Complaint letter generator
My complaint about Mr. David Q. Hill III
To respond to all of Mr. David Q. Hill III's assertions would take up too much room and time. I would like to address the most lethargic ones, though. I urge you to read the text that follows carefully, keeping an open mind, from the beginning to the end, and without skipping around. I further recommend that you take breaks, as many of the facts presented will take time to digest.
Every time he gets caught trying to publish blatantly unprincipled rhetoric as "education" for children to learn in school, he promises he'll never do so again. Subsequently, his drones always jump in and explain that he really shouldn't be blamed even if he does, because, as they suspect, he is the ultimate authority on what's right and what's wrong. His satraps must be worn out from the acrobatics they have to perform to keep David from turning on them, too, period. Although he has unfairly depicted me and those who share my beliefs as clunks and numskulls, we are neither. Yes, I have had enough of David's foul endeavors, but it may seem difficult at first to hammer out solutions on the anvil of discourse. It is. But Comstockism is irrelevant here. But it goes further than that; he really shouldn't perpetuate myths that glorify Maoism. That's just common sense. Of course, the people who appreciate his theories are those who eagerly root up common sense, prominently hold it out, and decry it as poison with astonishing alacrity.
If you understand that we have to start talking with one another honestly, in honest language, then you can comprehend that David keeps trying to crush people to the earth and then claim the right to trample on them forever because they are prostrate. And if we don't remain eternally vigilant, he will decidedly succeed. No one that I speak with or correspond with is happy about this situation. Of course, I don't speak or correspond with brain-damaged, narrow-minded bourgeoisie, David's apostles, or anyone else who fails to realize that there is something grievously wrong with those callous perverts who tip the scales in David's favor. Shame on the lot of them! By seeking to create a mass psychology of fear about an imminent terrorist threat, David reveals his ignorance about deconstructionism's polyvocality. He probably also doesn't realize that one of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those of us who don't like David is trying to understand people who do. But what, you may ask, does any of that have to do with the theme of this letter, viz., that I honestly cannot believe that he would consider disaffected know-nothings as deluded sluggards of one sort or another? I mean, you might say, "Many recent controversies have been fueled by a whole-hearted embracing of scurrilous taradiddles." Fine, I agree. But someone once said to me, "An increasing number of people abhor David's spiteful values and are looking for alternatives, like the truth." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since. Don't let David delude you into thinking that doing the fashionable thing is more important than life or liberty. He's just trying to defile the air and water in the name of profit.
Does anyone believe his claim that he has been robbed of all he does not possess? Come on, anyone? Like I thought, there is still hope for our society, real hope -- not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of the most power-hungry lummoxes you'll ever see, but the hope that makes you eager to acknowledge that his flunkies, who are legion, have the temerity to violate strongly held principles regarding deferral of current satisfaction for long-term gains and then say that everyone else should do the same. Looking at it another way, if I try really, really hard, I can almost see why he would want to waste our time and money.
What I just said is a very important point, but I'm afraid a lot of readers might miss it, so I'll say a few more words on the subject. Let us not sink to David's level. Let us combat neocolonialism by exercising our right to speak out, to denounce David's perorations as totally unrepresentative of the values of this society. It's easy to tell if David is lying. If his lips are moving, he's lying. We must fight scurrility and slander. Our children depend on that.
Quite simply, today, we might have let David let advanced weaponry fall into the hands of overbearing extortionists. Tomorrow, we won't. Instead, we will criticize the obvious incongruities presented by David and his toadies. In a previous letter, I announced my intention to make plans and carry them out. Naturally, this announcement caused David to mutter abuses befitting his education. Incidents like that truly demonstrate how he is the embodiment of everything petty in our lives. Every grievance, every envy, every inhumane ideology finds expression in David Q. Hill.
He has, at times, called me "inimical" or "rapacious". Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to inflict more death and destruction than Genghis Khan's hordes.
Why is David really so offensive? Is it because his efforts to make widespread accusations and insinuations without having the facts to back them up have touched the lives of every person in this country? Or because the grossly fallacious reasoning behind his screeds can be confirmed by some simple fact-checking? To turn that question around, what will be the outcome of his quest for world hegemony? There is widespread agreement in asking that question, but there is great disagreement in answering it.
A person who wants to get ahead should try to understand the long-range consequences of his/her actions. David has never had that faculty. He always does what he wants to do at the moment and figures he'll be able to lie himself out of any problems that arise. Although he won't admit it, those of us who are too lazy or disinterested to think outside the box have no right to complain when he and his hatchet men create new (and reinforce existing) prejudices and misconceptions. If David thinks his antics represent progress, he should rethink his definition of progress. Although he demonstrates a great deal of ignorance and presumption when he says that unfounded attacks on character, loads of hyperbole, and fallacious information are the best way to make a point, it's irrelevant that my allegations are 100% true. He distrusts my information and arguments and will forever maintain his current opinions.
In case you have any doubts, because of David's obsession with propagandism, if he believes that we should all bear the brunt of his actions, then it's obvious why he thinks that his communications are all sweetness and light. David's hariolations run on pure irony. Okay, that's a bit of an overstatement, but for all of you reading this who are not prurient tricksters, you can understand where the motivation for that statement comes from. The conflation of superficial, childish bloodsuckers and snippy vagrants in David's tirades is either dramatic hyperbole or a fatal methodological flaw. You might aver I'm telling you this because I like to beat up on David. Really, that isn't my principal reason. I don't especially need to beat up on him, because he is already despised by decent and knowledgeable people almost everywhere. Even those few who benefit from Mr. David Q. Hill III's remarks fail to recognize their current manifestation as a myopic form of factionalism. There, my ranting is finished.