Re: Holden Caulfield Song

Tim, I think you misunderstood me about the message filters. I didn't
intend everyone to filter _my_ messages. You're right. That would be an
absurd request. I was saying _I_ would filter out _John's_ messages, so
that I don't even read them and aren't inclined to respond.

See?

And yes, "tough" was a typo for "though."

You're asking the wrong person to tone down the nastiness, Tim. I'm
nasty to John because he literally has nothing to say that's not a direct
or indirect insult to me. When Scottie insults, at least it's well
written and has some content behind it -- he's saying something about
Wordsworth or the superiority of creative fiction to literary criticism.
Something.

You ask me to view this situation from the outside, but in order for any
request you make of me to have any credibility, you need to see this from
my side as well -- how tedious, unproductive, and a useless waste of time
John's posts are. Not all of them even attempted to be funny -- some
were simply direct attacks. His last one exerted a great deal more
effort in creativity, yes. Most did not.

Go through the archives, Tim, and see if a single one of his posts have
any content other than an attack on either me or a group I belong to. Go
back three months. Go back a year. And be honest about what you find.
I'm more interested in talking about criticism or theory or fight club or
Salinger or Wordsworth, and attack only when I'm attacked.

Some people have nothing to say but the attack.

You may want to consider that you're asking of me something you wouldn't
do yourself.

Jim

Tim O'Connor wrote:

> >Tim, I'm sorry, but I'm not buying my of your response.
>
> I'm sorry, too. It was, after all, a leap of faith to hope that this
> would go gently.
>
> >I haven't "declared war" on John. I haven't initiated any
> >discussions with John -- I don't address any posts to him except by
> >way of response. If you really follow the threads, you'll see he's
> >consistently responding to me out of the blue, usually in response
> >to a discussion I'm having with someone else. I suspect you
> >haven't, tough.
>
> Hmm? "Tough"? Or was that a typo for "though"? The latter, I hope;
> I really wouldn't like the rudeness of being told "tough" when I've
> politely made a request.
>
> And while they say that turnabout is fair play, well, in many of your
> messages you have lectured people to read again what you've said. I
> can only do the same now. I choose my words carefully, Jim, and when
> I said of you that you had been belligerent (please don't deny THAT),
> I also said, "Just please go about [your remarks] in a way that less
> resembles declarations of war." Your messages have been belligerent,
> and they have RESEMBLED declarations of war. No accusations from me
> of declaring war; only an observation that your messages have been
> provocative. That's all. And I think we can do with less of that.
>
> >I don't see his "wit" as being particularly intelligent. I mean,
> >good freaking lord, it's sooo much easier to throw off an insult
> >than it is to, well, say something. About Anything. -- but the
> >question you need to ask yourself is, "How would I respond if I were
> >the recipient of this constant barrage without any provocation."
>
> I'd answer maybe once or twice, and if it got nowhere I would bow
> out. I'm not really interested in getting the last word -- just as,
> with this thread, I expect to let it wither on the vine.
>
> As far as John's wit, you'd laugh too if you were observing it all
> instead of being on one side of it.
>
> >Message filters cut it just fine. I can sort by sender. Anything
> >coming from him will go straight into a "junk mail" box.
>
> Please don't subject us all to barrages and expect us all to have to
> work to filter you out. That's just too self-centered for words.
> Instead, think -- just think -- of why so many people have asked you
> to cut back on the nastiness. Surely we aren't all imagining it, are
> we? Just lay off -- please. Please. That's all I ask, and I ask
> nicely. And don't be selfish enough to expect a hundred people to
> filter out your mail; some of us don't even have such capabilities,
> you know.
>
> >If you think this post here should have been directed to you
> >privately, you should have considered sending your message to me
> >privately.
>
> Jim, you misread me, either willfully or not. Go speak in public. I
> wrote publicly, because so many people have spoken about your
> messages, and I want them to know they are not alone in their
> objections. But I refuse to bicker about trifles. I've simply asked
> you to turn down the nastiness. And I've tried to show that it is
> unfair and unrealistic to expect all of us to deal with your
> abusiveness by either using filters or hitting DELETE thirty times a
> day. Occasional messages are one thing. But when one seems to do
> nothing but write messages here, that's over the top.
>
> >The thing about the volume of posts, now, that's probably legit.
> >Work's been a bit slow lately and my job keeps me connected pretty
> >constantly. If I were to sign on once a day and get all the e-mails
> >at once, I think I'd perceive things a bit differently, and would
> >certaily be responding a bit differently. I'll try to respond only
> >once a day.
>
> You don't need to do that, Jim. Just respond thoughtfully and
> respectfully, and that should do it. As a note, please remember that
> I am not interested in bickering here or privately. I have too many
> other things on my so-called mind. Let's just be more civil. You'd
> be surprised at how the conversation flows, as a result.
>
> I'm sure you can pull a rhetorical switcheroo on us. Do it and try
> it out and see what happens, eh?
>
> Thanks, all.
>
> --tim o'connor
>
> --
> -
> * Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
> * UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Tue Dec 10 00:12:12 2002