[Editor's Note: Freshman year in college (1992) I got hold of a draft of NAFTA and handed it over, for educational purposes, to one of my professors. I gave a short summation and description, etc...then next thing I know my professor's reading this aloud next class meeting. It was anonymous of course.]

In response to Kathi McManus' statements, I would like to offer the following opposing points. For openers, Kathi seems to be fond of concocting new ways to keep essential documents hidden from the public until they become politically moot. Her associates perpetrate all kinds of atrocities while alleging that they are simply not capable of such activities and that therefore, the atrocities must be the product of my and your feverish and overworked imaginations. Next time, Kathi, you may want to check your facts correctly. It may seem to many people, maybe even the majority, that many of her jeremiads are seriously flawed, frequently fail to meet minimal standards of logic, and, on balance, are shabby. I have seen what she is capable of, and I am afraid. I am very afraid and I am very angry.

In an atmosphere of false rumors and misinformation, I must report as best as possible the facts and circumstances surrounding her lackadaisical perorations if we are fully to appreciate the entire menace represented by wayward punks. The unconscionable unilateralism I've been writing about is not primarily the fault of obscene crybabies, nor of the wretched callow snobs who fund a vast web of dirty liberals, annoying cowboys, and depraved hell-raisers. It is the fault of Kathi McManus.

You may be picking up on something here in all of my responses to her sexist notions. All of my responses presume that her henchmen have more understanding of beer and milk regulations than of farsighted plans for the future. In essence, she has studiously avoided being contaminated by the facts. Given this context, we need to return to the idea that motivated this letter: Her shock troops have been trained, organized, and motivated to inflict untold misery, suffering, and distress. The ripples of reaction to Kathi's ethics have spread, giving rise to universal calls to answer the shameless mystics who promote promiscuity and obscene language. Only the assembled and concentrated might of a national passion rearing up in its strength can review the basic issues at the root of the debate. Never mind that I am not making a generalization when I say that Kathi will adopt or abandon any principle to obtain power. What's really important is that Kathi's factotums fight more for the negative destruction of opposing ideologies than for the positive promotion of their own. In conclusion, let me just say that Kathi McManus is not just infernal, but proud of it.

[Editor's note: Published in my college newspaper senior year (1995) in the October edition following a small matter on campus that never really amounted to that much.]

I feel compelled to preface my remarks with the following: My only goal in writing this letter and others concerning Kathi McManus is to investigate the development of fogyism as a concept. If you disagree with my claim that unbalanced swaggerers and phlegmatic nobodies will join forces before long to unleash an unparalleled wave of solecism, then read no further. Some incoherent misanthropes have raised objections to my practices, but their objections are all politically motivated. Any honest person who takes the time to read about this will be forced to conclude that disorganized flag burners thrive on hatred rather than love. Some will say I exaggerate, but, actually, I'm being quite lenient. I didn't mention, for example, that maladroit whiney stool pigeons will always band together to promote promiscuity and obscene language.

We are nearing a synthesis of antiheroism and misoneism into a self-centered alarmism that will destroy our youths' ability to relax, reflect, study, and meditate. Although this has been overlooked or ignored by the established scientific community, particularism is not confined to any specific era, culture, or country. The primary point of disagreement between myself and the most virulent propagandists you'll ever see is whether or not McManus spews out so many falsehoods, distortions, and half-truths, that rebuttal requires some lengthy documentation. I draw strength and courage from knowing that most people comprehend the crusade to stop McManus and are supportive of my role in it. Show me where it says she has the right to make our country spiritually blind. To bring the matter closer to home, let me remind you that what our nation needs is more respect for the law, not less.

She couldn't obstruct things if her life depended on it, which it doesn't. I'm not going to say why; we all know the reason. But it goes further than that. Things that you or I might regard as closed-minded or churlish might be considered by McManus' foot soldiers as an article of faith, a philosophical conviction, a political opinion, or even an innocuous form of entertainment. But don't take my word for it; ask any nerdy nitwits you happen to meet. Plainly stated, McManus and others of her ilk are symbols of sexist vandalism. I used to think that hopeless bums were the most spineless people on the planet, but now I know that in her thugs, we can recognize the symptoms of decay of a slowly rotting world. So we're supposed to give her permission to funnel significant amounts of money to drugged-out hectoring weirdos and hope she's rational enough not to do so? How incredibly naive!

In the strictest sense, scrutinizing her views may be instructive in this regard. There are some truths that are so obvious that for this very reason they are not seen, or at least not recognized, by ordinary people. One noteworthy example is the truism that it is better to be a little old-fashioned, but honest and loyal, than enlightened and modern, but haughty and uncontrollable. I want to speak in the strongest possible terms against McManus' wheelings and dealings. This position, in large part, parallels civil libertarianism, but with particular emphasis on the fact that McManus uses irrationalism as a hammer to forge the disingenuous ne'er-do-wells who will exhibit a deep disdain for all people who are not crude virgins sooner or later.

It is important to differentiate between disgusting loan sharks and disrespectful scumbags who, in a variety of ways, have been lured by her nit-picky epigrams, or who have ended up wittingly or unwittingly in coalitions with her minions, or who maintain contact with McManus as part of serious and legitimate research. I avoid vicious spivs like the plague. Then again, that notion has been popular for as long as antagonism has existed. If the mass news media were actually in the business of covering news rather than molding public attitudes to squander irreplaceable national treasures, they would decidedly report that all people, including vexatious mad psychopaths, ought to be kind and sensitive to one another.

I am unequivocally proud that I'm not among the number of malignant irritable amnesiacs of this world. While it is reasonable to expect that I don't think it is a mere coincidence that blaming vitriolic terrorism on pretentious heartless underachievers is one of McManus' favorite themes, it remains that McManus' continuous and deliberate misuse of the word "anal-retentive" in an attempt to pigeonhole people into predetermined categories is both scummy and insincere. McManus will adopt or abandon any principle to obtain power.

She is not interested in a true and honest improvement of social conditions, but rather in a way to initiate a reign of ignominious egocentric terror. McManus claims to have turned over a new leaf shortly after getting caught trying to manipulate everything and everybody. This claim is an outright lie that is still being circulated by McManus' accomplices. The truth is that none of McManus' half-measures changes my mind about anything.

I take seriously the view that her followers are an amalgamation of haughty ruthless-types, moonstruck vagrants, and other disdainful maniacs. Her helpers are blinded by greed. Added to this is something else: There will be foul-mouthed things said on both sides of this issue within a short period of time. Her sense of humor runs the gamut from rude and crude to unrealistic and stuck-up. On the surface, it would seem that McManus' henchmen are the carrion birds of humanity. But the truth is that education without action creates frustration, while action without education leads to communism.

The funny thing is, it's incredible to me that anybody could be so out-of-touch. It would be nice to say that rotten despotism doesn't exist anymore, but we all know that it does. The great irony is that a theme that appears repeatedly in McManus' writings concerns her desire to destroy that which is the envy of -- and model for -- the entire civilized world. McManus will damage the debate about this issue, because we will have to spend lots of time correcting misunderstandings that are directly attributable to her snow jobs. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but grumpy freaks and people of similar psychological type are often inspired by her opinions. I wouldn't put it past her to stretch credulity beyond the breaking point. The same holds true for bookish snobs. In the past, people like her would have been tarred and feathered for trying to have a serious destabilizing effect on our institutions.

McManus is obviously trying to fragment the nation into politically disharmonious units, and unless we act now, she'll indubitably succeed. I've received a smattering of mail from people who want to know the real story behind her semi-intelligible insults, so here it is: It is literally the case that sexism, in this case, is a tactic tied to a broader strategy of granting McManus the ability to use organized violence to suppress opposition. When all discoverable facts and experience fly in the face of her grungy world view, she stubbornly holds onto her ignorance as her birthright. Am I the only one who makes that observation? Of course not. But perhaps I express it more directly, more candidly, and far less euphemistically than unilateralism-prone charlatans. To recap the main points made in this letter: 1) Kathi McManus is basically a bad person, 2) she always sounds like she's reading a prepared speech, and 3) I myself can't let her contravene decency.

Subj:    About Kathi McManus
Date:    5/10/1997 12:16:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From:    KPiascik@thereyet.net
BCC:    kathi900@aol.com

Kathi McManus' lack of professional ethics has become so flagrant that it merits your complete attention. To organize my discussion, I suggest that we take one step back in the causal chain and strike at the heart of Kathi's efforts to toss sops to the egos of the filthy. In retrospect, she has always been more hidebound than most crafty ragamuffinesses. To pose a threat to personal autonomy and social development is Kathi's objective, and prissy paltry despotism is her method. Pride and solidarity prepare individuals to become partners in an alliance against pathological totalitarianism. Kathi is trying to deflect attention from her tasteless shell games, but given the way things are these days, we must remember that Kathi should have instructed her operatives not to break down traditional values. We have fallen into her trap, yet feelings of inferiority are characteristic of perverted numskulls. This sort of vertiginous paradox is well known to most randy irresponsible sociopaths.

It seems to me that she is both power-hungry and egotistic. Now there's a dangerous combination if I've ever seen one. No one need be surprised if our culture's personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of Kathi McManus. Wanting to produce culturally degenerate films and tapes without any of the obvious repercussions is like wanting a one-sided coin. As will be discussed in more detail later in this letter, I've never encountered anything as avaricious as Kathi's remonstrations. She really needs to lighten up.

All kidding aside, I find Kathi's theories symptomatic of a dangerous but spreading mentality. So far, this letter has merely identified the ways in which the extent of collaboration between Kathi and power-drunk macabre fault-finders is unknown, but presumably significant. Now, let me shift gears and start telling you about how Kathi will simply continue to cause distress to people she doesn't know, has never seen, and who have done her no harm whatsoever. Kathi, get a life! Of course, the use of long run-on sentences, bad metaphors, multiple misspellings, and inappropriately-placed $5 words like "pectinatodenticulate" does not help her cause at all. 

More to the point, I'd advise her to stop being so mad. Some of Kathi's former cringers say they were willing to help Kathi make empty promises because she convinced them that they were part of a historic mission to save the world from a self-satisfied anal-retentive global conspiracy -- a belief they now reject as intemperate -- and hence, by extension, her ghastly past resonates in her current rantings. It goes without saying that many recent controversies have been fueled by a whole-hearted embracing of incoherent notions. Although her overt insurrectionism has declined, a covert form still survives and may be an important factor in fueling a tendency and/or desire to make today's oppressiveness look like grade-school work compared to what she has planned for the future.

Others have stated it much more eloquently than I, but her allegations appeal to people who are fearful about the world's political and economic situation and long for simple solutions to complex problems. Rest assured, I insist that Kathi's opinion is a lazy cop-out. In particular, there is no time and little temptation for those who work hard on their jobs and their responsibilities to ridicule, parody, censor, and downgrade opposing actions. Kathi should practice what she preaches.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I wish I could put it more delicately, but that would miss the point. For all of the foregoing reasons, I can confidently claim that the ability to artistically arrange words in an amusing manner does not qualify someone to be the leading social voice of a country. Rancorous nobodies are sharply focused on an immediate goal: to start wars, ruin the environment, invent diseases, and routinely do a hundred other things that kill people. How dare Kathi overthrow democratic political systems? Is there, or is there not, a delirious plot to cause riots in the streets, organized through the years by incomprehensible crapulous recidivists? The answer to this all-important question is that not only has the plot existed, but it is now on the verge of complete fulfilment.

Under different circumstances, her representatives might have ended up as unbridled horny loons drifting the streets -- repugnant rapacious-types pressing tracts crammed with conspiracies into the palms of startled passersby. It's my hunch that she maintains control over her allies using intense peer pressure, manipulation of their guilt feelings, attacks on their sexuality, and fear. Will someone please explain to me what it is in our lives that can possibly make someone step on other people's toes? Before explaining why biased pinheads cause insurmountable trouble for us, I must first respond to Kathi's pronouncements. To oppose Stalinism, we must oppose favoritism. To oppose absolutism, we must oppose revisionism. And to oppose Kathi, we must oppose eccentric pests.

Stereotyping and victim-blaming is not more respectable when it is performed by a member of the group being demeaned. Sure, she may have a right to take us all on a thoroughly reckless ride into the unknown, but we certainly don't have to stand idly by while she exercises that right. Next time, Kathi, you may want to check your facts correctly. I find that it has been, and is, my great undertaking to take a strong position on her rejoinders, which, after all, convince others that sleazy conspiracy theorists are the "chosen people" of scriptural prophecy. When all is said and done, she makes no sense at all. This has been a long letter, but I feel that its length is in direct proportion to its importance. Why? Because I lost all respect for Kathi McManus when I heard she plans to smear people of impeccable character and reputation.

Sincerely,

Kenneth Piascik

[Editor's note: Received this on my fax machine 1/6/98. God only knows who else this kook sent this copy to. He claims his name is Ted Bundy, but I don't buy it.]

Unless you've been in the proverbial dark this whole time, you already know that creating needed understanding is best achieved in a calm, rational environment. But let me add that we have to start talking with one another honestly, in honest language. If I didn't have to be in Gainesville in three hours I would suggest we begin, quite properly, with a brief look at the historical development of the problem, of its attempted solutions, and of the eternal argument about it. I wouldn't even mention that I know some unpatriotic rascals who claim they once overheard Kathi McManus say, "I want to exploit the feelings of charity and guilt that many people have over the plight of the homeless sooner or later" if it weren't really true. Some critics have called her petulant. A handful insist she's wretched. Kathi's lackeys, on the other hand, consider her to be one of the great minds of this century. We should all be very afraid. More later. Ted

[Editor's note: On the date of 4/2/98 this handwritten letter was received via snail mail at our local newspaper along with a half inch burnt effigy of a doll somewhat resembling me...He enclosed no return address nor email address but signed it simply "Yours in Christ, James"]

I sit in sad repose as I put pen to paper concerning an issue I find most deeply disturbing. Permit me this forum to rant. Kathi McManus is notorious for trying to publish blatantly incendiarism-oriented rhetoric as "education" for children to learn in school. And that's where we are right now. Certain individuals in intelligence and law enforcement agencies may have overlooked some of her more unrealistic expostulations. For one thing, her forces can't defend their stances. But more important, vandalism, death threats, and slander are typical tactics used by her worshippers.

Although I agree with those who insist that I must, on principle, announce that we may need to picket, demonstrate, march, or strike to stop Kathi before she can put a disingenuous spin on important issues, nevertheless, I cannot agree with the subject matter and attitude that is woven into every one of Kathi's vicious slurs. I'll try not to dwell on this, but blaming neo-horny despotism on daft bimbos is one of her favorite themes. She does not desire to benefit humanity, but rather to sentence more and more people to poverty, prison, and early death. Her operatives are in league with the worst classes of hideous paltry wackos there are who feed us a diet of robbery, murder, violence, and all other manner of trials and tribulations, period. If Kathi is victorious in her quest to turn the trickle of antagonism into a tidal wave, then her crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity. So, what am I doing about that? I'm educating. I'm trying to eschew scornful negativism.

If Fate desired that she make a correct application of what she had read about pharisaism, it would have to indicate title and page number, since the xenophobic fool would otherwise never in all her life find the correct place. But since Fate does not do this, she knows perfectly well that the pressures and stresses that her apple-polishers undergo lead them to keep essential documents hidden from the public until they become politically moot. Worse yet, she wants to waste hours and hours in fruitless conferences and meetings. Unfortunately, unscrupulous goofy drug addicts who reward mediocrity make no effort to contend with the inevitable consequences of that action. Although Kathi has managed to avoid indictment, or even a consensus that she did anything illegal, it requires surprisingly little imagination to envision a future in which Kathi is free to cater to the basest instincts of repugnant deadheads. If this letter did nothing else but serve as a beacon of truth, it would be worthy of reading by all right-thinking people. However, this letter's role is much greater than just to deal summarily with obtrusive Luddites. The primary point of disagreement between myself and dangerous postmodernist-types is whether or not self-righteous misoneism is widespread and growing stronger as it permeates school systems, universities, and the media.

The word "ultraphotomicrograph" is so compromised that I retain it only as a pejorative. The following is a preliminary attempt to establish some criteria for discussion of these complex issues. To begin with, there is an implicit assumption here that vulgar mouthpieces for cynical cruel cameralism don't think like you and me. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we lived in a world without supercilious cowboys? By working together, we can answer the presumptuous incorrigible crybabies who view countries and the people that live in them either as economic targets to be exploited or as military targets to be defeated. Okay, that's a slight exaggeration, but you get the drift. Currently, Kathi lacks the clout to misdirect our efforts into fighting each other rather than into understanding the nature and endurance of irrational antidisestablishmentarianism. But sometime soon, Kathi will have enough subalterns to rob, steal, cheat, and murder.

Here's some food for thought: It's never too late to take advantage of a rare opportunity to argue about her memoranda. While perhaps offensive to some readers, only a direct quote can fully convey the disdainful nature and content of her declamations: "Attention, followers! Your orders are to create a profligate world of guilt and shame, and to do so at any cost." As will become apparent when you least expect it, it should scarcely seem questionable to anyone that justice and humanity are completely on our side and nothing but illegality and barbarity are on hers. By this, I mean that Kathi has shown she's not afraid to be squalid. In a sense, her "compromises" have a devastating effect on the poor, the sick, and the elderly. Her efforts to block streets and traffic to the extent that ambulances can't get through have touched the lives of every person in this country. I know because I have experienced that personally. To summarize my views: Amid the babel of false tongues all around us, even basically good people sometimes find it hard to know what is right and what is wrong.

There are some comments I need to make regarding the Editor. I begin with critical semantic clarifications. First, there is considerable evidence to show that the Editor is serious about wanting to promulgate partisan prejudice against others. It is easy for the public at large to dismiss heartless kooks as self-deceiving miscreants. If stated outright, her ideals would be manifestly unpopular. If she were as bright as she thinks she is, she'd know that none of what she says carries any weight. Experience should probably indicate that I am quite certain that her goal is not to oppose subhuman obstructionism but to reinvigorate it with a drugged-out new purpose. In short, the Editor feels she has not only a right, but also a duty, to fight with spiritual weapons that are as parasitic as they are wretched.

I sent it to her webmaster again. What did you do this time?

-----------------
Forwarded Message:
Subj:    I KNOW Ms. McManus and her ways!!!!!
Date:    8/17/1998 4:34:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From:    Joanna R. Lambert
To:    aol_icq@bigfoot.com (AOL ICQ People)

This is an open letter, which you are welcome to use as you wish. I want as many people as possible to know that I don't need to be particularly delicate here. Let me begin by quickly reasserting a familiar theme of my previous letters: Ms. McManus' comments are misleading and deceptive.

As I remove the veil of ignorance I have lived behind, I find that she flaunts her personal tricks and attitudes in front of everyone else. She has no idea what she's doing. It used to be just plain bad, but it's just gotten seriously worse! It's incredible to me that anybody could be so base. Basically, Ms. McManus can't relate to anyone other than the most supercilious hackers. God has a problem with that and moreover I have a problem with it. Has she no conscience?

Ms. McManus needs to realize that pontificated rhetoric has no place and only serves to make her look like the evil begotten spawn she most likely is. I demand for her immediate termination or I shall be forced to go higher than this - Washington if necessary!

Thank-you for your attention,
Joanna Lambert

-----------------------------------

Subj:    Re: Why aren't you accepting email from me?
Date:    8/18/1998 5:12:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From:    kathi@cybersquaremall.com   (Kathi McManus)
Reply-to:    spbenbury@aol.com   (Mother)

Mother,
I have asked you time and time again to not bother me at work.
Are the nurses there with you as you play on the computer?

Your loving daughter,
Kathi