Has John Whelan ever kissed a girl?

[Kishin]

Or even a boy, if that's his thing? Given his conduct here, I find it
hard to imagine that he would be much successful in finding a partner. I
can see him spouting off his crap to a potential mate and them making a
hasty retreat. Mr. Whelan does not appear to be completely lacking in
intellect, but his people skills leave much to be desired.

--

Kishin

[John Whelan]

Hilarious. First he says he's killfiling me; Now he's trolling me.
Mr. "I don't care" obviously cares very deeply. I think it is time
for our anonymous Mr. Kishin to tell us who he really is. S. T.
Joshi, perhaps?

[The DA]

"John Whelan" <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1beb462d-9733-49d4...@c15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...

Get a life, both of you. It's only a series of stories, not a life-defining
philosophy.

Or is it.......

[John Whelan]

The DA wrote:
> Get a life, both of you.

Your probably right that I should not have responded to Kishin's off-
topic trolling, but ... then you follow with the following non-
sequitur:

> It's only a series of stories, not a life-defining
> philosophy.

Uh, what? When did I ever say otherwise? What you are really saying
is that I should stop discussing HPL's stories in this NG. Well,
what SHOULD we talk about here?

Surely, if I was wrong to respond to Kishin's off-topic trolling, I am
right to keep discussing HPL's works. That is part of what the NG is
for

[The DA]

"John Whelan" <jwjbw...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:a2f25310-87fc-40bd...@a6g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...

'Discussing'???

The pair of you are arguing over miniscule variations in texts and falling
out over it to the point of name-calling. You're not both university
professors by any chance?

[John Whelan]

The DA wrote:
> 'Discussing'???

I never said I was discussing anything with Kishin. Kishin has never
had anything relevant or meaningful to say about anything.

> The pair of you are arguing over miniscule variations in texts [...]

No we are not. Kishin was randomly insulting me, and I should not
have responded. But (although I should not have responded) that is
not what you are criticizing me for. You are (ironically) angry at me
for the one thing I was NOT doing in this thread - discussing textual
errors. You are angry at me for discussing "miniscule variations in
texts" and want me to stop posting discussing "miniscule variations in
texts"

Apparently, you are criticizing me because of my other SUBSTANTIVE
posts, and want me to stop posting them. At least, that seems to be
the strong implication.

[Kishin]

If you look over my past posts (and I sincerely hope that you have too
much of a life to bother doing so), you will see that I do not argue Mr
Whelan's POINTS, as they are trivia about which I do not care, but the
way he attempts to convey them. Almost all of his arguments are based on
suppositions on his part, not hard data. And when others disagree with
him, he resorts to personal attacks. He has even managed to rouse the
ire of Ramsey Campbell, who appears to be as kind a person as I've seen
on USENET. In fact, I've killfiled him and only see his posts in his
debaters' replies. I "attack" Mr Whelan because he seems unable to hold
a civil, reasonable debate and he continually personally attacks the
other members in this group, by accusing them of collusion, having some
Joshi-centric agenda and outright lying. If he wants to debate in a
civil, reasonable manner, without insulting the other members here, I
will feel no need insult HIM.

And no, I am not a university professor, though I am married to one.

--

Kishin

[blackw...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 11:06:05 AM UTC-4, John Whelan

> I think it is time for our anonymous Mr. Kishin
> to tell us who he really is. S. T. Joshi, perhaps?

You could not be more wrong there.

[bruce turlish]

blackw...@gmail.com posted:

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 11:06:05 AM UTC-4, John Whelan
> I think it is time for our anonymous Mr. Kishin
> to tell us who he really is. S. T. Joshi, perhaps?

You could not be more wrong there. <endquote>

Are you S T Joshi?

[Kishin]

BWB and I WISH we were Joshi. Neither of us are so remarkable.

--

Kishin

[bruce turlish]

Kishin posted:
BWB and I WISH we were Joshi. Neither of us are so remarkable <endquote>

So the sudden rush of postings to a.h.c. is coming from alt.horror's BWB? Why the sudden interest in this NG from BWB? He usually just hung out at a.h., it seemed to me.

[Kishin]

He's one and the same. He's been posting here for ages, but
infrequently. I guess he was just catching up on some old posts.

--

Kishin

[blackw...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 13, 2014 5:01:17 AM UTC-4, bruce turlish

> Are you S T Joshi?

No, I am not. However I have met "Kishin"
in person & corresponded with him many times.
I think you might be a wee bit obsessed to the
degree that you are no longer thinking logically,
but with extreme paranoia.

[blackw...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 13, 2014 6:01:55 AM UTC-4, bruce turlish

> So the sudden rush of postings to a.h.c. is coming from >alt.horror's BWB? Why the sudden interest in this NG from >BWB? He usually just hung out at a.h., it seemed to me.

Not at all. I used to be a regular here (I
was on this group long before alt.horror). I
left this group for a few years due to a very
strong disagreement with a former friend that
posted quite often here. I was, in effect,
"giving him space". Given that it has been a
few years since he posted anything here to my
knowledge, I felt it would be acceptable to
return. The only other person that might have
a minor issue with my reappearance would be
Robert Price, and ours was a minor theological
and political disagreement.

[blackw...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, April 13, 2014 4:26:46 PM UTC-4, Kishin wrote:
> He's one and the same.

"All is one, all is one. All are none." :)

>He's been posting here for ages, but
> infrequently. I guess he was just catching
> up on some old posts.

I was attempting to give an old friend that
had parted company with me enough room to be
without constantly having a reminder of myself.
He was rather enraged due to circumstances, &
that was my method of letting him be & wishing
him well.

[John Whelan]

On Sunday, April 13, 2014 8:59:06 PM UTC-4, blackw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, April 13, 2014 5:01:17 AM UTC-4, bruce turlish
> > Are you S T Joshi?
>
> No, I am not. However I have met "Kishin"
> in person & corresponded with him many times.

Fine. That explains how you know the anonymous Kishin is not Joshi.

> I think you might be a wee bit obsessed to the
> degree that you are no longer thinking logically,
> but with extreme paranoia.

Surely these extreme personal insults directed at Mr. Turlish are uncalled for. Mr. Turlish merely asked you a simple question. Or were you confusing Mr. Turlish with someone else?

[blackw...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 10:01:10 AM UTC-4, John Whelan

> Surely these extreme personal insults directed at Mr. >Turlish are uncalled for.

They were not aimed at him, Padawan.

[John Whelan]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 3:17:07 PM UTC-4, blackw...@gmail.com wrote:
> They were not aimed at him, Padawan.

Yet were addressed to him, perhaps in error, as I suggested.

[blackw...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 3:29:42 PM UTC-4, John Whelan

> Yet were addressed to him, perhaps in error, as I >suggested.

No, I did not address them to him.
If that is how your fevered mind requires
seeing it, that is how you will see it.

[John Whelan]

On Monday, April 14, 2014 8:18:11 PM UTC-4, blackw...@gmail.com wrote:
> No, I did not address them to him.
> If that is how your fevered mind requires
> seeing it, that is how you will see it.

That's how my fevered mind sees it.

[blackw...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 9:20:08 AM UTC-4, John Whelan

> That's how my fevered mind sees it.

At least you recognize that is indeed
YOUR perception.

[John Whelan]

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 4:40:15 PM UTC-4, blackw...@gmail.com wrote:
> At least you recognize that is indeed
> YOUR perception.

Yes indeed. It appears in my perception that there appears a post above in this thread, where Mr. Turlish asks you if you are S.T. Joshi, and another response from you were you quote his question and you respond by accusing him of extreme paranoia. But I realize now that this is merely a delusion foisted on by brain by the complete dominion of Yog-Sothoth over my all perceptions.

[Ramsey Campbell]

Much more straightforwardly, I think S. T. would be as unlikely not to use his real name on a posting as I am not to use mine.

[bruce turlish]

Ramsey Campbell posted:
Much more straightforwardly, I think S. T. would be as unlikely not to use his real name on a posting as I am not to use mine. <endquote>

Ramsey, do you know whether Joshi has ever posted here? It would seem like a good place to "push" his books, while at the same time sharing his strong feelings about Lovecraft. I seem to recall that Brian Lumley posted here in the distant past, using a rather combative tone, if I remember correctly. I guess that's not surprising, since the subject line of the thread was: "Brian Lumley Deserves Death." It probably would be rather cute to see Joshi and John Whelan going at it hammer and tongs--battle of the century, I guess...

[Ramsey Campbell]

I don't think S. T. ever has, Bruce, but Brian must have been on here before my time.

[John Whelan]

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 3:39:43 AM UTC-4, Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> Much more straightforwardly, I think S. T. would be as unlikely not
> to use his real name on a posting as I am not to use mine.

That's not straightforward at all. It is as clear as mud. I have no idea how likely either you or Mr. Joshi are to use a nym. There isn't even (necessarily, or even usually) anything wrong with using a nym.

Perhaps I should interpret this as a roundabout way of declaring that you never use nyms. That's fine (if a bit of a change of subject). But you obviously speak for yourself, not Mr. Joshi.

And may I humbly suggest that if we all tried to keep the discussions "ad argumentum" rather than "ad hominem", there would be less of a need to be obsessed with the identities of the persons making the arguments. It would also help if we avoid resorting to the "you're outnumbered" argument, which only appeals to lemmings in any event.

[Kishin]

John Whelan wrote:
> And for the record, I regret having asked Kishin (a year ago now) if he were Mr. Joshi. Such speculation is (probably) unfair to Mr. Joshi.

It is. I'm sure he has much more class than I.

--

Kishin

[John Whelan]

[Ye Queen of Eldritch Horror]

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 3:31:43 AM UTC-7, Kishin wrote:
> Or even a boy, if that's his thing? Given his conduct here, I find it
>
> hard to imagine that he would be much successful in finding a partner. I
>
> can see him spouting off his crap to a potential mate and them making a
>
> hasty retreat. Mr. Whelan does not appear to be completely lacking in
>
> intellect, but his people skills leave much to be desired.
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Kishin

Whelan actually sent emails to S. T. about his fraudulent literary theories regarding Lovecraft's texts, and S. T. saw clearly that the moron has no clue what he's talking about. S. T. would never bother to look at this site, or join things like Facebook. He uses the Internet as a work source only. The one exception is when he comes over to my pad and we record vlogs on YouTube. He's coming over to-day and bringing the 500 signature sheets that we need to sign for his Mythos omnibus, A MOUNTAIN WALKED. I doubt we'll have any energy afterward for doing a new video, signing 500 signature sheets is gonna do me in.

[bruce turlish]

WH Pugmire posted:
Whelan actually sent emails to S. T. about his fraudulent literary theories regarding Lovecraft's texts, and S. T. saw clearly that the moron has no clue what he's talking about <endquote>

In John Whelan's defense:
*He does argue his positions in an articulate manner.
*He seems to have a good working knowledge of Lovecraftiana.
*He's doing his bit to keep this NG active and interesting.
*He doesn't seem inclined to curry favor with anyone because of reputation or status.

I think that we all take the subject of Lovecraft too seriously. I've spoken with English professors who have never even heard of Lovecraft, and I don't think the case could be made that he is a great writer. I happen to believe that he was a talented pulp writer who fashioned a handful of stories that will stand the test of time. The fact that Ramsey Campbell evolved away from Mythos writing to a more microcosmic category of horror suggests to me that he saw Lovecraft's fiction as something of a deadend, at least in commercial terms. That Joshi and Pugmire have a passion for Lovecraft is commendable, but as with any passion, it can interfere with your ability to see things objectively. When you compare Lovecraft with truly great fantasy writers like Jack Vance, CAS, REH, and yes, even Mr. Campbell himself, I believe you have to conclude that he was a lesser figure. This is just my opinion, of course--nothing more. Please try to use only small-caliber weapons for any response.

[Ramsey Campbell]

Then let me be absolutely clear. I post online only under my own name. Given how forthright S. T. is in declaring his views, I think it most unlikely that he would conceal their authorship. And I know him personally. Do you?

[Ramsey Campbell]

Very kind of you, Bruce, but I don't agree - I think Lovecraft is the greatest of the writers you cite. My move away from Lovecraft wasn't dictated by commercial considerations at all - my next two books were both for Arkham House as well, with no eye to any other editions. I moved away because I was finding my own voice, but I've come back to the original source as distinct from my imitation of his imitators. Hence my recent Lovecraftian novella and my proposed Lovecraftian trilogy.

I imagine the professors you mention wouldn't have heard of the other writers either, but what does that prove? I should think more academics will have heard of him than of all the other writers you name put together.

[bruce turlish]

Ramsey posted:
I imagine the professors you mention wouldn't have heard of the other writers either, but what does that prove? I should think more academics will have heard of him than of all the other writers you name put together. <endquote>

And you are probably right--Lovecraft has great notoriety, there's even a rock band named after him, isn't there? I just happen to believe that the quality of his writing falls short in comparison with certain other horror and fantasy writers, both of his time and later. This is just my opinion and is subjective, so I don't believe I can argue the point more persuasively than I have. I seem to recall that the late Lin Carter called James Branch Cabell the greatest fantasy writer that America has produced, yet I find reading his fiction to be almost unbearable because of its "preciousness." I'd much rather read Lovecraft, but I can understand what Lin Carter was saying, that Cabell is a superb literary stylist whose prose was superbly crafted. I just don't think the same can be said for Lovecraft. One final point--Cabell is largely forgotten, while Lovecraft's name is known world-wide, and there can be no greater praise than that.

[W. H. Pugmire, Esq.]

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 3:31:43 AM UTC-7, Kishin wrote:
> Or even a boy, if that's his thing? Given his conduct here, I find it
>
> hard to imagine that he would be much successful in finding a partner. I
>
> can see him spouting off his crap to a potential mate and them making a
>
> hasty retreat. Mr. Whelan does not appear to be completely lacking in
>
> intellect, but his people skills leave much to be desired.
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Kishin

The quality of Lovecraft's excellent writing is of the highest literary order, as has been discussed in many superb books from current Lovecraft/weird fiction scholars who understand precisely that which constitutes good writing. I don't understand good writing professionally or technically, and I understand it artistically and emotionally. Lovecraft certainly wrote better than CAS and his ideas have more substance. I'm really looking forward to seeing the galley to THE NEW ANNOTATED H. P. LOVECRAFT, as I think it will shew with renewed emphasis that Lovecraft's solid standing as a classic of American Literature is secure and deserved.

[John Whelan]

On Thursday, April 17, 2014 8:44:46 AM UTC-4, Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> Then let me be absolutely clear. I post online only under my own name.

As you wish. But why would you even make such a declaration? There is nothing wrong with using a nym to preserve one's provacy online; so i cannot understand why anyone would tie their hands with such grand pronouncements.

Of course, i you wanted to declare that you were not Kishin or some other such individual, I would certainly understand.

> Given how forthright S. T. is in declaring his views, I think it most
> unlikely that he would conceal their authorship.

That argument is not even remotely logical. I am also forthright in declaring my views, but (while I do try to avoid dishonesty) I can think of no reason why I would ever declare that I would never hide behind the shield of anonymity. Why would I tie my hands like that? Why would Joshi? Why would you?

> And I know him personally. Do you?

Did he tell you personally that he never uses nyms? If he did, then just say so, rather than resorting to another super-weak argument.

Methinks the man doeth protest too much.

[Ramsey Campbell]

On Friday, 18 April 2014 14:26:38 UTC+1, John Whelan wrote:
I can think of no reason why I would ever declare that I would never hide behind the shield of anonymity. Why would I tie my hands like that? Why would Joshi? Why would you?

Tie my hands how? What on earth have I to hide? If I can't say something without hiding my identity I would want to take a long hard look at why.

[Aardvark]

On Friday, April 18, 2014 4:58:52 PM UTC-4, Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> Tie my hands how? What on earth have I to hide?

How on earth should I know? Why on earth are you asking me? I have no idea whether you use nyms or not, or what you have to hide, and frankly I do not care.

> If I can't say something without hiding my identity I would want to
> take a long hard look at why.

So? That "long hard look" should take you about two seconds, since anyone considering using a nym probably already knows the reasons why (whether good or bad). You could even do it on a whim, for no reason at all. For instance, I just changed my name, or nym, or whatever it is, to Aardvark.

You are protesting way too much. Nobody accused you of using nyms. Moreoever, your holier-than-thou attitude towards the rest of us who occasionally use nyms sounds vaguely insulting. But go on. Protest some more. Maybe you'll convince us.

[Aardvark]

On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 7:55:24 AM UTC-4, W. H. Pugmire, Esq. wrote:
> Whelan actually sent emails to S. T. about his fraudulent literary
> theories regarding Lovecraft's texts, and S. T. saw clearly that
> the moron has no clue what he's talking about.

Pugmire, I consider myself honor bound not to repeat the substance of private emailed conversations. Joshi, evidently, recognizes no such restriction, and is eagerly doing so through surrogates like yourself. Please inform Joshi that if he gives permission, I will happily post the entire conversation online here, and we can all discuss what I was right about and what I was wrong about. Until then, show a little class, and refrain from referring to private emails.

[Ramsey Campbell]

On Saturday, 19 April 2014 16:52:52 UTC+1, Aardvark wrote:
> On Friday, April 18, 2014 4:58:52 PM UTC-4, Ramsey Campbell wrote:

I have no idea whether you use nyms or not...

Well, I said I don't, and I give you my word that's the truth.

[Aardvark]

On Saturday, April 19, 2014 5:12:50 PM UTC-4, Ramsey Campbell wrote:
> Well, I said I don't, and I give you my word that's the truth.

That's fine. However, nobody ever said otherwise. Every conversation does not have to be about you.

[W. H. Pugmire, Esq.]

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 3:31:43 AM UTC-7, Kishin wrote:
> Or even a boy, if that's his thing? Given his conduct here, I find it
>
> hard to imagine that he would be much successful in finding a partner. I
>
> can see him spouting off his crap to a potential mate and them making a
>
> hasty retreat. Mr. Whelan does not appear to be completely lacking in
>
> intellect, but his people skills leave much to be desired.
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Kishin

Mentally ill sick freak trolls have no honor to be respected.

[W. H. Pugmire, Esq.]

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 3:31:43 AM UTC-7, Kishin wrote:
> Or even a boy, if that's his thing? Given his conduct here, I find it
>
> hard to imagine that he would be much successful in finding a partner. I
>
> can see him spouting off his crap to a potential mate and them making a
>
> hasty retreat. Mr. Whelan does not appear to be completely lacking in
>
> intellect, but his people skills leave much to be desired.
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Kishin

To be clear, S. T. would never shew me or anyone his personal emails and I have absolutely no knowledge of their contents. I know only what he mention'd in brief as we discussed the follies of fools who have absolutely no understanding of Lovecraft's texts, Lovecraft's vocabulary, Lovecraft's word choice, or Lovecraft's vision.