"Quentin Daniels" wrote in
:


"Wesley Mouch" wrote in message
...
This post tells a tale about power and politics and propaganda, about
the tension between respectable, sensible sailors and pudibund
brigands like Bruce in Bangkok. It is a story about Bruce's efforts
to shift our news group from a culture of conscience to a culture of
consensus.

Let me get to the crux of the matter: I recently read some posts of
his and they tell a bunch of people that he would sooner give up
money, fame, power, and happiness than read posts from his enemies
list. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I
simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text.

While some information provided in his posts may be factual, other
material is unsubstantiated rumor or hate-filled dissertations. He
believes that censorship is noble, slavery is freedom, and ignorance
is strength. Sorry, but I have to call foul on that one. Other than
that, I never used to be particularly concerned about Bruce's
constant pretending and snow jobs. Any damned fool, or so I thought,
could see that as that last sentence suggests,

I have no set opinion as to whether or not Bruce is immovably
entrenched in his manipulative philosophical positions. I do,
however, decidedly maintain that my goal is to strengthen this
discussion group so we can weather the storms that threaten our
foundation. I might not be successful at achieving that goal but I
sincerely do have to try. I must suggest that Bruce and his ilk are
doing the exact wrong thing by even mentioning the name of one Wilbur
Hubbard. To do so just brings him more fame and fortune. You can't
even mention destroyers like Mr. Hubbard!

What I find frightening is that some subscribers actually believe
Bruce's line that truth is whatever your grievance group says it is.
In this case, "sock puppet" refers to a stratum of the residual
intelligentsia surviving the repression of the moronic, base
subscriber, not to those seekers of truth who understand that if one
dares to criticize even a single tenet of Bruce's jaded ideas, one is
promptly condemned as predatory, blockish, deluded, disruptive or
whatever epithet Bruce deems most appropriate, usually without much
explanation. He has gotten away with so much for so long that he's
lost all sense of caution, all sense of limits. If you think about
it, only a man without any sense of limits could desire to shift
blame from those who benefit from oppression to those who suffer from
it.

It's easy enough to hate Bruce any day of the week on general
principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things
that Bruce is up to, things that ought to make a real Bruce-hater out
of all of you. First off, I believe I have finally figured out what
makes people like him subject human beings to indignities. It appears
to be a combination of an overactive but senile mind, lack of common
sense, assurance of one's own moral propriety, and a total lack of
exposure to the real world. (After all his world consists of a dock
in Bangkok.)

Moreover he's living a lie. He failed at his attempt at
circumnavigation and ended up stuck in a third-world country of
druggies and sex offenders.He says he likes it there. What does that
say about his moral code. His ethics? His humanity?

So long as the crass inequities that characterize that society
persist, Bruce's janissaries will be unable to deny that it is easier
to see faults in others than in themselves. But it takes perseverance
to weaken the critical links in his nexus of self-aggrandizing
simplism. All this aside, I hope to convert retreat into advance. To
turn this newsgroup from inane to interesting.

This is a choice I have made; your choice is up to you. But let me
remind you that Bruce's disciples all look like Bruce, think like
Bruce, act like Bruce, and institutionalize pharisaism through
systematic coersion, distorted lies and ideas, and dubious morality,
just like Bruce does. And all this in the name of -- let me see if I
can get their propaganda straight -- brotherhood, service and
fellowship. Ha!

Now that this post is over, I pray that my logic and passion have
convinced you that Mr. Bruce's conduct is worse than the Black Death
of olden times.

--
W. Mouch, State Science Institute


Why are you tossing such magnificent pearls before swine? You should
have a wider, international audience to blanket in your profound
wisdom and entertaining writing style. I have a friend, Kay Ludlow, a
former author who is now working as a fishwife. She could help you
establish a blog of worldwide repute and, if necessary, myself and my
colleague John could construct a transmitter of radio waves never
discovered previously that will transmit on all frequencies and over
power all receivers. After that we could enjoy one of Hugh Askston's
famous hamburger sandwiches, a combination of simple ingredients and
an unusual skill, at his dinner atop a long, hard climb near the
Kennicott copper mines.

Quentin Daniels





One of my duties in my position is to scientifically disseminate
information that will expose private sources of censorship. Censorship
is a legitmate function of government and any amateur attempt tends to
cast a bad light on government's professionalism. Censorship done right
is not even noticed by the masses. We government officials must insist
censorship be done properly lest the term become dishonored.

When somebody like Bruce in Bangkok gets involved it harms those of us
who do it for a living and do it well. Public education is a good
example. For years we have been propagandizing young ductile minds to
the point where they believe in government as a father figure. An all
loving and caring provider concerned only with a citizens welfare.
Therefore a professional blog aimed at the proletariat would be
redundant and might do more harm than good. To be the most effective
censorship must remain, centralized, discrete and seen to be honorable
and in the public interest.

We're close to the tipping point in our efforts to obtain a pliant,
well-to-do citizenry that will work for the good of the proletariate by
sacrificing happily their individual rights and wealth. By the same
token, any technology you might personally hold rights to rightly
belongs to the government as government is the only qualified entity to
decide who benefits from it and who doesn't Such action is beyond
individual discretion to hold or distribute.

--
W. Mouch, State Science Institute