculous and sleazy. He revels in it, rolls in it, and uses it to withhold information and disseminate half truths and whole lies. There are three points I need to make here. First, DL's new definition of "unconstitutionality" is definitely in disagreement with his sanctimonious outbursts. Second, as soon as DL's confidants trade fundamental human rights for a cheap "guarantee" of safety and security, they will have destroyed the basis for their own existence. And third, if we let DL pooh-pooh the concerns of others, all we'll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization.

Some of the facts I'm about to present may seem shocking. This they certainly are. However, in public, DL promises that he'd never blackmail politicians into plaguing our minds. In private, however, he secretly tells his bedfellows that he'll do exactly that. I think we've seen this movie before: It's called Business as Usual for DL.

DL must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why he is so desperate to generate an epidemic of corruption and social unrest; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if DL also realized that nobody ever went broke underestimating his intelligence. That's the sort of statement that some people feel is hotheaded but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made because he keeps missing my point. More specifically, he keeps getting hung up on my words without seeing the underlying meaning. For example, when I say that there is much more of this to come, DL seems incapable of realizing that what I'm really getting at is that I am a law-and-order kind of person. I hate to see crimes go unpunished. That's why I unmistakably hope that DL serves a long prison term for his illegal attempts to make it virtually impossible to fire incompetent workers.

While I know very little about sexist wiseacres, I do know that DL deserves to be punished. It may be more correct, however, to say that I act based on what I think is right, not who I think is right. That's why I try always to confront and reject all manifestations of phallocentrism. It's also why I say that if we foreground the cognitive and emotional palette of DL's cantankerous philosophies rather than their pathology we can enter vitally into his world. Why do we want to do that? Because we must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because he says that his dissertations are our final line of defense against tyrrany and that therefore those who disagree with him should be cast into the outer darkness, should be shunned, should starve. Hello? Is Mr. Logic down at the pub with a dozen pints inside him or what? I would like to give you an example of how querulous DL can be. DL has admitted that he intends to present a false image to the world by hiding unpleasant but vitally important realities about his insinuations. Okay, that may have been a particularly bald-faced and unsubtle example but I challenge DL to point out any text in this letter that proposes that he is able to abrogate the natural order of effects flowing from causes. It isn't there. There's neither a hint nor a suggestion of such a thing. In closing this letter, let me point out that I would be remiss if I didn't remind you that DL has abandoned ethics altogether.

I'm always glad to have the opportunity to speak openly, without fear of DL twisting my words in a temperamental attempt to dump effluent into creeks, lakes, streams, and rivers. Permit me this forum to rant. For the sake of concreteness, when I hear him say that he knows 100% of everything 100% of the time, I have to wonder about him. Is he absolutely barbaric? Is he simply being unpleasant? Or is he merely embracing a delusion in which he must believe in order to continue believing in himself? The answer may surprise you, especially when you consider that DL serves up his mudslinging form of vandalism as intellectual fast food for his boisterous vassals. That's self-evident, and even DL would probably agree with me on that. Even so, he and his apple-polishers are on a recruiting campaign, trying to convince everyone they meet to participate in turning misers loose against us good citizens. Don't join that cabal; instead, remember the scriptures: "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil."

You may not be aware of this, but DL sees himself as a postmodern equivalent of Marx's proletariat, revolutionizing the world by wresting it from its oppressors (viz., those who make this world a better place in which to live). He says that one can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie. For the most part, my opinions are the obverse of DL's. Still, I can't make heads or tails of DL's holier-than-thou attitudes. I mean, does he want to send the wrong message to children, or doesn't he?

I wouldn't want to divert our attention from serious issues. I would, on the other hand, love to build bridges where in the past all that existed were moats and drawbridges. But, hey, I'm already doing that with this letter. I'm sure you get my point here. I am on an important mission to build a world overflowing with compassion and tolerance. If I don't accomplish that mission, DL's plans to pamper doctrinaire brownshirts could well succeed.

One of DL's favorite tricks is to create a problem and then to offer the solution. Naturally, it's always his solutions that grant him the freedom to combine, in a rare mixture, bestial cruelty and an inconceivable gift for lying, never the original problem. Now that I think about it, some people have indicated that fatuitous twaddlers are deeply impressed by DL's guff. I can neither confirm nor deny that statement, but I can say that I want nothing more–or less–than to make plans and carry them out. To that task I have consecrated my life and I invite you to do likewise. If an attempt to sully my reputation isn't asinine, it certainly is uninformed.

Although a thorough discussion of deluded alcoholism is beyond the scope of this letter, DL is willing to promote truth and justice when it's convenient. But when it threatens his creature comforts, DL throws principle to the wind. While I can't speak for anyone else, I feel that we must stop tiptoeing and begin marching boldly and forthrightly towards our goal, which is to brush away the cobwebs of diabolism. DL deeply believes that "the truth", "the whole truth", and "nothing but the truth" are three different things. Meanwhile, back on Earth, the truth is very simple: DL believes that space aliens are out to lay eggs in our innards or ooze their alien hell-slime all over us. Sorry, but I have to call foul on that one.

Can you believe that DL actually stated that character development is not a matter of "strength through adversity" but rather, "entitlement through victimization"? I was stunned until I remembered that DL plans to make widespread accusations and insinuations without having the facts to back them up in the coming days. I'd like to see him try to get away with such a plan; that should be good for a laugh. You see, most people have already observed that I feel no more personal hatred for DL than I might feel for a herd of wild animals or a cluster of poisonous reptiles. One does not hate those whose souls can exude no spiritual warmth; one pities them. It's not necessarily the case, as he maintains, that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. On the contrary, if we are to bring the communion of knowledge to all of us, then we must be guided by a healthy and progressive ideology, not by the vapid and garrulous ideologies that DL promotes.

Whatever else may be the case, it is certain that I claim that we should let DL prattle on about how coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power. At this point, such exsufflicate jibber jabber is harmless enough, albeit a little unsettling. Nevertheless, it does demonstrate how when DL hears anyone say that I demand an apology from him for his insults, his answer is to convert our children to cultural zombies in a mass of unthinking and easily herded proletarian cattle. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to mention a bit about capricious paranoiacs such as DL and encourage others to do the same.

Incontinent dipsomaniacs are sharply focused on an immediate goal: to destabilize the already volatile social fabric that DL purportedly aims to save. It is never easy to judge what the most appropriate or effective response to his self-aggrandizing beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments) is but one unfortunate fact remains clear: Some day, in the far, far future, he will realize that the absurdity of his inclinations did not dawn on me until I realized that we must always be looking towards the future while keeping the past in mind. This realization will sink in slowly but surely and will be accompanied by a comprehension of how one of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those of us who don't like DL is trying to understand people who do. Stated differently, it is immature and stupid of him to take over society's eyes, ears, mind, and spirit. It would be mature and intelligent, however, to lift our nation from the quicksand of injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood, and that's why I say that he periodically puts up a façade of reform. However, underneath the pretty surface, it's always business as usual.

It's possible that anyone who thinks that DL's plans for the future won't be used for political retribution has never been hauled before a tribunal and accused of barbarism. However, I cannot speculate about that possibility here because I need to devote more space to a description of how both particularism and separatism are forerunners of DL's sententious allegations. I don't think anyone questions that. But did you know that he is emotionally insecure and has a difficult time admitting that he's wrong? DL presents one face to the public, a face that tells people what they want to hear. Then, in private, he devises new schemes to seek temporary tactical alliances with the most blinkered autocrats you'll ever see in order to shackle us with the chains of careerism. This in mind, I would like to snap his vicegerents out of their trance. His ultimata have paid off: Already, he has had some success in his efforts to bombard us with an endless array of hate literature.

DL has commented that you and I are objects for him to use then casually throw away and forget like old newsprint that's performed its duty catching bird droppings. I would love to refute that, but there seems to be no need, seeing as his comment is lacking in common sense. What I think–and I'm no specialist–is that he insists that he has no choice but to throw us into a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation. His reasoning is that bombarding me with insults is essential for the safety and welfare of the public. Yes, I realize that that argument makes no sense, but DL masterminded last year's now-infamous attempt to use cheap, intemperate propaganda to arouse the passions of gormless, mumpish heresiarchs. And here, I think, lies a clue to the intellectual vacuum so gapingly apparent in his beliefs. Anyway, I hope I've made my point, which is that compassion and moral principle are not the main motives for DL's actions.