bluh

[preachit]

While I feel 96liged t9 c9mmend y9u in y9ur ch9ice 9f "muse" (please remain acceptive t9 the undenia6le fact that 9thers in a similar predicament t9 my 9wn may n9t identify with this ch9ice — instead, f9r reference, preferring w9rds such as "puppet" 9r, even m9re straghtf9rwardly, "character" — and theref9re must impl9re that y9u utilize the w9rd sparingly), I als9 c9nsider it my righte9us duty t9 questi9n y9ur credentials. We w9uldn't want y9u make a f99l 9f the 69th 9f, w9uld we? N9, I think n9t. F9rtunately, this segue all9ws me an 9pening t9 gracefully illuminate y9ur many... well, m9re flawed traits. If at any p9int y9u 6egin t9 feel triggered, please feel free t9 pause me, and we can 6egin t9 expl9re these attri6utes in a m9re circuit9us manner. But t9 6egin with, y9ur m9tivati9ns f9r selecting me are, at 6est, dubi9s. It w9uld 6e incredi6ly irresp9nsi6le 9f me, n9t t9 menti9n err9ne9us, t9 c9nd9ne—

[ERROR: CHARACTER LIMIT EXCEEDED.]

9h, dear. Was I mistaken in 6elieving this t9 6e a we6site f9r insightful, rati9nal disc9urse, particularly 9ne wherein pr9gressive ideals tend t9 be deceptively favored 9ver tho9se 9f reacti9nary traditi9n? I'm afraid I (from a strictly personal standpoint, that is) can't see a purp9se in limiting the characters 9f free th9ught and speech. H9wever, I als9 can't say I'm alt9gether t99 surprised, either; it's infrequent that 9ppress9rs w9uld t9lerate such divisive, inf9rmative c9mmentary. Perhaps 9ur time w9uld 6e 6etter spent lecturi— I mean, discussing just h9w tyrannical character limits are with the administrat9rs 9f the we6site themselves.

#tw #tyranny #oppression #what i'm sure are copious amounts of grammatical errors #character limits #voicetesting