Question: purpose of this newsgroup
Longden
FAQ. What I am beginning to wonder is if you need to define more precisely the purposes of the
group.
Perhaps I should give a little personal background as briefly as possible. I am quite new to
newsgroups. I have casually browsed well before now. But I became involved with this group only
weeks ago, and it was only days before that that I had posted to any newsgroup. My original posting
here was with a view to 'advertising' my website, a kind of literature website. But then I became
interested. Some of the work here was clearly of a very high quality, and any honest effort was
likely to receive a helpful response. It also occurred to me to run some of the material from the
site past the group. I've done that, and been gratified to receive sympathetic, helpful and
imaginative responses. Perhaps a little lacking in gravity, but that's alright; that probably
matches the quality of the work. I can face that. Writing is not my life. It was in reading the
responses to another writer that I began to wonder.
Perhaps too I should expand upon that a bit before I try to pose my question more
accurately. At a time when I felt I ought to post a response to something, having put a few bits of
my own work up, I replied to a post by Bill Palmer. I rather glibly assumed the piece might be
autobiographical. (In the unlikely event that this is straightforwardly true, I don't think it
matters anyway, as there is something more complicated, more interesting than that going on.) I
didn't think the piece was that impressive, though other works of his I've read since are very
clearly highly accomplished in a quite conventional sense, but it was at least disturbing and
fascinating in some way I could not exactly put my finger on. Then I discovered his other posts (one
previous, I think, in the same window, and also subsequent ones), and the discussion about them.
Obviously there is a long history to all this. I haven't researched it and I don't pretend to have
fathomed it. But what strikes me about the reaction to his posts is that you are, not unsympathetic,
but very very NERVOUS. Why? Yes, there has been some discussion (and reference to previous
discussions) of the fact/fiction distinction. I don't think that this is the central issue. Maybe
closer to the central issue is the following choice of options:
(a) Are you a newsgroup for whom the newsgroup element is a convenient electronic medium for the
presentation and discussion of 'conventional' literature. ("conventional" here is in
contradistinction to option (b), and can otherwise be as wide as you like -- it would certainly
accommodate absence of punctuation)?
(b) Are you a newsgroup open to any kind of original fiction, even that which makes intrinsic use of
the newsgroup medium?
You (the organisers, if there are such things in newsgroups; or the consensual group as a
whole) are of course entitled to be what you want.
Maybe I don't have the dichotomy quite right; maybe it's too coloured by my own character
and predilections. I, for example, am a person who likes to write and who likes to play. I like to
write in the sense that I like fig biscuits. (It's not an obsession, but I can eat a whole packet.)
I like to play, but I have to work. The web, and increasingly the newsgroup, seems to me to be an
opportunity to write and play. But maybe Bill's 'genius' is very different from mine, and poorly
understood by me. As for Detritus Alley, probably he does want feedback about it as straight
literature. (He is after all very thorough in all his responses, even to glib posts like mine.) But
I have the feeling that those followers with mindset (a) are, somewhere along the line, going to
feel suckered.
Hull
electronic medium for the
> presentation and discussion of 'conventional' literature. ("conventional"
here is in
> contradistinction to option (b), and can otherwise be as wide as you
like -- it would certainly
> accommodate absence of punctuation)?
Yes. If you stray from the textbook norms in any piece of writing, you
will be issued either lashings or, in the case of a more extreme grammatical
error, a good flogging. : )
Literature is about freedom--it's about expressing your ideas using your
own style. If everybody wrote using a set-in-stone layout, avoiding certain
words and/or topics, then it would be repetitive and boring. In fact, the
greatest thing about writing is that, given enough time and practice, you
can use your words to create literally anything and, if you so desire,
everything. To drill a clichéed analogy into the ground, writing is like
poetry. While certain patterns and forms exist, it is up to the writer
which of those regulations to adhere to, which to bend, and which, if not
all, to completely ignore. The idea behind it is that once you're finished,
you end up with a little bit of yourself on the page.
Hmm. Considering my last post (titled "The Drunk")... maybe I shouldn't
word it like that...
...heh. Ahh, well. My point is that writing needs to be moderated, not
governed. Don't 'tell it what to do'... simply guide it towards where you
want it to be.
> (b) Are you a newsgroup open to any kind of original fiction, even that
which makes intrinsic use of
> the newsgroup medium?
Quite frankly, I don't know. I didn't bother to read the FAQ--I just
decided to jump in here head-first and hope that I didn't smack my head off
of a sharp pointy rock. : )
By the looks of it, though, this is a venue for all forms of fictional
writing.
Hope this helps,
William.
Fraser
<Longden> wrote in message news:3c1d6413...@news.clara.net...
Longden
This answer is in no way meant to represent the attitude of anyone else on
this group.
You say that the reaction to Palmer's posting seemed 'nervous', and you put
that down to a question of what this newsgroup is open to. I have to
disagree with your assessment of the reaction : those who responded to his
announcement of his 'newsgroup-written novel' were unanimous in their
willingness to give it a go, although they also expressed some valid
reservations. Then, when the fist part of DETRITUS ALLEY appeared, Palmer
received numerous responses, almost all of which were genuine offers of
constructive criticism. So, really, I don't think you can suggest that AFO
is unwilling to accept fiction (even based on fact) that is outside the
norm. It may not get a very good reception (see the ruckus over Paul's
'Deasd Loss') but that is simply because people might not like it, not
because they are not prepared to have it on the group. Nobody can dictate
what is acceptable and what isn't, as long as the post meets the (sometimes
vague) criteria of being both original and fictional.
Your option b) makes a distinction between original fiction that 'makes
intrinsic use of the newsgroup medium' and, presumably, original fiction
that doesn't.
I am probably missing the point you were trying to make, but I really don't
see that there is any difference between the two. Original fiction is
original fiction, and a newsgroup is just another medium of communication.
Palmer, in his infinite arrogance, believes that he has invented an entirely
new form of writing and makes no attempt to hide that fact, but all he is
really doing is writing a fictionalised auto-biography without bothering to
make the effort of editing. Big deal.
There is nothing about Palmer's writing that would make me say that it is
unacceptable on AFO. His 'newsgroup-written novel' is perfectly okay. Even
his 'They Cowards, Jervis', a thinly veiled attack on all those who don't
agree with him, is entitled to be on AFO simply becuase it's original
fiction. He is welcome to post as much ego-stroking crap as he wants.
My problem (read disclaimer at top) with Palmer has nothing to do with his
writing - personally, I don't think it's very exciting but that is a matter
of personal taste. My problem with Bill is that he is an egomaniac who looks
on Usenet as a medium for self-promotion. Take a look around (as I've been
doing recently) and you will soon see that Bill is not writing to
communicate, or to inspire, or to share something of value with others. Bill
is writing on many subjects in many groups, but his aim is the same each
time : to generate controversy and responses, all designed to push up his
number of precious Google mentions and help him in his ludicrous claim to
being the 'most popular writer on the net'. He is insincere, and that's the
worst insult in my armory. When someone like that starts to post in AFO...
that's when I get nervous.
Fraser
For the record - I've just found the thread you were actually reffering to,
on Google. There were definitely more anti- 'faction' comments in that one,
but it doesn't change the substance of what I wrote in my first response.
Fraser
Alaric McDermott
been properly introduced. Holds out hands. Thumbs nose. Gets punched in it
for childish trick.
> Yes. If you stray from the textbook norms in any piece of writing, you
will be issued either lashings or, in the case of a more extreme grammatical
error, a good flogging.
Heh! No. We'll say - hey, that works - or - hey, it doesn't. Or some will
say it does. Or whatever. But we'll talk about it, and folks will keep their
temper. The current row doesn't take away from that. The poster involved
didn't want constructive comment, and insulted those who gave it.
> Literature is about freedom--it's about expressing your ideas using your
own style. If everybody wrote using a set-in-stone layout, avoiding certain
words and/or topics, then it would be repetitive and boring.
Definitely.
> While certain patterns and forms exist, it is up to the writer which of
those regulations to adhere to, which to bend, and which, if not all, to
completely ignore.
Yes again.
> The idea behind it is that once you're finished, you end up with a little
bit of yourself on the page.
Oh, don't I wish?
> Quite frankly, I don't know. I didn't bother to read the FAQ--I just
decided to jump in here head-first and hope that I didn't smack my head off
of a sharp pointy rock. : )
You didn't.
> By the looks of it, though, this is a venue for all forms of fictional
writing.
And for criticism of it.
Enjoy your time here, William. You seem like a nice guy.
Alaric McDermott
do it again. I saw you as a bit of a joker. I love your stuff, but I thought
you weren't seeking nitty-gritty on it. Dan did a review to which you
responded very positively. I'm wiser now.
> Some of the work here was clearly of a very high quality, and any honest
effort was likely to receive a helpful response.
Sorry again.
> Perhaps a little lacking in gravity, but that's alright; that probably
matches the quality of the work.
Er. sorry again.
> Obviously there is a long history to all this. I haven't researched it
and I don't pretend to have fathomed it. But what strikes me about the
reaction to his posts is that you are, not unsympathetic, but very very
NERVOUS. Why? Yes, there has been some discussion (and reference to previous
discussions) of the fact/fiction distinction. I don't think that this is the
central issue. Maybe closer to the central issue is the following choice of
options:
Mmm. before I go on to the options, I think (personally) a STORY is the key.
I'm not bothered if it's autobiographical. Well, Keepsake is. Others may
differ, but I doubt it. Bill has a reputation. That, I think, was the source
of the nerves. He holds forth. And I don't think a factual essay could stand
here. There are grey areas - diary entries, for example. But I think the
call is pretty clear without needing to change the FAQ.
On your options, I say definitely (b). Don't be misled by the recent Paul
thing. That wasn't about the work. We all wanted to talk about the work.
> You (the organisers, if there are such things in newsgroups; or the
consensual group as a whole) are of course entitled to be what you want.
There are no controllers. There ARE organisers of course (Jane, Bruce, Jeff
et al), but no-one commands a higher right here. Seniority is irrelevant.
Contribution is irrelevant. Attitude is irrelevant. Nobody can stop a
contribution anyway - we're not moderated. You may go outside an
expectation, and people will tell you so - but there are no rules - the only
consequence of obnoxiousness is that people may castigate or ignore. I see
AFO as like my local pub. Start an offensive dialogue and people move to the
other side of the room or in extremis punch you in the nose.
> I like to write in the sense that I like fig biscuits. (It's not an
obsession, but I can eat a whole packet.)
I can tell. I really DO like your stuff, Longden. It brightens my day. I
usually play back, but I will do more in future.
Hope this helps a little.
Longden
It doesn't appear that the distinction between the 2 options for the newsgroup was well understood,
and this is because I made a poor job of drawing it. I have posted a separate message about this.
That apart, what you say is very interesting. I also read the persuasive reply you made to one of
his posts in the thread: Re: Smoke and Mirrors Wars (begun by Alaric), and noted that he didn't
reply. I still can't help feeling that all (or very nearly all) you say may be true and yet still
his work would in some way (a way relevant to the above distinction, the options) be interesting and
perhaps important.
Longden
>
>> (b) Are you a newsgroup open to any kind of original fiction, even that
>which makes intrinsic use of
>> the newsgroup medium?
>
> Quite frankly, I don't know. I didn't bother to read the FAQ--I just
>decided to jump in here head-first and hope that I didn't smack my head off
>of a sharp pointy rock. : )
>
> By the looks of it, though, this is a venue for all forms of fictional
>writing.
>
> Hope this helps,
> William.
>
>
I did read the FAQ, and it didn't help. That's what this post was all about.
Thanks anyway, William.
Longden
>Hi, Longden. I owe you an apology. I think I delivered it already, but I'll
>do it again. I saw you as a bit of a joker. I love your stuff, but I thought
>you weren't seeking nitty-gritty on it. Dan did a review to which you
>responded very positively. I'm wiser now.
>
>> Some of the work here was clearly of a very high quality, and any honest
>effort was likely to receive a helpful response.
>
>Sorry again.
>
>> Perhaps a little lacking in gravity, but that's alright; that probably
>matches the quality of the work.
>
>Er. sorry again.
I'm touched that you feel the need to apologize, but I have nothing to complain about. On sober
reflection the work I've posted is a bit of slightly experimental fun which is of no consequence.
That doesn't mean that I am not interested in the reaction to it. But if I have ever felt a tinge of
disappointment about the kind of response I've had (and really this is outweighed by the
satisfaction of receiving the sympathetic and witty posts I have had), I would entirely put it down
to my own egotism. My abiding feeling towards this group is actually one of guilt that I haven't put
more effort into reading the work of others.
>
>> Obviously there is a long history to all this. I haven't researched it
>and I don't pretend to have fathomed it. But what strikes me about the
>reaction to his posts is that you are, not unsympathetic, but very very
>NERVOUS. Why? Yes, there has been some discussion (and reference to previous
>discussions) of the fact/fiction distinction. I don't think that this is the
>central issue. Maybe closer to the central issue is the following choice of
>options:
>
>Mmm. before I go on to the options, I think (personally) a STORY is the key.
>I'm not bothered if it's autobiographical. Well, Keepsake is. Others may
>differ, but I doubt it. Bill has a reputation. That, I think, was the source
>of the nerves. He holds forth. And I don't think a factual essay could stand
>here. There are grey areas - diary entries, for example. But I think the
>call is pretty clear without needing to change the FAQ.
>
>On your options, I say definitely (b). Don't be misled by the recent Paul
>thing. That wasn't about the work. We all wanted to talk about the work.
>
I can see how the reputation could lead to the 'nerves'.
I don't think I was misled by the controversy about Paul. What I do think is that I made a hash of
making the distinction which I thought might be relevant to Bill's work. I'll try and correct that
in a separate post (a follow-up to my own post), if that's OK, because of the other responses in
this thread. In all honesty, my grasp of what Bill is up to is so hazy that I'm not sure it's worth
the effort. But maybe the distinction is of interest in its own right. And it would be nice to have
the record straight. Your stand on the necessity for a STORY is plausible. But I wonder if it's yet
too narrow, and actually undermines your commitment to option (b). Couldn't there be something which
didn't seem to be a story at all but which was nevertheless fictional? Or even something which
seemed to be a story but actually wasn't? This may sound crazy but I hope the separate post will
make it clearer.
>
>Hope this helps a little.
>
>
>
It helps no end. Especially the appreciative which I've modestly snipped. Thanks Alaric.
Longden
fiction and fiction which makes essential use of the newsgroup medium. I think that this is my
fault, but that the distinction is necessarily a difficult one. The distinction I had in mind would
be something like the distinction between hyperfiction and fiction, but this is to explain the
difficult by the obscure. The reference to an electronic medium is probably a red herring. The
distinction I'm after would be valid if we were pasting bits of paper on a billboard in a village
square. It's just that it's difficult to define or say in advance what
fiction-making-essential-use-of-the-newsgroup-medium is.
An analogy. A group of people is interested in Art: painting, drawing and sculpture. They
display and discuss their works. Some of them say: "Anything goes here. We even have abstract
paintings and sculpture." But then someone starts displaying unmade beds, sharks in tanks of
formaldehyde, and rooms with lights going on and off. How do the group respond? Do they say: "We're
not having that; it's not Art."? What are these exhibits about? They're about playing with and
asking questions about the medium. They may individually be crass, and works of this sort offer huge
scope for pretentiousness, vacuity and insincerity. But can we rule them out as works of art in
advance? (Actually I'd be tempted to do just that with the unmade bed and the blinking room, but my
personal response isn't the point.) I don't think you can classify these kinds of works. In the
nature of the thing, the possibilities are open. They are works on the edge. They are not
necessarily more interesting than 'straight' work, but they are different.
It seemed to me that Bill Palmer's work might be an example of this kind of thing in
newsgroups. And frankly, the possibility of this kind of work quite tickles my fancy.
Does this make any sense, or am I barking in the wrong forest?
Fraser
<Longden> wrote in message news:3c1eaae1.13105873@news.clara.net...
Hi again Longden
I'm really the last person who should be commenting on this, but your
question has stirred the ol' brain cells into some kind of life. Here's my
take:
Interesting stuff. In part, your analogy boils down to the old question:
"What is Art?". There is no single answer to that - everyone has their own
ideas of what constitutes art, and those ideas are formed by countless
personal factors. To me, a pile of bricks is a pile of bricks, whether it's
at the side of a road or on display in the Tate Gallery. To someone else,
though, that same pile might represent an eternal truth. It's not my place
to tell that person that he or she is wrong, because my opinion is based on
nothing more than my own emotional reaction (or lack thereof) to the piece.
So I'd say that art is whatever provokes a reaction within you that is
greater than the sum of the artwork's constituent pieces - be they bricks,
sharks, paint on canvas or characters on a page/screen. There are,
literally, no boundaries to Art.
But art can be broken down into 'good' art and 'bad' art, too. Let's get
away from the visual arts and onto writing for a moment, and use Paul Millar
as an illustration. I can't, by my own definition, say that Paul's writing
isn't art. It provoked a very strong emotional reaction that was way out of
proportion to what it actually was. And I'm not talking about his responses
to criticism here - I read his stories and I felt a visceral reaction: they
pissed me off. It's art. But is it good art or is it bad art?
Murky waters again. Good art or bad? Who defines? What is good to some is
bad to others. But there *is* a distinction - we all feel it - and my
personal opinion on this is that it all comes down to craft. I'd define
craft as the knowledge and correct application of the basic skills of the
art form. A sculptor who has never learnt to use his chisels correctly
cannot create good sculptural art. Likewise, a writer who doesn't know (or
refuses to use, without good reason ) the basic rules and techniques of his
craft has very little chance of creating good written art.
So Good Art results when craft and art are combined. The more skilfull the
technique and the more profound the emotional concept, the better the art
will be.
You mention 'controversial' works by Damien Hirsch and Tracy Emins. Applying
my own criteria to these two pieces, I can't argue that they are art, but I
can say that (imho) they are not Good Art. The same applies to Paul Millar's
writing - it evokes an emotional response, but most of that response comes
from a sense of outrage at his rejection of craft. All three are, as you put
it, 'playing with and asking questions about the medium', but all three
have only captured one side of the equation. Good art is possible out on the
edge, but art is not made good simply because it's out there.
So, eventually (!), let's get on to AFO's attitude to 'works on the edge' in
general, and Bill Palmer's work in particular. Again, I'll stress that I can
only offer my own opinion - you asked the question of the group as a whole,
but no-one can really answer it that way except, perhaps, the Keepers of the
FAQ.
As I mentioned in my post yesterday, I think Bill Palmer is fully entitled
to post anything he likes to AFO as long as it is in broad accordance with
the FAQ. I'd agree that fiction can be more than a narrowly defined
'imaginary narrative'. If Bill presents fictionalised accounts of factual
events, and if they are original pieces, then Bill can post them. Bill, and
any other contributor, can be as experimental as he wants to be, as long as
his work is suitable for a newsgroup where people write, read and review
original fiction. That's the only rule. There are plenty of other groups for
other styles of writing.
Sorry for the rambling, Longden! I hope this is closer to what you were
asking.
Fraser
Longden
Not rambling at all, Fraser. On the contrary. I wondered if I was digging myself deeper into a mire
with my last post. But your reply is spot-on, even definitive. I do not thnk I need to add any more
on this topic.
Paul
IMHO I do not distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' art. There is just art.
Art to me is anything which provokes a reaction / emotional response.
Whether that reaction / emotional response is generated from the style or
the content is neither here nor there for me. But. then again I also beleive
there is no such thing as art. Read on.
To take the example of painting. If a 7 year old painted a picture would
that be art ? If you didn't know a 7 year old had painted the picture some
people would argue it was art, others it wasn't. Some would argue it was
'good' art, some would argue it was 'bad' art. Some would say it was just a
paint on paper. Who would be right ? No one. Each person would be right
within themselves, but no one would be 'right' or 'wrong'. If people knew it
was done by a 7 year old then the same arguments would apply. But another
dimension would be added to the 'good' art / 'bad' art theories. Was the
picture 'bad' because it has been done by a 7 year old or has the 7 year old
created the picture to the best of his abilities thus making it 'good' ? If
the 7 year old was asked why did he do it like that who would disagree with
the answer - 'that's how it came out' ?
But, there still remains another question what is art ? The dictionary
defines art as - 'the creation of works of beauty or other special
significance'. But what is beauty ? - we all know 'beauty is in the eye of
the beholder'. What is significant ? What may be significant to me does not
mean it is significant to you or someone else. The chair I am sitting on has
been created, someone may consider it to be a 'work of beauty', and it is
significant to me otherwise I wouldn't have anything to sit on. Therefore
the chair could be seen as art. But it is also just a chair. Can art be seen
as a means of communication ? A way of getting across an idea, expression,
thought in, from the creator's point of view, his / her own 'language'. Is
the English language art in its own right ? Is a dog barking art ? Both are
a means of communication, understood by some but not everyone. What is
communication ? Interaction. Can you interact with art ? And so on and so on
ad infinitum. Theoretically everything is art and nothing is art. Meaning
can be given to everything and nothing.
In essence art does not exist. It is an abstract concept which humans have
created, along with religion and politics for example, as another way of
labelling and trying to bring order to the perceived chaos. Which is why I
do not call anything I write art. I leave that distinction to be made by
other people. Is it art ? Is it relevant ? Is it writing ? Is it correct ?
Is it wrong ? Is it right ? In my mind it is correct. In someone else's it
is wrong. In essence what I have created is words on a page. What are words
? Words are letters put in close proximity to one another and given a
meaning. What are letters ? Symbols representing the noises we make when we
talk. So writing could be described as a symbolic representation of noise.
So in the continual quest by man to bring order to the chaos he has applied
rules to symbolic representations of noise. These rules are considered to be
a means of providing a common form of communication between people who make
the same noises. Through this process understanding and communication have
developed and evolved. But people all over the world use different noises,
have developed different symbols for these noises and different meanings.
Animals have also developed noises to create communication between
themselves. All these different races and species inhabit the same small
space, minorities have sprung up here and there who make the same noises.
Confusion arises when races encounter each other and the two bands of people
make different noises. Chaos is creeping into the order. Frustration is
created by the lack of understanding. One race perceives the other race is
not following their rules. Both races beleive they are right. Both races
beleive the other is wrong. Friction. Break down of communication. Blows.
In essence we are still monkeys grunting in the jungle.
So I now beleive that there is no such thing as art. Art is an abstract
concept to bring order to chaos. Words are merely symbolic representations
of noise put next to each other and given a meaning. So from a macroscopic
point of view by writing with no punctuation I have created something which
is merely noise on a page. Chaos. To bring order to the chaos you have to
metaphorically 'zoom' in. You start forming the words those noises are
producing. By saying the words in quick succession they begin to form
phrases. Those phrases begin to form sentences. Meaning is starting to form.
Order is springing from chaos. From a microscopic point of view there is
order within the chaos.
Is all of the above relevant to my writing or to this newsgroup ? At first
glance my unpunctuated work 'Dead Loss' is a jumble of words. No meaning.
Upon reading it does form a narrative. It is a collection of thoughts and
ideas. The thoughts and ideas of a fictious character sitting in a cafe
staring at the world walking past him on the other side of a glass window.
It is fiction. It is original. Whether it is relevant or art or pretentious
crap - I leave entirely upto the reader to decide.
And is my answer - 'that's how it came out ' - anymore right or wrong,
relevant or irrelelevant, than a 7 year old supplying the same answer to the
same question about something which he had created ?
--
Paul
http://www25.brinkster.com/dazzle
-------------------------------------------------------
"...this is your life and it's ending one minute at a time..."
Tyler Durden, 'Fight Club'
"Fraser" <fra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9vmiuk$gd82c$1...@ID-116198.news.dfncis.de...
Steve Flanagan
Steve Flanagan
via email (I think), the I just plain reposted Paul's post unchanged. Sorry
about that. Below is what it was supposed to be!
I know, I know...I'll be getting emails for a week for having answered
this, but it's so far off base, I have to!
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul
Newsgroups: alt.fiction.original
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 3:04 PM
Subject: [shop] Re: Question: purpose of this newsgroup
This is where our views disagree.
IMHO I do not distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' art. There is just art.
Art to me is anything which provokes a reaction / emotional response.
Whether that reaction / emotional response is generated from the style or
the content is neither here nor there for me. But. then again I also believe
there is no such thing as art. Read on.
To take the example of painting. If a 7 year old painted a picture would
that be art ? If you didn't know a 7 year old had painted the picture some
people would argue it was art, others it wasn't. Some would argue it was
'good' art, some would argue it was 'bad' art. Some would say it was just a
paint on paper. Who would be right ? No one. Each person would be right
within themselves, but no one would be 'right' or 'wrong'. If people knew it
was done by a 7 year old then the same arguments would apply. But another
dimension would be added to the 'good' art / 'bad' art theories. Was the
picture 'bad' because it has been done by a 7 year old or has the 7 year old
created the picture to the best of his abilities thus making it 'good' ? If
the 7 year old was asked why did he do it like that who would disagree with
the answer - 'that's how it came out' ?
I knew where this was going before I ever got near 'that's how it came out'.
The 'good' art/'bad' art argument has nothing to do with whether the creator
is 7 or 70. One could apply it ONLY to 7 year olds, asking if it's 'good'
or 'bad' among 7 year olds' works. But you can't compare the work of a 7
year old to a 47 year old's. That would be ridiculous. For the same reason
a 7 year old would not enter into an essay contest, let's say, with college
graduates!
And if a 7 year old told me he did it that way because 'that's how it came
out', I would believe him, because I wouldn't expect him to know any better,
and that's just the kind of statement that a 7 year old would say when put
on the spot.
By George, you're almost getting it, if only you'd listen to what you're
saying, or read my answers to your previous arguments. Those 'different
noises' you're talking about, that 'chaos', that 'breakdown of
communication' that leads to 'blows' among the 'monkeys grunting in the
jungle'. There wouldn't be any of that if there were Rules of Noise (Gee,
kind of like what the Rules of Grammar does for English Written Language)
that put all those different noises on the same page. Rest assured, those
'monkeys grunting in the jungle' and 'barking dogs', have common rules for
those grunts and barks. Monkeys understand monkeys, dogs understand dogs.
Wish Paul understood everybody else. In the United Nations, we use
translators instead of common rules.
So I now beleive that there is no such thing as art. Art is an abstract
concept to bring order to chaos. Words are merely symbolic representations
of noise put next to each other and given a meaning. So from a macroscopic
point of view by writing with no punctuation I have created something which
is merely noise on a page.
You keep dancing here about 'Art', 'Chaos' and 'Noise'.
Maybe it is just noise, maybe it isn't. Well never know until we can read
it properly. You kept telling me not to tell you what to think. What I'm
trying to tell you (over and over and...) is that I don't KNOW what you
think. My only link with your mind is what you tell me or what you write.
Since you're a few thousand miles away, I can't hear you. And since you
don't punctuate, which means some words don't really mean what you intend
them to mean (I'll versus ill, by the way, you never did explain how you
express such a difference without punctuation. Are there rules for not
following the rules?), how the He'll am I supposed to understand what you
were thinking when you wrote it?
Chaos. To bring order to the chaos you have to
metaphorically 'zoom' in. You start forming the words those noises are
producing. By saying the words in quick succession they begin to form
phrases.
But some of those words are not the ones you intend without punctuation.
God, I hate having to repeat and repeat and...
Those phrases begin to form sentences. Meaning is starting to form.
But not the meaning you really meant! Repeating and...
Order is springing from chaos. From a microscopic point of view there is
order within the chaos.
I started to think you were reaching here once more, but I actually agree
with your assessment of art. I likened it to those carnival booths where a
horizontal wheel spun a square of cardboard, and you squirted different
colors of paint on it, and centrifugal force spread out the paint randomly.
That's chaos...you can't actually control where the paint will go. But when
you're done, some of them look like works of beauty, while others are so
worthlessly ugly, you throw them away. The more thoughtful control you try
to excercise over the paint you're squirting, the better the chances of
coming out with a work of beauty. Same with writing...the more thoughtful
control you use in putting those words together, the better your chances of
ending up with a thing of beauty, although there are no guarantees. If not,
all you end up with are a jumble of run-on words with no punctuation, order
or cohesive meaning, an ugly thing that most people throw away.
Is all of the above relevant to my writing or to this newsgroup ?
Most definitely! Do you understand it?
At first
glance my unpunctuated work 'Dead Loss' is a jumble of words. No meaning.
Upon reading it does form a narrative. It is a collection of thoughts and
ideas. The thoughts and ideas of a fictious character sitting in a cafe
staring at the world walking past him on the other side of a glass window.
It is fiction. It is original. Whether it is relevant or art or pretentious
crap - I leave entirely upto the reader to decide.
If it can't be properly read, you have no reader to make that decision. At
least, not an intelligent one. What did I tell you about I'll and ill,
he'll and hell? How could anyone tell what your talking about?
And is my answer - 'that's how it came out ' - anymore right or wrong,
relevant or irrelelevant, than a 7 year old supplying the same answer to the
same question about something which he had created ?
As I said, I expect it from a 7 year old! I DON'T expect it from someone
who wants me to believe he knows what he's doing.
--
Paul
Is it art? Is it good or bad? What is the definition of art according to
the dictionary? Is this a slow dance or a fast dance? This is all
irrelevent to the beating you took. If you really want this answered, then
it was bad art. It was bad because it was wrong. You used the wrong words
because the lack of punctuation changed them into different words. It was
bad because, due to your pigheaded refusal to follow the basic nuts and
bolts rules of what you call 'your craft', you never said what you thought
you were saying at all! Try doing it again, putting the words together
correctly, and it WILL be a work of fiction, and people may even like it
once they can understand what you really meant.
Steve
Steve Flanagan
Steve
Alaric McDermott
it, haven't you?
"Steve Flanagan" <sm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:mrQT7.171427$WW.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
R. Westermeyer
wrote:
>This is where our views disagree.
>
I thought you said "bye bye".
Oh, silly me, thinking the famous "Usenet Goodbye Letter" would, for
once, not be a bluff.
--Robert
Paul
newsserver is playing up.
Steve either post my reply here as a reply to your own posting or e-mail it
back to me and I will post it. I made a backup copy but I cannot find it at
the mo.
--
Paul
http://www25.brinkster.com/dazzle
-------------------------------------------------------
"...this is your life and it's ending one minute at a time..."
Tyler Durden, 'Fight Club'
"Steve Flanagan" <sm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:%oQT7.171425$WW.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Alaric McDermott
No more "my writing is" stuff PUH-LEEEEEEEEEEEZ!
Oh, I'm going to bed. I can't handle another night of leaving it to the
reader to decide.
G'night folks! Before 2, eh? First time for everything.
What happened to resigning? Another lie, eh?
"Paul" <dazz...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:3c1fe...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
Alaric McDermott
> If the 7 year old was asked why did he do it like that who would disagree
with the answer - 'that's how it came out' ?
Oh, God.
> Is the English language art in its own right? Is a dog barking art ? Both
are a means of communication, understood by some but not everyone.
Here we go. Back to Paul Millar A Man And His Fiction AGAIN!!!! Don't you
ever tire of repeating the same points OVER AND OVER AGAIN!!!! NO-ONE'S
LISTENING!!!!
> Which is why I do not call anything I write art. I leave that distinction
to be made by
other people.
No, you don't. You tell them they're wrong.
> Words are letters put in close proximity to one another and given a
meaning. What are letters ? Symbols representing the noises we make when we
talk.
Oh, lock this guy up. Are we fools, Paul? This is going back to the SAME
BLOODY PLACE.
> One race perceives the other race is
not following their rules. Both races beleive they are right. Both races
beleive the other is wrong. Friction. Break down of communication. Blows.
Oh, for fuck's sake!!!!!! Leave it alone, man. One race read AFO. One race
the equally powerful Paul Millar. YOU ARE PATHETIC. GIVE IT
UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> So from a macroscopic point of view by writing with no punctuation I have
created something which is merely noise on a page.
Oh, SURPRISE!!!! How DID we get here?
> You start forming the words those noises are producing.
No, you don't.
> By saying the words in quick succession they begin to form phrases.
No, they don't.
> Those phrases begin to form sentences.
No they don't.
> Meaning is starting to form.
GIVE IT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Order is springing from chaos.
Hah!
> Is all of the above relevant to my writing or to this newsgroup ?
Well, it has to be because YOU WON'T LET GO. You're immature, selfish and a
pain in the arse. You're ruining a newsgroup you don't care two hoots about
for personal gain. You're drenching us with crap that ONLY YOU have the
remotest interest in.
At first glance my unpunctuated work 'Dead Loss' is a jumble of words.
SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Upon reading it does form a narrative. It is a collection of thoughts and
ideas.
Even now, you're fighting those who gave you honest advice. Read ANY
author's response to criticism on ANY story in this group. Read. Learn how
to behave decently. TAKE IT ON THE CHIN. GROW UP.
> I leave entirely upto the reader to decide.
How did I predict that was coming? FOR THE NINETIETH TIME.
> And is my answer - 'that's how it came out ' - anymore right or wrong,
relevant or irrelelevant, than a 7 year old supplying the same answer to the
same question about something which he had created?
Not now that I know you.
GIVE IT A REST, MAN. FOR GOD'S SAKE.
Pete
Go to bed, Alaric.
--
Becoming a writer depends on how broken you get.
Pete -- Writing from the Big Easy
http://home.earthlink.net/~salamanders/
Jane MacDonald
>An analogy. A group of people is interested in Art: painting, drawing
>and sculpture. They display and discuss their works. Some of them
>say: "Anything goes here. We even have abstract
>paintings and sculpture." But then someone starts displaying unmade
>beds, sharks in tanks of formaldehyde, and rooms with lights going
>on and off. How do the group respond? Do they say: "We're
>not having that; it's not Art."? What are these exhibits about?
>They're
>about playing with and asking questions about the medium. They may
>individually be crass, and works of this sort offer huge
>scope for pretentiousness, vacuity and insincerity. But can we rule
>them out as works of art in advance? (Actually I'd be tempted to do
>just that with the unmade bed and the blinking room, but my
>personal response isn't the point.)
Fraser says:
>Good art or bad? Who defines? What is good to some is
> bad to others. But there *is* a distinction - we all feel it - and my
> personal opinion on this is that it all comes down to craft.
Paul says:
>In essence art does not exist. It is an abstract concept which humans
>have created, along with religion and politics for example, as another
>way of labelling and trying to bring order to the perceived chaos.
I hang out a lot with painters and sculptors, who discuss this sort of
thing even more than writers do, and over the years I have come to a
position closer to Paul's than to the others.
"Art" seems as hard to define as obscenity. Until maybe a hundred
years ago, most people made a fairly clear distinction between art and
craft; that simply doesn't hold anymore--go to your local craft show.
Even then, most people recognized a Faberge egg as art. In this
century, however, whatever meaning the word art had is long gone.
People flatly disagree about any individual piece. All that's left, I
think, is a fairly general agreement that art has to be something made
by, or appropriated by, a sentient being. (I don't want to leave out
the chimps whose paintings have sold.) A beautiful gnarled tree limb
in a forest is not art; cut it off and put it in a gallery, and it's
art, to some people at least.
So if art can't be defined, clearly there's no such thing as good art
and bad art. The argument that art must provoke an emotional response
in the viewer, reader, or whatever also seem spurious to me. Natural
objects often produce emotional responses. Things exhibited as art
move some people, but not others. The response is not part of the
object, but, indeed, a response, and can't be guaranteed.
A lot of people still like to use the word art as if it meant
something, and I suppose it does if the people involved in the
discussion have agreed on a definition, but arguing about whether
something is art or not seems fruitless to me.
Much the same thing seems to happening to the terms "fiction" and
"story." Many people still seem to agree that fiction is something
somebody makes up, rather than an attempt to record something that
has happened. But now there's "creative non-fiction," some of which
seems like fiction to me. And, of course, one can argue that even in
the sheerest fantasy there's a germ of someone's past experience.
As for "story," what I call a story may well differ from what someone
else calls a story. Is a "slice" of life a story? That's what fills up
most of the story anthologies now. Does a story have to provoke an
emotional response in the reader? If I'm going to like it, it will
have to, but lots of stories out there leave me cold.
So if Bill Palmer wants to post his "newsgroup novel, " that's fine
with me--I read the first chapter, and it fits my rather loose
definition of a story, whether I like the novel or not. And Paul's
posts seem to me to be stories, too. I can like or dislike them; I can
deduce, wrongly or rightly, things about the author from them, but
they're stories. Still, I'm talking about my own definition of a
story; other people's definitions differ.
It does seem to me that a lot of people get their knickers in a twist
about things that are strictly matters of opinion, and hardly worth
arguing worth arguing about. Some people have cordially disliked the
heroines of a few of my stories, characters that I myself liked. Some
have disliked some of my stories. So? Opinions differ. I find other
people's opinions interesting, and sometimes useful, but nothing to
get upset about. Politics is different, of course--wrong political
decisions can hurt me, and I wouldn't like that.
I should mention, incidentally, that I don't share Paul's notion, as I
understand it, that the world is a scene of chaos. To me, everything
points the other way--start with evolution, and everything seems quite
well organized, though not necessarily in ways I'd prefer it be
organized. I suspect, however, that this is another difference of
opinion that's not likely to be settled by careful discussion, much
less acrimony.
Jane
Jane MacDonald
jane...@lycos.com
Paul
> I should mention, incidentally, that I don't share Paul's notion, as I
> understand it, that the world is a scene of chaos. To me, everything
> points the other way--start with evolution, and everything seems quite
> well organized, though not necessarily in ways I'd prefer it be
> organized. I suspect, however, that this is another difference of
> opinion that's not likely to be settled by careful discussion, much
> less acrimony.
Thanks for your comments on this, I like a healthy, written discussion like
any other.
To me the world has become ordered because we have created the order out of
the chaos. But, it doesn't take much to turn that order back into chaos
whether on a macroscopic level, ie September 11th, or microscopic level, ie
within our own minds. Once the chaos has established itself it is then man's
position to return the chaos back to order.
It doesn't take much to flip the mind back into chaos and to show the
chaos - my own experiences of taking LSD re-enforced this position. To me
LSD uses [a] chemical(s) which disrupts the normal chemicals and brain
patterns - thus opening the door to the chaos - in the 1960's people would
try to bring order to the chaos which had been opened in their minds by
attributing these hallucinations to 'mystical visions' - they were
rationilizing what they knew wasn't right or real. But, what is real or not
real is another discussion entirely.
grizelda
Paul, there is a book you may be interested in. It is called simply "Chaos".
I can't remember the author's name right now, but if you are interested, I
will find it out for you. I won't claim to have read the entire thing, but
I've skimmed it and read specific selections. It goes into the Chaos theory
in depth and in layman terms.
grizzellda
Fraser
> This is where our views disagree.
Fair enough.
>
> IMHO I do not distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' art. There is just art.
> Art to me is anything which provokes a reaction / emotional response.
> Whether that reaction / emotional response is generated from the style or
> the content is neither here nor there for me. But. then again I also
beleive
> there is no such thing as art. Read on.
Paul, if gallery owners shared your view, they'd be out of business in no
time. You might say that all they know is what sells, but it sells because a
lot of people like it. In other words, they think it's good art. There is a
distinction.
>
> To take the example of painting. If a 7 year old painted a picture would
> that be art ? If you didn't know a 7 year old had painted the picture some
> people would argue it was art, others it wasn't. Some would argue it was
> 'good' art, some would argue it was 'bad' art. Some would say it was just
a
> paint on paper. Who would be right ? No one. Each person would be right
> within themselves, but no one would be 'right' or 'wrong'. If people knew
it
> was done by a 7 year old then the same arguments would apply. But another
> dimension would be added to the 'good' art / 'bad' art theories. Was the
> picture 'bad' because it has been done by a 7 year old or has the 7 year
old
> created the picture to the best of his abilities thus making it 'good' ?
I guess I'm stuck with my definition, so :If the picture evoked an emotional
response greater than than the sum of its constituent parts, then it's art.
Doesn't matter who painted it. The same applies to a story posted here. It
doesn't matter who posts it. As far as the good art/bad art question goes -
it's relative, isn't it? The picture would be good or bad art, based on the
general expectation of a seven-year old's level of craft and his/her
emotional development. If a seven-year old produced a work that displayed
technical skill and emotional maturity beyond his/her age, then it would be
good art by a seven-year old. It probably wouldn't be good art by adult
standards, though.
If
> the 7 year old was asked why did he do it like that who would disagree
with
> the answer - 'that's how it came out' ?
No, I'd expect that kind of answer from a seven year old. I wouldn't expect
it from an articulate adult.
>
> But, there still remains another question what is art ? The dictionary
> defines art as - 'the creation of works of beauty or other special
> significance'. But what is beauty ? - we all know 'beauty is in the eye of
> the beholder'. What is significant ? What may be significant to me does
not
> mean it is significant to you or someone else. The chair I am sitting on
has
> been created, someone may consider it to be a 'work of beauty', and it is
> significant to me otherwise I wouldn't have anything to sit on. Therefore
> the chair could be seen as art. But it is also just a chair. Can art be
seen
> as a means of communication ? A way of getting across an idea, expression,
> thought in, from the creator's point of view, his / her own 'language'. Is
> the English language art in its own right ? Is a dog barking art ? Both
are
> a means of communication, understood by some but not everyone. What is
> communication ? Interaction. Can you interact with art ? And so on and so
on
> ad infinitum. Theoretically everything is art and nothing is art. Meaning
> can be given to everything and nothing.
>
I asked and answered that question in my previous post to Longden, based on
my own definition of what art is - a definition I explained as clearly as I
could. It may very well be wrong, but it's the way I see it.
> In essence art does not exist. It is an abstract concept which humans have
> created, along with religion and politics for example, as another way of
> labelling and trying to bring order to the perceived chaos. Which is why I
> do not call anything I write art. I leave that distinction to be made by
> other people. Is it art ? Is it relevant ? Is it writing ? Is it correct ?
> Is it wrong ? Is it right ? In my mind it is correct. In someone else's it
> is wrong.
The fact that a concept is abstract does not mean that it doesn't have real
impact on our lives. 'Abstract' is just a word used to label phenomena we
cannot describe in concrete terms. Religion, politics and art might be, as
you say, merely systems we employ to give meaning to chaos, but if you want
to go down that soul-less road you end up with being nothing but a
collection of molecules held together by electricity. A valid philosophy,
but not one I'd subscribe to.
If you don't regard anything you write as 'art', then why bother writing,
Paul? Why make the effort?
In essence what I have created is words on a page. What are words
> ? Words are letters put in close proximity to one another and given a
> meaning. What are letters ? Symbols representing the noises we make when
we
> talk. So writing could be described as a symbolic representation of noise.
Wrong. Words may be mere symbols representing the noises we make, but those
'noises' are 'symbols' of our thoughts. Our noises and our writing are
attempts at expressing the 'abstract' ideas and emotions that we all feel.
It's the difference between Bach and the white noise on your TV.
> So in the continual quest by man to bring order to the chaos he has
applied
> rules to symbolic representations of noise. These rules are considered to
be
> a means of providing a common form of communication between people who
make
> the same noises. Through this process understanding and communication have
> developed and evolved. But people all over the world use different noises,
> have developed different symbols for these noises and different meanings.
> Animals have also developed noises to create communication between
> themselves. All these different races and species inhabit the same small
> space, minorities have sprung up here and there who make the same noises.
> Confusion arises when races encounter each other and the two bands of
people
> make different noises. Chaos is creeping into the order. Frustration is
> created by the lack of understanding. One race perceives the other race is
> not following their rules. Both races beleive they are right. Both races
> beleive the other is wrong. Friction. Break down of communication. Blows.
>
> In essence we are still monkeys grunting in the jungle.
>
I'd agree with you on etymological and sociological grounds, but I disagree
with your conclusion. We *have* ways of resolving the conflict, we just
don't use them often or well enough.
> So I now beleive that there is no such thing as art. Art is an abstract
> concept to bring order to chaos. Words are merely symbolic representations
> of noise put next to each other and given a meaning. So from a macroscopic
> point of view by writing with no punctuation I have created something
which
> is merely noise on a page. Chaos. To bring order to the chaos you have to
> metaphorically 'zoom' in. You start forming the words those noises are
> producing. By saying the words in quick succession they begin to form
> phrases. Those phrases begin to form sentences. Meaning is starting to
form.
> Order is springing from chaos. From a microscopic point of view there is
> order within the chaos.
The point most of us were trying to make, I think, is that you
'intentionally' created the chaos. You have just successfully argued that
language is a system we employ to bring order to chaos, so why, when we
already have a perfectly good system in place, write in a chaotic way that
forces the reader to 'zoom in' before they can make head or tail of it?
>
> Is all of the above relevant to my writing or to this newsgroup ? At first
> glance my unpunctuated work 'Dead Loss' is a jumble of words. No meaning.
> Upon reading it does form a narrative. It is a collection of thoughts and
> ideas. The thoughts and ideas of a fictious character sitting in a cafe
> staring at the world walking past him on the other side of a glass window.
> It is fiction. It is original. Whether it is relevant or art or
pretentious
> crap - I leave entirely upto the reader to decide.
With a few notable exceptions, nobody said that your work was not suitable
for AFO. I think it is entirely acceptable. As you say, it meets the
criteria of being fictional and original. By the same token, it is suitable
for whatever criticism anyone feels free to level at it. It works both ways.
>
> And is my answer - 'that's how it came out ' - anymore right or wrong,
> relevant or irrelelevant, than a 7 year old supplying the same answer to
the
> same question about something which he had created ?
Yes. A seven year old does not possess the same analytical abilities as an
adult. That would be the answer he supplied because he was unable to
formulate a better one, not because he was unwilling.
Paul,
This shit is making me dizzy. Quite honestly, I don't have the intellectual
training or the knowledge to argue such esoteric points. I'll just say that
everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but if you see that your
opinions are driving people crazy it is normally better to back off a bit.
It's not cowardice, it's diplomacy. Diplomacy is an integral part of the
politics that make order out of chaos.
I think we've both aired our views here, with with no acrimony on either
side. Let's leave it at that and agree to disagree? Thanks for the debate.
Fraser
Longden
Let me begin, Paul, by saying that I'm glad you haven't left. Not that I have any vested
interest in this group. (I would admit to a growing affection for it, I suppose.) But it would be a
shame if you disappeared feeling that you were unfairly or roughly treated. I think that this
unlikely in this group, but I recognize that this is not an argument.
I know that this post of yours is a response to Fraser's (excellent) message. But since I
started the thread, I will assume some responsibility. (Should threads be given so much respect?
Perhaps they are a useful way of organizing things.)
The handicap I am under is that I didn't, I confess, follow your works or the post they
generated very closely. I have now read 'Dead Loss' and a smattering of the responses to it.
I would like to begin by making a point about punctuation. But read on, Paul (to quote a
phrase you used above). What I have to say about punctuation is not a premise, in the logical sense,
of the subsequent points I wish to make; it is just a natural place to start. It may be that others
have covered the same ground, but don't assume straight off that I'm arguing against your work.
The absence of punctuation in your work is not just an omission of something it is natural
and normal to include to facilitate communication, it is actually a withdrawal of something that was
present in its compostion. It is true that we do not think in neatly packaged sentences. Punctuation
is an artificial order, if you like, imposed on a fluid and vital substrate. It often seems poor,
inadequate, approximate and procrustean. (I've sometimes felt I would like to extend punctuation,
invent new forms, like demi-colons for example.) But it does not exist in a vacuum. When we think,
there are something like units of thought. Even when our minds are a whirlpool, we only create
thought by unpicking a series of nominally distinct impressions. Punctuation can seem artificial and
procrustean only because of its poverty; it's the minimum that is necessary to convey something of
the liquid flow of thought. We have to use other and more complex devices and means to convey more
of its dynamics. When you composed your work, the capital letters were there in your head, and when
we read your work, we have to reconstruct their place in the text.
Does that mean there can be no good reason for omitting punctuation? Absolutely not. A short
piece like your 'Dead Loss' can stand such an experiment. I'm not sure what such reasons would be --
I'm sorry, I'm going to side-step the question of whether it's a successful experiment. I'm adamant,
though, that that question should not be precluded. If you feel that your work has been discounted
as an invalid try, as something against the rules, then I can understand your frustration.
I have to add that I think your defence of your work in this post is weak. Though I can see
how the reductionist philosophy espoused here is congruent with the nihilism of 'Dead Loss'. Again,
this is no denigration of your fiction: writing and writing about writing are different skills.
It will be clear from the original post that I did not have your work in mind when
discussing works in which somehow the medium of literary presentation might become part of their
content. I had something more radical in mind. But I think Fraser is right to include you. You have
chosen to flout the conventions of literary presentation, and whatever you think about the reasons
for that the grounds must be aesthetic. You have chosen a hard path. Good luck to you.
Paul
--
Paul
http://www25.brinkster.com/dazzle
-------------------------------------------------------
"...this is your life and it's ending one minute at a time..."
Tyler Durden, 'Fight Club'
"grizelda" <griz...@sofnet.com> wrote in message
news:u1vtftf...@corp.supernews.com...
Fraser
I read your response to Jeff D's post and, while I may not have agreed with
everything you had to say, I admired (as usual) the reasoned tone you used
to convey your argument.
I wish I could say the same about this one.
We differ on our definition of just what a 'troll' is, apparently - I think
Palmer's one (not because of his writing), you think Paul's one (not because
of his writing) - but I don't think that the use of excessive capitals and
exclamation marks helps, no matter who you feel you need to go after. It's
inflammatory. You are obviously capable of arguing your position very well
by other means, but if you don't feel like making the effort you shouldn't
bother replying at all.
In relation to various other posts - I don't hold any grudge against him for
his review of 'Mechanical Advantage', so I don't see why anyone else should.
If I feel the need to defend myself, I'm perfectly capable of doing it
myself.
I'm not trying to be Paul's champion here, and I'm not claiming that I
haven't written some pretty lousy messages to people myself. All I'm saying
is that this situation could get better if it was just kept on a civil
basis. Eventually everyone would simply get tired of it, and it would die a
natural death.
Fraser
Alaric McDermott <alar...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9vop4q$9gq$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
Steve Flanagan
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Millar
To: Steve
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: [shop] Re: Question: purpose of this newsgroup
Hi Paul;
So this DID get emailed to you. I wondered where it went. I sent it, then
shut down the computer for supper. I have it set up to clear all deleted
mail at the end of a session. When I returned, it was nowhere to be found
on AFO, so I figured I either hit the wrong 'reply' button (I've done that a
few times, I need to separate them very far apart) or I just shut down
before it did anything and it deleted. Then I found it in my 'sent' folder,
and figured it was gone to you. I tried posting it, but that screwed up so
I said to hell with it.
Now,
Ok -
1. Show me where I have used 'ill' for 'i'll' and hell for 'he'll' or 'i'll'
for 'ill' or 'he'll' for 'hell' in either 'Dead Loss' or 'The Suggestion' -
I haven't. I would not have used the word 'i'll' anyway because I do not
write in the first person. It is not my intention to change the meaning of
words or to make-up words, - instead of 'i'll' I would use 'i will' and
instead of 'he'll' I would use 'he will'. 'i'll' and 'he'll' are merely
abbreviated forms of two perfectly adequate words. I may have written a
piece with no punctuation but I have not changed the meaning of individual
words by including or not including punctuation where it should or shouldn't
be. I have not used any 'wrong words' - I have not changed the meaning of
any words, I have not made up any new words and given them meanings which
only I know. As when studying Shakespeare you must always provide evidence
from the text in question to back up your points. You have said to me that I
am changing the meaning of words by removing punctuation from them or adding
punctuation to them - provide me with conclusive evidence from my work where
I have done this - verifiable by an impartial third party from AFO.
<<<>>>
The point of 'I'll' and 'ill' and 'he'll' and 'hell' is not that they were
in your story, but that you can't make 'I'll' or 'he'll' without
punctuation, they'd be 'ill' and 'hell'. Yes, you'd have to use 'I will' or
'he will' (or 'she will', or it would be 'shell', etc.) because you've
limited yourself and took away all the options that punctuation gives you.
You simply cannot make the words 'I'll' or 'he'll' or 'she'll'. You lose
written words from your possible vocabulary because you cannot write them.
That's like an artist throwing away some of his colors. Yeah, you can make
a close substitute by mixing two or three other colors, but who wants to do
that? Imagine trying to paint a seascape without the colors blue and green!
You also can't quote any dialogue without quotation marks, also punctuation,
without using an excessive amount of 'he said' 'she said' tags. You also
can't tell where one sentence stops and the next begins without capitals and
periods. You can't emphasize without the pauses made by commas. How could
you tell if the soldier says; 'he said the ships are coming', or 'He said,
"The ships are coming!"'? In the first example, he could be saying it, or he
could be saying someone else said it. You can't show what you really mean
without using unnecessary extra words. And you can't make the reader try to
guess what you meant. They won't do it, as you must know by now. Imagine
having to decipher a whole page or two of dialogue like that. That's what
punctuation, part of grammar and different in different languages, was made
for. The person who refuses to use it limits himself so severely that he
can't get his message across to the reader in a way that is effective and
not laborious.
<<<>>>
2.You can compare, in my opinion, a 7year olds painting to a 70 year olds
painting -
in the first instance you can compare two paintings if you don't know
who or what created those pictures.
in the second instance you can compare the two paintings, the 70 year
old cannot neccessarily paint any better than a 7 year old - I have not
made a distinction between talent because I beleive whether you think
someone has talent or not is purely subjective and a personal opinion.
<<<>>>
The trouble is, we're really talking about writing, not pictures. Cave men
painted pictures cause they couldn't write. In writing, yeah I can compare
the writing and tell you which one was by a 7 yr old and which one was the
70 yr old. Unless the 70 yr old was retarded, or the 7 yr old was a
prodigy, which would be like stacking the deck. And this doesn't involve
talent, it involves knowledge of the basic rules of writing, grammar.
<<<>>>
3. 'that's how it came out' in my beleif is no more valid or invalid, right
or wrong, correct or incorrect, no matter who says it if that is what the
person beleives who is saying it.
<<<>>>
As I said, I'd believe a 7 yr old would believe that, but not someone who's
supposed to know what he's doing.
<<<>>>
4. You do not need a translator to read my unpunctuated work - I am still
using the common language - English - but as I have also mentioned it is
also known that between English speaking people from Britain and English
speaking people from other non-British English speaking countries confusion
can also arise - 'divided by a common language' - one word can mean two
different things depending from which country you come from, to get round it
you learn what the differences are. To have a translator to translate
American English into British English or vice versa would be considered
ludicrous.
eg rubber - USA means condom, Britain means an eraser, as I understand it.
I also noted in another post you, I think it was you, asked what tosser
meant ? tosser is an english word surely you should've known what it meant
in my understanding of your rules?
You also do not need a translator to understand a dog or a monkey - they use
other ways of communicating to us, not just their noise. By writing an
unpunctuated piece IMHO I believe I am still communicating. It is upto the
reader to understand, or attempt to understand, it if they want to.
<<<>>>
The last statement is totally wrong. It is up to the writer to MAKE the
reader understand, or he's failed at his job. Besides, if he can't do that,
then he's not a writer. As for the rest of the above, I can't decide if you
CAN'T understand the difference, or WON'T understand it. What you're
talking about is LANGUAGE!!! Even though we speak English, we're in
different countries; of course we have words that have different meanings.
Here in America, I can go into the next STATE and get different meanings. I
can ask for a frappe (a milk shake with ice cream in it) and they'll look at
me like I have two heads. They call it a shake and make no distinction.
Tonic is another big one. Here it means soda...next state it means
medicine. It's called Regional Differences, but we all use the same rules
of grammar when we write.
<<<>>>
5. How can you not know what I think when I have posted non-fiction posts,
including this e-mail, which have me trying to explain what I think and how
I see the world ??
<<<>>>
This is fine. It's unpunctuated works that fail to convey the message you
wish to convey to your reader. Unless, as you've indicated you would do,
you are willing to use an excessive amount of extra verbage to make the same
point. Why do that? It only looks like you're trying to impress, or hide
ignorance.
<<<>>>
6. If I put in the punctuation to 'Dead Loss' then I would be losing part of
what I am trying to communicate IMHO. Part of the 'message' is in the style
of the writing not just the content. If the reader wants to see past the
style and attempts to read the content then maybe they can get something
from it.
<<<>>>
Once again...again...again...,(echo in an empty room) style is not grammar.
I can be grammatically perfect, and have no style. You can have immaculate
style, and not know how to punctuate. You know what? They'd flush both our
works down the toilet. I don't write for the toilet.
<<<>>>
If you goto http://getoutthere.bt.com, goto the links for
writing/library/charts and do a keyword search for 'dead loss' and click on
the one written by Paul Millar then you can read some comments from people
who have read the work. I am also not saying that your point of view is
wrong and that my point of view is right. My point of view is right for me
and your point of view is right for you. In my view we will never agree and
we will always be going round in circles. You refuting my points and me
refuting your points
<<<>>>
But that's the problem, you're NOT refuting my points, you're confusing the
issue. I don't know whether it's because you don't understand what we're
supposed to be talking about, because you don't know the difference between
terms, that you can't respond to my points because they're nuts and bolts
and can't be debated...I really, at this point, don't know. Points of view
mean nothing here. I don't need to read the comments to Dead Loss. If it
was properly formatted, with punctuation and capitalization, I would read it
and probably like it. This isn't about your style, your subject matter
(content), the difference in interpretation or definition of words, what
language your using. It's about grammar and the basic rules of grammar, and
how you can't convey any of the above in writing without it. I don't think
you know what the 'Rules of Grammar' means! Or you refuse to acknowledge
that you do. Either way, this discussion is pointless until one or the
other changes. I have no interest in going off on tangents of the
metaphysical aspects of art or religion here, or how a 7 yr old writes.
We're supposed to be talking about how a WRITER writes. We all have
different styles, different subject matters, different language to get our
points across, different ideas. But writing them down to communicate them
to others requires a basic set of tools. You can't do the job without the
proper tools. You can't drive a straight-slotted screw with a Philip's head
screwdriver. You couldn't arbitrarily substitute a 'G' for a 'K' wherever
the hell you feel like it, not without telling people how to read it.
That's what the rules of grammar are for...it tells everybody how to read
what you've written. As long as everybody knows and utilizes the same
rules, we're all on the same page.
Try writing on a piece of paper, "How would you like to go for a walk, boy?"
and show it to your dog. See if he understands that form of communication.
Of course he won't. He might recognize the picture of a cat, though.
That's why talking about dogs and monkeys and picture-type art is completely
irrelevant to this subject. We're talking about the written word, which has
no sounds or pictures except for those who can read them. You have to have
the basic format of laying down those words so that everybody is on the same
page, so to speak. After the basics are right, then you can lay them down
any way you like, and call it your 'style' or your 'voice', 'meaning' or
'interpretation'. Change the words or their meanings, and it becomes your
'language'. Change these well, and you become a sensation. But the basic
tools don't change, because if those are changed by one person, then he will
find himself on a different page with everybody he wants to reach. Of
course, if you truly are 'writing for yourself' and not for the publisher or
reader, then you don't need to worry about any of this.
<<<>>>
- sometimes we may find common ground and others not -
like you agree with my assessment of art but you don't agree with my writing
style of some of my pieces. It is interesting for me to get comments on my
work, especially pieces like 'Dead Loss', because then I am getting a
different interpretation of my work from different people, which is also
part of my objective - I don't beleive the 'meaning' or 'interpretation' of
what I write or how I write is set in stone. Also my beleif that style is,
for me, an important, if not vital part, of my work is as strong as your
beleif that the Rules of Grammar and technical correctness is important, if
not vital, for your work. My intention is not to convert you to my way of
thinking, I think how I think because, either through nature or nurture,
that is who I am. You think the way you think, either through nature or
nurture, because that is who you are. My view of the world is different to
your view of the world. I beleive in a statement like 'a table is a book'
because at the most basic level a table is made up of the same molecular
building blocks, those blocks are just arranged and vibrating at different
speeds to seem, in our perception, that they have a different shape to each
other. The sky does not exist - it is merely the colour of the sun's
reflection from the surface of the oceans., or something like that. But I
also beleive that my work, 'Dead Loss' and 'The Suggestion' are also works
of fiction because they are still telling a story which has been made up and
they are original - ie they have been written by me and no one else and not
plagirised. My definition of fiction is something which has been made up -
wether written down or not is beside the point IMHO. Your defininition of
fiction is different to mine - from what I understand your definition of
fiction is something which has been made up but is written down in a
technically correct form of English which is also grammatically correct. I
am right for me. You are right for you. But it is also my beleif that the
two things can co-exist within the same place. From what I understand it is
your beleif that they cannot.
<<<>>>
Again, ignoring the deep, metaphysical diatribes of vibrating molecules,
tables being books, and the sky does not exist, fiction is fiction as the
dictionary describes it. It is not up to me or you to change that. Ditto
to the word Original. It means exactly what the dictionary says it means.
(Please don't come back with the argument that different dictionaries have
different meanings. I WILL ignore that!) Never have I said, or even
commented on a debate, as to whether your stories are fiction, or original,
or whether they belong in AFO. Again, that's completely off-topic. I don't
know, I don't care. Nobody knows. I could take a true story and call it
fiction, or vice versa, and who in AFO would know the difference? I'm
saying that it has no punctuation and capitalization, no more, no less, and
am trying to educate you as to why it should. But as long as we dance
around with Style and Language and barking dogs, I can't. Ohhhh, now I
understand...!!!
<<<>>>
The only way to settle this is to get a third party in the group, who will
read a set of arguments posted on the newsgroup, one for and one against,
with room for other people to leave comments as well, to categorically state
that my unpunctuated pieces of fiction do not fit the remit of the AFO FAQ
and to get them to post the answer on the newsgroup and be open to
discussion. - in that case I will concede and only post fiction which is of
a more acceptable nature to the newsgroup. If my pieces of work were ruled
to be not suitable for posting on AFO then it would be my beleif that AFO
would be altering its remit of allowing anything which is non-factual and
non-original to be posted.
<<<>>>
Not that this has the slightest thing to do with the relevent discussion,
but nobody to my knowledge has said your work doesn't meet AFO's FAQ
requirement. They said it's not punctuated, and as such, too difficult to
read to be bothered with. You can post like that for the next three years,
and no-one will tell you it shouldn't be here. They just won't read it.
And the few who gave up and said 'get out' were talking about you and your
windblown arguments, not your work. And I wasn't one of them. I'm just
giving up because I can't explain it any clearer, and will let you rant
alone. I'm sucking up too much bandwidth!
<<<>>>
I will stay subscribed to AFO to see if you
follow this up.
On a side note if you looked at my website you would also see that I was not
lieing on my 'au revoir' post about what I do for a living - Web Site
designer / Coder.
Looking forward to your reply,
Paul
http://www25.brinkster.com/dazzle
-------------------------------------------------------
"...this is your life and it's ending one minute at a time..."
Tyler Durden, 'Fight Club'
Steve
grizelda
>
> --
> Paul
Okay, I made a slight mistake. The title is Chaos: The Making Of a New
Science. The author is James Gleick.
Paul
to him on this newsgroup or back to me I shall try to remember what I wrote
in it and repeat it here:-
1. You 'accuse' me of changing the meaning of words. The example you use is
using 'ill' for 'i'll' or 'hell' for he'll' or even 'i'll' for 'ill' or
'he'll' for 'hell'. In my pieces 'Dead Loss' and 'The Suggestion' I have not
used any of those words at all. It is not my intention to change the meaning
of words, or to remove or add punctuation into a word to change its meaning.
I have also not invented any new words, or used words which are of a
different language - which people may not be able to understand. I have used
English words in their proper form - I have merely not used punctuation
between the words. Anyway, for the sake of arguement, 'i'll' and 'he'll' are
not proper words but abbreviations - I would use 'i will' and 'he will'. I
also doubt I would've used 'i'll' anyway because I very rarely write in the
first person. If you wish to analyse my pieces of work and quote from the
said work to show me where I have used 'i'll' for 'ill' or whatever,
because, as anyone knows who has studied English Literature, when you make
comments about pieces of writing you must always use the evidence in the
text itself to support your own arguements.
On a lesser, more nit-picking note, I would also say you have left out some
punctuation here thus changing the meaning of a phrase. Below you have
written - 'How could anyone tell what your talking about?', I'm sure you
actually meant to write - 'How could anyone tell what you're talking
about?' - 'you're' meaning 'you are' instead of 'your' meaning belonging to
me.
2. You bang on about how the noises in the jungle must need rules. That
monkeys understand monkeys and dogs understand dogs and that in the UN
'we' - you're a member of the UN are you ?? - have translators to
facilitate better understanding. But would you also agree that even amongst
users of the English language there are also barriers to understanding.
Having a translator to translate from American English to British English or
vice versa would seem ludicrous but there are occasions when the same word
has a different meaning depending on which country you come from, eg rubber
has two totally different meanings in the USA and Britain, even though, in
theory, we are all speaking English. Also it is possible for us to
understand what, say, a dog is trying to tell us by the means of the dog
using non-verbal communication without the need for a translator. It is not
a matter of me understanding, which I do perfectly well, everyone else, it
is for you to understand me.
3. You claim to not know what I am thinking but I have sent numerous posts
to this newsgroup containing factual information about my thoughts and ideas
and about what I am thinking. These posts have all been properly punctuated
and use corect English. Which part of 'not understanding what I am
thinking' do you not understand ? And once again I will reiterate that I
have not changed the meaning of any words. I have written only English
words - all I have done is removed the punctuation between those words. And
you keep telling me that I am dancing, as far as I know I am sitting down
very comfortably on what may or may not be a chair, (is the chair art ? by
dancing are you referring metaphorically to the vibration of the molecules
which form my being or the chair's being? Are you being abstract and clever
?), depending on your, notice the correct use of 'your' here, point of view
concerning reality.
4. I quote you -
'> But some of those words are not the ones you intend without punctuation.
> God, I hate having to repeat and repeat and...;'
All the words I have used are the ones I have intended, I have changed
neither the meaning or the spelling of any words. God, I hate having to
repeat and repeat and...... Where's the evidence from my work that I have
done this ?
5 . It is also my beleif that you can compare the work of a 7 year old to
that of a 70 year old -
in the first instance you would not be told the ages of the two
painters in question
in the second instance the talent of the 70 year old may not be any
better than that of a 7 year old
The matter of wether someone has talent or not in their particular craft,
IMHO, is subjective and a matter to personal taste and opinion. Also, I
beleive that the phrase, answer, - 'that's just how it came out' - is a
perfectly valid answer no matter who said it or the age of the person saying
it if that is what the person saying it really beleives and I have already
mentioned that beauty 'is in the eye of the beholder', well if beauty is
then so is ugliness - wether my piece of work is ugly or beauty I do not
know, once again that is upto the individuals personal tastes, likes and
dislikes and their own opinion.
6. Has you may have gathered, or not, because, according to you you still do
not understand anything about what I am thinking, I, in my opinion, regard
style to be vitally important to my writing. The form and shape the words
and writing make on the page are also very important in my writing. If I
wished to w
r
i
t
e a word like that to show, for example, that something is falling or
tumbling then I would do so. Wether it is right or wrong, correct or
incorrect, is neither here nor there for me - it is how I have chosen to
write. By punctuating 'Dead Loss' I would be losing part of the idea behind
what I was trying to acheive, the content of 'Dead Loss' is only a part of
the whole, the style is only a part of the whole. You do not have to agree
with me or even like it. You could just accept it as what I do - just as I
would accept what you write, wether I liked it or not, I would not bang on
about how you should flout the rules of grammar and / or english, that would
not be right for you. For me it is right. This argument could go on ad
infinitum. I would not agree with you, although I would respect your point
of view, and you would not agree with me. In some cases we my find common
ground - you do agree with my assessment about art - but in essence we would
not agree.
I propose that we agree to disagree. It is my beleif that our different
styles of writing can co-exist within the same space, it is, in my
understanding, your beleif that they cannot. You do not have to read my work
and I do not have to read your work. It is a personal choice we can choose
or not choose to make - an idea called free will. I will still maintain that
my unpunctuated pieces come under the banner of 'original fiction' as put
forward in the FAQ by this newsgroup. If you, and others, still do not agree
with this then, as a suggestion, I could write a final piece for my writing
and one of you could write a piece against my writing. These pieces could
then be opened for reasoned discussion on this newsgroup for a few days.
After the alotted time an impartial member of the newsgroup could then weigh
up the arguments and make a desicion on wether or not my work should still
be allowed to be posted on the newsgroup in an unpunctuated form if I so
choose to do so. If my work is disallowed then I will only post punctuated,
grammatically correct, pieces of work. If my work is found not to be
suitable for this newsgroup I would be sorely disappointed as I would think
then that the newsgroup would no longer be open to 'original fiction' and it
would be narrowing its broad based appeal to works of English which were
only appropriate if grammatically correct, also meaning the FAQ would have
to be changed to reflect this new position. To me that would be a shame and
would be the start to the closing of the doors in respect to 'freedom of
expression' and 'freedom of speech'. I will keep subscribed to the newsgroup
to read your reaction, if any, to this and also to see if you wish to take
on my idea of putting forward a case for and against my unpunctuated work.
If you do reply to this post and you are doing nothing but repeating
yourself then I will not reply as all I will be doing is repeating myself
once more. I have outlined my thoughts, my world view and how I think, I
have tried to do it in a calm and as plain a manner as I can. Accept it or
don't accept it. Take it or leave it. It's your choice.
--
Paul
http://www25.brinkster.com/dazzle
-------------------------------------------------------
"...this is your life and it's ending one minute at a time..."
Tyler Durden, 'Fight Club'
"Steve Flanagan" <sm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:%oQT7.171425$WW.10...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Paul
as a 'more radical' piece of writing ?
I have also read some of your postings, although not in a logical order as I
have only found a smattering of them showing up in my newsreader and on
groups.google.com, I like them and your style. I would also like to know
your reasoning behind using a style such as that - short excerpts, words cut
in half by a slash - and why you have chosen to write in that way ?
The only point you make that I will openly contest, if that is the right
word, is this, and I quote:
'>When you composed your work, the capital letters were there in your head,
and when
> we read your work, we have to reconstruct their place in the text.'
To me you are presuming to know what I was thinking when I sat down to write
this work. I did not have the capital letters in my head when I wrote this
piece. Wether you choose to beleive that or not is your choice, but I
disagree with your presuming to know what someone is thinking at any given
time unless that person has told you what they are thinking. To me what your
statement amounts to is a judgement on my thoughts, not the putting forward
of a theory on how I think or what I was thinking.
--
Paul
http://www25.brinkster.com/dazzle
-------------------------------------------------------
"...this is your life and it's ending one minute at a time..."
Tyler Durden, 'Fight Club'
<Longden> wrote in message news:3c2003dc...@news.clara.net...
Alaric
> Your stand on the necessity for a STORY is plausible. But I wonder if it's yet too narrow, and actually undermines your commitment to option (b). Couldn't there be something which
didn't seem to be a story at all but which was nevertheless fictional? Or even
something which seemed to be a story but actually wasn't? This may sound crazy
but I hope the separate post will make it clearer.
Yes. I’m sure there could. I’m too stoopid to imagine all the options. I don’t
have any doubt that Paul’s stuff (hack!), yours (yay!) and Bill Palmer’s are
within the lines, and indeed not even close to going out of them.
"I Have No Signature On The Bottom Of My News Messages."
Alaric McDermott (from his book "Having No Signature On The Bottom Of News Messages."
Paul
it down in a local bookstore first. Some of the comments and reviews on it
imply it may be rather mathematical and maths and science are not my strong
points. I have no maths qualifications and I dropped out of physics and
chemistry when I was at school.
But thanks for the info.
Much appreciated,
--
Paul
http://www25.brinkster.com/dazzle
-------------------------------------------------------
"...this is your life and it's ending one minute at a time..."
Tyler Durden, 'Fight Club'
"grizelda" <griz...@sofnet.com> wrote in message
news:u20b4n1...@corp.supernews.com...
grizelda
recommend it because of the statements you were making about chaos earlier
in the thread.
cheers
grizzellda
"Paul" <dazz...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:3c206...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
Alaric
>
> It does seem to me that a lot of people get their knickers in a twist about things that are strictly matters of opinion, and hardly worth arguing worth arguing about. Some people have cordially disliked the heroines of a few of my stories, characters that I myself liked. Some have disliked some of my stories. So? Opinions differ. I find other people's opinions interesting, and sometimes useful, but nothing to get upset about.
Just for the record, Jane, I agree with this. Attitude and honesty, though, are
worth getting upset about.
R. Westermeyer
wrote:
>
>Thanks for your comments on this, I like a healthy, written discussion like
>any other.
>
I'll bet you do. You act like a teenager. Someone disagrees with you,
and you post endless, angry, redundant--and often incoherent--
treatises. Then, someone gives you a cookie, like Jane's post, and
you're all warm and cozy and obedient again.
I don't think anyone has a problem with you posting. Fuck, post
recipes, or descriptions of your morning shits like Sal Dali used to
do, and call them stories, for all I care.
It's your defense that sucks. It's childish. It's conceited. It's
naive.
So there.
Take a long lick of that.
--R
Alaric In Sadness
> I read your response to Jeff D's post and, while I may not have agreed with everything you had to say, I admired (as usual) the reasoned tone you used to convey your argument. I wish I could say the same about this one.
I wrote this in tiredness and anger. I expected to feel differently about it
today. I don’t. I would write it again today, in exactly the same way. I’m sorry
you find it offensive. I care about my relationship with you on this group. But
this guy undermines everything we stand for, and I can’t back off. I’ve invested
a huge amount of time into a community of homourable, honest fair minded
individuals. This egomaniac, dodging, nasty little hypocrite is taking it apart
brick by brick. I’m sorry if you can’t see that. Really I am. I repeat, I place
high value on Fraser and Alaric. But I have never been so angry on this group,
and I hope people see at least that. I have taken positions against trolls. But
nothing like this. I’m going to the wall on this one, guys. Well, I think I’m
there. If you, Fraser, someone I have deep respect for, think I’ve gone too far,
well then. Maybe I have. But I don’t see it. I honestly don’t. And I can’t
settle on the finesses and machinations and outright lies and manipulations of
the last day or two and carry on as though nothing has happened. His latest
position is that he was playing with us, just to see how we’d react. No. No.
Sorry.
> I don't think that the use of excessive capitals and exclamation marks helps, no matter who you feel you need to go after.
I think it’s the only sort of post he understands. He rides over reasoned
argument. Again, sorry. But I don’t regret a word of it.
> It's inflammatory. You are obviously capable of arguing your position very well by other means, but if you don't feel like making the effort you shouldn't bother replying at all.
Horses for courses, Fraser.
> In relation to various other posts - I don't hold any grudge against him for his review of 'Mechanical Advantage', so I don't see why anyone else should. If I feel the need to defend myself, I'm perfectly capable of doing it
myself.
I apologise. I know that I was grateful for Dan taking issue on my behalf, but
these things are personal. I was wrong to defend your story without you having
made your own position clear. Bart's too. Maybe Bart feels the same way. It was
a kneejerk thing. The man was doing vengeance bombs all over the place, and I
wanted to hold the line. But you’re right. I shouldn’t have jumped in to fight
your battles, or Bart’s. I respect your line, and I won’t cross it again.
> All I'm saying is that this situation could get better if it was just kept on a civil basis. Eventually everyone would simply get tired of it, and it would die a natural death.
I don’t believe so. Not this time. Unless Paul honestly realises, within
himself, what he’s been doing here, I can’t see him ever being anything other
than a sour destructive force.
You, H. Danson and primarily Jeff have been clear and fair as to how you view my
contribution to this. I believe that I've acted properly and in the interests of
the group, but the undercurrent now appears to be that I, rather than Paul, am
at fault. I can’t subscribe to that but I can react to it. As always, the
interests of AFO need to come first. Clearly, if the group’s views are that my
conduct has not been acceptable, I (unlike Paul) need to live by personal
honour. I have to go away, think about this, and if necessary come back and
apologise. I don’t know if I’ll be able to make that compromise, but I can say
that I hope I will. At this point, though, my anger is running so high at Paul’s
instant rehabilitation and the pack mentality accusation (which, given my
previous record of fighting tooth and nail to defend newcomers, I find difficult
to take,) that remaining in the front line on this whilst behaving as the group
wishes is out of the question.
A sabbatical it is, then. I’ll continue to read the group for a few days, and
then I’ll reconsider my feelings and see if I can make the apology and the
compromise. I’ll continue to review stories, and I’ll post those reviews in a
few days in any event. As I’ve said, the best way forward is for my position to
change. I’ll certainly observe Paul’s posts with that in mind, and I hope it
happens. If not, I’ll issue a more pleasant and appreciative departure note.
Sorry for hijacking your note for this later part, Fraser. Nothing personal
intended.
Alaric McDermott
were posted days ago on Google.
"Alaric In Sadness" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:pQ3U7.4283$XC5....@www.newsranger.com...
Longden
>
>The only point you make that I will openly contest, if that is the right
>word, is this, and I quote:
>'>When you composed your work, the capital letters were there in your head,
>and when
>> we read your work, we have to reconstruct their place in the text.'
>
>To me you are presuming to know what I was thinking when I sat down to write
>this work. I did not have the capital letters in my head when I wrote this
>piece. Wether you choose to beleive that or not is your choice, but I
>disagree with your presuming to know what someone is thinking at any given
>time unless that person has told you what they are thinking. To me what your
>statement amounts to is a judgement on my thoughts, not the putting forward
>of a theory on how I think or what I was thinking.
>
>--
>Paul
>http://www25.brinkster.com/dazzle
>-------------------------------------------------------
>"...this is your life and it's ending one minute at a time..."
> Tyler Durden, 'Fight Club'
>
>
No, I did not need to know what you were thinking. To describe someone's thought you must
already attribute sentences to them. It may be a mistake (misleading) to say that we think in
sentences, but not for the reasons you want. Punctuation, I grant you, is in some sense
conventional. But it's not arbitrary. Moreover, it's learnt with the language. You can't just
unlearn it. It's embedded in the language; it's not merely assumed or adopted by the individual each
time he speaks or writes. You seem to believe that one can tap into some more basic level of thought
or experience just by 'switching off' punctuation. This is a delusion. You need to realize that the
absence of punctuation is an artifice.
That's OK. By all means go for some kind of primitivism. There's a noble tradition of this
in various Art forms. You may even have succeeded -- it's just that I refuse to confuse the issue by
discussing this i.e. whether your work is any good or not. But it would be helpful (to you, I mean,
not just to the discussion) to recognize what you are doing.
Paul
presume go together to form a whole, with words cut in half with a slash in
some parts of them ?
--
Paul
http://www25.brinkster.com/dazzle
-------------------------------------------------------
"...this is your life and it's ending one minute at a time..."
Tyler Durden, 'Fight Club'
<Longden> wrote in message news:3c21238f...@news.clara.net...
Longden
>I also asked you why you had chosen to post short pieces of writing, which I
>presume go together to form a whole, with words cut in half with a slash in
>some parts of them ?
>
>--
>Paul
>http://www25.brinkster.com/dazzle
>-------------------------------------------------------
>"...this is your life and it's ending one minute at a time..."
> Tyler Durden, 'Fight Club'
Yes, sorry. Impolite of me to ignore that part of the message. It's just that I couldn't
think of a short answer and it was also outside of the main thread. It's an experimental technique,
I suppose, like yours. It was originally fashioned for web pages, but I thought I'd try it out on
the newsgroup.
Jane MacDonald
wrote:
Hello, Alaric--
Okay, so you get upset when you don't like somebody's attitude,
or think the person is dishonest.
In real life, you have several choices: hit the person; under
some circumstances, call the police; shout at the person; take
the person aside and urge reform; file suit; ignore the person;
organize everybody you know to shun the person. Probably a
few more. If the person persists in what you think is obnoxious
conduct, move to a stronger, more effective tactic. Chances are
you ultimately will cease to be bothered by the person,
particularly if others agree in your assessment of the behavior
you find obnoxious; one of these tactics will work.
On Usenet, your choices are fewer: post a nasty retort to the
person; post a friendly letter urging reform; send the person an
e-mail urging reform; ignore the person; put the person's posts
in a kill file; organize a shun. If the person persists in the
conduct you consider obnoxious, you simply cannot do anything to force
the person to change that conduct.
I find it odd that otherwise reasonable people persist in flaming
or arguing with people whose conduct they consider obnoxious
when it is perfectly obvious that they achieve nothing.
Sometimes it's fun, I grant; I've done it myself on occasion for
that reason, not in this newsgroup but in others I used to
frequent. It gets old fast, though, I found, but some people
never quit.
Is it done purely for amusement? Is it a chronic missionary
impulse? An oversupply of testosterone? There has to be some
explanation when people conduct themselves in an irrational
manner, but I have been unable to figure out what this one is. If
anyone can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.
The only rational thing to do in such cases on Usenet is to
ignore the person; a kill file is merely an extension of that.
Jane
Jane MacDonald
jane...@lycos.com
Fraser
Don't you dare go anywhere - the other members would send a lynch mob around
for me.
Al, the main thing I was trying to point out (in my usual, pompous fashion)
wasn't that you were wrong to think that Paul was a troll. As I said, I
think Bill's a fuckwit while a lot of others don't, so I can readily accept
that you and I might differ about Paul. I wasn't disagreeing with your
fight, I was disagreeing with your choice of weapons. For example, you
posted a response to Paul yesterday which I thought was superb, because you
solidly kicked his ass without resorting to too much of THIS!!!! You're a
very smart man, Mr.Mc Dermott, and it bugged me to see you 'lowering
yourself' to that type of response. If there isn't a saying about the
superiority of the stilleto over the sledgehammer, there should be.
Have at him all you want, as far as I'm concerned. Cast doubt on his
origins, his sexual preferences or his personal hygeine, but do it in a way
that'll give the non-combatants a good read, eh?
That might sound flippant to you -- you obviously feel very strongly about
Paul-- but I really can't agree with you when you say he is 'taking [AFO]
apart brick by brick'. People are still posting stories and giving reviews
as usual and, although regular group members might disagree on the Paul
side-show, he remains just that - a side-show. I don't think he poses any
threat whatsoever to the continued good health of AFO. Paul may not change,
but people are already getting tired of responding to his arguments, and
things will calm down soon enough, one way or another.
As for my comments about your stepping in on his review of my story, I left
one very important thing out. Here's Version Two : Thank you, Alaric, for
intervening on my behalf, but...(remainder unchanged).
That's much closer to the truth. I admire the fact that you are willing to
go to the aid of people who may not (for whatever reasons) be able to
sufficiently defend themselves.
There's no need for you to go anywhere, Alaric, and there's no need for you
to aplogise. You see this thing your way, and you've dealt with it
accordingly. God, if there was a vote held today for AFO's MVP, I can tell
you without a doubt whose name would come out on top. Since I've joined this
group I've found you nothing short of an inspiration in the time and effort
you've spent helping others. Your sense of humour has been a constant source
of pleasure, too - please don't lose it over something this unimportant.
I'll end with an apology for the tone of my original post to you.
Fraser
Alaric
Just jumping in for a coupla things. Ain’t it typical that I announce a break
and then all my google posts that got stuck in the last four weeks break through
and turn up on the same day so it looks like I’m sending in more than usual.
Well, I didn’t. Haven’t. Whatever.
Second, and more important, I apologise for giving the impression that this is
anything to do with you. Definitely, no apology from you is required. I hopped
on the post, that’s all. The fact that you and Jeff and H held the perfectly
fair views you did was the cause for thought, but it doesn’t make those views
wrong. Quite the reverse. It means that I must have a screw loose somewhere if
reasonable people think I’m going too far. At present, I can’t put that screw
back in, and I still can’t get my head round the distinction AFO is making
between this guy and previous trolls, because it’s that distinction which leaves
me (probably correctly, I dunno) isolated on the point. And I have to clear that
in my head if I can, if I’m going to return to contributing as broadly as I
have.
Why, you ask? Why is it so important? Just let it go. Well, I can’t. It’s one of
the consequences of being me. I immerse myself in things, and commit. And I
don’t (normally) have kneejerk reactions. But I have a family feel for this
place, put its interests first, and therefore I did think this all out. Really.
I’m not a junior league politician like Paul, and I’m not aiming to be
manipulative. I didn’t choose a way forward in the hope of turning the tide.
It’s not a traditional newsgroup huff – walking out with one ear cocked for the
cries of, “Please come back, Uncle Al” (which is why I’m responding here rather
than playing “Mr. Completely Disappeared Guy.” I’ve placed a lot of energy into
AFO in the last six to eight months, and certainly for a brief period, the
co-existence of Paul and I within it would undermine that work, because I can’t
shake the visceral response. There was a time when my heavy level of submission
was of benefit, but hey, look at the daily messages now. Paul’s making up the
numbers on his own – joke – no, the group’s as healthy as can be.
I thank you for your kind thoughts. I think a reassessment by me remains needed.
I’m not near that yet – still feel the same as yesterday. But there really is no
other solution. My skewed sense of honour tells me that a compromise has to be
actual rather than implied, and Paul ain’t gonna make it. The situation is
gelled in now, and if I wanted that to change just for me then I’d be a pretty
poor human being. So the action and the compromise is mine. If I find I can make
it, then I’ll be back by Christmas or New Year. Bet on it. Even if I can’t, I’m
keeping up with the new stories. I’ll post reviews when I’ve decided what I’m
doing, I’ll cover Altatatiti for the month and I’ll come back on the Challenge.
At the very least. My feel at the moment is that might be it for a while,
because I’m a little confused by recent developments, but I hope to miss the ol’
place enough that I have a different view in a coupla days. It’s my issue,
no-one else’s. My deliberate exposure, which no-one has forced me to. I guess
I’m just too stiff. And too old to change.
Thanks, Fraser. Honestly no problems.
Longden
I somehow missed this message before. I ought at least to follow my own threads. I came
across it because I was doing a trawl which would explain to me why you are so upset. Don't think
I've anything to answer regarding the message, except thanks. Also great signature. I must get one
of those. I can see that Paul Millar is touchy and irritatingly dense. Whether he's a troll or not I
haven't enough experience to say. I've only just learnt the word.
I'd just like to offer support, or something. If it wasn't for you I doubt I would have
persevered with this newsgroup. You're going to get loads of posts now saying 'Damn you Alaric, why
did you encourage the fool?'.
Or more likely, because this is tucked away in an old thread nobody will see it, except you,
of course. At least then Paul won't have any new cause to take offense.
Regards
H. Danson
I saw it :-) And no, I'm not sure Paul is really a troll. He's just been acting
like one.
"No fancy Sig"
Danson ( from his book "It's diffucult to be original.")
Fraser
Fair enough. Come back soon.
Fraser
Alaric <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:c2kU7.5299$XC5....@www.newsranger.com...
> Hi Fraser
Dan Rogers
I am sad to see you go because I too believe you are one of the bright
lights in this group at the moment, and I do hope you'll return once this
nonsense is over and done with which I trust will be soon.
However, until that time comes I've reached much the same conclusion as you.
I've obviously been much harsher in my judgments and actions than some
towards one who I perceive to be a threat to this group and who calls us
cunts and cocksuckers (his words, not mine) to our faces and then sneaks in
through the back door when he hears a few moderate voices raised in his
defense.
Paul visited three other writing forums before he returned here. He tried to
obtain permission to post his piece which he claims was attacked here
because of its "controversial" nature. He was ignored in two groups and
shown the door in a third (which BTW makes AFO look like the Welcome Wagon).
This little man thinks very highly of himself and very lowly of us. His
piece I believe is anything but controversial. In my opinion it is
ill-conceived, unreadable, boring, and pretentious, but none of that is the
reason I attacked him. I attacked him because he attacked us, pure and
simple. Anyone who thinks that his first five critiques were not personal
attacks . . . well, we must have been reading off a different page.
And now he writes to a new poster "bragging" that one of his posts created a
thread 96 messages long. He quite honestly makes me sick.
When Paul saw a few supportive posts here he felt he had us all bamboozled,
and it sadly appears that he does have a couple of serious posters
hoodwinked, but I don't believe the majority.
He is now ingratiating himself by preparing diplomatic and laudatory reviews
while snickering at us behind our backs. Now how could I have guessed he
might do that? Personally I cannot stand any more of his bullshit. I am
amazed that he has been able to deceive those individuals he has.
However, since my opinions and actions are so diametrically opposed to
others in this group who I admire and respect, I must now decide what to do.
My solution, which was decided on prior to reading your post Alaric, is to
take a sabbatical from this group. I had already been considering it for
other reasons, namely to block off time to read and write. At this juncture
a month seems appropriate. After that time, if it appears that the group is
still healthy and thriving, I'll return. No problem.
But at the moment, to be frank, what's happening here disgusts me and is
beginning to cause me to judge some of my peers in a less than favorable
manner, and I do not want to do that. So my leaving I believe is the best
for all. I'll let some of the gentler souls in this group deal with Paul. I
have no doubt he'll reveal his true self once more. I just hope he is not
forgiven a second time.
As to your comment:
"I guess I'm just too stiff. And too old to change."
You're not too stiff or too old at all. You have principles for which you're
willing to stand and for which you refuse to apologize. And for that you
have, as always, my deep respect. As I've told you before, you're a far
gentler man than I, Alaric. I've met many of Paul's ilk before so he knows I
see him him for what he is. He will never fool me. In the street I probably
would have done him violence and spent my requisite amount of time in jail.
It wouldn't have been the first time nor would I have regretted it.
To any who wish to correspond with me, please feel free to do so by e-mail.
I will not be monitoring this group nor do I intend to catch up with
previous postings on my return. I will simply start fresh.
Best regards, Alaric, to you and yours and a happy holiday.
Your good friend,
Dan
"Alaric" <nos...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:c2kU7.5299$XC5....@www.newsranger.com...
> It's not a traditional newsgroup huff - walking out with one ear cocked
for the
> cries of, "Please come back, Uncle Al" (which is why I'm responding here
rather
> than playing "Mr. Completely Disappeared Guy." I've placed a lot of energy
into
> AFO in the last six to eight months, and certainly for a brief period, the
> co-existence of Paul and I within it would undermine that work, because I
can't
> shake the visceral response. There was a time when my heavy level of
submission
> was of benefit, but hey, look at the daily messages now. Paul's making up
the
> numbers on his own - joke - no, the group's as healthy as can be.
>
> I thank you for your kind thoughts. I think a reassessment by me remains
needed.
> I'm not near that yet - still feel the same as yesterday. But there really
Steve Flanagan
> Alaric
>
> Fair enough. Come back soon.
>
> Fraser
>
good ones who get fed up and leave!
Steve
Steve Flanagan
I agree with everything you and Alaric have said, but before you go, check
out the last post here by Dr. Einstein called (story)! Damn, it's
brilliant...wish I'd thought of it. I think it is the hammer over the head
that I missed. If writing words without punctuation is 'correct', then so
must be writing punctuation without words! (story)! must have a creative
meaning in there somewhere...wonder who'll be the first to 'get it'?
Steve
"Dan Rogers" <roge...@xcelco.on.ca> wrote in message
news:u23sp2...@corp.supernews.com...
Fraser
> When Paul saw a few supportive posts here he felt he had us all
bamboozled,
> and it sadly appears that he does have a couple of serious posters
> hoodwinked, but I don't believe the majority.
>
I don't believe the majority either, Dan. (yuk-yuk-yuk)
Seriously, I'm sorry that you've decided to leave as well. Personally, I
think you guys are making way too much of this, but it's your decision and
you know what's best for yourself.
Have a good Xmas and New Year and I hope to see you back in January
(complete with all the new stories).
Fraser
Bill Palmer
<Longden> wrote in message news:3c1d6413...@news.clara.net...
This was an interesting post, but if anyone wonders why I did not
respond earlier, the person should read my a..f.o. post of earlier
today, "A Writer's Many Distractions." Well, let's have a look see...
[...] some snippage
> Perhaps too I should expand upon that a bit before I try to pose my
question more
> accurately. At a time when I felt I ought to post a response to something,
having put a few bits of
> my own work up, I replied to a post by Bill Palmer. I rather glibly
assumed the piece might be
> autobiographical. (In the unlikely event that this is straightforwardly
true, I don't think it
> matters anyway, as there is something more complicated, more interesting
than that going on.) I
> didn't think the piece was that impressive, though other works of his I've
read since are very
> clearly highly accomplished in a quite conventional sense, but it was at
least disturbing and
> fascinating in some way I could not exactly put my finger on. Then I
discovered his other posts (one
> previous, I think, in the same window, and also subsequent ones), and the
discussion about them.
> Obviously there is a long history to all this. I haven't researched it and
I don't pretend to have
> fathomed it. But what strikes me about the reaction to his posts is that
you are, not unsympathetic,
> but very very NERVOUS. Why?
I think part of the problem stems from the fact that perhaps
some of those you refer to are suspicious of the way
I view my role as a writer. I not making any criticism
of the people who directly responded to my DETRITUS
ALLEY, Chapter One with their generous and thoughtful
input. Rather I am referring to where I suspect some of
the negative energy that at times swrils around me
comes from.
Typically, people come into the writing and prose groups
with idea of learning a few things, perhaps of developing
their talents by sharing a jot of their work for c & c, or maybe
they just come in with the idea of killing time until they are
accepted into that shining temple represented by the
traditional print world.
When I came into Usenet, I pretty much felt the same way.
However, as the result of thousands of interactions with other
posters, I eventually came to see myself as a Word Screen
man, someone for whom the real audience consists of the
people who read newsgroups.
I think this happened in the course of my writing experiment.
I set out to discover how popular a writer could get while
writing topical articles for Usenet newsgroups. But you
can't get far at all regarding such a goal, without becoming
receptive to the people who respond to you the writer.
One thing led to another and eventually I came to feel
that the part of Usenet I hang out in was--at least for
me, and I have good reason to believe for some
others too--"the thoughtstream," where "swimmers"'
minds interact and morph and grow as the result
of those interactions.
For example, yesterday I was inspired to write a
piece called, "Tar Baby Spills the Beans." That
came to mind because someone called me a tar
baby. Now, I am not suggesting the piece will
be a great success, time will have to tell. But
I enjoyed writing it, and I am glad I wrote it,
and it came about as a direct result of swimming
in the thoughtstream. I run across something
someone else has written, and then--if I am
lucky--original ideas pour from my mind right
into the net. I really don't think I am at all
alone in that either, but it takes a little
persistence to get the process started.
(Which is maybe like saying you don't
just dive into a fast moving stream and
have a wonderful time swimming--you
have to learn how to swim first.)
Anyway, since in Usenet writers give it away for free,
many people--consciously or unconsciously--harbor
a print-world bred suspicion and even a contempt
for those who delight in a writing activity they are not
getting paid for. When someone takes Usenet
seriously, it is hard for some others not to conclude
the "word screen writer" is a reject from the "real
world" of print publishing, perhaps someone
sitting at home surrounded by cartons of rejection
slips.
All I can tell anyone is that I am totally sincere.
I mean, if some eccentric millionaire offered me
a multi-million dollar book contract if I would agree
to leave Usenet and not come back, I might take
the person up, but in many ways I would feel
diminished by doing that. NOTHING the
print world offers could possibly replace the
spontaneous joy that results from the most
successful Usenet interactions.
It is like my precious little tar bady. Now, if a
traditional literary type had dreamed that up,
(instead of its coming from the collective mind
of the net and back through me with my own
input) the traditional literary ype would have to
try and find an off-beat, obscure literary quarterly
for it. If he was lucky, he might see the tar baby
in print within one year's time. A few months
later he might--again, if he was lucky--get three
or four letters telling him how his piece struck
some readers. No thanks. Right now, nobody
wants to touch the tar baby with a ten foot pole,
but let's see--I WROTE and published it all of
twenty hours ago. Who knows? Anything can
still happen...
As a result of this wonderful spontaneity, this
irreplaceable interactivity of Usenet, there are
thrills here that someone like Harlan Ellison,
a solid print world type I have the greatest
respect for, could never begin to imagine.
Anyway, when I get going like that, there is a
reaction in many readers of hackles going up,
of people saying, wait, this Palmer guy can't
be real. I think that is what is behind some of
the "nervousness" you refer to.
As to whether I am--as I have been described--
a self-deluded nutcase, that's for you to decide.
But I am absolutely sincere in what I am saying
about these things.
> Yes, there has been some discussion (and reference to previous
> discussions) of the fact/fiction distinction. I don't think that this is
the central issue. Maybe
> closer to the central issue is the following choice of options:
> (a) Are you a newsgroup for whom the newsgroup element is a convenient
electronic medium for the
> presentation and discussion of 'conventional' literature. ("conventional"
here is in
> contradistinction to option (b), and can otherwise be as wide as you
like -- it would certainly
> accommodate absence of punctuation)?
> (b) Are you a newsgroup open to any kind of original fiction, even that
which makes intrinsic use of
> the newsgroup medium?
>
> You (the organisers, if there are such things in newsgroups; or the
consensual group as a
> whole) are of course entitled to be what you want.
>
> Maybe I don't have the dichotomy quite right; maybe it's too coloured by
my own character
> and predilections. I, for example, am a person who likes to write and who
likes to play. I like to
> write in the sense that I like fig biscuits. (It's not an obsession, but I
can eat a whole packet.)
> I like to play, but I have to work. The web, and increasingly the
newsgroup, seems to me to be an
> opportunity to write and play. But maybe Bill's 'genius' is very different
from mine, and poorly
> understood by me. As for Detritus Alley, probably he does want feedback
about it as straight
> literature. (He is after all very thorough in all his responses, even to
glib posts like mine.) But
> I have the feeling that those followers with mindset (a) are, somewhere
along the line, going to
> feel suckered.
Well, thanks very much for the thoughtful commentary.
Sorry I did not respond to it earlier. As far as your own
writing, do it. Listen to what is inside you trying to get out.
Mentally, a writer has to be tough to benefit from Usenet.
You will write something perhaps as honest and original
as anything you have ever written, and you will be ignored
or crudely flamed and it will break your heart. Then, you
might write something rather off off-the-cuff and loopy in
fifteen minutes and end up with dozens or even hundreds
of thread responses, some of them praising your thoughts
fulsomely. All in all, though, I am absolutely convinced
that any writer who is not of yet inextricably bound up in
print world conventions will learn a great deal by staying
in Usenet and posting frequently--while, of course, becoming
highly-attuned to other swimmers in the thoughtstream.
alt.genius.b*ll-p*lm*r.upstairs.office.slan
>
Bill Palmer
>
> <Longden> wrote in message news:3c1d6413...@news.clara.net...
>
> this group.
> You say that the reaction to Palmer's posting seemed 'nervous', and you
put
> that down to a question of what this newsgroup is open to. I have to
> disagree with your assessment of the reaction : those who responded to his
> announcement of his 'newsgroup-written novel' were unanimous in their
> willingness to give it a go, although they also expressed some valid
> reservations. Then, when the fist part of DETRITUS ALLEY appeared, Palmer
> received numerous responses, almost all of which were genuine offers of
> constructive criticism.
That is true, and I expressed my gratitude for that. However, I hope
you read my response to the original poster, since some of my
remarks are indirectly addressed to some of your concerns too,
and since I just wrote that one, I won't repeat myself here..
So, really, I don't think you can suggest that AFO
> is unwilling to accept fiction (even based on fact) that is outside the
> norm. It may not get a very good reception (see the ruckus over Paul's
> 'Deasd Loss') but that is simply because people might not like it, not
> because they are not prepared to have it on the group. Nobody can dictate
> what is acceptable and what isn't, as long as the post meets the
(sometimes
> vague) criteria of being both original and fictional.
>
> Your option b) makes a distinction between original fiction that 'makes
> intrinsic use of the newsgroup medium' and, presumably, original fiction
> that doesn't.
> I am probably missing the point you were trying to make, but I really
don't
> see that there is any difference between the two. Original fiction is
> original fiction, and a newsgroup is just another medium of communication.
> Palmer, in his infinite arrogance,
That isn't really called for, in my opinion. I just tend to get
a bit defensive because I have been attacked a lot.
believes that he has invented an entirely
> new form of writing
I think we are confusing issues there. Yes, I call myself
the first word screen man in the history of the planet.
But, no, I do not think that gets around the need for
the application of traditional writing standards. It
is simply that I believe very sincerely that if I were
to start taking a lot of time and polishing my Usenet
writing before I posted it, I would be working against
the best things that come about as the result of the
spontaneous joy of swimming in the thoughtstream.
That is, the originality will either be there or it won't.
If the result of the process (I see it as letting one's
thoughts roll from one's mind right into the net) is
fresh and original, the result can always be edited
and polished later for website or print publication.
On the other hand, you can polish your Usenet posts
for a week, but if the spark of originality is not there,
the result will only be (borrowing a phrase from poet
Wallace Stevens) "a lustered nothingness."
and makes no attempt to hide that fact, but all he is
> really doing is writing a fictionalised auto-biography without bothering
to
> make the effort of editing. Big deal.
It is a writing experiment. Let's save the determinatoin
of how big a deal it is or is not for after the conclusion
of the experiment.
>
> There is nothing about Palmer's writing that would make me say that it is
> unacceptable on AFO. His 'newsgroup-written novel' is perfectly okay. Even
> his 'They Cowards, Jervis', a thinly veiled attack on all those who don't
> agree with him,
Your notion that a bunch of thugs and bullies
loitering around a convenience store and
stuffing a short, African-American performer into
a rubbish can represents a "a thinly veiled attack
on all who disagree with (me)" is really pretty silly.
Lots of people have disagreed with me over
the years, and it would be incredibly shallow
of me as a writer to characterize them all--
MIT and Harvard professors, software
milionaires, professional writers with many
print world publications, etc.--as a bunch of
young adult hooligans hanging around outside
7-11 stores and tossing people into trash
cans out of pure meanness. In short, you
are reading things between the lines of
"They cowards, Jervis," that just are not
present in the work.
is entitled to be on AFO simply becuase it's original
> fiction. He is welcome to post as much ego-stroking crap as he wants.
[...] I will save the final paragraph for a separate post,
since I fell it merits special attention.
alt.genius.bull-p*lm*r.upstairs.office.tar-baby.slan
>
Bill Palmer
"Fraser" <fra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9vjtqm$fub89$1...@ID-116198.news.dfncis.de...
>
> <Longden> wrote in message news:3c1d6413...@news.clara.net...
[...]
The paragraph below interests me because it has so
many erroneous conclusions about me packed into
a rather small space. I will try not to blow my top..
>
> My problem (read disclaimer at top) with Palmer has nothing to do with his
> writing - personally, I don't think it's very exciting but that is a
matter
> of personal taste. My problem with Bill is that he is an egomaniac who
looks
> on Usenet as a medium for self-promotion.
I have said I am a writing experiment aimed at discovering
how popular a writer can get by writing original, topical
articles for newsgroup audiences. That's not "self-
promoting" as much as it is setting the bar pretty
damn high and then trying to sail over it through
good, old-fashioned, honest WORK.
And I have not met too many "egomanics" who
describe themselves at times as retarded, tar
babies, gigantic balloons, etc.
And as far as blowing one's horn, in the first place,
that's the way Usenet works. You basically blow
your own if you are trying to compete with other
writers for readers' attention. But what you don't
seem to realize is that the real trick is not that
you need to blow your horn louder than other
folks, you simply need to hit different notes.
That's what I strive to do.
Take a look around (as I've been
> doing recently) and you will soon see that Bill is not writing to
> communicate,
That is incredibly shallow and meanspirted of you. OF
COURSE I am writing to communicate. I have probably
started as many productive discussion threads on issues
various and sundry than anyone in Usenet, and I am
certainly not referring to "Star Wars Sucks" trolls
either. I am talking about original stand alone
articles, as well as input to thread discussions
started by others. Your statement that I am
"not trying to communicate" is absurd.
>or to inspire, or to share something of value with others.
Anyone who takes three minutes and reads
"...has librarian swum in the thoughtstream?.."
in rec.art.poems and some other fitting forums
will see how wrong you are. And, charitably
assuming you are an open-minded, decent
human being, I know for a fact that if you gave
that poem three minutes of your time you would
be thoroughly ashamed of your grossly unfair
remarks.
Then, there is the fact that if I did not think my
work was of potential value to readers, I would
not post it in the first place. The value itself, of
course, could lie in something as simple as
making them smile, or in something as
profound as inspiring them to do more
and better writing of their own.
Bill
> is writing on many subjects in many groups, but his aim is the same each
> time : to generate controversy and responses, all designed to push up his
> number of precious Google mentions and help him in his ludicrous claim to
> being the 'most popular writer on the net'.
That's silly. You are confusing the performance for
the performer.
> He is insincere,
Now one who has read orginal works of mine such as
the current, "..has the librarian swum in the thoughtstream..."
as well as any of hundreds of other pieces I have posted
could ever make such an outrageous statement.
and that's the
> worst insult in my armory. When someone like that starts to post in AFO...
> that's when I get nervous.
Basically, you are a bigot. You have made these false
allegations against me, and you have not given readers
one concrete illustration to back them up. You know what
I would like to have you do? Go over to rec.arts.poems
and read "..has the librarian swum in the thoughtstream?"
Then tell readers why that poem is "insincere." You
can't do that, of course. It is as earnest as anything
posted to Usenet. So is all the rest of my work,
unless it is obvious that I am only clowning around
to make people smile, and even those light pieces,
while they may contain bombast, etc., are sincere,
in that they represent honest efforts to amuse readers.
alt.genius.bull-p*lm*er.razor-horn.sky-sign
>
>
>
>
Bill Palmer
<Longden> wrote in message news:3c1eaae1.13105873@news.clara.net...
[...]
> An analogy. A group of people is interested in Art: painting, drawing and
sculpture. They
> display and discuss their works. Some of them say: "Anything goes here. We
even have abstract
> paintings and sculpture." But then someone starts displaying unmade beds,
sharks in tanks of
> formaldehyde, and rooms with lights going on and off. How do the group
respond? Do they say: "We're
> not having that; it's not Art."? What are these exhibits about? They're
about playing with and
> asking questions about the medium. They may individually be crass, and
works of this sort offer huge
> scope for pretentiousness, vacuity and insincerity. But can we rule them
out as works of art in
> advance? (Actually I'd be tempted to do just that with the unmade bed and
the blinking room, but my
> personal response isn't the point.) I don't think you can classify these
kinds of works. In the
> nature of the thing, the possibilities are open. They are works on the
edge. They are not
> necessarily more interesting than 'straight' work, but they are different.
> It seemed to me that Bill Palmer's work might be an example of this kind
of thing in
> newsgroups. And frankly, the possibility of this kind of work quite
tickles my fancy.
> Does this make any sense, or am I barking in the wrong forest?
Well, while I respect your deliberative manner in approaching
your topic, the one thing you still don't seem to understand
is that the controversy occurs because I take my net writing,
my swimming in the thoughtstream, my role as the original
Word Screen man, etc. very seriously. In the face of voluminous
posted evidence, we still have a few bigots who simply won't
give me a fair chance. Take, for instance, the guy on this
thread who pronounced me "insincere." Just why would
an insincere person invest thousands of hours of his writing
time in Usenet in the first place? And of course, this party
did not point to even ONE of my literary works and state,
"I say this piece is insincere because----------------."
Hell no. He merely pronouced ALL my works, "Facts
in the Case of Bill Palmer," "Retard," "Short Bus Man,"
"HOW I STOLE THE BILL PALMER NAME!"
"Rembered: the Root Beer Stand Riot!"
"Hat, Gloves, and Guillotine," "Ghoul Zone,"
"MORE ELDRITCH THAN FICTION!"
"If this be webtrance..." "Refuge in Art,"
and hundreds more, all of them, including the very
recent, "...has the librarian swum in the thughtstream?"
and "Tar Baby Spills the Beans" to be the products of
an insincere mind. That's the way bigots operate.
They ignore all facts, no matter how plentiful, which
tend to expose the many fallacies easily spotted
in the bigot's broad assertions."
alt.genius.bull-p*lm*r.upstairs.office.tar-baby.slan
Bill Palmer
> Alaric
>
> I read your response to Jeff D's post and, while I may not have agreed
with
> everything you had to say, I admired (as usual) the reasoned tone you used
> to convey your argument.
> I wish I could say the same about this one.
>
think
> Palmer's one (not because of his writing),
As your wild allegations against me in earlier posts on
this thread indicate, you really don't have any grasp on
what it means to swim in the thoughtstream. You
are likely here only to tread water until you become
"authentic" as a writer by breaking into the print world.
For instance, in so many ill-chosen words, you promoted
nonsense to the effec that I don't listen to others, that
I just post, post, post. The reality is far different. My
mind has been so altered from use of the net that now
I see myself before getting here as a sort of half-formed
creature.
You charged earlier that I am insincere and don't interact.
How can you be so blind as not to see that almost
everything I have posted to Usenet has come about
as a result of my interactions with other minds here..
For instance, my new poem, "...has librarian swum in
the thoughtstream?" would be inconceivable without
a rather vast amount of interacting with others.
And even my new "Tar Baby Spills the Beans" resulted
because someone called me a tar baby, and I digested'
that and then started to ask myself, "Well, if there is
a little tar baby inside me, what does it want, how
does it think, what does it do?" and so on.
Now I don't mention those two very recent pieces to
claim that they are enduring works. That is something
that can only be revealed in the future. But I am
certainly glad I was able to write them and, though
completely different, they are both utterly sincere
works in their own right. Most important
regarding some of your allegations on this thread,
any intelligent mind reading those works can
immediately see they would be unimaginable
without years of heavy Usenet interaction.
I really think you should apologize for the "insincere"
charge. You have not supported it at all, and you
came off as rather bigoted (against someone who
maintains his real audience is in Usenet right now)
in making it.
alt.genius.bill-palmer.upstairs.office.slan
you think Paul's one (not because
> of his writing) - but I don't think that the use of excessive capitals and
> exclamation marks helps, no matter who you feel you need to go after. It's
> inflammatory. You are obviously capable of arguing your position very well
> by other means, but if you don't feel like making the effort you shouldn't
> bother replying at all.
>
> In relation to various other posts - I don't hold any grudge against him
for
> his review of 'Mechanical Advantage', so I don't see why anyone else
should.
> If I feel the need to defend myself, I'm perfectly capable of doing it
> myself.
>
> I'm not trying to be Paul's champion here, and I'm not claiming that I
> haven't written some pretty lousy messages to people myself. All I'm
saying
> is that this situation could get better if it was just kept on a civil
> basis. Eventually everyone would simply get tired of it, and it would die
a
> natural death.
>
> Fraser
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Alaric McDermott <alar...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:9vop4q$9gq$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> >
> > "Paul" <dazz...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> > news:3c1fa...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
> > > If the 7 year old was asked why did he do it like that who would
> disagree
> > with the answer - 'that's how it came out' ?
> >
> > Oh, God.
> >
> > > Is the English language art in its own right? Is a dog barking art ?
> Both
> > are a means of communication, understood by some but not everyone.
> >
> > Here we go. Back to Paul Millar A Man And His Fiction AGAIN!!!! Don't
you
> > ever tire of repeating the same points OVER AND OVER AGAIN!!!! NO-ONE'S
> > LISTENING!!!!
> >
> > > Which is why I do not call anything I write art. I leave that
> distinction
> > to be made by
> > other people.
> >
> > No, you don't. You tell them they're wrong.
> >
> > > Words are letters put in close proximity to one another and given a
> > meaning. What are letters ? Symbols representing the noises we make when
> we
> > talk.
> >
> > Oh, lock this guy up. Are we fools, Paul? This is going back to the SAME
> > BLOODY PLACE.
> >
> > > One race perceives the other race is
> > not following their rules. Both races beleive they are right. Both races
> > beleive the other is wrong. Friction. Break down of communication.
Blows.
> >
> > Oh, for fuck's sake!!!!!! Leave it alone, man. One race read AFO. One
race
> > the equally powerful Paul Millar. YOU ARE PATHETIC. GIVE IT
> > UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > > So from a macroscopic point of view by writing with no punctuation I
> have
> > created something which is merely noise on a page.
> >
> > Oh, SURPRISE!!!! How DID we get here?
> >
> > > You start forming the words those noises are producing.
> >
> > No, you don't.
> >
> > > By saying the words in quick succession they begin to form phrases.
> >
> > No, they don't.
> >
> > > Those phrases begin to form sentences.
> >
> > No they don't.
> >
> > > Meaning is starting to form.
> >
> > GIVE IT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > > Order is springing from chaos.
> >
> > Hah!
> >
> > > Is all of the above relevant to my writing or to this newsgroup ?
> >
> > Well, it has to be because YOU WON'T LET GO. You're immature, selfish
and
> a
> > pain in the arse. You're ruining a newsgroup you don't care two hoots
> about
> > for personal gain. You're drenching us with crap that ONLY YOU have the
> > remotest interest in.
> >
> > At first glance my unpunctuated work 'Dead Loss' is a jumble of words.
> >
> > SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > Upon reading it does form a narrative. It is a collection of thoughts
and
> > ideas.
> >
> > Even now, you're fighting those who gave you honest advice. Read ANY
> > author's response to criticism on ANY story in this group. Read. Learn
how
> > to behave decently. TAKE IT ON THE CHIN. GROW UP.
> >
> > > I leave entirely upto the reader to decide.
> >
> > How did I predict that was coming? FOR THE NINETIETH TIME.
> >
> > > And is my answer - 'that's how it came out ' - anymore right or
wrong,
> > relevant or irrelelevant, than a 7 year old supplying the same answer to
> the
> > same question about something which he had created?
> >
> > Not now that I know you.
> >
> > GIVE IT A REST, MAN. FOR GOD'S SAKE.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Alaric
doesn't get Detritus Alley any further. Of course I respect your right to
defend yourself, but one post might have sufficed for that. I also respect
Fraser greatly because of his contribution to AFO in terms of fiction and
assistance with the work of others. I'll look at you in the same way. With
that in mind, I hope your curriculum netae (does that count as an invented
net term?) isn't part of every single post you make here. Best for the
season.
"Bill Palmer" <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:a0d8g4$7qg$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
Fraser
I'll use this post as a convenient means of responding to the many you have
posted here this fine morning. From this, I trust, you will be able to
extrapolate my reactions to the others.
Bill Palmer <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:a0dfgj$g4f$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> "Fraser" <fra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9vp2ic$gp72k$1...@ID-116198.news.dfncis.de...
> > We differ on our definition of just what a 'troll' is, apparently - I
> think
> > Palmer's one (not because of his writing),
>
> As your wild allegations against me in earlier posts on
> this thread indicate, you really don't have any grasp on
> what it means to swim in the thoughtstream. You
> are likely here only to tread water until you become
> "authentic" as a writer by breaking into the print world.
You're probably right on your first point, Bill. Unlike you, I certainly
don't feel the need to elevate Usenet (a computer network, when all's said
and done) into some metaphysical alternative reality, designed to accomodate
grandiose delusions about who or what I am.
I believe it's a highly effective medium of communication between people who
would normally not get a chance to exchange views. That's it.
Yes, I would love to break into the print world. Most sane writers would.
No, I'm not here just to 'tread water' in the meantime. I spend most of my
Usenet time in AFO, and I enjoy it immensely. I'll be here as long as I have
the time, or until it gets filled up with insincere assholes.
>
> For instance, in so many ill-chosen words, you promoted
> nonsense to the effec that I don't listen to others, that
> I just post, post, post. The reality is far different. My
> mind has been so altered from use of the net that now
> I see myself before getting here as a sort of half-formed
> creature.
>
> You charged earlier that I am insincere and don't interact.
I look at A.F.O. and I look for all the story reviews that Bill Palmer has
posted in order to help others. I don't see...oh, wait! There's one.
Then I look for the posts in which Bill Palmer offers 'original fiction' for
review. Yes, there are a few more of those.
Then I look at how many Bill Palmer posts are solely confined to the
espousal, ad nauseum, of Bill Palmer's personal opinions on 'the
thought-stream', the 'Word Screen man', the 'newsgroup-written
novel'....etc etc etc. Woah! Jackpot!
In case the above isn't clear to you, let me repeat : You are insincere. You
don't interact. You don't listen to others. You are concerned only with
promoting your own warped concept of what Usenet is, and your sadly deluded
ideas on the position you occupy within it.
> How can you be so blind as not to see that almost
> everything I have posted to Usenet has come about
> as a result of my interactions with other minds here..
>
Cue self-promoting, repetitious twaddle:
> For instance, my new poem, "...has librarian swum in
> the thoughtstream?" would be inconceivable without
> a rather vast amount of interacting with others.
>
> And even my new "Tar Baby Spills the Beans" resulted
> because someone called me a tar baby, and I digested'
> that and then started to ask myself, "Well, if there is
> a little tar baby inside me, what does it want, how
> does it think, what does it do?" and so on.
>
> Now I don't mention those two very recent pieces to
> claim that they are enduring works. That is something
> that can only be revealed in the future. But I am
> certainly glad I was able to write them and, though
> completely different, they are both utterly sincere
> works in their own right. Most important
> regarding some of your allegations on this thread,
> any intelligent mind reading those works can
> immediately see they would be unimaginable
> without years of heavy Usenet interaction.
>
What's your point here, Bill? Arguing with flamers and cross-posting your
own self-absorbed, derivative 'works' all over Usenet hardly counts as
interaction in my book. It's just more of the same: take, take, take. What
do you ever 'give', apart from the odd laugh at your own expense?
> I really think you should apologize for the "insincere"
> charge. You have not supported it at all, and you
> came off as rather bigoted (against someone who
> maintains his real audience is in Usenet right now)
> in making it.
>
You'll get no apology from me, Mr. Palmer. I meant what I wrote, and as far
as I'm concerned you've just proved me right. As for me being 'bigoted',
I'll consider that charge with all the gravitas its source commands.
Bill, if you want to post or comment on fiction, feel free to do so here.
But if you want to continue this particular discussion, take it to r.a.p or
a.w or any of other your favorite preening grounds. I'll gladly meet you
there.
AFO is about writing and reviewing fiction, it's not a showcase for your
transparent, pathetic mewlings.
Fraser
>
> alt.genius.bill-palmer.upstairs.office.slan
>
>
Bill Palmer
> Bill
> I'll use this post as a convenient means of responding to the many you
have
> posted here this fine morning. From this, I trust, you will be able to
> extrapolate my reactions to the others.
>
> Bill Palmer <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:a0dfgj$g4f$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > "Fraser" <fra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:9vp2ic$gp72k$1...@ID-116198.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > > We differ on our definition of just what a 'troll' is, apparently - I
> > think
> > > Palmer's one (not because of his writing),
> >
> > As your wild allegations against me in earlier posts on
> > this thread indicate, you really don't have any grasp on
> > what it means to swim in the thoughtstream. You
> > are likely here only to tread water until you become
> > "authentic" as a writer by breaking into the print world.
>
> You're probably right on your first point, Bill.
I know I am, and I am right on my second point too.
Unlike you, I certainly
> don't feel the need to elevate Usenet (a computer network, when all's said
> and done) into some metaphysical alternative reality, designed to
accomodate
> grandiose delusions about who or what I am.
> I believe it's a highly effective medium of communication between people
who
> would normally not get a chance to exchange views. That's it.
>
> Yes, I would love to break into the print world. Most sane writers would.
People like you. Fraser, need to have some print world
credentials so you can feel authentic as a writer. That
is because you don't feel genuine regarding your own
work. You doubt the value of your own twaddle. You feel
that the action of a publisher cutting you a check and putting
you in print would make you real. Like most aspirers to the
traditional print world, you are in a sort of Wizard of Oz thing
about it all, rather like the Cowardly Lion. "Gee, I have a $300
check from a zine publisher in my poicket; now I am REAL."
> No, I'm not here just to 'tread water' in the meantime. I spend most of my
> Usenet time in AFO, and I enjoy it immensely. I'll be here as long as I
have
> the time, or until it gets filled up with insincere assholes.
I think you are one of those sincere assholes yourself, Fraser..
You made a false allegation about my sincerity. I pointed
out that you offered no examples at all to demonstate that.
This is a writing group, in case you have not noticed. If you
want to impugn someone's sincerity, you should be prepared
to demonstrate that in the person's work.. You have not.
You have just been thowing insults around, so in fact I DO
question YOUR sincerity as a result of your obnoxious
behavior right on this thread.
>
> >
> > For instance, in so many ill-chosen words, you promoted
> > nonsense to the effec that I don't listen to others, that
> > I just post, post, post. The reality is far different. My
> > mind has been so altered from use of the net that now
> > I see myself before getting here as a sort of half-formed
> > creature.
> >
> > You charged earlier that I am insincere and don't interact.
>
> I look at A.F.O. and I look for all the story reviews that Bill Palmer has
> posted in order to help others. I don't see...oh, wait! There's one.
> Then I look for the posts in which Bill Palmer offers 'original fiction'
for
> review. Yes, there are a few more of those.
You fall into several glaring errors of logic. In the first place,
you nuttily act like my entire Usenet posting record in is
alt.fiction.originl, Fraserl!
> Then I look at how many Bill Palmer posts are solely confined to the
> espousal, ad nauseum, of Bill Palmer's personal opinions on 'the
> thought-stream', the 'Word Screen man', the 'newsgroup-written
> novel'....etc etc etc. Woah! Jackpot!
If you have some problem with those opinions, well,
why don't your grow a nubbin of spine and challenge
me, instead of taking refuge in generalized put-downs,
out of fear of rebuttal, Fraser?.
>
> In case the above isn't clear to you, let me repeat : You are insincere.
There you go again. I call you a liar, and an
insincere one at that, Frser.. You have offered
no criticism at all that demonstrates a lack of
sincerity in my work, so you are simply
tossing insults around.
You
> don't interact. You don't listen to others. You are concerned only with
> promoting your own warped concept of what Usenet is, and your sadly
deluded
> ideas on the position you occupy within it.
>
> > How can you be so blind as not to see that almost
> > everything I have posted to Usenet has come about
> > as a result of my interactions with other minds here..
> >
>
> Cue self-promoting, repetitious twaddle:
Trying to wriggle around my argument by
tossing out still more insults, eh, Fraser?
>
> > For instance, my new poem, "...has librarian swum in
> > the thoughtstream?" would be inconceivable without
> > a rather vast amount of interacting with others.
> >
> > And even my new "Tar Baby Spills the Beans" resulted
> > because someone called me a tar baby, and I digested'
> > that and then started to ask myself, "Well, if there is
> > a little tar baby inside me, what does it want, how
> > does it think, what does it do?" and so on.
> >
> > Now I don't mention those two very recent pieces to
> > claim that they are enduring works. That is something
> > that can only be revealed in the future. But I am
> > certainly glad I was able to write them and, though
> > completely different, they are both utterly sincere
> > works in their own right. Most important
> > regarding some of your allegations on this thread,
> > any intelligent mind reading those works can
> > immediately see they would be unimaginable
> > without years of heavy Usenet interaction.
> >
>
> What's your point here, Bill? Arguing with flamers and cross-posting your
> own self-absorbed, derivative 'works' all over Usenet hardly counts as
> interaction in my book.
I think you are nuts. Fraser. I referred you and anyone
else who doubted my sincerity to a poem that is still
current in rec.arts.poems, called "...has librarian
swum in the thoughtstream." In no way was that
poem a flame. In fact, I received a very complimentary
follow-up message from a r.a.p. participant and that
is right there on the same thread, under my poem.
It's just more of the same: take, take, take. What
> do you ever 'give', apart from the odd laugh at your own expense?
What *I* have given are the lion's share of the best
known Usenet workds of the past few years. What
have YOU given, Fraser? In fact, since I could only find
386 GEMS for you, I can say for a fact that at least
one-dozen of my literary works are more famous
than you are as a person! (If you want to challenge
me on this, I will give you list of them to check in
Google.) So that's what I have given: hundreds
of original, stand alone works, including some
that have become famous in Usenet culture.
Even my literary characters and entertainment
personas are more famous than you are as a
human being, Fraser. For instance,
the-funny-little-wilhelp-man, with the hypens, even,
has 3,000 GEMS. The Flame Giant has 9,560
GEMS. What does that prove? It proves I have
provided entertainment for a lot of people, because
a lot of those GEMS involve follow-up, not just
posts I wrote. You have not given a DAMN
thing outside of this group, Fraser. I doubt that
anyone could name notable stand-alone article
by you.
>
> > I really think you should apologize for the "insincere"
> > charge. You have not supported it at all, and you
> > came off as rather bigoted (against someone who
> > maintains his real audience is in Usenet right now)
> > in making it.
> >
>
> You'll get no apology from me, Mr. Palmer. I meant what I wrote,
You are a malicious bigot, Fraser, as well as being
an insincere person. I challenged you to stop
taking refuge in vagueness and offer a demonstration
of why I am supposedly insincere. You crawled away
from that' challenge on your belly, and then came back
with additional generalized and unsupported allegations.
and as far
> as I'm concerned you've just proved me right. As for me being 'bigoted',
> I'll consider that charge with all the gravitas its source commands.
Of course you are bigoted, Fraser. You proved
that by calling a poem I referred everyone to as a
demonstration of my sincerity, a "flame''--despite the
fact that a rec.arts.poems poster posted a follow-up
message saying he was very moved by the poem!
("...has the librarian swum in the thoughtstream?''.."
in rec.arts.poems.) Essentally, Fraser, you lack
the slightest respect for our readers; that is proved
by your totally unsupported allegations and by your
refusal to consider the evidence. In fact, I am
beginning to suspect you are simply another
cheap little literary fake with big pretensions.
>
> Bill, if you want to post or comment on fiction, feel free to do so here.
> But if you want to continue this particular discussion, take it to r.a.p
or
> a.w or any of other your favorite preening grounds. I'll gladly meet you
> there.
Nonsense. Fraser, you poltroon. You insulted me before
this audience by making false and vicoius allegations
regarding my sincerity, and I will exercise my free speech
right to defend myself in the same forum where I was attacked.
> AFO is about writing and reviewing fiction, it's not a showcase for your
> transparent, pathetic mewlings.
You keep flaming me, and I assure you that you
will be howling soon enough. So far, I have kept
the kid gloves on, Fraser. Be thankful. You are
trying to pick your flame war by trolling the wrong
party..
>
> Fraser
>
> >
alt.genius.bill-palmer.upstairs.office.slan
> >
> >
>
>
Fraser
"But if you want to continue this particular discussion, take it to r.a.p
or a.w or any of other your favorite preening grounds. I'll gladly meet you
there."
Bill Palmer <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:a0eb7k$u8d$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
Bill Palmer
> Can you read, Palmer?
>
> "But if you want to continue this particular discussion, take it to r.a.p
> or a.w or any of other your favorite preening grounds. I'll gladly meet
you
> there."
Can YOU read? I said that since you spewed your insults
at me in alt.fiction.original, then I would exercise my option
to defend myself in the same forum where you so viciously
assailed me in the first place. If you want to talk about me
personally and focus your remarks in a way that will not
annoy other readers, probably the best thing to do
is post your twaddle in alt.genius.bill-palmer. That's
an unmoderated forum where Bill Palmer material
of any sort os always on topic, Troll Faser.
alt.genius.bill-palmer.razor-horn.sky.sign.slan
Bill Palmer
[I am afraid that I was so effectively trolled by this person's
highly unfair and wholly unjustified charge of insincerity
that I missed the morsel of intellectual challege he actually
included in his flame. I will now try to remedy that oversight.]
> >
> > As your wild allegations against me in earlier posts on
> > this thread indicate, you really don't have any grasp on
> > what it means to swim in the thoughtstream. You
> > are likely here only to tread water until you become
> > "authentic" as a writer by breaking into the print world.
[...]
>
> You're probably right on your first point, Bill. Unlike you, I certainly
> don't feel the need to elevate Usenet (a computer network, when all's said
> and done) into some metaphysical alternative reality, designed to
accomodate
> grandiose delusions about who or what I am.
> I believe it's a highly effective medium of communication between people
who
> would normally not get a chance to exchange views. That's it.
[...]
I can't go along with you any more than I can subscribe
to the "It's all just a big bulletin board (ho-hum)" theory
of the net.
I mean, for some people the net will be distined to remain a big
bulletin board or just a computer network, sure. After all, the
net is a big place and some people are here to sell cars or
to do a zillion other things that have no bearing on the
business of creating original prose works. More power
to them. These super-practical, nuts-and-bolts types are
as real as anyone else. It's their net too.
But thinking specifically of people here for literary reasons,
understanding the net only as a big bulletin board or computer
network will prevent them from plugging into the things that
can really help develop their talents..
When the printing press was invented, I suspect there were
those who said, in so many words and in so many languages,
"I want nothing to do with this mechanical device of the devil.
Handwritng on parchment has always worked fine here in
this village," (that sort of thing, I mean, the natural suspicion
of, and resistence to, the new).
Things happen so much quicker on the net that the literary
writer is challenged to think faster and do more spontaneous,
honest writing, and to get feedback from that.
One thing I already said on this thread needs to be repeated,
keeping in mind our audience.
If someone with head, hands and feet tied to the conventional
print world comes up with an idea for a prose piece (and
assuming he is not already among the tiny percentage of
writers who are celebrities and therefore actively wooed
by publishers) it could take him a year to see his new
work in print.
That is because the first market available to new fiction
writers is the zine market and (one step up) the obscure
literary quartely market. (Yes, there are 'slick magazine"
markets, but the odds of a new writer getting work
into them are small, and the piece certainly could
not be anything experimental or too unconventional.)
Okay, the writer gets in touch with a new idea lurking
someplace in his mind. He writes it and then polishes
it for a fews weeks, maybe, since that is the way
things are traditionally done. Then he shops it around.
It could well take months becore he finds, if ever, his
publisher. By the time the thing actually comes out,
well, it is not new any more, at least assuming
the writer has a normal, idea-generating mind.
Print publication might well be at least a year
from the time the idea began percolating in the
first place. Then, if he is lucky, a few months
after it is published in, say, a literary quarterly,
he may get three or four letters telling him how
his piece struck a few readers.
Okay, somebody calls me a tar baby and the idea
percolates. A couple of days later I sit down at the
keyboard and try to get in touch with that tar baby
lurking inside me. Suddenly, I begin tapping
those keys. I finish my piece and click on send, firing
the tar baby into the net. Soon, if I am lucky, I will start
hearing how my piece struck readers. (And if it
transpires that they will not touch tar baby with a
ten foot pole, well, that teaches me the writer
something too. I also KNOW that if they don't like
it or don't feel comfortable commenting on it, that
won't be because they have seen it before and it's
now old hat.)
Okay, so what we are talking about here is the ability
to touch other minds with our ideas, faster than
Gutenberg ever dreamed of, almost as fast as
light, as matter of fact.
Go "ho hum" and call it a big bulletin board, if that
makes you feel more comfortable..
Say "Pooh-pooh, it's just a computer network,
silly.".if that makes you feel safer.
Me, I call it a thrilling challenge and an immense
opportunity....
Hey. Gotta' run, something new's comin' in NOW!
alt.genius.blip-almer.upstairs.office.BIG.WIG.slan
Longden
>.........
Thanks for responding. I'm not sure I'm any clearer on whether the distinction I was trying
to make was relevant to your work. Presumably you think not.
I am prepared to take your sincerity on trust. You must understand that's a very blind
trust, from someone who's been on Usenet 5 minutes, who's not sure he knows where the ring is, let
alone the ropes.
I just wondered in Detritus Alley (I mean the greater Detritus Alley, which consists of a
very readable story as well as all your prefacing of it, and your reactions to and decisions based
upon comments upon it) if this ultimate sincerity wasn't being served by some kind of insincerity,
strictly for artistic purposes of course, and quite in line with swimming with the thoughtstream.
I await further instalments with interest.
Longden
JeffD
> "Fraser" <fra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a0ebjj$k6aok$1...@ID-116198.news.dfncis.de...
> > Can you read, Palmer?
> >
> > "But if you want to continue this particular discussion, take it to r.a.p
> > or a.w or any of other your favorite preening grounds. I'll gladly meet
> you
> > there."
>
> Can YOU read? I said that since you spewed your insults
> at me in alt.fiction.original, then I would exercise my option
> to defend myself in the same forum where you so viciously
> assailed me in the first place. If you want to talk about me
Actually, Bill, that really isn't an option in this newsgroup. That
is, if you care at all about abiding by this group's FAQ. If you feel
Fraser has insulted you, you should take this up with him through
e-mail. It may seem unfair, but if you decide to do otherwise,
members would be justified in considering you a troll. If Fraser
really did purposely insult you, I hope he'll avoid doing so in the
future for the same reason.
Jeff
Bill Palmer
"JeffD" <tinker...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5c68d173.0112...@posting.google.com...
> "Bill Palmer" <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:<a0ffls$ah$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > "Fraser" <fra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:a0ebjj$k6aok$1...@ID-116198.news.dfncis.de...
> > > Can you read, Palmer?
> > >
> > > "But if you want to continue this particular discussion, take it to
r.a.p
> > > or a.w or any of other your favorite preening grounds. I'll gladly
meet
> > you
> > > there."
> >
> > Can YOU read? I said that since you spewed your insults
> > at me in alt.fiction.original, then I would exercise my option
> > to defend myself in the same forum where you so viciously
> > assailed me in the first place. If you want to talk about me
>
> Actually, Bill, that really isn't an option in this newsgroup. That
> is, if you care at all about abiding by this group's FAQ.
Basically, a FAQ is an opinion. I don't have any quarrel
with the FAQ here, and I like alt.fiction.original. But just
for your information, a FAQ is an opinion. Any poster
who runs into a FAQ he or she does not like has the
option of writing a new one. Any authority vested in a
FAQ is there because people of their own volition
choose to try and abide by it.
If you feel
> Fraser has insulted you,
Of course I do. Anyone in his right mind would
feel the same way. It is right here on this thread,
and I think the whole affair is current in everyone's
newsreaders, so we are scarcely talking about
some obscure matter.
you should take this up with him through
> e-mail.
I never do any email flaming. Anything that I see
which looks like a flame, it gets trashed without
being read. In fact, I do very little Usenet-related
emailing at all. It can be a good waste of writing
time. Anyone who wants to get in touch with me
can post in the "downstairs office": alt.genius.bill-palmer.
It may seem unfair, but if you decide to do otherwise,
> members would be justified in considering you a troll.
Free speech dictates that they can consider me
anytihng they want to. But any unbiased party
reading this thread, will see very plainly that Fraser
was trolling me. The facts are plain enough on this
thread, so if someone is hell-bent on disregarding
them, he had no intention of being fair in the first
place, and I am not going to worry about him.
If Fraser
> really did purposely insult you,
He certainly did, and right out of the blue sky, before
I had addressed as much as a syllable in his direction.
That always tells the story--who started pestering whom
first. You grab a tar baby and you know what happens.
(See "Tar Baby Spills the Beans.")
I hope he'll avoid doing so in the
> future for the same reason.
I hope so. Charging that someone is "insincere"
and not giving one shred of evidence in support
of that is cutting pretty low. On the positive
side, something good did come out of the
thing. I reallized that the one post that I
retitled, "E-Lec-Tronik Toodle-oo," on this
same thread was pretty good (if I do say so
myself) so I posted it ina few other forums
where it was also directly on-topic and likely
to be of interest to additional readers. But
that's what I like to do, take a bad situation
and make something worthwhile from it.
alt.genius.b*ll-p*lm*r.upstairs.office.BIG.WIG.slan
(since Frasaer was accusing me of throwing my
name around to rack up more GEMS, notice that
I am using asterisks so my name won't show
up in Google.)
>
> Jeff
Bill Palmer
<Longden> wrote in message news:3c2bcfb9...@news.clara.net...
Thanks much for the good thoughts. I am trying to get relaxed
now in order to do Chapter Two. (It will be a big help if a
certain other person stops trolling me too.) As far as
your taking my sincerity on trust, I respect you for that,
and it seems to me that everyone should do the same
regarding literary attempts. In journalism, it is a bit different,
because if the writer does have the facts down correctly,
then the publication can suffer. But in fiction, the writing
itself should be what counts for the thinking reader. When
you buy a novel, do you care, and could you possibly know,
if the author was "sincere"? He or she might not even
know themselves, on the metaphysical or, if anyone
prefers, the existential plane. Probably the person
was trying to write the best novel he could, not only
in the hope of selling it, but in hope of having you
come back and read his next book too...
alt.genius.blip-almer.upstairs.office.slan
>
> Longden
Bill Palmer
Sorry, I should have used a "does not" instead of a "does" in my
response ot Mr. Longden.
> <Longden> wrote in message news:3c2bcfb9...@news.clara.net...
Please correct the line in question in my just-posted text to,
> > because if the writer does NOT have the facts down correctly, [...]
(emphasis added)
alt.genius.blip-almer
Fraser
> is, if you care at all about abiding by this group's FAQ. If you feel
> Fraser has insulted you, you should take this up with him through
> e-mail. It may seem unfair, but if you decide to do otherwise,
> members would be justified in considering you a troll. If Fraser
> really did purposely insult you, I hope he'll avoid doing so in the
> future for the same reason.
>
> Jeff
Nothing more from me in AFO, as I've been trying to make clear to Mr.
Palmer.
Bill Palmer
Exactly who rudely accosted whom first by claiming--
in a wholly unsupported and utterly unwarranted
attack--insincerity on the part of the other? Fine
way to introduce yourself, I must say, Fraser. (If
you are going to introduce yourself to a tar baby,
at least keep a polite distance. Kidding.)
I also think it is rather humorous that Fraser went
over to alt.writing and preached to the choir about
the evils of taking newsgroup audiences seriously
as a place for original writing. The guy's a regular
strawman factory too. To hear him explain me to
people who have been enjoying my posts for years,
I am some sort of wild-eyed net radical who
can't string two sentences together in a coherent
fashion...
One serious point by the way. Fraser made some
highly derogatory comments suggesting that he
was unaware of the concept of courtesy reposting.
Essentially, a courtesy repost occurs when a
reader in one forum realizes that a post is
also topical--and likely to be of interest to readers--
in a different forum(s), and so reposts it. That
is simply showing courtesy to readers in
other forums.
And, no, you do not waste the time of people
quoted in the discussion by asking their
"permission" to exercise your right to
repost the discussion.in any fitting Usenet
newsgroup forum. (You find "ask before you
repost" suggestions like that only in out-fo-date
netiquette guides that almost no one ever
followed even when they were written, at least
ten years ago. Usenet is about nothing if not
sharing information. Fast.)
As experience has taught me, the basic things
to ask yourself before making a courtesy repost
are these: 1) Is the material topical and likely to
be of interest to some readers in the second
forum? 2) Have you been careful of attributions
to make sure that all contributors have been
given fair credit for their text? 3) Are you
sure that the article (discussion, whatever)
has not been posted in the other forums
recently?
If you can answer "yes" to all the above, then
a courtesy repost is likely appropriate.
alt.genius.blip-almer.upstairs.office.BIG.WIG.slan
>
>
>
Alaric
you to try to bring it back. My personal view, for what it's worth, and the
sum of my contribution to this in AFO.
"Bill Palmer" <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:a0icap$rlr$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
Bill Palmer
"Alaric" <alar...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a0idmd$lro$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> It was a courtesy of Fraser to take this elsewhere. It is not courteous of
> you to try to bring it back. My personal view, for what it's worth, and
the
> sum of my contribution to this in AFO.
Well, I certainly respect your view, but you may
not know that Fraser went over to the other group
ranting and raving because I had made a courtesy
repost of the discussion I had posted on this tread
under the new subject line "E-Lek-Tronik Toodle-oo."
(And it is not like I was being sneaky, because in fact
I had informed a.f.o. readers right on this thread that
I was going to repost those remarks.) In no way did I
do that to stab at Fraser, either. I sincerely believed
that there were a number of things in the post that might
be of interest to readers in the groups where I reposted
it. Because of Fraser's tirade, I fugured he would likely
come back here whining (maybe not in this thread, but
someplace) about my reposting his comments.
Therefore, I felt some remarks on courtesy reposting
in general were in order.
alt.genius.b*ll-p*lm*r.upstairs.office.slan
doc
> "Alaric" <alar...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:a0idmd$lro$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> > It was a courtesy of Fraser to take this elsewhere. It is not courteous
> > of you to try to bring it back. My personal view, for what it's worth,
> > and
> the
> > sum of my contribution to this in AFO.
>
> Well, I certainly respect your view, but
Y'see, Bill, there's always a "but" with you. That's why you're perceived
as insincere. No matter who responds--or what they say--you've always got
that "but." You simply can't accept somebody else's viewpoint without one
of your "buts."
Now, everyone should be able to post in Usenet to any group they choose;
the moderated groups, of course, only allow those posts that meet their
charter, or "FAQs." Unmoderated groups depend on the honesty of posters to
follow their FAQs.
AFO has a FAQ--which you seem intent on ignoring--that says to take
personal differences to e-mail. You won't do that. In fact, you insist on
*not* doing that.
So, what do you want, Bill? A Usenet filled only with moderated groups?
Groups that explicitly exclude the likes of Bill Palmer? For someone who
insists that he's a genius, that doesn't seem real . . . well, let's say,
intuitive.
Bill, you've been on Usenet long enough to understand that off-topic can
mean insincere. Yet you choose to ignore that.
Why, Bill?
Why do you take offence at every criticism? Why won't you observe the
etiquette of Usenet? Why won't you observe common etiquette, for that
matter? Why do you think you're better than everyone else? Why do you
insist on calling youself a "genius" whan all evidence leads elsewhere? Why
do your rules supersede all others? Why can't you be sociable? Why do you
feel that everyone is wrong and that you are right? Why can't you write a
fictional story without involving yourself? Why do you feel it's necessary
to write a prelude to your stories that are longer than the stories
themselves? Why do you lack creativity? Why do you lack ability? Why do you
lack imagination? Why do you lack understanding? Why do you lack
compassion? Why do you lack the common courtesy that you would extend
to anyone you met outside Usenet? Why can't you understand that this is
a world full of people trying to understand each other without the Bill
Palmers trying to impose their suzerainty? Why can't you understand that
these are real people, with real lives, and real problems, and real joys
that you dismiss with so much disdain? Why are you any better than the
Khans, the Caesars, the Mussolinis, the Francos, the Borgias, the Stalins,
the Talibans, the Hitlers, the McCarthys?
Why, Bill?
Why?
Alan Hope
programme, like this one from Bill Palmer, who can't keep attributions
straight, calling from alt.writing:
>"Fraser" <fra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:a0h9q9$krikf$1...@ID-116198.news.dfncis.de...
>> > Actually, Bill, that really isn't an option in this newsgroup. That
>> > is, if you care at all about abiding by this group's FAQ. If you feel
>> > Fraser has insulted you, you should take this up with him through
>> > e-mail. It may seem unfair, but if you decide to do otherwise,
>> > members would be justified in considering you a troll. If Fraser
>> > really did purposely insult you, I hope he'll avoid doing so in the
>> > future for the same reason.
>> > Jeff
>> Nothing more from me in AFO, as I've been trying to make clear to Mr.
>> Palmer.
>Exactly who rudely accosted whom first by claiming--
>in a wholly unsupported and utterly unwarranted
>attack--insincerity on the part of the other? Fine
>way to introduce yourself, I must say, Fraser. (If
>you are going to introduce yourself to a tar baby,
>at least keep a polite distance. Kidding.)
>I also think it is rather humorous that Fraser went
>over to alt.writing and preached to the choir about
>the evils of taking newsgroup audiences seriously
>as a place for original writing. The guy's a regular
>strawman factory too. To hear him explain me to
>people who have been enjoying my posts for years,
No-one in alt.writing has ever enjoyed a single one of your posts.
>I am some sort of wild-eyed net radical who
>can't string two sentences together in a coherent
>fashion!
That you are.
>One serious point by the way. Fraser made some
>highly derogatory comments suggesting that he
>was unaware of the concept of courtesy reposting.
A concept entertained by you and you alone. This is one of your
contributions to net.culture which net.culture has preferred to leave
lying untouched on the buffet table like hard-boiled eggs smeared with
fish-paste. The writer of a post has the right to decide in which
groups that post appears. You have no right to spam it across the net
in your wanton way. By the way, I've snipped some groups from your
Newsgroups: line here, and added others.
>Essentially, a courtesy repost occurs when a
>reader in one forum realizes that a post is
>also topical--and likely to be of interest to readers--
>in a different forum(s), and so reposts it. That
>is simply showing courtesy to readers in
>other forums.
No, it's theft.
>And, no, you do not waste the time of people
>quoted in the discussion by asking their
>"permission" to exercise your right to
>repost the discussion.in any fitting Usenet
>newsgroup forum. (You find "ask before you
>repost" suggestions like that only in out-fo-date
>netiquette guides that almost no one ever
>followed even when they were written, at least
>ten years ago. Usenet is about nothing if not
>sharing information. Fast.)
Share your own information. You have as much right to share someone
else's writing as I have to publish a book of your bon mots.
>As experience has taught me, the basic things
>to ask yourself before making a courtesy repost
>are these: 1) Is the material topical and likely to
>be of interest to some readers in the second
>forum? 2) Have you been careful of attributions
>to make sure that all contributors have been
>given fair credit for their text? 3) Are you
>sure that the article (discussion, whatever)
>has not been posted in the other forums
>recently?
4) Do you have any rights in the words written? Clearly you may quote
another poster in reply to a post of his, but the assumption is that
the words will be used in the forum they first appeared in, and in the
context they first appeared in -- namely the discussion thread posted
to.
Taking someone's else's words and posting them elsewhere without their
knowledge or permission is no different to taking them and publishing
them in a newspaper, newsletter or book. The writer alone chooses the
medium and the form of publication. Your courtesy reposts are nothing
but blatant word-theft.
>If you can answer "yes" to all the above, then
>a courtesy repost is likely appropriate.
alt.genius,bill-palmer appears not to exist, Palmjob. What has Menjy
been getting up to now?
--
AH
Bill Palmer
"doc" <docfa...@yahooME.com> wrote in message
news:20011228192210.058$a...@newsreader.com...
> "Bill Palmer" <wil...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > "Alaric" <alar...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:a0idmd$lro$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> > > It was a courtesy of Fraser to take this elsewhere. It is not
courteous
> > > of you to try to bring it back. My personal view, for what it's worth,
> > > and
> > the
> > > sum of my contribution to this in AFO.
> >
> > Well, I certainly respect your view, but
>
> Y'see, Bill, there's always a "but" with you. That's why you're perceived
> as insincere.
Perceived as insincere? Let's see, there are tens of
thousands of posters in Usenet, and last I remember,
ONE of them, Mr. Nose-out-of-Joint Fraaser, claimed I
was insincere. Now you seem to have swallowed his
twaddle. In other words, an infinitesimal percentage
of Usenet posters claim--for no good reason whatsoever--
that I am insincere. Look, at one time, I was the target
of a campaign that said my girlfriend Zenobia (a lovely
human being, by the way) was a sheep! Now, does the
fact that maybe a dozen spankards (flame war losers)
claimed that make it any more true? Do you think on the
basis of what I just reported it would be appropriate to say,
"Bill Palmer is perceived as someone who is currently
dating a sheep?" Basically, what I have found is this:
Anything important about us in Usenet is what is
revealed in our own writings. My posting history
is an open book. And for anyone taking a good
look at that, there is no more basis for "perceiving"
me as being insincere as there is for perceiving
that Zenobia is a sheep. You have to be tough
to stay in Usenet, because cretinous individuals--
especially when they have been shown the error
of their ways in reasoned argument--are prone
to saying just about anything.
No matter who responds--or what they say--you've always got
> that "but." You simply can't accept somebody else's viewpoint without one
> of your "buts."
That's not true. You are simply generalizing on a few
cases where there happened to be two sides to a
story. If there are two sides to a story, there just
are. Period. If you don't like disputes growing out
of that reality, blame the attacker, not the defender.
>
> Now, everyone should be able to post in Usenet to any group they choose;
> the moderated groups, of course, only allow those posts that meet their
> charter, or "FAQs." Unmoderated groups depend on the honesty of posters to
> follow their FAQs.
You are a bit off there, and in fact you seem to be
scambling down a rather slippery slope. I certainly
do NOT agree that people who don't follow a FAQ are
automatically "dishonest." That is a very, very large
claim you are in effect making. In the first place, a
FAQ is simply an opinion. Any authority that a FAQ
has derives from the fact that people accept it. If you
stuck your head out of this group more, and read news.
heirarchy forums (such as news.groups) the way I do,
you would find that there are lots of groups witnessing
acrimonious disputes of longstanding as to which
of two or more FAQ'S have greater authority,
since one of them contradicts the other. Anyone
can write a FAQ for an unmoderated newsgroup,
and can even call it the official FAQ. That's a
simple fact of life in Usenet. As I have already
said, though, I like this group and I have no
trouble with the FAQ. It is you and pal Fraser
who keep bringing the matter up, as if to beat
me over the head with it.
>
> AFO has a FAQ--which you seem intent on ignoring--that says to take
> personal differences to e-mail. You won't do that. In fact, you insist on
> *not* doing that.
The funny thing is, I did not notice your protest
when Fraser accosted me rudely by accusing
me of being insincere, before I had ever addressed
one syllable to him. Where were your protests
then? Why wait until I showed the "audacity"
to defend myself in the same forum where I
was viciously assailed out of the blue by pal
Fraser?
[...]
[This is getting a bit long, so I will save the rest
for a "Part 2."
alt.genius.bill-palmer.upstairs.office.slan
Bill Palmer
"doc" <docfa...@yahooME.com> wrote in message
news:20011228192210.058$a...@newsreader.com...
> > "Alaric" <alar...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:a0idmd$lro$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
>
> personal differences to e-mail. You won't do that. In fact, you insist on
> *not* doing that.
Not so fast. Fraser vilified me in this forum. That being
the case, I would be less than wise not to defend myself
before the same audience where I was attacked. I mean
think of the transparent unfairness of your suggestion:
Pal Fraser posts an attack oin me that will be read by fifty,
one-hundred or maybe more people--and *I* defend myself
ONLY by an email to Fraser?!! Gee, how convenient for
Fraser. He trashes my emailing and the other hundred people
think I was guilty as charged as was shamed into silence.
On top of that, I don't do any email flaming at all, FAQ or
no FAQ. When you write a FAQ that dictates people's
emailing habits, you are way out of line. You have your
emailing preferences; I have mine. End of story.
>
> So, what do you want, Bill? A Usenet filled only with moderated groups?
I don't even think about moderated groups. Since
my writing took a radical improvement as the result
of the spontaneously interactive nature of newsgroup
communication, for the most part I want nothing to do
with forums which don't work that way. As I told
someone just the other day, when the time comes
that I have to worry whether or not my articles will be
accepted, then I will start doing more editing and
polishing and try to get my pieces into "forums"
like THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY. You are
whistling in the wind, in other words. The fact
is, I have never had a favorite forum go moderated
on me, but if I did, I would simply write it off like
it didn't exist. No hard feelings at all. But you have
never swum in the thoughtstream or you would
not be saying the things you are.
> Groups that explicitly exclude the likes of Bill Palmer?
Far more likely that outside of this group, they would
exclude the like of you. Google makes it very plain
that thousands of DIFFERENT people have followed
me up, many again and again. That would never
happen if I was boring them. After all, I always post
proudly under my own name, so I am an easy person
to avoid if someone does not like my style.
For someone who
> insists that he's a genius, that doesn't seem real . . . well, let's say,
> intuitive.
The suggestion that I should avoid making any ripples
in a stagnant newsgroup pond because some people
might make the group moderated and exclude me
is pretty silly. Que sera sera, I suppose.
>
> Bill, you've been on Usenet long enough to understand that off-topic can
> mean insincere. Yet you choose to ignore that.
I strongly argue that I have been more on-topic than the
average poster here.
>
> Why, Bill?
>
> Why do you take offence at every criticism?
I don't. Being viciously maligned by someone who
calls me insincere and then proves himself too arrogant
to reveal the thinking process that got him to such an
absurd decision, is scarcely, "taking offense at
every criticism." In fact, I got a good deal of
criticism on DETRITUS ALLEY, Chapter One.
It was graciously given, and it seems to me I
was suitbably gracious in considering it all.
Why won't you observe the
> etiquette of Usenet?
I do. And anytime you want to say otherwise, okay.
Free speech means you can make silly allegations
like that. But just remember, there may be two sides
to the story. You are lecturing someone who has been
hanging out in news. and Usenent culture groups for
years. As a result, I am very well-versed on
actual Usenet custom and tradition. And I
am well aware that there are many "netiquette
guides" floating around written many years ago
by authoritarian types who never had much of an
actual net life to begin with. Any pronouncement
on netiquette must be seen in light of actual Usenet
custom and tradition. Without that, you dive into
fantasy.
Why won't you observe common etiquette, for that
> matter?
I certainly believe I do. Please show me one instance
(and I mean anyplace in Usenet) where some inoffensive
parties were holding a conversation having nothing to
do with me and I simply pushed in and started attacking
them on a personal basis. You can't find any such
instance, since I don't do it. Yet, it often happens
to me, as we can see in the case of the obnoxious
Fraser. Last week I was only very dimly aware
of the guy's existence. This week he is assailing
me out of the blue.
>Why do you think you're better than everyone else?
I don't. I often say that in Usenet we are all equal in
having the same rights and responsibilities. On
the other had, it is a fact that some of us have
more talent, readers, and follow-up than others,
but that does nothing to change the bottom line
regarding equal rights and responsibilities for
all, from the newbie as of today to the net legend.
Why do you
> insist on calling youself a "genius" whan all evidence leads elsewhere?
Not so fast. The alt.genius.bill-palmer newsgroup was created
and named by a distinguished professor. I had no idea it was
there until after it was well on the way to global propagation.
My feeling has always been that this person created the
group as a challenge to me and as gift to the Usenet
culture. and I have acted accordingly.
Why
> do your rules supersede all others?
They certainly do not. Your problem is that when
you harbor an opinion (and you seem to harbor
a lot of them) you don't wnat to hear different
viewpoint. Next loaded question, please...
> Why can't you be sociable?
I am. I am probably the most sociable poster in Usenet..
Next loaded question, please.
Why do you
> feel that everyone is wrong and that you are right?
I don't, not at all. But when I have an opinion that
seems reasonable and can be defended with reason'
and logic, I generally will defend it. Next loaded
question, please.
Why can't you write a
> fictional story without involving yourself?
I don't remember saying I could not. My main point
about that is I think I can do a better job by involving
myself.
Why do you feel it's necessary
> to write a prelude to your stories that are longer than the stories
> themselves?
That's a rather wild exaggeration. You seem to
be getting carried away with yourself
Why do you lack creativity?
Now you are back to your loaded questions again!
It isn't quite, "When did you stop beating your wife?"
but it isn't much better. But, heck, I am never one
to duck even loaded questions, so here goes.
The inference within your question is incredibly
wild as phony assertions go. The fact remains
that I have written what can be easily defended
as the lion's share of the best known stand-alone
Usenet articles of the past few years. I think that
would be rather hard for someone who lacked
creativity to accomplish. Furthermore, many
neologisms, literary personas, and even phrases
of mine are as well known to many Usenet readers
as many phrases in famous books of quotations.
Er, just how does one accomplish all that without any
creativity? In fact, waxing metaphorical, it might be
said that I took a bucket of sand and a wishing
lamp and wrote myself into the most famous
writer in net history. That seems pretty darn
creative to me. And I did that by writing hundreds
of original stand-alone articles for many dozens
of appropriate newsgroup forums, not by using
"Star War Sucks," trolls or anything shabby like that..
>Why do you lack ability?
Loaded to the hilt with it! I am absoultely convinced that
any unbiased party comparing our Google archives would
conclude that was an ironic question on your part.
> Why do you lack imagination?
[Just repeat my prevoious answer and let it go
at that. You are getting terribly self-ironic there.]
>Why do you lack understanding?
Ridiculous question. It is far too general to have
any meaning. I would guess that you may understaning
of some things I do not, and I am certain I understand
things you do not. That is usually the situation among
human beings, so your question itself ironically shows
an incredible lack of--you guessed it--understanding.
> Why do you lack compassion?
That carries a blatantly false allegation. For instance, you
are pompously lecturing the author of "Retard," and "Short
Bus Man," two articles where I plead for more understanding
for so-called retarded people. (Read them in Google, should
you doubt me. Read them anyway.) And right in this group,
I posted a story aimed at getting the readers to understand t
he plight and the courage of a handicapped Black entertainer.
How on earth anyone could read "The cowards, Jervis," and t
hen turn around and charge that I lack compassion is beyond me.
Further, I would argue that a very recent poem of mine
called, "...has the librarian swum in the thoughtstream"
shows a great deal of creativity, understanding and
compassion. And you don't even have to take my
word, since my poem was followed up by a poster
who in effect said the same thing. (For verification
of my assertions here, see rec.arts.poems or
do a Google GROUP search.)
>Why do you lack the common courtesy that you would extend
> to anyone you met outside Usenet?
Now you are getting a bit repetitious. I said that you
will find no instances of MY going around and attacking
people simply because I do not like some opinion they
expressed having nothing to do with me. Your pal
Fraser certainly cannot make the same true assetion.
Why can't you understand that this is
> a world full of people trying to understand each other without the Bill
> Palmers trying to impose their suzerainty?
Fiddlesticks! Just how can someone who always posts
proudly under his own name "impose" ANYTHING ON
ANYBODY? The bottom line is, if anyone--including you--
can't deal with my style or opinions, he can always avoid
clicking were it says "wilhelp." No hard feelings at all.
The last thing I want is a captive audience. Free choice
is reading is basic, regarding the way I approach my Usenet
writing.
> Why can't you understand that
> these are real people, with real lives, and real problems, and real joys
> that you dismiss with so much disdain?
I never doubjted it. How on earth did you get the
silly notion I did?
>Why are you any better than the
> Khans, the Caesars, the Mussolinis, the Francos, the Borgias, the Stalins,
> the Talibans, the Hitlers,
It is often said that when you start comparing your opponent
to Hitler, you have lost the argument in a big way. Sorry, but
I have too much personal dignity to be sucked by you into
feeling that I have to post proof I am not another Hitler, etc.
Your other questions were loaded and unfair, but that one
is definitely a big "10" on the loaded question scale!
> the McCarthys?
>
> Why, Bill?
>
> Why?
My, my. Reading all that, one would almost forget that
people are choosing to read (or not to read) me of their
own volition.
Overall, that's a silly flock of questions, as I have
stronly hinted as we progressed through them.
Even so, you roped me into it because I am the sort
of perso' who confronts questions head on. I think
about ninety-eight percent of the people in Usenet
would have told you where to take your silly questions.
Let us see if you prove sincere enough to appreciate
my candor.
alt.genius.bill-palmer.upstairs.office.slan
Bill Palmer
"Alan Hope" <ah...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:mm6q2u8msrdpindj0...@4ax.com...
> Coming up next, your comments and questions on issues discussed in the
> programme, like this one from Bill Palmer, who can't keep attributions
> straight, calling from alt.writing:
>
>
> >"Fraser" <fra...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:a0h9q9$krikf$1...@ID-116198.news.dfncis.de...
Alan Hope is a notorious literary fraud and a
well-known spankard (flame war loser) who
specializes in following the tragets of his
waspish wrath around the net. He is now
trolling alt.fiction.original. Though Troll Hope
has been hanging around writing and prose
groups for years, he has yet to come up with
ONE original stand alone article of note.
His drivel would be far more appropriate in
alt.fan.karl-malden.nose.of course. That's
why I often repost it there where it belongs,
but Alan does not seem to get the hint.
[...]
> No-one in alt.writing has ever enjoyed a single one of your posts.
My, my. Well, Alan, considering all the follow-up I get over
there, that fib of yours constitutes a high-megatonnage
whopper! On top of that, it proves incredibly transparent,
since I doubt if any other alt.writing poster has started
a greater number of long threads with his original
stand-alone articlesthan I have. YOU certainly have
not, Hope. All I have ever seen you do is troll writers
with your seventh-grade level, two line, shopworn insults.
Is your problem that you have never learned how to develop
a paragraph, or that you are too lazy to bother? (If ignorance
is bliss, Alan Hope is truly ecstatic..)
>
> >I am some sort of wild-eyed net radical who
> >can't string two sentences together in a coherent
> >fashion!
>
> That you are.
>
> >One serious point by the way. Fraser made some
> >highly derogatory comments suggesting that he
> >was unaware of the concept of courtesy reposting.
>
> A concept entertained by you and you alone. This is one of your
> contributions to net.culture which net.culture has preferred to leave
> lying untouched on the buffet table like hard-boiled eggs smeared with
> fish-paste.
Explain again, if you will, Hope, how it is that you
have been loitering around Usenet writing and
prose groups for years without being able to
manage ONE original stand-alone article?
The writer of a post has the right to decide in which
> groups that post appears.
Nonsense. Your foolish pronouncement flies
in the face of Usenet custom, tradition and
very widespread current practice, Hope.
Everyday in Usenet, thousands of articles are
reposted--for excellent reason--from one group
to another, and there is no need whatsoever
to ask anyone's permission to do that, as
long as a) the repost is topical to the second
group as well as the first, and is likely to be
of interest to some readers in the second
group, b) all persons quoted in the article
are properly credited for their words, and
c) the article has not recently been posted
in the second group. Alan, it truly seems
at times like you are a veritable fountain
of peevish ignorance.
You have no right to spam it across the net
> in your wanton way.
The "wanton way" is a product of your over-heated
little noggin, Alan. When I make a repost, I make
sure it is on-topic and likely to be of interest to
at least some readers in the second group.
>By the way, I've snipped some groups
Yes, and you have done so rather ignorantly
and maliciously, as is your custom, Hope.
The fact is, alt.fiction.original readers prefer
single postings, so I trimmed your newsgroup
line accordingly in respect to a.f.o. tradition,
Hope. If you would do a bit of reading in
groups before you repost to them, you would
not make such annoying errors, Alan.
from your
> Newsgroups: line here, and added others.
Yes, and in as nutty and annoying fashion
as I have seen in quite a while, Hope. One
gets the distinct impression that you have
hired Bozo the Clown to manage your
newsgroup lines for you.
>
> >Essentially, a courtesy repost occurs when a
> >reader in one forum realizes that a post is
> >also topical--and likely to be of interest to readers--
> >in a different forum(s), and so reposts it. That
> >is simply showing courtesy to readers in
> >other forums.
>
> No, it's theft.
Not at all. Not when it is kept in Usenet and
when all writers are fairly credited for their
comments. You are not only trying to be
the repost dictator of Usenet, Alan, but your
pronouncements are about ten years out
of date.
>
> >And, no, you do not waste the time of people
> >quoted in the discussion by asking their
> >"permission" to exercise your right to
> >repost the discussion.in any fitting Usenet
> >newsgroup forum. (You find "ask before you
> >repost" suggestions like that only in out-fo-date
> >netiquette guides that almost no one ever
> >followed even when they were written, at least
> >ten years ago. Usenet is about nothing if not
> >sharing information. Fast.)
>
> Share your own information. You have as much right to share someone
> else's writing as I have to publish a book of your bon mots.
Not at all. And keep your greedy eyes and sticky fingers
away from my bon mots, too, Hope. My comments
were made regarding Usenet specifically, where
the everyday practice of transferring information
from one newsgroup to another is fair use of
copyrighted information. (If it isn't, sue
me for reposting your peevish drivel in
alt.fan.karl-malden.nose where everything
you "write" belongs, Alan.)
>
> >As experience has taught me, the basic things
> >to ask yourself before making a courtesy repost
> >are these: 1) Is the material topical and likely to
> >be of interest to some readers in the second
> >forum? 2) Have you been careful of attributions
> >to make sure that all contributors have been
> >given fair credit for their text? 3) Are you
> >sure that the article (discussion, whatever)
> >has not been posted in the other forums
> >recently?
Excellent points, if I do say so myself!
>
> 4) Do you have any rights in the words written? Clearly you may quote
> another poster in reply to a post of his, but the assumption is that
> the words will be used in the forum they first appeared in, and in the
> context they first appeared in -- namely the discussion thread posted
> to.
Nonsense. There is no such expectation by any reasonable
Usenet user. There has not been for ten years, at least.
When you post anything to Usenet, you must do so with
the knowlege that it could show up anyplace else in
Usenet. The only thing you can insist on is that you
are given fair credit for your quotations. I have found
so much of my text being reposted by others that
I have come to realize that every day there is a
virtual tornado of my words whirling around
Usenet for purposes good, bad, or just plain
mysterious. And, being both a reasonable and
a busy person, the last thing I want to do is start
getting emails (as I do from time to time) to the effect,
"Mr. Palmer, could I have permission to repost
your article in alt.cyberpunk.chatsubo to alt.writing?"
Asking is a big waste of time. You have the right
to do it, so do it when you are sure you are being
courteous to readers in the second group.
>
> Taking someone's else's words and posting them elsewhere without their
> knowledge or permission is no different to taking them and publishing
> them in a newspaper, newsletter or book. The writer alone chooses the
> medium and the form of publication. Your courtesy reposts are nothing
> but blatant word-theft.
Point rejected as ignorant. A repost from one Usenet
newsgroup to another represents sharing information
in a non-profit environment and is considered academic
fair use, no different really than checking a book
out of the library. When the writer chooses Usenet
as, to use your words, a "medium and form of
publication" he (er, if he is intelligent and informed,
I should add, that leaves Alan Hope-a-Dope out)
does so in the knowledge that due to the ease of
transferring information, his text may be moved
from one newsgroup to another at any time.
But again, you certainly have the right to sue
me for putting some of your "two line gems
of wit" in alt.fan.karl-malden.nose, Hope--
if you are not merely blowing hot air into
alt.fiction.original, that is..
>
> >If you can answer "yes" to all the above, then
> >a courtesy repost is likely appropriate.
True.
[..] Snip of some nonsense about alt.genius.bill-palmer
not existing. In fact it's JUMPING! I just checked my
newsreader and found 115 highly-current postings.
alt.genius.bill-palmer.upstairs.office.slan
--
> AH
hannahs date at the 88s
>Subject: Re: [shop] Re: Question: purpose of this newsgroup
>From: "Bill Palmer" wil...@ix.netcom.com
>Date: 27/12/2001 03:44 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <a0ffls$ah$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>
God made a verb To press (my boss is pressing me to get the work done tonight)
Man says "too simple, elegant and intuitive--let's make it <to pressure>
Man says "nope, still too easy--let's make it <to pressurise>
Next step: <to pressurisate>?
Bill Palmer
"hannahs date at the 88s" <gur...@aol.comoItaly> wrote in message
news:20011229165619...@mb-fs.aol.com...
> Is this the Bill Palmer who feuds with Alan in alt.writing?????? Que?
Not at all. Alan Hope is simply another worthless
net parasite who has been annoying me for years.
I don't "feud" with my parasites. If they bother me
too much, I remind the readers what they are.
It is impossible for a parasite and his unwilling
host to have a feud. I am not joking either.
Hope has followed me up hundreds of times on
posts having NOTHING at all to do with him. On
the contrary, I almost never have followed him up
on anything unless I have caught him red-handed
maligning me. The worst thing about Hope is
that in all his years in Usenet, he has never produced
a piece of notable writing. Not one. His entire
schtick consists of hanging out in writing groups
and pestering those with the talent and spine to
actually write, and there exists more than a little
transparent envy in Alan's habitual attacks on writers.
So please don't dignify the thing as a fued. Call it
what it:is: a nuisance caused by parasite Hope.
Any other questions I can help you with today?
alt.genius.b*ll-p*lm*r.upstairs.office.BIG.WIG.slan
doc
As they say in alt.writing: FOITN*
To answer your question, Carl: Yes.
Sadly, Bill feuds with anyone who disagrees with him or who even approaches
his nebulous definition of genius. Keep in mind that Bill maintains a tally
of all who respond to his posts. More than three responses makes the poster
a "fan of Bill Palmer" by his own accounting. I guess that makes me his
greatest fan. Sort of like the nurse in Steven King's, "Misery."
Unfortunately, the coward won't come close enough to let me break his
ankles with a sledgehammer.
C'mere, Bill; let your greatest fan adore you.
doc
*FOITN: Fans of irony take note
Bill Palmer
"doc" <docfa...@yahooME.com> wrote in message
Not at all. That is simply untrue. I have been in literally
thousands of discussions where I have disagreed with
people but in no way have I feuded with them. If you
intend to go around promoting yourself as another
Bill Palmer expert, you had better get your facts
together first.
or who even approaches
> his nebulous definition of genius.
Some irony there! You phrase itself is plenty nebulous.
What does "approaches his nebulous definition of
genius," mean, for pity's sake? That's as cloudy
as the inside of a stuffed up chimney with a rubber
tire smouldering at the bottom of it!
Keep in mind that Bill maintains a tally
> of all who respond to his posts.
Yes, it's called Google. Ever hear of it?
More than three responses makes the poster
> a "fan of Bill Palmer" by his own accounting. I guess that makes me his
> greatest fan.
Stop flattering yourself. You have a long way to
go to catch parasite Hope, in that regard.
Sort of like the nurse in Steven King's, "Misery."
>
> Unfortunately, the coward won't come close enough to let me break his
> ankles with a sledgehammer.
That's dragger talk, buster. Can it. There's too
much of that violent trash-talk going around Usenet
now.
>
> C'mere, Bill; let your greatest fan adore you.
Why is it that pests like you often turn vicious once they
have accosted someone and got put in their place?
alt.genius.blip-almer.upstairs.office.slan
Opus
I know you posted this over a week ago, and as I couldn't follow each thread on
Google with my pre-paid limited internet during holiday, I was only informed of
your impending absence by a friend. Dan, PLEASE, PLEASE, if you are reading
this, take time to cool down, and then come back. Please, bitte. You were fast
becoming one of the most productive, amiable and conversational posters here,
and it pains me to see that some unfortunate posting drove you away. I am
imposing on our good relationship and what I presume to be, mutual respect, and
begging your return.
I'll hold my breath until you do.
*AHUH---------------------------------------------------------*
Opus
Dan Rogers wrote:
> Alaric:
>
> I am sad to see you go because I too believe you are one of the bright
> lights in this group at the moment, and I do hope you'll return once this
> nonsense is over and done with which I trust will be soon.
>
> However, until that time comes I've reached much the same conclusion as you.
> I've obviously been much harsher in my judgments and actions than some
> towards one who I perceive to be a threat to this group and who calls us
> cunts and cocksuckers (his words, not mine) to our faces and then sneaks in
> through the back door when he hears a few moderate voices raised in his
> defense.
>
> Paul visited three other writing forums before he returned here. He tried to
> obtain permission to post his piece which he claims was attacked here
> because of its "controversial" nature. He was ignored in two groups and
> shown the door in a third (which BTW makes AFO look like the Welcome Wagon).
>
> This little man thinks very highly of himself and very lowly of us. His
> piece I believe is anything but controversial. In my opinion it is
> ill-conceived, unreadable, boring, and pretentious, but none of that is the
> reason I attacked him. I attacked him because he attacked us, pure and
> simple. Anyone who thinks that his first five critiques were not personal
> attacks . . . well, we must have been reading off a different page.
>
> And now he writes to a new poster "bragging" that one of his posts created a
> thread 96 messages long. He quite honestly makes me sick.
>
> When Paul saw a few supportive posts here he felt he had us all bamboozled,
> and it sadly appears that he does have a couple of serious posters
> hoodwinked, but I don't believe the majority.
>
> He is now ingratiating himself by preparing diplomatic and laudatory reviews
> while snickering at us behind our backs. Now how could I have guessed he
> might do that? Personally I cannot stand any more of his bullshit. I am
> amazed that he has been able to deceive those individuals he has.
>
> However, since my opinions and actions are so diametrically opposed to
> others in this group who I admire and respect, I must now decide what to do.
> My solution, which was decided on prior to reading your post Alaric, is to
> take a sabbatical from this group. I had already been considering it for
> other reasons, namely to block off time to read and write. At this juncture
> a month seems appropriate. After that time, if it appears that the group is
> still healthy and thriving, I'll return. No problem.
>
> But at the moment, to be frank, what's happening here disgusts me and is
> beginning to cause me to judge some of my peers in a less than favorable
> manner, and I do not want to do that. So my leaving I believe is the best
> for all. I'll let some of the gentler souls in this group deal with Paul. I
> have no doubt he'll reveal his true self once more. I just hope he is not
> forgiven a second time.
>
> As to your comment:
>
> "I guess I'm just too stiff. And too old to change."
>
> You're not too stiff or too old at all. You have principles for which you're
> willing to stand and for which you refuse to apologize. And for that you
> have, as always, my deep respect. As I've told you before, you're a far
> gentler man than I, Alaric. I've met many of Paul's ilk before so he knows I
> see him him for what he is. He will never fool me. In the street I probably
> would have done him violence and spent my requisite amount of time in jail.
> It wouldn't have been the first time nor would I have regretted it.
>
> To any who wish to correspond with me, please feel free to do so by e-mail.
> I will not be monitoring this group nor do I intend to catch up with
> previous postings on my return. I will simply start fresh.
>
> Best regards, Alaric, to you and yours and a happy holiday.
>
> Your good friend,
> Dan