Well, Stevv, it seems to me that you seem to be asserting that there's something somehow wrong about putting more effort and energy into one's posts than one's opponent does. ("But you seem to have put a lot of effort into those responses (by comparison with Gene); and not just to one of his brush offs, but to several.") Frankly, that's a lazy attitude and not one I'm willing to subscribe to. This isn't about getting some dreary job done to your satisfaction, it's about having fun posting, and I've never seen the point in doing something half-assed.

Certainly you're allowed to see "pent-up aggression" anyplace you'd like, but maybe your perception of same might just be a mirroring of your own process. Since I never went particularly lightly on AAG, I'd have to say that aggression never got a chance to build. You, on the other hand, seemed to wait several days to air your frustrations about my posts. Perhaps it might behoove you to take a reading of your own emotional state instead of just assigning some of your own feelings to me, but as always this is your choice to make.

Despite your apparant preference for flippant put downs over longer forms of posting, or a desire to have me only respond in the way someone else responds to me, my choice of posting style is the one I'll choose to use. Please do feel free to model the posting style you feel best accomplishes the ends you feel should be met. I'll stick with posting more than simple one-liners or something that you only find humorous if it's accompanied by a rim-shot.

I hope that this post, despite it's length and the fact that I did bother to put a little energy into composing it, wasn't too upsetting for you.

I'd hate for you to have to put any energy into reading a post (or do you need an emoticon here to detect the slight strain of sarcasm?).

Stevv: "I don't agree that he has no sense of humour, though (as indicated by his Patti Smith exchange with Matthew)."

Me, back on 10-8, to AAIJ:

"Okay, so you can't perceive my sense of humor any more than you can perceive Talbot's being a dick. Why should I take your perceptions seriously? Suppose I cite someone else on the board who did think I had made a funny once in a while. Is his perception better than yours? Obviously I'm gonna think so, obviously you won't. So why should I or anyone believe your take on things? Well, it certainly won't be because of your ability to do close readings."

Thanks to Stevv, so I don't have to go look up other people who might have laughed a little at one of my funnies.

The question remains: Why should I care whether or not you can perceive my sensahumah? What makes you right and someone else wrong?

Rereading the early parts of the thread (trying ever-so-hard to be as earnest as yourself, since we all know the Importance of Being So), I think you got off on this "angry" kick back when I compared your imputations of my "negativity" to those of the current White House. I admit that it was a stretch, and of course scarcely anyone likes being compared to the current administration, but I still find this sort of argument a transparent way of talking around the issue; of deciding, "Hey, you're too negative, so I'm not listening." I find that as nonsensical as Bryan Talbot exhuming an old controversy, putting his own spin on it, and ignoring any stories that disagree.

As I said before, on one level I can understand total indifference to this minor breach of morals. That's my general feeling toward the wit and wisdom of John Byrne. But unlike you I haven't implied that John Byrne's posturings are irrelevant to the matter of moral discourse. I haven't said, as you have to me, that you and all those interested in John Byrne's blather are full of anger for their lack of real lives. That's Psych 101 nonsense, and if you try that on me, I'll give such tripe the response it deserves.

BTW, we should probably dial down the pure-acrimony responses on other threads. You've done it twice where you obviously had nothing to add but acrimony, and I've done it once. If you want to quit it now, you can declare yourself the winner or whatever you like.

As usual, your perceptions show serious analytical flaws or intellectual dishonesty.
Since you've shown yourself capable of both I guess it's a toss up as to which one it is in this case.

The fact of the matter is that I found your behaviour on this thread towards Bryan Talbot to be odious to the point of being worth a post or more. Your spitting angry responses encouraged me to keep poking the rabid lamb who mistakes himself for a lion.

Calling you angry just seemed to be noting the obvious; retitling you as Angryangrygene due to your responses seemed appropriate.


As for your request that I not respond to you on other threads, or else you'll respond to me on other threads, I'm afraid that I have no interest in making deals with you.

..and, yes, I most certainly stand by my earlier description of your personality. You've done nothing but help show a certain accuracy to it.

Any more threats you'd like to try and lob my way?

(emoticon added so that Stevv can try to understand the tone)

For the record, I laugh at a lot Gene's posts.

With them or at them?

Poor IJ, exhibiting more and more of the behaviour he’s purporting to criticise.

“…you seem to be asserting that there's something somehow wrong about putting more effort and energy into one's posts than one's opponent does.” Nah. My point was that you frequently made a lot of effort to counter Gene’s posts, despite saying that most of what Gene writes is fairly worthless. You say his brush-offs were infantile attempts at getting the last word, yet they somehow required that you repeatedly point out his supposed failings (including intellectual dishonesty). I just observed that this looked somewhat odd (you ranting at Gene, telling him again & again that he’s so angry). I’m not against long posts, or putting effort into argument, per se. But you know this - you’re not intellectually inept. You know what I meant. To pretend otherwise is intellectually dishonest of you.

“This isn't about getting some dreary job done…”
Heh. And yet, you're being so dreary. There’s just no… I guess you could say, “charm”, in the way you’re attacking Gene. You’re all about the dreor.

“You, on the other hand, seemed to wait several days to air your frustrations about my posts.” As you know my point was based on you going on and on, overstating a case. I’m supposed to make this observation before you have actually exhibited the behaviour in question? But please, continue the shoot-from-the-hip psychology – it’s the most amusing part of your responses.

IvanJim: “Since I never went particularly lightly on AAG, I'd have to say that aggression never got a chance to build.”
Yet by your own admission you'd generally been ignoring him: “…the clear implication…was that I'd been ignoring his nonsense but that I'd chosen to point out some of his foolishness at this point.”

Now that you have decided this is the “point” at which you’ll lay into him, you've overcooked it. And now you’re trying to hide your over-zealousness with nonsense about how I don’t get your “tongue in cheek irony”.

Oh, and I missed this gem from your earlier post. “If you missed... the nuanced differences in what I've been writing, that's fine.” IJ thinks he’s being nuanced? Now, that is charming.

Oh, Stevv, you really aren't very good at this are you?

All you've managed to do is quote part of what I've said and repeat your charges without any additional proofs or, more importantly, clarity.

I guess you want to play, too, but you just haven't brought anything to the game. I know you want to play bad-ass, but you're just coming across as half-assed.

Please try harder.

See? I try to talk to the monkey like a human being and he flings poo. No big surprise.

What's "threats" do you think I made, Paranoid Paranoid IJ? The avowal that I'll give as good as I get for an unprovoked attack? Or the suggestion that we might want to keep this business confined to this thread?

"Rabid lamb" is another malapropism. It's not so much an impossibility as a really stupid image.

And if you love Bryan Talbot so much, why dontcha MARRY him?

Thank you, Edgar B. I see you've got your patter with your dummy set up perfectly. I didn't even see your lips move.

You might want to take a look at the hole in his head, though. The sawdust is getting everywhere.

Let's look at Angryangrygene's attempt at humor.

"And if you love Bryan Talbot so much, why dontcha MARRY him?"

Is it any wonder that he's been accused of lacking any sense of humor (despite Stevv's delight at AAG's "wit")?

What has become quite clear is that Angryangrygene, the rabid lamb, prefers lobbing insults to anything else but accuses others of "throwing poo".

He's quite the hypocrite but anyone who's read his posts for any period of time already knows that.