From: joe@spdcc.com (Joseph Francis)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Arne Adolphson, Moron At Large
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:49:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1993Jan12.184905.26236
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <73223@cup.portal.com> Furr@cup.portal.com (George Dalton Madison) writes:
>Joseph Francis writes:
>>You have, in the past, called me a muscle-bound jerk
>
>Ah well. I can't be that perceptive all the time.

That's true. I'm usually scathing when I think something is silly,
until I realize that making fun of defensless things not fun. As
Philip K.d Dick, noted heterosexual meth-head Sci-Fi writer of only
occasionally good work wrote "If I had known it was harmless, I would
have killed it immediately" (from "Through a Scanner, Darkly"). I
believe that this was prompted not long after we had a heated
discussion at a Party about Pascal, and how fabulous you thought it
was (yes, I've met George at sex Parties). Or it might have been the
time I wrote a piece about the dust bunnies I imagined playing soccer
under your bed.

>>If ever there was a whine,
>>it is the continual "there are no hairy men in the media" mantra you
>
>A distortion of what I said.

That's the point. Truth sometimes rears its ugly head in the form of
distortion that sweeps away curtain #3.

>>type at the drop of a hat, when simplistic analysis would find
>>otherwise (I'm very good at simplistic analysis I've never found good
>>support for your assertions, and I should know).
>
>Of course. You're an expert at absolutely everything.

See, the problem is this over and over. I make a self-deprecating joke
about my simplistic analysis (which is a very negative thing to say),
and you sort of lurch over it. Like Steve's pun on objective correlative.

>>I'm always /curious/ about what 
>>you are going to write, but I shudder nonetheless when I see you in
>>the "From:" header.
>
>Fascinating.  The feeling is almost mutual -- except I'm not
>curious about what you write.

As far as I can tell, then, from your insults of others and your
vituperations that you aren't very curious about anything that anyone
writes at all. Who do you like to read on MOTSS? Why? If you aren't
curious about what I write, then why read it? I can usually develop a
model in my head of why people do things. I can't quite get yours yet.
There are pieces missing.

>>I know the charm of writing well, having a sense of humor, and being
>>well-exposed to culture and life can be inexplicable to those for whom
>>that is meaningless.
>
>You *are* learning.
>
>>You must agree, George, you don't have a buoyant sense of humor
>
>I "must agree" to absolutely nothing of the kind. As for a sense
>of humor, acid in the eyes and knives in the ribs are just a 
>laugh *riot*.

I don't think I've ever seen you crack jokes in more than a
tight-lipped way; most of your humor is in your apparently automatic
post-note quoting of other people's humor. Don't you ever find
anything funny in grown men who zoomorphise themselves into bears?
Can't you imagine curious situations one develops being an aficionado
of piss-soaked pants? I know that I'm stretching things, but it
becomes a sort of camp after a point nto not be humorous - it is the
camp of naivte. You don't like that, and that's what you find "aid in
the eyes" and "knives int he ribs". If I had a dollar for every time
someone said to me with astonished eyes "You went home with <x>?"
simply because they were heavy (I like big bellies), or ugly in a
particularly attractive way, I'd be rich. If I was nasty back, I'd
also have very few people who could tolerate me. It is hard enough as
it is. You call this bullying, bitchy queenieness. I call it a lack of
taste and leave at that.

>[Glendale-slamming deleted]
>
>No, Glendale isn't the most fascinating place in the known
>universe, and I never claimed it was; it's Idjit Arne who
>made this into whatever "issue" it has become. Glendale just
>happens to be a (relatively) inexpensive, (relatively) safe
>place to live that is convenient to where I work and play.
>Period.
>
>>What's your point?
>
>I'm not surprised it eludes you.

I always found Glendale to be the best place to buy Crystal, and
inasmuch, it was a charming city. The problem is that you are smug
about it. "Glendale Slamming". Can't you tell the difference between
poking fun and genuine hatred? I loved listening to Dinah Shore
crooning Glendale Federal waving her arms around. Because I liked it
is why I remembered it, because it was silly, unpretentious fun to
think about. What do you have to say about silly and unpretentious?

As for drag, piss-soaked, oil-stained, cowboy hats, shirts open to the
bellybutton are all drag. Drag is what you do, not what you wear, and
when you wear that, you are certainly doing it.
-- 
US Jojo; damp, slighly soiled, but tasty nonetheless.