More on Joe Stummer
Mike McKinley
minding my own business, walking
down the Yellow Brick Road, and I
called the house of two friends of
mine, a very cool, het couple: she
was my best friend in Jr. High and
he is a Scottish painter that she
met and married in London. They
have an attached spa/greenhouse
that I stuff with my tropical
plants during the winter, including
my big-mamma Carissa (Hi,
Pandalena!) and I was calling to
see when I could get in to water
the plants. She works doing
wardrobe for the opera and has been
busy with _Dead Man Walking_.
Anyway, we hadn't chatted since the
holidays and she's out, working on
the opera and he asks me if I had
heard that he'd made a quickie trip
to the U.K.
"No, I hadn't."
"A funeral," he tells me, "my
cousin, a rock and roller."
"I'm so sorry."
And we chat. He's in a chatty
mood. After a while, I attempt to
take my leave, I say,
"Sorry again about your
cousin."
"Yeah," he says, "he was young,
only 50."
"What a drag."
Chatter, chatter, chatter.
"We'll, dear, we're still
around, but a rock and roll guy
usually has a short but glorious
life," I offer.
"But it wasn't the usual
suspects. A heart thing."
"I'm so sorry."
Chat, chat, chat -- will he
*never* shut up? The trip back was
an exasperating 24 hours and he got
caught in the snow in Yankeeland,
etc.
"And the funeral -- the media
and everybody was there."
"So...what was your cousin's
name?"
"I don't know if you've heard
of him. Joe Strummer."
So, it seems that Mr.
Strummer's mother was the sister of
my friend's mother and they came
from a little isle in the
Hebrides. He and his wife, spent
lots of time with Joe, on his
country estate and so forth. He
flew to the U.K. with Joe Ely, a
Texas-based musician. The Scottish
painter and Joe were very close.
I have connections that I never
even knew about with people of whom
I was ignernt.
--
邢 唷��
Mike McKinley
> Mike McKinley:
> >[snipped from small-world story]
> >She works doing wardrobe for the opera and has been busy with
> >_Dead Man Walking_.
> Go see that. Quite an interesting work. The Austin production
> is the first time the role of the murderer has been double
> cast, so see it with John Packard if you can. He created the
> role for the San Francisco premiere. Ken and I saw him in it at
> Opera Pacific and I saw it again at City Opera in New York. He
> was just here for a New Year's Eve gig with our symphony and
> told me the Austin production will probably be pretty good.
> Very nice guy, by the way, down-to-earth and friendly.
Oh, darling, I haven't been to an opera since the premiere of
_Aida_ in Cairo.
--
邢 唷��
David W. Fenton
<3E1EE88C...@mail.utexas.edu>:
Who was the Pharoah then?
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Gary G. Taylor
A friend of mine theorizes that there are only about 5,000 people in
the world, and that all of them know each other through a maximum of
five intermediaries. The rest are "extras," whose sole function is to
get in the way--cut you off on the freeway, wake you up with telephone
sales calls at 10 a.m. on Sunday, etc., etc.
------
Gary G. Taylor * Rialto, CA
I REPORT ***ALL*** SPAM!
gary at cdfound dot org / geetee dot cdfound dot org
"The two most abundant things in the Universe are
hydrogen and stupidity." --Harlan Ellison
Moira de Swardt
Gary G. Taylor <knot...@knotcdfound.org> wrote in message
> A friend of mine theorizes that there are only about 5,000 people
in
> the world, and that all of them know each other through a maximum
of
> five intermediaries. The rest are "extras," whose sole function is
to
> get in the way--cut you off on the freeway, wake you up with
telephone
> sales calls at 10 a.m. on Sunday, etc., etc.
5,000 in the Western world. Only 1,000 in Africa, Australia and New
Zealand. New Zealand has only 25 and they all know each other.
Moira, the Faerie Godmother
Arnold Zwicky
gary taylor <knot...@knotcdfound.org> remarks:
>A friend of mine theorizes that there are only about 5,000 people in
>the world, and that all of them know each other through a maximum of
>five intermediaries. The rest are "extras," whose sole function is
>to get in the way--cut you off on the freeway, wake you up with
>telephone sales calls at 10 a.m. on Sunday, etc., etc.
jacques used to believe that i knew all the lgbt people in the world.
there was some slight basis to this belief, since through gay activism
and the internet i met lots of people, including some that j already
knew about (like john d'emilio), and every so often they'd appear in
our living room, or i'd mention an exchange of letters with them.
(it's also true that the world of linguistics is so small that i *do*
know most of the people in it. i don't think j ever quite appreciated
how very much bigger the lgbt world is. probably a result of those
years of thinking you're the only one.)
j would occasionally ask me if i knew so-and-so. barney frank, once.
(sadly, no.) andrew sullivan, another time. ("why would i want to
know andrew sullivan?" was all i could say.)
ivy hall
Tim Wilson
> j would occasionally ask me if i knew so-and-so. barney frank, once.
> (sadly, no.) andrew sullivan, another time. ("why would i want to
> know andrew sullivan?" was all i could say.)
Because he's interesting? Because he has opinions that are
substantially distinct from one's own? Because he knows a different
cohort of people? Because he knows some people of a mutual cohort?
Yes, those reasons can be construed as reason to want to meet Sullivan
as opposed to know Sullivan, but how would one know whether one wants to
know him without actually going through meeting him?
I've written elsewhere about how I think there's value in keeping
company with folks whose political opinions differ from my own.
Sometimes there's overlap in other areas that I find valuable, and
sometimes they're just interesting for reasons that are hard to itemize.
--
Tim Wilson, Daytona Beach, Florida, USA
home: http://home.cfl.rr.com/mackandtim/
blog: http://timatollah.blogspot.com/
mail: meano...@netscape.net
Dissident
> Arnold Zwicky wrote:
>
>> j would occasionally ask me if i knew so-and-so. barney frank, once.
>> (sadly, no.) andrew sullivan, another time. ("why would i want to
>> know andrew sullivan?" was all i could say.)
>
>
> Because he's interesting? Because he has opinions that are
> substantially distinct from one's own? Because he knows a different
> cohort of people? Because he knows some people of a mutual cohort?
>
> Yes, those reasons can be construed as reason to want to meet Sullivan
> as opposed to know Sullivan, but how would one know whether one wants to
> know him without actually going through meeting him?
>
> I've written elsewhere about how I think there's value in keeping
> company with folks whose political opinions differ from my own.
> Sometimes there's overlap in other areas that I find valuable, and
> sometimes they're just interesting for reasons that are hard to itemize.
Nah, people like that are just disaffectoids.
-B
Tim Wilson
> Tim Wilson:
>>Arnold Zwicky:
>
>>>j would occasionally ask me if i knew so-and-so. barney frank,
>>>once. (sadly, no.) andrew sullivan, another time. ("why would i
>>>want to know andrew sullivan?" was all i could say.)
>
>
>>Because he's interesting? Because he has opinions that are
>>substantially distinct from one's own? Because he knows a
>>different cohort of people? Because he knows some people of a
>>mutual cohort?
>
>>Yes, those reasons can be construed as reason to want to meet
>>Sullivan as opposed to know Sullivan, but how would one know
>>whether one wants to know him without actually going through
>>meeting him?
>
> generally have track records, and while those traces may lend
> themselves too readily to demonization (always a step away from
> truth and understanding), sometimes basing one's views largely
> on the person's public record really is enough.
Of course, and each person makes the "what's enough" judgement, or the
"what's `what's enough' mean?" judgement.
And to be fair to Arnold, he could have plenty of unspoken motivations
for not wanting to meet Sullivan, or for saying "why would I want to?",
both to Jacques and here.
I personally think that Sullivan has, by and large, been designated a
pariah by too many people. If we shut him out and don't read him
because we believe he's a Republican toady or Roman Catholic apologist
or too much of a war hawk or because of a certain well-publicized set of
"bad" behaviors, we miss the times he's critical of Republicans and
conservatives and of the Church and its heirarchy and of when he points
to arguments against the war and of arguments for some right to privacy,
even by public figures.
> For example, I've no doubt that Sadaam Hussein is a monster,
> the evidence I've seen being small in extent but vividly
> persuasive.
>
> I'm certain that Henry Kissinger is a monster, because I've
> read a lot about him including his own books, and on that
> evidence am persuaded that he's an indictable and convictable
> war criminal.
I was going to mention Hitler and Pol Pot as possible exceptions.
I know that everyone's mileage varies on this, particularly in who
they'd find interesting in differing contexts: houseguest, dinner or
cocktail party, spontaneous conversation at a bar or restaurant, theater
or opera lobby, next seat on an airplane,....
> On the other hand ...
>
>
>>I've written elsewhere about how I think there's value in
>>keeping company with folks whose political opinions differ
>>from my own. Sometimes there's overlap in other areas that I
>>find valuable, and sometimes they're just interesting for
>>reasons that are hard to itemize.
>
> ... I see this as undeniably true. Isolation, I think, reduces
> the prospect of learning and understanding. Ideas grow best in
> the presence of cogent countercurrents, a notion I feel becomes
> more important as the scope of one's thinking -- the size of
> the problem, let's say -- broadens and deepens.
Nicely put.
David W. Fenton
<nteU9.116884$j8.29...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>:
>I've written elsewhere about how I think there's value in keeping
>company with folks whose political opinions differ from my own.
>Sometimes there's overlap in other areas that I find valuable, and
>sometimes they're just interesting for reasons that are hard to
>itemize.
But it's not just that Sullivan's opinions are different from mine
-- it's that he's demonstrably an irrational moron who doesn't care
about facts or logic.
David W. Fenton
<avshj8$bm8$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu>:
>Tim Wilson:
>
>>I personally think that Sullivan has, by and large, been
>>designated a pariah by too many people. If we shut him out
>>and don't read him because we believe he's a Republican toady
>>or Roman Catholic apologist or too much of a war hawk or
>>because of a certain well-publicized set of "bad" behaviors,
>>we miss the times he's critical of Republicans and
>>conservatives and of the Church and its heirarchy and of when
>>he points to arguments against the war and of arguments for
>>some right to privacy, even by public figures.
>
>I think that's a key point. In comparison to the presently
>ruling Republican elite, Sullivan is a moderate, as indeed are
>many Republicans whose general philosophies don't accord with
>my own.
In comparison to the "presently ruling Republican elite," Richard
Nixon was a left liberal activist.
This proves nothing about Richard Nixon. It only shows how
reactionary and right wing the "presently ruling Republican elite"
happen to be.
In other words, your statement says nothing whatsoever about
whether Sullivan is due any respect for the taking of a few
positions that are at odds with his obvious masters, who are
without doubt, the "presently ruling Republican elite."
>In that light, it's well to remember that the current gang will
>not be in power forever. . .
As long as we give credit to morons like Sullivan who are not even
close to being evenhanded, but look that way in comparison to the
"presently ruling Republican elite," we will be in danger of losing
sight of how far to the right the entire political spectrum has
since the ascendancy of that übermoron, Ronald Reagan.
> . . . and part of their political demise
>will almost certainly involve isolation from the (growing, one
>hopes) more moderate, centrist faction of the party. This in
>turn might rejuvenate more liberal political thinking and
>processes across the larger society.
That will only happen if we start to recognize people like Sullivan
for what they are, people who are one degree less far to the right
than the "presently ruling Republican elite," and who do little but
obfuscate where the political center really is (as opposed to where
it seems to be based on the kind of opinions that are allowed to
filter out to the public by the media).
>After all, the problems of the modern world admit of *no*
>simple solutions. Good ideas and workable strategies should be
>welcome no matter from which point of the political compass
>they arrive.
If simple solutions are not profitable, you shouldn't be reading
Sullivan -- he has nothing to offer but oversimplified special
pleading. In that respect, he's mainstream Republican -- he's never
met an illogical position he couldn't rationalize with enough
contortions.
Tim Wilson
> meano...@netscape.net (Tim Wilson) wrote in
> <nteU9.116884$j8.29...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>:
>
>
>>I've written elsewhere about how I think there's value in keeping
>>company with folks whose political opinions differ from my own.
>>Sometimes there's overlap in other areas that I find valuable, and
>>sometimes they're just interesting for reasons that are hard to
>>itemize.
>
>
> But it's not just that Sullivan's opinions are different from mine
> -- it's that he's demonstrably an irrational moron who doesn't care
> about facts or logic.
>
Well, I don't believe there is any such animal. Except perhaps each and
every one of us at one or more points in our lives. Granted, some
demonstrate such behavior with greater regularity than others, but you
will find -- and I'm pretty sure about this -- that just about every --
every -- person declared "moron" or "idiotarian", or whatever
juvenile/adolescent term one side or the other wants to use to describe
them, says something, at some point, that is or can be of value. Maybe
even of substantial value.
One trick, to me at least, is taking things both in the larger context
one might have to complain about and also in separately as if the person
had never written anything before. Simultaneously. That creates a
situation where people have room both to be wrong (from one's own
perspective) and also later to change their minds without being bogged
down by every last thing they ever said.
Another trick is to attempt to separate talking about the content of
their words from talking about them as individuals.
All in my opinon, of course, and all as goals, not necessariliy easily
achieved.
Meredith
>
> j would occasionally ask me if i knew so-and-so. barney frank, once.
> (sadly, no.) andrew sullivan, another time. ("why would i want to
> know andrew sullivan?" was all i could say.)
>
proudly say that he sees him naked on a regular basis because they
went to the same gym.
gerry studs lived on our street back when i was in boston. i said hi a
couple of times.
my ex and andrew sullivan went to oxford together (sullivan was a
couple of years older or younger, i can't remember), and they had
e-mail exchanges as far as i know.
meredith, who seems to know famous people mostly by association rather
than directly
Edward Ricketts
> But it's not just that Sullivan's opinions are different from mine
> -- it's that he's demonstrably an irrational moron who doesn't care
> about facts or logic.
Andrew Sullivan is Anthony Scalia in drag ?
Who knew ?
sh...@radix.net Ed Ricketts
Ellen Evans
Jess Anderson <ande...@wisc.edu> wrote:
>David Fenton:
>
>>But it's not just that Sullivan's opinions are different from
>>mine -- it's that he's demonstrably an irrational moron who
>>doesn't care about facts or logic.
>
>in referring to Andrew Sullivan as a moron, David.
Gee, I don't think so. I've actually praised things Sullivan did in the
past in this very venue - I thought the collection he put together gay
marriage had a certain value for the time. But the stuff he's coming out
with of late - I mostly see his stuff on Salon, but I run into it
elsewhere, is just appalling lackey behavior, busily apologizing and
rationalizing things that are just beyond the pale.
Just because he had a good Jesuit education doesn't mean he's a towering
intellect.
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@panix.com New York Times, 7/14/96
DRS
news:avtlio$pfu$1...@panix1.panix.com...
[...]
> Just because he had a good Jesuit education doesn't mean he's a towering
> intellect.
The Jesuits are masters of sophistry and Sullivan clearly was a good pupil.
--
A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
Ellen Evans
Jess Anderson <ande...@wisc.edu> wrote:
[]
>At that time he was presumably not a moron in your lexicon, ...
The book was a collection of other people's writings. It wasn't a
bad set at the time. His more recent work, a fair amount of which I've
read, has been uniformly appalling.
>... but now he is? Before he was not stupid, but now he is?
He's gone into a very, very dark wood. My guess is that there's no Virgil
around to lead him out.
Mike McKinley
> In article <avugol$bg2$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
> Jess Anderson <ande...@wisc.edu> wrote:
> >At that time he was presumably not a moron in your lexicon, ...
> The book was a collection of other people's writings. It wasn't a
> bad set at the time. His more recent work, a fair amount of which I've
> read, has been uniformly appalling.
> >... but now he is? Before he was not stupid, but now he is?
> He's gone into a very, very dark wood. My guess is that there's no Virgil
> around to lead him out.
You met him, surely.
--
邢 唷��
Ellen Evans
Jess Anderson <ande...@wisc.edu> wrote:
[]
>But it does seem that the taxonomy of woods-darkness is such
>that it might be more apt to leave out the two "very"s.
You might believe so: clearly I don't.
>I mean,
>there's Somali warlords, Milosevic, Hutu/Tutsi amputators,
>serial killers, etc. And Cheney. And the Papacy.
The question in context had to do with moronity, not the various Axii of
Evil.
Robert S. Coren
>In article <avv54n$m94$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
>Jess Anderson <ande...@wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>>I mean,
>>there's Somali warlords, Milosevic, Hutu/Tutsi amputators,
>>serial killers, etc. And Cheney. And the Papacy.
>
>The question in context had to do with moronity, not the various Axii of
>Evil.
Er, um. The plural of "axis" is "axes". Those are in another thread,
anyway, I thought.
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
"Our attitude's queer and quaint." -- W. S. Gilbert, _The Mikado_
David W. Fenton
>David Fenton:
>
>>But it's not just that Sullivan's opinions are different from
>>mine -- it's that he's demonstrably an irrational moron who
>>doesn't care about facts or logic.
>
>There is demonstrable irrationality and a notable lack of logic
>in referring to Andrew Sullivan as a moron, David.
Try reading this by Joan Didion:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15984
and then review Sullivan's irrational savaging of what *he*
imagined Didion was saying:
http://salon.com/news/col/sullivan/2003/01/07/didion/index.html
and tell me if you think he deserves any attention whatsoever as a
commentator on any subject at all. If you're lazy, perhaps you
might find the first item in:
http://www.bway.net/~dfenton/NoComment/
helpful in singling out a few of the places where Sullivan
fabricates his own version of what Didion said.
David W. Fenton
>Another trick is to attempt to separate talking about the content
>of their words from talking about them as individuals.
I am entirely ignoring the demonstrated bankruptcy of Sullivan's
personal morality.
I am speaking only of his public writings.
I read Salon on a regular basis and get a pretty regular dose of
Sullivan.
Anyone who finds any of his writings that I've encountered in the
last couple of years convincing is simply not reading carefully. He
went completely out to lunch about the time he put up his hideously
"designed" blog.
David W. Fenton
>David Fenton:
>
>>[Sullivan has] never met an illogical position he couldn't
>>rationalize with enough contortions.
>
>Physician, heal thyself. . . .
Please demonstrate a regular pattern of such counter-factual
rationalizations in my postings.
You find them.
> . . . The bombast with which you regularly
>proclaim political positions is certainly contorting, as is a
>lexicon that defines moron as "holding opinions I disagree
>with". . . .
That's your reading, Jess. I use "moron" to describe people who
have stopped using their brains, as though they have no
intelligence whatsover. Sullivan's writings show a use of the
brain, but one that is more fantasy and delusion than worthwhile
commentary.
> . . . Demonizing and depersonalizing those you don't agree
>with is hardly conducive to understanding or amelioration of
>our common human predicament.
Calling someone a moron because he repeatedly misrepresents facts
is "demonizing?
\/\/hatever, Mr. Armchair.
David W. Fenton
>My point was that a person and ideas are not so
>tightly wedded that a useful idea can never issue from a person
>one does not respect.
How long are you willing to wait around for it?
One year?
Two years?
Five years?
Ten years?
At what point is it respectable to give up on there ever being
anything useful issuing therefrom?
I've read Sullivan for many years now.
I'm still waiting.
David W. Fenton
>I hope it need not be said that I'm as exasperated as anyone
>by the pious, hypocritical nonsense Sullivan has written, not
>because he's irrational (he might be but how could I know? I'd
>argue for illogical) or stupid (he's clearly not stupid).
How much illogic and refusal to see the obvious is necessary to
move someone into the "stupid" column in your book? Stupid is as
stupid does, according to one "sage." Sullivan does stupid better
than just about anyone I can think of (other than the obvious, such
as the Limbaughs or the Hannity's).
Brad Macdonald
> If you're lazy, perhaps you
> might find the first item in:
>
> http://www.bway.net/~dfenton/NoComment/
>
> helpful in singling out a few of the places where Sullivan
Thank god Sullivan doesn't post his blog url to soc.motss by
way of discussion, suggesting one go to it for elucidation.
Brad
Ellen Evans
Robert S. Coren <co...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <avvb31$h3t$1...@panix2.panix.com>, Ellen Evans <je...@panix.com> wrote:
[]
>>The question in context had to do with moronity, not the various Axii of
>>Evil.
>
>Er, um. The plural of "axis" is "axes". Those are in another thread,
>anyway, I thought.
Moronity isn't a word either. My guess is they were on purpose.
Michael Palmer
But of course. Very nice man, but that *Etruscan* accent ...
M Vergilius P
--
Michael Palmer
Claremont, California
mpa...@panix.com
http://www.librarianavengers.com
Robert S. Coren
>In article <avvb8q$hfo$1...@panix5.panix.com>,
>Robert S. Coren <co...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <avvb31$h3t$1...@panix2.panix.com>, Ellen Evans <je...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>[]
>
>>>The question in context had to do with moronity, not the various Axii of
>>>Evil.
>>
>>Er, um. The plural of "axis" is "axes". Those are in another thread,
>>anyway, I thought.
>
>Moronity isn't a word either. My guess is they were on purpose.
Could be. Maybe we should ask the person who wrote them.
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
Baba ganoosh ganache Ganesh!
Baba ganoosh ganache!
--culinary cheer for the elephant god
Stephanie Smith
news:9302B5F52df...@24.168.128.78:
> Try reading this by Joan Didion:
>
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15984
>
> and then review Sullivan's irrational savaging of what *he*
> imagined Didion was saying:
>
> http://salon.com/news/col/sullivan/2003/01/07/didion/index.
> html
>
> and tell me if you think he deserves any attention
> whatsoever as a commentator on any subject at all.
Either he's as dumb as a bag of hammers or his arrogance has
asphyxiated his intellect. Either way, absolutely a moron.
--
You've got your future at stake. Face front! Take it! - Strummer
David W. Fenton
<Pine.GSO.4.50.030113...@sawasdee.cc.columbia.edu>:
What, should I have rewritten the same material? Quoted the
material from my blog? What?
And thank god Sullivan doesn't post to soc.motss.
Brad Macdonald
> Ellen Evans:
> >Jess Anderson:
> >>But it does seem that the taxonomy of woods-darkness is such
> >>that it might be more apt to leave out the two "very"s.
> >You might believe so: clearly I don't.
>
> >>I mean, there's Somali warlords, Milosevic, Hutu/Tutsi
> >>amputators, serial killers, etc. And Cheney. And the Papacy.
>
> >The question in context had to do with moronity, not the
> >various Axii of Evil.
>
But Sullivan doesn't. Tim is probably regretting his mention of
Sullivan w/r/t the difficulty of discussing politics in soc.motss,
but I would bet Tim is not wounded. As regards Sullivan, were one
to visit his blog on any given day, there is ample evidence of childish
name-calling & ~reduction from him, and as he is rather more widely read
than David or Ellen, any advice about diminished civility in US culture is
better directed about him, no?, or at least awkward towards those
criticizing Sullivan in our merry bandwith.
(Okay, I also was squicked by Joan Didion's piece in the NYRB, prior to
reading Sullivan's treatment of it, as I was here similarly from much of
the follow-up to Greg Parkinson's 9/11 experience thread, but *nevermind*.
Except to ask -- has anyone been in contact with Greg recently?)
Can we talk Bruce Bawer's exile in Norway?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/13/opinion/13BAWE.html
Although I regret his politics, Bawer did write a thoughtful review in
the NYTBR of James Purdy's most recent novel & career a while back. I
would not have expected Bawer to be a champion of Purdy, who is not
exactly a place at the table kind of author...but I digress...more than
once.
Brad
Brad Macdonald
> br...@columbia.edu (Brad Macdonald) wrote:
> >Thank god Sullivan doesn't post his blog url to soc.motss by
> >way of discussion, suggesting one go to it for elucidation.
>
> What, should I have rewritten the same material? Quoted the
> material from my blog? What?
Hie thee to my blog as retort in soc.motss? Un-uh.
Brad
Brad Macdonald
> >Jess Anderson:
> >>Same forest, different parts. We live there too.
> >But Sullivan doesn't.
>
> that may be to deal with (and I think it is, very).
I can't claim to have met Sullivan, but I did see him once in
P-town. I wouldn't have minded being on a boat with him. Phong
and I did go whale-watching that weekend, and I'm sure we would have
been delighted if he happened too go along. I'm just superficial enough
(i.e southern enough -- hi David Fenton!) to want to meet him. I think
his being an attractive, white, male, gay, HIV+ conservative, RCC believer
is a good thing for challenging conservatives and Catholics, but not much
else. I recognise his struggle, etc. I worry about his obsession that
the US needs to go to war with Iraq immediately. Is there more I need
declare? Where are you here?
Brad
Edward Ricketts
ago.
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Stephanie Smith wrote:
> dXXXf...@bway.net (David W. Fenton) wrote in
> news:9302B5F52df...@24.168.128.78:
>
> > Try reading this by Joan Didion:
> >
> > http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15984
> >
> > and then review Sullivan's irrational savaging of what *he*
> > imagined Didion was saying:
> >
> > http://salon.com/news/col/sullivan/2003/01/07/didion/index.
> > html
> >
> > and tell me if you think he deserves any attention
> > whatsoever as a commentator on any subject at all.
>
> Either he's as dumb as a bag of hammers or his arrogance has
> asphyxiated his intellect. Either way, absolutely a moron.
I like that !
BUt I keep wondering: Is he becoming cat-like (thread tie !)
Actually, he some a bit noisy for a cat - unless it's a tom cat with
"The Scent" in his nose.
> --
> You've got your future at stake. Face front! Take it! - Strummer
Perhaps Sullivan did an about face, and .....
sh...@radix.net Ed Ricketts
Ellen Evans
Robert S. Coren <co...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <avvn18$22i$1...@panix1.panix.com>, Ellen Evans <je...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <avvb8q$hfo$1...@panix5.panix.com>,
>>Robert S. Coren <co...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>In article <avvb31$h3t$1...@panix2.panix.com>, Ellen Evans <je...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>[]
>>
>>>>The question in context had to do with moronity, not the various Axii of
>>>>Evil.
>>>
>>>Er, um. The plural of "axis" is "axes". Those are in another thread,
>>>anyway, I thought.
>>
>>Moronity isn't a word either. My guess is they were on purpose.
>
>Could be. Maybe we should ask the person who wrote them.
What a good idea!
Ellen Evans
Jess Anderson <ande...@wisc.edu> wrote:
[]
>Same forest, different parts. We live there too.
Speak for yourself.
Christian Hansen
>ande...@wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) wrote in
><avt5vo$lf6$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu>:
>
>>My point was that a person and ideas are not so
>>tightly wedded that a useful idea can never issue from a person
>>one does not respect.
>
>How long are you willing to wait around for it?
>
>One year?
>
>Two years?
>
>Five years?
>
>Ten years?
>
>At what point is it respectable to give up on there ever being
>anything useful issuing therefrom?
>
>I've read Sullivan for many years now.
>
>I'm still waiting.
Of course, the fact that you're still reading his books and columns means
that, at least in one aspect, he's fairly canny.
Chris "You're using his product, after all." Hansen
--
Chris Hansen | chrishansenhome at btinternet dot com
http://www.hansenhome.demon.co.uk
"You try moving a truck full of shit with a scared pussy in your lap and
see how social you feel." Frank McQuarry
Mike McKinley
> In article <avvb8q$hfo$1...@panix5.panix.com>,
> Robert S. Coren <co...@panix.com> wrote:
> >In article <avvb31$h3t$1...@panix2.panix.com>, Ellen Evans <je...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>The question in context had to do with moronity, not the various Axii of
> >>Evil.
> >Er, um. The plural of "axis" is "axes". Those are in another thread,
> >anyway, I thought.
> Moronity isn't a word either. My guess is they were on purpose.
How 'bout "to ellen?"
--
邢 唷��
Mike McKinley
> I'm just superficial enough
> (i.e southern enough -- hi David Fenton!) to want to meet him.
But do you say "stastistics" like all the rest of us ignorant Southerners?
(Hi, Joe Fineman!)
--
邢 唷��
David W. Fenton
>On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, David W. Fenton wrote:
Er, no.
I said, if you're too lazy to read the two articles and compare
Sullivan's misrepresentation to Didion's original, an item in my
blog points out some of them.
What is more relevant than that, pointing someone to somewhere else
where I've already directly addressed the question at hand?
David W. Fenton
<ged72vk1hvksr78iu...@4ax.com>:
>Of course, the fact that you're still reading his books and
>columns means that, at least in one aspect, he's fairly canny.
>
>Chris "You're using his product, after all." Hansen
Well, if he weren't in Salon, I don't think I'd be reading him.
I don't even buy the Sunday Times any more, though I do check the
website for what's in the Arts section and what's on the cover of
the Magazine. If Sullivan were to get another Magazine cover
(didn't he quit in a hissy fit or something?), I might try to read
it, but I have less and less patience for the longwinded type of
stuff the Times tends to put in the magazine.
The Times has really gone downhill in the last 2 or 3 years.
David W. Fenton
>Okay, I also was squicked by Joan Didion's piece in the NYRB,
>prior to reading Sullivan's treatment of it, . . .
Squicked? Howso?
And do note that Sullivan's criticism of the article was not about
being "squicked" by it. For him it was emblematic of the decay of
the entire left.
> . . . as I was here
>similarly from much of the follow-up to Greg Parkinson's 9/11
>experience thread
I don't know how that could have gone any differently. While Greg
may have been the only direct participant in the event, he wasn't
the only one to suffer emotional trauma from it. Claiming some kind
of priority for his own trauma seemed to me to be neither called
for nor helpful.
David W. Fenton
>I'm just superficial enough
>(i.e southern enough -- hi David Fenton!) to want to meet him.
Please -- keep your fantasies about what I think to yourself.
David W. Fenton
>Ellen Evans:
>>Jess Anderson:
>
>>>Same forest, different parts. We live there too.
>
>>Speak for yourself.
>
>Hola, space alien, welcome to Earth.
The Earth I live on doesn't work by the rules that Sullivan seem to
me to assume in most of his writing.
Chris Ambidge
> But do you say "stastistics" like all the rest of us ignorant Southerners?
how do you pronounce "nuclear"?
Chris
who was amused by a molly ivins assertion that anyone who mis-pronounces it as
"newkewlar" shouldn't be allowed to have a finger on the button of any
nuclear devices
--
if the planets are misaligned, I may have been logged in under an assumed name.
no matter WHAT/WHO the headers of this post claim , I am
Chris Ambidge =|= amb...@ecf.utoronto.ca =|= chris....@utoronto.ca
chemist by day=|=panda by night=|=www.chem-eng.utoronto.ca/~ambidge/panda.jpg
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
Tim Wilson wrote:
> I personally think that Sullivan has, by and large, been designated a
> pariah by too many people.
Pariah, piffle. His first book was lousy and his columns are a bore.
Those are fine reasons for me to be uninterested in making his acquaintance.
Gwendolyn
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
> There is demonstrable irrationality and a notable lack of logic
> in referring to Andrew Sullivan as a moron, David.
I don't know, Jess, I certainly find his intelligence and erudition
vastly overrated. I was very excited about reading _Virtually Normal_
because it was touted as a very intelligent conservative argument. I
enjoy smart conservative arguments -- they're fun to think against. I
didn't find it to be anything of the sort. When I heard him lecture and
answer questions, I was equally unimpressed. Nothing he has produced
has ever struck me as particularly intelligent or well-informed.
Gwendolyn
Mike McKinley
> [mikey]
> > But do you say "stastistics" like all the rest of us ignorant Southerners?
> how do you pronounce "nuclear"?
> who was amused by a molly ivins assertion that anyone who mis-pronounces it as
> "newkewlar" shouldn't be allowed to have a finger on the button of any
> nuclear devices
Like Molly, Missy.
--
邢 唷��
Scott Safier
> Ellen Evans wrote:
>> Moronity isn't a word either. My guess is they were on purpose.
>
> How 'bout "to ellen?"
You're just jealous that we haven't verbed you. yet.
--
Scott
http://www.pink-triangle.org/scott
Men are like a fine wine. They all start out like grapes, and it's our job
to stomp on them and keep them in the dark until they mature into
something you'd like to have dinner with.
Scott Safier
> br...@columbia.edu (Brad Macdonald) wrote in
><Pine.GSO.4.50.030114...@sawasdee.cc.columbia.edu>:
>
>>I'm just superficial enough
>>(i.e southern enough -- hi David Fenton!) to want to meet him.
>
> Please -- keep your fantasies about what I think to yourself.
But may we think about your fantasies?
Brad Macdonald
> I don't know, Jess, I certainly find his intelligence and erudition
> vastly overrated. I was very excited about reading _Virtually Normal_
> because it was touted as a very intelligent conservative argument. I
When I'm feeling naughty, I read The New Criterion.
And aldaily.com is fab for its mix.
Brad
Scott Safier
> And thank god Sullivan doesn't post to soc.motss.
We don't solicit barebackers here.
Mike McKinley
> Mike McKinley:
> > Ellen Evans wrote:
> >> Moronity isn't a word either. My guess is they were on purpose.
> > How 'bout "to ellen?"
> You're just jealous that we haven't verbed you. yet.
Saffy, I'd denali you in about five seconds.
--
邢 唷��
Scott Safier
You are so like a piano when men are around -- when a man gets
upright, you feel grand.
::kisses
Brad Macdonald
> >(i.e southern enough -- hi David Fenton!) to want to meet him.
>
> Please -- keep your fantasies about what I think to yourself.
How many here have you thus admonished?
Brad
Brad Macdonald
> What is more relevant than that, pointing someone to somewhere else
> where I've already directly addressed the question at hand?
It felt a bit pompous to me, but it could be I'm just unfamiliar with
the etiquette of bloggers.
Brad
Chris Ambidge
>> how do you pronounce "nuclear"?
>> who was amused by a molly ivins assertion that anyone who mis-pronounces it
>> as "newkewlar" shouldn't be allowed to have a finger on the button of any
>> nuclear devices
[hisself]
> Like Molly, Missy.
ah, you pass the shibboleth. you are confirmed as one of The Right
People.
Chris
not that i had any doubt, i hasten to add
Ellen Evans
Ellen Evans
Jess Anderson <ande...@wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>Ellen Evans:
>>Jess Anderson:
>
>>>Same forest, different parts. We live there too.
>
>>Speak for yourself.
>
Offhand, I'd say it's only an alien who would assert that all humans are
part of the same forest. That out of world perspective, doncha know.
Robert S. Coren
A. Rzepela <rzep...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>David W. Fenton (dXXXf...@bway.net) wrote:
>
>: I don't know how that could have gone any differently. While Greg
>: may have been the only direct participant in the event, he wasn't
>: the only one to suffer emotional trauma from it. Claiming some kind
>: of priority for his own trauma seemed to me to be neither called
>: for nor helpful.
>
Is it too late to reclose this particular can of worms?
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
"Ideas aren't responsible for the people who believe in them."
--Don Marquis by way of Melinda Shore
Frank McQuarry
While I agree with the argument that it is always worthwhile to listen
to opposing view, I have to agree with you here that AS isn't the best
choice of opposing view.
His writing comes off like fingernails on a blackboard.
Mike McKinley
Grrrll...
Just let Daffy delete or fast-forward through us.
--
邢 唷��
David W. Fenton
Well, as I'm new to it, I'm unfamiliar, too. I thought it was
better to point to that for those who wanted to go there and read
it than to dump it all here. I don't see any point in having a blog
if I'm going to repost everything I write here -- might as well
just post it all here.
David W. Fenton
Mostly just Michael Thomas, who has a florid imagination.
David W. Fenton
<b01ktk$gpr$1...@panix5.panix.com>:
>In article <JKXU9.349$3G3.2...@monger.newsread.com>,
>A. Rzepela <rzep...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>>David W. Fenton (dXXXf...@bway.net) wrote:
>>
>>: I don't know how that could have gone any differently. While
>>: Greg may have been the only direct participant in the event, he
>>: wasn't the only one to suffer emotional trauma from it.
>>: Claiming some kind of priority for his own trauma seemed to me
>>: to be neither called for nor helpful.
>>
>>Yeah - just imagine if that had actually happened.
>
>Is it too late to reclose this particular can of worms?
Exactly who opened it?
Not me.
Robert S. Coren
David W. Fenton <dXXXf...@bway.net> wrote:
>co...@panix.com (Robert S. Coren) wrote in
><b01ktk$gpr$1...@panix5.panix.com>:
>
>>In article <JKXU9.349$3G3.2...@monger.newsread.com>,
>>A. Rzepela <rzep...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>>>David W. Fenton (dXXXf...@bway.net) wrote:
>>>
>>>: I don't know how that could have gone any differently. While
>>>: Greg may have been the only direct participant in the event, he
>>>: wasn't the only one to suffer emotional trauma from it.
>>>: Claiming some kind of priority for his own trauma seemed to me
>>>: to be neither called for nor helpful.
>>>
>>>Yeah - just imagine if that had actually happened.
>>
>>Is it too late to reclose this particular can of worms?
>
>Exactly who opened it?
I doj't care. I'm not trying to affix blame; I'm trying to avoid
repetition.
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
Greg: Andy's missing a glove.
James: Yeah, that accounts for his piss-poor attitude.
Greg: That, and he don't like most people. --_NYPD Blue_, 1/28/97
Edgar J. Lawrence
> [mikey]
> > But do you say "stastistics" like all the rest of us ignorant Southerners?
>
> how do you pronounce "nuclear"?
>
> Chris
> who was amused by a molly ivins assertion that anyone who mis-pronounces it as
> "newkewlar" shouldn't be allowed to have a finger on the button of any
> nuclear devices
The common mispronunciation* sounds more like
"newkyaler" to me.
*A mispronunciation which seems to be more and
more common.
Edgar
Edgar J. Lawrence
> David W. Fenton:
> > And thank god Sullivan doesn't post to soc.motss.
>
> We don't solicit barebackers here.
There is a relevant article about AS at
http://rittenhouse.blogspot.com/2002_10_13_rittenhouse_archive.html
It has occurred to me that if AS does Google
Groups searches for his name, he might actually
appear in soc.motss some day. One of the
homophobes mentioned in the article about AS
*does* (or at did) read Usenet. That would be
"film critic" M*ch**l M*dv*d. For more about
MM's homophobia see the following (Warning: the
final two sites are right-wing sites):
http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/95/4/03_2_m.html
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/medved112101.asp
http://www.narth.com/docs/samesexmatters.html
Edgar
David W. Fenton
>In article <9303CB16Cdf...@24.168.128.78>,
>David W. Fenton <dXXXf...@bway.net> wrote:
>>co...@panix.com (Robert S. Coren) wrote in
>><b01ktk$gpr$1...@panix5.panix.com>:
>>
>>>In article <JKXU9.349$3G3.2...@monger.newsread.com>,
>>>A. Rzepela <rzep...@netaxs.com> wrote:
>>>>David W. Fenton (dXXXf...@bway.net) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>: I don't know how that could have gone any differently. While
>>>>: Greg may have been the only direct participant in the event,
>>>>: he wasn't the only one to suffer emotional trauma from it.
>>>>: Claiming some kind of priority for his own trauma seemed to
>>>>: me to be neither called for nor helpful.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah - just imagine if that had actually happened.
>>>
>>>Is it too late to reclose this particular can of worms?
>>
>>Exactly who opened it?
>
>I doj't care. I'm not trying to affix blame; I'm trying to avoid
>repetition.
Why did you not take it up with the first person to raise the
issue, then?
I mean, why is it suddenly worth condemning when someone disputes
someone else's characterization of what happened, but the original
characterization of the circumstances was OK? Is it the issue or
the particular opinion expressed that leads to your reaction?
Robert S. Coren
None of the above. My request, although necessarily following up to
exactly one post, was not directed specifically at one individual.
What triggered it was a perception on my part that a rehash of certain
unpleasant (to me at least) past discussions might be about to start
-- something which requires at least two participants, you'll notice
-- and I was hoping to discourage that.
That's all I'm going to say on the subject.
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
"My fax machine, which was made by the French state, always blames
someone else when things go wrong."
--Adam Gopnik
Brad Macdonald
> None of the above. My request, although necessarily following up to
> exactly one post, was not directed specifically at one individual.
> What triggered it was a perception on my part that a rehash of certain
> unpleasant (to me at least) past discussions might be about to start
> -- something which requires at least two participants, you'll notice
> -- and I was hoping to discourage that.
>
> That's all I'm going to say on the subject.
Subjects relating to the WTC attack & its aftermath are difficult to
avoid. I wish you luck.
Brad
Robert S. Coren
Jess Anderson <ande...@wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>>Subjects relating to the WTC attack & its aftermath are
>>difficult to avoid. I wish you luck.
>
>major interest and importance to most of us and as such
>entirely reasonable topics here.
>
>I would not avoid reporting how I feel now or how I felt then,
>and if someone had similar or dissimilar feelings and wanted to
>discuss those matters, I would think that would be fine.
>
>What I viewed with grave dismay was the prospect of discussing
>the past actions or presumed feelings of any particular former
>participant.
Exactly, only I would add the word "again".
--Robert (breaking his vow, sort of)
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
"Little baklavas pulsate in the oven. It's scary and somewhat
erotic." --BBC
Brad Macdonald
> It seems to me that the attack and its aftermath are matters of
> major interest and importance to most of us and as such
> entirely reasonable topics here.
>
> I would not avoid reporting how I feel now or how I felt then,
> and if someone had similar or dissimilar feelings and wanted to
> discuss those matters, I would think that would be fine.
>
> What I viewed with grave dismay was the prospect of discussing
> the past actions or presumed feelings of any particular former
> participant.
Perhaps my saying Didion's article in the NYRB made me uncomfortable
in a manner similar to majority opinion here in the Sept. 11 flamewar
made that prospect inevitable.
Brad
David W. Fenton
<b072n2$t5i$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu>:
>What I viewed with grave dismay was the prospect of discussing
>the past actions or presumed feelings of any particular former
>participant.
But that wasn't the issue in dispute in the flamewar -- it was how
he reacted to the rest of us, who had different feelings than he
did, not surprisingly.
I don't say this to rehash, but just to point out that not everyone
has the same memory of what that heated discussion was about.
Mike McKinley
> ande...@wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) wrote in
> <b072n2$t5i$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu>:
> >What I viewed with grave dismay was the prospect of discussing
> >the past actions or presumed feelings of any particular former
> >participant.
> But that wasn't the issue in dispute in the flamewar -- it was how
> he reacted to the rest of us, who had different feelings than he
> did, not surprisingly.
> I don't say this to rehash, but just to point out that not everyone
> has the same memory of what that heated discussion was about.
All I remember was that it wasn't about me.
--
邢 唷��