Part TWO
I thought of these and other things when I saw you burst into the jury room insisting that the people were irrelevant, and that you and Hodgkins somehow escaped this character of irrelevancy. You loudly and emotionally sanctioned behaviour--while denying the logical basis on which others did so.
Can we imagine what a horrid world it would be were we to dismiss everything beyond our sense of smell as irrelevant to value judgements--and so, by extension, UNIMPORTANT--and not to be sanctioned: no charity to the poor, the sick, the starving, or the dying (how do I know they are "real"); no food or supplies to people uprooted and torn by war, famine, or natural disaster (liars).
What a world it would be if, instead of assessing the thoughts and opinions of others...we simply reified their bodies and minds, their flesh and their blood, their passion and their pain--and simply assigned them a number and served notice on them that anything they expressed was irrelevant and not linked to real life or real people? People determining the "real" by their atavistic sense of smell, rather than by their evolved human natures.
I am sorry if I have fenced too roughly with you. Your character as a relativist juxtaposed with such extreme judmentality and inflexibility, and the appearance of viciousness and cruelty to others is not only exasperating and quite unique--but it also paints you as insensitive which of course is the opposite of what you are.
In the end it has become necessary to object to the manner in which you were sniping and needling people whom (so far as I have ever been made aware) had done nothing to deserve your vituperative enmity, mischaracterizations, or unbridled rage. Besides, I think such personal matters are best dealt with privately through email or the phone rather than through proxy issues such as the one happened on by you.
You have every right to have and to express your opinion that people sharing their on-line activities with one another makes them irrelevant; you have every right to sneer and be derisive; you can adopt a tone of contemptuous disregard and deliver it with rage, if you so desire. All these are within your rights.
You may declare that the thoughts and feelings you express are inauthentic, and you may project this inauthenticity unto the "disembodied voices" of others. All these are your rights as a person entitled to the services of SI in communicating these opinions to others on bulletin boards where you have an interest provided you are there allowed to post.
However, you may NOT dictate that others not assess one another in accordance with their real judgements, their real values, and that they may NOT form and conduct whatever manner of relationship they deem suitable to their mutual desires under the law. You will not dictate who will use PM's, emails, ICQ, telephone, postcards, letters, or face to face--as they pursue their real interests in a real world.--just as you are not prohibited from doing any of these things, and just as you and your SI friends are not considered as irrelevant as the name you are used or called.
Your screeching that one of the least dangerous people in the world was instead one of the most dangerous, was gratuitous attack to further your personal agenda--and certainly contaminated the expected purity of your posts. That person is about as "dangerous" as a dead scarf, LOL, and your inability to curtail an attack that would never be tolerated in face-to-face only goes to reinforce that you have little (perhaps no ) regard for the reality of others in SI, but only consider them an irrelevancy and a truncated alternate name--insubstantial will-0-the wisps, diaphanous and immaterial-with nothing important to say, and nothing expressing their humanity or their passions. No wonder people get pissed at you: you treat them as though they were not real. And your overall disdain is best expressed in your endless refrain of "I don't care" with the stamp of the foot to indicate the repressed emotion.
You made CH "real" (just like the Velvateen Rabbit). THat was sweet. But defending him furiously because he was dealt with "unfairly" was clearly partisan, as you made it clear that you considered it impossible that he could have treated others unfairly and bullied them. They were not real. But you made the little rabbit "real" to you, so he was (of course) being treated "unfair">
I have long since had little interest in the CH issue, per se. Nor do I care to begrudge him any dignity or other human essential. It was your ongoing sniping and snickering in a tone of scornful mockery that suggested to me that nobody was doing you a favour by pretending that, indeed--they were not real--and their feelings were irrelevant.
I hope you are done with it now; but that is up to you.
In any case, whether or not you wish to believe that CH is the only REAL person here is none of my business. I doubt I wish to say any more on this topic. You could not invalidate my points, so you have chose to be non- responsive, misleading, and coy as an alternative. It would seem my work is thus done (or nearly so). Be well. |
