Friday, August 19, 2005
The Pond Bottom, eh?
Will,
You say, "I meant no harm to Philadelphia, nor no NYC proselytizing. I thought that that was clear." Well, I'll take your word for it, since you've given me your word here. However I've got to say No, it wasn't clear. In fact, I'm confused how you could ever think it was clear, but that's the way it played out.
I thought I was pretty clearly PISSED OFF about this article. And that it was printed in The New York Times, NOT some weekly rag, but one of THE most respected newspapers in the world. This "journalist" is lying and slandering end-to-end, (racist, classist, all-around the type of elitist scum I despise!) and I'm trying to grapple with it, then YOU come along with your comments which, NO, were not clear, now that you say you meant no harm.
To me you weren't set up for dialogue, in fact, to me you were agreeing with the "journalist" (I'm not even interested in writing her name, she deserves NO publicity!). Most especially with your "Oh come on." When someone BEGINS a statement with "Oh come on," it generally means that they think the person in question is ridiculous. And frankly there was nothing ridiculous with my signing off NOT A NEW YORKER, considering the lies she told of Philadelphians walking around saying we're the 6th borough of New York!
I'd rather you insult me before the city. This of course is not to say that the city doesn't have its faults, problems, horrors even. But let's agree that insulting the city is not the same as talking about its faults. Insulting Philadelphia is like insulting my mother. And to be honest, I'd rather you insult my mother before Philadelphia!
Later you say, "I thought this strand was funny, but I see now that you don't think it so funny." Okay, I'll take your word for it, but let me say a couple of things about this.
One, you didn't appear to think it was funny, but you say so, so I'll take your word for it.
Two, you say "I see now that you don't think it so funny," which, again, I'll take your word for it, but it's surprising, considering that I've been DEAD SERIOUS about this from the start. For instance, the title of my original post read, "This argument about Philly vs. New York upsets me because of the obvious yet ignored class issues involved." The key words being "upsets me" and I'm NOT in the habit of saying something "upsets me" if it doesn't (for future reference).
Where I really take issue with your last post however is you saying, "To argue merits and demerits is fine. On the other hand, I'm not going to be alligatored into some inarguable muck at pond bottom." There's no way I'll take your word for this! This is bullshit!
It's ironic that you suddenly want me to take your feelings into consideration when you were so incapable of reading anything I had said in order to understand where my feelings are.
One more thing, so what's up with Simeon, Levi and Jacob? Jacob being murdered by Simeon and Levi, right?
CAConrad
You say, "I meant no harm to Philadelphia, nor no NYC proselytizing. I thought that that was clear." Well, I'll take your word for it, since you've given me your word here. However I've got to say No, it wasn't clear. In fact, I'm confused how you could ever think it was clear, but that's the way it played out.
I thought I was pretty clearly PISSED OFF about this article. And that it was printed in The New York Times, NOT some weekly rag, but one of THE most respected newspapers in the world. This "journalist" is lying and slandering end-to-end, (racist, classist, all-around the type of elitist scum I despise!) and I'm trying to grapple with it, then YOU come along with your comments which, NO, were not clear, now that you say you meant no harm.
To me you weren't set up for dialogue, in fact, to me you were agreeing with the "journalist" (I'm not even interested in writing her name, she deserves NO publicity!). Most especially with your "Oh come on." When someone BEGINS a statement with "Oh come on," it generally means that they think the person in question is ridiculous. And frankly there was nothing ridiculous with my signing off NOT A NEW YORKER, considering the lies she told of Philadelphians walking around saying we're the 6th borough of New York!
I'd rather you insult me before the city. This of course is not to say that the city doesn't have its faults, problems, horrors even. But let's agree that insulting the city is not the same as talking about its faults. Insulting Philadelphia is like insulting my mother. And to be honest, I'd rather you insult my mother before Philadelphia!
Later you say, "I thought this strand was funny, but I see now that you don't think it so funny." Okay, I'll take your word for it, but let me say a couple of things about this.
One, you didn't appear to think it was funny, but you say so, so I'll take your word for it.
Two, you say "I see now that you don't think it so funny," which, again, I'll take your word for it, but it's surprising, considering that I've been DEAD SERIOUS about this from the start. For instance, the title of my original post read, "This argument about Philly vs. New York upsets me because of the obvious yet ignored class issues involved." The key words being "upsets me" and I'm NOT in the habit of saying something "upsets me" if it doesn't (for future reference).
Where I really take issue with your last post however is you saying, "To argue merits and demerits is fine. On the other hand, I'm not going to be alligatored into some inarguable muck at pond bottom." There's no way I'll take your word for this! This is bullshit!
It's ironic that you suddenly want me to take your feelings into consideration when you were so incapable of reading anything I had said in order to understand where my feelings are.
One more thing, so what's up with Simeon, Levi and Jacob? Jacob being murdered by Simeon and Levi, right?
CAConrad
