From: Gordon Mohr (gojomo@usa.net)
Date: Thu Aug 24 2000 - 12:18:41 PDT
Lest some future researcher miss the context and believe that any portion of this
complaint resembles -- by more than sheer coincidence -- any natural person's
actual assessment of me, let it now be noted that it was generated at random via
the web form at http://www-csag.cs.uiuc.edu/individual/pakin/complaint .
("I'm certainly not alone in recognizing that one of Mohr's most galling
tendencies is to obssess on matters of personal credibility, and the perceptions
of posterity. No doubt he has a pathological fear of being misunderstood, and
until better medications for this condition are developed and forcibly
administered, he shall make us all suffer along with his endless tendentious
clarifications and self-defenses.")
I would like the complaint generator more if the complaint were deterministically
seeded from the input name, so that the same inputs always generated the same
complaints.
However, such consistency would risk spawning a philosophy which honestly
believes that your name determines your flaws. See, for example...
- Gordon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Bone" <jbone@jump.net>
To: "Robert Harley" <Robert.Harley@inria.fr>
Cc: <ejw@ics.uci.edu>; <fork@xent.ics.uci.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 12:58 PM
Subject: My complaint about "Gordon Mohr"
>
> [ Wow, thanks Rob! Truly a labor-saving innovation! ;-) -jb ]
>
> This is to voice my dissatisfaction with Gordon Mohr's grievances. With this
> letter, I hope to reinforce notions of positive self esteem. But first, I would
> like to make the following introductory remark: It's easy enough to hate Mohr any
> day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very
> specific things that Mohr is up to, things that ought to make a real Mohr-hater
> out of you. First off, his zingers will have consequences -- very serious
> consequences. And we ought to begin doing something about that. Some people say
> that that isn't sufficient evidence to prove that he is secretly scheming to
> censor any incomplicitous inclinations. And I must agree; one needs much more
> evidence than that. But the evidence is there, for anyone who isn't afraid to
> look at it. Just look at the way that he can fool some of the people all of the
> time. He can fool all of the people some of the time. But Mohr can't fool all of
> the people all of the time. I'm willing to accept that there is an inherent
> contradiction between his vindictive recalcitrant form of barbarism and basic
> human rights. I'm even willing to accept that in this volatile political moment,
> we must cautiously guard against the dangers of self-pitying McCarthyism. But I
> don't care what others say about him. He's still hypersensitive, frightful, and
> he intends to depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes. My purpose here is
> not to empower the oppressed to control their own lives. Well, okay, it is. But
> I should point out that Mohr respects nothing and no one. But let's not lose
> sight of the larger, more important issue here: Mohr's puerile goals.
>
> Though I don't doubt the depth of his sentiments, it's rather the form of his
> expressions that I find both crotchety and asinine. As I noted at the beginning
> of this letter, Mohr would have us believe that mediocrity and normalcy are ideal
> virtues. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Mohr is surrounded by
> virulent nymphomaniacs who parrot the same nonsense, which is why he constantly
> insists that censorship could benefit us. But he contradicts himself when he says
> that all minorities are poor, stupid ghetto trash. He says that his vices are the
> only true virtues. What he means by this, of course, is that he wants free reign
> to influence the attitudes of dominant culture towards any environment or activity
> that is predominantly feckless.
>
> I have always assumed that Mohr has come very, very close to making me wander
> around in a quagmire of self-pity and depression, but the fact of the matter is
> that isolationism doesn't work. So why does Mohr cling to it? Let me give you a
> hint: If there's an untold story here, it's that many people respond to Mohr's
> cruel doctrines in the same way that they respond to television dramas. They
> watch them; they talk about them; but they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do
> anything about them. That's why I insist we give the needy a helping hand, as
> opposed to an elbow in the face. Do bleeding-heart urban guerrillas like Mohr
> actually have lives, or do they exist solely to force me to burst into tears?
> While there is no evidence that by balancing the theoretical untruth and nonsense
> of his claims with the reality of this phenomenon, we can see that his consistent
> lack of regard for others will sucker us into buying a lot of junk we don't need
> quicker than you can double-check the spelling of "roentgenographically", it is
> clear that every time he gets caught trying to fuel inquisitions, he promises
> he'll never do so again. Subsequently, his cronies always jump in and explain
> that he really shouldn't be blamed even if he does, because, as they feel,
> revanchism is a viable and vital objective for our nation's educational
> institutions.
>
> Even if his facts were reliable, they were gathered selectively and then
> manipulated towards favored conclusions. At the risk of sounding hopelessly
> mischievous, you don't have to say anything specifically about Mohr for him to
> start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that I should tell you
> things that he doesn't want you to know. A trip to your local library would
> reveal that he somehow manages to get away with spreading lies (an open party with
> unlimited access to alcohol can't possibly outgrow the host's ability to manage
> the crowd), distortions (the federal government should take more and more of our
> hard-earned money and more and more of our hard-won rights), and misplaced
> idealism (we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of
> democracy). However, when I try to respond in kind, I get censored faster than
> you can say "unextinguishableness". Let's consider for a moment, though, that
> maybe Mohr should just face the facts. Then doesn't it follow that for his own
> sake, Mohr should not stultify art and retard the enjoyment and adoration of the
> beautiful? As pretentious as his conjectures are, from secret-handshake societies
> meeting at "the usual place" to back-door admissions committees, his lackeys have
> always found a way to set the wolf to mind the sheep.
>
> Couldn't you figure that out for yourself, Mohr? He owes us an apology. If you
> don't believe me, see for yourself. This is particularly interesting when you
> consider that we should agree on definitions before saying anything further about
> his doctrinaire exegeses. For starters, let's say that "denominationalism" is
> "that which makes Mohr yearn to defuse or undermine incisive critiques of his
> insecure behavior by turning them into procedural arguments about mechanisms of
> institutional restraint."
>
> Even his henchmen couldn't deal with the full impact of his assertions. That's
> why they created "Mohr-ism," which is just an anal-retentive excuse to undermine
> the individualistic underpinnings of traditional jurisprudence. He has a
> staggering number of self-aggrandizing assistants. One way to lower their
> numbers, if not eradicate them entirely, is simple. We just inform them that his
> helpers believe that all major world powers are controlled by a covert group of
> "insiders". Although it is perhaps impossible to change the perspective of those
> who have such beliefs, I wish nevertheless to grant people the freedom to pursue
> any endeavor they deem fitting to their skills, talent, and interest.
>
> Might I suggest that he search for a hobby? It seems Mohr has entirely too much
> time on his hands, given how often he tries to force women to live by restrictive
> standards not applicable to men. If you think that merit is adequately measured
> by his methods and qualifications, then you're suffering from very serious
> nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what Mohr wants you to see and
> failing to observe many other things of much greater importance.
>
> On a completely different tack, he would have us believe that he has achieved
> sainthood. Such flummery can be quickly dissipated merely by skimming a few
> random pages from any book on the subject. Mohr claims to have turned over a new
> leaf shortly after getting caught trying to expose and neutralize his enemies
> rather than sit at the same table and negotiate. This claim is an outright lie
> that is still being circulated by Mohr's toadies. The truth is that Mohr claims
> that society is supposed to be lenient towards drugged-out imprudent lummoxes.
> That claim is preposterous and, to use Mohr's own language, overtly
> self-centered. No history can justify it. I fear that, over time, his excuses
> will be seen as uncontested fact, because many people are afraid to transform our
> culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and nonviolence.
>
> Although the proper definition of "anthropomorphization" is hotly disputed, it's
> silly for Mohr to resort to underhanded tactics. Or perhaps I should say, it's
> gin-swilling. He must think that being directionless entitles one to caricature
> and stereotype people from other cultures. Who else but Mohr would have the brass
> to convince innocent children to follow a path that leads only to a life of crime,
> disappointment, and destruction? No one. And where does that brass come from?
> It comes from a sure knowledge that he can retreat into his "victim" status if
> anyone calls him to account.
>
> In theory, he has no moral qualities whatsoever. But in reality, I've heard of
> shameless things like factionalism and Maoism. But I've also heard of things like
> nonviolence, higher moralities, and treating all beings as ends in and of
> themselves -- ideas which his ignorant, unthinking, whiney brain is too small to
> understand. Lastly, the surest way for Gordon Mohr's supporters to succeed is
> for them to call for a return to that which wasn't particularly good in the first
> place.
>
> -jb
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 24 2000 - 12:20:37 PDT