I would like to take a moment to give our young people the values that will inspire them to keep our priorities in check. The full truth of my conclusion I shall develop in the course of this letter but the conclusion's general outline is that it is pointless to fret about the damage already caused by Mr. Richard Pryor, Esq.'s offensive, spineless credos. The past cannot be changed. We must cope with the present if we hope to affect our future and remove the misunderstanding that Mr. Pryor has created in the minds of myriad people throughout the world. His endeavors have experienced a considerable amount of evolution (or perhaps more accurately, genetic drift) over the past few weeks. They used to be simply lazy. Now, not only are they both uneducated and power-drunk, but they also serve as unequivocal proof that Mr. Pryor's contrivances do not represent progress. They represent insanity masquerading as progress. It is my personal opinion, based on years of observation, that if Mr. Pryor isn't frowzy, I don't know who is.
I am tired of hearing or reading that Mr. Pryor's publications epitomize wholesome family entertainment. You know that that is simply not true. One argument Mr. Pryor makes is that we should all bear the brunt of his actions. That's just sheer arrant nonsense. The truth is that if there's an untold story here, it's that he says that demagogism is a noble goal. This is at best wrong. At worst, it is a lie.
Mr. Pryor's most money-grubbing tactic is to fabricate a phony war between nasty party animals and randy, revolting Huns. This way, he can subjugate both groups into helping him operate on a criminal -- as opposed to a civil disobedience -- basis. I doubtlessly don't want that to happen, which is why I'm telling you that the acid test for Mr. Pryor's "kinder, gentler" new rantings should be, "Do they still yield this country to the forces of darkness, oppression, and tyranny?" If the answer is yes, then we can conclude that Mr. Pryor truly believes that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. I hope you realize that that's just a licentious pipe dream from a short-sighted pipe, and that in the real world, Mr. Pryor's cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good. Hey, it's not my fault that if we don't seek some structure in which the cacophony introduced by Mr. Pryor's philosophies might be systematized, reconciled, and made rational, our children will curse us in our graves. Speaking of our children, we need to teach them diligently that Mr. Pryor's like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. Pull back the curtain of immoralism and you'll see a wretched backbiter hiding behind it, furiously pulling the levers of negativism in a frightful attempt to leave helpless citizens afraid in the streets, in their jobs, and even in their homes. That sort of discovery should make any sane person realize that it's surely a tragedy that Mr. Pryor's goal in life is apparently to convince silly, scary sluggards that there is absolutely nothing they can do to better their lot in life besides joining him. Here, I use the word "tragedy" as the philosopher Whitehead used it. Whitehead stated that "the essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things," which I interpret as saying that we must stick to our guns and not let Mr. Pryor convince us that he is a model citizen. I mean, think about it. I apologize if the following points are hard to follow but they're quite relevant to the gist of my argument. First, I must protest Mr. Pryor's use of tasteless anarchists to achieve his snotty goals. And second, Mr. Pryor has failed to provide us with a context in which his jeremiads could be discussed and understood. All of this means, of course, that I cannot compromise with Mr. Pryor; he is without principles. I cannot reason with him; he is without reason. But I can warn him, and with a warning he must unquestionably take to heart: It would be charitable of me not to mention that Mr. Pryor's bait-and-switch tactics have a crippling effect on science and technology. Fortunately, I am not beset by a spirit of false charity, so I will instead maintain that I overheard one of his flunkies say, "Mr. Pryor defends the real needs of the working class." 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 force Mr. Pryor into early retirement.
Mr. Pryor says that he needs a little more time to clean up his act. As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Pryor's time has run out. He talks loudly about family values and personal responsibility, but when it comes to backing up those words with actions, all Mr. Pryor does is promote group-think attitudes over individual insights. Common-sense understanding of human nature tells us that I find that some of his choices of words in his plaints would not have been mine. For example, I would have substituted "unsavory" for "barothermohygrograph" and "lubricious" for "crystallographically." He favors a pompous "Code of Conduct" that serves no purpose other than to promote the total destruction of individuality in favor of an all-powerful group. The mere mention of that fact guarantees that this letter will never get published in any mass-circulation periodical that Mr. Pryor has any control over. But that's inconsequential, because griping about Mr. Pryor will not make him stop trying to use both overt and covert deceptions to deplete the ozone layer. But even if it did, he would just find some other way to deny both our individual and collective responsibility to live in harmony with each other and the world. I hope I don't need to remind you that incendiarism is the principal ingredient in the ideological flypaper he uses to attract the most directionless converts to mysticism I've ever seen into his club, but it's still true, and we must do something about it.
While it is not my purpose to incriminate or exculpate or vindicate or castigate, Mr. Pryor should clarify his point so people like you and me can tell what the heck he's talking about. Without clarification, Mr. Pryor's values sound lofty and include some emotionally charged words but don't really seem to make any sense. He attributes the most distorted, bizarre, and ludicrous "meanings" to ordinary personality charcteristics. For example, if you're shy, Mr. Pryor calls you "fearful and withdrawn". If, instead, you're the outgoing and active type, he says you're "acting out due to trauma". Why does Mr. Pryor say such things? It is bootless to speculate on the matter, but it should be noted that my love for people necessitates that I establish a supportive -- rather than an intimidating -- atmosphere for offering public comment. Yes, I face opposition from Mr. Pryor. However, this is not a reason to quit but to strive harder. I'm merely suggesting that if he doesn't realize that it's generally considered bad style to generate an epidemic of corruption and social unrest, then he should read one of the many self-help books on the subject. I recommend he buy one with big print and lots of pictures. Maybe then, Mr. Pryor will grasp the concept that he keeps trying to deceive us into thinking that all it takes to solve our social woes are shotgun marriages, heavy-handed divorce laws, and a return to some mythical 1950s Shangri-la. The purpose of this deception may be to hinder economic growth and job creation. Or maybe the purpose is to transform our whole society to suit Mr. Pryor's own unrealistic interests. Oh what a tangled web Mr. Pryor weaves when first he practices to deceive.
Mr. Pryor's ebullitions are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called "lying". If I have characterized Mr. Pryor's cheerleaders up to now as petulant and cuckoo, it is only because Mr. Pryor's claim that it is not only acceptable, but indeed desirable, to bamboozle people into believing that he is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose is factually unsupported and politically motivated. I want to halt the adulation heaped upon superficial clowns of one sort or another. But first, let me pose an abstract question. To what degree is Mr. Pryor going to create an unwelcome climate for those of us who are striving to encourage our spirits to soar? I've excogitated one theory that almost completely answers that question. Unfortunately, it fails to take into account that I, speaking as someone who is not an irascible nobody, can undoubtedly suggest how Mr. Pryor ought to behave. Ultimately, however, the burden of acting with moral rectitude lies with Mr. Pryor himself.
Given the range and unpredictability of human behavior, it is quite possible that if the people generally are relying on false information sown by viperine, inhumane traitors, then correcting that situation becomes a priority for the defense of our nation. I indubitably dislike Mr. Pryor. Likes or dislikes, however, are irrelevant to observed facts, such as that some people think I'm exaggerating when I say that Mr. Pryor bases his codices on the belief that his decisions are based on reason. But I'm not exaggerating; if anything, I'm understating the situation. We no longer have the luxury of indulging in universalist, altruistic principles that, no matter how noble they may appear, have enabled salacious derelicts to inspire a recrudescence of loquacious fatuity. Most people want to be nice; they want to be polite; they don't want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness, they step aside and let Mr. Pryor foster suspicion -- if not hatred -- of "outsiders".
Think about that for a moment. Mr. Pryor has no concern for the common good. By the way, saying that last sentence out loud is a nice way to get to the point quickly at a cocktail party. In any case, he wants to be the one who determines what information we have access to. Yet Mr. Pryor is also a big proponent of a particularly bumptious form of Fabianism. Do you see something wrong with that picture? What I see is that it is our responsibility to ensure that he doesn't devise dictatorial scams to get money for nothing. If you don't believe me, see for yourself. Despite what he says, Mr. Pryor takes things out of context, twists them around, and then neglects to provide decent referencing so the reader can check up on him. He also ignores all of the evidence that doesn't support (or in many cases directly contradicts) his position.
Mr. Pryor's cronies believe that no one is smart enough to see through Mr. Pryor's transparent lies. Although it is perhaps impossible to change the perspective of those who have such beliefs, I wish nevertheless 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. I would like to put forth the possibility that whatever your age, you now have only one choice. That choice is between a democratic, peace-loving regime that, you hope, may tell you things that Mr. Pryor doesn't want you to know and, as the alternative, the slaphappy and mudslinging dirigisme currently being forced upon us by Mr. Pryor. Choose carefully, because Mr. Pryor recently went through an antagonism phase in which he tried repeatedly to gain a respectable foothold for his villainous double standards. In fact, I'm not convinced that this phase of his has entirely passed. My evidence is that if you ever ask Mr. Pryor to do something, you can bet that your request will get lost in the shuffle, unaddressed, ignored, and rebuffed. The more I think about the most stingy gasbags you'll ever see, the more troubled I become by Mr. Pryor's hatchet jobs. Assume for a moment that Mr. Pryor is not interested in a true and honest improvement of social conditions, but rather in a way to prevent people from thinking and visualizing beyond an increasingly psychologically caged existence. It therefore follows that he wants to supplant one form of injustice with another. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is Mr. Pryor's gossamer grasp of reality.
In a manner of speaking, I am intellectually honest enough to admit my own previous ignorance in that matter. I only wish that Mr. Pryor had the same intellectual honesty. 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 logorrheic speculation, and then makes no effort to test out his speculations -- and that's just the short list! If our goal is to encourage individuals to come out of their cocoons and flourish, then we must consider various means to that end. Although there are no formal, external validating criteria for Mr. Pryor's benighted, tactless claims, I think we can safely say that what he is doing is not an innocent, recreational sort of thing. It is a criminal activity, it is an immoral activity, it is a socially destructive activity, and it is a profoundly effete activity. Mr. Pryor is interpersonally exploitative. That is, he takes advantage of others to achieve his own homophobic ends. Why does he do that? As you ponder the answer to that question, consider that his prognoses are a load of bunk. I use this delightfully pejorative term, "bunk" -- an alternative from the same page of my criminal-slang lexicon would serve just as well -- because he occasionally shows what appears to be warmth, joy, love, or compassion. You should realize, however, that these positive expressions are more feigned than experienced and invariably serve an ulterior motive, such as to sell us fibs and fear mixed with a generous dollop of neocolonialism. I would like to go on, but I do have to keep this letter short. So I'll wrap it up by saying that it is neither possible nor desirable to ignore the issue of pessimism here.
---------------------------------------------------
Ladies and gentlemen, I offer to you: http://www.pakin.org/complaint/ - The Complaint-Letter Generator!'
![]:o)](./images/smilies/lildevil.gif "Devil"){kind=small}
![]:o(](./images/smilies/flaming_mad.gif "Flaming Mad"){kind=small}
I stopped at the first paragraph. your verbage was ridiculous. I would have found a longer and more complex word for ridiculous, but fuck it. I'm sure you can find one. and since fuck has so many meanings, I'm sure you can find a more complex word for that one as well.
