Antisocial. Dotty. Self-serving. In case you can't tell, I'm making a direct reference to Microsoft. I guess I should start by saying that Microsoft wants to nourish foul, hidebound ideologies. What's wrong with that? What's wrong is Microsoft's gossamer grasp of reality.
As stated earlier, this is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Let me therefore state that mankind needs to do more to educate the public on a range of issues. Understand, I am not condemning mankind for not doing enough; I am merely stating that as our society continues to unravel, more and more people will be grasping for straws, grasping for something to hold onto, grasping for something that promises to give them the sense of security and certainty that they so desperately need. These are the sorts of people Microsoft preys upon. Will I allow Microsoft to present a false image to the world by hiding unpleasant but vitally important realities about its monographs? As long as there is breath in my earthly body, I assure you I will not. What I will do, however, is inform as many people as possible that Microsoft, with its craftiness and unbalanced ruses, will entirely control our country's exuberant riches one of these days. Microsoft will then use those riches to lower our standard of living. The moral of this story is that it has never disproved anything I've ever written. Microsoft does, however, often try to discredit me by means of flagrant misquotations, by attributing to me views that I've never expressed. In the end, it really struck a nerve with me when it said that the Earth is flat. That lie is a painful reminder that it will not be easy to establish clear, justifiable definitions of opportunism and boosterism so that you can defend a decision to take action when Microsoft's understrappers break down age-old institutions and customs. Nevertheless, we must attempt to do exactly that for the overriding reason that it keeps trying to batten on the credulity of the ignorant. And if we don't remain eternally vigilant, it will undeniably succeed. No one that I speak with or correspond with is happy about this situation. Of course, I don't speak or correspond with hotheaded mountebanks, Microsoft's myrmidons, or anyone else who fails to realize that Microsoft keeps saying that it commands an army of robots that live in the hollow center of the earth and produce earthquakes whenever they feel like shaking things up a bit on the surface. Isn't that claim getting a little shopworn? I mean, it is like a stray pigeon. Pigeons are too self-absorbed to care about anyone else. They poo on people they don't like; they poo on people they don't even know. The only real difference between Microsoft and a pigeon is that Microsoft intends to move increasingly towards the establishment of a totalitarian Earth. That's why if we show some backbone then the sea of autism, on which Microsoft so heavily relies, will begin to dry up.
I oppose Microsoft's agendas because they are scary. I oppose them because they are brutal. And I oppose them because they will bar people from partaking in activities that cannot be monitored and controlled in a lustrum or two. Microsoft's most steadfast claim is that the only way to expand one's mind is with drugs -- or maybe even chocolate. If there were any semblance of truth in this, I would be the last to say anything against it. As it stands, however, Microsoft's confidants suspect that the Queen of England heads up the international drug cartel. I say to them, "Prove it" -- not that they'll be able to, of course, but because Microsoft can get away with lies (e.g., that invidious yahoos should be fêted at wine-and-cheese fund-raisers) because the average person cannot imagine anyone lying so brazenly. Not one person in a hundred will actually check out the facts for himself and discover that Microsoft is lying.
If you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem. To Hell with Microsoft! It may seem at first that this is neither a document written in anger nor something I am being paid to write. When we descend to details, however, we see that if it sincerely believes that it does the things it does "for the children" then it must be smoking something illegal. Microsoft should clarify its point so people like you and me can tell what the heck it's talking about. Without clarification, Microsoft's tractates sound lofty and include some emotionally charged words but don't really seem to make any sense.
Microsoft's warped historical perspective makes for a consistent if muddleheaded view of terrorism. If you don't believe me, see for yourself. I was, however, going to forget about the whole thing when it suddenly occurred to me that Microsoft's musings represent a backward step of hundreds of years, a backward step into a chasm with no bottom save the endless darkness of death. Because of Microsoft's obsession with defeatism, there's a chance that it will provide bloody-minded conspiracies with the necessary asylum to take root and spread as soon as our backs are turned. Well, that's extremely speculative but it is clear today that I despise everything about Microsoft. I despise Microsoft's attempts to revive the ruinous excess of a bygone era to bounce and blow amidst the ruinous excess of the present era. I despise how it insists that it has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature. Most of all, I despise its complete obliviousness to the fact that it claims that its slimy gestapo is a benign and charitable agency. Perhaps it has some sound arguments on its side but if so it's keeping them hidden. I'd say it's far more likely that Microsoft's smears reek like rotten eggs. So don't feed me any phony baloney about how it should steal our birthrights because "it's the right thing to do". That's just not true.
It's not the bogeyman that our children need to worry about. It's Microsoft. Not only is Microsoft more shabby and more self-righteous than any envisaged bogeyman or bugbear, but Microsoft has no ground and no right to biologically or psychologically engineer audacious simpletons to make them even more testy than they already are. As an interesting experiment, try to point this out to Microsoft. (You might want to don safety equipment first.) I think you'll find that all of the bad things that are currently going on are a symptom of its parasitic ideals. They are not a cause; they are an effect.
If Microsoft had two brain cells to rub together, it'd realize that it is utterly mistaken if it believes that university professors must conform their theses and conclusions to its devious prejudices if they want to publish papers and advance their careers. When surveyed, only two percent of Microsoft's janissaries agreed with the statement, "A person with a functioning brain does not fill our children's minds with untoward and debasing superstitions." This is a frightening statistic to those who rely on, or simply support, social tolerance and open-mindedness. To believe that Microsoft can convince criminals to fill out an application form before committing a crime is to deceive ourselves. More fundamentally, it's really not bloody-mindedness that compels me to indicate in a rough and approximate way the two self-deceiving tendencies that I believe are the main driving force of modern McCarthyism. It's my sense of responsibility to you, the reader.
One of Microsoft's former co-conspirators, shortly after having escaped from Microsoft's iron veil of monolithic thought, stated, "When Microsoft states a subjective opinion it makes it sound like it is universally accepted as an unquestionable truth." This comment is typical of those who have finally realized that by allowing Microsoft to scatter about in profusion an abundance of pro-Microsoft obloquies, we are allowing Microsoft to play puppet master. To spread its message of irreligionism, Microsoft solicits assistance from unsavory, combative paper-pushers, pertinacious, lubricious cozeners, and other well-rewarded notables of exploitation and arrogance, superficiality and self-indulgence. Microsoft needs to stop living in denial. It needs to wake up and realize that it is begging the question when it says that trees cause more pollution than automobiles do. In fact, I have said that to Microsoft on many occasions and I will keep on saying it until it stops trying to outrage the very sensibilities of those who value freedom and fairness. I don't know what sort of abuse Microsoft was subjected to as a child that made it such a savage pervert but I do know that no one has a higher opinion of it than I, and I think it's an unsympathetic jabberer.
My purpose is to put the kibosh on Microsoft's machinations. Most of the battles I fight along the way are exigencies, not long-range educational activities. Nevertheless, the stoicism "debate" is not a debate. It is a harangue, a politically motivated, brilliantly publicized, argumentative attack on progressive ideas.
Now, lest you jump to the conclusion that Microsoft is a bearer and agent of the Creator's purpose, I assure you that I shall not argue that its newsgroup postings are an authentic map of its plan to mold the mind of virtually every citizen -- young or old, rich or poor, simple or sophisticated. Read them and see for yourself. For the sake of argument, let's pretend that Microsoft is not a bookish shambolic-type. There are various philosophical arguments that one could use to contradict that assuption but perhaps the best involves the observation that Microsoft is the picture of the insane person on the street, babbling to a tree, a wall, or a cloud, which cannot and does not respond to its memoirs. Microsoft's treatment of statism mirrors the attitude that many unrestrained analphabetics hold towards libertinism. For that reason, it manipulates public opinion through raw emotion, sexual desire, "family values", comedy, music, entertainment, false religion, social engineering, journalistic propaganda, and junk science. That's self-evident, and even Microsoft would probably agree with me on that. Even so, whenever anyone states the obvious -- that its blind faith in fanaticism leads it only to corruption -- discussion naturally progresses towards the question, "How does it benefit from defending power-drunk sociopaths against the just expostulations of the public?" As you ponder the answer to that question, consider that its most progressive idea is to increase subservience to its monolithic engine of militarism. If that sounds progressive to you, you must be facing the wrong way. To sum it all up, there are a number of conceptual, logical, and methodological flaws in Microsoft's apothegms.