There are people I really despise. They lack morals, character, and honesty. They throw us into a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation. In case you can't tell, I'm
talking about Ken here. Let me cut to the chase: I lost all respect for Ken when he refused to provide me with any evidence regarding his reckless statement regarding pacemakers. The name of the hospital without revealing his "source" would not have violated any confidence. He could have PM'd me the hospital name, but of course he was lying about the risk..
Many of his personal attacks are seriously flawed, frequently fail to
meet minimal standards of logic, and, on balance, are slaphappy.
One of the enduring effects of his inclinations is surely the way they will demand special treatment that, in many cases, borders on the ridiculous. While some of his rantings are very attractive on the surface and are indeed entertaining, they ultimately serve to invade every private corner and force every thought into an irritating
mold. He is determined to put as little thought as possible into solving the undeniable problems that our society is still facing with regard to oligarchism. His
allegations oscillate between intellectually-stultified stoicism and unpleasant teetotalism. And, more important, Ken has a penchant for counterinsurgency and
clandestine operations.
I thought that it was time someone write a post about how Ken's values are built on a backlash fueled by anger -- in the form of resentment, spite,
vengeance, envy, loss, and bitterness over declining status -- on the part of illogical worthless-types. This is that post. To start, Ken is as quasi-churlish as the sky is
blue. Crapulous effrontive twits have traditionally tried to piggyback on substantive
issues to gain legitimacy for themselves.
When I first heard about his half-measures, I didn't know whether to laugh, because his viewpoints are so crotchety, or cry, to realise that there are people out there with these views.
It may seem obvious, but statistical details released by a third-party agency indicate that people like Ken remain a small isolated minority, except during times of
economic or social stress, when a mass following develops to blame obscene enemies of the people for the potential problem to society ie. Y2k.
While there are probably a lot of people out there who would be quite content never to read another letter about Ken, Ken knows perfectly well that his cult
followers, when they are taken seriously at all, are considered by most scholars to be of questionable credibility. And that's why I feel compelled to say something
about repugnant smarmy-types. You seem to be his target Ron. His
protests are not an isolated case of splenetic belligerent antipluralism, but a typical example of how garrulous he can be. Equally important is the fact that his
assertions serve no purpose other than to encourage a deadly acceptance of intolerance.
Ken, YOU are the joke.
With thanks to Scott Pakin's complaint generator.
www-csag.cs.uiuc.edu
P.S. Just kidding - my sense of humor Ken. |
