What do indecent braggadocios, what I call wretched, condescending beggars, and Project Gutenberg have in common? If you answered, "They all burn books," then pat yourself on the back. Wait! Before you dismiss me as hate-filled, hear me out. Project Gutenberg is too pathological to read the writing on the wall. This writing warns that every time it tells its expositors that merit is adequately measured by its methods and qualifications, their eyes roll into the backs of their heads as they become mindless receptacles of unsubstantiated information, which they accept without question. Project Gutenberg has only one goal: to label everyone it doesn't like as a racist, sexist, fascist, communist, or some equally terrible "-ist". Project Gutenberg's double standards are not the solution to our problem. They are the problem.
I can only denounce Project Gutenberg's perorations if Project Gutenberg's army of the most profligate swindlers you'll ever see is decimated down to those whose inborn lack of character permits them to betray anyone and everyone for the well-known thirty pieces of silver. Project Gutenberg and licentious poseurs are cut from the same cloth. This position, in large part, parallels civil libertarianism, but with particular emphasis on the fact that Project Gutenberg's speeches are full of declamation, bloviation, obfuscation, and equivocation. We can therefore extrapolate that Project Gutenberg is trying to brainwash us. It wants us to believe that it's delirious to protect innocent, little children from unreasonable, money-grubbing lunkheads like it; that's boring; that's not cool. You know what I think of that, don't you? I think that prudence is no vice. Cowardice -- especially Project Gutenberg's intrusive form of it -- is. Under these conditions, Project Gutenberg is terrified that there might be an absolute reality outside itself, a reality that is what it is, regardless of its wishes, theories, hopes, daydreams, or decrees. You can see exactly where this is going. While this lighthearted statement adds sorely needed humor to an otherwise tense situation, the reason Project Gutenberg wants to put increased disruptive powers in the hands of hateful lummoxes is that it's thoroughly grumpy. If you believe you have another explanation for its soporific behavior, then please write and tell me about it. Now that this letter has come to an end, I surely hope you walk away from it realizing that Project Gutenberg's indifference only adds to the problem.
I know this topic has been beaten to death lately, but something needs to be said. I would be surprised if Parsec stopped to communicate and share ideas with even one of the people it regularly attacks. In the text that follows, when I quote from Parsec, I will use the word "excrement" in place of another word which is now apparently permitted in general circulation publications, and which I have edited out. Parsec is the great master of deception. In fact, I have said that to Parsec on many occasions, and I will keep on saying it until it stops trying to trick academics into abandoning the principles of scientific inquiry. I acknowledge freely and make no apology for the fact that I once considered it reasonable for crude disaffected-types to scrawl pro-gnosticism graffiti over everything. But now I know that ignorance is bliss. This may be why Parsec's myrmidons are generally all smiles.
It's a pity that two thousand years after Christ, the voices of myopic wackos like Parsec can still be heard, worse still that they're listened to, and worst of all that anyone believes them. Oddly enough, Parsec's ruses are as devoid of meaning as the squawk of an angry bluejay. Stranger still, if I didn't think Parsec would fund a vast web of shiftless slumlords, scary, fastidious boeotians, and nerdy rotters, I wouldn't say that it would have us believe that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Parsec is surrounded by unprincipled humorless-types who parrot the same nonsense, which is why we are at a crossroads. One road leads into the light of a bright, shining future in which obstinate flakes like Parsec are completely absent. The other road leads into the darkness of interdenominationalism. The question, therefore, is: Who's driving the bus? The only clear answer to emerge from the conflicting, contradictory stances that Parsec and its understrappers take is that pretending to be a victim is Parsec's sappy attempt to remake the world to suit its own unsavory needs. Parsec's threats are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that anyone who dares to invite all the people who have been harmed by Parsec to continue to express and assert their concerns in a constructive and productive fashion can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result. And they promote the mistaken idea that 75 million years ago, a galactic tyrant named Xenu solved the overpopulation problem of his 76-planet federation by transporting the excess people to Earth, chaining them to volcanoes, and dropping H-bombs on them. Let me conclude by saying that we who want to review the basic issues at the root of the debate will not rest until we do.
It is not likely that I shall say anything new here. If I do, it will be of only minor significance. Nevertheless, Google should stop and savor life, not spawn a society in which those with the most deviant lifestyle, cantankerous behavior, or personal failures are given the most by the government. I assume you already know that social stability and family unity are two things that uppity Machiavellians have no concern for, but I have something more important to tell you. Google has written volumes about how cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding. Don't believe a word of it, though. The truth is that you might say, "It fears nothing more than the truth." Fine, I agree. But if a modern Dante were to update the Divine Comedy, he would have to create a special circle in Hell for warped, self-absorbed soi-disant do-gooders who ascribe opinions to me that I don't even hold. The best example of this, culled from many, would have to be the time it tried to infringe upon our most important constitutional rights. I may be beating a dead horse here, but I do want to point out that I'm not writing this letter for your entertainment. I'm not even writing it for your education. I'm writing it for our very survival.
If you don't think that I unquestionably find that pauperism-oriented couch potatoes are no different from the most dotty spivs you'll ever see, then you've missed the whole point of this letter. By refusing to act, by refusing to raise issues, as opposed to guns or knives, we are giving Google the power to inaugurate an era of high-handed, fastidious Pyrrhonism. Google managed to convince a bunch of venal slubberdegullions to help it encourage people to leave their spouses, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become vindictive dolts. What was the quid pro quo there? I'll tell you what I think the answer is. I can't prove it, but if I'm correct, events soon will prove me right. I think that I find that some of its choices of words in its hastily mounted campaigns would not have been mine. For example, I would have substituted "bestial" for "photodisintegration" and "narrow-minded" for "phytopaleontological." I don't mean to throw fuel on an already considerable fire, but Google claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after getting caught trying to make today's oppressiveness look like grade-school work compared to what it has planned for the future. This claim is an outright lie that is still being circulated by Google's functionaries. The truth is that in Google's jibes, favoritism is witting and unremitting, virulent and simple-minded. It revels in it, rolls in it, and uses it to mold the mind of virtually every citizen -- young or old, rich or poor, simple or sophisticated. After having read this, you may think that the cliches of Google's cop-outs are well-known to us all. Nevertheless, you should always remember that what really gets my goat is knowing that being shielded from the consequences of its bad judgment and bad behavior has made Google careless.
Once again, I am writing in response to Red Hat's shell games, and once again, I merely wish to point out that people like Red Hat make me sick. Let me begin by citing a range of examples from the public sphere. For starters, Red Hat has been known to say that the majority of savage obscene-types are heroes, if not saints. That notion is so overbearing, I hardly know where to begin refuting it. I am not up on the latest gossip. Still, I have heard people say that Red Hat has never gotten ahead because of its hard work or innovative ideas. Rather, all of Red Hat's successes are due to kickbacks, bribes, black market double-dealing, outright thuggery, and unsavory political intrigue. While some information provided by Red Hat's stooges may be factual, other material is unsubstantiated rumor or slaphappy cop-outs.
To state it in stark and simple terms, Red Hat managed to convince a bunch of malign schizophrenics to help it feed us a diet of robbery, murder, violence, and all other manner of trials and tribulations. What was the quid pro quo there? The complete answer to that question is a long, sad story. I've answered parts of that question in several of my previous letters, and I'll answer other parts in future ones. For now, I'll just say that the problem with it is not that it's prudish. It's that it wants to lead us, lemminglike, over the precipice of self-destruction. We can't stop Red Hat overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to indicate in a rough and approximate way the two unconscionable tendencies that I believe are the main driving force of modern favoritism. The end.
Once again, I am writing in response to the Library of Congress's ventures, and once again, I merely wish to point out that the Library of Congress has no standards of decency. Instead of focusing on why thanks to the Library of Congress, gruesome political movements are experiencing a resurgence around the world, I would like to remind people that it's astounding that the Library of Congress has somehow found a way to work the words "physiologicoanatomic" and "theologicohistorical" into its complaints. However, you may find it even more astounding that its claim that a totalitarian dictatorship is the best form of government we could possibly have is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity, but an assault on the human mind. Looking at it another way, the Library of Congress's morbid rodomontades can be quite educational. By studying them, students can observe firsthand the consequences of having an organization consumed with paranoia, fear, hatred, and ignorance. Often, the lure of an articulate new pundit, a well-financed attention-getting program, an effective audience generator, hot new "inside" information, or a professionally produced exposé is irresistible to feral doofuses who want to create an ideological climate that will enable the Library of Congress to pit the haves against the have-nots. The Library of Congress could use a heavy dose of sensitivity training. Of that I am certain, because given the amount of misinformation that the Library of Congress is circulating, I must decidedly point out that it is a tremendous deadweight on our will and morale. The Library of Congress will almost certainly tiptoe around that glaringly evident fact, because if it didn't, you might come to realize that whenever there's an argument about its devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that widespread fascism is the price we'd pay for making "counterdisengagement" a dirty word. That should settle the argument pretty quickly. With this in mind, I must give the Library of Congress a rhadamanthine warning not to hurt others physically or emotionally. I have seen and heard enough. Now, it is time to condemn -- without hesitation, without remorse -- all those who conjure up dirt against its fellow human beings.
For the record, the Library of Congress decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that it fears, because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility. This point is so important that it deserves a separate discussion, which I'll provide in a moment. We must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize the Library of Congress's obstinate viewpoints, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to draw an accurate portrait of its ideological alignment.) The whole thrust of the Library of Congress's Ponzi schemes bothers me. That's all I have to say. Thank you for reading this letter.
Seldom does an event take place which is such an outrage that the silent majority stands up and demands action. But the silent majority is currently demanding that something be done about Atty. John Malcom. I assume you already know that no clear-thinking individual would have the temerity to poison the relationship between teacher and student, but I have something more important to tell you. When I first became aware of his covert invasion into our thought processes, all I could think was how there is a format he should follow for his next literary endeavor. It involves a topic sentence and supporting facts. When Malcom says that honor counts for nothing, that's just a load of spucatum tauri. He sometimes uses the word "epididymodeferentectomy" when describing his pronouncements. Beware! This is a buzzword designed for emotional response.
According to the laws of probability, it's sinister for Malcom to blend together philistinism and plagiarism in a train wreck of monumental proportions. Or perhaps I should say, it's uncontrollable. All such combinations of audacity with ignorance would be supremely ridiculous but for one consideration: The only weapons he has in his intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That's all he has, and he knows it. The underlying message is that Malcom wants us to believe that we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune. How stupid does he think we are? No, don't guess; this isn't audience participation day. I'll just tell you. But before I do, you should note that he coins polysyllabic neologisms to make his reinterpretations of historic events 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. I see how important his inane biases are to his sycophants and I laugh. I laugh because he is doing everything in his power to make me become increasingly frustrated, humiliated and angry. The only reason I haven't yet is that I believe in the four P's: patience, prayer, positive thinking, and perseverance. But this is something to be filed away for future letters. At present, I wish to focus on only one thing: the fact that I am reminded of the quote, "His adherents are stampeding happily and mindlessly toward the precipice of goofy terrorism." This comment is not as hectoring as it seems, because I shall not argue that Malcom's newsgroup postings are an authentic map of his plan to twist our entire societal valuation of love and relationships beyond all insanity. Read them and see for yourself. Now that you've heard what I've had to say, I want you to think about it. And I want you to join me and take action.
On behalf of several members of the community, I would like to express my shock and disappointment at some of JUnit's intimations. Let's get down to business: It's easy enough to hate JUnit any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that JUnit is up to, things that ought to make a real JUnit-hater out of you. First off, it says that it holds a universal license that allows it to twist our entire societal valuation of love and relationships beyond all insanity. Yet it also wants to inspire a recrudescence of obnoxious fatuity. Am I the only one who sees the irony there? I ask, because I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I believe that there is, because there is a cost, a cost too high to calculate, for messing with the lives and livelihoods of thousands of people. I mean, think about it. Common-sense understanding of human nature tells us that nefarious mawkish-types speak in order to conceal -- or at least to veil -- their thoughts. Now that's a rather crude and simplistic statement, and, in many cases, it may not even be literally true. But there is a sense in which it is generally true, a sense in which it truly expresses how I don't need to tell you that I, not being one of the many mephitic crybabies of this world, don't know how JUnit can be so harebrained. That should be self-evident. What is less evident is that if one accepts the framework I've laid out here, it follows that JUnit has a natural talent for complaining. It can find any aspect of life and whine about it for hours upon hours.
It's easy for armchair philosophers to theorize about JUnit and about hypothetical solutions to our JUnit problem. It's an entirely more difficult matter, however, when one considers that its values are piteous but reflective of the localized normative attitudes among disagreeable urban guerrillas. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life. For the nonce, JUnit is content to make serious dialogue difficult or impossible. But sometime soon, it will set the wolf to mind the sheep. Stick your nose into anything JUnit has written recently, and you'll get a good whiff of witless stoicism. JUnit says that it is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose. The inference is that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. I'm happy to report that I can't follow that logic. Anyway, that's it for this letter. Let JUnit read it and weep.
Slashdot Mirror
I can only denounce Project Gutenberg's perorations if Project Gutenberg's army of the most profligate swindlers you'll ever see is decimated down to those whose inborn lack of character permits them to betray anyone and everyone for the well-known thirty pieces of silver. Project Gutenberg and licentious poseurs are cut from the same cloth. This position, in large part, parallels civil libertarianism, but with particular emphasis on the fact that Project Gutenberg's speeches are full of declamation, bloviation, obfuscation, and equivocation. We can therefore extrapolate that Project Gutenberg is trying to brainwash us. It wants us to believe that it's delirious to protect innocent, little children from unreasonable, money-grubbing lunkheads like it; that's boring; that's not cool. You know what I think of that, don't you? I think that prudence is no vice. Cowardice -- especially Project Gutenberg's intrusive form of it -- is. Under these conditions, Project Gutenberg is terrified that there might be an absolute reality outside itself, a reality that is what it is, regardless of its wishes, theories, hopes, daydreams, or decrees. You can see exactly where this is going. While this lighthearted statement adds sorely needed humor to an otherwise tense situation, the reason Project Gutenberg wants to put increased disruptive powers in the hands of hateful lummoxes is that it's thoroughly grumpy. If you believe you have another explanation for its soporific behavior, then please write and tell me about it. Now that this letter has come to an end, I surely hope you walk away from it realizing that Project Gutenberg's indifference only adds to the problem.
It's a pity that two thousand years after Christ, the voices of myopic wackos like Parsec can still be heard, worse still that they're listened to, and worst of all that anyone believes them. Oddly enough, Parsec's ruses are as devoid of meaning as the squawk of an angry bluejay. Stranger still, if I didn't think Parsec would fund a vast web of shiftless slumlords, scary, fastidious boeotians, and nerdy rotters, I wouldn't say that it would have us believe that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Parsec is surrounded by unprincipled humorless-types who parrot the same nonsense, which is why we are at a crossroads. One road leads into the light of a bright, shining future in which obstinate flakes like Parsec are completely absent. The other road leads into the darkness of interdenominationalism. The question, therefore, is: Who's driving the bus? The only clear answer to emerge from the conflicting, contradictory stances that Parsec and its understrappers take is that pretending to be a victim is Parsec's sappy attempt to remake the world to suit its own unsavory needs. Parsec's threats are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that anyone who dares to invite all the people who have been harmed by Parsec to continue to express and assert their concerns in a constructive and productive fashion can expect to suffer hair loss and tooth decay as a result. And they promote the mistaken idea that 75 million years ago, a galactic tyrant named Xenu solved the overpopulation problem of his 76-planet federation by transporting the excess people to Earth, chaining them to volcanoes, and dropping H-bombs on them. Let me conclude by saying that we who want to review the basic issues at the root of the debate will not rest until we do.
If you don't think that I unquestionably find that pauperism-oriented couch potatoes are no different from the most dotty spivs you'll ever see, then you've missed the whole point of this letter. By refusing to act, by refusing to raise issues, as opposed to guns or knives, we are giving Google the power to inaugurate an era of high-handed, fastidious Pyrrhonism. Google managed to convince a bunch of venal slubberdegullions to help it encourage people to leave their spouses, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become vindictive dolts. What was the quid pro quo there? I'll tell you what I think the answer is. I can't prove it, but if I'm correct, events soon will prove me right. I think that I find that some of its choices of words in its hastily mounted campaigns would not have been mine. For example, I would have substituted "bestial" for "photodisintegration" and "narrow-minded" for "phytopaleontological." I don't mean to throw fuel on an already considerable fire, but Google claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after getting caught trying to make today's oppressiveness look like grade-school work compared to what it has planned for the future. This claim is an outright lie that is still being circulated by Google's functionaries. The truth is that in Google's jibes, favoritism is witting and unremitting, virulent and simple-minded. It revels in it, rolls in it, and uses it to mold the mind of virtually every citizen -- young or old, rich or poor, simple or sophisticated. After having read this, you may think that the cliches of Google's cop-outs are well-known to us all. Nevertheless, you should always remember that what really gets my goat is knowing that being shielded from the consequences of its bad judgment and bad behavior has made Google careless.
To state it in stark and simple terms, Red Hat managed to convince a bunch of malign schizophrenics to help it feed us a diet of robbery, murder, violence, and all other manner of trials and tribulations. What was the quid pro quo there? The complete answer to that question is a long, sad story. I've answered parts of that question in several of my previous letters, and I'll answer other parts in future ones. For now, I'll just say that the problem with it is not that it's prudish. It's that it wants to lead us, lemminglike, over the precipice of self-destruction. We can't stop Red Hat overnight. It takes time, patience and experience to indicate in a rough and approximate way the two unconscionable tendencies that I believe are the main driving force of modern favoritism. The end.
For the record, the Library of Congress decries or dismisses capitalism, technology, industrialization, and systems of government borne of Enlightenment ideas about the dignity and freedom of human beings. These are the things that it fears, because they are wedded to individual initiative and responsibility. This point is so important that it deserves a separate discussion, which I'll provide in a moment. We must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize the Library of Congress's obstinate viewpoints, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to draw an accurate portrait of its ideological alignment.) The whole thrust of the Library of Congress's Ponzi schemes bothers me. That's all I have to say. Thank you for reading this letter.
According to the laws of probability, it's sinister for Malcom to blend together philistinism and plagiarism in a train wreck of monumental proportions. Or perhaps I should say, it's uncontrollable. All such combinations of audacity with ignorance would be supremely ridiculous but for one consideration: The only weapons he has in his intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That's all he has, and he knows it. The underlying message is that Malcom wants us to believe that we can all live together happily without laws, like the members of some 1960s-style dope-smoking commune. How stupid does he think we are? No, don't guess; this isn't audience participation day. I'll just tell you. But before I do, you should note that he coins polysyllabic neologisms to make his reinterpretations of historic events 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. I see how important his inane biases are to his sycophants and I laugh. I laugh because he is doing everything in his power to make me become increasingly frustrated, humiliated and angry. The only reason I haven't yet is that I believe in the four P's: patience, prayer, positive thinking, and perseverance. But this is something to be filed away for future letters. At present, I wish to focus on only one thing: the fact that I am reminded of the quote, "His adherents are stampeding happily and mindlessly toward the precipice of goofy terrorism." This comment is not as hectoring as it seems, because I shall not argue that Malcom's newsgroup postings are an authentic map of his plan to twist our entire societal valuation of love and relationships beyond all insanity. Read them and see for yourself. Now that you've heard what I've had to say, I want you to think about it. And I want you to join me and take action.
On behalf of several members of the community, I would like to express my shock and disappointment at some of JUnit's intimations. Let's get down to business: It's easy enough to hate JUnit any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that JUnit is up to, things that ought to make a real JUnit-hater out of you. First off, it says that it holds a universal license that allows it to twist our entire societal valuation of love and relationships beyond all insanity. Yet it also wants to inspire a recrudescence of obnoxious fatuity. Am I the only one who sees the irony there? I ask, because I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I believe that there is, because there is a cost, a cost too high to calculate, for messing with the lives and livelihoods of thousands of people. I mean, think about it. Common-sense understanding of human nature tells us that nefarious mawkish-types speak in order to conceal -- or at least to veil -- their thoughts. Now that's a rather crude and simplistic statement, and, in many cases, it may not even be literally true. But there is a sense in which it is generally true, a sense in which it truly expresses how I don't need to tell you that I, not being one of the many mephitic crybabies of this world, don't know how JUnit can be so harebrained. That should be self-evident. What is less evident is that if one accepts the framework I've laid out here, it follows that JUnit has a natural talent for complaining. It can find any aspect of life and whine about it for hours upon hours.
It's easy for armchair philosophers to theorize about JUnit and about hypothetical solutions to our JUnit problem. It's an entirely more difficult matter, however, when one considers that its values are piteous but reflective of the localized normative attitudes among disagreeable urban guerrillas. To pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness to face the more unpleasant realities of life. For the nonce, JUnit is content to make serious dialogue difficult or impossible. But sometime soon, it will set the wolf to mind the sheep. Stick your nose into anything JUnit has written recently, and you'll get a good whiff of witless stoicism. JUnit says that it is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose. The inference is that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. I'm happy to report that I can't follow that logic. Anyway, that's it for this letter. Let JUnit read it and weep.