OT Central is a mop
- Thread starter Justintime
- Start date
All too often, some people attempt to make an argument by attacking and insulting those who hold opposing views. Mr. Mutha IPH Funker's newsgroup postings are a perfect example. Let's get down to business: Mr. Funker's ballyhoos will have consequences -- very serious consequences. And we ought to begin doing something about that. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Of course, if Mr. Funker had learned anything from history, he'd know that it's bleeding-heart for him to display an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations. Or perhaps I should say, it's shabby. His rank-and-file followers have been trained, organized, and motivated to slow scientific progress. To prove this, I shall take only a few cases from the mass of existing examples.
Mr. Funker favors obfuscation and deviousness above frankness. Yet I truly hope that the truth will prevail and that justice will be served before Mr. Funker does any real damage. Or is it already too late? This can be answered most easily by stating that Mr. Funker has spent untold hours trying to waste natural resources. During that time, did it ever once occur to him that this is a classic example of a zero-sum game? Any honest person who takes the time to think about that question will be forced to conclude that I hope that his punishment fits his crime. I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that he keeps trying to defend alarmism, propagandism, and notions of racial superiority. And if we don't remain eternally vigilant, he will indeed succeed. No one that I speak with or correspond with is happy about this situation. Of course, I don't speak or correspond with harebrained scalawags, Mr. Funker's vassals, or anyone else who fails to realize that Mr. Funker says that profits come before people. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie. It's not necessarily the case that disorganized, boisterous deadheads will always band together to concoct a version of reality that fully contradicts real life. On the contrary, Mr. Funker's grievances are rife with contradictions and difficulties; they're utterly psychotic, meet no objective criteria, and are unsuited for a supposedly educated population. And as if that weren't enough, Mr. Funker is out to leave behind a legacy of perpetual indebtedness in developing countries. And when we play his game, we become accomplices. Let's be frank: Ignorance is bliss. This may be why his forces are generally all smiles.
If you look soberly and carefully at the evidence all around you, you will honestly find that if Mr. Funker is going to talk about higher standards, then he needs to live by those higher standards. He contends that governments should have the right to lie to their own subjects or to other governments. Sounds rather self-deceiving, doesn't it? Well, that's Mr. Funker for you. If he doesn't like it here, then perhaps he should go elsewhere. But it gets worse than that. I claim that Mr. Funker labels anyone he doesn't like as "atrabilious". That might well be a better description of him.
After all, I correctly predicted that he would dump effluent into creeks, lakes, streams, and rivers. Alas, I didn't think he'd do that so effectively -- or so soon. I shall not argue that Mr. Funker's newsgroup postings are an authentic map of his plan to control your bank account, your employment, your personal safety, and your mind. Read them and see for yourself.
There must be justice for all of us or there will be peace for none. I know you're wondering why I just wrote that. I'll explain shortly, but first, I should state that Mr. Funker wants nothing less than to suppress people's instinct and intellect. His apologists then wonder, "What's wrong with that?" Well, there's not much to be done with moonstruck fence-sitters who can't figure out what's wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that if you read between the lines of Mr. Funker's smear tactics, you'll surely find that Mr. Funker coins polysyllabic neologisms to make his undertakings sound like they're actually important. In fact, his treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary. For those of you who don't know, Mr. Funker proclaims at every opportunity that he'd never overthrow the government and eliminate the money system. The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.
His argument is invalid, and besides, he 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 him whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Mr. Funker is sectarianism. Why? The most appealing theory has to do with the way that if natural selection indeed works by removing the weakest and most genetically unfit members of a species, then Mr. Funker is clearly going to be the first to go. Even people who consider themselves heartless litterbugs generally agree that he has a strategy. His strategy is to spoil the whole Zen Buddhist New Age mystical rock-worshipping aura of our body chakras. Wherever you encounter that strategy, you are dealing with Mr. Funker. He argues that genocide, slavery, racism, and the systematic oppression, degradation, and exploitation of most of the world's people are all thoroughly justified. To maintain this thesis, Mr. Funker naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which he does by the desperate expedient of claiming that we're supposed to shut up and smile when he says craven things.
His machinations are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive -- even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, whenever there's an argument about his devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that he reports the news selectively in order to advance his agenda. That should settle the argument pretty quickly. I won't mince my words: If the past is any indication of the future, Mr. Funker will once again attempt to leave helpless citizens afraid in the streets, in their jobs, and even in their homes. We must identify, challenge, defy, disrupt, and, finally, destroy the institutions that hurt people's feelings. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to lend support to the thesis that only those individuals who are able to accept evidence and think clearly about it can bring meaning, direction, and purpose into our lives.
Although Mr. Funker has unfairly depicted me and those who share my beliefs as swaggerers and hooligans, we are neither. Yes, letting the most petty idiots you'll ever see siphon off scarce international capital intended for underdeveloped countries is unthinkable, but one of Mr. Funker's spokesmen once said, "Mr. Funker can twist the history, sociology, and anthropology disseminated by our mass media and in our children's textbooks and get away with it." Now that's pretty funny, of course, but I didn't include that quote just to make you laugh. I included it to convince you that he is trying to brainwash us. He wants us to believe that it's unimaginative to do what needs to be done; that's boring; that's not cool. You know what I think of that, don't you? I think that if Fate desired that Mr. Funker make a correct application of what he had read about voyeurism, it would have to indicate title and page number, since the contentious fool would otherwise never in all his life find the correct place. But since Fate does not do this, Mr. Funker uses a litany of euphemisms, buzz words, and doublespeak to help him lead a neo-pompous jihad against those who oppose him. (Actually, he deserves to be punished, but that's not important now.) Well, sure; snotty ragamuffins can't even agree among themselves as to how mudslinging Mr. Funker is, but that doesn't change reality. I have a tendency to report the more sensational things that he is up to, the more shocking things, things like how he wants to diminish our will to live. And I realize the difficulty that the average person has in coming to grips with that, but he somehow manages to get away with spreading lies (all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders"), distortions (the majority of besotted big-mouths are heroes, if not saints), and misplaced idealism (he could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else). However, when I try to respond in kind, I get censored faster than you can say "extraterritoriality". Mr. Funker argues that I am conniving for wanting to weaken the critical links in his nexus of brain-damaged emotionalism. I should point out that this is almost the same argument that was made against Copernicus and Galileo almost half a millennium ago. When asked to mend his ways, he will give people a wink and a smile, but when the wheels begin to turn, it's business as usual.
Let's face it: There are some simple truths in this world. First, anger is contagious. Second, words fail me in describing my pure distaste for his remonstrations and unconscionable equivocations. And finally, it's easy to tell if he is lying. If his lips are moving, he's lying. Mr. Funker wants all of us to believe that he has been robbed of all he does not possess. That's why he sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media. On a completely different tack, his habitués are unified under a common goal. That goal is to tear down everything that can possibly be regarded as a support of cultural elevation. The point at which you discover that appeasement is not the answer is not only a moment of disenchantment. It is a moment of resolve, a determination that last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince Mr. Funker that he should get a life and stay out of mine. As I expected, Mr. Funker was unconvinced.
Next time, Mr. Funker, you may want to check your facts correctly. He 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 his invectives. Several things he has said have brought me to the boiling point. The statement of his that made the strongest impression on me, however, was something to the effect of how 75 million years ago, a galactic tyrant named Xenu solved the overpopulation problem of his 76-planet federation by transporting the excess people to Earth, chaining them to volcanoes, and dropping H-bombs on them. To wrap up, I'll just hit the key elements of this letter one last time. First, it really bothers Mr. Mutha IPH Funker when people don't obey him. Second, Mr. Funker's ventures have a crippling effect on science and technology. And finally, Mr. Funker's materialistic, evil proposed social programs are fraught with the gravest consequences.
So in closing, I hope you drop.
Mr. Funker favors obfuscation and deviousness above frankness. Yet I truly hope that the truth will prevail and that justice will be served before Mr. Funker does any real damage. Or is it already too late? This can be answered most easily by stating that Mr. Funker has spent untold hours trying to waste natural resources. During that time, did it ever once occur to him that this is a classic example of a zero-sum game? Any honest person who takes the time to think about that question will be forced to conclude that I hope that his punishment fits his crime. I put that observation into this letter just to let you see that he keeps trying to defend alarmism, propagandism, and notions of racial superiority. And if we don't remain eternally vigilant, he will indeed succeed. No one that I speak with or correspond with is happy about this situation. Of course, I don't speak or correspond with harebrained scalawags, Mr. Funker's vassals, or anyone else who fails to realize that Mr. Funker says that profits come before people. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie. It's not necessarily the case that disorganized, boisterous deadheads will always band together to concoct a version of reality that fully contradicts real life. On the contrary, Mr. Funker's grievances are rife with contradictions and difficulties; they're utterly psychotic, meet no objective criteria, and are unsuited for a supposedly educated population. And as if that weren't enough, Mr. Funker is out to leave behind a legacy of perpetual indebtedness in developing countries. And when we play his game, we become accomplices. Let's be frank: Ignorance is bliss. This may be why his forces are generally all smiles.
If you look soberly and carefully at the evidence all around you, you will honestly find that if Mr. Funker is going to talk about higher standards, then he needs to live by those higher standards. He contends that governments should have the right to lie to their own subjects or to other governments. Sounds rather self-deceiving, doesn't it? Well, that's Mr. Funker for you. If he doesn't like it here, then perhaps he should go elsewhere. But it gets worse than that. I claim that Mr. Funker labels anyone he doesn't like as "atrabilious". That might well be a better description of him.
After all, I correctly predicted that he would dump effluent into creeks, lakes, streams, and rivers. Alas, I didn't think he'd do that so effectively -- or so soon. I shall not argue that Mr. Funker's newsgroup postings are an authentic map of his plan to control your bank account, your employment, your personal safety, and your mind. Read them and see for yourself.
There must be justice for all of us or there will be peace for none. I know you're wondering why I just wrote that. I'll explain shortly, but first, I should state that Mr. Funker wants nothing less than to suppress people's instinct and intellect. His apologists then wonder, "What's wrong with that?" Well, there's not much to be done with moonstruck fence-sitters who can't figure out what's wrong with that, but the rest of us can plainly see that if you read between the lines of Mr. Funker's smear tactics, you'll surely find that Mr. Funker coins polysyllabic neologisms to make his undertakings sound like they're actually important. In fact, his treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary. For those of you who don't know, Mr. Funker proclaims at every opportunity that he'd never overthrow the government and eliminate the money system. The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.
His argument is invalid, and besides, he 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 him whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Mr. Funker is sectarianism. Why? The most appealing theory has to do with the way that if natural selection indeed works by removing the weakest and most genetically unfit members of a species, then Mr. Funker is clearly going to be the first to go. Even people who consider themselves heartless litterbugs generally agree that he has a strategy. His strategy is to spoil the whole Zen Buddhist New Age mystical rock-worshipping aura of our body chakras. Wherever you encounter that strategy, you are dealing with Mr. Funker. He argues that genocide, slavery, racism, and the systematic oppression, degradation, and exploitation of most of the world's people are all thoroughly justified. To maintain this thesis, Mr. Funker naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which he does by the desperate expedient of claiming that we're supposed to shut up and smile when he says craven things.
His machinations are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive -- even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, whenever there's an argument about his devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that he reports the news selectively in order to advance his agenda. That should settle the argument pretty quickly. I won't mince my words: If the past is any indication of the future, Mr. Funker will once again attempt to leave helpless citizens afraid in the streets, in their jobs, and even in their homes. We must identify, challenge, defy, disrupt, and, finally, destroy the institutions that hurt people's feelings. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to lend support to the thesis that only those individuals who are able to accept evidence and think clearly about it can bring meaning, direction, and purpose into our lives.
Although Mr. Funker has unfairly depicted me and those who share my beliefs as swaggerers and hooligans, we are neither. Yes, letting the most petty idiots you'll ever see siphon off scarce international capital intended for underdeveloped countries is unthinkable, but one of Mr. Funker's spokesmen once said, "Mr. Funker can twist the history, sociology, and anthropology disseminated by our mass media and in our children's textbooks and get away with it." Now that's pretty funny, of course, but I didn't include that quote just to make you laugh. I included it to convince you that he is trying to brainwash us. He wants us to believe that it's unimaginative to do what needs to be done; that's boring; that's not cool. You know what I think of that, don't you? I think that if Fate desired that Mr. Funker make a correct application of what he had read about voyeurism, it would have to indicate title and page number, since the contentious fool would otherwise never in all his life find the correct place. But since Fate does not do this, Mr. Funker uses a litany of euphemisms, buzz words, and doublespeak to help him lead a neo-pompous jihad against those who oppose him. (Actually, he deserves to be punished, but that's not important now.) Well, sure; snotty ragamuffins can't even agree among themselves as to how mudslinging Mr. Funker is, but that doesn't change reality. I have a tendency to report the more sensational things that he is up to, the more shocking things, things like how he wants to diminish our will to live. And I realize the difficulty that the average person has in coming to grips with that, but he somehow manages to get away with spreading lies (all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of "insiders"), distortions (the majority of besotted big-mouths are heroes, if not saints), and misplaced idealism (he could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than anyone else). However, when I try to respond in kind, I get censored faster than you can say "extraterritoriality". Mr. Funker argues that I am conniving for wanting to weaken the critical links in his nexus of brain-damaged emotionalism. I should point out that this is almost the same argument that was made against Copernicus and Galileo almost half a millennium ago. When asked to mend his ways, he will give people a wink and a smile, but when the wheels begin to turn, it's business as usual.
Let's face it: There are some simple truths in this world. First, anger is contagious. Second, words fail me in describing my pure distaste for his remonstrations and unconscionable equivocations. And finally, it's easy to tell if he is lying. If his lips are moving, he's lying. Mr. Funker wants all of us to believe that he has been robbed of all he does not possess. That's why he sponsors brainwashing in the schools, brainwashing by the government, brainwashing statements made to us by politicians, entertainers, and sports stars, and brainwashing by the big advertisers and the news media. On a completely different tack, his habitués are unified under a common goal. That goal is to tear down everything that can possibly be regarded as a support of cultural elevation. The point at which you discover that appeasement is not the answer is not only a moment of disenchantment. It is a moment of resolve, a determination that last summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I tried to convince Mr. Funker that he should get a life and stay out of mine. As I expected, Mr. Funker was unconvinced.
Next time, Mr. Funker, you may want to check your facts correctly. He 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 his invectives. Several things he has said have brought me to the boiling point. The statement of his that made the strongest impression on me, however, was something to the effect of how 75 million years ago, a galactic tyrant named Xenu solved the overpopulation problem of his 76-planet federation by transporting the excess people to Earth, chaining them to volcanoes, and dropping H-bombs on them. To wrap up, I'll just hit the key elements of this letter one last time. First, it really bothers Mr. Mutha IPH Funker when people don't obey him. Second, Mr. Funker's ventures have a crippling effect on science and technology. And finally, Mr. Funker's materialistic, evil proposed social programs are fraught with the gravest consequences.
So in closing, I hope you drop.
MuFu
New Member
On behalf of several members of the community, I would like to express my shock and disappointment at some of Mr. Dennis "fury" Field's protests. First, the misinformation: Field suggests that every featherless biped, regardless of intelligence, personal achievement, moral character, sense of responsibility, or sanity, should be given the power to create a beachhead for organized parasitism. Where the heck did he come up with that? Any honest person who takes the time to think about that question will be forced to conclude that he presents himself as a disinterested classicist lamenting the infusion of politically motivated methods of pedagogy and analysis into higher education. Field is eloquent in his denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors eccentric, profligate egotists. And here we have the ultimate irony, because Field wants to get me thrown in jail. He can't cite a specific statute that I've violated, but he does believe that there must be some statute. This tells me that an increasing number of people abhor Field's lousy rodomontades and are looking for alternatives, like the truth. For proof of this fact, I must point out that if Field thinks that he can make me lose heart, then he's barking up the wrong tree. I have no problem with the manifestly obvious statement that what we see today is a greater than normal manifestation of rude traits in Field's jokes. I have no problem with the idea that Field wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice his most loyal deputies if it made it even slightly easier for him to win support by encapsulating frustrations and directing them toward unpopular scapegoats. And I have no problem with the special privileges occasionally granted to viperine swaggerers. What I do have a problem with are his wishy-washy screeds.
He coins polysyllabic neologisms to make his equivocations sound like they're actually important. In fact, his treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary. Once again, he argues that he is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong. To maintain this thesis, Field naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which he does by the desperate expedient of claiming that the kids on the playground are happy to surrender to the school bully.
He does not merely trample into the mud all that is fine and noble and beautiful. He does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically. Field says that university professors must conform their theses and conclusions to his choleric prejudices if they want to publish papers and advance their careers. That is the most despicable lie I have ever heard in my entire life. His "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude is spineless, because it leaves no room for compromise.
This is a free country, and I believe we ought to keep it that way. Field's publications are so improvident that if allowed to go unanswered, their final cost would be incalculable. If Field gets his way, none of us will be able to stick to the facts and offer only those arguments that can be supported by those facts. Therefore, we must not let Field expose and neutralize his enemies rather than sit at the same table and negotiate. I like to throw darts at Field's picture. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from elaborating further.
I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that some people are responsible and others are not. Field falls into the category of "not". When I was little, my father would sometimes pick me up, put me on his knee, and say "A deep, ineradicable hatred of everything that is not reckless energizes Field to grasp at straws, trying to find increasingly churlish ways to take a condescending cheap shot at a person that most heinous profiteers will never be in a position to condescend to." If you spot a bumper sticker that reads, "He unfairly lambastes people who are trying to do the best they can in a bad situation," you're probably looking at my car. I challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise. His most progressive idea is to make us the helpless puppets of our demographic labels. If that sounds progressive to you, you must be facing the wrong way. What I am getting at is this: If Field thinks that he can ignore rules, laws, and protocol without repercussion, then he's sadly mistaken.
However brain-damaged the national picture already is, his pathological conclusions spit in the face of propriety. News of this deviousness must spread like wildfire if we are ever to bring a fresh perspective and new ideas to the current debate. When Field hears anyone say that his craven past resonates in his current hatchet jobs, his answer is to convict me without trial, jury, or reading one complete paragraph of this letter. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to strike at the heart of his efforts to manipulate public understanding of opportunism. He is willing to promote truth and justice when it's convenient. But when it threatens his creature comforts, he throws principle to the wind.
Field's morals will have consequences -- very serious consequences. And we ought to begin doing something about that. It would be bad enough if Field's operatives were merely trying to undermine the current world order. But their attempts to cause (or at least contribute to) a variety of social ills are just plain raucous.
Developing a policy of inclusion will not be easy, because if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why Field would want to blame our societal problems on handy scapegoats. I would like to put forth the possibility that if we're to effectively carry out our responsibilities and make a future for ourselves, we will first have to place a high value on honor and self-respect.
Socrates was condemned to death by the city of Athens for his views. I hope I don't receive the same treatment for saying that if Field succeeds in his attempt to erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty, it'll have to be over my dead body. Should this be discussed in school? You bet. That's the function of education: To teach students how to deal summarily with bookish, tactless liars and cheats.
He thinks it's good that his declamations impose a "glass ceiling" that limits our opportunities for promotions in most jobs. It is difficult to know how to respond to such monumentally misplaced values, but let's try this: I have to laugh when he says that there's no difference between normal people like you and me and directionless charlatans. Where in the world did he get that idea? Not only does that idea contain absolutely no substance whatsoever, but everything I've said so far is by way of introduction to the key point I want to make in this letter. My key point is that as long as the beer keeps flowing and the paychecks keep coming, his disciples don't really care that the magnitude of his lies should disgust anyone who has an even moderate education. Let's remember that. After hearing about Field's homicidal attempts to shatter and ultimately destroy our most precious possessions, I was saddened. I was saddened that he has lowered himself to this level. To conclude, education without action creates frustration, while action without education leads to boosterism. This must stop.
He coins polysyllabic neologisms to make his equivocations sound like they're actually important. In fact, his treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary. Once again, he argues that he is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong. To maintain this thesis, Field naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which he does by the desperate expedient of claiming that the kids on the playground are happy to surrender to the school bully.
He does not merely trample into the mud all that is fine and noble and beautiful. He does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically. Field says that university professors must conform their theses and conclusions to his choleric prejudices if they want to publish papers and advance their careers. That is the most despicable lie I have ever heard in my entire life. His "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude is spineless, because it leaves no room for compromise.
This is a free country, and I believe we ought to keep it that way. Field's publications are so improvident that if allowed to go unanswered, their final cost would be incalculable. If Field gets his way, none of us will be able to stick to the facts and offer only those arguments that can be supported by those facts. Therefore, we must not let Field expose and neutralize his enemies rather than sit at the same table and negotiate. I like to throw darts at Field's picture. Sadly, lack of space prevents me from elaborating further.
I have traveled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can therefore assure you that some people are responsible and others are not. Field falls into the category of "not". When I was little, my father would sometimes pick me up, put me on his knee, and say "A deep, ineradicable hatred of everything that is not reckless energizes Field to grasp at straws, trying to find increasingly churlish ways to take a condescending cheap shot at a person that most heinous profiteers will never be in a position to condescend to." If you spot a bumper sticker that reads, "He unfairly lambastes people who are trying to do the best they can in a bad situation," you're probably looking at my car. I challenge him to move from his broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise. His most progressive idea is to make us the helpless puppets of our demographic labels. If that sounds progressive to you, you must be facing the wrong way. What I am getting at is this: If Field thinks that he can ignore rules, laws, and protocol without repercussion, then he's sadly mistaken.
However brain-damaged the national picture already is, his pathological conclusions spit in the face of propriety. News of this deviousness must spread like wildfire if we are ever to bring a fresh perspective and new ideas to the current debate. When Field hears anyone say that his craven past resonates in his current hatchet jobs, his answer is to convict me without trial, jury, or reading one complete paragraph of this letter. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to strike at the heart of his efforts to manipulate public understanding of opportunism. He is willing to promote truth and justice when it's convenient. But when it threatens his creature comforts, he throws principle to the wind.
Field's morals will have consequences -- very serious consequences. And we ought to begin doing something about that. It would be bad enough if Field's operatives were merely trying to undermine the current world order. But their attempts to cause (or at least contribute to) a variety of social ills are just plain raucous.
Developing a policy of inclusion will not be easy, because if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why Field would want to blame our societal problems on handy scapegoats. I would like to put forth the possibility that if we're to effectively carry out our responsibilities and make a future for ourselves, we will first have to place a high value on honor and self-respect.
Socrates was condemned to death by the city of Athens for his views. I hope I don't receive the same treatment for saying that if Field succeeds in his attempt to erode constitutional principles that have shaped our society and remain at the core of our freedom and liberty, it'll have to be over my dead body. Should this be discussed in school? You bet. That's the function of education: To teach students how to deal summarily with bookish, tactless liars and cheats.
He thinks it's good that his declamations impose a "glass ceiling" that limits our opportunities for promotions in most jobs. It is difficult to know how to respond to such monumentally misplaced values, but let's try this: I have to laugh when he says that there's no difference between normal people like you and me and directionless charlatans. Where in the world did he get that idea? Not only does that idea contain absolutely no substance whatsoever, but everything I've said so far is by way of introduction to the key point I want to make in this letter. My key point is that as long as the beer keeps flowing and the paychecks keep coming, his disciples don't really care that the magnitude of his lies should disgust anyone who has an even moderate education. Let's remember that. After hearing about Field's homicidal attempts to shatter and ultimately destroy our most precious possessions, I was saddened. I was saddened that he has lowered himself to this level. To conclude, education without action creates frustration, while action without education leads to boosterism. This must stop.
Didn't I tell you how I read?
