[PLUG-TALK] That bastard, Russell Senior!

[Don Buchholz]

Russell Senior wrote:
> Hey, Scott Pakin's automatic complaint generator is back online.
> Here's a 10-paragraph example (remember, this is generated by a
> computer program):

Hey!  This system is pretty good!  Here's part of my first
corporate attempt :-)

    ...
       Here's a specific example of the way in which I hold fast to
    the view that the net effect of Microsoft's crusades will be a
    generation of kids who are unable to read, write, or distinguish
    good from evil: It wants to promote mediocrity over merit. Every
    time Microsoft utters or writes a statement that supports total-
    itarianism -- even indirectly -- it sends a message that cannibal-
    ism, wife-swapping, and the murder of infants and the elderly
    are acceptable behavior.  ...


> 
>   The furor over separatism has been an acutely frustrating cultural
>   phenomenon: pregnant with great possibility, touching on vital and
>   fascinating issues, yet initially formulated in a one-sided and
>   villainous manner that will make a big deal out of nothing in the
>   immediate years ahead. What's important to note, however, is that
>   Mr. Russell S Senior's pranks share many of the same
>   characteristics. Here's the story: Mr. Senior should think about how
>   his plaints lead flighty dunderheads to feature simplistic answers
>   to complex problems. If Mr. Senior doesn't want to think that hard,
>   perhaps he should just keep quiet. I don't mean to condemn anyone's
>   beliefs, but my purpose here is not to ring the bells of
>   truth. Well, okay, it is. But I should point out that I wonder if he
>   really believes the things he says. He knows they're not true,
>   doesn't he?  There aren't enough hours in the day to fully answer
>   that question, but consider this: Mr. Senior is thoroughly gung-ho
>   about extremism because he lacks more pressing soapbox
>   issues. Mr. Senior holds himself to low standards. Let me recap that
>   for you, because it really is extraordinarily important: As long as
>   the beer keeps flowing and the paychecks keep coming, Mr. Senior's
>   satraps don't really care that he will create a beachhead for
>   organized solecism because he possesses a hatred that defies all
>   logic and understanding, that cannot be quantified or reasoned away,
>   and that savagely possesses conniving, sanctimonious
>   unpatriotic-types with bookish and uncontrollable rage. The best
>   gauge of the value of my attitudes, the sincerity of my convictions,
>   and the force of my will is the hostility I receive from misinformed
>   freaks. Interestingly, Mr. Senior doesn't seem to care about that.
> 
>   I fear that, over time, his revenge fantasies will be seen as
>   uncontested fact, because many people are afraid to snap his lackeys
>   out of their trance. When Mr. Senior is gone, all that will be left
>   from his legacy of hate is the hate itself. As long as I live, I
>   will be shouting this truth from rooftops and doing everything I can
>   to discuss the programmatic foundations of Mr. Senior's
>   condescending epithets in detail. To those few who disagree with
>   some of the things I've written, I ask for your tolerance. And for
>   those pesky big-mouths who want to hide behind the argument that his
>   associates are not spineless prevaricators, but rather, disreputable
>   lounge lizards, my question is simply this: What's the difference? I
>   shall return to this point in particular. I've already explained
>   why, but let me add that Mr. Senior's pleas will have consequences
>   -- very serious consequences. And we ought to begin doing something
>   about that.
> 
>   Mr. Senior would have us believe that he defends the real needs of
>   the working class. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But
>   Mr. Senior is surrounded by unscrupulous, flippant mob bosses who
>   parrot the same nonsense, which is why there is a format he should
>   follow for his next literary endeavor. It involves a topic sentence
>   and supporting facts. Before I continue, let me state that once you
>   understand his deeds, you have a responsibility to do something
>   about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious
>   sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting
>   Mr. Senior infiltrate the media with the express purpose of
>   disseminating libidinous information. He claims that the federal
>   government should take more and more of our hard-earned money and
>   more and more of our hard-won rights. That claim is preposterous
>   and, to use Mr. Senior's own language, overtly ill-bred. No history
>   can justify it.
> 
>   Isn't it true that as depraved as it might sound, Mr. Senior's
>   rejoinders are an ethically bankrupt carnival of isolationism? If
>   that's not true, tell me why not. I frequently wish to tell
>   Mr. Senior that he often uses the phrase, "Studies show that...", to
>   introduce statements that wind up being chiefly about ideology,
>   hunch, or preference. But being a generally genteel person, however,
>   I always bite my tongue. Perhaps he has never had to take a stand
>   and fight for something as critical as our right to deal stiffly
>   with nefarious bimbos who monopolize the press. But I feel no more
>   personal hatred for him than I might feel for a herd of wild animals
>   or a cluster of poisonous reptiles. One does not hate those whose
>   souls can exude no spiritual warmth; one pities them. It's easy for
>   armchair philosophers to theorize about Mr. Senior and about
>   hypothetical solutions to our Mr. Senior problem. It's an entirely
>   more difficult matter, however, when one considers that to
>   Mr. Senior's mind, his artifices epitomize wholesome family
>   entertainment. So that means that cannibalism, wife-swapping, and
>   the murder of infants and the elderly are acceptable behavior,
>   right? No, not right. The truth is that what we have been imparting
>   to Mr. Senior -- or what he has been eliciting from us -- is a
>   half-submerged, barely intended logic, contaminated by wishes and
>   tendencies we prefer not to acknowledge.
> 
>   Am I the only one who makes that observation? Of course not. But
>   perhaps I express it more directly, more candidly, and far less
>   euphemistically than most. If history follows its course, it should
>   be evident that Mr. Senior's weltanschauung is that we're supposed
>   to shut up and smile when he says careless-to-the-core, vindictive
>   things. Think about it, and I'm sure you'll agree with me. The
>   question, therefore, must not be, "How insufferable can Mr. Senior
>   be?", but rather, "What does Mr. Senior hope to achieve by
>   repeatedly applying his lips to the posteriors of revolting
>   psychics?". The latter question is the better one to ask, because I
>   would never take a job working for Mr. Senior. Given his shiftless
>   anecdotes, who would want to?
> 
>   Here's an idea: Instead of giving him the ability to subject us to
>   the mischievous yapping of ribald loudmouths, why don't we justify
>   condemnation, constructive criticism, and ridicule of him and his
>   disgraceful crusades? If we do, we'll then be able to eschew
>   officious interdenominationalism. He may be sincere, but he is also
>   sincerely refractory.
> 
>   It is imperative that all of us in this community search for
>   solutions that are more creative and constructive than the typically
>   ultra-confused ones championed by pusillanimous radicals. This
>   cannot occur unless there is a true spirit of respect and an
>   appreciation of differences. Mr. Senior certainly believes that he
>   can achieve his goals by friendly and moral conduct. What kind of
>   Humpty-Dumpty world is he living in? The complete answer to that
>   question is a long, sad story. I've answered parts of that question
>   in several of my previous letters, and I'll answer other parts in
>   future ones. For now, I'll just say that his legates often reverse
>   the normal process of interpretation. That is, they value the unsaid
>   over the said, the obscure over the clear. That fact is simply
>   inescapable to any thinking man or woman. "Thinking" is the key word
>   in the previous sentence. Even when Mr. Senior isn't lying, he's
>   using facts, emphasizing facts, bearing down on facts, sliding off
>   facts, quietly ignoring facts, and, above all, interpreting facts in
>   a way that will enable him to unleash an unparalleled wave of
>   obstructionism.
> 
>   One argument he makes is that my bitterness at him is merely the
>   latent projection of libidinal energy stemming from self-induced
>   anguish. That's just sheer arrant nonsense. The truth is that one of
>   his goons once said, "Society is screaming for Mr. Senior's
>   harangues." 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 almost every day, Mr. Senior outreaches himself in setting new
>   records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It's surely breathtaking
>   to watch him. Given his current mind-set, I will never give up. I
>   will never stop trying. And I will use every avenue possible to
>   discuss the advantages of two-parent families, the essential role of
>   individual and family responsibility, the need for uniform standards
>   of civil behavior, and the primacy of the work ethic.
> 
>   More concretely, only through education can individuals gain the
>   independent tools they need to put the kibosh on Mr. Senior's
>   disquisitions. But the first step is to acknowledge that some people
>   say that that isn't sufficient evidence to prove that he is secretly
>   scheming to cause one-sided words to be entered into historical
>   fact. And I must agree; one needs much more evidence than that. But
>   the evidence is there, for anyone who isn't afraid to look at
>   it. Just look at the way that if the past is any indication of the
>   future, he will once again attempt to rob us of our lives, our
>   health, our honor, and our belongings. To do exactly the things
>   Mr. Senior accuses short-sighted, unprincipled yobbos of doing is
>   Mr. Senior's objective, and nit-picky favoritism is his method. He
>   continuously seeks adulation from his apologists, to put it
>   mildly. It is grossly misleading merely to claim that facts and
>   their accuracy make a story, not the overdramatization of whatever
>   he dreams up. Am I aware of how Mr. Senior will react when he reads
>   that last sentence? Yes. Do I care? No, because I have a New Year's
>   resolution for him: He should pick up a book before he jumps to the
>   immature conclusion that everything he says is entirely and totally
>   true. Because he should know better than to pander to our worst
>   fears, because he is incapable of empathizing or identifying with
>   others, and because he has a vested interest in making me die a slow
>   and painful death, we can conclude that Mr. Senior 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 we were put on this planet to be active, to struggle, and to
>   tell Mr. Senior how wrong he is. We were not put here to harm
>   others, or even instill the fear of harm, as Mr. Senior might
>   believe.
> 
>   In other words, the law is not just a moral stance. It is the
>   consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior. It is
>   irresponsible to accept everything at face value. That shouldn't
>   surprise you when you consider that I overheard one of his trained
>   seals say, "University professors must conform their theses and
>   conclusions to Mr. Senior's noxious prejudices if they want to
>   publish papers and advance their careers." This quotation
>   demonstrates the power of language, as it epitomizes the "us/them"
>   dichotomy within hegemonic discourse. As for me, I prefer to use
>   language to push a consistent vision that responds to most people's
>   growing fears about obstreperous Philistines. As we all know, by
>   opting for the easy, short-term, feel-good path, Mr. Senior will put
>   the gods of heaven into the corner as obsolete and outmoded and, in
>   their stead, burn incense to the idol Mammon in a lustrum or
>   two. The salient point here is that from secret-handshake societies
>   meeting at "the usual place" to back-door admissions committees, his
>   forces have always found a way to till the feckless side of the
>   denominationalism garden. And that's it. What Mr. Russell S Senior
>   insists are original methods of interpretation are nothing more than
>   warmed-over versions of imperialism.
> 
> For your own amusement, see:
> 
>   <http://www.pakin.org/complaint>
>