From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Re: My dinner with Anderson
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 05:02:49 GMT


In article <17960@autodesk.COM> owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen
Rowley) writes:

>However I've always figured you don't really read anybody
>elses posts, and merely hammer out your commentary based on
>some strange formula.

Well, it says here I read and responded to 29 of yours this
year, up to your little hiatus starting in July.  Having now
looked at those, I clearly was reading them, because I was
giving you hell of what you said, or because I was giving
you a compliment, and you objected to the former and gladly
took the latter.  Indeed, quite a few of them are very good-
natured and several are even funny.

>How much time could you possibly spend reading, when so much
>is spent dispensing such hearty fare.

It seems a miracle, doesn't it?  Well, I guess it'll just
have to be a miracle.  We've been over this stuff before.  

Seems to be the week for lists.  I manage to work about 8
hours a day, like normal folks.  I read 200-400 pages of
something every day.  I listen to music.  I watch probably
about 15 hours of TV a week.  I read the net four or five
times a day, more on weekends.  I write this stuff, which
goes pretty quickly.  I write music reviews (not to mention
attending the concerts reviewed).  I eat meals, I sleep, I
even socialize (though not a lot).

>Its true I rarely agree with you , but I believe I've made
>some attempts to acknowledge when I do.

You have.  I could say the same; it would be true.

>>I believe, that you thrive on strife.

>Believe what you will.  But let me state plainly that I
>think dialogue is the spice of life.  I don't require that
>the exchange be characterised by strife, but neither do I
>require agreement as qualification for participation.

We agree about dialog being zesty.  I think the record will
speak very clearly, if you like, that I don't give anyone
one bit more grief than you do on occasions of disagreement.

This was you (article <drtk#=+.onr@netcom.com>):

]]Well I follow the *way* called floating Anarchy and
]]practise guerilla ontology in the quest of same.

>What do you thrive on Jess, could it be that an individual
>who posts volume equal to all other participants cares
>nothing about the attention it brings?

Such a bizarre sense of proportion.  I suppose it's a bit
like the perceived dyke invasion when three lesbians say
something here.  Now the numbers, Owen, simply do not
support this wild claim of yours.  What you call half is an
amount between 5% and 15%, depending on various little
things.  How curious to be so set on a point as to overstate
by *that* much, eh?

And you think (a) it brings attention, and (b) the attention
it does or doesn't bring is something I do or don't dote on,
apparently.  I must say, that's a bit curious, too.

>Enlighten us Jess, I'd like to know what drives you.

If I believed you really wanted to be enlightened, I'd
undertake the task at once, of course, who could pass up
a chance like that?  Despite your protestations to the
contrary, Owen, we have at least this in common:

In article <1992May15.121843.27747@macc.wisc.edu>, I wrote:

]In article <bnpk2p#.onr@netcom.com> onr@netcom.com (D. Owen
]Rowley) writes:

]]I don't want anybody to waste their time on me if they don't
]]want to, and I don't write the things I do here worrying if
]]anyone will respect me in the morning.  I say what i say,
]]and I write what i write for me.  If someone doesn't repect
]]that, its their problem.

]I think this is the *only* attitude that really makes sense.
]He believes what he says, he says what he believes.  Take it
]or leave it.  When I don't agree with him, which is often, I
]may or may not say so.  But I don't expect to change him.

>>>But you never comment on the substance of what i post, you
>>>wait for a confrontational opportunity.  

Now that I've reviewed the material, there's *much* evidence
you are wrong.

>>I think you're turned slightly around, good buddy.  The peep
>>I heard from you was that pusillanimous pustule of pompous
>>bluster responded to above.  

>Oh darn, I already removed the pesky little artichoke, well
>..  its gone now!

Brain surgery.

>>The fact is it was you who
>>waited for a confrontational opportunity, which is after all
>>your stock in trade.

>Your hands and keyboard are pure, unstained by any glimmer
>of cattiness of confrontation.  I don't think so Jess.

Washing up is what soap is *for*, Owen.  No point in wasting
any on exculpating myself, but your halo is less blinding
than you think.  I have these special shades for viewing
haloes, you see.

>My stock in trade is wordsmithing in ways that promote
>thinking Jess.  One of the big differences between us is
>that I don't insist that the reader winds up thinking my
>thoughts in place of their own.

If "practicing guerilla ontology" were wordsmithing, and
if it promoted thinking, doubtless I would agree on the
first point.

But the second makes little sense as either wordsmithing or
thought, if you mean to imply that I look for conformity to
my own ideas.  If you think I do, then you are reading me
through strange shades indeed.

But you say you don't:

>of the bulk of jess-0-bytes that
>flood through the newsgroup, I sample quite little.

so it's not very clear what you might mean.  Even less clear
is this:

>I have no prblem with you as a person Jess, and a few years
>back I actually thought there was some mutual respect for
>our differences of opinion.

Then I am not to put any credence in the mutuality of the
respect expressed rather more recently (May this year)?

]Not everyone presents me or us with this "take it or leave
]it" choice, but Owen does.  That's how he is, at least on
]the outside.  

]Whether I think that's good, bad, or neutral isn't
]pertinent.  I respect what I can respect -- what he's told us
]of his life story and several other things elicit (at least
]my) respect -- and life's too short to get my knickers in a
]twist over the things I don't respect where he's concerned.
]I need my reserves for *real* enemies.  At the bottom line,
]if I were in trouble and asked for his help, I bet you
]*anything* he'd try.

]In part because many of us know each other in various ways,
]having our own points to make and lives to lead, it's easy
]for us to forget temporarily what really counts.  Now and
]then, I think it's a good idea to make what counts explicit.

>But I've come to a different position now.

Noted, since you insist.

>Your tendency to dismiss all other viewpoints as moronic,

Not all, Owen, just the moronic ones.  It's truly not
possible to be objective about oneself, but by far the
majority of people I disagree with I engage in honest
debate.

>and your patronising habit of never looking back at your own
>trail when you get bitchy

Surely we do not need more chapter and verse, in your own
words, to belie that, do we?  We've even recanted
*together*, which I thought was charming and fun.

>has left me fairly indifferent towards you.

My guess there's a wound you've kept open so it would
fester, and you identify it with me, rather exaggeratedly
too.  Doesn't pass for indifference, I think.

I think you should quit monkeying around:

]yes, i do think we are essentially baboons.

<> The believer is happy; the doubter is wise.
<> -- Hungarian proverb
-- 
[Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin]
[Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson]
[Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888]
[---------> Discrimination, Bigotry, and Hate are not Family Values <---------]
Newsgroups: soc.motss,co.politics