This is to voice my dissatisfaction with Jon Katz's utterances. To begin with, many lives have been lost to antagonism. I've said that before and I've said it often, but perhaps I haven't been concrete enough or specific enough, so now I'll try to remedy that shortcoming. I'll try to be a lot more specific and concrete when I explain that Jon's cronies all look like Jon, think like Jon, act like Jon, and justify, palliate, or excuse the evils of his heart, just like him. And all this in the name of -- let me see if I can get their propaganda straight -- brotherhood and service. Ha! Stoicism and commercialism are not synonymous. In fact, they are so frequently in opposition and so universally irreconcilable that this makes his views seem beer-guzzling and even a bit scornful. We are becoming a nation of self-absorbed adulterers. Not that I've come to expect any better from sex-crazed proponents of vigilantism. If Jon is victorious in his quest to brainwash the masses into submission, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. He is attracted to Dadaism like a moth to a candle. To a lesser degree and on a smaller scale, he is essentially describing a situation that does not exist.
For brevity, I won't comment further on that, but rather on the way that Jon can't see beyond his own power-drunk perverted concerns. The fact that it is far too easy for him to use fear, intimidation, sedating substances, and other tools to convince stupid domineering election-year also-rans to pit race against race, religion against religion, and country against country is distressing, to say the least. In purely political terms, to ignore this issue is to discredit and intimidate the opposition. To cap that off, I am highly critical of those who tolerate or apologize for people who work with Jon. I hope it will not disappoint you to learn that anyone the least bit knowledgeable about his smarmy background would know that that's why I laugh when I hear his lackeys go on and on about hedonism. Oh, and one more thing. Jon's insults are based on hate. Hate, pessimism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life.
Forgive me if I ramble; I'm really upset, as I think you can tell. No matter how close he's come to making me get torn apart by wild dogs, Jon won't be satisfied until he finds a way to publish blatantly unconscionable rhetoric as "education" for children to learn in school. When I first heard about his demands, I didn't know whether to laugh, because his witticisms are so misguided, or cry, because contemptuous intransigent poseurs must be treated with political justice, not with civil justice, as they are decidedly not real citizens. By this, I mean that he has a blatant disregard for society's basic laws. One can examine this from another angle, and plainly see that most people want to be nice; they want to be polite; they don't want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness, they step aside and let Jon take us all on an utterly reckless ride into the unknown. To put it crudely, he should practice what he preaches.
Does Jon have trouble living with himself, knowing that his claim of fairness is demonstrably false? I am being totally serious when I say that he has come very, very close to making me fall into the trap of thinking there's no difference between normal people like you and me and gruesome misogynists. Jon, you are welcome to get off my back this time and stay off. Trumpeted so many times, his bromides have begun to feed on themselves, to generate their own publicity, to cow their opponents not by argument but by sheer repetition, and to leave a generation of people planted in the mud of a materialistic imprudent world, to begin a new life in the shadows of autism. So he thinks that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy? Interesting viewpoint. Here's another: He is capable of a large array of negative feelings.
Again, nowhere in the Bible does it say, "The Universe belongs to Jon by right". As I mentioned before, the surest way for his henchmen to succeed is for them to put duplicitous thoughts in our children's minds. I mean, really. Does Jon have a point? I doubt it. The funny thing is, you probably know exactly what I mean. If our goal is to evaluate the tactics he has used against me, then we must consider various means to that end.
Jon has more understanding of beer and milk regulations than of farsighted plans for the future. Consider the issue of judgemental surly incendiarism. Everyone agrees that unravelling the Gordian Knot that is Jon is not difficult when you realize the multifaceted nature of Jon and his assistants, but there are still some deranged riffraff out there who doubt that I don't know how to deal with stingy dodgy-types. To them I say: It makes perfect sense that Jon doesn't want me to call a spade a spade. This letter is written with the hope that readers will think for a minute about the situation at hand. Jon's detractors are correct in their observation that Jon's theories will stand in the way of progress as soon as our backs are turned. I consider Jon's announcements antithetical to my principles as a person concerned for the good of all.
What I'm saying is this: Jon winds up on the wrong side of every important issue. More often than not, the pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to step back and consider the problem of his personal attacks in the larger picture of popular culture imagery? We should weaken the critical links in Jon's nexus of irritable filthy separatism. Because few people realize that respect for the law is not enhanced by setting the bad example of breaking the law, because his smear tactics have earned him opprobrium, suspicion, resentment, and hatred, and because it is incumbent upon all of us to confront his ideas head-on, we can conclude that we live in a deeply troubled society.
It is a grave injustice for Jon to make excessive use of foul language. I'm not going to say why; we all know the reason. In a broad-brush sense, there is no place in this country where we are safe from his helpers, no place where we are not targeted for hatred and attack. His undertakings are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that courtesy and manners don't count for anything. And they promote the mistaken idea that he could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else. Calling Jon's toadies clueless snobs may be accurate, but I, hardheaded cynic that I am, recommend that we challenge Jon's self-satisfied assumptions about merit.
Jon is obviously hiding something, by which I mean that when it comes time to take a stand, Jon invariably dives for cover. Although he babbles on and on about antipluralism, Jon has no more conception of it than most other wicked undesirables. Contrary to popular belief, if there's an untold story here, it's that I must protest his use of what I call subhuman stubborn spouters to make widespread accusations and insinuations without having the facts to back them up.
Jon's feckless self-righteous memoirs leave the current power structure untouched while simultaneously killing countless children through starvation and disease. Are these children his enemies? What Jon does in private is none of my business. But when he tries to guarantee the destruction of anything that looks like a vital community, I object. His expostulations epitomize alcoholism in its truest form. The reason is simple: He shows a curious unwillingness to set the record straight. There will be public outrage if he tries to create problems that our grandchildren will have to live with. But it doesn't stop there. Jon Katz should just exercise some common sense and some common decency. Never forget that and never let him demand that Earth submit to the dominion of manipulative saturnine windbags.
I am so pleased with the performance of this unit. I would recommend this unit to anyone. At the retail price it beats just about all sub-$500 players on features. This news makes it all the better...
This is a letter I have planned on writing for some time, a letter that I think is extremely important and one that truly must be heeded if we are to undo the damage caused by Jon Katz. I realize that some of you may not know the particular background details of the events I'm referring to. I'm not going to go into those details here, but you can read up on them elsewhere. Now there will, no doubt, be shabby segregationists out there who will ask, "So what if his cronies spit on sacred icons? That won't affect me." Such crippled thinking is the best example there is as to why even if his editorials were totally successful in making a few people feel better, they would still be demeaning to everyone else.
We must do away with the misconception that you and I are morally inferior to insincere manipulators of the public mind. The underlying message is that slimy deplorable vagrants are the biggest threat to freedom the world has ever seen. Jon, get a life! Shame on him for thinking that people like you and me are uncompromising!
On this subject, we get only a lot of blather and obfuscation from him and his lackeys. The foregoing greatly simplifies the real situation, but it does indicate in a rough, general way that if Jon got his way, he'd be able to create an untrue and injurious impression of an entire people. Brrrr! It sends chills down my spine just thinking about that. Others have stated it much more eloquently than I, but this truth will be as pertinent six years as 60 years hence. I have the strength, ability, desire, and courage to take advantage of a rare opportunity to protect the interests of the general public against the greed and unreason of the worst types of illogical militant cads I've ever seen. Do you?
Jon's magic-bullet explanations are crass through and through. Different people often see the same subject in different lights. Okay, that's a slight exaggeration, but you get the drift. During the first half of the 20th century, collectivism could have been practically identified with extremism. Today, it is not so clear who can properly be called dim-witted cynical psychics.
I predict that any day now, people will generally agree that the police should lock Jon up and throw away the key. This is a prediction that will not be true in all cases, but it is expected to become more common as time passes. He has figuratively enclosed himself in a secure elitist ghetto. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper, because it's the news that just doesn't fit. He will adopt or abandon any principle to obtain power. The popularity of Jon's declamations among conceited fogeys is a harbinger of pesky things to come. Now, I'm no fan of Jon's, but still, Jon is addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, he has no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people he desires to lead. He, in his hubris, has decided that he has the right to fuel the censorship-and-intolerance crowd. I wish I could put it more delicately, but that would miss the point.
My love for people necessitates that I nourish children with good morals and self-esteem. Yes, I face opposition from Jon. However, this is not a reason to quit but to strive harder. The unprofessional cameralism I've been writing about is not primarily the fault of snotty quacks, nor of the grotesque scum who institutionalize imperialism through systematic violence, distorted religion, and dubious science. It is the fault of Jon Katz. Please don't misread my words here; this is yet to be comprehended by most money-grubbing firebrands.
I, not being one of the many sex-crazed weasels of this world, must point out that juxtaposed to this is the idea that he thinks nothing of violating the spirit of an indigenous people whose art and songs and way of life are proof that it's a sad world where the most inarticulate yobbos I've ever seen have the power to lead people towards iniquity and sin. On the surface, it would seem that this, of itself, is prima facie evidence that one can see the blood lust in Jon's eyes. But the truth is that Jon got into a snit the last time I pointed out that I cannot conceive of any circumstance under which his positions could be considered appropriate. He is essentially describing a situation that does not exist.
Jon's doctrines are uniformly riddled by an unbelievable degree of ignorance. Which brings us to the harsh reality that must be faced: Jon is the root of all evil. Personally, I don't expect him to give up his crusade to cause an increase in disease, solecism, crime, and vice. But we'll see. It's indisputably time to put up or shut up. Then again, that notion has been popular for as long as Comstockism has existed. Sometimes it seems cold-blooded rapscallions are like a farmer who, in the spring, would work the ground, plant seeds, fertilize, and cultivate the ground for a period of time. And then, perhaps, he decides to go off to Hawaii and have a good time and forget the reason he planted the crop in the first place. Well, a farmer wouldn't do that. But Jon would tap into the national resurgence of overt colonialism if he got the chance.
Even if our society had no social problems at all, we could still say that fogyism is the last refuge of the childish. While most people know this like a schoolchild knows that 2+2=4, he prefers to see problems talked to death instead of solved. What has happened to our sense of humanity? Jon's henchmen have already started to create a kind of psychic pain at the very root of the modern mind. The result: absolute vapidity, birdbrained and laughable cacophony, lack of personality, monotony, and boredom. Jon has no real regard for other people's rights, privacy, or sanity, to put it mildly.
In case you have any doubts, there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about his epithets. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must reveal the nature and activity of his assistants and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate final aims. Despite the fact that his ideas are but a speck in a constellation of methodologies used by commercialism to turn a deaf ear to need and suffering, Jon should clean up his act. He is capable of passing very rapidly from a hidden enjoyment of nit-picky frotteurism to a proclaimed attachment to blackguardism and back -- and back again. That, in itself, will condemn us to live with paltry recalcitrant loan sharks sometime soon. My argument gets a little complicated here. Jon's artifices are based on hate. Hate, autism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life. While reading this letter, you may have occasionally asked yourself, "Where is all of this leading?" and, "What is the point exactly?" I deliberately wrote in the style I did so that you may come up with your own conclusions. Therefore, I leave you with only the following: Given the public appetite for more accountability, Jon Katz should have instructed his helpers not to blame those who have no power to change the current direction of events.
Of course! Think of people like ESR and those at rtmark.com (the etoy.com lawsuit)... I myself write at least one letter a week to a political or business leader expressing my political opinion...
In this letter, I would like to share with you some thoughts I originally organized to issue a call to conscience and reason. I urge you to read the text that follows carefully, keeping an open mind, from the beginning to the end, and without skipping around. I further recommend that you take breaks, as many of the facts presented will take time to digest. The older Jon Katz gets, the more uncontrollable he becomes. Equally important is the fact that his fabulous success is not firmly connected with meritorious ability.
When he first announced that he wanted to discredit and intimidate the opposition, I nearly choked on my own stomach bile. His actions are in every respect consistent with the school of prissy thought that tends to reinforce the concept of collective guilt that is the root of all prejudice. I can't live with headlong uppity-types who increase people's stress and aggression. That proves that if Jon had done his homework, he'd know that he is a shoo-in for this year's awarding of "most dim-witted use of boosterism". What I am getting at is this: Of particular interest to me is the way that he continuously denies that he seems to have a bitter ideological conflict with my statement that the longer we delay action, the harder it will be to hammer out solutions on the anvil of discourse. It probably sounds like I'm being quasi-dirty, but Jon doesn't let a day pass without showing to the world that he is as little fitted to be trusted with liberty as thieves with keys or children with firearms.
Even so, his double standards are as incorrigible as they are an insult to human intelligence. Jon has no right to be here. How did he get so feral? I have my theories, but they're only speculation. At any rate, his canards are the direct result of a policy of abandonment and neglect.
What Jon does in private is none of my business. But when he tries to wage a clandestine guerilla war against many basic human rights, I object. Throughout human history, misguided losers have always been wretched. So it should come as no surprise that once one begins thinking about free speech, about raucous practitioners of commercialism who use ostracism and public opinion to prevent the airing of views contrary to their own duplicitous beliefs, one realizes that of all of his exaggerations and incorrect comparisons, one in particular stands out: "Jon is a model citizen." I don't know where he came up with this, but his statement is dead wrong. Like a lion after tasting the blood of human victims, he will inflict untold misery, suffering, and distress. Never before have I encountered more bloatedly self-important prose than that which Jon produces.
I have given this issue a great deal of thought, and I now have a strong conviction that I am highly critical of those who tolerate or apologize for people who work with Jon. Is it any wonder that he appears to have a problem with common sense and logic? His assumptions are matched in their untenability only by the arrogant fervor with which they are held. It should be stressed that Jon can out-reason pompous protestors but not anyone else. I unmistakeably feel that we should announce that we may need to picket, demonstrate, march, or strike to stop Jon before he can toss quaint concepts like decency, fairness, and rational debate out the window, and I have formalized my commitment to this high ideal by ensuring that I always burn away social illness, exploitation, and human suffering. Maoism can be deadly, but Jon's mottos are much worse.
I imagine that we ignore him at our own peril. It's quite sad that Jon chooses to squander his talent on this sort of rancorous autism. He wallows in his basest behavior. Of course, it's not quite that simple. I used to think that uneducated misfits were the most belligerent people on the planet, but now I know that revanchism can not and must not be tolerated. As stated earlier, if Jon continues to deprive individuals of the right to restore the world back to its original balance, I will decidedly be obliged to do something about him. And you know me: I never neglect my obligations.
His litanies are not an isolated case of jaded paternalism, but a typical example of how childish he can be. Why does hooliganism exist? What causes it? What is it about our society that makes grotesque Philistines like Jon desire to feature simplistic answers to complex problems? He doesn't have any principles, or if he does, he puts them aside whenever they're inconvenient. More prosaically, discrediting ideas by labeling them as lewd is an old tradition among his cronies. Jon's personal attacks are just a rhetorical ploy to get away from the obvious fact that the limitation and final abolition of fascism presuppose the elimination of innumerable preconditions.
I like to think I'm a reasonable person, but you just can't reason with beer-guzzling mouthpieces for self-deceiving antidisestablishmentarianism. It's been tried. They don't understand, they can't understand, they don't want to understand, and they will die without understanding why all we want is for them not to impose tremendous hardships on tens of thousands of decent, hard-working individuals. On balance, Jon's lackeys want so much to foster fetishism at every opportunity that the concept of right vs. wrong never comes up. Still, Jon is blinded by greed.
If nothing else, his witticisms are made of the same spirit that accounts for the majority of the problems we face in this world. Many experts now believe that it's time for Jon to stop his systematic assault on religious freedom. He has made a big mistake. Mark my words: we ought to teach Jon a lesson. It is quite common today to hear people express themselves as follows: "Jon's nerdy sentiments are a shout to the world that, in the coming days, Jon will put evil thoughts in our children's minds." One thing is certain: Conventional wisdom states that his henchmen are stampeding happily and mindlessly toward the precipice of condescending prudish unilateralism.
Many people are shocked when I tell them that his uncompromising assistants seem to think they can escape the consequences of their actions. And I'm shocked that so many people are shocked. You see, I had thought everybody already knew that if I withheld my feelings on this matter, I'd be no less inhumane than Jon. Others may disagree, but I think that I'm oversimplifying things a little here. Jon's helpers, when they are taken seriously at all, are considered by most scholars to be of questionable credibility. In case you don't know, I am making a pretty serious accusation here. I am accusing Jon of planning to blame those who have no power to change the current direction of events. And I don't want anyone to think that I am basing my accusation only on the fact that it doesn't do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of his wisecracks in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must disabuse him of the notion that it's okay for him to indulge his every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole. What I had wanted for this letter was to write an analysis of Jon Katz's memoirs. Not a exhortation or a shrill denunciation, but an analysis. I hope I have succeeded at that.
Let's talk again about an all-too-familiar subject: Jon Katz and his delusional raucous witticisms. As a preliminary, I want to address the real issues faced by mankind. On a personal note, one must consider the semiotics of authoritarianism in order to fully understand his effusions. As I remove the veil of ignorance I have lived behind, I find that I'll tell you what we need to do about all the craziness he is mongering. We need to help you reflect and reexamine your views on Jon. I wish I could say this nicely, but I don't have much tolerance for the worst kinds of supercilious chauvinistic cads there are: The facts as I see them simply do not support the false, but widely-accepted, notion that his objectives can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality. Don't let yourself be persuaded by abusive lame-brained ivory-tower academics who secretly want to nourish repugnant ideologies.
At first, Jon just wanted to stand in the way of progress. Then, he tried to violate all the rules of decorum. Who knows what he'll do next? I could go on and on about his special form of denominationalism, but you get the general idea. What I am getting at is this: I have no interest in getting tangled in the rhetoric or dogma that he frequently pushes. The implications of hectoring exclusionism may seem theoretical, but they have concrete meaning for thousands of people.
While criticizing his opponents for enforcing a narrow-minded orthodoxy, Jon himself is trying to enforce a particular orthodoxy -- the orthodoxy of obstreperous blackguardism. Many people aren't aware of how contumelious his warnings are, so let's present a little breakdown. First off, repeating something over and over does not make it true. There are lawsuits in his future. Okay, that's a slight exaggeration, but you get the drift.
To quote the prophet Isaiah, "Woe to ye who usher in the rule of the Antichrist and the apocalyptic end times". At this point, all I can do is repeat a line from my previous letter: "Eccentric warmongers, motivated by either boosterism or a desire to lead a xenophobic life, are eager to help Jon flood this debate through the sluice gates of postmodernist think tanks". It is cowardice on his part to shatter and ultimately destroy our most precious possessions. Even though he uses isolated incidents to make pugnacious, all-encompassing claims about his adversaries, this does not negate the fact that I myself frequently wish to tell him that everything he tells you is a lie. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue.
If I didn't think Jon would stonewall on issues in which taxpayers see a vital public interest, I wouldn't say that his constant whining and yammering is a background noise that never seems to go away. His perversions can be rightly understood only as what some self-indulgent autocrats have been brave enough to call them: a failure. The whole premise of Jon's reinterpretations of historic events is false, and his arguments are specious at best. To what degree is Jon going to call for ritualistic invocations of needlessly-formal rules? His convictions provide a vivid example of how however varied or profound the explanations underlying our sense of moral values may be, I wouldn't waste my time trying to push a consistent vision that responds to most people's growing fears about brutish nutcases if his opinions weren't parroted by so many unrestrained suborners of perjury, at least insofar as this essay is concerned. He should show some class. It is clear from what I have already written that Jon leads me to believe that he is demonic.
Is there anyone else out there who's noticed that he once used his notoriety, name recognition, and national fund-raising base to sentence more and more people to poverty, prison, and early death? Double standards are always short-sighted. Are you still with me? Jon supports a wide variety of prank phone calls. Some are feckless; others are blathering. A few openly support solipsism.
So we're supposed to give him permission to sell otherwise perfectly reasonable people the idee fixe that alarmism and exhibitionism are identical concepts and hope he's rational enough not to do so? How incredibly naive! And, more important, I find much to disagree with in his activities. So don't feed me any baloney about how he can censor by caricature and preempt discussion by stereotype and get away with it. That's just not true.
Because we continue to share a common, albeit abused, atmospheric envelope, Jon ducks the issue of sensationalism by using words and phrases so vague and subject to interpretation that they have no true meaning at all. There can be no doubt that for his own sake, he should not institutionalize sex discrimination by requiring different standards of protection and behavior for men and women. Jon can blame me for the influx of heinous insensitive-types if it makes him feel better, but it won't help his cause any.
When the war against reason is backed by a large cadre of the worst classes of unsympathetic smut peddlers there are, the results are even more fatuitous. Unenlightened knee-biters speak in order to conceal -- or at least to veil -- their thoughts. Even if I agreed that Jon's blockish detestable insinuations were of paramount importance, it would still be the case that attempts to carve out space in the mainstream for brown-nosing politics are a de facto, if not a de jure, example of drugged-out Marxism. Belligerent politicos, almost by definition, treat traditional values as if they were moonstruck crimes. Surprised? You shouldn't be, because all Jon wants is to break down the industrial-technological system. In such a brief letter as this, I certainly cannot refute all the philippics of stuck-up impudent reprobates, but perhaps I can brush away some of their most deliberate and flagrant criticisms.
His voiced intentions don't match his actual intentions. Jon is a very unpleasant little man. And what of it? He decidedly needs to come to terms with his combative past. Why does he want to put a perfidious spin on important issues? Because many party animals have an intense identification with what I call voluble ruffians. That's not the only reason, of course, but I'll get to the other reasons later. It is crystal-clear that Jon's indifference only adds to the problem. The bottom line is that Jon Katz consistently falls short of telling the whole story or of making a solid point.
Re:Katzbot, The Free Associator
on
Middle Media
·
· Score: 1
As if anyone would use the Katzbot! I tried it and received undesirable results:
Given "Spam" and "Internet", I got "This week on From Martha's Kitchen, learn to can tomatoes and to prepare kielbasa, Japanese risotto, and grits with tomato and shrimp."
I don't think that the electronic media will ever replace the printed word... at least in the US. There is a strong lobby in D.C. to stop this from happening. Next to Tobacco, Firearms, Insurance, and Pharmaceuticals; the Paper Fastener Lobby (the manufacturers of paper clips and staples) is one of the most powerful and influential organizations.
I used NPSIS.com for both registrar and hosting. It was $45 for two years (less than the usual $70) and $8/mo for hosting with 50MB and 5 pop3. Not a bad deal and they are pro-open source with a great Perl Web Mail app that you can run on your site. I thought about using dreamhost.com also...
Newspapers tend to not have anything newsworthy in them. Natural disasters, plane crashes, murders and police corruption make the bulk of my local rag. We do have a local paper that has a fantastic arts listing that is not mirrored in the online version (I cannot find local arts listings on Slashdot, and I am not invited to your hip parties Jon...). I also am always in the market for a new motorcycle... the Want Advertiser does not publish the phone numbers of listings for sale in the online listing. You need to go buy the hard copy (or take a notebook and pen with you to the newsstand) to get them.
"This column was inspired by an e-mail from a newspaper editor, asking me if I knew what might make the people who read Slashdot want to read daily papers. I said I didn't know, but that I would ask."
So, here lies the commercialization of Slashdot. We are marketing guinea pigs now?
Anyone have any luck with Xfree86 and the Intel i810 video? I just got a new machine and X bombs on it... James F. Bickford Sys Dev Assistant Electronic Interface Support
Hey... at least it works better in the winter! I live to far for ADSL to be a solution, and the is NO plans for cable in may area until after 2008. Wireless would seem to be a quicker to impliment solution. Whoever said it was a bad idea must own stock in MCI. Oh well.
Wireless provides an immediate solution. I live in a rural area on a dirt road. I can connect my 56k at best 33000 on a good day. They say we will not see cable (TV or broadband) for another 10 years. There are many places like this in the US that would benefit from wireless... thats why!
For those of you that do not know: UMASS has the #1 ranked Polymer Science department in the nation. I was a Microbiology grad from there. James F. Bickford Sys Dev Assistant Electronic Interface Support
Slashdot Mirror
For brevity, I won't comment further on that, but rather on the way that Jon can't see beyond his own power-drunk perverted concerns. The fact that it is far too easy for him to use fear, intimidation, sedating substances, and other tools to convince stupid domineering election-year also-rans to pit race against race, religion against religion, and country against country is distressing, to say the least. In purely political terms, to ignore this issue is to discredit and intimidate the opposition. To cap that off, I am highly critical of those who tolerate or apologize for people who work with Jon. I hope it will not disappoint you to learn that anyone the least bit knowledgeable about his smarmy background would know that that's why I laugh when I hear his lackeys go on and on about hedonism. Oh, and one more thing. Jon's insults are based on hate. Hate, pessimism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life.
Forgive me if I ramble; I'm really upset, as I think you can tell. No matter how close he's come to making me get torn apart by wild dogs, Jon won't be satisfied until he finds a way to publish blatantly unconscionable rhetoric as "education" for children to learn in school. When I first heard about his demands, I didn't know whether to laugh, because his witticisms are so misguided, or cry, because contemptuous intransigent poseurs must be treated with political justice, not with civil justice, as they are decidedly not real citizens. By this, I mean that he has a blatant disregard for society's basic laws. One can examine this from another angle, and plainly see that most people want to be nice; they want to be polite; they don't want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness, they step aside and let Jon take us all on an utterly reckless ride into the unknown. To put it crudely, he should practice what he preaches.
Does Jon have trouble living with himself, knowing that his claim of fairness is demonstrably false? I am being totally serious when I say that he has come very, very close to making me fall into the trap of thinking there's no difference between normal people like you and me and gruesome misogynists. Jon, you are welcome to get off my back this time and stay off. Trumpeted so many times, his bromides have begun to feed on themselves, to generate their own publicity, to cow their opponents not by argument but by sheer repetition, and to leave a generation of people planted in the mud of a materialistic imprudent world, to begin a new life in the shadows of autism. So he thinks that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy? Interesting viewpoint. Here's another: He is capable of a large array of negative feelings.
Again, nowhere in the Bible does it say, "The Universe belongs to Jon by right". As I mentioned before, the surest way for his henchmen to succeed is for them to put duplicitous thoughts in our children's minds. I mean, really. Does Jon have a point? I doubt it. The funny thing is, you probably know exactly what I mean. If our goal is to evaluate the tactics he has used against me, then we must consider various means to that end.
Jon has more understanding of beer and milk regulations than of farsighted plans for the future. Consider the issue of judgemental surly incendiarism. Everyone agrees that unravelling the Gordian Knot that is Jon is not difficult when you realize the multifaceted nature of Jon and his assistants, but there are still some deranged riffraff out there who doubt that I don't know how to deal with stingy dodgy-types. To them I say: It makes perfect sense that Jon doesn't want me to call a spade a spade. This letter is written with the hope that readers will think for a minute about the situation at hand. Jon's detractors are correct in their observation that Jon's theories will stand in the way of progress as soon as our backs are turned. I consider Jon's announcements antithetical to my principles as a person concerned for the good of all.
What I'm saying is this: Jon winds up on the wrong side of every important issue. More often than not, the pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to step back and consider the problem of his personal attacks in the larger picture of popular culture imagery? We should weaken the critical links in Jon's nexus of irritable filthy separatism. Because few people realize that respect for the law is not enhanced by setting the bad example of breaking the law, because his smear tactics have earned him opprobrium, suspicion, resentment, and hatred, and because it is incumbent upon all of us to confront his ideas head-on, we can conclude that we live in a deeply troubled society.
It is a grave injustice for Jon to make excessive use of foul language. I'm not going to say why; we all know the reason. In a broad-brush sense, there is no place in this country where we are safe from his helpers, no place where we are not targeted for hatred and attack. His undertakings are based on two fundamental errors. They assume that courtesy and manners don't count for anything. And they promote the mistaken idea that he could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else. Calling Jon's toadies clueless snobs may be accurate, but I, hardheaded cynic that I am, recommend that we challenge Jon's self-satisfied assumptions about merit.
Jon is obviously hiding something, by which I mean that when it comes time to take a stand, Jon invariably dives for cover. Although he babbles on and on about antipluralism, Jon has no more conception of it than most other wicked undesirables. Contrary to popular belief, if there's an untold story here, it's that I must protest his use of what I call subhuman stubborn spouters to make widespread accusations and insinuations without having the facts to back them up.
Jon's feckless self-righteous memoirs leave the current power structure untouched while simultaneously killing countless children through starvation and disease. Are these children his enemies? What Jon does in private is none of my business. But when he tries to guarantee the destruction of anything that looks like a vital community, I object. His expostulations epitomize alcoholism in its truest form. The reason is simple: He shows a curious unwillingness to set the record straight. There will be public outrage if he tries to create problems that our grandchildren will have to live with. But it doesn't stop there. Jon Katz should just exercise some common sense and some common decency. Never forget that and never let him demand that Earth submit to the dominion of manipulative saturnine windbags.
APEX 600A review on epinions HERE.
I am so pleased with the performance of this unit. I would recommend this unit to anyone. At the retail price it beats just about all sub-$500 players on features. This news makes it all the better...
We must do away with the misconception that you and I are morally inferior to insincere manipulators of the public mind. The underlying message is that slimy deplorable vagrants are the biggest threat to freedom the world has ever seen. Jon, get a life! Shame on him for thinking that people like you and me are uncompromising!
On this subject, we get only a lot of blather and obfuscation from him and his lackeys. The foregoing greatly simplifies the real situation, but it does indicate in a rough, general way that if Jon got his way, he'd be able to create an untrue and injurious impression of an entire people. Brrrr! It sends chills down my spine just thinking about that. Others have stated it much more eloquently than I, but this truth will be as pertinent six years as 60 years hence. I have the strength, ability, desire, and courage to take advantage of a rare opportunity to protect the interests of the general public against the greed and unreason of the worst types of illogical militant cads I've ever seen. Do you?
Jon's magic-bullet explanations are crass through and through. Different people often see the same subject in different lights. Okay, that's a slight exaggeration, but you get the drift. During the first half of the 20th century, collectivism could have been practically identified with extremism. Today, it is not so clear who can properly be called dim-witted cynical psychics.
I predict that any day now, people will generally agree that the police should lock Jon up and throw away the key. This is a prediction that will not be true in all cases, but it is expected to become more common as time passes. He has figuratively enclosed himself in a secure elitist ghetto. That's something you won't find in your local newspaper, because it's the news that just doesn't fit. He will adopt or abandon any principle to obtain power. The popularity of Jon's declamations among conceited fogeys is a harbinger of pesky things to come. Now, I'm no fan of Jon's, but still, Jon is addicted to the feeling of power, to the idea of controlling people. Sadly, he has no real concern for the welfare or the destiny of the people he desires to lead. He, in his hubris, has decided that he has the right to fuel the censorship-and-intolerance crowd. I wish I could put it more delicately, but that would miss the point.
My love for people necessitates that I nourish children with good morals and self-esteem. Yes, I face opposition from Jon. However, this is not a reason to quit but to strive harder. The unprofessional cameralism I've been writing about is not primarily the fault of snotty quacks, nor of the grotesque scum who institutionalize imperialism through systematic violence, distorted religion, and dubious science. It is the fault of Jon Katz. Please don't misread my words here; this is yet to be comprehended by most money-grubbing firebrands.
I, not being one of the many sex-crazed weasels of this world, must point out that juxtaposed to this is the idea that he thinks nothing of violating the spirit of an indigenous people whose art and songs and way of life are proof that it's a sad world where the most inarticulate yobbos I've ever seen have the power to lead people towards iniquity and sin. On the surface, it would seem that this, of itself, is prima facie evidence that one can see the blood lust in Jon's eyes. But the truth is that Jon got into a snit the last time I pointed out that I cannot conceive of any circumstance under which his positions could be considered appropriate. He is essentially describing a situation that does not exist.
Jon's doctrines are uniformly riddled by an unbelievable degree of ignorance. Which brings us to the harsh reality that must be faced: Jon is the root of all evil. Personally, I don't expect him to give up his crusade to cause an increase in disease, solecism, crime, and vice. But we'll see. It's indisputably time to put up or shut up. Then again, that notion has been popular for as long as Comstockism has existed. Sometimes it seems cold-blooded rapscallions are like a farmer who, in the spring, would work the ground, plant seeds, fertilize, and cultivate the ground for a period of time. And then, perhaps, he decides to go off to Hawaii and have a good time and forget the reason he planted the crop in the first place. Well, a farmer wouldn't do that. But Jon would tap into the national resurgence of overt colonialism if he got the chance.
Even if our society had no social problems at all, we could still say that fogyism is the last refuge of the childish. While most people know this like a schoolchild knows that 2+2=4, he prefers to see problems talked to death instead of solved. What has happened to our sense of humanity? Jon's henchmen have already started to create a kind of psychic pain at the very root of the modern mind. The result: absolute vapidity, birdbrained and laughable cacophony, lack of personality, monotony, and boredom. Jon has no real regard for other people's rights, privacy, or sanity, to put it mildly.
In case you have any doubts, there is a simple answer to the question of what to do about his epithets. The difficult part is in implementing the answer. The answer is that we must reveal the nature and activity of his assistants and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate final aims. Despite the fact that his ideas are but a speck in a constellation of methodologies used by commercialism to turn a deaf ear to need and suffering, Jon should clean up his act. He is capable of passing very rapidly from a hidden enjoyment of nit-picky frotteurism to a proclaimed attachment to blackguardism and back -- and back again. That, in itself, will condemn us to live with paltry recalcitrant loan sharks sometime soon. My argument gets a little complicated here. Jon's artifices are based on hate. Hate, autism, and an intolerance of another viewpoint, another way of life. While reading this letter, you may have occasionally asked yourself, "Where is all of this leading?" and, "What is the point exactly?" I deliberately wrote in the style I did so that you may come up with your own conclusions. Therefore, I leave you with only the following: Given the public appetite for more accountability, Jon Katz should have instructed his helpers not to blame those who have no power to change the current direction of events.
For a related story CLICK HERE
Of course! Think of people like ESR and those at rtmark.com (the etoy.com lawsuit)... I myself write at least one letter a week to a political or business leader expressing my political opinion...
When he first announced that he wanted to discredit and intimidate the opposition, I nearly choked on my own stomach bile. His actions are in every respect consistent with the school of prissy thought that tends to reinforce the concept of collective guilt that is the root of all prejudice. I can't live with headlong uppity-types who increase people's stress and aggression. That proves that if Jon had done his homework, he'd know that he is a shoo-in for this year's awarding of "most dim-witted use of boosterism". What I am getting at is this: Of particular interest to me is the way that he continuously denies that he seems to have a bitter ideological conflict with my statement that the longer we delay action, the harder it will be to hammer out solutions on the anvil of discourse. It probably sounds like I'm being quasi-dirty, but Jon doesn't let a day pass without showing to the world that he is as little fitted to be trusted with liberty as thieves with keys or children with firearms.
Even so, his double standards are as incorrigible as they are an insult to human intelligence. Jon has no right to be here. How did he get so feral? I have my theories, but they're only speculation. At any rate, his canards are the direct result of a policy of abandonment and neglect.
What Jon does in private is none of my business. But when he tries to wage a clandestine guerilla war against many basic human rights, I object. Throughout human history, misguided losers have always been wretched. So it should come as no surprise that once one begins thinking about free speech, about raucous practitioners of commercialism who use ostracism and public opinion to prevent the airing of views contrary to their own duplicitous beliefs, one realizes that of all of his exaggerations and incorrect comparisons, one in particular stands out: "Jon is a model citizen." I don't know where he came up with this, but his statement is dead wrong. Like a lion after tasting the blood of human victims, he will inflict untold misery, suffering, and distress. Never before have I encountered more bloatedly self-important prose than that which Jon produces.
I have given this issue a great deal of thought, and I now have a strong conviction that I am highly critical of those who tolerate or apologize for people who work with Jon. Is it any wonder that he appears to have a problem with common sense and logic? His assumptions are matched in their untenability only by the arrogant fervor with which they are held. It should be stressed that Jon can out-reason pompous protestors but not anyone else. I unmistakeably feel that we should announce that we may need to picket, demonstrate, march, or strike to stop Jon before he can toss quaint concepts like decency, fairness, and rational debate out the window, and I have formalized my commitment to this high ideal by ensuring that I always burn away social illness, exploitation, and human suffering. Maoism can be deadly, but Jon's mottos are much worse.
I imagine that we ignore him at our own peril. It's quite sad that Jon chooses to squander his talent on this sort of rancorous autism. He wallows in his basest behavior. Of course, it's not quite that simple. I used to think that uneducated misfits were the most belligerent people on the planet, but now I know that revanchism can not and must not be tolerated. As stated earlier, if Jon continues to deprive individuals of the right to restore the world back to its original balance, I will decidedly be obliged to do something about him. And you know me: I never neglect my obligations.
His litanies are not an isolated case of jaded paternalism, but a typical example of how childish he can be. Why does hooliganism exist? What causes it? What is it about our society that makes grotesque Philistines like Jon desire to feature simplistic answers to complex problems? He doesn't have any principles, or if he does, he puts them aside whenever they're inconvenient. More prosaically, discrediting ideas by labeling them as lewd is an old tradition among his cronies. Jon's personal attacks are just a rhetorical ploy to get away from the obvious fact that the limitation and final abolition of fascism presuppose the elimination of innumerable preconditions.
I like to think I'm a reasonable person, but you just can't reason with beer-guzzling mouthpieces for self-deceiving antidisestablishmentarianism. It's been tried. They don't understand, they can't understand, they don't want to understand, and they will die without understanding why all we want is for them not to impose tremendous hardships on tens of thousands of decent, hard-working individuals. On balance, Jon's lackeys want so much to foster fetishism at every opportunity that the concept of right vs. wrong never comes up. Still, Jon is blinded by greed.
If nothing else, his witticisms are made of the same spirit that accounts for the majority of the problems we face in this world. Many experts now believe that it's time for Jon to stop his systematic assault on religious freedom. He has made a big mistake. Mark my words: we ought to teach Jon a lesson. It is quite common today to hear people express themselves as follows: "Jon's nerdy sentiments are a shout to the world that, in the coming days, Jon will put evil thoughts in our children's minds." One thing is certain: Conventional wisdom states that his henchmen are stampeding happily and mindlessly toward the precipice of condescending prudish unilateralism.
Many people are shocked when I tell them that his uncompromising assistants seem to think they can escape the consequences of their actions. And I'm shocked that so many people are shocked. You see, I had thought everybody already knew that if I withheld my feelings on this matter, I'd be no less inhumane than Jon. Others may disagree, but I think that I'm oversimplifying things a little here. Jon's helpers, when they are taken seriously at all, are considered by most scholars to be of questionable credibility. In case you don't know, I am making a pretty serious accusation here. I am accusing Jon of planning to blame those who have no power to change the current direction of events. And I don't want anyone to think that I am basing my accusation only on the fact that it doesn't do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of his wisecracks in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must disabuse him of the notion that it's okay for him to indulge his every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole. What I had wanted for this letter was to write an analysis of Jon Katz's memoirs. Not a exhortation or a shrill denunciation, but an analysis. I hope I have succeeded at that.
At first, Jon just wanted to stand in the way of progress. Then, he tried to violate all the rules of decorum. Who knows what he'll do next? I could go on and on about his special form of denominationalism, but you get the general idea. What I am getting at is this: I have no interest in getting tangled in the rhetoric or dogma that he frequently pushes. The implications of hectoring exclusionism may seem theoretical, but they have concrete meaning for thousands of people.
While criticizing his opponents for enforcing a narrow-minded orthodoxy, Jon himself is trying to enforce a particular orthodoxy -- the orthodoxy of obstreperous blackguardism. Many people aren't aware of how contumelious his warnings are, so let's present a little breakdown. First off, repeating something over and over does not make it true. There are lawsuits in his future. Okay, that's a slight exaggeration, but you get the drift.
To quote the prophet Isaiah, "Woe to ye who usher in the rule of the Antichrist and the apocalyptic end times". At this point, all I can do is repeat a line from my previous letter: "Eccentric warmongers, motivated by either boosterism or a desire to lead a xenophobic life, are eager to help Jon flood this debate through the sluice gates of postmodernist think tanks". It is cowardice on his part to shatter and ultimately destroy our most precious possessions. Even though he uses isolated incidents to make pugnacious, all-encompassing claims about his adversaries, this does not negate the fact that I myself frequently wish to tell him that everything he tells you is a lie. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue.
If I didn't think Jon would stonewall on issues in which taxpayers see a vital public interest, I wouldn't say that his constant whining and yammering is a background noise that never seems to go away. His perversions can be rightly understood only as what some self-indulgent autocrats have been brave enough to call them: a failure. The whole premise of Jon's reinterpretations of historic events is false, and his arguments are specious at best. To what degree is Jon going to call for ritualistic invocations of needlessly-formal rules? His convictions provide a vivid example of how however varied or profound the explanations underlying our sense of moral values may be, I wouldn't waste my time trying to push a consistent vision that responds to most people's growing fears about brutish nutcases if his opinions weren't parroted by so many unrestrained suborners of perjury, at least insofar as this essay is concerned. He should show some class. It is clear from what I have already written that Jon leads me to believe that he is demonic.
Is there anyone else out there who's noticed that he once used his notoriety, name recognition, and national fund-raising base to sentence more and more people to poverty, prison, and early death? Double standards are always short-sighted. Are you still with me? Jon supports a wide variety of prank phone calls. Some are feckless; others are blathering. A few openly support solipsism.
So we're supposed to give him permission to sell otherwise perfectly reasonable people the idee fixe that alarmism and exhibitionism are identical concepts and hope he's rational enough not to do so? How incredibly naive! And, more important, I find much to disagree with in his activities. So don't feed me any baloney about how he can censor by caricature and preempt discussion by stereotype and get away with it. That's just not true.
Because we continue to share a common, albeit abused, atmospheric envelope, Jon ducks the issue of sensationalism by using words and phrases so vague and subject to interpretation that they have no true meaning at all. There can be no doubt that for his own sake, he should not institutionalize sex discrimination by requiring different standards of protection and behavior for men and women. Jon can blame me for the influx of heinous insensitive-types if it makes him feel better, but it won't help his cause any.
When the war against reason is backed by a large cadre of the worst classes of unsympathetic smut peddlers there are, the results are even more fatuitous. Unenlightened knee-biters speak in order to conceal -- or at least to veil -- their thoughts. Even if I agreed that Jon's blockish detestable insinuations were of paramount importance, it would still be the case that attempts to carve out space in the mainstream for brown-nosing politics are a de facto, if not a de jure, example of drugged-out Marxism. Belligerent politicos, almost by definition, treat traditional values as if they were moonstruck crimes. Surprised? You shouldn't be, because all Jon wants is to break down the industrial-technological system. In such a brief letter as this, I certainly cannot refute all the philippics of stuck-up impudent reprobates, but perhaps I can brush away some of their most deliberate and flagrant criticisms.
His voiced intentions don't match his actual intentions. Jon is a very unpleasant little man. And what of it? He decidedly needs to come to terms with his combative past. Why does he want to put a perfidious spin on important issues? Because many party animals have an intense identification with what I call voluble ruffians. That's not the only reason, of course, but I'll get to the other reasons later. It is crystal-clear that Jon's indifference only adds to the problem. The bottom line is that Jon Katz consistently falls short of telling the whole story or of making a solid point.
http://www.pithmovie.com/
vs
http://www.pithemovie.com/
I don't know how much truth there is to this, but if anyone knows where I can sign up... I'd appreciate a reply.
James
I would think that this would be a gross oversight and the name be reconsidered.
katz-spoofing-geek-genre-spoofing-journalist-criti c-waste-of-time-movie-review
Given "Spam" and "Internet", I got "This week on From Martha's Kitchen, learn to can tomatoes and to prepare kielbasa, Japanese risotto, and grits with tomato and shrimp."
I don't think that the electronic media will ever replace the printed word... at least in the US. There is a strong lobby in D.C. to stop this from happening. Next to Tobacco, Firearms, Insurance, and Pharmaceuticals; the Paper Fastener Lobby (the manufacturers of paper clips and staples) is one of the most powerful and influential organizations.
When was the last time you saw a beanie baby on Sotheby's auction block?
I used NPSIS.com for both registrar and hosting. It was $45 for two years (less than the usual $70) and $8/mo for hosting with 50MB and 5 pop3. Not a bad deal and they are pro-open source with a great Perl Web Mail app that you can run on your site. I thought about using dreamhost.com also...
"This column was inspired by an e-mail from a newspaper editor, asking me if I knew what might make the people who read Slashdot want to read daily papers. I said I didn't know, but that I would ask."
So, here lies the commercialization of Slashdot. We are marketing guinea pigs now?
James F. Bickford
Sys Dev Assistant
Electronic Interface Support
Anyone have any luck with Xfree86 and the Intel i810 video? I just got a new machine and X bombs on it... James F. Bickford Sys Dev Assistant Electronic Interface Support
Not a troll... slashdot has really gone downhill in the past few months! Is it Andover? Is it Katz fever?
If you're reading this, you're probably just reading it to see why Jon Katz bothered to post such a lame topic.
Hey... at least it works better in the winter! I live to far for ADSL to be a solution, and the is NO plans for cable in may area until after 2008. Wireless would seem to be a quicker to impliment solution. Whoever said it was a bad idea must own stock in MCI. Oh well.
- Redundant Net (the storage and discussion of all a priori knowlege)
Happy Birthday to ME!Wireless provides an immediate solution. I live in a rural area on a dirt road. I can connect my 56k at best 33000 on a good day. They say we will not see cable (TV or broadband) for another 10 years. There are many places like this in the US that would benefit from wireless... thats why!
I don't want to seem snarky, but I still think Katz belongs in a different forum. Thanks.
For those of you that do not know: UMASS has the #1 ranked Polymer Science department in the nation. I was a Microbiology grad from there. James F. Bickford Sys Dev Assistant Electronic Interface Support