A Literary Journal of Critical Thinking
In the Samizdat Tradition of Writing against the Machine
A Forum for Examining the Dark Side of the Academic/Literary Industrial Complex

Correspondence with Bill Smith

Correspondence with Bill Smith was, to say the least, a big waste of time.  It was like corresponding with a devil's advocate, but one who lacked a sense of logic. 

Date:  Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:56:10 -0500

From:  "Bill Smith" <besmith@paulbunyan.net>

To:  todslone@yahoo.com

Subject:  Uh, Tod, your slip is showing.

"In each issue of The American Dissident (unfunded by the academy, thus no glossy cover), I always include the opposite point of view; that is, any harsh commentary lodged against me and/or the journal.  That’s what clearly makes it different from the Joe-average academic journal, including Divide. "-Tod Slone (http://www.theamericandissident.org/LiteraryLetters-ProfessorWingate.htm )

Tod,
    You and I had a long (something on the order of 56 emails if my memory serves) exchange which does not appear anywhere on your webpages nor in your print magazine. In fact, it went right down the memory hole: you put it there. I asked you to put it up on your webpage so that your readers could weigh in on our exchange and tell us whether they thought I was right or you were right or whatever. You scotched it and no one other than you or I ever read those emails. So you are not being honest at all when you say what I quote above. And the professor you wrote that to has a right to know that you aren't as pure as the driven snow.
    I still invite you to post our entire email exchange online. (By the way, if you remember, my emails were relevant enough for you to change your home page in response to them. We both know that.)
Yours,
Bill Smith

PS. Professor Wingate: I am sending this to you because ever since my extended exchange with Tod Slone and invitation to publish the entire email exchange, which he declined to do, I check his webpage occassionally to see what he is up to. When I read the above quote I spit coffee out of my nose! Mr. Slone can only get away with such a lie if I fail to write a response. Thus this email. I apologize to you for opening up this can of worms again after it was laid to rest, but I feel that you should know (and feel free to show this around by the way) that he is being selective in his memory and not actually stating a factual policy he has. If you want a copy of our entire email exchange, I just looked in my archives and found it.

Yours,
Bill Smith again



 

-- 

William Smith

2635 Pearl Dr NE

Bemidji, MN 56601-8523

218.444.9732

No concern for other people's crap leads democracy into the abyss of autocracy.

G. Tod Slone, Ed.

The American Dissident

www.theamericandissident.org

Bill Smith <besmith@paulbunyan.net> wrote:

There's nothing more damaging to the soul than a too intense concern
with other people's sins.
-Rev. Paul V. Marshall, Bishop of Bethlehem, PA. in Episcopal Life
Magazine, Feb. 2005

And a tremendous concern for other peoples' crap on the part of one or a handful
of people doesn't seem likely to stop democracy from descending into autocracy either,
if our last two elections are any indication of what millions can [fail to] accomplish.
Millions obviously have a better chance than one though.

1. How do you, personally, measure or determine the level of public concern? What
metric do you use?

2. Is it your position that we are currently an autocracy today in the USA?

3. Is it your belief that the American public is not at all "concerned for other peoples' crap"
or are you just implying that I am not concerned?

4. Is it your position that George W. Bush is our own autocrat?

5. I have my own opinion about the imperial presidency, but it seems that you feel
that we are not on the slippery slope but already at the bottom. If that isn't true,
can you give me an example of a country that fits your stated scenario
"No concern for other people's crap leads democracy into the abyss of autocracy."
In which formerly democratic country was there no concern on the part of the public
as the country descended into autocracy?


 

Thanks Bill for introducing yourself.  I shall have to put your letter and my response in the next issue of The American Dissident because your thinking illustrates a sad reality… and I always put the harshest critique received regarding the editor and/or journal in each issue. 

You present points I clearly disagree with.  The first is your gripe against the Fundamentalists (thinly-veiled “lefty” moan against Bush).  Contrary to you, I believe the liberals are the biggest stumbling block to democracy because they too refuse criticism and refuse to open their eyes, yet unlike the Fundamentalists they walk proudly with the “lefty” myth of OPENESS.  They occupy many power positions today and behave as if they were Fundamentalists, though “lefty” Fundamentalists.  I know I've dealt with them often enough in academe, literature and even down at the Town Hall.  Well, I'm an atheist too, 56, and only voted once... for Nader in 2000.  I find myself unable to find full-time work in my profession as college professor because the “lefties,” not the Fundamentalists, hold the reins in academe and HATE those who dare do what they dare not:  SPEAK OUT, RISK, and otherwise CRITICIZE ON THE GRASSROOTS LEVEL. 

Watch your use of vocabulary.  "Railing against" is pejorative.  I do not RAIL, but rather stand up and criticize, probably something you do not have the courage to do, which explains the dubious choice of vocabulary.  Your reaction to my site and writing is SO TYPICAL, SO UNORIGINAL that I hesitate to respond.  "Angry, bitter" and all the other labels you and others put on true patriots, on those who dare criticize aloud... disgusts me.  It is a copout.  It is simply a thinly veiled admission of cowardice.  Those words serve nothing but a very thin armor and shield for those who wield them.  If anything your assertion that my writing reflects that my "mental state is a mess" is in fact a reflection that perhaps you are the one who is angry and bitter with a messy mind. 
My writing is very logical and very clear.  I am a part-time writing instructor.  You fail to list one mere example of illogical and unclear writing to support your assertion.  That too is TYPICAL.  I always teach my students that when they make such statements to always back them with at least several examples... otherwise the accusation is but hot air.  Clearly, you--with wife, children, mortgage and a weakness for anarchists--have a severe problem, not I.  You are a closet-anarchist and by closet I mean lacking the balls to act as your mind sees you ought to. 

Clearly, your mind cannot handle the clarity of my writing, especially the part mentioning how the weak with low self-esteem tend always to resort to name-calling ('angry, bitter, crank, messy mind") and never attempt to disprove the actual message with logical argumentation, facts, statistics and examples.  And you say you're an engineer! 
Your mention of how Trotsky had upset the orthodox "lefties" reveals that you are probably an orthodox “lefty.”  It is the orthodox "lefties" who are in control of the media, literature, and education, amongst other spheres. 

Finally, my assumption is that you are probably not telling me who you really are because you lack the courage to do that.  Most likely, you are a student (or even instructor) at one of the institutions I’ve criticized on my site OR friends of one of those criticized.  How terribly sad, though not surprising, that the educational system in this so-called “democracy” has taught you to name-call instead of reason. 

Sincerely,

G. Tod

Here are my ideas based on experience and observation with regards your five questions.  First, I do not claim that I shall be instrumental in stopping the fall of democracy.  On the contrary, I don’t really believe that fall is stoppable short of a nuclear holocaust.  And why should that stop me from being critical?  Why is being critical such a horrendous thing in your mind?  If you are a die-hard Democrat partyite, then evidently there can be no logical discussion between us. 

1. How do you, personally, measure or determine the level of public concern? What
metric do you use?

I do not try to measure that, nor have I claimed too.  I don’t think the public is ever really concerned, except when the mortgage rates go up… if you get my drift.   

2. Is it your position that we are currently an autocracy today in the USA?

We are clearly a plutocratic oligarchy, ruled by the wealthy and wealth.  The statistics are there if you want to see them.  Can you name one US Senator who is not a millionaire?  I can’t.  Look at Teddy Kennedy, occupying his senate seat for nearly 50 years… is that a democracy?  I suppose we are a corporocracy also as some call it. 

3. Is it your belief that the American public is not at all "concerned for other peoples' crap"
or are you just implying that I am not concerned?

Now, why can’t you see why I penned that phrase?  That is your problem, one you ought to deal with!  Clearly, it was penned in response to your religious quote. 

4. Is it your position that George W. Bush is our own autocrat?

Bush is a puppet of wealth, of the corporate lobbyists.  To focus on Bush is to focus on the puppet and to be blind to those pulling the strings.  Are you thusly blind? 

5. I have my own opinion about the imperial presidency, but it seems that you feel
that we are not on the slippery slope but already at the bottom. If that isn't true,
can you give me an example of a country that fits your stated scenario
"No concern for other people's crap leads democracy into the abyss of autocracy."
In which formerly democratic country was there no concern on the part of the public
as the country descended into autocracy?

Are you sure your opinion is not the liberal orthodox opinion?  Yes, we are more or less on the bottom.  When the bulk populace is fully fixated on bread and circuses, as it is today, that is the bottom.  Things of course are not black and white, but full of shades of hypocrisy.  Those shades serve as a veil to mask the reality.  Perhaps democracy, real democracy, is nothing but a fiction anyhow.  Perhaps we should be called a votocracy… or a lobbyocracy… or a leftyocracy when the Clintonians retake the power.  As for other examples, I’d really have to do research on that.  Yes, what other democracies have slid down the hill.  We could sure take a look at Toussaint’s democracy… ending up as Baby Doc’s autocracy.  What happened?  Sure, we could blame the white man… 

Now, Bill, why not be honest and tell me why you were so "angry and bitter" at my website.

G. Tod

George Slone wrote:

 

 Here are my ideas based on experience and observation with regards your five questions.  First, I do not claim that I shall be instrumental in stopping the fall of democracy.  On the contrary, I don’t really believe that fall is stoppable short of a nuclear holocaust.  And why should that stop me from being critical?  Why is being critical such a horrendous thing in your mind?  If you are a die-hard Democrat partyite, then evidently there can be no logical discussion between us.

I don't think being critical is such a horrendous thing.

I think ONLY being critical is a sad thing. I am not a member of the Democratic party. Never have been and never wanted to be. And you're right that there isn't going to be logical discussion between us; just for other reasons.

 

1. How do you, personally, measure or determine the level of public concern? What
metric do you use?

I do not try to measure that, nor have I claimed too.  I don’t think the public is ever really concerned, except when the mortgage rates go up… if you get my drift.

I don't quite follow that allusion. But I agree that it isn't possible to measure such an amorphous thing.

 

2. Is it your position that we are currently an autocracy today in the USA?

We are clearly a plutocratic oligarchy, ruled by the wealthy and wealth.  The statistics are there if you want to see them.  Can you name one US Senator who is not a millionaire?  I can’t.  Look at Teddy Kennedy, occupying his senate seat for nearly 50 years… is that a democracy?  I suppose we are a corporocracy also as some call it. 

I read somewhere that we have lower turnover rate of legislators than the old Soviet Union, a one-party state, did. I never confirmed it but I don't doubt it. I know wealth is power and our government is increasingly beholden to and working for those with money. So I agree with this statement now that you have abandoned the term autocracy.

 

3. Is it your belief that the American public is not at all "concerned for other peoples' crap"
or are you just implying that I am not concerned?

Now, why can’t you see why I penned that phrase?  That is your problem, one you ought to deal with!  Clearly, it was penned in response to your religious quote.

Touche. Now, can you see that you are concerned with other peoples' crap to an unhealty degree? I think it gets in the way of having a life that is enjoyable.

 

4. Is it your position that George W. Bush is our own autocrat?

Bush is a puppet of wealth, of the corporate lobbyists.  To focus on Bush is to focus on the puppet and to be blind to those pulling the strings.  Are you thusly blind?

Nope. I was testing whether you meant autocracy or were just sloppy in your terminology, and whether you thought the U.S. is an autocracy today. Your term, not mine. I know Bush is the go-to-guy if you are a CEO or corporate shill.

 

5. I have my own opinion about the imperial presidency, but it seems that you feel
that we are not on the slippery slope but already at the bottom. If that isn't true,
can you give me an example of a country that fits your stated scenario
"No concern for other people's crap leads democracy into the abyss of autocracy."
In which formerly democratic country was there no concern on the part of the public
as the country descended into autocracy?

Are you sure your opinion is not the liberal orthodox opinion?  Yes, we are more or less on the bottom.  When the bulk populace is fully fixated on bread and circuses, as it is today, that is the bottom.  Things of course are not black and white, but full of shades of hypocrisy.  Those shades serve as a veil to mask the reality.  Perhaps democracy, real democracy, is nothing but a fiction anyhow.  Perhaps we should be called a votocracy… or a lobbyocracy… or a leftyocracy when the Clintonians retake the power.  As for other examples, I’d really have to do research on that. Yes, what other democracies have slid down the hill.  We could sure take a look at Toussaint’s democracy… ending up as Baby Doc’s autocracy.  What happened?  Sure, we could blame the white man…

Don't go dragging race into this. I didn't bring it up. It's not relevant. My question was to find out if you were making a hyperbolic assertion "...leads democracy into the abyss of autocracy" or if you actually had a case in mind. Hyperbole it was. I accept that.

 

Now, Bill, why not be honest and tell me why you were so "angry and bitter" at my website.

G. Tod

Honestly, I'm not angry and bitter. I'm chuckling more than anything. We have a guy locally here, Adam Steele, who publishes a small newspaper that reminds me of yours. And you remind me of him. The Northern Herald. (   http://members.aol.com/nhrld/   ) Adam runs for office every election, has run as the candidate of probably 4 different parties, and never gets elected. He makes outrageous statements and writes opinions that make many shake their heads. He sued the city of Bemidji for $600 Billion for First Amendmemt violations (and to give him credit, he had been wronged by the city and got $3,001 for it) and won. You should read the very good article linke to below if you want the story.
All The News That's Not Fit to Print--Part 1
http://www.lawandpolitics.com/minnesota/default.asp?section=ARTICLES&module=ITEM&id=254
All The News That's Not Fit to Print--Part 2
http://www.lawandpolitics.com/minnesota/default.asp?section=ARTICLES&module=ITEM&id=255

Yours and chuckling,
Bill

George,

I am who I say I am. A 43 year old ex-engineer in Bemidji, MN. It's paranoid thinking that you think I'm dissembling. I don't know any of the people you've criticized. I have no connection to anything you have ever done in your life that I am aware of. I have never met you and until a couple of days ago didn't know you existed. What I know of you and your thinking came straight from your website. I think it's weird that you created a whole fictional scenario in your head about me being some ex-student of yours or instructor and then go off half-cocked in lamenting my lack of courage for flying under a false flag. You're just flat out wrong on that.

You should holster that weapon of accusing me of name-calling until you check your own targets. You seem to be pretty quick on that draw yourself. (See "cowardice," "lacking the balls," "weak with low self-esteem," and "you lack the courage" in your email regarding me, for just some handy examples. I invite anyone to read other pages of your website to see more examples regarding other people you dissent with or about. They aren't hard to find.)

My complaint about "pious and overly sanctimonious religion" was not aimed at Bush. I wasn't even thinking of him at the time. My point was directed, as I stated, at the whole of the country, although now that you mention it, Bush is overly sanctimonious too. (And he happens to be the worst President in my life-time and very likely in our entire history).

I think you're mistaken when you attribute your lack of gainful employment to lefties in academe holding the reins of power and their hatred of what you do. You strike me as an unpleasant person to be around for long. I would guess that is more likely the problem because other people might see you the same way. Your reputation may precede you. You might think that is somehow unfair that other peoples' difficulties working around you should hold you back, but buddy, that's the real world. Failure to see that after 56 years is pretty astounding. Or maybe you do see it and just refuse to accept it. That would be called denial. It is just a fact of life, like tides and sunsets, that people will not keep around someone they don't like to be around if they can help it. It's not a moral question. It's not a political question. It's human nature. I would look elsewhere for the reason why you cannot find full-time work as a college professor other than the problems other people have.

I stand by my term 'railing against.' (railing n: To express objections or criticisms in bitter, harsh, or abusive language. See Synonyms at scold.) A lot of your writing is railing against something or someone. Rather than spend the time listing citations, I invite any reader to just spend 30 minutes reading your web pages. I have no doubt they will see that I am right on this point.

I don't doubt that you are a patriot. However, when you call yourself a "true patriot" you imply that others are false patriots -- which I think in your mind would include darn near everyone else in the U.S. I think you believe yourself to be uniquely in possession of some profound truths and everyone else to be corrupted, venal, or worse. You, luckily, don't get to decide who is or is not a patriot. I don't even question the patriotism of those I most vehemently disagree with politically. They are often wrong, misguided, or deceived in my opinion, but they are still patriots because they love and support their country, just as I do. We disagree on how that should manifest itself in action but are united in that love of country. Loud criticism isn't the hallmark of patriotism. Loud criticism might be concomitant with patriotism, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient by itself.

You can believe that your writing is very logical and clear (I didn't write otherwise, by the way, although I can see where you inferred that). Your writing is clear, and working with your limited set of assumptions, probably internally consistent (i.e. logical). What I wrote was that your writings come across as angry and bitter, contrary to your protests otherwise. That you don't see that is NOT logical. I also pointed out "that your mental state is a mess" and that I think you could do with some productive self-reflection. Using formal logic, being logical, it is possible to come up with a false conclusion if the premises upon which the conclusion is based are false. I think you have false premises.

My attraction to anarchy is philosophical. Anarchy isn't 'practical' and isn't going to be the paradigm we live under. Anarchy (no political order in charge) isn't realistic in a country of nearly 300 million people. But I still believe that people best rule themselves. How that belief is inconsistent with marriage, children or home ownership you'll just have to explain to me, because I can't see it. What would a balls-wielding anarchist do that I don't do?

I didn't say that Trotsky had upset orthodox lefties. What I said was that the Trotskyists at school were wreckers of the left - disruptive and argumentative and on a very high horse - when it came to other groups also on the left. They spent more time fighting with their nominal allies than their opponents it seemed. You strike me that way. You like poetry but ignore and despise most poets. You try to get grant money for your magazine but despise the grantors. You can't stand obsequious and fawning bureaucratic types who rely on a "coterie" of like minded people for power and position but continually fall back on Emerson, Thoreau and Orwell, to name a few, in an appeal to authority to bolster your arguments. Appeal to authority is a rhetorical device o shut down debate, not encourage it.

I doubt I'm an orthodox lefty in anyone else's estimation. I'm not a Democrat, but if the only other choice I'm given is a Republican then you got me. I don't belong to any party and I don't vote straight ticket. I have voted for Republican candidates and Socialists too. It depends on the situation. What do orthodox lefties do that identifies them?

Finally, Abbie Hoffman said "The first duty of a revolutionary is to get away with it." You fashion yourself a revolutionary I think. But I would add that a corollary to that statement should be that "it" means to accomplish something revolutionary. Yelling at people and making a spectacle of oneself isn't revolutionary, it's bad manners.

Yours,
Bill

Willy, can I call you Willy? 

Only sad smug people chuckle.  It makes them feel superior… and THEY DO NEED to feel that way.  I’ve known a few other such chuckling characters.  Yes, at times, I too use epithets.  But not before attempting to reason with the sad chuckling niaiseux.  You have nearly drowned me in your verbosity.  YOU FAIL TO POINT OUT ONE TINY EXAMPLE WHERE I WAS WRONG.  That is too much for you to do.  It is much easier to write a long three-page letter of utter rant (oops I’m name calling).  ONE TINY EXAMPLE, Mistah anarchist engineer with wife, kids, and mortgage. 

You use the term “yelling.”  But it would take a personal encounter to determine if in fact I yell.  ONE TINY EXAMPLE.  Why are you so upset by anger and bitterness?  Has your life been such an easy ride that you don’t even know anger and bitterness?  Why have these words been designated cardinal sins?  Weren’t the American revolutionaries a little PISSED OFF?  But oh shame on them for being ANGRY!  That is the way how you see things… quiet aberrantly indeed.  Weren’t the SLAVES just a tad PISSED OFF?  Do you see how logic is on my side and not on yours?  Why can’t you see that?  That you must ask yourself.  Only you hold the answer to that question. 

You focus on the tone of the message, which is really the reflection of your own inner tone, is irrelevant.  The tone is irrelevant, call it happy, pissed the fuck off, or whatever the fuck you want to label it, I don’t give a goddamn.  The message is relevant.  The tone is not. 

I do not consider myself a “revolutionary” nor will you find the term on my site… or if you do inform me and I’ll take it off immediately.  I am a dissident.  Clearly that is what I am.  Capiche?  

BTW, I have never run for office and doubtfully will.  So your comparison is but another blast of hot air.  Much of what you write appears to be thus.  You fail to underscore ONE TINY EXAMPLE of an “outrageous” statement.  You fail to prove that ONE TINY EXAMPLE wrong with clear-headed logic and fact.  You call me paranoid.  If so, it is what I term justified paranoia.  I don’t know if you can comprehend what that implies if in fact your life has been nothing but smiley-faced.  You are at fault, not I. You popped into my life without giving one clue who the hell you were. 

“And you're right that there isn't going to be logical discussion between us; just for other reasons.”  What other reasons?  ALWAYS PROVIDE CONCRETE EXAMPLES WHEN MAKING SUCH STATEMENTS. 

The allusion was to your own mortgage payments.  You did mention you had a mortgage. 

Where did I use the term “autocracy”?  If I did it was an error on my part and certainly not an error I repeated right and left.  But will you tell me where? 

Your statements implying my not enjoying life and only being critical have no founding in reality.  Why do you wish to create that unreality?  Why does that false image make you feel superior?  Why do you NEED to feel superior?  Why the need to test people?  That is in itself aberrant because it makes you out to be some kind of superior god.

In America, race is everything.  So, I did not “drag” it in… it was already there.  Are you black?  I sense a touchy area.  You evidently, didn’t want to touch my egregious example of Toussaint and Baby Doc! 

Yes, I am ANGRY!  I AM PISSED OFF!  And so what? 

T.

I'll keep it short for you.
Call me whatever you like. And I'm a white guy. Another of your hunches down in flames.
On the internet, CAPITALS are yelling. (All Capitals Is YELLING      When you are writing an e-mail message to someone, it has become a custom that putting a word or two in all capital letters, is used for yelling (except in titles). For example, THIS IS YELLING.
(   http://www.mcginnovation.com/tips/2002-10-1.html   )

"You focus on the tone of the message, which is really the reflection of your own inner tone, is irrelevant.  The tone is irrelevant, call it happy, pissed the fuck off, or whatever the fuck you want to label it, I don’t give a goddamn.  The message is relevant.  The tone is not."
This is from your email to Garrick Davis posted here at your website.  (   http://theamericandissident.org/LiteraryLetters-CPR.html   ) You're not being consistent.
Subj: Poetry critic of a different sort
Date: 7/23/03 2:10:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Enmarge
To: CPREVIEW CC: Enmarge
As my poem states, the tone IS the message IS the tone.

My mistake calling you a revolutionary. In my mind, dissidents want to be effectual. Dissidence is a pointless and vaguely ridiculous end in itself. I guess I assumed that you wanted to do more than shake your fist at the world.
dissident : characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards, disagreeing, especially with a majority n : a person who dissents from some established policy
revolutionary : marked by or resulting in radical change: a revolutionary discovery. n. A supporter of revolutionary principles.

I leave it to your readers to satisfy themselves whether I am right or wrong on my take on you and your writing (illogical, angry, bitter, etc.)
Anger isn't bad. Nothing but anger isn't so hot though.

Where did I use the term “autocracy”? It was the first email you sent to me. Here it is in full.

No concern for other people's crap leads democracy into the abyss of autocracy.

G. Tod Slone, Ed.

The American Dissident

www.theamericandissident.org




 

Why are you so uptight about ANGRY and YELLING?  Why do you so conveniently dismiss my cogent argument with regards the American revolutionaries and slaves and THEIR ANGER?  I use caps to EMPHASIZE.  Capiche?  I’m a poet so don’t always pay attention to the mandarins of good style and civility oblige.


 

Yes, I wrote a poem called Tone is the Message.  Perhaps I was frustrated a tad by the mobs so concerned over the TONE and worried I might be ANGRY. 

GOOD FOR YOU!  We can communicate!  Thank you for admitting error.  It takes a man to do that! 

“Dissidence is a pointless and vaguely ridiculous end in itself.”  I doubt Vaclav Havel or Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn or the multitude of Soviet gulag poets would agree with your elitist point of view.  Read Havel’s quote at the beginning of my website.  I prefer that definition much more than the sterile dictionary one you’ve supplied. 

Again, I’m at a loss as to why you seem compelled to find wrong vis a vis my site and my ideas. 

We do what we can.  I do what I can.  I write.  I criticize.  I get off my ass and I protest.  I do not have much power.  I am an individual.  I do not simply shake my fist as you say for no reason.  I am also a professor who likes to attempt to show students another way. 

My readers and subscribers from around the country, for the most part, agree with what I write. 

You prove my point.  You are the hot air.  Not me.  ONCE AGAIN YOU FAIL TO PRESENT ONE TINY EXAMPLE OF WHERE THE IDEAS ON MY WEBSITE ARE INCORRECT.  Instead, you blather about anger.  It is odd to think that a man trained in engineering would be thus.  I could understand a man trained in liberal arts to be thus because today the training tends to be in the “art” of civility and “not offending” at all costs. 

T.

How sad you still fail to understand the difference between calling someone (and his work) angry vs. proving something the "angry" person wrote was false.  The first is immaterial, while the second pertinent. 

T.

Bill Smith <besmith@paulbunyan.net> wrote:

George,
You know what, I don't see any point to this exchange any more, so
I'm done with it. Keep doing what you can. I don't think it's effectual
based on what I've read, but you know better about how much impact
you have. Maybe that's not your goal in any case. Perhaps you are
content where you are.
Yours,
Bill Smith

I understand the difference. I just am not going to waste my valuable time trying to
prove something to you which you will deny and refuse. I see no evidence that
you have the ability to admit error. I don't think you would accept proof. Everyone
else is at fault in your life and you have done nothing wrong.

How sad that you can't see yourself as I do and as it would appear many others
do based upon your work and professional history. Readers can judge for
themselves whether you have written things that are false if any of them care to put
the effort into getting beyond your anger and vitriol. I doubt many will expend that
effort though. You marginalize yourself with your manner in writing and in person
(based upon your stories of arrest and expulsion for instance) and that allows you to
sail on blithely, convinced the world is treating your genius unfairly. Sail on.


 

More hogwash and nothingness.  Don't you have anything else to offer?  You cannot even find one little error and yet you blab about errors.  No wonder you're an unemployed engineer.  What do you do now?  Hell, I just finished 743 page novel, have a bilingual French/English chapbook to be published an editor in another state, have written over 1000 pages of essays and poems, and am active.  Hell, I'm a runner, yeah I run long distance.  I'm also a cartoonist as you've noted.  So, what the hell do you do, besides yank and whine about someone else's hard work?

T.


 

Poem for an Ostrich

An unknown fellow wrote to complain
about the tone of my writing, suggesting

it revealed anger and discontentment

Yet even if, so what?

What is wrong with anger?
Were not the American revolutionaries

a tad testy?  And what about the slaves?
Were they smiley and happy-faced
like today we’re all supposed to be?

Besides, does not rendering anger as sin or incivility
serve the masters of this society?
Is it not the latter, in fact, who have urged
anger to be thusly demonized

and shunned as ill-behavior by educationists,

both higher and lower?

Yes, let us all focus on civility, while
the nation’s CEOs and politicos fill their pockets—
Oh Enron, Worldcom, and presidential pardons! 

Why should I utter niceties if not to placate the citizenry?
Why should I congratulate those who do things
with abject mediocrity or even quite sleazily?

Besides, what relevance is toned down tone anyhow,

if not to shelter those who would be offended
by truth and reality?

And what when tone might be intrinsically entwined

with the message, becoming an integral part of its very fabric?
How to tone down in the face of continued injustice? 

How to tone down in the face of intellectual corruption?

Well, that is not my concern or problem, unknown fellow, 

for to tone down is to diminish, if not annihilate, truth telling,

            and that alone, as poet, is my sole concern.

Just to let you know... your criticism has provoked my creativity.  I've added a first paragraph on Anger to the website plus an entire page on poems of anger, including Dylan Thomas and Mario Benedetti.  You are not the first to shudder at the potency of my thoughts and dismiss them--with intellectual laziness--as ANGRY.  Anger, my friend, IS a creative force.

T.

Well, George, I took up your challenge. I went on reading more of your web pages and I can't find many facts in them
that are refutable. I can't find many facts in them at all. Lots of invective and opinion, but precious few facts. What you
have is your opinions and your suppositions of what people were thinking or of what their motivations are, or of their
rationales for doing whatever they are doing. Logic doesn't even enter into that kind of writing. It is merely your opinion.

I do not concede your contention that so many of the people you mention throughout are co-opted, sell-outs, etc. That is
your opinion, and a mighty small minority opinion at that. I will concede that your stories about your past are factual to some
degree -- when you say you were arrested you were, etc. I trust you know when you were terminated from a job. I do not
believe you are a competent observer to give me the reasons why other people took their actions. I think the Dean who
fired you or the cop who arrested you would tell a different and entirely credible story too. You just aren't authoritative
on anything dealing with other people.

So, here's what you asked for: this is your writing, George.
YOU FAIL TO POINT OUT ONE TINY EXAMPLE WHERE I WAS WRONG.  That is too much for you to do. 
It is much easier to write a long three-page letter of utter rant (oops I’m name calling).  ONE TINY EXAMPLE,

and

ONCE AGAIN YOU FAIL TO PRESENT ONE TINY EXAMPLE OF WHERE THE IDEAS ON MY WEBSITE ARE INCORRECT.

Well, here's some examples.

1. You assumed I'm some student or professor from your checkered past flying false colors. I'm not. You are wrong.

2. I wrote "Your mental state is a mess if your writing is a fair indicator" and "You can believe that your writing is very
logical and clear (I didn't write otherwise, by the way, although I can see where you inferred that). Your writing is clear,
and working with your limited set of assumptions, probably internally consistent (i.e. logical)."

George, you still continue to choose to assume that means that I think you aren't logical contrary to my actual statements
(thus again you wrote "My writing is very logical and very clear....You fail to list one mere example of illogical and unclear
writing to support your assertion.")

Well, here you have a reading comprehension problem. I stand by my statement that your writing show's your mental
state is a mess. You attack people visciously because they don't see subjective things your way and you accuse them of all
kinds of wrong-doing. You wrote these things, all from your w