Yes, I wanted to try it out and, fancy that, she was the first person that popped to mind...
It's easy to use. Just hit this link:
www-csag.ucsd.edu
Type in her name, and it does the rest. Nearly everything it says seems to fit:
My complaint about Ms. Bonnuss in Austin
I am writing to express my concerns about Ms. Bonnuss in Austin and, more specifically, her memoranda regarding mawkish, vile renegades. First things first: If Bonnuss can't be reasoned out of her prejudices, she must be laughed out of them. If Bonnuss can't be argued out of her selfishness, she must be shamed out of it. From a public-policy perspective, we must announce that we may need to picket, demonstrate, march, or strike to stop Bonnuss before she can interfere with a person's work performance, bodily security, physical movement, or privacy rights. If we don't, future generations will not know freedom. Instead, they will know fear; they will know sadness; they will know injustice, poverty, and grinding despair. Most of all, they will realize, albeit far too late, that Bonnuss 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 her zingers.
However, she has recently been going around claiming that everything is happy and fine and good. You really have to tie your brain in knots to be gullible enough to believe that junk. I must blow my whistle on Bonnuss's tactics of deception and distortion. The mere mention of that fact guarantees that this letter will never get published in any mass-circulation periodical that Bonnuss has any control over. But that's inconsequential, because Bonnuss is not interested in what is true and what is false or in what is good and what is evil. In fact, those distinctions have no meaning to her whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Bonnuss is Pyrrhonism. Why? This can be answered most easily by stating that some people are responsible and others are not. Bonnuss falls into the category of "not". The first response to this from Bonnuss's vicegerents is perhaps that the average working-class person can't see through Bonnuss's chicanery. Wrong. Just glance at the facts: I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on Bonnuss's part to push our efforts two steps backward before long. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that Bonnuss argues that a book of her writings would be a good addition to the Bible. I wish I could suggest some incontrovertible chain of apodictic reasoning that would overcome this argument, but the best I can do is the following: She has spent untold hours trying to abandon me on a desert island. During that time, did it ever once occur to her that her principles are one of those things that will revile everything in the most obscene terms and drag it into the filth of the basest possible outlook? I don't pretend to know the answer, but I do know that she should not defend metagrobolism, interventionism, and notions of racial superiority. Not now, not ever.
Doesn't it strike you as odd that it is a cardinal principle that Bonnuss has only half (if that) of the information needed to make an informed decision about credentialism? If she were as bright as she thinks she is, she'd know that she has stated that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of insecure stereotypes. That's just pure propagandism. Well, in Bonnuss's case, it might be pure ignorance, seeing that Bonnuss would not hesitate to open new avenues for the expression of hate if she felt she could benefit from doing so. I like to speak of Bonnuss as "boisterous". That's a reasonable term to use, I suspect, but let's now try to understand it a little better. For starters, I have a tendency to report the more sensational things that she is up to, the more shocking things, things like how she wants to operate on a criminal -- as opposed to a civil disobedience -- basis. And I realize the difficulty that the average person has in coming to grips with that, but it has been said that it is probably safe to assume that no matter what terms are used, it would be hard to find anyone who doesn't agree that she makes free and liberal use of chicanery, deceit, intolerance, lust, persecution, and oppression. I believe that to be true. I also believe that we must learn to celebrate our diversity, not because it is the politically correct thing to do, but because she is reluctant to resolve problems. She always just looks the other way and hopes no one will notice that her jeremiads 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 easy to tell if Bonnuss is lying. If her lips are moving, she's lying. None of Ms. Bonnuss in Austin's "progressive" ideas have actually resulted in any progress. And that's why I say to you: Have courage. Be honest. And break the spell of great expectations that now binds scary autocrats to Bonnuss. That's the patriotic thing to do, and that's the right thing to do. |
