Friday, March 19, 2004
you just "merely" used aggressive language about community in your original post, WHICH as i've continued to point out began with "our" meaning us.
if "our little incestuous artmills" isn't a HARSH and AGGRESSIVE indictment to either submit to or not, then what is?
you try to block me with language that really explains your own behavior.
i'm not blocked however, just sending it right back at you.
if you'd like to agree to disagree at this point, fine. but if you continue to act like i'm some brute for not appreciating your original tone, hey, whatever, let's keep going. it's offensive that you'd rather paint a big red B on my forehead for Bully instead of dealing with your own actions, but i can handle it.
by the way, how the hell am i hijacking things? i'm responding to something you wrote. now, if i had completely invented the words, said that you had said something that you actually hadn't said, yeah, that would make sense. this accusation of hijacking is more of your Sun Tzu deflection.
and as far as you saying that you're wasting time arguing about community measured against my total commitment to doing so further makes the point. community for me is vital enough to allow you to make me look like a bully by merely saying that i am, so go ahead. community is something worthy of defending, defining, redefining; that and more.
art, poetry and the definitions surrounding them are something i don't ever intend to take lightly. and furthermore you of all people are well aware of just how important i feel building community is for this world. so to act like i don't seem able to just shrug it all off is ridiculous. you have got to know by now i won't.
it's pretty clear at this point that we're not going to agree. and frankly, so be it. i'd rather piss a yard of barbed wire than agree with what you propose.