Complaint letter about Prof. Gary Feng
Google my name "Gary Feng" today, and you will find this as the #16 hit:
Complaint letter about Prof. Gary Feng
It is not likely that I shall say anything new here. If I do, it will be of only minor significance. Nevertheless, it has been a long-standing observation of mine that most people are still loath to admit that within a short period of time, Prof. Gary Feng will pull out all stops in his unpatriotic drive to force us to adopt rigid social roles that compromise our inner code of ethics. Read on, gentle reader, and hear what I have to say. I can say one thing about him. He understands better than any of us that psychological impact is paramount — not facts, not anybody’s principles, not right and wrong. I’m not suggesting that we behave likewise. I’m suggesting only that Prof. Feng does not tolerate any view that differs from his own. Rather, he discredits and discards those people who contradict him along with the ideas that they represent.
It might have been me who wrote it … well, to be precise, generated it. It was automatically generated by Scott Pakin’s automatic complaint letter generator. I don’t remember if I blogged about it before, but it’s certainly worth mentioning here.
Of course, the complaint goes on and on. You can choose how many paragraph you want.
Irrationalism is not confined to any specific era, culture, or country. It is unclear whether this is because by working together, we can contribute to the intellectual and spiritual health of the body politic, because when Prof. Feng is challenged, he either denies everything or claims that his words were taken out of context and that his enemies are plotting against him, or a combination of the two. His latest manifesto, like all the ones that preceded it, is a consummate anthology of disastrously bad writing teeming with misquotations and inaccuracies, an odyssey of anecdotes that are occasionally entertaining, but certainly not informative. He has frequently been spotted making nicey-nice with wrongheaded grizzlers. Is this because he needs their help to establish tacit boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum of opinion? The answer may surprise you, especially when you consider that it’s not the boogeyman that our children need to worry about. It’s Prof. Feng. Not only is Prof. Feng more gutless and more judgmental than any envisaged boogeyman or bugbear, but cowardice, irresponsibility, and mysticism are inextricably wedded in Prof. Feng’s expostulations — and Prof. Feng knows it. I claim that the best way to overcome misunderstanding, prejudice, and hate is by means of reason, common sense, clear thinking, and goodwill. Prof. Feng, in contrast, believes that he can change his treacherous ways. The conclusion to draw from this conflict of views should be obvious: Prof. Feng is terrified that there might be an absolute reality outside himself, a reality that is what it is, regardless of his wishes, theories, hopes, daydreams, or decrees.
Please don’t misunderstand me; I’m not saying that our elected officials should be available for purchase by special-interest groups. In fact, we’ve all heard him yammer and whine about how he’s being scapegoated again, the poor dear. Anyhow, I guess I’ve run out of things to say, so let me just leave you with one parting wish: Together, may we admonish Prof. Gary Feng not seven times, but seventy times seven.