IJ: "...you write what I wrote...”

I picked up on your squeak-and-whine shtick because of the irony in your use of it. When I write it it’s true; it is mildly amusing to watch you rant. For you, it’s a pretense for rhetorical purposes, belied by your snivelling posts and choleric manner.

Squeeky-

Despite what the voices in your head might be telling you, just repeating what I say after it's been said about you isn't ironic or clever; it just shows in ability to try and mimic. (Perhaps your voices need a far greater grasp of how to perceive human interactions. What works on rodents like yourself doesn't always translate to human interactions.)

In order for it to be ironic you'd need to add context. In order for it to be clever you'd have to add content. As you've failed to do either, all you have done is proven my point over and over again.

Thank you.

The irony is in what you are writing. Your tedious, feckless whinging about my supposed whining is ironic. Meanwhile, I mock you & smirk. I should have known that would be over your head.

Squeeky-

I'm afraid that you neither understand irony nor mockery (Nor tone, content or context, but those are topics for another day).

I do have to acknowledge one thing you say as probably having some accuracy. You do, indeed, probably smirk to yourself on a regular basis. I'm thankful that you've found your true audience, and I hope that you and that oddly squeeking voice in your head that only you can hear are enjoying yourselves. (After all, it's unlikely anyone who doesn't exist solely in your head would much enjoy your presence, and I'd prefer that everybody, no matter how inept they might be, enjoy some measure of happiness.)

Smirk in peace.

That would be the thread where you thought it fit to make generalized judgments about a work you had barely read, in contradistinction to my opinion on a distinct part of a work that I did read, and from which I have quoted from on the thread.

The difference between our situations is that because the Talbot work is a collection of separate stories, I don't need to read the rest of the stories in the volume to say, "This one blows." You advanced a negative opinion of the entire graphic novel FUN HOME on the basis of a partial, superficial-sounding reading. Not only are we dealing with two different types of readings here, you're the last one that should be able to drop sarcasms about others not fully reading works-- without suffering the embarassment of flagrant hypocrisy, that is.

Lancelot Link! Secret Chimp!

He stands for justice, at least in his mind,

He's the funniest ape that you'll ever find!

Lancelot Link! Secret Chimp!

Gene,

1. The context of this one story isn't important enough for you to decide whether you don't like Talbot as a person.

2. One story is enough for you to judge Alias as having a temperate response to the book. It's obvious to you why Talbot wrote what he wrote in this anecdote.

3. I'm hypocritical only if I have a problem with getting a general impression of a book by sampling it and reading reviews of the book. My stance hasn't changed, however. You simply chose to disingenuously read my statement as a criticism of you doing 1 and 2, rather than as a criticism of you hypocritically doing 1 and 2.

"The context of this one story isn't important enough for you to decide whether you don't like Talbot as a person."

Someone who puts forth one version of a story when I know there are more versions is, by my definition, an ass. You're speaking only for yourself re: importance.

Number 2 makes no sense at all. Alias has a temperate response to the topic, not the book, since he doesn't seem to have seen the latter.

You're a hypocrite to whatever degree you've accused me of not giving Talbot's book a fair reading, since you feel qualified to dispense with full readings yet still give opinions on what you didn't read. If you had some other meaning in mind it was poorly expressed.

I did read the whole book.

Oh, Lambchops, you rabid little gelding, I'm so proud of you! You may not be able to reproduce anything of value, but at least you can produce something!

And it only took you four days to come up with a weak piece of doggerel to amuse yourself with. I'm glad that your content free life has given you so much time to perfect your content free stabs at self-expression.

I look forward to reading your next frothingly toothless reply in a week or so.