This letter has three main sections.

In the first, I argue that Mr. Joltin Jacket's hypocrisy comes out when he denies that he surrounds himself with salacious schemers. In the second, I make it clear that all Mr. Jacket does is inspire resentful, rash epigrams. And in the third and final section, I conclude that Mr. Jacket's expedients have been a millstone around our neck for quite some time. First things first: The facts as I see them simply do not support the false, but widely accepted, notion that space gods arriving in flying saucers will save humanity from self-destruction. On the surface, it would seem merely that he suffers from a pathology of delusion. But the truth is that he thrives on the victimization of others. If you find that fact distressing then you should help me honor our nation's glorious mosaic of cultures and ethnicities. Either that, or you can crawl into a corner and lament that you got yourself born in the wrong universe. Don't expect your sobbing to do much good, however, because Mr. Jacket commonly appoints ineffective people to important positions. He then ensures that these people stay in those positions because that makes it easy for Mr. Jacket to impose larcenous new restrictions on society just to satisfy some sort of vainglorious drive for power.

Mr. Jacket wants you to believe that coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power. You should be wary of such claims. Be aware! Be skeptical! Think! Do not be diverted, deceived, or mesmerized by Mr. Jacket's presumptuous, crude tirades.

I challenge all of the spiteful scum out there to consider this: Mr. Jacket has announced his intentions to rebrand local churches as faith-based emporia teeming with impulse-buy items. While doing so may earn Mr. Jacket a gold star from the mush-for-brains racism crowd, people often get the impression that the most dysfunctional Machiavellians you'll ever see and Mr. Jacket's stooges are separate entities. Not so. When one catches cold, the other sneezes. As proof, note that Mr. Jacket has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to impose ideology, control thought, and punish virtually any behavior he disapproves of. On all of these occasions, I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that the quest to do everything possible to keep pugnacious low-lifes overweening and headlong is the true inner kernel of his philosophy, insofar as this figment of a delirious brain can be designated a "philosophy". That's the current situation, and if you have any doubt about the reality of it, then you haven't been paying close enough attention to what's been happening in the world. Consequently, it seems clear that Mr. Jacket's grungy declamations run counter to human nature and, as such, are doomed to failure. But we ought to look at the matter in a broader framework before we draw final conclusions on the subject: We see that Mr. Jacket clings to any argument or principle, however shameless or uninformed, that appears to support his beliefs (as I would certainly not call them logically reasoned arguments). Nevertheless, I can state with absolute certainty that Mr. Jacket's spin doctors have been staggering around like punch-drunk fighters hit too many times -- stunned, confused, betrayed, and trying desperately to rationalize Mr. Jacket's money-grubbing ideologies. It is not a pretty sight. I note in passing that it's easy for us to shake our heads at Mr. Jacket's foolishness and cowardice. It's easy for us to exclaim that we should show principle, gumption, verve, and nerve. It's easy for us to say, "The time has come to do what comes naturally." The point is that it's easy for us to say these things because if you were to tell Mr. Jacket that I indubitably believe that he is full of it, he'd just pull his security blanket a little tighter around himself and refuse to come out and deal with the real world.

It's really amazing, isn't it? We can put people on the Moon and send robot explorers to Mars, but each of us should realize after a moment's thought that Mr. Jacket's historical record of mingy, pigheaded hastily mounted campaigns is clearer than the muddled pronouncements of his loyalists. But it goes further than that; far too many people tolerate Mr. Jacket's treatises as long as they're presented in small, seemingly harmless doses. What these people fail to realize, however, is that if one believes statements like, "Mr. Jacket's blessing is the equivalent of a papal imprimatur," one is, in effect, supporting what I call puerile cads. What kind of loser wants to resort to ad hominem attacks on me and my family? A loser like Mr. Jacket. If we let him condemn children to a life of drugs, gangs, drinking, rape, incest, verbal abuse, physical abuse, and a number of other horrors, all we'll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization.

Strictly speaking, I want to focus on concrete facts, on hard news, on analyzing and interpreting what's happening in the world. That may seem simple enough, but if Mr. Jacket wants to complain, he should have an argument. He shouldn't just throw out the word "interchangeableness", for example, and expect us to be scared. I must admit that I've read only a small fraction of his writings. (As a well-known aphorism states, it is not necessary to eat all of an apple to learn that it is rotten.) Nevertheless, I've read enough of Mr. Jacket's writings to know that my cause is to appeal not to the contented and satisfied, but embrace those tormented by suffering, those without peace, the unhappy and the discontented. I call upon men and women from all walks of life to support my cause with their life-affirming eloquence and indomitable spirit of human decency and moral righteousness. Only then will the whole world realize that for all Mr. Jacket's bombast about freedom, liberty, and tolerance, he still wants to advocate fatalistic acceptance of a whiney, execrable new world order. And that's why I'm writing this letter; this is my manifesto, if you will, on how to make his prurient, refractory shenanigans understood, resisted, and made the object of deserved contempt by young and old alike. There's no way I can do that alone, and there's no way I can do it without first stating that his exegeses are merely a stalking horse. They mask Mr. Jacket's secret intention to make bargains with the devil. To what depths of depravity does Mr. Jacket need to descend before the rest of us realize we must seek liberty, equality, and fraternity? While I don't know the answer to that particular question, I do know that if you can make any sense out his brown-nosing, annoying half-measures, then you must have gotten higher marks in school than I did. Violence is a crutch for the depravity that ruthless, disgraceful scumbags are capable of. That said, let me continue.

A cynical mentality and a treacherous sense of nonrepresentationalism create fertile soil for pathetic gadflies to waste natural resources. I kid you not. Once again, throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to go placidly amid the noise and haste and those who wish to make semi-intelligible, nit-picky vagrants out to be something they're not. Naturally, Mr. Jacket belongs to the latter category.

Mutual efforts against grotesque chauvinism are not just an educational process designed to teach people that Mr. Jacket's modes of thought either go uncontested or are openly supported by unctuous maggots. These efforts also serve as a beacon, warning the world of the duplicitous consequences of Mr. Jacket's intrusive, quasi-loquacious philippics. I must emphasize this because we wouldn't have a problem with militarism if it weren't for Mr. Jacket. Although he created the problem, aggravated the problem, and escalated the problem, Mr. Jacket insists that he can solve the problem if we just grant him more power. How na

Has someone visited Mr. Pakin's website?

http://www.pakin.org/complaint/

Oh yeah? Well this is what I think...

My complaint about N.C.T.M.

N.C.T.M.'s whinges require a two-part response: first, a clarification of the prognosis implied by my previous letter; and second, a commentary on N.C.T.M.'s own prognoses. Let me get to the crux of the matter: N.C.T.M. has spent untold hours trying to leave a generation of people planted in the mud of a venal, presumptuous world, to begin a new life in the shadows of fogyism. During that time, did it ever once occur to him that of particular interest to me is the way that he continuously denies that he has a blatant disregard for society's basic laws? Unfortunately, I can't give a complete answer to that question in this limited space. But I can tell you that he is too irritating to read the writing on the wall. This writing warns that I don't see how he can build a workable policy around wishful thinking draped over a morass of confusion (and also, as we'll see below, historical illiteracy), then impose it willy-nilly on a population by force. I'm not saying that it can't possibly be done but rather that the fight to snap N.C.T.M.'s bedfellows out of their trance demands a fight against prostitution, prejudices, old habits, and previous conceptions. It's that simple. I've heard of hypocritical things like wowserism and heathenism. But I've also heard of things like nonviolence, higher moralities, and treating all beings as ends in and of themselves -- ideas which N.C.T.M.'s ignorant, unthinking, semi-intelligible brain is too small to understand. It is not news that it looks like anyone who was sober for more than an hour or two during the last five years knows that obstructionism represents a subversive, contemptible form of divide-and-conquer. What speaks volumes, though, is that I am reminded of the quote, "He offers nothing but cheap insults and banal rhetoric." This comment is not as whiney as it seems because even when the facts don't fit, N.C.T.M. sometimes tries to use them anyway. He still maintains, for instance, that we can change the truth if we don't like it the way it is.

N.C.T.M. hates you -- yes, you, because you, like me, want to recognize and respect the opinions, practices, and behavior of others. He struts like a god on Mount Olympus, looking down on us mortals below. With enough time and room, it would be easy to show why this must be true, but the clinching argument is simply that he had promised us liberty, equality, and fraternity. Instead, N.C.T.M. gave us fascism, onanism, and interdenominationalism. I suppose we should have seen that coming, especially since we have a number of problems for which N.C.T.M. bears most of the responsibility. I always catch hell whenever I say something like that, so let me assure you that he has found a way to avoid compliance with government regulations, circumvent any further litigation, and enact new laws forcing anyone who's not one of his adherents to live in an environment that can, at best, be described as contemptuously tolerant -- all by trumping up a phony emergency. You should never forget the three most important facets of N.C.T.M.'s zingers, namely their sullen origins, their internal contradictions, and their tendentious nature. Some churlish kooks have raised objections to my antics, but their objections are all politically motivated. To deny that N.C.T.M. spews nothing but lame retorts and innuendoes is aberrant nonsense and political irresponsibility. It is nonsense because I am astonished by how little integrity and good judgment N.C.T.M. possesses. And it is irresponsible because we ought to put an end to yawping, lascivious faddism. That'll make N.C.T.M. think once -- I would have said "twice" but I don't see any indication that he has previously given any thought to the matter -- before trying to create profound emotional distress for people on both sides of the issue.

Don't kid yourself: N.C.T.M. recently stated that we should avoid personal responsibility. He said that with a straight face, without even cracking a smile or suppressing a giggle. He said it as if he meant it. That's scary, because one of the goals of absolutism is to render meaningless the words "best" and "worst". N.C.T.M. admires that philosophy because, by annihilating human perceptions of quality, N.C.T.M.'s own mediocrity can flourish. He wants to rid the world of "defective" people. But let's not lose sight of the larger, more important issue here: his hypersensitive vituperations. N.C.T.M.'s philippics have reached a depth of degeneracy that was virtually unknown in the past. Here, too, the exception proves the rule: N.C.T.M. yields to the mammalian desire to assert individuality by attracting attention. Unfortunately, for N.C.T.M., "attract attention" usually implies "conjure up dirt against his fellow human beings". He is determined to put as little thought as possible into solving the undeniable problems that our society is still facing with regard to irrationalism. It is unclear whether this is because he is intellectually dishonest in everything he says and does, because his clueless attempts to waste natural resources are well-nigh unforgivable, or a combination of the two.

Does N.C.T.M. really know anything about the convictions he claims to support? No, he doesn't. Look at it from my point of view: 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 insipid activity. Anyone who has spent much time wading through the pious, obscurantist, jargon-filled cant that now passes for "advanced" thought in the humanities already knows that he will simply continue to cause distress to people he doesn't know, has never seen, and who have done him no harm whatsoever. What may be news, however, is that I would like to comment on N.C.T.M.'s attempt to associate pharisaism with Fabianism. There is no association. N.C.T.M. uses the very intellectual tools he criticizes, namely consequentialist arguments rather than arguments about truth or falsity. He says that two wrongs make a right. Yet he also wants to brainwash the masses into submission. Am I the only one who sees the irony there? I ask because he is still going around insisting that all literature which opposes defeatism was forged by disagreeable dweebs. Jeez, I thought I had made it perfectly clear to him that his agents provocateurs actually believe the bunkum they're always mouthing. That's because these types of longiloquent, cuckoo liars and cheats are idealistic, have no sense of history or human nature, and they think that what they're doing will improve the world one of these days. In reality, of course, N.C.T.M. and gormless lamebrains are cut from the same cloth. Am I being unduly harsh for writing that? I think not. When the religious leaders in Jesus's time were wrong, Jesus denounced them in extremely harsh terms. So why shouldn't I, too, use extremely harsh terms to indicate that I, speaking as someone who is not an inane menace, don't know how N.C.T.M. can be so fastidious?

My general thesis is that N.C.T.M. claims that his cajoleries are good for the environment, human rights, and baby seals. Well, I beg to differ. I'll talk a lot more about that later, but first let me finish my general thesis: I have to laugh when he says that society is supposed to be lenient towards the most diabolic shysters I've ever seen. Where in the world did he get that idea? Not only does that idea contain absolutely no substance whatsoever, but I know more about opportunism than most people. You might even say that I'm an expert on the subject. I can therefore state with confidence that my goal is to give N.C.T.M. a rhadamanthine warning not to inject even more fear and divisiveness into political campaigns. I might not be successful at achieving that goal, but I definitely do have to try. We must serve on the side of Truth. Our children depend on that. Just the other day, some of N.C.T.M.'s domineering sycophants forced a prospectus into my hands as I walked past. The prospectus described N.C.T.M.'s blueprint for a world in which savage sociopaths are free to empty the meaning of such concepts as "self," "justice," "freedom," and other profundities. As I dropped the prospectus onto an overflowing wastebasket, I reflected upon the way that almost every day, N.C.T.M. outreaches himself in setting new records for arrogance, deceit, and greed. It's undeniably breathtaking to watch him. If you delve deeply into his paroxysms and thus, in tranquil clarity, submit to contemplation the ploys of boisterous soi-disant do-gooders, you will sincerely discover why he is currently limited to shrieking and spitting when he's confronted with inconvenient facts. Sooner or later, however, N.C.T.M. is likely to switch to some sort of "shift blame from those who benefit from oppression to those who suffer from it" approach to draw our attention away from such facts.

Can you really blame me for suggesting that I am concerned that N.C.T.M.'s vague and overly broad definition of "phoneticogrammatical" will cause two-faced nutters to repeat the mistakes of the past faster than you can say "spinulosodenticulate"? I find that some of N.C.T.M.'s choices of words in his doctrines would not have been mine. For example, I would have substituted "rabid" for "contradistinctive" and "goofy" for "ultraphotomicrograph." It doesn't do us much good to become angry and wave our arms and shout about the evils of N.C.T.M.'s circulars in general terms. If we want other people to agree with us and join forces with us, then we must shed the light of truth on the evil that is N.C.T.M..

If N.C.T.M. is going to conceal information and, occasionally, blatantly lie, then he should at least have the self-respect to remind himself of a few things: First, my vision is built on the future, not the past. And second, his cowardly attacks not only demean his victims, they dehumanize all of us and are contrary to the principles of a free society. That's the sort of statement that some people feel is mendacious, but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made, because on the issue of absenteeism, he is wrong again. Sure, there's a bloodthirsty despot born every minute. But the term "idiot savant" comes to mind when thinking of him. Admittedly, that term applies only halfway to him, which is why I insist that N.C.T.M.'s ethics are a logical absurdity, a series of deductions from a premise that has been denied. Speaking of absurdities, there are some ridiculous proponents of racialism who are refractory. There are also some who are foolhardy. Which category does N.C.T.M. fall into? If the question overwhelms you, I suggest you check "both". To say otherwise would be combative. If N.C.T.M. is victorious in his quest to cause the destruction of human ambition and joy, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. Even if I agreed that his perfidious ebullitions were of paramount importance, it would still be the case that he argues that his imprecations are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos. To maintain this thesis, N.C.T.M. naturally has had to shovel away a mountain of evidence, which he does by the desperate expedient of claiming that he is beyond reproach.

If my own experience has taught me anything, it's that there are those who are informed and educated about the evils of misoneism, and there are those who are not. N.C.T.M. is one of the uninformed, naturally, and that's why what really irks me is that he has presented us with a Hobson's choice. Either we let him direct social activity toward philanthropic flimflam rather than toward the elimination of the basic deficiencies in the organization of our economic and cultural life or he'll recruit and encourage young people to abuse science by using it as a mechanism of ideology, just as older drug dealers use young kids to push drugs. N.C.T.M., already oppressive with his grotesque announcements, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species -- if separate species we be -- for his reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world. If you think that that's a frightening thought, then consider that someone has to be willing to free people from the spell of unilateralism that N.C.T.M. has cast over them. Even if it's not polite to do so. Even if it hurts a lot of people's feelings. Even if everyone else is pretending that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy. The best thing about him is the way that he encourages us to report as best as possible the facts and circumstances surrounding his snarky claims. No, wait; N.C.T.M. doesn't encourage that. On the contrary, he discourages us from admitting that he wants you to believe that it is his moral imperative to replace intellectual integrity with drossy sloganeering. You should be wary of such claims. Be aware! Be skeptical! Think! Do not be diverted, deceived, or mesmerized by N.C.T.M.'s featherbrained, grungy metanarratives. To be fair, I could unequivocally do without his throat-cutting rampages. Regular readers of my letters probably take that for granted, but if I am to preserve the peace, I must explain to the population at large that it's debatable whether the more we give him, the more he wants. However, no one can disagree that in a rather infamous speech, N.C.T.M. exclaimed that children should get into cars with strangers who wave lots of yummy candy at them. (I edited out the rest of what he said because, well, it didn't really say anything.) When N.C.T.M.'s choleric utterances are translated into plain, words-mean-things English, he appears to be saying that he is a tireless protector of civil rights and civil liberties for all people. For me, this narrow-minded, cold-blooded moonshine serves only to emphasize how N.C.T.M. lives in a world of privileged emotion devoid of any connectable empirical dots. That's self-evident, and even N.C.T.M. would probably agree with me on that. Even so, we must fight to the end for our ideas and ideals. To do anything else, and I do mean anything else, is a complete waste of time. If I am correct that the only thing bigger than the chip on N.C.T.M.'s shoulder is the grossness of his communications, then his ravings are continually evolving into more and more heinous incarnations. Here, I'm not just talking about evolution in a simply Darwinist sense; I'm also talking about how if one dares to criticize even a single tenet of N.C.T.M.'s sentiments, one is promptly condemned as irrational, pouty, unscrupulous, or whatever epithet N.C.T.M. deems most appropriate, usually without much explanation.

N.C.T.M. just keeps on saying, "I don't give a [expletive deleted] about you. I just want to use rock music, with its savage, tribal, orgiastic beat, to ridicule the accomplishments of generations of great men and women." Now that I think about it, the tone of his pronouncements is eerily reminiscent of that of negligent lounge lizards of the late 1940s, in the sense that it's possible that all of the foregoing information has been served up as a necessary prelude to understanding the motive and force behind the current mad rush by him and his disciples to teach the next generation how to hate -- and whom to hate. However, I cannot speculate about that possibility here because I need to devote more space to a description of how no one likes being attacked by frowzy, rash clodpolls. Even worse, N.C.T.M. exploits our fear of those attacks -- which he claims will evolve eventually into biological, chemical, or nuclear attacks -- as a pretext to promote the sort of behavior that would have made the folks in Sodom and Gomorrah blush. If you think that's scary, then you should remember that if you read N.C.T.M.'s writings while mentally out of focus, you may get the sense that space gods arriving in flying saucers will save humanity from self-destruction. But if you read his writings while mentally in focus and weigh each point carefully, it's clear that griping about N.C.T.M. will not make him stop trying to leave helpless citizens afraid in the streets, in their jobs, and even in their homes. But even if it did, he would just find some other way to equip disloyal headcases with flame throwers, hand grenades, and heat-seeking missiles.

Most of you reading this letter have your hearts in the right place. Now follow your hearts with actions. It should be clear by this point that if I seem a bit dour, it's only because I'm trying to communicate with N.C.T.M. on his own level. Sure, the things he does are wrong, superstitious, manipulative, fickle -- you name it. But the central paradox of N.C.T.M.'s fulminations, the twist that makes N.C.T.M.'s fairy tales so irresistible to the most intellectually challenged cheapskates you'll ever see, is that these people truly believe that N.C.T.M. has his moral compass in tact. While this letter hasn't provided anything in the way of a concrete plan of action, it may help us focus our thinking a little better when we do work out a plan. For now, we must work beyond the predatory plasticity of N.C.T.M.'s words. I will indubitably be happy to have your help in this endeavor.

Why do you have a complaint about me on your Web page?

To be brief, I think you both suck balls. lmfao

rickheel Wrote:To be brief, I think you both suck balls. lmfao

Yep, that goes for the all you ACC fans! ;-)

GrayBeard Wrote:

rickheel Wrote:To be brief, I think you both suck balls. lmfao

Yep, that goes for the all you ACC fans! ;-)

+ infinity lmfao

PirateTreasureNC Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:

rickheel Wrote:To be brief, I think you both suck balls. lmfao

Yep, that goes for the all you ACC fans! ;-)

+ infinity lmfao

Save it.