dear whiner
it is funny. you guys got so irritated when i just happened to mention that bah, the writing on the internet is deviating, maybe i should just close down the box. i mean you guys did not even take the time to understand that all i was saying was bah. yknow, venting. like we have always done on the box.
anyway. the funny thing is though that even if we were to assume that my intention actually was to close the box, or is to close the box, and you guys have already deemed that intention or the action of closing the blog by me as "injustice" then tell me one thing
how is that any different from you taking all my poems all these years and putting them here and there even though i have asked you not to a million times?
how is that any different?
but i am sure you will not be able to see that either. but if you did take the time to, i am sure you could not answer that question.
me closing somethng that is not mine, something that belongs to others simply on my own whim, for my own satisfaction versus you taking my poems off one place to put them in another for god knows what. how are those two any different?
and the funniest part is that i never even ever intended to close the box. i would never do that. well, maybe perhaps now i dont know. but before this whole episode i felt at home at the box as much as anybody else. i have been at the box longer than most people who are at it now. i did actually care for it and i just vented, as one would normally do in the space of ones own home. but you on the other hand, have actually BEEN doing this whole taking my poems to another place thing for donkeys years. i mean i get a bad name for venting that shit i am gonna close the box. and you feel very smug and not a bit as if you have wronged when you take my stuff from here to there.
yknow what? nevermind. there was a time when i was glad my writing was a part of yours. now, that time has passed.
in your petulance at having your voice sampled and saved,
you fail to note the difference between taking something, as if tearing it out of a magazine to make a collage-- not destroying it, not making it disappear, but propigating it--and threatening to take a community which many people have interest in and close it down on a whim. that's the difference
i stopped taking your poetry a couple years ago. if you can't get over it, that's your problem
you haven't wanted to nor been part of my writing in about as many years. so this you're saying here is nothing new.
tell you what . your post was all about how disaffected you are from the whole internet writing thing. there was a lot of reference to how the box and the idea of simple reality writing has cheapened the experience for you.
it sounds like you'd like to leave the internet community, but you just can't kick it.
why don't cha hand over the keys to someone who cares enough to leave the damn thing alone after they ban your ip address? then, your problem of being drawn to box
against your will, like crack you can't kick, will be solved!
also any more fears you harbor of me or anyone else stealing your intellectual property could be quelled as well. you can go thru the proper and time honored channels of laboring in solitude and submitting for print. only that will satisfy you will to judegement anyway.
stop wasting your time hanging around a dead end place like trash.
give up the admin and i'll take your comments outta the blog.
>eh, you make too many assumptions.
>
>that i have writers block. that i vociferously claimed that i am about to close the box. that i am pissed you took my words to your blog. that i asked a to 'parlay' with you on my behalf.
>
>i have so far found you far too senseless and hopeless a character to waste my time with. which is why i have/had stopped entertaining any discussions with you, because i find that though you have a brain, you seem to refuse to use it. there was a time when that would irritate me, but letting it irritate me was my mistake, my problem, not yours and that i have corrected.
>
>there have been times though when i have said things on a thread and when people have responded i have replied back simply for the sake of promoting understanding. but frankly, i find that has been another idiotic and grave error on my part.
>
>and, though a has been advising me from the start to not post any comments on the box regarding this issue, for some reason she just wanted to tell you, well whatever she wanted to or has told you. i honestly dont even have an idea what she said to you prior to your last email. and most of all, i cannot imagine why she wants to waste her time and energy and emotional reserves on somebody like you, but well, that is her choice.
>
>and since you seem, despite your claims to being a "groundbreaking" and "experimental" writer, so lost and confused, let me help you by clearing this up for you as you seem to have no faculties to be able to do it on your own: the discussion on the box which i started was one relating to, well, semantics, for lack of another word. it was what it was: a discussion, albiet one that horrendously and unfortunately digressed. one that actually stemmed from a vent that levi and nat sort of both understood and misunderstood. and then came the dancers and the djuanas. the claim to close the box initially was one of frustration. part and parcel of a thought sent out in the open that inadverdently turned out to be a piece of cheese at a food festival: perhaps too fermented, or perhaps simply european. then, when others replied and i tried to further elaborate myself to them, that is when the discussion turned completely to semantics, and yes in the fury of my explanations i did say that the box deserved to be closed. and i still believe that it should. and not just the box but i believe any place that does not commit itself to productivity, all the while claiming it does, should either alter its claim, or shut itself down. and yes i do realise that this last statement of mine commits itself to the naivety of the hope of logic and that logic is far gone a factor to be considered in the ordinary course of life. but what exactly does a statement like "i believe the box should be closed" say? does it mean i am about to close it? does it mean i believe it should be? and does the fact that i believe it should lend any potential to the possibility that i would? or does it mean that this is just another ordinary thought i hope to conquer? and here, exactly here, here is the stickler, the funny bone: we were, or were supposed to be, a bunch of poets having a discussion. i have found it highly ridiculous in the past and find it rightly so again that most poets and writers absolutely ignore the intricacies of language and the methods of metaphor and the switchbacks of the communicating experience when we are outside what a common man would recognise "a poem". or "a text". i find that highly amusing and highly irritating all at the same time. and here, exactly here, let me say "kudus to all your experiments". "hurrah for all the ground you have broken."
>
>
>anyway, enough is said. i had no intention of speaking with you anymore. but once again i made the grave error of letting your fanciful assumptions irritate me. perhaps now everything is clear to you. if not, i duly apologise for my continuining lack of clarity as a writer. have a nice day.
two things you have confused with your own semantical misreadings:
1)i never said that I am an experimental and groundbreaking writer. i said:
"this is the box man, experimentallicious and jack is wayyyy out there ...
the common writer needs the groundbreakers to move on past the puffery pastiche that has been imprinted on us.'"
by using "us" i am including myself in the subject of this sentence.
2)you didn't say " i believe the sandbox should be closed"
you said
maybe i should just close the fucking box. a says wtf, you cannot do that, the sandbox is not yours. but im thinking, why not? yknow? why the fuck not?
oh man i want to be able to shut this place down whenever i want. cuz that is the only way i can get out of the internet writing thing. i
hence my and other's "assumptions"
you also went on to say you couldn't do that. but then you went on in your email to say, once again, that you weren't sure what you'd do now., because i once again stole your words
why is it too much to ask for your word ? why is that treating you like a child? for me the childish thing is this feud about your words, words which you let out onto the internet and seem to think belong to you. words which you assume can be contained and controlled by what you'd prefer to remember than by re reading what you actually said and trying to come to some understanding about why others don't see things your way.. how they confused what you said so badly. i am not the only one . i just happen to be the one that did something about it.
but you know what, fuck it. do what you want. there's a clone in place in case you use your knife.
oh and
you have a nice day too
>ok, once again, ill be an idiot, ill bite. if only for this one last and short time.
>
>the first time around when i said "maybe i shld just close the box, a says not to, but why not" etc. i was doing exactly what it is obvious i am doing. posing a personal problem, ending it with a question. why not. just a vent, like we have done so many times before.
>
>but yes, the other times i said it, i said it out of spite. a very base reaction, because you guys were acting like, well, like not very smart people.
>
>also, the child angle was not mine. a talked about it with you. maybe you should take it up with her. though this much i will say that i never tried to "parlay" with you and "settle" by exchanging the keys with my post. those infantile ideas have been entirely your own. furthermore, i really never had, nor currently have, a problem with people taking my poems here and there. in fact, when others have done it it has often been flattering. sometimes not. but never really so much a problem that i would voice it. so that was never the issue. the problem specifically with you, was just that: you. i have already been rude enough to you when i honestly never intended to, so i am not going to elaborate on this one. it would be a good idea not to email here anymore.
so, your objection to responses to your venting is that people responded as if you might be serious? or that, specifically, I responded as though you might be serious? i'm trying to get it clear because i am so muddled in my thinking and reading of what you say.
i realize that a is the one who first brought up the childishness. and if you've read the email in which i responded i certainly took pains to implicate myself as an initiator and facilitator of such childishness.
don't bother to answer my question above, even tho it's not rhetorical. it would simply prolong this painful leavetaking,
which, i feel has gone on quite long enough.
anyway. the funny thing is though that even if we were to assume that my intention actually was to close the box, or is to close the box, and you guys have already deemed that intention or the action of closing the blog by me as "injustice" then tell me one thing
how is that any different from you taking all my poems all these years and putting them here and there even though i have asked you not to a million times?
how is that any different?
but i am sure you will not be able to see that either. but if you did take the time to, i am sure you could not answer that question.
me closing somethng that is not mine, something that belongs to others simply on my own whim, for my own satisfaction versus you taking my poems off one place to put them in another for god knows what. how are those two any different?
and the funniest part is that i never even ever intended to close the box. i would never do that. well, maybe perhaps now i dont know. but before this whole episode i felt at home at the box as much as anybody else. i have been at the box longer than most people who are at it now. i did actually care for it and i just vented, as one would normally do in the space of ones own home. but you on the other hand, have actually BEEN doing this whole taking my poems to another place thing for donkeys years. i mean i get a bad name for venting that shit i am gonna close the box. and you feel very smug and not a bit as if you have wronged when you take my stuff from here to there.
yknow what? nevermind. there was a time when i was glad my writing was a part of yours. now, that time has passed.
in your petulance at having your voice sampled and saved,
you fail to note the difference between taking something, as if tearing it out of a magazine to make a collage-- not destroying it, not making it disappear, but propigating it--and threatening to take a community which many people have interest in and close it down on a whim. that's the difference
i stopped taking your poetry a couple years ago. if you can't get over it, that's your problem
you haven't wanted to nor been part of my writing in about as many years. so this you're saying here is nothing new.
tell you what . your post was all about how disaffected you are from the whole internet writing thing. there was a lot of reference to how the box and the idea of simple reality writing has cheapened the experience for you.
it sounds like you'd like to leave the internet community, but you just can't kick it.
why don't cha hand over the keys to someone who cares enough to leave the damn thing alone after they ban your ip address? then, your problem of being drawn to box
against your will, like crack you can't kick, will be solved!
also any more fears you harbor of me or anyone else stealing your intellectual property could be quelled as well. you can go thru the proper and time honored channels of laboring in solitude and submitting for print. only that will satisfy you will to judegement anyway.
stop wasting your time hanging around a dead end place like trash.
give up the admin and i'll take your comments outta the blog.
>eh, you make too many assumptions.
>
>that i have writers block. that i vociferously claimed that i am about to close the box. that i am pissed you took my words to your blog. that i asked a to 'parlay' with you on my behalf.
>
>i have so far found you far too senseless and hopeless a character to waste my time with. which is why i have/had stopped entertaining any discussions with you, because i find that though you have a brain, you seem to refuse to use it. there was a time when that would irritate me, but letting it irritate me was my mistake, my problem, not yours and that i have corrected.
>
>there have been times though when i have said things on a thread and when people have responded i have replied back simply for the sake of promoting understanding. but frankly, i find that has been another idiotic and grave error on my part.
>
>and, though a has been advising me from the start to not post any comments on the box regarding this issue, for some reason she just wanted to tell you, well whatever she wanted to or has told you. i honestly dont even have an idea what she said to you prior to your last email. and most of all, i cannot imagine why she wants to waste her time and energy and emotional reserves on somebody like you, but well, that is her choice.
>
>and since you seem, despite your claims to being a "groundbreaking" and "experimental" writer, so lost and confused, let me help you by clearing this up for you as you seem to have no faculties to be able to do it on your own: the discussion on the box which i started was one relating to, well, semantics, for lack of another word. it was what it was: a discussion, albiet one that horrendously and unfortunately digressed. one that actually stemmed from a vent that levi and nat sort of both understood and misunderstood. and then came the dancers and the djuanas. the claim to close the box initially was one of frustration. part and parcel of a thought sent out in the open that inadverdently turned out to be a piece of cheese at a food festival: perhaps too fermented, or perhaps simply european. then, when others replied and i tried to further elaborate myself to them, that is when the discussion turned completely to semantics, and yes in the fury of my explanations i did say that the box deserved to be closed. and i still believe that it should. and not just the box but i believe any place that does not commit itself to productivity, all the while claiming it does, should either alter its claim, or shut itself down. and yes i do realise that this last statement of mine commits itself to the naivety of the hope of logic and that logic is far gone a factor to be considered in the ordinary course of life. but what exactly does a statement like "i believe the box should be closed" say? does it mean i am about to close it? does it mean i believe it should be? and does the fact that i believe it should lend any potential to the possibility that i would? or does it mean that this is just another ordinary thought i hope to conquer? and here, exactly here, here is the stickler, the funny bone: we were, or were supposed to be, a bunch of poets having a discussion. i have found it highly ridiculous in the past and find it rightly so again that most poets and writers absolutely ignore the intricacies of language and the methods of metaphor and the switchbacks of the communicating experience when we are outside what a common man would recognise "a poem". or "a text". i find that highly amusing and highly irritating all at the same time. and here, exactly here, let me say "kudus to all your experiments". "hurrah for all the ground you have broken."
>
>
>anyway, enough is said. i had no intention of speaking with you anymore. but once again i made the grave error of letting your fanciful assumptions irritate me. perhaps now everything is clear to you. if not, i duly apologise for my continuining lack of clarity as a writer. have a nice day.
two things you have confused with your own semantical misreadings:
1)i never said that I am an experimental and groundbreaking writer. i said:
"this is the box man, experimentallicious and jack is wayyyy out there ...
the common writer needs the groundbreakers to move on past the puffery pastiche that has been imprinted on us.'"
by using "us" i am including myself in the subject of this sentence.
2)you didn't say " i believe the sandbox should be closed"
you said
maybe i should just close the fucking box. a says wtf, you cannot do that, the sandbox is not yours. but im thinking, why not? yknow? why the fuck not?
oh man i want to be able to shut this place down whenever i want. cuz that is the only way i can get out of the internet writing thing. i
hence my and other's "assumptions"
you also went on to say you couldn't do that. but then you went on in your email to say, once again, that you weren't sure what you'd do now., because i once again stole your words
why is it too much to ask for your word ? why is that treating you like a child? for me the childish thing is this feud about your words, words which you let out onto the internet and seem to think belong to you. words which you assume can be contained and controlled by what you'd prefer to remember than by re reading what you actually said and trying to come to some understanding about why others don't see things your way.. how they confused what you said so badly. i am not the only one . i just happen to be the one that did something about it.
but you know what, fuck it. do what you want. there's a clone in place in case you use your knife.
oh and
you have a nice day too
>ok, once again, ill be an idiot, ill bite. if only for this one last and short time.
>
>the first time around when i said "maybe i shld just close the box, a says not to, but why not" etc. i was doing exactly what it is obvious i am doing. posing a personal problem, ending it with a question. why not. just a vent, like we have done so many times before.
>
>but yes, the other times i said it, i said it out of spite. a very base reaction, because you guys were acting like, well, like not very smart people.
>
>also, the child angle was not mine. a talked about it with you. maybe you should take it up with her. though this much i will say that i never tried to "parlay" with you and "settle" by exchanging the keys with my post. those infantile ideas have been entirely your own. furthermore, i really never had, nor currently have, a problem with people taking my poems here and there. in fact, when others have done it it has often been flattering. sometimes not. but never really so much a problem that i would voice it. so that was never the issue. the problem specifically with you, was just that: you. i have already been rude enough to you when i honestly never intended to, so i am not going to elaborate on this one. it would be a good idea not to email here anymore.
so, your objection to responses to your venting is that people responded as if you might be serious? or that, specifically, I responded as though you might be serious? i'm trying to get it clear because i am so muddled in my thinking and reading of what you say.
i realize that a is the one who first brought up the childishness. and if you've read the email in which i responded i certainly took pains to implicate myself as an initiator and facilitator of such childishness.
don't bother to answer my question above, even tho it's not rhetorical. it would simply prolong this painful leavetaking,
which, i feel has gone on quite long enough.
posted by hiccup at 8:20 PM
0 Comments:
<< Home