What Editors Think of Self-Published Books
Bill Penrose
Exactly what you'd expect. There's no consensus at all:
http://www.directcontactpr.com/files/files/mediacommentsonselfpublishedbo.pdf
"If it's not good enough to be real-published, it's not good enough to
be published at all. Most self-published
books I've encountered are a horrid mess, needing enormous amounts of
editing and organization before
they'd be anything approaching book level, even if they had a point to
make or story to tell. Usually they're so
vague, self-indulgent, and confused, no one will ever know what they
intended to say or tell." Great Falls Tribune.
"Self published books are a positive step towards allowing talented
writers with little resources to print and
market their own talents and we encourage writers from all publishers
to submit their work. As an independent
publication we enjoy seeking out local and independent self-published
books." - Midwest Parenting Publications
Link found in
http://www.writers-edge.info/2008/12/editors-on-self-publishing.htm
DB
Skipper
<5fee8b2e-3ad1-4581...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Penrose <danger...@gmail.com> wrote:
Bejamin Franklin, Mark Twain, and many others are no doubt
extraordinarily relieved.
Ejucaided Redneck
> Bejamin Franklin, Mark Twain, and many others are no doubt
> extraordinarily relieved.
One more time you show you don't have a clue about history. First
political history, then literary history.
Twain and Franklin's "self-publishing" had nothing in common with
today's vanity presses.
Though given your apparent involvement with that sorta thing, you'd like
to think so.
--
Success comes to a writer as a rule,
so gradually that it is always something
of a shock to him to look back and realize
the heights to which he has climbed.
- P.G. Wodehouse
--
http://bobsloansampler.com/
Now available: "Nobody Knows, Nobody Sees"
MISSING MOUNTAINS: http://www.windpub.com/books/missing.htm
Bill Penrose
> Twain and Franklin's "self-publishing" had nothing in common with
> today's vanity presses.
Equating 'self-publishing' and 'vanity publishing' is a favorite
conceit of the already-published. In fact, self-publishing covers a
wide spectrum nowadays, from outfits like AuthorHouse, which is no
more than an old-fashioned vanity press with a POD printer, to self-
executed ink and paper printing, promotion and distribution.
WQ's true ghost tale, 'Agatha's Journey' almost sold out our first
printing of 3000 copies. We're now on the last case, after 10 years.
That's as good as most first novels from card-carrrying publishers. I
just filled three orders for Amazon. Another printing would be a
waste, but I'm considering putting it up on lulu.com as an ebook.
Okay, it's not Stephen King or John Grisham, but how many first time
writers get any exposure at all? Since bumming around in the world of
ebook writers, I've come across dozens of very good novels that have
not made it into print. The problem is not that the writing is bad,
but there are far too many very good books vying for a market that's
shrinking all the time.
The beacons that light the way are authors like Scott Sigler, www.sigler.com
who started off self-published, went to distributing free audio
versions, and now has been picked up by Random House. I'm just
finishing another book by Tracy Hickman 'The Immortals' that's got me
on the edge of my seat. These books are the equivalent of anything
I'll find that has the blessing of Bertelsmann AG.
Below that are dozens of people making a supplementary income from the
sale of ebooks, particularly in the romance, erotic romance, and
straight erotica categories. Nobody's getting rich, but their work is
getting read. That's more than most authors can say.
DB
Bill Penrose
> On Dec 19, 1:35 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Twain and Franklin's "self-publishing" had nothing in common with
> > today's vanity presses.
>
> Equating 'self-publishing' and 'vanity publishing' is a favorite
> conceit of the already-published. In fact, self-publishing covers a
> wide spectrum nowadays, from outfits like AuthorHouse, which is no
> more than an old-fashioned vanity press with a POD printer, to self-
> executed ink and paper printing, promotion and distribution.
>
> WQ's true ghost tale, 'Agatha's Journey' almost sold out our first
> printing of 3000 copies. We're now on the last case, after 10 years.
> That's as good as most first novels from card-carrrying publishers. I
> just filled three orders for Amazon. Another printing would be a
> waste, but I'm considering putting it up on lulu.com as an ebook.
>
> Okay, it's not Stephen King or John Grisham, but how many first time
> writers get any exposure at all? Since bumming around in the world of
> ebook writers, I've come across dozens of very good novels that have
> not made it into print. The problem is not that the writing is bad,
> but there are far too many very good books vying for a market that's
> shrinking all the time.
>
> The beacons that light the way are authors like Scott Sigler,www.sigler.com
Oops
That's www.scottsigler.com
And Tracy Hickman's book is found in audio form at www.podiobooks.com
DB
Ejucaided Redneck
> On Dec 19, 1:35 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Twain and Franklin's "self-publishing" had nothing in common with
>> today's vanity presses.
>
> Equating 'self-publishing' and 'vanity publishing' is a favorite
> conceit of the already-published.
I've got no problem with self-publishing, if that's the route someone
wants to take.
You've no doubt forgotten, but I bought a copy of "Agatha's Journey"
some years ago.
The one-time cultist, though, wants to conflate "self-publishing" with
how books were marketed
in the nineteenth century, and that's ignorance.
--
You write and then you erase.
You call that a profession?
-- Saul Bellows' father
PJ
> Bill Penrose wrote:
> > On Dec 19, 1:35 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Twain and Franklin's "self-publishing" had nothing in common with
> >> today's vanity presses.
> >
> > Equating 'self-publishing' and 'vanity publishing' is a favorite
> > conceit of the already-published.
>
> I've got no problem with self-publishing, if that's the route someone
> wants to take.
>
> You've no doubt forgotten, but I bought a copy of "Agatha's Journey"
> some years ago.
>
> The one-time cultist
The person to whom you refer as "one-time cultist" is, by the very
nature of his bitter, irascible, defensive, projecting, ungodly angry
posting voice, not at all a "one-time cultist" but rather a "for-life
cultist." They nabbed him, he's theirs forever, much as he bleats to the
contrary and (laugh) thinks anyone is believing his garbage. Truth is,
no one could possibly be that angry, that insecure, that defensive if he
had left the cult behind. No one. The man is quite obviously
cult-damaged forever. It shows up in every post.
Add to that his incessant claims that everyone is *jealous* of him and
you have ... well, you have a psycho.
~ ~ ~
PJ
Alan Hope
And Skippy, whose new book is published by some outfit that never
previously existed. Is it his own vanity press, or What's her name's?
Who cares?
PJ
> Skipper goes:
>> Bill Penrose wrote
>>
>>> Exactly what you'd expect. There's no consensus at all:
>>> http://www.directcontactpr.com/files/files/mediacommentsonselfpublishedbo.pdf
>>>
>>> "If it's not good enough to be real-published, it's not good enough to
>>> be published at all. Most self-published
>>> books I've encountered are a horrid mess, needing enormous amounts of
>>> editing and organization before
>>> they'd be anything approaching book level, even if they had a point to
>>> make or story to tell. Usually they're so
>>> vague, self-indulgent, and confused, no one will ever know what they
>>> intended to say or tell." Great Falls Tribune.
>>>
>>> "Self published books are a positive step towards allowing talented
>>> writers with little resources to print and
>>> market their own talents and we encourage writers from all publishers
>>> to submit their work. As an independent
>>> publication we enjoy seeking out local and independent self-published
>>> books." - Midwest Parenting Publications
>>>
>>> Link found in
>>> http://www.writers-edge.info/2008/12/editors-on-self-publishing.htm
>> Bejamin Franklin, Mark Twain, and many others are no doubt
>> extraordinarily relieved.
>
> And Skippy, whose new book is published by some outfit that never
> previously existed. Is it his own vanity press, or What's her name's?
>
> Who cares?
He does, quite obviously. And he'll say that gekko is jealous by calling
her "gucko," and he'll say you're jealous by calling you "hopeless," and
he'll say I'm jealous by calling me a drunk, and he'll say Bob Sloan is
jealous by calling him a hick, and all the while he's so pathetically
desperate for people to think he is successful that he'll constantly
name-drop about how important he is, all the folks he knows, all the
elbows he's rubbed, in the desperate hope that one, just maybe one,
ignorant newbie on this froup believes him and begs for his attention.
Can you honestly say that you don't feel at least a wee bit sorry for
such a sad, insecure little pile of mush?
~ ~ ~
PJ
Alan Hope
Oh yeah, easy.
If you know the story about his girlfriend who killed herself, you'd
have no trouble feeling no sympathy for him at all. He literally has
no redeeming qualities whatsoever. He's beneath filth.
gekko
<danger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Exactly what you'd expect. There's no consensus at all:
> http://www.directcontactpr.com/files/files/mediacommentsonselfpubli
> shedbo.pdf
>
> "If it's not good enough to be real-published, it's not good
> enough to be published at all.
Oh, I dunno. I've read at least one self-pub that was a damned good
read. <g>
> "Self published books are a positive step towards allowing
> talented writers with little resources to print and
> market their own talents and we encourage writers from all
> publishers to submit their work.
zackly.
--
gekko
God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. -
Voltaire (1694-1778)
gekko
wrote:
> And he'll say that gekko is jealous by calling
> her "gucko,"
He calls me WHAT?
<sniffle> Nobody never called me that before ...
Bill Penrose
> Exactly what you'd expect. There's no consensus at all:http://www.directcontactpr.com/files/files/mediacommentsonselfpublish...
>
> "If it's not good enough to be real-published, it's not good enough to
> be published at all.
Cartoon in this week's New Yorker:
Publisher talking across desk to author: "We'd like to publish it, do
nothing to promote it, and watch it disappear from the shelves in less
than a month."
DB
Towse
His nibs -- who has first dibs on reading NEW YORKER -- handed the
magazine over to me while we were reading and eating dinner a night or
two ago, folded over with this cartoon showing front and center.
"Thanks, dear."
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://writers.internet-resources.com>
Skipper
<bobsl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Skipper wrote:
>
> > Bejamin Franklin, Mark Twain, and many others are no doubt
> > extraordinarily relieved.
>
> One more time you show you don't have a clue about history. First
> political history, then literary history.
>
> Twain and Franklin's "self-publishing" had nothing in common with
> today's vanity presses.
>
> Though given your apparent involvement with that sorta thing, you'd like
> to think so.
How much do you have to drink before you crank up to asshole status? Or
is that just a 24/7 thing with you, Slob Bob?
JoB
"PJ" <autho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gihavj$4ms$2...@news.motzarella.org...
What? No insulting name to call me? I feel so left out. <sob>
boots
If you don't you're wasting keystrokes.
--
Don't read this crap... oops, too late!
[superstitious heathen grade 8]
PJ
> A writer is someone who has written today. Bill Penrose
> <danger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Exactly what you'd expect. There's no consensus at all:
>> http://www.directcontactpr.com/files/files/mediacommentsonselfpubli
>> shedbo.pdf
>>
>> "If it's not good enough to be real-published, it's not good
>> enough to be published at all.
>
> Oh, I dunno. I've read at least one self-pub that was a damned good
> read. <g>
<perk!>
~ ~ ~
PJ
Ejucaided Redneck
When you post something stupid, somebody's gonna post "Damn, that's
stupid" or the equivalent.
What's your beef?
--
I was very moved by the books
I had read in school, and I brought
an offering to the altar.
-- Saul Bellow
Alan Hope
>If you don't you're wasting keystrokes.
Your entire output is a waste of keystrokes, but you don't hear me
going on about it.
serenebabe
> On Dec 19, 1:35 pm, Ejucaided Redneck <bobsloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Twain and Franklin's "self-publishing" had nothing in common with
>> today's vanity presses.
>
> Equating 'self-publishing' and 'vanity publishing' is a favorite
> conceit of the already-published. In fact, self-publishing covers a
> wide spectrum nowadays, from outfits like AuthorHouse, which is no
> more than an old-fashioned vanity press with a POD printer, to self-
> executed ink and paper printing, promotion and distribution.
<...>
Love that point. It's different than the Twain and Franklin examples,
of course. But the use of the "vanity publishing" phrase is definitely
a judgmental one.
I've got a friend who just opened a neat gift shop (a gift shop seems
an insane business idea to me, but she and her husband are artists so
it makes more sense) and asked me if I'd like to publish myself
something and sell it at her shop. She only offers two books right now
but likes my voice and subject matters. An interesting invitation.
Never really considered self-publishing beyond the web.
--
It's All About We! (the column)
http://www.serenebabe.net/ - new 12/8
Bill Penrose
> .... She only offers two books right now
> but likes my voice and subject matters. An interesting invitation.
> Never really considered self-publishing beyond the web.
You've got a column and a blog. You can put articles together into
book form and get them printed up on lulu or a POD wholesaler (not a
POD publisher).
DB
serenebabe
Hmmmm! Percolating percolating...
Ray Haddad
<usenet....@gmail.com> wrote:
>boots goes:
>
>>If you don't you're wasting keystrokes.
>
>Your entire output is a waste of keystrokes, but you don't hear me
>going on about it.
Um . . .
--
Ray
Alan Hope
The difference between self-publishing and vanity publishing resides
entirely in what you think is going to happen once the book is made.
Bill Penrose
> The difference between self-publishing and vanity publishing resides
> entirely in what you think is going to happen once the book is made.
It took me a minute, because your statement is more obscure than I
thought, but I think I get your point. If you think that the mere fact
of printing a book will make you successful, that would be vanity
publishing. Am I with you so far?
A self-publisher has taken the time to educate her/imself and come to
terms with to the realities of tedious promotion and a Sisyphean
battle that will almost certainly end in defeat.
I think the ultimate in vanity is to expect that people will read my
stuff and like it. In that sense, all publishing is vanity publishing.
If I wasn't vain, I'd find another avocation like hunting puppies or
something.
DB
serenebabe
<...>
> I think the ultimate in vanity is to expect that people will read my
> stuff and like it. In that sense, all publishing is vanity publishing.
> If I wasn't vain, I'd find another avocation like hunting puppies or
> something.
I agree (except about the hunting puppies option, of course). As many
of you know, about 10 years ago or so I was really, really, really
fascinated with myself. I loved talking about me. I found out even when
I was such an obsessive navel-gazer that some people liked reading what
I wrote.
It's been a struggle in the past year or so, balancing my love of
writing all sorts of personal stuff and my awareness that Me Me Me
isn't all that interesting.
Now, there are some here (hello Sal!) who recognize that there is an
audience for the self-reflective types like me. That's amazingly cool.
I'm a fan of those kinds of authors myself.
But, having come from such a deeply, deeply world-revolves-around me
kind of place, I'm a little gunshy about going public with my personal
thoughts.
In fact, to this day, I hear Ing's strong words (I've mentioned this a
bunch) where she was completely disgusted with my self-interest. I look
back and realize when I read people today who are like I was then, I've
turned into Ing. (I wonder if that sentence makes any sense.)
Bill Penrose
> ... I've
> turned into Ing.
God help you should have to go live in Toronto...
DB
Pies de Arcilla
> Exactly what you'd expect. There's no consensus at all:http://www.directcontactpr.com/files/files/mediacommentsonselfpublish...
>
> "If it's not good enough to be real-published, it's not good enough to
> be published at all.
If it sells, it's good enough. Some people are marketing geniuses,
after all.
Sylvia
serenebabe <seren...@gmail.com> wrote:
<...>
> I
<...>
> about 10 years ago or so I was really, really, really
> fascinated with myself. I loved talking about me.
>
> I
<...>
> I
<...>
> I
<...>
> my love of writing all sorts of personal stuff
<...>
> my awareness
<...>
> Me Me Me
<...>
> self-reflective types like me.
<...>
> I'm
<...>
> myself.
<...>
> world-revolves-around me
<...>
> I'm
<...>
> my personal thoughts.
>
> I
<...>
> I've
<...>
> my self-interest.
> I
<...>
> I
<...>
> I
<...>
> I've
<...>
> I
<...>
While insisting that she is no longer the poster child for the Disgustingly
Self-Involved, Heather makes 26 references to herself.
Compare to approximately 10 years ago:
"In my response, I noted Heather's penchant for getting caught
up in herself. It's something she's noted on numerous occasions.
In a post headed up 'An obscene fact' about the bombing in
Kosovo, Heather wrote this:
'I keep intending (since the posts about Kosovo
started in here) to do some reading about the
situation, but I keep finding myself distracted
by me me and me.'
"And then again, in the post quoted below, which contains
approximately 23 references to the first person singular."
-- Miz ing, about Heather Denkmire/serenebabe's
self-centered posting MAR 1999
23. 26. Word.
--
Sylvia
Heather/serenebabe: "I realize now I'm still afraid of 'taking myself
seriously' or writing while aware that I'm doing it on purpose."
Susan Hogarth: "Yes, that is a common difficulty among the chronically
self-obsessed. These feelings, while being hideously self-destructive, are
perfectly natural and nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, sharing them with the
world is a positive step."
boots
>boots goes:
>
>>If you don't you're wasting keystrokes.
>
>Your entire output is a waste of keystrokes, but you don't hear me
>going on about it.
Eh? What's that?
serenebabe
Wow. Pretty funny.
Almost makes it seem like I haven't changed at all.
boots
>Almost makes it seem like I haven't changed at all.
Are you someone else? Parts of us change over time, parts of us
remain the same. Once you determine who the "I" you refer to is
perhaps you'll refer to it less frequently.
Stan (the Man)
boots
Feeling snippity this morning, Stan? Has crime taken a holiday, or
only the crime fighters?
gekko
<seren...@gmail.com> said as the button was pushed to send
news:gilg5e$ft3$1...@news.albasani.net out into misc.writing to
proclaim:
> Almost makes it seem like I haven't changed at all.
Well?
So you've gotten married, had a child, and grown in some significant
ways, but do you really think you're not still obsessed with
yourself? You _do_ contemplate pretty much everything in terms of
its effect on you, or how you relate to it, yes?
Personally, I'm not convinced that's a bad thing. I think, perhaps,
that it's better to acknowledge it as an essential part of
Heatherness. Regardless of what you actually do in meat space, when
you write (here), you write about yourself. Isn't writing often a
form of therapy or catharsis? Is that necessarily a bad thing?
<shrug>
Approving of yourself is an important part of happiness. Do you
approve of yourself?
--
gekko <-- self-approving and self-absorbed in a huge way.
For there is nothing either good or bad, thinking makes it so. -
William Shakespeare (1564-1616), Hamlet, II.ii
gekko
the button was pushed to send news:1olsk4l5ae67ek8tobjfddcprn8q7cpbj9@
4ax.com out into misc.writing to proclaim:
> Feeling snippity this morning
Aren't you always?
--
gekko
$Zero
> 'If this doesn't crash Usenet, nothing will,' serenebabe
> proclaim:
>
> > Almost makes it seem like I haven't changed at all.
>
> Well?
>
> So you've gotten married, had a child, and grown in some significant
> ways, but do you really think you're not still obsessed with
> yourself? You _do_ contemplate pretty much everything in terms of
> its effect on you, or how you relate to it, yes?
>
> Personally, I'm not convinced that's a bad thing. I think, perhaps,
> that it's better to acknowledge it as an essential part of
> Heatherness. Regardless of what you actually do in meat space, when
> you write (here), you write about yourself. Isn't writing often a
> form of therapy or catharsis? Is that necessarily a bad thing?
only if you have no empathy.
> <shrug>
>
> Approving of yourself is an important part of happiness.
and getting other's approval is what percentage?
> Do you approve of yourself?
yes and no.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGpMLIayQEo
> gekko <-- self-approving and self-absorbed in a huge way.
duh.
-$Zero...
preferably capturing the whole event from three camera angles.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.writing/msg/4de86fd95427fbd2
If you're not reading MRB, you're not alone!
http://AttnDeficit.com
boots
>'If this doesn't crash Usenet, nothing will,' boots <n...@no.no> said as
>the button was pushed to send news:1olsk4l5ae67ek8tobjfddcprn8q7cpbj9@
>4ax.com out into misc.writing to proclaim:
>
>
>> Feeling snippity this morning
>
>Aren't you always?
See the comma there in the original, and the question mark? Those
indicate that I was asking Stan if he's feeling snippity. Geddit?
>Aren't you always?
No, I have been subject to brief bouts of illness from time to time,
if I'm feeling snippity that tells me that my health is just fine.
This morning I am feeling quite healthy. <tooth-baring-grin>
ing
<.....>
> to this day, I hear Ing's strong words (I've mentioned this a
> bunch) where she was completely disgusted with my self-interest. <.....>
Maybe I'm not remembering the same post as the one you're referring
to, but am hazarding a guess that by characterizing me as being
"completely disgusted with [your] self-interest" would be going over
the top more than just a tad. While there *have* been a *couple* of
folks in this forum I've actually been "completely disgusted" by over
the years, you weren't one of them. Ever.
IIRC, I was just making an observation.
> I look
> back and realize when I read people today who are like I was then, I've
> turned into Ing.
Oh dear. This is the season of good wishes -- and I sure do wish you
better than that.
ing
serenebabe
> 'If this doesn't crash Usenet, nothing will,' serenebabe
> <seren...@gmail.com> said as the button was pushed to send
> news:gilg5e$ft3$1...@news.albasani.net out into misc.writing to
> proclaim:
>
>> Almost makes it seem like I haven't changed at all.
>
> Well?
>
> So you've gotten married, had a child, and grown in some significant
> ways, but do you really think you're not still obsessed with
> yourself? You _do_ contemplate pretty much everything in terms of
> its effect on you, or how you relate to it, yes?
Yes and no. In either case, they are more show-don't-tell kinds of
changes. Some readers will pick up on the changes, some won't.
I'd also argue that most people in here, except those who stick to
being angry/hostile or being funny, respond in similar terms (how
things relate to them).
> Personally, I'm not convinced that's a bad thing. I think, perhaps,
> that it's better to acknowledge it as an essential part of
> Heatherness. Regardless of what you actually do in meat space, when
> you write (here), you write about yourself.
That was my point in the original post, actually. Or, at least it was
what I was thinking as I discussed the hesitation I have had returning
to public writing about Me.
> Isn't writing often a
> form of therapy or catharsis?
That is one of the differences between then and now. I used to
basically "journal" in public. I couldn't return to that now, it would
be humiliating. Writing is a form of therapy now only in the process of
thinking about it and doing it, not in working out "issues" in front of
people like I used to.
> Is that necessarily a bad thing?
Not necessarily a bad thing. But, when I said I was turning into Ing,
it was that I get a little sick to my stomach when I come across
someone's blog who obviously has no sense of personal boundaries or
privacy. When they don't have the self-respect to keep some things to
themselves, I cringe a bit. My biggest pet peeve, though, is when
someone obviously just can't handle the idea that someone might not
like them. Reminds me of me 15 years ago and that was a sad, scared
time.
That said, my latest post was about nursing my five year old which is
pretty fucking personal. But, it wasn't an open wound.
> <shrug>
>
> Approving of yourself is an important part of happiness. Do you
> approve of yourself?
I do approve of myself, yes. I also approve of my writing. I also know
very clearly that a lot of people will *hate* what I write about, how I
write it, etc. Some people will flat out hate me, even. All that is
fine with me.
My original post was about the fact that I still do enjoy
self-reflection and writing about it. It's up to the reader to decide
if it's worthless to them or not.
Obviously this isn't the ideal forum to be discussing the nuances of
writing from self-absorption or from self-reflection. The number of "I"
appearances in a post doesn't equal the level of navel-gazing. But,
it's still kind of fun.
--Heather
PS Pregnancy has caused my self-reflection to almost burst into flames,
it's so energized. :-)
ing
Tsk. It's a winter wonderland here today. At 7:30 this morning,
almost no cars downtown, and those that were here made almost no noise
- tires and engines muted by soft powder snow. Little whirly-gigs of
it, swirling around corners where the wind lifted it - and off the
roofs of old Victorian townhouses along the little side streets. Quiet
and serene it was. Just the gentle scraping of plastic-y shovels
against concrete sidewalks was all you could hear.
Put on my Marks knee-high rubber boots and walked up to the church
through a foot and a half of light powder, leaving the car where I
parked it last night, now jammed in by 2 foot high windrows deposited
by the snowplow overnight. (Gonna be hard work to get that sucker out
of there!) Hark the Herald Angels Sing was on the hymn sheet, and I
noticed that Good King Wenceslas is slated for even song on Christmas
Eve and so is the Huron Carol - we got our programs early this year.
Two of my favourite Christmas carols.
The sun's out now, raising temps, turning all that sparkly white
powder to sloppy wet slush. Went by the Riverdale Zoo on the way home
- two Clydesdales were munching hay in the field outside the barns and
over in the corner of the field, someone had cleared a large spot down
to the ground and thrown straw and seeds for a few brave chickens to
peck up.
Had to have been two dozen laughing kids on toboggans and sleds
working the hill overlooking the Don Valley - almost all of them East-
Indian or Pakistani. Bet a lot of them had never seen snow before.
Beautiful sight, it was.
Almost as beautiful as Hamilton may very well be one day.
ing
serenebabe
> On Dec 20, 5:09 pm, serenebabe <sereneb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <.....>
>
>> to this day, I hear Ing's strong words (I've mentioned this a
>> bunch) where she was completely disgusted with my self-interest. <.....>
>
> Maybe I'm not remembering the same post as the one you're referring
> to, but am hazarding a guess that by characterizing me as being
> "completely disgusted with [your] self-interest" would be going over
> the top more than just a tad. While there *have* been a *couple* of
> folks in this forum I've actually been "completely disgusted" by over
> the years, you weren't one of them. Ever.
>
> IIRC, I was just making an observation.
Perfectly possible, and lovely to read. At that time anytime anyone
said anything that even hinted at criticism, my world collapsed.
>> I look
>> back and realize when I read people today who are like I was then, I've
>> turned into Ing.
>
> Oh dear. This is the season of good wishes -- and I sure do wish you
> better than that.
Don't know much about you, but what I do know seems I could fare a lot worse.
Towse
> My biggest pet peeve, though, is when someone obviously
> just can't handle the idea that someone might not like them. Reminds me
> of me 15 years ago and that was a sad, scared time.
I remember reading long ago, decades ago, something Ann Landers wrote.
She was relating an instance when she gave a talk to a group of college
students. In that talk she said, "We all just have to accept the fact
that no one is liked by everyone." or maybe it was "everyone has people
who don't like them."
She wrote that she immediately saw in the faces of the students in front
of her the shock of hearing that news. It had never occurred to them.
But everyone likes =me= they seemed to be thinking and then they thought
some more. You mean not everyone =likes= me?
Oh, noes!
In order to handle the shock of someone not liking you you have to like
yourself enough to know it doesn't matter. If Jill doesn't think you're
wonderful, if Joe doesn't much care for your personality, if Abigail
doesn't like your writing style (or subjects), you're good enough,
pretty splendid, in fact, and there are a thousand people who would dash
across a busy street just to say hello.
--
Sal
Ye olde swarm of links: thousands of links for writers, researchers and
the terminally curious <http://writers.internet-resources.com>
gekko
as the button was pushed to send
misc.writing to proclaim:
> gekko <Miz....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>'If this doesn't crash Usenet, nothing will,' boots <n...@no.no>
>>said as the button was pushed to send
>>news:1olsk4l5ae67ek8tobjfddcprn8q7cpbj9@ 4ax.com out into
>>misc.writing to proclaim:
>>
>>
>>> Feeling snippity this morning
>>
>>Aren't you always?
>
> See the comma there in the original, and the question mark?
Irrelevant to my point, Mr. Snipp.
Ray Haddad
wrote:
>'If this doesn't crash Usenet, nothing will,' boots <n...@no.no> said
>as the button was pushed to send
>news:uptsk4toq8ks76bu5...@4ax.com out into
>misc.writing to proclaim:
>
>> gekko <Miz....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>'If this doesn't crash Usenet, nothing will,' boots <n...@no.no>
>>>said as the button was pushed to send
>>>news:1olsk4l5ae67ek8tobjfddcprn8q7cpbj9@ 4ax.com out into
>>>misc.writing to proclaim:
>>>
>>>> Feeling snippity this morning
>>>
>>>Aren't you always?
>>
>> See the comma there in the original, and the question mark?
>
>Irrelevant to my point, Mr. Snipp.
Your point being IKYABWAI?
--
Ray
ing
> On 2008-12-21 14:32:52 -0500, ing <ing.blue...@sympatico.ca> said:
>
<.....>
>
> > IIRC, I was just making an observation.
>
> ..... At that time anytime anyone
> said anything that even hinted at criticism, my world collapsed.
A fragile ego in need of constant pampering is a boring frustrating
task for anyone, specially folks on a newsgroup. And most specially
THIS newsgroup. OTOH, complete obliviousness to criticism is the
other end of the spectrum and just as frustrating and boring to those
who find themselves dealing with it -- or observing it.
There's as quote by Churchill, I think, about criticism - to the
effect that it's a lot like when you get a pain in your body. Maybe
it's signifying that there's something wrong - or maybe it's just a
minor twinge - but the pain deserves investigation, regardless.
You tend to write a lot about how the world affects you. You write
from the "I", "me" perspective. Sometimes I think I'd just like to
read about how Heather views the world without bringing herself so
blatantly into it.
That'd then give me the job of trying to figure out why she thinks and
views things in the world that way -- and it would, if written
strongly enough and observantly enough, make Heather a whole lot more
interesting to me, the reader, than her telling me stuff -- outright.
Written strongly enough -- and intriguingly and objectively enough --
I'd maybe find stuff to identify with, the ideas expressed, etc.
Reading columns, blogs, etc., I've never been engaged by writers who
don't show me what they're seeing, of folks who just go on about
themselves endlessly with the I, me, my stuff. I find it
excrutiatingly boring. Just my opinion.
For instance, there's this whole big foofra going on (it's even hit
Canuck papers) about liberal folks getting all het up about this Rick
Warren fella who's gonna give an invocation at the Inauguration on
January 20th. The gays are beside themselves -- it's all about THEM it
seems. We should all be insulted on their behalf. <sigh>
Good lord. And because most of them can't seem to shut up about this
dumb thing, can't look at stuff objectively and just scream on and on
about their personal feelings on the topic, I've had to stop reading
most of them. Too self-involved, too unobjective --- too "all about
we" shit. Know what I mean?
>
> >> I look
> >> back and realize when I read people today who are like I was then, I've
> >> turned into Ing.
>
> > Oh dear. This is the season of good wishes -- and I sure do wish you
> > better than that.
>
> Don't know much about you, but what I do know seems I could fare a lot worse.
But you COULD fare a whole lot better. That's the point. Aim for stuff
like (off the top of my head) Ellen Goodman. You could do her style if
you tried. Hendrik Hertzberg's style is my goal -- not that I'll ever
hit it, but aiming HIGH is what it's all about. Even if you never get
there.
ing
ing
Skipper
<e99f49bf-476e-40e0...@r24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
ing <ing.b...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Here's the deal about newsgroups - it's junior high.
Most of the people on this group (not Heather) are old hippies who grew
up thinking the world revolved around them, and they're hanging onto
that idea. Plus, a number of them are socialists which makes them even
more reprehensible. These things add up to a conceit that "all are
equal" here and the minute they begin, in their rampant insecurity, to
think another post has surpassed them in any way, they begin to
viciously attack, and their fellow hyenas do the same. Being not
terrible creative, they'll post retorts to comments like mine such as
"Oh, the irony" or some other worn-out rejoinder.
But I'm sure you knew all this.
gekko
bop, and, furthermore, said:
You mean, when boots was accusing Stan of being snippity, he was
really accusing *me* of being snippity?
Whoa, totally whooshed me, man. I mean, whoa.
--
gekko
An angry man opens his mouth and shuts his eyes. -- Cato the Elder
Ray Haddad
wrote:
>Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> put the bop in the bop-shoo-bop-shoo-
>bop, and, furthermore, said:
>
>
>> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:07:25 +0000 (UTC), gekko
><Miz....@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>'If this doesn't crash Usenet, nothing will,' boots <n...@no.no> said
>>>as the button was pushed to send
>>>news:uptsk4toq8ks76bu5...@4ax.com out into
>>>misc.writing to proclaim:
>>>
>>>> gekko <Miz....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>'If this doesn't crash Usenet, nothing will,' boots <n...@no.no>
>>>>>said as the button was pushed to send
>>>>>news:1olsk4l5ae67ek8tobjfddcprn8q7cpbj9@ 4ax.com out into
>>>>>misc.writing to proclaim:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Feeling snippity this morning
>>>>>
>>>>>Aren't you always?
>>>>
>>>> See the comma there in the original, and the question mark?
>>>
>>>Irrelevant to my point, Mr. Snipp.
>>
>> Your point being IKYABWAI?
>
>You mean, when boots was accusing Stan of being snippity, he was
>really accusing *me* of being snippity?
>
>Whoa, totally whooshed me, man. I mean, whoa.
See? You made a lame attempt to turn Boots' comment about someone else
into one about Boots. Lame, lady. Lame.
--
Ray
gekko
bop, and, furthermore, said:
> You [turned] boots' comment about someone else
> into one about boots.
Curses. I was planning on keeping that a secret.
Did you finally remember to take your smart pill this morning, honey?
Is that why you're suddenly showing this keen ability to see into
these deep and complex matters?
Ray Haddad
wrote:
>Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> put the bop in the bop-shoo-bop-shoo-
>bop, and, furthermore, said:
>
>> You [turned] boots' comment about someone else
>> into one about boots.
>
>Curses. I was planning on keeping that a secret.
>
>Did you finally remember to take your smart pill this morning, honey?
>Is that why you're suddenly showing this keen ability to see into
>these deep and complex matters?
I have to take my "dumb down" pills just to post here to you. Got to
be sure you can understand things, Gekko. Contradictory drugs are not
on the agenda. My keen abilities are superpowers beyond your ability
to grasp - even with those suction tips of yours.
What's the plan for Christmas? We're visiting Mrs Ray's sister and
family. Ours is still in India. Your family having a do?
--
Ray
serenebabe
On 2008-12-21 17:02:15 -0500, ing <ing.b...@sympatico.ca> said:
> On Dec 21, 3:00 pm, serenebabe <sereneb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ing wrote:
>>>> serenebabe wrote:
>>>> I look
>>>> back and realize when I read people today who are like I was then, I'v
> e
>>>> turned into Ing.
>>
>>> Oh dear. This is the season of good wishes -- and I sure do wish you
>>> better than that.
>>
>> Don't know much about you, but what I do know seems I could fare a lot wo
> rse.
>
> But you COULD fare a whole lot better. That's the point. Aim for stuff
> like (off the top of my head) Ellen Goodman. You could do her style if
> you tried. Hendrik Hertzberg's style is my goal -- not that I'll ever
> hit it, but aiming HIGH is what it's all about. Even if you never get
> there.
Guess what just arrived from half.com? Paper Trail (Goodman).
:-)
gekko
bop-shoo-bop-shoo-bop, and, furthermore, said:
> I have to take my "dumb down" pills just to post here to you.
A-hyuk!
> Got
> to be sure you can understand things, Gekko. Contradictory drugs
> are not on the agenda. My keen abilities are superpowers beyond
> your ability to grasp - even with those suction tips of yours.
Bet you can even disappear. Should I start calling you "the wind"?
>
> What's the plan for Christmas? We're visiting Mrs Ray's sister and
> family. Ours is still in India. Your family having a do?
My daughter got in a few nights ago. The family'll dine on the rib
roast I mentioned in some other thread. Much frivolity and joy shall
abound, or that's the plan.
Skipper
<r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
> Lame, lady. Lame.
Lame across my big brass bed.
One of my favorite Dylan tunes. ;-)
PJ
> Gekko.
She doesn't like it when you capitalize her name. You'll hear about
this, oh yes you will.
~ ~ ~
PJ
Ray Haddad
Then we're even. I don't like it when she doesn't.
--
Ray
Sylvia
Heather Denkmire/serenebabe <seren...@gmail.com> wrote:
.
> Wow. Pretty funny.
Is it?
> Almost makes it seem like I haven't changed at all.
What it *shows*, Heather, is that your "penchant for getting caught up in
[yourself]" hasn't changed for the better, despite your claim to the contrary.
(HINT: 26 is more than 23.)
--
Sylvia
Heather: "Anyway, I think she's right that I could be a great
writer. I'm not sure how or where I'll do it, though."
Skip Press: "Maybe when you start writing about something except
your own ego-centric universe?"
Ray Haddad
<syl...@cliffhangerREMOVE.com> wrote:
>What it *shows*, Heather, is that your "penchant for getting caught up in
>[yourself]" hasn't changed for the better, despite your claim to the contrary.
My God but you are a bitter old crone, Sylvia.
--
Ray
PJ
Oh my goodness, Sylvia isn't old, nor is she bitter! Nor is she a crone!
Where are your sources? Got cites? If you can't provide cites, you
should fire those sources immediately!
And the thing is, Ray, your anger toward Sylvia is obvious and it's
showing ... and showing and showing again. Makes me sad, it does. The
thing is, let it go, Man, you'll be better for it.
~ ~ ~
PJ
serenebabe
> Ray Haddad wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:42:57 -0600, Sylvia
>> <syl...@cliffhangerREMOVE.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What it *shows*, Heather, is that your "penchant for getting caught up
>>> in [yourself]" hasn't changed for the better, despite your claim to the
>>> contrary.
>>
>> My God but you are a bitter old crone, Sylvia.
>
> Oh my goodness, Sylvia isn't old, nor is she bitter! Nor is she a
> crone! Where are your sources? Got cites? If you can't provide cites,
> you should fire those sources immediately!
I don't think of "crone" as a bad word. I think of it as a wise older woman.
In my most recent experience, I'd agree, PJ. I don't think Sylvia is a
crone. I could certainly be wrong, of course.
(5 eyes.)
--
It's All About We! (the column)
http://www.serenebabe.net/ - new 12/21
Ray Haddad
>Ray Haddad wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:42:57 -0600, Sylvia
>> <syl...@cliffhangerREMOVE.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What it *shows*, Heather, is that your "penchant for getting caught up in
>>> [yourself]" hasn't changed for the better, despite your claim to the contrary.
>>
>> My God but you are a bitter old crone, Sylvia.
>
>Oh my goodness, Sylvia isn't old, nor is she bitter! Nor is she a crone!
>Where are your sources? Got cites? If you can't provide cites, you
>should fire those sources immediately!
I know she's not, PJ, but she sure acts like one. Cites? Just read her
post right here. Heather uses the words "I" and "WE" a lot when she
writes. So what? Does that give Sylvia or anyone else a reason to leap
on her with hobnail boots?
>And the thing is, Ray, your anger toward Sylvia is obvious and it's
>showing ... and showing and showing again. Makes me sad, it does. The
>thing is, let it go, Man, you'll be better for it.
No anger on my part and certainly not bitterness at all. But do you
really think there's a compelling reason to attack Heather like this?
Would you do it? Do you really believe that Heather is better off for
having had mud slung at her like this?
--
Ray
boots
Ray Haddad
>Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:42:57 -0600, Sylvia
>><syl...@cliffhangerREMOVE.com> wrote:
>>
>>>What it *shows*, Heather, is that your "penchant for getting caught up in
>>>[yourself]" hasn't changed for the better, despite your claim to the contrary.
>>
>>My God but you are a bitter old crone, Sylvia.
>
>Is Sylvia old?
>
>How many years is "old" these days, anyhow?
Remember when it was anyone over thirty? Until you became thirty, that
is.
--
Ray
boots
>On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 03:20:09 -0700, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
>>Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:42:57 -0600, Sylvia
>>><syl...@cliffhangerREMOVE.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>What it *shows*, Heather, is that your "penchant for getting caught up in
>>>>[yourself]" hasn't changed for the better, despite your claim to the contrary.
>>>
>>>My God but you are a bitter old crone, Sylvia.
>>
>>Is Sylvia old?
>>
>>How many years is "old" these days, anyhow?
>
>Remember when it was anyone over thirty? Until you became thirty, that
>is.
Ha! I remember when I expected to be dead before I was 30. I
fulfilled the "live fast" part certainly, but the "die young" portion
I muffed somehow, and "leave a good looking corpse" was never in the
cards. Now I'm approaching 60 and have little to show for it aside
from the enjoyable memories of a profligate youth. Fortunately I'll
not have to suffer to 80. Famous last words? Fucksake, just pass the
bong, or the koolaid, whichever is handier! <g>
serenebabe
> Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 03:20:09 -0700, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
<...>
>>> How many years is "old" these days, anyhow?
>>
>> Remember when it was anyone over thirty? Until you became thirty, that
>> is.
>
> Ha! I remember when I expected to be dead before I was 30. I
> fulfilled the "live fast" part certainly, but the "die young" portion
> I muffed somehow, and "leave a good looking corpse" was never in the
> cards. Now I'm approaching 60 and have little to show for it aside
> from the enjoyable memories of a profligate youth. Fortunately I'll
> not have to suffer to 80. Famous last words? Fucksake, just pass the
> bong, or the koolaid, whichever is handier! <g>
Now that my parents are in their late sixties and mid-seventies I no
longer think of 80 as old. That's pretty weird. Denial is a pretty
powerful tool. (80 can't be old, because that would mean my Dad is
getting close to dying and that's never going to happen, so...)
(1 eye, 2 meye)
Sylvia
serenebabe <seren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> gekko <Miz....@gmail.com> said:
> > serenebabe <seren...@gmail.com> said:
> >
> >> Almost makes it seem like I haven't changed at all.
> >
> > Well?
> >
> > So you've gotten married, had a child, and grown in some significant
> > ways, but do you really think you're not still obsessed with
> > yourself? You _do_ contemplate pretty much everything in terms of
> > its effect on you, or how you relate to it, yes?
>
> Yes and no. In either case, they are more show-don't-tell kinds of
> changes. Some readers will pick up on the changes, some won't.
Those 26 references to yourself don't just show your unchanged self-interest,
they spotlight it.
> I'd also argue that most people in here, except those who stick to
> being angry/hostile or being funny, respond in similar terms (how
> things relate to them).
Argue it. Go ahead, prove your claim, Heather. Show us how most of the
respondents in this thread used it to obsess about themselves as you did. Show
us in general how "most people in here" in MW post that way.
> > Personally, I'm not convinced that's a bad thing. I think, perhaps, that
> > it's better to acknowledge it as an essential part of Heatherness.
It would be more honest than Heather/serenebabe claiming that she has changed
*and* is now "completely disgusted" when "I read people today who are like I
was then".
> > Regardless of what you actually do in meat space,
> > when you write (here), you write about yourself.
> That was my point in the original post, actually.
No, Heather. In your opening paragraph you said you *had been* obsessed with
yourself ten years ago, but you claimed that you no longer were. In the middle
you claimed you developed an "awareness that Me Me Me isn't all that
interesting." In your summary paragraph you again referred to your
self-absorbed posting as being in the past and added that you now find that
kind of writing in others disgusting.
> Or, at least it was what I was thinking
I've noticed that you often try to weasel out of what you actually wrote.
> as I discussed the hesitation I
> have had returning to public writing about Me.
"Returning to"? When did you stop?
<...>
> Obviously this isn't the ideal forum to be discussing the nuances of
> writing from self-absorption or from self-reflection.
Yeah, right, we never discuss words here. Good thing that nuances don't apply
in this case anyway.
<slowly>
When someone makes themselves and their self-reflections the subject of their
posts and threads as much as you have always done (and still continue to do),
*that's* the writing of the self-absorbed, Heather.
All those different people who have told you during the last ten years? You
continue to prove their point.
<...>
> The number of "I" appearances in a post doesn't equal the level of navel-gazing.
<...>
<switching on Haddad Analyzer and scanning Heather's words>
[mechanical voice] "Variation of Haddad Tactic #3. Translation:
"I can't think of any way to address your comment
without looking like even more of a fool, so I will
pretend you said something else and scold you for that."
<switching off Haddad Analyzer>
I never said that, Heather, as you well know. I pointed out the contradiction
that your claim that you were no longer self-obsessed contained a whopping
amount of references to yourself. It did:
"[...] I [...] about 10 years ago or so I was really, really, really
fascinated with myself. I loved talking about me. I [...] I [...]
I [...] my love of writing all sorts of personal stuff [...] my
awareness [...] Me Me Me [...] self-reflective types like me.
[...] I'm [...] myself. [...] world-revolves-around me [...] I'm
[...] my personal thoughts. I [...] I've [...] my self-interest.
I [...] I [...] I [...] I've [...] I [...] "
Care to address what I actually posted?
--
Sylvia
Pies de Arcilla
> Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
> >On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:42:57 -0600, Sylvia
> ><syl...@cliffhangerREMOVE.com> wrote:
>
> >>What it *shows*, Heather, is that your "penchant for getting caught up in
> >>[yourself]" hasn't changed for the better, despite your claim to the contrary.
>
> >My God but you are a bitter old crone, Sylvia.
>
> Is Sylvia old?
>
> How many years is "old" these days, anyhow?
For a woman, 37.
serenebabe
No, thank you.
Lars Eighner
Let's talk about me.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
Bush's third term begins Jan. 20th with an invocation by Rick Warren.
Obama: No hope; No change; More of the Same.
boots
Regardless of what some have told you, there's really nothing wrong
with being self-absorbed. It's a stage one goes through. Everyone
goes through it. Some people pass to the next stage and others get
stuck in it. For those who are stuck in it, writing is (imo at least)
the perfect pursuit. The trick seems to be clothing the
self-absorbtion in the form of multiple characters who work things out
and calling that "fiction". Good money in being self-absorbed if you
do it right, that's what I hears at the barber shop.
boots
So 36 is "young" for a woman?
How's that work?
PJ
> The hell with this. Writing is vain.
>
> Let's talk about me.
"I wanna talk about me
I wanna talk about I
I wanna talk about number-one
Oh my me my,
What I think, what I like, what I know, what I want, what I seeeeee,
I like talking about you you you you usually,
But OCCASIONALLY,
I wanna talk about ME."
--- Toby Keith
Seems appropriate for this thread, somehow.
~ ~ ~
PJ
serenebabe
> The hell with this. Writing is vain.
>
> Let's talk about me.
You have a very colorful blog.
And a big ditto, or hell yeah, to your Oct 15 entry.
serenebabe
<...>
> Regardless of what some have told you, there's really nothing wrong
> with being self-absorbed. It's a stage one goes through. Everyone
> goes through it. Some people pass to the next stage and others get
> stuck in it. For those who are stuck in it, writing is (imo at least)
> the perfect pursuit. The trick seems to be clothing the
> self-absorbtion in the form of multiple characters who work things out
> and calling that "fiction". Good money in being self-absorbed if you
> do it right, that's what I hears at the barber shop.
I agree about the stages. There's a youthful, teenaged
world-centers-around-me. For me, that lasted into my late 20s. Some
keep it forever. That's sad.
Some people, though, take their self-absorption and keep it real in
writing successfully. Thinking of David Sedaris, who I usually really
enjoy. Even his entertaining writing can be a bit much if taken in too
big a dose. But when he does it well, it's fantastic.
There's a tremendous difference between being self-interested, even
self-absorbed, and believing the world revolves around you. It's the
world revolves around you style that makes me urp.
As I work on the first line for my next column I thought of this thread.
Now, these are completely in rough form. Not final at all. But, two versions:
At first I thought it was a class issue, until I realized the same
thing happened with old money Old Port people and the elite of Portland
proper.
or
At first it seemed to be a class issue, until I discovered the Old Port
old money people respond the same way.
Both have "I" in them. And, both are about my experience and/or
perspective. But the first is the kind of sentence that seems
self-centered to a fault. The second is less so.
I'm not finished with the sentence (the 2nd is the one that will morph
into the real first sentence), but this thread helped me improve it
from the first version.
I need a way to get "to be" out of that first sentence, for sure. Among
a few other tweakers.
boots
serenebabe
> serenebabe <seren...@gmail.com> wrote:
<...>
>> As I work on the first line for my next column I thought of this thread.
>>
>> Now, these are completely in rough form. Not final at all. But, two versions:
>>
>> At first I thought it was a class issue, until I realized the same
>> thing happened with old money Old Port people and the elite of Portland
>> proper.
>>
>> or
>>
>> At first it seemed to be a class issue, until I discovered the Old Port
>> old money people respond the same way.
>>
>> Both have "I" in them. And, both are about my experience and/or
>> perspective. But the first is the kind of sentence that seems
>> self-centered to a fault. The second is less so.
>>
>> I'm not finished with the sentence (the 2nd is the one that will morph
>> into the real first sentence), but this thread helped me improve it
>> from the first version.
>>
>> I need a way to get "to be" out of that first sentence, for sure. Among
>> a few other tweakers.
>
> So snip it out, "At first it seemed a class issue, until..."
That's how I started it, but it didn't sound like I wanted it to. Wrong
rhythm. (Thanks, though.)
Ray Haddad
>Pies de Arcilla <dear...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Dec 23, 5:20 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>>> Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>>> >On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:42:57 -0600, Sylvia
>>> ><syl...@cliffhangerREMOVE.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>What it *shows*, Heather, is that your "penchant for getting caught up in
>>> >>[yourself]" hasn't changed for the better, despite your claim to the contrary.
>>>
>>> >My God but you are a bitter old crone, Sylvia.
>>>
>>> Is Sylvia old?
>>>
>>> How many years is "old" these days, anyhow?
>>
>>For a woman, 37.
>
>So 36 is "young" for a woman?
>
>How's that work?
Ask a 30 year old.
--
Ray
boots
>On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 04:58:22 -0700, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>
>>Pies de Arcilla <dear...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Dec 23, 5:20 am, boots <n...@no.no> wrote:
>>>> Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>>>> >On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:42:57 -0600, Sylvia
>>>> ><syl...@cliffhangerREMOVE.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>What it *shows*, Heather, is that your "penchant for getting caught up in
>>>> >>[yourself]" hasn't changed for the better, despite your claim to the contrary.
>>>>
>>>> >My God but you are a bitter old crone, Sylvia.
>>>>
>>>> Is Sylvia old?
>>>>
>>>> How many years is "old" these days, anyhow?
>>>
>>>For a woman, 37.
>>
>>So 36 is "young" for a woman?
>>
>>How's that work?
>
>Ask a 30 year old.
Sorry you're bored, ray.
Sylvia
other folks of what he himself is guilty of?"
-- Miz Sylvia, re: Ray Haddad
In article <8bvvk4he28l8mslto...@4ax.com>,
The Idiot Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
> Sylvia wrote:
>
> >What it *shows*, Heather, is that your "penchant for getting caught up in
> >[yourself]" hasn't changed for the better, despite your claim to the
> >contrary.
>
> My God but you are a bitter old crone, Sylvia.
REAL photo (taken many years ago) of age lamer Ray Haddad:
http://tinyurl.com/Haddad-Skip-Photo
Or, http://preview.tinyurl.com/Haddad-Skip-Photo
More of the Idiot Haddad's wild age lames:
Jun 3 2007: Ray Haddad [re: Miz Sylvia]: " 'girlie' "
Miz Sylvia: "Oooooh! 'girlie'! <chortle!> Tell us, Haddad,
does callin' me stuff like that make ya feel
all big and tough? gawd, yer a pathetic
coward. Ya gonna email billo again and beg
him to defend you from 'girlies'?" [1]
Aug 4 2007: Ray Haddad: '[...] old coot, Sylvia. [2]
Aug 7 2007: Ray Haddad [re: Miz Sylvia]: "She's a child, John."
Miz Sylvia: " <chortle!> [...]"
Ray Haddad: "I suffer children."
Miz Sylvia: "What gall.
"<making note to add "Jesus" to
(Official) MW List of Haddad's Claimed
Adventures & Accomplishments>"
--
Sylvia
[1] "Faux Combat Hero Ray Haddad Admits Fear of 'girlies'!"
http://tinyurl.com/2ozozw
[2] http://tinyurl.com/28snqv
Sylvia
serenebabe <seren...@gmail.com> wrote:
Of course not. It would be harder for you to whine for attention by playing
victim if you had to stick to the truth, wouldn't it, Heather?
Care to stop lying about what I post?
--
Sylvia
"I've had a love/hate relationship with attention for most of
my life. On the one hand, I've spent an awful lot of time
trying to draw it to me, but when I receive it I often become
insecure and even angry.
"I'm cute. I'm even 'pretty.' That draws attention.
"Again, a love/hate relationship with that attention I've
had forever.
"It occurred to me that my screen name might have a similar
effect that my physical looks do. I mean, here I am claiming
to be a 'Babe' -- though I mean it in *all* it's senses -- what
do you think? Do you think my screen name might have that
sort of effect?
"Do you like to draw attention to yourself? How do you get it?
Do you hate to have attention paid you? How do you avoid it?"
-- Heather/serenebabe, SUBJECT: "Attention"
Dawn: "Explain this, Heather. What is it about the
attention that makes you angry, once you get it?"
serenebabe/
Heather: "Yeah, well, it's kindof sucked thinking I'm only valuable
for my cuteness -- that's been a lesson I've been
working to unlearn.
"[...] Aww, shit, this stuff is too heavy for my mood
tonight. Thanks for asking, though."
Sylvia
just by replying to someone so disliked."
-- Heather/serenebabe to Ray Haddad,
regarding replying to him
In article <cb50l4tr9o4da1sjb...@4ax.com>,
Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
> PJ wrote:
> >Ray Haddad wrote:
> >> Sylvia wrote:
.
> >>> What it *shows*, Heather, is that your "penchant for getting caught up in
> >>> [yourself]" hasn't changed for the better, despite your claim to the
> >>> contrary.
> >>
> >> My God but you are a bitter old crone, Sylvia.
REAL photo (taken many years ago) of age lamer Ray Haddad:
> >Oh my goodness, Sylvia isn't old, nor is she bitter! Nor is she a crone!
> >Where are your sources? Got cites? If you can't provide cites, you
> >should fire those sources immediately!
>
> I know she's not, PJ, but she sure acts like one. Cites? Just read her
> post right here.
Apparently Haddad didn't.
> Heather uses the words "I" and "WE" a lot when she
> writes.
What I actually wrote:
"While insisting that she is no longer the poster
child for the Disgustingly Self-Involved, Heather
makes 26 references to herself."
Heather's personal references in her post:
"[...] I [...] about 10 years ago or so I was really, really, really
fascinated with myself. I loved talking about me. I [...] I [...]
I [...] my love of writing all sorts of personal stuff [...] my
awareness [...] Me Me Me [...] self-reflective types like me.
[...] I'm [...] myself. [...] world-revolves-around me [...] I'm
[...] my personal thoughts. I [...] I've [...] my self-interest.
I [...] I [...] I [...] I've [...] I [...] "
> So what? Does that give Sylvia or anyone else a reason to leap on her with
> hobnail boots?
gawd.
Examples of what Ray Haddad posts:
Ray Haddad: "[...] This reveals your entire address and your
mother's first name, since you live with her.
"[...] I sent it to you by e-mail the last time."
AncientMagician: "[...] The reason Ray sends *anyone* their Own
Details about themselves is so that he
can try to Extort and Blackmail them into
believing that him knowing Their Details
somehow gives Ray power over them here in
*alt.magic.secrets* and on The Internet."
-- Excerpt, "The Real Problem, As I See It Is That
Ray Has His Head Up His Butt"
http://tinyurl.com/27n7uu
"Pat,
"Grow up and play with us nicely. Otherwise, you will have a
miserable existence here forever. You've been warned.
"Folks here are tired of you. Got that yet? If not, reread
this from the word "folks" until you get it."
-- The Bullying, Belittling Slimeball Ray Haddad
http://tinyurl.com/2w5cnc
> >And the thing is, Ray, your anger toward Sylvia is obvious and it's
> >showing ... and showing and showing again. Makes me sad, it does. The
> >thing is, let it go, Man, you'll be better for it.
.
> No anger on my part and certainly not bitterness at all. But do you
> really think there's a compelling reason to attack Heather like this?
What I actually wrote:
"While insisting that she is no longer the poster
child for the Disgustingly Self-Involved, Heather
makes 26 references to herself."
Example of what Ray Haddad writes:
"Yo, Moron! You want me to lay off you on MW?
You do the same.
"Otherwise, I'll show you exactly how much
I know about chain saws."
-- Ray "I remain ever civil" Haddad
[With Full Headers: http://tinyurl.com/2dxy82 ]
> Would you do it? Do you really believe that Heather is better off for
> having had mud slung at her like this?
The Idiot Ray Haddad, folks, who obviously has no idea what the term
"mud-slinging" means.
"Self-centred posts are fine sometimes. Occasionally a
poster who does little else needs to be reminded that while
misc.writing can be a great support group, it isn't *only* a
support group."
-- Mr. Pritchard in MW, in reference to
Heather Denkmire/serenebabe
--
Sylvia
Heather/
SereneBabe: "I find it obscene that most Americans I know,
including me, have no idea what's going on
internationally (or nationally, or locally)."
piranha : "i concur. luckily i know lots of americans who're
not morons nor proud of being ignorant."
Heather: "Despite recognizing the obscenity of it, I haven't
done anything to learn more."
piranha : "so sorry. do you have some learning disability?
or do you just not give a shit?
"it's ok, btw, not to give a shit. just don't whine
about not giving a shit. that's really the epitome
of self-centeredness."
Ray Haddad
<syl...@cliffhangerREMOVE.com> wrote:
> REAL photo (taken many years ago) of age lamer Ray Haddad:
And you remain a bitter old crone, Sylvia.
--
Ray
Ray Haddad
<syl...@cliffhangerREMOVE.com> wrote:
> REAL photo (taken many years ago) of age lamer Ray Haddad:
And you remain a bitter old crone, Sylvia.
--
Ray
Stan (the Man)
news:tpcrl45j3424jmerb...@4ax.com:
And you remain repulsive scum.
For those of you who are new here or who may have forgotten, this piece
of shit, Ray Haddad, is the repulsive scum who has bragged about his
relationship with an 11-yr old (or 14-yr old, depending on whose math
you accept) girl, a relationship most normal adults would, based on his
description alone, consider inappropriate at the very least. In
addition to whatever else may have occurred between them, he has written
about how he provided the means for her to participate in a mostly adult
usenet ng and then encouraged other adults to bother her, while
admitting she was too young for such attention.
Ray "scum-boy" Haddad is also well known to be a liar, so it's possible
everything he wrote about this little girl was a complete fabrication
designed to give him an edge in one of his many, many usenet arguments.
Nevertheless, he has insisted that every word he has written here has
been the truth, and he has claimed the relationship he described with
that little girl was perfectly appropriate. So, either he's telling the
truth about his disgusting relationship with that little girl or he's
lying about it, but defends an inappropriate relationship between an
adult male and an 11-yr old (or 14-yr old) girl as acceptable. Whichever
it is, he's a nauseating piece of shit who should *never* be allowed
near little girls.
And this doesn't even touch upon his absurd attempts at valor thievery.
All can be found in full context in the archive.
So, newbies beware of this scum. MIGs, don't forget.
--
Stan
Sylvia
The Lying Idiot Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
> Sylvia wrote:
>
> > REAL photo (taken many years ago) of age lamer Ray Haddad:
http://tinyurl.com/Haddad-Skip-Photo
Or, http://preview.tinyurl.com/Haddad-Skip-Photo
Ray Haddad: "My God but you are a bitter old crone, Sylvia."
Miz PJ: "Oh my goodness, Sylvia isn't old, nor is she bitter!
Nor is she a crone! [...]"
Ray Haddad: "I know she's not, PJ"
> And you remain a bitter old crone, Sylvia.
<chortle!>
"I have to give you a nod for your relentless lying in
the face of the facts, Ray. There's something so
beautifully childlike about it. "
-- Miz Ultraviolet to Ray Haddad
http://tinyurl.com/2ferxs
"You are a demonstrated liar (which was kind of
the original motivation for this thread)."
-- Bil Greene to Ray Haddad,
"The haddad enquiry... a recap"
http://tinyurl.com/286toh
"That's because you're stupid, you lie and you're
a stupid liar. And not a very good one. "
- Mr. Hope to Ray Haddad
http://tinyurl.com/28tnny
"This post is provided as a public service for those
who do not want to wade through a 150-post thread to
find out the truth about the haddad, that he is a liar
through and through, and a spankard to boot.
"A few annotated quotations from the haddad, who has
been caught, filleted and is now frying in batter, follow: [...]"
-- Dr Zen, "The haddad enquiry... a recap"
http://tinyurl.com/yqd98t
"Or instead, if you prefer, explain to us your understanding
of the verb "to lie" and how that understanding informs your
posting in this newsgroup. Of course I know that you have
neither the balls nor the brains to do anything but add more
disingenuous pap to your history of stupid posting. Still, here
is an opportunity to convince us. Explain your understanding
of the verb "to lie" for us. Redemption awaits."
- Mr RJM (Arjayem) to Ray Haddad
http://tinyurl.com/24yqlw
"You have a rep on MW as a liar, Ray. And now you're
proving you don't even know what the word means,
which is why you also have a rep of being a fuckwit."
- Miz UV to Ray Haddad
http://tinyurl.com/2ygfb9
"You shallow weasel." -- Chef Pastorio to Ray Haddad
http://tinyurl.com/2bnfle
Mr. Rick: "But if such a quote by UV exists, why won't you
provide it? Could it be that you're full of shit?"
Ray Haddad: "Because I almost never do cites on demand."
Miz Sylvia: "Because it's impossible to provide a cite when
you lie about what other peeps have said here.
Or when you lie about what you have said here."
"Ray's telling untruths and continuing to do so when the
untruths are pointed out to him. [...] He can't say ooopsie I was
misunderstood, misconstrued, when his words were so straight
("You refer to anyone who disagrees with you as a liar") and he
didn't back down when that was pointed out to him.
"He's wrong. He's lying, telling untruths on purpose.
"There's no point in any ongoing discussion about -- he's
made my case."
-- Sal towse on Ray Haddad's lying
http://tinyurl.com/yu5a7y
<turning to the accused>
Haddad? What say you?
"I agree and admit that I use any means to put forth my views."
- - Ray Haddad http://tinyurl.com/2on9sw
<slamming down petite gavel>
Ray Haddad is GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY! and *most* deserving of his reputation
"as a fuckwitted liar".
--
Sylvia
Sylvia
The Lying Idiot Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
> Sylvia wrote:
>
> > REAL photo (taken many years ago) of age lamer Ray Haddad:
http://tinyurl.com/Haddad-Skip-Photo
Or, http://preview.tinyurl.com/Haddad-Skip-Photo
Ray Haddad: "My God but you are a bitter old crone, Sylvia."
Miz PJ: "Oh my goodness, Sylvia isn't old, nor is she bitter!
Nor is she a crone! [...]"
Ray Haddad: "I know she's not, PJ"
> And you remain a bitter old crone, Sylvia.
<chortle!>
Ray Haddad: "I have a reputation for truth, honor and integrity."
Miz Ultraviolet: "Maybe somewhere else. On MW you have a rep
as a fuckwitted liar."
"I do know that he lies about what people have written."
-- Miz Pandora (Marg) to Ray Haddad
http://tinyurl.com/2j78jv
"Why do you always feel the need to lie, Ray?"
- Mr. McClelland to Ray Haddad
http://tinyurl.com/2ghbrd
"Liar, or idiot, take your pick, or you have NOT said
this from the start. "
-- Mr. Marc to Ray Haddad
http://tinyurl.com/yudczc,
"You've been caught lying so many times on this newsgroup
Ray, and have been called on it by so many people, myself
included, I'm stunned that you would think that anyone
believes even one word you say."
-- Miz PJ to Ray Haddad
http://tinyurl.com/244b3u
"Ray is getting worse, isn't he? All this lying stuff."
-- Miz gekko to Ray Haddad
http://tinyurl.com/366o69
"As always, one can only marvel at your ability to
combine a finely-honed sense of witlessness with
a solid command of dishonesty."
-- Joshua P. Hill to Ray Haddad
http://tinyurl.com/yro6yr
--
Sylvia
"Second, enough with the witch-burning analogies FFS. The
women and men who were hunted down like dogs, accused
with no real evidence whatsoever, tortured with thumb-
screws and leg screws and strappados and other such brutal
and inhumane devices [...] in no way share any comparison
whatsoever with someone in the 21st century who is being
hollered at on a newsgroup for lying about his past."
-- Miz PJ regarding Ray Haddad's years of Stolen Valor
and other Stupid Lies catching up to him. See:
"Some Men Achieve Greatness, Some Men Steal It
(continued)" http://tinyurl.com/yub4y7
Ray Haddad
<syl...@cliffhangerREMOVE.com> wrote:
>In article <tpcrl45j3424jmerb...@4ax.com>,
> The Lying Idiot Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>
>> Sylvia wrote:
>>
>> > REAL photo (taken many years ago) of age lamer Ray Haddad:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/Haddad-Skip-Photo
>Or, http://preview.tinyurl.com/Haddad-Skip-Photo
>
>Ray Haddad: "My God but you are a bitter old crone, Sylvia."
And you remain a bitter old crone, Sylvia.
--
Ray
Ray Haddad
<stanI...@rvckids.us.INVALID> wrote:
>Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote in
>news:tpcrl45j3424jmerb...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:38:29 -0600, Sylvia
>> <syl...@cliffhangerREMOVE.com> wrote:
>>
>>> REAL photo (taken many years ago) of age lamer Ray Haddad:
>>
>> And you remain a bitter old crone, Sylvia.
>
>And you remain repulsive scum.
Ditto to you, Stan and a happy new year.
--
Ray
Sylvia
Heather Denkmire/serenebabe <seren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> PJ said:
> > Ray Haddad wrote:
> >> Sylvia wrote:
> >>
> >>> What it *shows*, Heather, is that your "penchant for getting caught up
> >>> in [yourself]" hasn't changed for the better, despite your claim to the
> >>> contrary.
> >>
> >> My God but you are a bitter old crone, Sylvia.
> >
> > Oh my goodness, Sylvia isn't old, nor is she bitter! Nor is she a
> > crone! Where are your sources? Got cites? If you can't provide cites,
> > you should fire those sources immediately!
>
> I don't think of "crone" as a bad word. I think of it as a wise older woman.
>
> In my most recent experience, I'd agree, PJ. I don't think Sylvia is a
> crone. I could certainly be wrong, of course.
"[...] sometimes I do wonder if I use my intensive skills
in passive agression to ream someone purely with tone,
while purporting to want a civil debate. I suspect
sometimes I do."
-- Heather Denkmire/serenebabe in MW, proud
of her "intensive skills in passive agression"
--
Sylvia
Mr. Goldsborough: "I'm afraid you're mischaracterizing my intentions.
I'm not setting myself up as a judge of what's acceptable
to post here and what's not. I'm simply commenting on a
series of posts that in my mind are rambling and
self-indulgent admissions of laziness, weakness, and
defeat. It's fine for SereneBabe to write these posts.
And, I would contend, it's fine for me and for others to
comment upon them, whether positively or negatively."
Miz Hogarth: "Thanks, Reid. Saves me the trouble of typing.
IOW, my sentiments exactly."
Ray Haddad
<syl...@cliffhangerREMOVE.com> wrote:
>In article <tpcrl45j3424jmerb...@4ax.com>,
> The Lying Idiot Ray Haddad <r...@perthmagic.com> wrote:
>
>> Sylvia wrote:
>>
>> > REAL photo (taken many years ago) of age lamer Ray Haddad:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/Haddad-Skip-Photo
>Or, http://preview.tinyurl.com/Haddad-Skip-Photo
>
>
>Ray Haddad: "My God but you are a bitter old crone, Sylvia."
And you remain a bitter old crone, Sylvia.
--
Ray
Ray Haddad
<syl...@cliffhangerREMOVE.com> wrote:
>In article <gip3nk$t2h$1...@news.albasani.net>,
>Heather Denkmire/serenebabe <seren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> PJ said:
>> > Ray Haddad wrote:
>> >> Sylvia wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> What it *shows*, Heather, is that your "penchant for getting caught up
>> >>> in [yourself]" hasn't changed for the better, despite your claim to the
>> >>> contrary.
>> >>
>> >> My God but you are a bitter old crone, Sylvia.
>> >
>> > Oh my goodness, Sylvia isn't old, nor is she bitter! Nor is she a
>> > crone! Where are your sources? Got cites? If you can't provide cites,
>> > you should fire those sources immediately!
>>
>> I don't think of "crone" as a bad word. I think of it as a wise older woman.
>>
>> In my most recent experience, I'd agree, PJ. I don't think Sylvia is a
>> crone. I could certainly be wrong, of course.
>
> "[...] sometimes I do wonder if I use my intensive skills
> in passive agression to ream someone purely with tone,
> while purporting to want a civil debate. I suspect
> sometimes I do."
>
> -- Heather Denkmire/serenebabe in MW, proud
> of her "intensive skills in passive agression"
>
>Sylvia
>
>Mr. Goldsborough: "I'm afraid you're mischaracterizing my intentions.
> I'm not setting myself up as a judge of what's acceptable
> to post here and what's not. I'm simply commenting on a
> series of posts that in my mind are rambling and
> self-indulgent admissions of laziness, weakness, and
> defeat. It's fine for SereneBabe to write these posts.
> And, I would contend, it's fine for me and for others to
> comment upon them, whether positively or negatively."
>
>Miz Hogarth: "Thanks, Reid. Saves me the trouble of typing.
> IOW, my sentiments exactly."
In other words, you support those who decide what may be posted and
what may not as long as they use their own "other words" to deny it.
You little scamp, you.
--
Ray
Sylvia
Heather Denkmire/serenebabe <seren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ing said:
> > serenebabe <sereneb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <.....>
> >> to this day, I hear Ing's strong words (I've mentioned this a
> >> bunch) where she was completely disgusted with my self-interest. <.....>
<...>
> > IIRC, I was just making an observation.
<...>
> At that time anytime anyone said anything that even hinted at criticism, my
> world collapsed.
<...>
<chortle!>
Yeah, right (c) . Mean Miz Ing pointing out your self-centeredness made yer
world collapse. Golly, she oughta feel ashamed of herself.
The *fragile* Heather at that time:
"I'm also new here and pleased to find this ol' newsgroup... [...]
so feel free to bombard me with harshness when I commit all
the foh pahs I'm sure to commit....so many rules it seems there are."
--Heather/serenebabe (apparently related to Yoda)
explains how even a hint of criticism will make her
world collapse. MW, 1998
"In a crowded yuppie-type bar [...] This (cute guy)
friend-of-a-friend and I began debating...it was very
drunken...it had little sense or cohesion...it was clear
he was conservative/I was liberal and we liked to
battle it out... [...]"
"I screamed, 'So...you are saying: NOT EVERYBODY
DESERVES HEALTHCARE?!'
"When he responded, 'that's right. Some people don't deserve it.'
"I hauled off and smacked him across the face. REALLY hard.
Full force arm swing. We were done talking after that."
-- Heather/serenebabe in MW 1998,
Overly-Sensitive, Shrinking Violet
"Over in another thread some kind words and some kind
of pat-yer-head words were shared about how I wouldn't
be a troll. [...]
"When I was really active online, when I became 'SereneBabe'
and all that, it was the most fun on earth for me to be
controversial. [...]
"So, I began pretending we were lovers. I'd go into the chat
room and be all 'I love making out with you' etc. etc. (at the
time I had no problem being much more explicit than this
example, but I'm not into that anymore ;-) . I knew she
was really homophobic and I knew she'd hate my doing it.
"[...] I adore the conversations that come from conflict
and disagreement."
-- Heather/serenebabe, in MW, shares a
story that shows the extent of her fear of
drawing even a *hint* of criticism back then
See, Heather, you weren't fragile back then. But in 2008, when you came to my
attention due to the deceitful head games I saw you playing, and I started
pointing at what you were doing (and had been doing since 1998), oh, THEN you
became fragile. You launched a couple of poisoned pen email campaigns, whining
to MIGS that mean Sylvia was making you *cry*, and wouldn't it be awful if
mean Sylvia was the cause of poor widdle FRAGILE Heather running away?
Yeah, right (c). That didn't work too well for you, did it, Heather?
And, when other peeps righteously whapped you for something you posted, you'd
email them and whimper about how *sensitive* you were and, golly, did they
understand how *hurt* poor widdle you feels when peeps act annoyed with you?
And, golly, can't we be pals? gawd. What you won't do or say to keep people
from openly contradicting you. Tell me, are all those passive-aggressive slaps
you take at various MIGS tests or is it that you can't rESisT ThE URge?
Heather, you're not too bright, but I know that you really aren't a fragile,
sensitive widdle kitten who is too stupid to be held accountable for her words
and actions. Not then, not now. You still enjoy fucking with people's heads,
and I enjoy undermining your little games. See how nicely that works out?
"So... THANKS y'all for the warm welcome.
"Yah cunts."
-- The Fragile Heather/serenebabe to MW MIGS 1998
"I realize there are circles where 'cunt' is a handy little
insult. [...] But, does a writer of your caliber really need
to fall back on such a lazy choice?
"Surely there are words you can use that don't end up
continuing the ridiculous gender biased language troubles
that screw up so many women's sex lives?"
-- The Hypocritical Heather/serenebabe
lectures Mr. Hope about the language
he used in his reply to Ray Haddad
--
Sylvia
Ray Haddad
<syl...@cliffhangerREMOVE.com> wrote:
>your self-centeredness
And yours does what? Give you license to tell everyone else here how
and what to post? Try some self moderation first Sylvia. Let me know
how that works for you.
--
Ray
PJ
> Sylvia wrote
>>> PJ said:
>>>> Ray Haddad wrote:
>>>>> Sylvia wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What it *shows*, Heather, is that your "penchant for getting caught up
>>>>>> in [yourself]" hasn't changed for the better, despite your claim to the
>>>>>> contrary.
>>>>> My God but you are a bitter old crone, Sylvia.
>>>> Oh my goodness, Sylvia isn't old, nor is she bitter! Nor is she a
>>>> crone! Where are your sources? Got cites? If you can't provide cites,
>>>> you should fire those sources immediately!
>>> I don't think of "crone" as a bad word. I think of it as a wise older woman.
>>>
>>> In my most recent experience, I'd agree, PJ. I don't think Sylvia is a
>>> crone. I could certainly be wrong, of course.
>> "[...] sometimes I do wonder if I use my intensive skills
>> in passive agression to ream someone purely with tone,
>> while purporting to want a civil debate. I suspect
>> sometimes I do."
>>
>> -- Heather Denkmire/serenebabe in MW, proud
>> of her "intensive skills in passive agression"
>> Mr. Goldsborough: "I'm afraid you're mischaracterizing my intentions.
>> I'm not setting myself up as a judge of what's acceptable
>> to post here and what's not. I'm simply commenting on a
>> series of posts that in my mind are rambling and
>> self-indulgent admissions of laziness, weakness, and
>> defeat. It's fine for SereneBabe to write these posts.
>> And, I would contend, it's fine for me and for others to
>> comment upon them, whether positively or negatively."
>>
>> Miz Hogarth: "Thanks, Reid. Saves me the trouble of typing.
>> IOW, my sentiments exactly."
>
> In other words, you support those who decide what may be posted and
> what may not as long as they use their own "other words" to deny it.
How the hell did you draw *that* conclusion??
Good grief, you certainly do excel in the skill of overreach.
~ ~ ~
PJ
Ray Haddad
Just put your blinders back on, PJ. Sylvia won't be happy until
Heather starts posting the way Sylvia wants her to post.
--
Ray
PJ
> PJ wrote>
Ahh. Since you don't approve of the way Sylvia posts, and I don't agree
with you about that, I have *blinders* on. And you're criticizing *her*
for deciding how people should post?
Oh the delicious irony!!
~ ~ ~
PJ
Ray Haddad
I'm glad you see it finally. Sylvia never fails to remind any one
individual who happens to be her "most despised of the moment" how
they should post.
You'll also be kind enough to show me where I told Sylvia how to post.
Right? Blinders again? Oh, yeah.
--
Ray
PJ
> PJ
My pleasure. You're criticizing Sylvia for the way she talks to Heather,
you're criticizing her for what you perceive as an *attack* on Heather,
you're calling her a "bitter old crone" based on the things she posts,
you have repeatedly criticized her (usually by telling her to "get a
life" or "get help") because she posts quotes from you and others that
clearly support the points she is making, and now you criticize her for
what you call "never [failing] to remind any one individual who happens
to be her 'most despised of the moment' how they should post."
You are the one who is trying to impose your own posting standards onto
Sylvia, not the other way around.
Now, here's the deal. You are nailed, and I'm the one who nailed you.
You can either accept that graciously and drop this nonsense, or
continue making a fool of yourself.
Your choice, but I'm betting on the latter.
~ ~ ~
PJ
gekko
news:gjnlh3$hup$1...@news.motzarella.org:
> How the hell did you draw *that* conclusion??
<squeezing eyes shut, gritting teeth, shaking head violently>
PJ!
--
gekko
If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still
call him vile names. -- Elbert Hubbard