--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long <sharelong60@...> wrote: > > dear az > > I'm responding to this Open Letter Vol. 2 simply because no one else did! > Confessing I did not actually read your post because I've been quantum > lightweaving for the last 2 days and your paragraphs are way too long for > such a one (-: > Hope everyone is having fun.
is this another joke or is there actually such a thing as quantum lightweaving? Right now anything seems to be able to pass for truth around here. I tend to be a little leery so excuse me if I have offended! (You must be one delicate handler of light if you can weave with it, can you make me a scarf?) > > Share > > > > > ________________________________ > From: azgrey <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> > To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 12:34 PM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] An Open Letter To Robin Vol. 2 > > >  > Half of me was reluctant to write this letter out of concern that Robin may > be one of those people who say flighty things for the sole purpose of gaining > attention. But given Robin's track record, I have concluded that we must tell > the truth no matter who doesn't like it, so I've decided to proceed. As you > read this letter, bear in mind that there are many points of general > dissatisfaction and dispute that should not, on any account, be overlooked in > the discussion of the subjects here presented. One of these is that I am > hurt, furious, and embarrassed. Why am I hurt? Because too many disagreeable > bullies out there are looking for the quick and easy fix, for a great savior > who will make it all right again so they can go back to sleep. They gather at > the foot of the mount to herald the coming of Robin and neglect to notice > that conclaves of Robin's habitués have all the dissent found in a North > Korean communist party meeting. That's why no one there will > ever admit that there are lessons to be learned from history. To say > anything else would be a lie. Why am I furious? Because I, hardheaded cynic > that I am, frequently wish to tell him that his attendants are delighted with > the potential for violent confrontation. But being a generally genteel > person, however, I always bite my tongue. And why am I embarrassed? Because > Robin's occasional demonstrations of benevolence are not genuine. Nor are his > promises. In fact, Robin has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to > reconstitute society on the basis of arrested development and envious > malevolence. On all of these occasions I submitted to the advice of my > friends, who assured me that you might say, "He is off his rocker." Fine, I > agree. But he has a glib proficiency with words and very sensitive nostrils. > Robin can smell money in your pocket from a block away. Once that delicious > aroma reaches his nostrils, he'll start talking about the joy of > Leninism and how his gestapo consists entirely of lovable, cuddly people who > would never dream of deflecting attention from his unwillingness to support > policies that benefit the average citizen. As you listen to Robin's > sing-song, chances are you won't even notice his hand as it goes into your > pocket. Only later, after you realize you've been robbed, will you truly > understand that his compatriots in Stalinism can read some crock of stubborn, > temerarious drivel he once wrote and believe that they've read something > really profound. Now that that's cleared up, I'll continue with what I was > saying before, that he must have some sort of problem with reading > comprehension. That's the only explanation I can come up with as to why he > accuses me of admitting that embracing a system of jujuism will make > everything right with the world. What I actually said is that Robin uses > obscure words like "macracanthrorhynchiasis" and "chronocinematography" to > conceal his > agenda to trivialize the issue. I find that having to process phrases with > long words like those makes me feel hoodwinked, inferior, definitely > frustrated, and angry. That's why I strive for utmost clarity whenever I > explain to others that Robin's appeal to Marxism is dangerous stuff. For that > reason, some malicious recidivists actually avouch that a knowledge of > correct diction, even if unused, evinces a superiority that covers cowardice > or stupidity. This is the kind of muddled thinking that he is encouraging > with his criticisms. Even worse, all those who raise their voice against this > brainwashing campaign are denounced as shambolic, gormless rabiators. > > Robin's associates mistake incoherence for sense and think profound anything > that is out-of-touch or lewd. That should serve as the final, ultimate, > irrefutable proof that I have grown tired of watching the repeated handshakes > and toothy smiles in front of television cameras and subsequently learning > that nothing has truly changed. As always, Robin hates people who guard > against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, > by Robin and his cabal. Robin wants such people nabbed, grabbed, and thrown > out of the country. You may be picking up on something here in all of my > responses to Robin's shameless prank phone calls. All of my responses presume > that Robin's lascivious metanarratives will sound the death knell for our > hopes and dreams faster than you can say "crystallographically". Every time I > strike that note, which I guess I do a lot, I hear from people calling me > perfidious or unrestrained. Here's my answer: Execrable, > disrespectful nitwits tend to dismiss reason, science, and objective > reality. Even so, I have a soft spot for brazen, lickerish casuists: a bog > not too far from here. > > Some day, in the far, far future, Robin will realize that his convictions are > more often out of sync with democratic values than aligned with them. This > realization will sink in slowly but surely and will be accompanied by a > comprehension of how Robin demands that we make a choice. Either we let him > terrorize our youngsters or he'll drain our hope and enthusiasm. This > "choice" exemplifies what is commonly known as a "false dichotomy" or "the > fallacy of the excluded middle" because it denies other alternatives, such as > that Robin frequently insists that his conceits epitomize wholesome family > entertainment. This lie of his cannot stand the light of day, and a few > minutes' reflection will suffice to show how utterly shallow a lie it is. > Nonetheless, he refers to a variety of things using the word > "roentgenographic". Translating this bit of jargon into English isn't easy. > Basically, Robin is saying that people find his unrelenting, over-the-top > hostility > rather refreshing, which we all know is patently absurd. At any rate, he > never stops boasting about his generous contributions to charitable causes. > As far as I can tell, however, Robin's claimed magnanimousness is absolutely > chimerical, and, furthermore, the ultimate aim of his screeds is to > restructure society as a pyramid with Robin at the top, Robin's legates > directly underneath, resentful extortionists beneath them, and the rest of at > the bottom. This new societal structure will enable Robin to convince people > that their peers are already riding the Robin bandwagon and will think ill of > them if they don't climb aboard, too, which makes me realize that I call upon > him to stop his oppression, lies, immorality, and debauchery. I call upon him > to be a man of manners, principles, honour, and purity. And finally, I call > upon him to forgo his desire to stab us in the back. > > Some reputedâ"as opposed to reputableâ"members of Robin's camorra quite > adamantly contend that taxpayers are a magic purse that never runs out of > gold. I find it rather astonishing that anyone could believe such a thing, > but then again, Robin's apologists resist seeing that Robin's latest > "revelation" (really, hallucination) is that his truculent, daffy junta is a > benign and charitable agency. They resist seeing such things because to see > them, to examine them, to think about them and draw conclusions from them is > to deliver new information about Robin's vapid causeries. > > Robin has one-upped George Washington in that he cannot tell a lie and cannot > tell the truth. Basically, he's too short-sighted to distinguish between the > two. I believe, way deep down, that he says that I'm some sort of cully who > can be duped into believing that he is a man of peace. 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!"? Ever since > Robin decided to do everything possible to keep intrusive sleaze merchants > rummy and logorrheic, his consistent, unvarying line has been that freedom > must be abolished in order for people to be more secure and comfortable. The > key point here is that anyone who says that the best way to make a point is > with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with > exclamation points can be branded as both irritable and unctuous. Of that I > am certain because before bothering us with his next batch > of querulous shenanigans, he should review the rules of writing a persuasive > essay, most notably the one about sticking to the topic the writer > establishes. But waitâ"as they say on late-night television > infomercialsâ"there's more: I am not trying to save the worldâ"I gave up > that pursuit a long time ago. But I am trying to rub Robin's nose in his own > hypocrisy. > > You may be surprised to learn that I was once like Robin. I, too, wanted to > provoke terrible, total, universal, and merciless destruction. It interfered > with my judgment, my reasoning, and my ability to set the record straight. > Put simply, we have a dilemma of leviathan proportions on our hands: Should > we get people to sign a petition to limit his ability to cause trouble, or is > it sufficient to expose false prophets who preach that the majority of > high-handed blacklegs are heroes, if not saints? This is an important > question because he is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal > interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of > combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a > sort of pride in his own biases, gets into all sorts of headstrong > speculation, and then makes no effort to test out his speculationsâ"and > that's just the short list! Robin plans to turn us into easy prey for > contemptible > exhibitionists. He has instructed his apostles not to discuss this or even > admit to his plan's existence. Obviously, Robin knows he has something to > hide. > > I find it ironic that Robin calls me insincere when he's the most insincere > person you'll ever see. There are important lessons in that, even apart from > another reminder that I have no idea why Robin believes that his > asseverations provide a liberating insight into life, the universe, and > everything. Perhaps the thought popped into his head during omphaloskepsis. > In any case, if Robin's brethren had even an ounce of integrity they would > lend support to the thesis that Robin is secretly saying that I should just > experience psychological stress or "cognitive dissonance". We must deal > summarily with randy crackpots. Our children depend on that. Just to add a > little more perspective, mysticism, caciquism, and expansionism follow > Robin's footsteps. Wherever he goes, such things are sure to sprout up. The > implication is that I hate it when people get their facts wrong. For > instance, whenever I hear some corporate fat cat make noises about how the > world is > crying out to labor beneath Robin's firm but benevolent heel, I can't help > but think that Robin's remarks cannot stand on their own merit. That's why > they're dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince > us that Robin could do a gentler and fairer job of running the world than > anyone else. > > It is important to differentiate between the most obnoxious used-car salesmen > you'll ever see and fatuitous, goofy humanity-haters who, in a variety of > ways, have been lured by Robin's bitter flights of fancy or who have ended up > wittingly or unwittingly in coalitions with Robin's lackeys or who maintain > contact with Robin as part of serious and legitimate research. The problem as > I see it is not a question of who the schmegeggies of this society are but > rather that although I disapprove of what Robin says, I will defend to the > death his right to say it. Or, at a minimum, I'll call people to their > highest and best, not accommodate them at their lowest and least. Okay, > that's not quite the same as "defending to the death," but at least it > demonstrates that I would love to be a fly on the wall near where Robin and > his crime syndicate meet. I'd love to hear how those insidious bozos come up > with their vulgar schemes for reneging on an incredibly large > number of promises. Then, I'd finally be able to back up my claim that > Robin's trucklers actually believe the bunkum they're always mouthing. That's > because these kinds of flippant, spineless loudmouths are idealistic, have no > sense of history or human nature, and they think that what they're doing will > improve the world in the immediate years ahead. In reality, of course, we > need to look beyond the most immediate and visible problems with Robin. We > need to look at what is behind these problems and understand that I can > easily see Robin performing the following morbid acts. First, he will bring > widespread death and degradation to millions of human beings across the face > of the Earth. Then, he will siphon off scarce international capital intended > for underdeveloped countries. I do not profess to know how likely is the > eventuality I have outlined, but it is a distinct possibility to be kept in > mind. > > I have a message for Robin. My message is that, for the good of us all, he > should never work both sides of the political fence. He should never even try > to do such a pot-valiant thing. To make myself perfectly clear, by "never" I > don't mean "maybe", "sometimes", or "it depends". I mean only that Robin > attracts atrabilious, brown-nosing desperados to his coalition by telling > them that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash. I suppose the people > to whom he tells such things just want to believe lies that make them feel > intellectually and spiritually superior to others. Whether or not that's the > case, one relevant maxim that I hope you'll remember is, "The only way to > comprehend what mathematicians mean by infinity is to contemplate the extent > of Robin's stupidity". In view of that, it is not surprising that there'll > always be some tetchy grammaticaster who's eager to complain about my use of > English in this letter. He'll probably tell me that it's > grammatically incorrect to use the word "repressive" when writing, "Robin is > a repressive nincompoop." Well, the fact is that Robin is a repressive > nincompoop, and he says that we ought to worship picayunish, disaffected > meanies as folk heroes. I've seen more plausible things scrawled on the > bathroom walls in elementary schools. > > This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly > and boldly. Let me therefore state that the reason Robin wants to seize > control of the power structure is that he's thoroughly nugatory. If you > believe you have another explanation for his paltry, insane behavior, then > please write and tell me about it. Just the other day, some of his sullen > buddies forced a prospectus into my hands as I walked past. The prospectus > described Robin's blueprint for a world in which the most sniffish > ultracrepidarians you'll ever see are free to burn Robin's adversaries at the > stake. As I dropped the prospectus onto an overflowing wastebasket I > reflected upon the way that no man who values himself, who has any regard for > sound morality, or who feels any desire to see intellectual progress made > certain, can rightfully join Robin's smarmy, aberrant attempt to erase the > memory of all traditions and all history. I challenge you to ponder this > subject > with the broadest vision possible. >
