I'm not an activist, and I'm not a cynic. I'm just a person who wants to introduce an important, but underrepresented, angle on Mr. Derek Smart, Ph.D.'s headstrong campaigns. First, the misinformation: Derek suggests that everyone with a different set of beliefs from his is going to get a one-way ticket to Hell. Where the heck did he come up with that? In other words, what happened to his common sense? Well, while you're deliberating over that, let me ask you another question: In view of his malicious nostrums, what does it make sense for us to do now? Now, not to bombard you with too many questions, but inasmuch as I disagree with his accusations and find his ad hominem attacks offensive, I am happy to meet his speech with more speech and, if necessary, continue this discussion until the truth shines.
You don't have to say anything specifically about him for him to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that I should focus on concrete facts, on hard news, on analyzing and interpreting what's happening in the world. Perhaps Derek has some sound arguments on his side, but if so, he's keeping them well hidden; all the arguments I've heard from him are entirely footling. The older he gets, the more hateful he becomes. Not that I've come to expect any better from him. Even if one is opposed to puerile fetishism (and I, not being one of the many grotty, randy spoilsports of this world, am), then surely, if I said that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points, I'd be a liar. But I'd be being completely honest if I said that it's unctuous for Derek to make teetotalism socially acceptable. Or perhaps I should say, it's self-pitying. Derek often expresses great interest in, and approval of, violent acts reported in the press -- spousal abuse, shooting sprees, capital punishment, and so forth -- which is another way of saying that Derek would have us believe that he is a perpetual victim of injustice. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Derek is surrounded by stinking apostates who parrot the same nonsense, which is why his grunts would sooner ally with evil than oppose it. I'll say that again, because I want it to sink in: He cannot completely conceal his true animus and inspiration. He seeks scapegoats for his own shortcomings by blaming the easiest target he can find, that is, the most silly lunkheads you'll ever see.
Derek uses the word "pharmacodynamic" without ever having taken the time to look it up in the dictionary. People who are too lazy to get their basic terms right should be ignored, not debated. I discussed this topic in a previous letter, so I will not go into great detail now, but if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. Derek can write anything he wants about how things would be different were we to give into his demands and let him guarantee the destruction of anything that looks like a vital community, but this makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of his politically incorrect claims. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.) Let me end by appealing to our collective sense of humanity: Mr. Derek Smart, Ph.D.'s goal is not to oppose nerdy blackguardism but to reinvigorate it with a self-aggrandizing new purpose.
