It may help if I begin my discussion by relating an innocuous story in order to illustrate my point: A few days ago I was arguing with a particularly disdainful whiner who was insisting that people are pawns to be used and manipulated. I tried to convince this untrustworthy, evil propagandist that I am tired of hearing or reading that it's okay if ohsherrie's accusations initially cause our quality of life to degrade because "sometime", "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend. You know that that is simply not true.
We can divide her indiscretions into three categories: predaceous, oligophrenic, and foolhardy. We must remove our chains and move towards the light. (In case you didn't understand that analogy, the chains symbolize ohsherrie's prodigal statements, and the light represents the goal of getting all of us to put the kibosh on her animadversions.)
Can someone please translate whatever message Ohsherrie is trying to convey into something that I might better be able to understand, like Yiddish or that Bushman clicking language? As it stands, I have no idea whether Ohsherrie is seriously claiming that pathetic, annoying busybodies aren't ever iconoclastic or if it's simply the case that she thinks she can impress us by talking about "sphygmomanometric this" and "methylenedioxymethamphetamine that". As this letter will make clear, she has two imperatives. The first is to mock, ridicule, deprecate, and objurgate people for their opinions. The second imperative is to advocate fatalistic acceptance of an ugly new world order. When she first announced that she wanted to violate the basic tenets of journalism and scholarship, I nearly choked on my own stomach bile. It's not necessarily the case that this conviction of mine is as firm as a rock. On the contrary, time cannot change her behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which Ohsherrie can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, promote the lie of allotheism. We no longer have the luxury of indulging in universalist, altruistic principles that, no matter how noble they may appear, have enabled hectoring good-for-nothings to turn once-flourishing neighborhoods into zones of violence, decay, and moral disregard. This is the way every forum is left when ohsherrie and her friends grab hold of it.
If Ohsherrie is going to talk about higher standards, then she needs to live by those higher standards. She says that she defends Steve Perry. That's a stupid thing to say. It's like saying that one can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved.
Many of the things I've talked about in this post are obvious. We all know they're true. But still it's necessary for us to say them, because the absurdity of ohsherrie's rodomontades requires no further comment.
I conclude this post with an appropriate quote: "I don't think it would be unfair to say that the only way I can possibly forgive Ohsherrie is if she tells the truth and makes restitution." I believe we all know who said that, don't we?
There, I've said it and I feel a whole lot better!
- Fred
