From: zeleny@scws7.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,alt.whine
Subject: Re: hands off Patricia !
Date: 7 Nov 92 05:20:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov7.002013.17189
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

>In article <1992Oct31.141341.16970@husc3.harvard.edu>,
>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>>In article <ALEXEEV.92Oct30150625@solitude.math.utah.edu>
>>alexeev@math.utah.edu (Valery A. Alexeev) writes:

VAA:
>>>I, for one, am simply ashamed and disgusted reading these incredibly
>>>rude answers to Patricia's postings.
>>>Can't you behave as decent people ?

MZ:
>>Can you conceive of any standard of decency that differs from your own?

VAA:
>>>I understand, this is USENET. I understand, this is s.c.s., the place
>>>for the overwhelming hatred towards each other, different (from yours)
>>>nationalities, different (from yours) views on everything.
>>>But for God's sake, here's a woman, posting from Moscow, giving us, in
>>>my opinion, very interesting fresh impressions (she is the reason I
>>>started reading this hopeless group again), very sincere and obviously
>>>in love with Russia.
>>>Is it the latter you hate the most ?

MZ:
>>Valery, we must have very different standards of interpretation as well.  I
>>have gone on record several times as a somewhat lukewarm fan of our Moscow
>>correspondent.  Note that this fact does not entail any feelings whatsoever
>>toward her as a person, nor any sort of blanket approval of everything she
>>writes, including, but not limited to, the trite standpoint from which her
>>writing is conducted.  Yes, our dear Patricia is a very banal and mediocre
>>writer, -- but banality and mediocrity both have their proper place, hers
>>being somewhere between the good-natured pap of the NYT opinion page and a
>>feminist counterpart of sweetly scatterbrained Dear Abby, -- and I
>>cheerfully confess to a penchant for occasional consumption of both items.
>>On the other hand, by dint of a lengthy if intermittent personal
>>correspondence, I have come to hold in high esteem the character of Janek
>>Wojdylo, a.k.a. INFIDEL, even as I tend to find the form of his articles to
>>radically overwhelm their content most of the time.  Can you understand the
>>point I am making, or do I have to use smaller words to facilitate your
>>comprehension?

MM:
>Michael (or Moshe, whatever you prefer):

Makes no difference.

MM:
>I've read some of your articles and got an undoubtful opinion about you, which
>can be expressed in a single word: "TREPLO".  You miserable attempts to show
>your fantastic vocabulary leads you to loosing you point (if one ever existed). 

Very well, I shall take care to use only small words when addressing
you.  On the other hand, I reserve the right to use precisely the
words I find the most appropriate, when addressing others.

MM:
>It's very nice of you to teach us some new Englis scientific words, but don't
>try to mix them with your stupid opinion on everything around.  Just give us a
>dictionary of your favorite words and shut up about evrything else.

No.

MM:
>If you think, that I am not fair to you, I'll get some examples from the text
>above.  Who told you that Patricia is banal? Tell this person that he is a
>lier!  She is not banal at least because she is unique.  I haven't seen a lot
>of Americans (even more than that: Irish Americans) who would read any Russian
>literature or go to study all the way to Moscow.

Everyone is in some sense unique; most of that uniqueness is banal.  I
have explained my opinion of Patricia's writing, giving references to
other sources of similar style, content, and quality.  As for your not
having seen a lot of other Americans do what Patricia did, that is due
solely to your sheltered upbringing.  By contrast, in the Slavic
department of this university, and elsewhere, I have met many such
people, some of whom even managed to produce worthwhile scholarly
works about Russian literature, something that I would be willing to
bet your client will never do.

MM:
>I may be agree with you that her ideas are questionable (sometimes), but it
>doesn't mean that you should exercise your even more questionable
>intellectuality on her and on people who try to be fair to her.

I exercise my judgment, questionable or not, on whatever subject I
bloody well like.  So far you have not done anything to question my
"intellectuality", except by disclosing the limitations of your circle
of acquaintances.  How very unimpressive.

MM:
>Sir, I also want to mention, that if you try to answer my challenge, don't
>attempt to use your shot-guns, because I'm a member of the U.S.Army and may
>answer you by the same token.

(i)	I never initiate physical violence.
(ii)	Shotguns are for the birds.
(iii)	You still do not impress me.

MM:
>And don't use those fancy words for me, keep them for those who would be glad
>"smotret' Vam v rot vsiu svoiu zhizn'",

Next time you wish to make a request, I suggest that you find room
therein for the magic word `please'.

>respectfully,
>
>Michael Martynov. 

>>[...] (the rest is deleted)

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
" -- I shall speak bluntly, because life is short."