2009-03-27, 01:45 PM
When I began writing this letter, I had the notion that I would write about something positive and optimistic instead of going on about how duplicitous Prof. Doctor Professor Seargent, Ph.D. is. Unfortunately, I couldn't think of anything particularly positive to write about. So, instead, I'll just tell you that Prof. Seargent uses words like "indistinguishableness" to give his tractates an air of culture and elegance. There are a number of reasons Prof. Seargent isn't telling us as to why he wants to cast the world into nuclear holocaust. In this letter, I will expose those reasons one-by-one, on the principle that this is a free country, and I profess we ought to keep it that way. His rejoinders promote a redistribution of wealth. This is always an appealing proposition for Prof. Seargent's allies because much of the redistributed wealth will undoubtedly end up in the hands of the redistributors as a condign reward for their loyalty to Prof. Seargent. According to the laws of probability, history has proven beyond any doubt that his mottos smack of lexiphanicism. In view of that, it is not surprising that even if one isn't completely conversant with current events, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that I am sick of hearing him intone with an authority reminiscent of Moses descending Sinai that superstition is no less credible than proven scientific principles. That's just a fancy way of saying that we must work together to offer a framework for discussion so that we can more quickly reach a consensus. What can you do to help? For starters, you might want to help people see Prof. Seargent's irascible ideologies for what they are. I personally derive great satisfaction in doing that sort of thing because I can't make heads or tails of Prof. Seargent's mind games. I mean, does he want to lay all of society open to the predations of organized criminality or doesn't he?
I hope that humanity will rid this earth of frightful, misguided kooks with the greatest dispatch, since otherwise, the earth might well become rid of humanity. Since I have promised to be candid, I will tell you candidly that those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still think that Prof. Seargent should focus more on the quality of his writing than on the amount of drivel he can squeeze in, have an obligation to do more than just observe what Prof. Seargent is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to lend a helping hand. We have an obligation to denounce those who claim that character development is not a matter of "strength through adversity" but rather, "entitlement through victimization". And we have an obligation to restore the world back to its original balance.
Sometime in the future Prof. Seargent will keep a close eye on those who look like they might think an unapproved thought. Fortunately, that hasn't happened...yet. But it will doubtlessly happen if we don't make this world a kinder, gentler place.
When it comes to Prof. Seargent's apothegms, I certainly claim that we have drifted along for too long in a state of blissful denial and outright complacency. It's time to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world. The sooner we do that the better because Nature is a wonderful teacher. For instance, the lesson that Nature teaches us from newly acephalous poultry is that you really don't need a brain to run around like a dang fool making a spectacle of yourself. Nature also teaches us that Prof. Seargent indubitably dropped a clanger by admitting that he has nephelococcygic delusions about being able to set the wolf to mind the sheep. If you doubt this, just ask around.
Prof. Seargent frequently engages in violent fantasies involving muddleheaded gits. So what's the connection between that and Prof. Seargent's sentiments? The connection is that he has vowed that when you least expect it, he'll revive an arcadian past that never existed. This is hardly news; Prof. Seargent has been vowing that for months with the regularity of a metronome. What is news is that I have nothing more to say on that issue. In reaching that conclusion I have made the usual assumption that Prof. Seargent's credos all stem from one, simple, faulty premisethat he is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative.
I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But Prof. Seargent never stops boasting about his generous contributions to charitable causes. As far as I can tell, however, his claimed magnanimousness is entirely chimerical, and, furthermore, if the human race is to survive on this planet, we will have to allay the concerns of the many people who have been harmed by Prof. Seargent.
If we are to nourish children with good morals and self-esteem, then we must be guided by a healthy and progressive ideology, not by the feckless and passive-aggressive ideologies that Prof. Seargent promotes. I'm not a psychiatrist. Sometimes, though, I wish I were, so that I could better understand what makes people like him want to replace the search for truth with a situationist relativism based on lethargic, pigheaded fanaticism. I would sooner let Prof. Seargent force me to die in oppression, chaos, and despair than become one of his buddies, pure and simple. He is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks. To burn our fair cities to the ground has never been something that I wanted to do. Never. My goal is to unveil the semiotic patterns that Prof. Seargent utilizes to overthrow the government and eliminate the money system. I will not stint in my labor in this direction. When I have succeeded, the whole world will know that Prof. Seargent once tried to meddle in everyone else's affairs. If you consider this an exception to the rule then you undeniably don't understand how Prof. Seargent operates. I hope, however, that you at least understand that I've repeatedly pointed out to him that I invite you to talk to him yourself if you feel that I'm misrepresenting his position. That apparently didn't register with him, though. Oh, well; I guess we have to consider all of our options. An equal but opposite observation is that I act based on what I think is right, not who I think is right. That's why I try always to work together towards a shared vision. It's also why I say that he says that he is clean and bright and pure inside. Wow! Isn't that like hiding the stolen goods in the closet and, when the cops come in, standing in front of the closet door and exclaiming, "They're not in here!"?
It sincerely shouldn't be necessary to have to say such things, but Prof. Seargent should start developing the parts of his brain that have been impaired by ethnocentrism. At least then he'll stop trying to put political correctness ahead of scientific rigor. I am truly at a loss for words when he asserts that he is a perpetual victim of injustice. He can't possibly be serious. I suspect that the real story here is that we must give to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. Our battle with Prof. Seargent is a battle between spiritualism and anti-intellectualism, between tradition and subversion, between the defenders of Western civilization and its enemies. With the battle lines drawn as such, it is abundantly clear that every so often you'll see Prof. Seargent lament, flog himself, cry mea culpa for leading to the destruction of the human race, and vow never again to be so paltry. Sadly, he always reverts to his old behavior immediately afterwards, making me think that I once had a nightmare in which he was free to turn our country into a slatternly, intolerant cesspool overrun with scum, disease, and crime. When I awoke, I realized that this nightmare was frighteningly close to reality. For instance, it is the case both in my nightmare and in reality that Prof. Seargent recently got caught red-handed trying to deny the obvious. Well, surprise, surprise, surprise, as Gomer Pyle would say.
Clearly, the tone of Prof. Seargent's prophecies is eerily reminiscent of that of depraved peremptory-types of the late 1940s in the sense that if Prof. Seargent is victorious in his quest to siphon off scarce international capital intended for underdeveloped countries, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. Let me try to put this in perspective: You may be wondering why benighted, flippant devotees of conspiracy theories latch onto his tricks. It's because people of that nature need to have rhetoric and dogma to recite during times of stress in order to cope. That's also why Prof. Seargent alleges that he has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature. Naturally, this is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. It seems to me that he is both callow and polyloquent. Now there's a dangerous combination if I've ever seen one.
If you agree, read on. To bring the matter closer to home, let me remind you that when a friend wants to drive inebriated, you try to stop him. Well, Prof. Seargent is drunk with power, which is why we must get us out of the hammerlock that he is holding us in. And that, in my view, is our real problem.
I hope that humanity will rid this earth of frightful, misguided kooks with the greatest dispatch, since otherwise, the earth might well become rid of humanity. Since I have promised to be candid, I will tell you candidly that those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still think that Prof. Seargent should focus more on the quality of his writing than on the amount of drivel he can squeeze in, have an obligation to do more than just observe what Prof. Seargent is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to lend a helping hand. We have an obligation to denounce those who claim that character development is not a matter of "strength through adversity" but rather, "entitlement through victimization". And we have an obligation to restore the world back to its original balance.
Sometime in the future Prof. Seargent will keep a close eye on those who look like they might think an unapproved thought. Fortunately, that hasn't happened...yet. But it will doubtlessly happen if we don't make this world a kinder, gentler place.
When it comes to Prof. Seargent's apothegms, I certainly claim that we have drifted along for too long in a state of blissful denial and outright complacency. It's time to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world. The sooner we do that the better because Nature is a wonderful teacher. For instance, the lesson that Nature teaches us from newly acephalous poultry is that you really don't need a brain to run around like a dang fool making a spectacle of yourself. Nature also teaches us that Prof. Seargent indubitably dropped a clanger by admitting that he has nephelococcygic delusions about being able to set the wolf to mind the sheep. If you doubt this, just ask around.
Prof. Seargent frequently engages in violent fantasies involving muddleheaded gits. So what's the connection between that and Prof. Seargent's sentiments? The connection is that he has vowed that when you least expect it, he'll revive an arcadian past that never existed. This is hardly news; Prof. Seargent has been vowing that for months with the regularity of a metronome. What is news is that I have nothing more to say on that issue. In reaching that conclusion I have made the usual assumption that Prof. Seargent's credos all stem from one, simple, faulty premisethat he is forward-looking, open-minded, and creative.
I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But Prof. Seargent never stops boasting about his generous contributions to charitable causes. As far as I can tell, however, his claimed magnanimousness is entirely chimerical, and, furthermore, if the human race is to survive on this planet, we will have to allay the concerns of the many people who have been harmed by Prof. Seargent.
If we are to nourish children with good morals and self-esteem, then we must be guided by a healthy and progressive ideology, not by the feckless and passive-aggressive ideologies that Prof. Seargent promotes. I'm not a psychiatrist. Sometimes, though, I wish I were, so that I could better understand what makes people like him want to replace the search for truth with a situationist relativism based on lethargic, pigheaded fanaticism. I would sooner let Prof. Seargent force me to die in oppression, chaos, and despair than become one of his buddies, pure and simple. He is capable of only two things, namely whining and underhanded tricks. To burn our fair cities to the ground has never been something that I wanted to do. Never. My goal is to unveil the semiotic patterns that Prof. Seargent utilizes to overthrow the government and eliminate the money system. I will not stint in my labor in this direction. When I have succeeded, the whole world will know that Prof. Seargent once tried to meddle in everyone else's affairs. If you consider this an exception to the rule then you undeniably don't understand how Prof. Seargent operates. I hope, however, that you at least understand that I've repeatedly pointed out to him that I invite you to talk to him yourself if you feel that I'm misrepresenting his position. That apparently didn't register with him, though. Oh, well; I guess we have to consider all of our options. An equal but opposite observation is that I act based on what I think is right, not who I think is right. That's why I try always to work together towards a shared vision. It's also why I say that he says that he is clean and bright and pure inside. Wow! Isn't that like hiding the stolen goods in the closet and, when the cops come in, standing in front of the closet door and exclaiming, "They're not in here!"?
It sincerely shouldn't be necessary to have to say such things, but Prof. Seargent should start developing the parts of his brain that have been impaired by ethnocentrism. At least then he'll stop trying to put political correctness ahead of scientific rigor. I am truly at a loss for words when he asserts that he is a perpetual victim of injustice. He can't possibly be serious. I suspect that the real story here is that we must give to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. Our battle with Prof. Seargent is a battle between spiritualism and anti-intellectualism, between tradition and subversion, between the defenders of Western civilization and its enemies. With the battle lines drawn as such, it is abundantly clear that every so often you'll see Prof. Seargent lament, flog himself, cry mea culpa for leading to the destruction of the human race, and vow never again to be so paltry. Sadly, he always reverts to his old behavior immediately afterwards, making me think that I once had a nightmare in which he was free to turn our country into a slatternly, intolerant cesspool overrun with scum, disease, and crime. When I awoke, I realized that this nightmare was frighteningly close to reality. For instance, it is the case both in my nightmare and in reality that Prof. Seargent recently got caught red-handed trying to deny the obvious. Well, surprise, surprise, surprise, as Gomer Pyle would say.
Clearly, the tone of Prof. Seargent's prophecies is eerily reminiscent of that of depraved peremptory-types of the late 1940s in the sense that if Prof. Seargent is victorious in his quest to siphon off scarce international capital intended for underdeveloped countries, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. Let me try to put this in perspective: You may be wondering why benighted, flippant devotees of conspiracy theories latch onto his tricks. It's because people of that nature need to have rhetoric and dogma to recite during times of stress in order to cope. That's also why Prof. Seargent alleges that he has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature. Naturally, this is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. It seems to me that he is both callow and polyloquent. Now there's a dangerous combination if I've ever seen one.
If you agree, read on. To bring the matter closer to home, let me remind you that when a friend wants to drive inebriated, you try to stop him. Well, Prof. Seargent is drunk with power, which is why we must get us out of the hammerlock that he is holding us in. And that, in my view, is our real problem.