My complaint about Apple
Most people probably think they already know all they need to know about Apple, but I have some new information to bring to light. Note that some of the facts I plan to use in this letter were provided to me by a highly educated person who managed to escape Apple's lousy indoctrination and is consequently believable. I, not being one of the many insolent malcontents of this world, frequently wish to tell Apple that its efforts to pass off all sorts of laughable and obviously noisome stuff on others as a so-called "inner experience" have touched the lives of every person in this country. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue. So don't tell me that Apple believes that it is known for its sound judgment, unerring foresight, and sagacious adaptation of means to ends only because it has a need to believe that just because its reinterpretations of historic events disgust and infuriate me. Although Apple has unfairly depicted me and those who share my beliefs as vermin and blusterers, we are neither. Yes, I have noticed of late a strong undercurrent of mendacious feudalism among batty, surly thought police, but if you were to try to tell Apple's foot soldiers that the hate just keeps on coming, they'd close their eyes and put their hands over their ears. They are, as the psychologists say, in denial. They don't want to hear that it is widely known and beyond dispute that the intent of this letter is certainly not hatred, but a probing look into an obviously significant issue. But there's the rub; Apple recently stated that Dadaism is a noble goal. It said that with a straight face, without even cracking a smile or suppressing a giggle. It said it as if it meant it. That's scary, because it spouts a lot of numbers whenever it wants to make a point. It then subjectively interprets those numbers to support its proposed social programs while ignoring the fact that when it says that it has a "special" perspective on solecism which carries with it a "special" right to create widespread hysteria, in its mind, that's supposed to end the argument. It's like it believes it has said something very profound.
Calling Apple's legatees unforgiving propagandists may be accurate, but I have no idea why Apple makes such a big fuss over nepotism. There are far more pressing issues that present themselves and that should be discussed, debated, and solved -- issues such as war, famine, poverty, and homelessness. There is also the lesser issue that the agenda that Apple is attempting to advance is one of antiheroism, repression, and plagiarism. Period, finis, and Q.E.D. While there is inevitable overlap at the edges of political movements, after hearing about Apple's devious attempts to treat people like the most satanic losers you'll ever see, I was saddened. I was saddened that it has lowered itself to this level.
In a similar vein, Apple's announcements have merged with gangsterism in several interesting ways. Both spring from the same kind of reality-denying mentality. Both doctor evidence and classification systems and make violent generalizations to support sappy, preconceived views. And both distort the facts. Other nasty gutter-dwellers are also consumed with a desire to reap a whirlwind of destroyed marriages, damaged children, and, quite possibly, a globe-wide expression of incurable sexually transmitted diseases. Do I blame society for this? No, I blame Apple. If Apple is going to make an emotional appeal, then it should also include a rational argument. Apple runs at the first sign of trouble, by which I mean that even Apple's minions are afraid that Apple will equip garrulous fault-finders with flame throwers, hand grenades, and heat-seeking missiles one of these days. I have seen their fear manifested over and over again, and it is further evidence that I find Apple the most insecure organization in the entire world. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation. I would like to close by saying that forbearance and kindly deportment are lost upon Apple.
Calling Apple's legatees unforgiving propagandists may be accurate, but I have no idea why Apple makes such a big fuss over nepotism. There are far more pressing issues that present themselves and that should be discussed, debated, and solved -- issues such as war, famine, poverty, and homelessness. There is also the lesser issue that the agenda that Apple is attempting to advance is one of antiheroism, repression, and plagiarism. Period, finis, and Q.E.D. While there is inevitable overlap at the edges of political movements, after hearing about Apple's devious attempts to treat people like the most satanic losers you'll ever see, I was saddened. I was saddened that it has lowered itself to this level.
In a similar vein, Apple's announcements have merged with gangsterism in several interesting ways. Both spring from the same kind of reality-denying mentality. Both doctor evidence and classification systems and make violent generalizations to support sappy, preconceived views. And both distort the facts. Other nasty gutter-dwellers are also consumed with a desire to reap a whirlwind of destroyed marriages, damaged children, and, quite possibly, a globe-wide expression of incurable sexually transmitted diseases. Do I blame society for this? No, I blame Apple. If Apple is going to make an emotional appeal, then it should also include a rational argument. Apple runs at the first sign of trouble, by which I mean that even Apple's minions are afraid that Apple will equip garrulous fault-finders with flame throwers, hand grenades, and heat-seeking missiles one of these days. I have seen their fear manifested over and over again, and it is further evidence that I find Apple the most insecure organization in the entire world. You may have detected a hint of sarcasm in the way I phrased that last statement, but I assure you that I am not exaggerating the situation. I would like to close by saying that forbearance and kindly deportment are lost upon Apple.
Comments
[ 08-01-2002: Message edited by: RodUK ]</p>
But, if you want to reproduce something similar, and not willing to put the blood, sweat and tears into it that I have, I guess I could go and do your research FOR YOU.
Try <a href="http://hugin.sigusr1.org/~pakin/complaint"; target="_blank">Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator</a>.
For those who know me, they know it is a rare occurrence for me to be rendered speechless. But when I heard that Murbot wants to exhibit a deep
disdain for all people who are not garrulous nymphomaniacs, I must say that speechless I was. What follows is a set of observations I have made
about sinful loan sharks.
I welcome his comments. However, he needs to realize that "Murbot" has now become part of my vocabulary. Whenever I see someone
institutionalize hedonism through systematic violence, distorted religion, and dubious science, I tell him or her to stop "Murbot-ing". Sadly, in once
sense, he is correct. If we let Murbot set up dissident groups and individuals for conspiracy charges and then carry out searches and seizures on
flimsy pretexts, then I will certainly be forced to run for cover. Although we can occasionally tie the retailers of feckless new claims to older
fabrications, there is unfortunately no shortage of new rumor. The natural result of his outbursts is an intolerance that, in the long run, tends to create
a global workers plantation overseen by transnational corporations who have no more concern for the human rights of those who produce their
products or services than Murbot has for his foot soldiers. Let me explain. This is not wild speculation. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is
documented fact.
I respect his policies, although his actions symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion -- extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us
lose more than a little freedom. It's really amazing, isn't it? We can put people on the Moon and send robot explorers to Mars, but I unequivocally feel
that Murbot has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. He obviously has none, or he wouldn't agitate for indoctrination
programs in local schools. We must detail the specific steps and objectives needed to thwart Murbot's socially inept schemes. We must allay the
concerns of the many people who have been harmed by him. And we must spread awareness of the stuck-up nature of his plans for the future.
Please join me in incorporating these words into our living credo.
Sounds about right.
[ 08-01-2002: Message edited by: murbot ]</p>
(missing the point) <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
No one can be right all of the time. That's clear. But Murbot's reports have merged with totalitarianism in several interesting ways. Both spring from the same kind of reality-denying mentality. Both ruin my entire day. And both make higher education accessible only to those in the higher echelons of society. If you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance. I have the strength, ability, desire, and courage to expand people's understanding of Murbot's scornful, warped tracts. Do you? Who could have guessed that Murbot would incite an atmosphere of violence and endangerment toward the good men, women, and children of this state? To put it another way, why doesn't he reveal the truth about himself? This can be answered most easily by stating that he really struck a nerve with me when he said that hanging out with insincere nobodies is a wonderful, culturally enriching experience. That lie is a painful reminder that Murbot operates on an international scale to undermine everyone's capacity to see, or change, the world as a whole. It's only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale, but to make this world a better place in which to live. Of course, I'm generalizing a little here. But that's only because when he tells us that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points, he somehow fails to mention that the moral devastations that accompany his saturnine ultimata suffice to slowly but surely create a climate in which it will be assumed that our achievements reflect not individual worth, talent, or skill, but special consideration. He fails to mention that some oppressive scrubs are hopelessly pouty. And he fails to mention that statements like, "I'm unquestionably bewildered by the pretentious nature of his ideologies" accurately express the feelings of most of us here.
Strange, isn't it, how repugnant loonies are always the first to shrink the so-called marketplace of ideas down to convenience-store size? How dare Murbot incite racial hatred? True, we are in trouble when hitherto reputable people waste our time and money, but his shameless ploys are fraught with the gravest consequences. For proof of this fact, I must point out that we must lend support to the thesis that we have our work cut out for us. If we fail in this, we are not failing someone else; we are not disrupting some interest separate from ourselves. Rather, it is we who suffer when we neglect to observe that Murbot accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does he maintain I'm narrow-minded because I refuse to accept his claim that he is a perpetual victim of injustice? If so, then I guess I'm as narrow-minded as I could possibly be. I like to face facts. I like to look reality right in the eye and not pretend it's something else. And the reality of our present situation is this: I have a dream that my children will be able to live in a world filled with open spaces and beautiful wilderness -- not in a dark, malign world run by what I call goofy yahoos. If we intend to defend democracy, we had best learn to recognize its primary enemy and not be afraid to stand up and call him by name. That name is Murbot.
I've got a bone to pick with the Appleinsider community. Here's my side of the story: The Appleinsider community's theories violate the rational, enlightened claims of their own enunciatory modality. No joke. Whether or not you realize this, I don't care what others say about the Appleinsider community. It's still hopeless, predatory, and it intends to irrationalize thinking on every issue. While it is reasonable to expect that the Appleinsider community is unable to use the English language effectively or correctly, it remains that the Appleinsider community plans to create a global workers plantation overseen by transnational corporations who have no more concern for the human rights of those who produce their products or services than the Appleinsider community has for its helots. It has instructed its lieutenants not to discuss this or even admit to its plan's existence. Obviously, the Appleinsider community knows it has something to hide. The Appleinsider community makes assertions that strain credulity, but that's really beside the point.
The Appleinsider community is an opportunist. That is, it is an ideological chameleon, without any real morality, without a soul. But this is something to be filed away for future letters. At present, I wish to focus on only one thing: the fact that if the Appleinsider community wants to complain, it should have an argument. It shouldn't just throw out the word "philosophicojuristic", for example, and expect us to be scared. Last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince the Appleinsider community that no matter how much it squirms and wriggles, it will never escape the fact that it is unable to remove its mental shackles. As I expected, the Appleinsider community was completely unconvinced. Okay, I admit that the Appleinsider community should practice what it preaches. But the Appleinsider community's expedients represent a backward step of hundreds of years, a backward step into a chasm with no bottom save the endless darkness of death. Despite what you may have been taught in school, the objection may still be raised that the Appleinsider community's decisions are based on reason. At first glance, this sounds almost believable. Yet the following must be borne in mind: Any rational argument must acknowledge this. The Appleinsider community's contumelious conjectures, naturally, do not. To end on a more positive note: We have to start talking with one another honestly, in honest language.
<img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
It will definitely surprise some people to hear me say this, but it disturbs me that these useless nutters have so little tolerance for differing points of view. One of my objectives is to fight the good fight. There are two types of people in this world: decent, honest folks like you and me and bloody-minded laughable-types like Pres. Dubya W Bush, Jr.. Sure, even the most unambitious social outcasts you'll ever see may have some good points, but I have yet to find one. His claim that all any child needs is a big dose of television every day is factually unsupported and politically motivated. I claim it's important to continue discussing this even after I've made my point, because Dubya's inability to fathom what I am talking about is betrayed by his insistence that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, and ambiguity are marks of depth and brilliance. More than that, when he says that divine ichor flows through his veins, that's just a load of spucatum tauri.
To yield this country to the forces of darkness, oppression, and tyranny is Dubya's objective, and abysmal racialism is his method. I know very few pigheaded, heinous segregationists personally, but I know them well enough to surmise that I challenge Dubya to point out any text in this letter that proposes that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel. It isn't there. There's neither a hint nor a suggestion of such a thing. He may find it inconceivable that he represents the most recent incarnation of the unique 20th-century phenomenon known as "amateurish paternalism", but he'll come to his senses any day now. There are two related questions in this matter. The first is to what extent he has tried to initiate a reign of unconscionable terror. The other is whether or not Dubya contends that the best way to serve one's country is to suck up to incompetent, brainless dolts. Sounds rather abhorrent, doesn't it? Well, that's Dubya for you. Before explaining why brain-damaged paper-pushers cause insurmountable trouble for us, I must first subject his scribblings to the rigorous scrutiny they warrant. Dubya extricates himself from difficulty by intrigue, by chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming, by an untruth, by an injustice.
When I look back I think, "Dubya's accomplices carry out orders like puppets obeying the puppeteer." If he wanted to, he could legitimize the fear and hatred of the privileged for the oppressed. He could influence the attitudes of dominant culture towards any environment or activity that is predominantly simple-minded. And he could engage in or goad others into engaging in illegal acts. We must not allow Dubya to do any of these. His slogans are nothing short of impolitic. But you knew that already. So let me add that my current plan is to offer a framework for discussion so that we can more quickly reach a consensus. Yes, Dubya will draw upon the most powerful fires of Hell to tear that plan asunder, but griping about Dubya will not make him stop trying to burn our fair cities to the ground. But even if it did, he would just find some other way to irrationalize thinking on every issue. Help me convince the most predaceous egotists you'll ever see to stop supporting Pres. Dubya W Bush, Jr. and tolerating his jibes. Join your hands with mine in this, the greatest cause of our time.
Too slow.
Too Expensive.
[/Rant]
I'd like to take a minute of your time to share some of my thoughts about Rabbi Junkyard Dawg with you. To begin at the beginning, Junkyard's inveracities constitute one of the many conduits of alcoholism in our culture. He vehemently denies that, of course. But he obviously would, because I once told him that his arrogance will lead him to consign our traditional values to the rubbish heap of vigilantism sometime soon. How did he respond to that? He proceeded to curse me off using a number of colorful expletives not befitting this letter, which serves only to show that Junkyard recently stated that everything is happy and fine and good. He said that with a straight face, without even cracking a smile or suppressing a giggle. He said it as if he meant it. That's scary, because if he is going to talk about higher standards, then he needs to live by those higher standards. Let me be clear. I myself am shocked and angered by Junkyard's mephitic improprieties. Such shameful conduct should never be repeated. Never before have I encountered more bloatedly self-important prose than that which Junkyard produces. Lastly, I can't end this letter without mentioning that you have my word that the right thing to do in this case is determined by various vectors of forces in an endless multidimensional tug-of-war involving ropes leading out in many directions.
Hee Hee, Rabbi... This thing is funner than I thought
Once again, I am writing in response to Microsoft's claims, and once again, I merely wish to point out that Microsoft's politics form a vast brainwashing and brain-contaminating machine, which has worked, on the whole, with great efficiency. 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. Quite frankly, Microsoft is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to its tirades. There is one final irony to my story. An insecure mentality and a possession-obsessed sense of unilateralism create fertile soil for subversive, dangerous nebbishes to lower this country's moral tone and depreciate its commercial integrity.
Something is happening here, and I'm getting a little worried. First things first: If, five years ago, I had described a person like Dr. Long Duck Dong to you and told you that in five years, he'd demand that Earth submit to the dominion of disgraceful flakes, you'd have thought me malignant. You'd have laughed at me and told me it couldn't happen. So it is useful now to note that, first, it has happened and, second, to try to understand how it happened and how what we have been imparting to him -- or what he has been eliciting from us -- is a half-submerged, barely intended logic, contaminated by wishes and tendencies we prefer not to acknowledge. We mustn't let him strip the world of conversation, friendship, and love. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy. "What's that?", I hear you ask. "Is it true that it is easy to see from the foregoing that revanchism-prone ideas are continually escaping the confines of Dr. Dong's (obviously very weak) mind?" Why, yes, it is.
You may be wondering why pea-brained cowards latch onto Dr. Dong's mottos. It's because people of that nature need to have rhetoric and dogma to recite during times of stress in order to cope. That's also why Dr. Dong wonders why everyone hates him. Apparently, he never stopped to think that maybe it's because if we're to effectively carry out our responsibilities and make a future for ourselves, we will first have to invite all the people who have been harmed by Dr. Dong to continue to express and assert their concerns in a constructive and productive fashion.
Dr. Dong's legates are often caught trying to bombard me with insults. Of course, they deny this, but we all know full well that Dr. Dong has stated that he can convince people that their peers are already riding the Long Duck Dong bandwagon and will think ill of them if they don't climb aboard, too, and get away with it. That's just pure teetotalism. Well, in Dr. Dong's case, it might be pure ignorance, seeing that I challenge Dr. Dong to point out any text in this letter that proposes that university professors must conform their theses and conclusions to his drugged-out prejudices if they want to publish papers and advance their careers. It isn't there. There's neither a hint nor a suggestion of such a thing.
I see two problems with his treatises on a very fundamental level. First, I cannot conceive of any circumstance under which his antics could be considered appropriate. And second, I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that he says that terrorism is a viable and vital objective for our nation's educational institutions. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie. Let me close where I began: We stand to lose far more than we'll ever gain if we don't build an inclusive, nondiscriminatory movement for social and political change.
[ 08-04-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>