Registered: Oct 1999
Location:
Posts: 17

This is a funny complaint letter generator site I came across a long time ago:
http://www-csag.cs.uiuc.edu/individual/pakin/complaint/

My complaint about Handspring

Congratulations to Handspring for saying that public opinion is a reliable indicator of what's true and what isn't. That certainly wins the prize for being the most unruly
and unprincipled thing I've ever heard. Here's my side of the story: We all have an obligation to stand up together and forcefully oppose its pea-brained views. I hope
that Handspring's doctrines were intended as a joke, although they're not very funny if they were. Handspring's sense of humor runs the gamut from rude and crude to
unctuous and phlegmatic. Contrary to popular belief, the best way to restore the world back to its original balance is to tell you a little bit about Handspring and its
temperamental jokes.

It is quite true, of course, that creating needed understanding is best achieved in a calm, rational environment. But Handspring's cronies don't worry me, since they're
generally not in positions to make significant decisions (except maybe "right shoe on right foot"). I have always assumed that Handspring's lackeys can read some crock
of soulless drivel it once wrote and believe that they've read something really profound, but the fact of the matter is that we should establish democracy and equality.
(Goodness knows, our elected officials aren't going to.) That's a very important point; Handspring fails to consider the consequences of its cantankerous stances.

Handspring is lying to if it thinks that it knows the "right" way to read Plato, Maimonides, and Machiavelli. There are two reasons which induce me to submit
Handspring's hijinks to a special examination: 1) Handspring's tirades would be less childish if they were less untrustworthy, and 2) telling the truth is too much trouble
for lackadaisical intellectually-stultified bourgeoisie bent on getting their way. I must admit that the second point, in particular, sometimes fills me with anxious concern.
Where does the line get drawn?

If I am correct that as Handspring feels less and less need to conceal its op-ed pieces, it makes increasingly open moves towards worthless teetotalism, then Handspring
extricates itself from difficulty by intrigue, by chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming, by an untruth, by an injustice. Before I leave this issue, let me share an interesting
finding from a recent poll: Four out of five people surveyed think that Handspring's quips manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: seize control over where we
eat, sleep, socialize, and associate with others. Phase two: seize control of the power structure. Because "intercrystallization" is a word that can be interpreted in many
ways, we must make it clear that Handspring has announced a number of churlish ideas on how to run -- or is that ruin? -- everyone's life. Last I checked, no one need
be surprised if our culture's personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of Handspring.

Handspring is unable to deal with a world populated by human beings. Handspring claims that its declamations prevent smallpox. This is a very doctrinaire and
unconstructive view and moreover, is wrong in many ways. This is typical of the kind of noise Handspring enjoys making.

Think of Handspring's pleas as being the sum of two components: a foolish component that consists of Handspring's desire to demand that loyalty to frightful pretentious
maniacs supersedes personal loyalty and a slaphappy component that consists of everything else. We are concerned primarily with the former. Armed only with a white
shirt, pocket protector, slide rule, thick glasses, and some other neat stuff, I have determined that the fact that recalcitrant anthropophagi find Handspring's actions
entertaining -- indeed, titillating -- is deeply horrifying to the past and potential victims of such solutions. It may seem senseless to say that I, not being one of the many
domineering unbalanced vermin of this world, challenge Handspring to tell me what, if anything, in this letter is not completely truthful. Nevertheless, the position can be
defended.

But there I go again, claiming that Handspring uses the term "interparenthetically" with ostensible confidence that its meaning is universally understood. I don't normally
want to expose anyone to rigorous sarcasm, satire and disdain, but Handspring sincerely deserves it. Developing a policy of inclusion will not be easy because
Handspring's message is apparently that it holds a universal license that allows it to impair the practice of democracy. It is probably unwise to say this loudly, but the
theoretical fallacies in Handspring's press releases run deep. Viewing all this from a higher vantage point, we can see that Handspring should think twice before it
decides to cast ordinary consumption and investment decisions in the light of high religious purpose.

Here's some food for thought: There is no longer any room for hope. Attempts to resort to underhanded tactics are a de facto, if not a de jure, example of unpleasant
alarmism. There are two sorts of people in this world: decent, honest folks like you and me and deluded fomenters of revolution like Handspring. While I agree with
others' assessment that that is no excuse for prudish two-faced-types, still, the confusion that surly self-righteous-types create is desirable and convenient to our national
enemies. Different people often see the same subject in different lights. Handspring's outrage at complaints about it is indicative of its self-esteem and value system.

It would be impossible, even between the covers of a thousand volumes, to list and describe all of the materialistic things that Handspring has done. How much longer
can we tolerate Handspring's oppressive positions before the whole country collectively throws up? Handspring should just exercise some common sense and some
common decency. Once it becomes clear that I, for one, avoid improvident scurrilous bloodsuckers like the plague, it becomes apparent that I myself am concerned that
Handspring's vague and overly broad definition of "premisrepresentation" will cause unambitious twits to squander irreplaceable national treasures in a matter of days.

Handspring's insults may not be traditional for all arrogant savage leeches, but in debates with Handspring, it is important to evaluate whether its provocations reflect a
sincere desire to present an alternative point of view or whether its agenda is primarily to convince predatory heretics that there is absolutely nothing they can do to
better their lot in life besides joining it. Inherent in our legal construction of hedonism is the notion that Handspring has a problem not only with civil rights but also with
the legal responsibility and accountability as to what is considered appropriate behavior. There's really no other conclusion you can reach. Just don't expect consistency
from a organization that is totally and indubitably demented. Imagine, as it is not hard to do, that Handspring's excuses are founded on lies. It doesn't take a genius to
figure out that I wish obscene treacherous sybarites like Handspring's henchmen would quit whining and try doing some honest work for a change. How can you trust
wishy-washy hackers who actively conceal their true intentions? This letter has gone on far too long, in my opinion, and probably yours as well. So let me end it by
saying merely that when it comes time to take a stand, Handspring invariably dives for cover.