Just when you thought it wouldn't get any worse...

Welp, apparently I was a little slack in copy/pasting Barry's remarks. That is completely and likely possible. It certainly wasn't "creative editing", any less than it was "fat-fingering".

I did read the entire post, and I still can't understand portions of it. I suppose the arguement that "other kids are jumping off of bridges" suffices for an explanation of how someone includes irrational bits of propagandism in their posts as if they were logical arguements. If you say so.

Anyway, since I certainly wouldn't want Bar-Bar to feel like I was marginalizing his words, I've posted them in their entirety.

If you read the whole thing, you deserve a cookie. In fact, just go eat it now.

More than anything, I want to thank Barry for referencing some of my most coherent thoughts on the entire subject. That which he criticizes me most vehemently for, I consider right on target.

And so it goes...

> Hah.
>
> What I find most unbelievable about your reply is that you don't even
bother to respond to most of what I had to
> say to you.

I'm not terribly interested in participating in a point-by-point
addressing
of every single little thing that you write. My time has more value
than
that, and the resulting size of the responses and counter responses
would
grow explosively. Much of it isn't comment-worthy, and I'm not going
to
descend to the level of addressing childish outbursts like "shit-eating
cock-sucker" and "Fuck you, Barry".

If you want to communicate like an adult instead of an apoplectic
teenager,
I'd be willing to speak to a larger percentage of what you write. In
general, I'm not interested in addressing personal invective and
bile-spewing... it's counter-productive. In the interests of space and
time, I chose a few things to respond to which I could address
productively,
and provided the needed context that you had chosen to chop away in
your
public blog posting.

> I have no idea what you mean by "creative edits".

Chopping the middle out of one of my sentences with no indication
whatsoever
that you had done so, leaving a result that is incomprehensible is a
start.
Since anyone bothering to read that post didn't have the underlying
context
to verify my writing, that gives the impression that I actually wrote
that.
I'm not that stupid, but you made it appear (through your creative
editing)
that I was.

Likewise with the select context-free snippets of my words that you
chose to
use for your posting. Absent the underlying context, these can create
impressions about me that simply aren't accurate. You start off
talking
about my "appology" (sic) entirely out of context... no one else
reading
that would know the extent of what I said and the qualifiers that I
provided. There's a distinct possibility that someone else could look
at
that and assume that I had offered an unqualified "I'm wrong, you were
right" type of apology, when I clearly didn't.

That's why it's generally considered very poor form to post snippets of
someone else's email in a public manner without their consent... it's
generally considered worse than posting the whole thing, where context
is
(at least)preserved. You edited out the portion where I mentioned that
I
was offering you the opportunity to respond person-to-person in a
non-public
format first... leaving that in there might have made you look bad,
though.
More strategic to creatively edit that out before posting, eh? That
way, it
doesn't look like an attempt on my part at private communication that
you
decided to take public without consent.

Now, it certainly helps you look better (and more the victim, and make
me
more out as the bad guy) if you choose to creatively edit it to look as
much
in your favor as possible. I can understand why someone might choose
to do
that... doesn't mean I have to like it.

Likewise with posting that you can't see why I would take it
personally,
when no one reading your post would have the actual context to see
why...
and by extension, see why my reaction was reasonable. Leaving out the
context allows you to paint me as the unreasonable one in the
transaction...
again, by the creative and selective use of editing. I provided the
full
context for the "taking it personally" aspect in my response so that
anyone
reading would be able to see for themselves.

> And you continue to blather on about things that make no sense
what-so-ever.
>
> You wonder why I accuse you of being a rank socialist? Because these
tactics are typical of someone who uses
> propaganda to get their point across.
>
> 1. Avoid the real issue, and only speak to that which you can take
out of
context or blow out of proportion.
>
> 2. Lie outright, and accuse those with whom you disagree of the
things
for which you, yourself, are guilty.

I'd recommend studying a bit more history and social science.
Propaganda,
rhetorical devices and hypocrisy are an expected part of the landscape
in
almost *every* political environment... seeing them is no more an
indication
that someone is socialist than saying that they breathe, eat food, and
sleep
at night. Socialist do those things too... but it's a logical fallacy
to
then assume that everyone who breathes, eats food and sleeps at night
must
therefore be a socialist. Imagining the behaviors when they aren't
present
is even less evidence.

By your two-point definition above, someone would be forced to conclude
that
you must be a rank socialist, since you appear to be doing precisely
what
you accuse me of. How utterly self-referential.

> You completely ignore large sections of my post and pretend like I
only
answered in a negative context. You
> also intentionally ignore the meaning of my words and insert or
construct
your own meaning to suit your own
> agenda.

The majority of what I wrote is not in response to "negative context".
The
entire first half speaks to an entirely neutral point where you are
expressing (what I took as) a genuine lack of understanding. That's
hardly
a negative context... you're simply expressing that you don't
understand how
I came to my conclusion.

Parenthetical observations aside, the last half is also geared towards
addressing things that are not primarily "negative context". I spoke
to the
fundamental aspect of fallibility as a response to the
trivial-but-not-negative assertion that you can determine what other
people
really mean because you have a mind.

I also addressed why people might not see your statement of "I don't
know
how to approach this in a way that you'll understand" as "totally took
the
responsibility for my miscommunication", as you characterized it.
Again,
the premise I chose to address was not a "negative context" one. It
was a
neutral assertion, and I offered a different perspective.

You are again assuming in the paragraph I mention above that you know
my
intentions. IMO, you've been an abject failure at accurately
determining
them so far, and you've done no better in this instance. You're likely
less
qualified than a random stranger to determine my intentions... random
guessing would have given you a better record than you've amassed so
far.
Your deductive process may therefore actually have NEGATIVE utility.

> I think the dumbest part of your post is where you deride my blog as
something of a place of "non-interest"
> whereas you continue to respond as though your reputation on it meant
something.

I would generally prefer to clarify matters if someone was making
misrepresentations about me in a cocktail-party setting where five
other
people heard, and likewise in a setting where someone was saying
similar
things over a public-address system at a football stadium.

I can think (rightly) that one environment is less public than the
other,
but it doesn't change the basic transaction. I prefer that people have
the
truth available to them, and they can judge for themselves rather than
rely
only on the slander. That's why I was interested in providing (some of
the)
accurate context that you had left out.

> You are a walking contradiction.

Your failure to understand my underlying motivations does not imply a
lack
of coherence or consistency on my part. I doubt that you could come up
with
more than a single alleged "contradiction" of mine that doesn't
disappear
once the context is provided to someone who is actually rational, let
alone
show that contradiction is somehow my default state. You're free to
imagine
whatever you like... that doesn't make your imagination into reality
(Thank
God).

> And you wonder why I think you are motivated by a liberal (read
leftist)
agenda?

At this point, I've stopped wondering much of anything about you. I've
pretty-much given up on my original premise that you might be rational.
It
would probably be more productive to attempt to reason with a Markov
chain
generator at this point.

> You're fun. Thanks for all the entertainment. Jaycen

I can't control (nor would I want to) what amuses you.

I've responded to everything you wrote in this email. As you can see,
it
increases the size radically if I provide enough context and a full
answer
to each point you think up.

A requirement of my extending such a courtesy to you again, would
likely
hinge on your ability to consistently interact like a rational adult,
rather
than acting like a petulant, foul-mouthed schoolkid who's still
seething
that someone had the sheer audacity to direct a bit of sarcasm towards
them
in a public forum... when they were the one slinging the invective in
the
first place.

If you can act like a grown-up, we can continue corresponding. If not,
good
luck with that whole poor-impulse-control thing. I've probably wasted
large
chunks of two different lunch hours now in treating you like you might
be
rational, and I'm not keen on wasting any more if you can't control
your
emoting.

And in case you were wondering, there's other blog traffic about the
MUD-Dev
thread in question, with an archive of the thread in question provided
to
any non-subscribers, showing the real set of transactions to the world.
The
easiest way to find that particular blog entry is to Google the
combination
of the words Jaycen, Rigger, and "idiot".

HTH. HAND.

Barry Kearns