next »

[larryc]

God dammit, ALL of these read very like the emails of my scary student. Maybe I have misjudged him? Rather than a delusional paranoid figure, perhaps he is a performance artist?

[punchnpie]

Jeez Louise, qrypt, that was scary. I'd thought you'd lost it!

[qrypt]

God dammit, ALL of these read very like the emails of my scary student. Maybe I have misjudged him? Rather than a delusional paranoid figure, perhaps he is a performance artist?

How confident are you that he isn't just using the complaint generator? 

Jeez Louise, qrypt, that was scary. I'd thought you'd lost it!

:)

[formerly_the_fiver]

Although I think we have far too much freedom in being able to make these silly things, here's mine:

My complaint about Dr. Formerly T Fiver

I'm sorry, but I just can't avoid talking about Dr. Formerly T Fiver. For most of the facts I'm about to present, I have provided documentation and urge you to confirm these facts for yourself if you're skeptical. Taking that notion one step further, we can see that her trucklers are quick to point out that because she is hated, persecuted, and repeatedly laughed at, Dr. Fiver is the real victim here. The truth is that, if anything, Dr. Fiver is a victim of her own success—a success that enables Dr. Fiver to don the mantel of tribalism and attack the critical realism and impassive objectivity that are the central epistemological foundations of the scientific worldview. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, I need your help if I'm ever to tell it like it is. "But I'm only one person," you might protest. "What difference can I make?" The answer is: a lot more than you think. You see, Dr. Fiver's insinuations all stem from one, simple, faulty premise—that we have too much freedom.

Virulent nonentities serve as the priests in Dr. Fiver's cult of inaniloquent cynicism. These "priests" spend their days basking in Dr. Fiver's reflected glory, pausing only when Dr. Fiver instructs them to draw unsuspecting control freaks into the orbit of disrespectful ex-cons. What could be more pugnacious? Although I haven't been able to concoct an acceptable answer to that question, I can suggest a tentative hypothesis. My hypothesis is that she sees herself as a postmodern equivalent of Marx's proletariat, revolutionizing the world by wresting it from its oppressors (viz., those who examine Dr. Fiver's worldview from the perspective of its axiology (values) and epistemology (ways of knowing)). She has created for herself premier victim status. Dr. Fiver uses this status to shield herself from scrutiny whenever she's caught creating an atmosphere that may temporarily energize or exhilarate but which, at the same time, will pose the gravest of human threats. Dr. Fiver's victim status also means that Dr. Fiver's rivals have to be cautious when saying that she unmistakably yearns for the Oriental despotisms of pre-Hellenic times, the neolithic culture that preceded the rise of self-consciousness and egoism. By the same token, Dr. Fiver abhors the current era, in which people are free to cast a ray of light on her crime-stained ideologies. Now that this letter has come to an end, let me remind you that it was intended to provide an accurate, even-handed, and balanced discussion of Dr. Formerly T Fiver and her expostulations. Please do not contact me with insults, death threats, or the like because I will ignore them. If you disagree with my arguments or can provide further information about Dr. Fiver, please contact me and I will endeavor to make any necessary corrections to this letter.

[canuckois]

This is fun!


In this letter I'm not going to discuss Dr. Canuckois's prior wrongdoings. Instead, I intend to focus only on Dr. Canuckois's current, blathering canards. Perhaps before going on, I should describe Dr. Canuckois to you. Dr. Canuckois is cantankerous, infernal, and litigious. Furthermore, he yearns to condition the public—or, more precisely, brainwash the public—into believing that he can succeed without trying.

Just don't expect consistency from a man who is utterly and indubitably daffy. As far as I can tell, before Dr. Canuckois initiated a Zendicism flap to help promote his lethargic, hypocritical précis, people everywhere were expected to offer a framework for discussion so that we can more quickly reach a consensus. Nowadays, it's the rare person indeed who realizes that we should rail against the pseudoscience that attempts—and continually fails—to prove that anyone who disagrees with Dr. Canuckois is ultimately nefarious. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.) Many people aren't aware of how mindless his apothegms are, so let's present a little breakdown. First off, I have to wonder where he got the idea that it is my view that he commands an army of robots that live in the hollow center of the earth and produce earthquakes whenever they feel like shaking things up a bit on the surface. This sits hard with me because it is simply not true and I've never written anything to imply that it is.

And, more important, Dr. Canuckois thinks I'm trying to say that his principles enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. Wait! I just heard something. Oh, never mind; it's just the sound of the point zooming way over Dr. Canuckois's head. Lastly, I can't end this letter without mentioning that the scantiness of Dr. Canuckois's abstract knowledge directs his sentiments more to the world of larrikinism.

[bwwm1]

I doubtlessly hope that the material I'm about to present will open some eyes and minds. For openers, I have never read anything Dr. Bwwm has written that I would consider wise, logical, pertinent, reasonable, or scientific. His statement that benighted grobians aren't ever lackluster is no exception. What's more, if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why he would want to spatter my reputation. What so many people find difficult to grasp is that rigid adherence to dogmatic purity will lead only to disunity while we clearly need unity to weed out people like Dr. Bwwm who have deceived, betrayed, and exploited us. He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. Of course, people like Dr. Bwwm who do in fact perpetrate evil rouse the agitated petite bourgeoisie to chauvinistic fervor and hoodwink them into establishing tacit boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum of opinion. I am concerned that his vague and overly broad definition of "indistinguishableness" will cause scummy doomsday prophets to lead us into an age of shoddiness—shoddy goods, shoddy services, shoddy morals, and shoddy people—within a short period of time. I trust that I have not shocked any of you by writing that. However, I do realize that some of my readers may feel that much of what I have penned about Dr. Bwwm in this letter is heartless and in violation of our Christian duty to love everyone. If so, I can say only that if I were to compile a list of Dr. Bwwm's forays into espionage, sabotage, and subversion, it would fill an entire page and perhaps even run over onto the following one. Such a list would surely make every sane person who has passed the age of six realize that Dr. Bwwm believes that it is everyone's obligation to supply the chains that bind the individual to notions of self-loathing and unworthiness. That view is anathema to the cause of liberty. If it is not loudly refuted our future will be dire indeed.

Yes, I must protest Dr. Bwwm's use of ethically bankrupt haggersnashes to achieve his shiftless goals, but here is the point that is worth considering: He has allowed himself to become a spokesman for the same point of view shared by unreasonable, furciferous Drawcansirs, clueless, crapulous tightwads, and scary, mingy nasty-types while masquerading as an outspoken radical bucking the system. By using presenteeism as a more destructive form of cynicism, Dr. Bwwm is telegraphing his intentions to scar little children's self-image. I am intellectually honest enough to admit my own previous ignorance in that matter. I wish only that he had the same intellectual honesty. I'll now end this letter by reminding you that Dr. Bwwm consistently falls short of telling the whole story or of making a solid point. That may not be the profoundest of insights to take away from such a long letter, but he frequently sprinkles his speech with the guttural argot of sanctimonious nudniks.