Blue Velvet
Sep 10, 2005, 05:14 PM
Let Scott Pakin's automatic complaint-letter generator (http://www.pakin.org/complaint) do the hard work of sticking the knife in for you... :D
An overly long Apple-related sample contained below just for laffs:
Doesn't anyone get the point? It doesn't matter for squat that Mr. Steve Jobs has refused to make a public apology for his impertinent personal attacks. What's far more relevant is that people who collaborate with Steve and expect Steve to show them the same consideration deserve to be left out in the cold. Although not without overlap and simplification, I plan to identify three primary positions on Steve's ebullitions. I acknowledge that I have not accounted for all possible viewpoints within the parameters of these three positions. Nevertheless, this makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of Steve's pigheaded, perverted hastily mounted campaigns. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.) His personal interest in seeing his dissertations shoved down people's throats is out-of-touch, but that's to be expected of Steve. It has been said that this is betrayal of the many by the few. I believe that to be true. I also believe that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, can hardly believe how in this day and age, the most loud conspiracy theorists you'll ever see are allowed to work both sides of the political fence. I mean, think about it.
Steve's hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it. Sure, Steve talks the talk, but does he walk the walk? Well, while you're deliberating over that, let me ask you another question: Where are the people who are willing to stand up and acknowledge that Steve uses the term "counterexcommunication" with ostensible confidence that its meaning is universally understood? Now, not to bombard you with too many questions, but Steve has a strategy. His strategy is to pander to our worst fears. Wherever you encounter that strategy, you are dealing with Steve. What's the difference between his cat's-paws and depraved recidivists? If you answered "nothing", then go to the front of the class; you're absolutely right. Investigators who have spent many years attempting to penetrate the dark recesses of his clueless underworld frequently conclude that he is tyrannical -- maybe "jealous" would be a more applicable adjective. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that he has been trying for some time to convince people that shabby, iconoclastic galoots are easily housebroken. Don't believe his hype! Steve has just been offering that line as a means to scorn and abjure reason. While most people know this like a schoolchild knows that 2+2=4, I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But there is no reason to revive an arcadian past that never existed and there is every reason not to. That's the current situation, and if you have any doubt about the reality of it, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to what's been happening in the world.
At the risk of shocking you further, I shall point out that Steve must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why he is so desperate to play the blame game; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if Steve also realized that he has warned us that one day, muddleheaded adulterers will jawbone aimlessly. If you think about it, you'll realize that his warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that his overgeneralizations reek of despotism. I use the word "reek", because the objection may still be raised that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la. At first glance, this sounds almost believable. Yet the following must be borne in mind: He does not tolerate any view that differs from his own. Rather, Steve discredits and discards those people who contradict him along with the ideas that they represent. Contrary to the impression that pea-brained insurrectionists offer "new," "innovative," and "advanced" ideas, there is little new in their vituperations. Steve is missing not only the point, but also the whole paradigm shift and huge sociological implications. But there is a further-reaching implication: He is absolutely determined to believe that human beings should be appraised by the number of things and the amount of money they possess instead of by their internal value and achievements, and he's not about to let facts or reason get in his way.
If you think about it, everybody is probably familiar with the cliche that I will never identify with demonic cadgers. Well, there's a lot of truth in that cliche. Whereas Steve claims that his vices are the only true virtues, I claim that he somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of puerile stereotypes. I am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine citizens of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened civilization. Emotionalism is the answer, but only if the question was, "What's the moral equivalent of letting Steve skewer me over a pit barbecue?" This should be a chance to examine and bring problems to light, to share and join in understanding, but he is always prating about how he knows 100% of everything 100% of the time. (He used to say that he has his moral compass in tact, but the evidence is too contrary, so he's given up on that score.) He uses the word "pseudoconglomeration" without ever having taken the time to look it up in the dictionary. People who are too lazy to get their basic terms right should be ignored, not debated.
If the people generally are relying on false information sown by noxious blackguards, then correcting that situation becomes a priority for the defense of our nation. I do not wish to endorse negativism, but rather to illustrate that Steve's older excuses were obstinate enough. His latest ones are definitely beyond the pale. There is a problem here. A very large, lascivious, dodgy problem. I, hardheaded cynic that I am, would never take a job working for Steve. Given his bad-tempered claims, who would want to? Regardless of what he seems to believe, the ripples of reaction to Steve's beliefs have spread, giving rise to universal calls to encourage opportunity, responsibility, and community. To conclude, there is something grotty about Mr. Steve Jobs's shabby mendacity and sneaking duplicity.
An overly long Apple-related sample contained below just for laffs:
Doesn't anyone get the point? It doesn't matter for squat that Mr. Steve Jobs has refused to make a public apology for his impertinent personal attacks. What's far more relevant is that people who collaborate with Steve and expect Steve to show them the same consideration deserve to be left out in the cold. Although not without overlap and simplification, I plan to identify three primary positions on Steve's ebullitions. I acknowledge that I have not accounted for all possible viewpoints within the parameters of these three positions. Nevertheless, this makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of Steve's pigheaded, perverted hastily mounted campaigns. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.) His personal interest in seeing his dissertations shoved down people's throats is out-of-touch, but that's to be expected of Steve. It has been said that this is betrayal of the many by the few. I believe that to be true. I also believe that I, hardheaded cynic that I am, can hardly believe how in this day and age, the most loud conspiracy theorists you'll ever see are allowed to work both sides of the political fence. I mean, think about it.
Steve's hypocrisy is transparent. Even the least discerning among us can see right through it. Sure, Steve talks the talk, but does he walk the walk? Well, while you're deliberating over that, let me ask you another question: Where are the people who are willing to stand up and acknowledge that Steve uses the term "counterexcommunication" with ostensible confidence that its meaning is universally understood? Now, not to bombard you with too many questions, but Steve has a strategy. His strategy is to pander to our worst fears. Wherever you encounter that strategy, you are dealing with Steve. What's the difference between his cat's-paws and depraved recidivists? If you answered "nothing", then go to the front of the class; you're absolutely right. Investigators who have spent many years attempting to penetrate the dark recesses of his clueless underworld frequently conclude that he is tyrannical -- maybe "jealous" would be a more applicable adjective. That shouldn't surprise you when you consider that he has been trying for some time to convince people that shabby, iconoclastic galoots are easily housebroken. Don't believe his hype! Steve has just been offering that line as a means to scorn and abjure reason. While most people know this like a schoolchild knows that 2+2=4, I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But there is no reason to revive an arcadian past that never existed and there is every reason not to. That's the current situation, and if you have any doubt about the reality of it, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to what's been happening in the world.
At the risk of shocking you further, I shall point out that Steve must sense his own irremediable inferiority. That's why he is so desperate to play the blame game; it's the only way for him to distinguish himself from the herd. It would be a lot nicer, however, if Steve also realized that he has warned us that one day, muddleheaded adulterers will jawbone aimlessly. If you think about it, you'll realize that his warning is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that his overgeneralizations reek of despotism. I use the word "reek", because the objection may still be raised that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la. At first glance, this sounds almost believable. Yet the following must be borne in mind: He does not tolerate any view that differs from his own. Rather, Steve discredits and discards those people who contradict him along with the ideas that they represent. Contrary to the impression that pea-brained insurrectionists offer "new," "innovative," and "advanced" ideas, there is little new in their vituperations. Steve is missing not only the point, but also the whole paradigm shift and huge sociological implications. But there is a further-reaching implication: He is absolutely determined to believe that human beings should be appraised by the number of things and the amount of money they possess instead of by their internal value and achievements, and he's not about to let facts or reason get in his way.
If you think about it, everybody is probably familiar with the cliche that I will never identify with demonic cadgers. Well, there's a lot of truth in that cliche. Whereas Steve claims that his vices are the only true virtues, I claim that he somehow manages to maintain a straight face when saying that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of puerile stereotypes. I am greatly grieved by this occurrence of falsehood and fantastic storytelling which is the resultant of layers of social dishevelment and disillusionment amongst the fine citizens of a once organized, motivated, and cognitively enlightened civilization. Emotionalism is the answer, but only if the question was, "What's the moral equivalent of letting Steve skewer me over a pit barbecue?" This should be a chance to examine and bring problems to light, to share and join in understanding, but he is always prating about how he knows 100% of everything 100% of the time. (He used to say that he has his moral compass in tact, but the evidence is too contrary, so he's given up on that score.) He uses the word "pseudoconglomeration" without ever having taken the time to look it up in the dictionary. People who are too lazy to get their basic terms right should be ignored, not debated.
If the people generally are relying on false information sown by noxious blackguards, then correcting that situation becomes a priority for the defense of our nation. I do not wish to endorse negativism, but rather to illustrate that Steve's older excuses were obstinate enough. His latest ones are definitely beyond the pale. There is a problem here. A very large, lascivious, dodgy problem. I, hardheaded cynic that I am, would never take a job working for Steve. Given his bad-tempered claims, who would want to? Regardless of what he seems to believe, the ripples of reaction to Steve's beliefs have spread, giving rise to universal calls to encourage opportunity, responsibility, and community. To conclude, there is something grotty about Mr. Steve Jobs's shabby mendacity and sneaking duplicity.
