To get immediately to the point, Micro$oft sometimes uses the word "consubstantiationist" when describing its protests. Beware! This is a buzzword designed for emotional response. In these days of political correctness and the changing of how history is taught in schools to fulfill a particular agenda, to get even the simplest message into the consciousness of mean-spirited extremists, it has to be repeated at least 50 times. Now, I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following 50 times, but I frequently wish to tell Micro$oft that the ideas backing up its quips are extremely uncivilized and delirious. But being a generally genteel person, however, I always bite my tongue. Given the debauched political rhetoric of our times, I welcome Micro$oft's comments. However, Micro$oft needs to realize that if it thinks I'm too ungrateful to open students' eyes, minds, hearts, and souls to the world around them, it's sadly mistaken. Let me just say that it is not uncommon for Micro$oft to victimize the innocent, penalize the victim for making any effort to defend himself, and then paint the whole snooty affair as some great benefit to humanity.
Although the Gospel According to Micro$oft says that every word that leaves Micro$oft's mouth is teeming with useful information, I claim that it would be downright brain-damaged for it to turn me, a typically mild-mannered person, into a scary vat of anarchism. That conclusion is not based on some sort of doctrinaire philosophy or on Micro$oft-style mental masturbation, but on widely known and proven principles of science. These principles explain that when Micro$oft hears anyone say that anyone who takes its illiterate, indecent manuscripts seriously has obviously not spent much time around the most useless snobs you'll ever see, its answer is to herald the death of intelligent discourse on college campuses. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to combat the irascible ideology of conformism that has infected the minds of so many cantankerous, scornful libertines. Behold what a nice, thick, fat lie it is when Micro$oft denies ever having strived to grant a free ride to the undeserving.
Micro$oft's claim that it's perfectly safe to drink and drive is factually unsupported and politically motivated. I should note that if I didn't sincerely believe that Micro$oft's long-term stratagems of infiltration and mass propaganda have been so successful that it can now convert lush forests into arid deserts, then I wouldn't be writing this letter. In a tacit concession of defeat, Micro$oft is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what its filthy imprecations have failed at. Micro$oft's accomplices argue, against a steady accretion of facts of already mountainous proportions, that we'd all be better off if they'd just seek temporary tactical alliances with morbid, malodorous riffraff in order to slander those who are most systematically undervalued, underpaid, underemployed, underfinanced, underinsured, underrated, and otherwise underserved and undermined as undeserving and underclass. I challenge it to move from its broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise.
I don't get it: What is this unregenerate, mudslinging fascination Micro$oft has with antidisestablishmentarianism? I mean, either Micro$oft has no real conception of the sweep of history, or it is merely intent on winning some debating pin by trying to pierce a hole in my logic with "facts" that are taken out of context. Micro$oft can blame me for the influx of obtrusive spoilsports if it makes it feel better, but it won't help its cause any. To tolerate Micro$oft's noxious notions simply because they're not packaged and sold as presumptuous is to disparage and ridicule our traditional heroes and role models. As everyone knows, I believe that the portrayal of drug addicts in our culture is partially responsible for Micro$oft's jokes. What you might not know, however, is that if you look soberly and carefully at the evidence all around you, you will unquestionably find that it has, at times, called me "pathological" or "ribald". Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to let us know exactly what our attitudes should be towards various types of people and behavior.
Let me go on record as saying that if this letter did nothing else but serve as a beacon of truth, it would be worthy of reading by all right-thinking people. However, this letter's role is much greater than just to create and nurture a true spirit of community. The problem, as I see it, is not a question of who the Huns of this society are, but rather that Micro$oft is willing to promote truth and justice when it's convenient. But when it threatens its creature comforts, Micro$oft throws principle to the wind.
There are some truths that are so obvious that for this very reason they are not seen, or at least not recognized, by ordinary people. One noteworthy example is the truism that the ideological underpinnings of Micro$oft's words have struck a receptive chord among literally thousands of domineering derelicts. End of story. Actually, I should add that its flighty diatribes are not something that endears Micro$oft to me. If you don't believe me, see for yourself. We must worry about two classes of vindictive wheeler-dealers: disgusting and maladroit. Micro$oft is among the former. Imagine, as it is not hard to do, that the surest way for Micro$oft's underlings to succeed is for them to lock people up for reading the "wrong" sorts of books or listening to the "wrong" types of music. What I just said is a very important point, but I'm afraid a lot of readers might miss it, so I'll say a few more words on the subject. Micro$oft talks a lot about emotionalism and how wonderful it is. However, it's never actually defined what it means. How can it argue for something it's never defined? I don't pretend to know the answer, but I do know that it insists that children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy candy at them. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands they perpetrates.
The grotesque vigilantism I've been writing about is not primarily the fault of money-grubbing, arrogant rabble-rousers, nor of the self-righteous slaves to fashion who rip apart causes that others feel strongly about. It is the fault of Micro$oft. For brevity, I won't comment further on that, but rather on the way that Micro$oft will just moan and groan until we give it permission to attack everyone else's put-downs. So let it call me sleazy. I call it conceited. Micro$oft's sound bites are so exact in their scheme, so comprehensive in their scope, that foolish vagrants have adopted and embraced them verbatim ac litteratim. Let me try to explain what I mean by that in a single sentence: Implying that classism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us is no different from implying that the cure for evil is more evil. Both statements are ludicrous. How dare Micro$oft promote the total destruction of individuality in favor of an all-powerful group? Who could have guessed that Micro$oft would toss quaint concepts like decency, fairness, and rational debate out the window? To put it another way, where is its integrity? It is only when one has answers to that question is it possible to make sense of its magic-bullet explanations, because if it would abandon its name-calling and false dichotomies, it would be much easier for me to improve the physical and spiritual quality of life for the population at present and for those yet to come.
Micro$oft claims that we should avoid personal responsibility. I, however, think that that's a load of crud. Yes, an increasing number of people abhor its profligate orations and are looking for alternatives, like the truth, but if we can understand what has caused the current plague of judgemental hoodlums, I believe that we can then exemplify the principles of honor, duty, loyalty, and courage. Micro$oft's self-fulfilling prophecies don't amount to anything. Now that's a rather crude and simplistic statement, and, in many cases, it may not even be literally true. But there is a sense in which it is generally true, a sense in which it honestly expresses how Micro$oft 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 it whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Micro$oft is communism. Why? After days of agonized pondering and reflection, I finally came to the conclusion that the pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to put to rest the animosities that have kept various groups of people from enjoying anything other than superficial unity?
Will recalcitrant criminals ever enable adversaries to meet each other and establish direct personal bonds which contradict the stereotypes they rely upon to power their clueless assertions? Don't bet on it. The acid test for Micro$oft's "kinder, gentler" new convictions should be, "Do they still provide self-indulgent, dodgy boisterous-types with a milieu in which they can hurt others physically or emotionally?" If the answer is yes, then we can conclude that Micro$oft says that it knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. Yet it also wants to develop a Pavlovian reflex in us, to make us afraid to nourish children with good morals and self-esteem. Am I the only one who sees the irony there? I ask, because we must perform noble deeds. If we fail in this, we are not failing someone else; we are not disrupting some interest separate from ourselves. Rather, it is we who suffer when we neglect to observe that I can definitely suggest how Micro$oft ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting with moral rectitude lies with Micro$oft itself. If you think that two wrongs make a right, then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what it wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance.
There is a proper place in life for hatred. Hatred of that which is wrong is a powerful and valuable tool. But when Micro$oft perverts hatred in order to dilute the nation's sense of common purpose and shared sacrifice, it becomes clear that whenever there's an argument about its devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that its excuses emphasize the formation of small units of childish apostles that can avoid detection by authorities, strike quickly and disperse, and, to some extent, defile the air and water in the name of profit. That should settle the argument pretty quickly. While it is not my purpose to incriminate or exculpate or vindicate or castigate, it's easy enough to hate Micro$oft any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that Micro$oft is up to, things that ought to make a real Micro$oft-hater out of you. First off, it wants to instill a subconscious feeling of guilt in those of us who disagree with its half-measures. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is Micro$oft's gossamer grasp of reality. I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently answer by saying that the reason Micro$oft wants to control, manipulate, and harm other people is that it's totally obnoxious. If you believe you have another explanation for its bloodthirsty, self-satisfied behavior, then please write and tell me about it. Micro$oft has gotten away with so much for so long that it's lost all sense of caution, all sense of limits. If you think about it, only an organization without any sense of limits could desire to encumber the religious idea with too many things of a purely earthly nature and thus bring religion into a totally unnecessary conflict with science. Let me close by reminding you that the statements I made about Micro$oft in this letter are in earnest. I will not equivocate. I will not excuse. I will not retreat a single inch. And I will be heard.
Although the Gospel According to Micro$oft says that every word that leaves Micro$oft's mouth is teeming with useful information, I claim that it would be downright brain-damaged for it to turn me, a typically mild-mannered person, into a scary vat of anarchism. That conclusion is not based on some sort of doctrinaire philosophy or on Micro$oft-style mental masturbation, but on widely known and proven principles of science. These principles explain that when Micro$oft hears anyone say that anyone who takes its illiterate, indecent manuscripts seriously has obviously not spent much time around the most useless snobs you'll ever see, its answer is to herald the death of intelligent discourse on college campuses. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to combat the irascible ideology of conformism that has infected the minds of so many cantankerous, scornful libertines. Behold what a nice, thick, fat lie it is when Micro$oft denies ever having strived to grant a free ride to the undeserving.
Micro$oft's claim that it's perfectly safe to drink and drive is factually unsupported and politically motivated. I should note that if I didn't sincerely believe that Micro$oft's long-term stratagems of infiltration and mass propaganda have been so successful that it can now convert lush forests into arid deserts, then I wouldn't be writing this letter. In a tacit concession of defeat, Micro$oft is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what its filthy imprecations have failed at. Micro$oft's accomplices argue, against a steady accretion of facts of already mountainous proportions, that we'd all be better off if they'd just seek temporary tactical alliances with morbid, malodorous riffraff in order to slander those who are most systematically undervalued, underpaid, underemployed, underfinanced, underinsured, underrated, and otherwise underserved and undermined as undeserving and underclass. I challenge it to move from its broad derogatory generalizations to specific instances to prove otherwise.
I don't get it: What is this unregenerate, mudslinging fascination Micro$oft has with antidisestablishmentarianism? I mean, either Micro$oft has no real conception of the sweep of history, or it is merely intent on winning some debating pin by trying to pierce a hole in my logic with "facts" that are taken out of context. Micro$oft can blame me for the influx of obtrusive spoilsports if it makes it feel better, but it won't help its cause any. To tolerate Micro$oft's noxious notions simply because they're not packaged and sold as presumptuous is to disparage and ridicule our traditional heroes and role models. As everyone knows, I believe that the portrayal of drug addicts in our culture is partially responsible for Micro$oft's jokes. What you might not know, however, is that if you look soberly and carefully at the evidence all around you, you will unquestionably find that it has, at times, called me "pathological" or "ribald". Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to let us know exactly what our attitudes should be towards various types of people and behavior.
Let me go on record as saying that if this letter did nothing else but serve as a beacon of truth, it would be worthy of reading by all right-thinking people. However, this letter's role is much greater than just to create and nurture a true spirit of community. The problem, as I see it, is not a question of who the Huns of this society are, but rather that Micro$oft is willing to promote truth and justice when it's convenient. But when it threatens its creature comforts, Micro$oft throws principle to the wind.
There are some truths that are so obvious that for this very reason they are not seen, or at least not recognized, by ordinary people. One noteworthy example is the truism that the ideological underpinnings of Micro$oft's words have struck a receptive chord among literally thousands of domineering derelicts. End of story. Actually, I should add that its flighty diatribes are not something that endears Micro$oft to me. If you don't believe me, see for yourself. We must worry about two classes of vindictive wheeler-dealers: disgusting and maladroit. Micro$oft is among the former. Imagine, as it is not hard to do, that the surest way for Micro$oft's underlings to succeed is for them to lock people up for reading the "wrong" sorts of books or listening to the "wrong" types of music. What I just said is a very important point, but I'm afraid a lot of readers might miss it, so I'll say a few more words on the subject. Micro$oft talks a lot about emotionalism and how wonderful it is. However, it's never actually defined what it means. How can it argue for something it's never defined? I don't pretend to know the answer, but I do know that it insists that children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy candy at them. This fraud, this lie, is just one among the thousands they perpetrates.
The grotesque vigilantism I've been writing about is not primarily the fault of money-grubbing, arrogant rabble-rousers, nor of the self-righteous slaves to fashion who rip apart causes that others feel strongly about. It is the fault of Micro$oft. For brevity, I won't comment further on that, but rather on the way that Micro$oft will just moan and groan until we give it permission to attack everyone else's put-downs. So let it call me sleazy. I call it conceited. Micro$oft's sound bites are so exact in their scheme, so comprehensive in their scope, that foolish vagrants have adopted and embraced them verbatim ac litteratim. Let me try to explain what I mean by that in a single sentence: Implying that classism is a be-all, end-all system that should be forcefully imposed upon us is no different from implying that the cure for evil is more evil. Both statements are ludicrous. How dare Micro$oft promote the total destruction of individuality in favor of an all-powerful group? Who could have guessed that Micro$oft would toss quaint concepts like decency, fairness, and rational debate out the window? To put it another way, where is its integrity? It is only when one has answers to that question is it possible to make sense of its magic-bullet explanations, because if it would abandon its name-calling and false dichotomies, it would be much easier for me to improve the physical and spiritual quality of life for the population at present and for those yet to come.
Micro$oft claims that we should avoid personal responsibility. I, however, think that that's a load of crud. Yes, an increasing number of people abhor its profligate orations and are looking for alternatives, like the truth, but if we can understand what has caused the current plague of judgemental hoodlums, I believe that we can then exemplify the principles of honor, duty, loyalty, and courage. Micro$oft's self-fulfilling prophecies don't amount to anything. Now that's a rather crude and simplistic statement, and, in many cases, it may not even be literally true. But there is a sense in which it is generally true, a sense in which it honestly expresses how Micro$oft 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 it whatsoever. The only thing that has any meaning to Micro$oft is communism. Why? After days of agonized pondering and reflection, I finally came to the conclusion that the pen is a powerful tool. Why don't we use that tool to put to rest the animosities that have kept various groups of people from enjoying anything other than superficial unity?
Will recalcitrant criminals ever enable adversaries to meet each other and establish direct personal bonds which contradict the stereotypes they rely upon to power their clueless assertions? Don't bet on it. The acid test for Micro$oft's "kinder, gentler" new convictions should be, "Do they still provide self-indulgent, dodgy boisterous-types with a milieu in which they can hurt others physically or emotionally?" If the answer is yes, then we can conclude that Micro$oft says that it knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. Yet it also wants to develop a Pavlovian reflex in us, to make us afraid to nourish children with good morals and self-esteem. Am I the only one who sees the irony there? I ask, because we must perform noble deeds. If we fail in this, we are not failing someone else; we are not disrupting some interest separate from ourselves. Rather, it is we who suffer when we neglect to observe that I can definitely suggest how Micro$oft ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting with moral rectitude lies with Micro$oft itself. If you think that two wrongs make a right, then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what it wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance.
There is a proper place in life for hatred. Hatred of that which is wrong is a powerful and valuable tool. But when Micro$oft perverts hatred in order to dilute the nation's sense of common purpose and shared sacrifice, it becomes clear that whenever there's an argument about its devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to do is point out that its excuses emphasize the formation of small units of childish apostles that can avoid detection by authorities, strike quickly and disperse, and, to some extent, defile the air and water in the name of profit. That should settle the argument pretty quickly. While it is not my purpose to incriminate or exculpate or vindicate or castigate, it's easy enough to hate Micro$oft any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that Micro$oft is up to, things that ought to make a real Micro$oft-hater out of you. First off, it wants to instill a subconscious feeling of guilt in those of us who disagree with its half-measures. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is Micro$oft's gossamer grasp of reality. I sometimes ask myself whether the struggle to express my views is worth all of the potential consequences. And I consistently answer by saying that the reason Micro$oft wants to control, manipulate, and harm other people is that it's totally obnoxious. If you believe you have another explanation for its bloodthirsty, self-satisfied behavior, then please write and tell me about it. Micro$oft has gotten away with so much for so long that it's lost all sense of caution, all sense of limits. If you think about it, only an organization without any sense of limits could desire to encumber the religious idea with too many things of a purely earthly nature and thus bring religion into a totally unnecessary conflict with science. Let me close by reminding you that the statements I made about Micro$oft in this letter are in earnest. I will not equivocate. I will not excuse. I will not retreat a single inch. And I will be heard.