Crazyheaded Jorn - Pt. II

[chrisw@fciad2.bsd.uchicago.edu (chris williams)]

Chris here,

   Once more into the fray. My anonymous correspondent read Jorn's latest,
and this appeared in my mailbox. And no, it is *not Jeff*, and may I be
forced to listen to Jade Fashions for all eternity if I am lying.

=======================================================================

     "You disgust me," said Lypiatt, with rising indignation, and
    making wider gestures, "you disgust me--you and your odious little sham
    eighteenth century civilisation; your piddling little poetry; your
    art for art's sake instead of for God's sake; your nauseating little
    copulations without love or passion; your hoggish materialism; your
    bestial indifference to all that's unhappy and your yelping hatred of
    all that's great."
      ". . .I look about me," and Lypiatt cast his eyes wildy round the
    crowded room, "and I find myself alone, spiritually alone.  I strive
    on by myself, by myself."  He struck his breast, a giant, a solitary
    giant. . .His voice trembled a little.  "People mock me, hate me,
    stone me, deride me.  But I go on, I go on.  For I know I'm right.
    And in the end they too will recognise that I've been right."  It
    was a loud soliloquy.  One could fancy that Lypiatt had been engaged
    in recognising himself.
                              --Aldous (Friend of yours, Jorn?) Huxley

    Thank you, Jorn, for showing us all (those of us, at any rate, who've
nothing better to do than follow this long-become-boring series of posts)
why I chose to post anonymously.  Knowing you'd ignore the message and kill
the messenger, I deleted the messenger.  So you built a windmill.
    Jorn, my name is not Jeff.  Nor have I ever referred to myself as
Jeff, (although once, I'm told, when I was really drunk, I did call myself
Jeffy).  Chris and Vickie agree with me that this shall not become a guessing
game:  We will not respond to further of your attempts to name me:  Save my
Jefflessness, you shall remain clueless (;^).  Anyone else smeared by your
sleight of mouth will be left to unsully her own name.  (Sorry, all.)
    I'd intended to let my Crazyheaded Jorn post stand on its own and not
respond to your predictable misdirection, and so I didn't.  Then you called
Vickie a liar and assumed that Jeff was lying as well when he told you that
you were mistaken in assuming that he'd written the anonymous post.
    I understand that you had to, Jorn.  You thought that all you'd have to 
do was see through the ruse.  You decided that you could negate the entire
post merely by being *smart* enough to guess the author.  
    Majestic misdirection.  You posted as many lines in response as were in
my original post and *never*once*responded*to*anything*I*wrote*.  I see I was
mistaken in my belief that an anonymous post would leave you nothing personal
to attack, would leave you only the issue which you proposed, to discuss.
I underestimated you, you're truly a master.  No, that's not David Koresh on
line 3, it's David Copperfield.  He's curious as to how you *do* it.
    But you're wrong, Jorn.  Your proofs, and my responses thereto, follow:


>Category One: Underlining style BOTH *asterisks* and _underscores_
>(this is unique to Jeffy, in my experience)
>-----
Your experience has just expanded.  I use far fewer of either than Jeff.
I think I used one of each in my 200 line pseudo-anonymous hatemail.
===============
>Category Two:  Straining for poetic effect

I strain further; stretch thinner than Jeff.  It's a stylistic flaw I've
always lamented, but have not yet grown out of.
==================
>Category Three: Intense cynicism

You bring out the best in us, Jorn.  I'll wager that other than we two 
(Jeff and I) have grown cynical recently.  
======================
>Category Four: Conceptualization of Jorn's 'errors'

Unique, I think, to neither Jeff nor myself.  Note, however, the stylistic 
differences (more on which later) between Jeff's versions and my own.

===========================
>>Category Five: science arguments

>[28 March 93]
>You seem to try to argue that the recording on the medium is actually 
>changed by the vibes you put out while it's playing--you mention the
>idea of "re-etching" and that the recording of the music is changed
>(as opposed to the imprint being with the basic physical object).  How
>is my play-only walkman any more likely to re-record-with-emotiona-imprint
>on my tape than my discman?

>[08 April 93]
>(Just throwing down, for your patronizing disdain, a rational reac-
>tion to your theory:  Film, when exposed to light reflecting off an ob-
>ject, records no image of that object: only white light.  Control the
>light with a lens, however, and you have an image clear enough to deter-
>mine the nature of its subject.  What is the "lens" of this process of
>recording emotions onto magnetic tape?  Is it likely that, even were these
>"vibes" to have an effect on the tape, that their playback could possibly
>be interpreted as an emotion similar to the one that produced the effect
>in the first place?  Isn't it more likely that they would "play back" as
>"white vibes"?  Remember, this effect would take place during the play
>mode, not the record.)

First, Jorn, and again:  Compare the style.  Highly dissimilar.
Second:  Is it likely that these two arguments would be put forth by
the same author?  Each indicates a different approach to nearly the same
aspect of your theory:  not similar enough to be one person restating her
own argument, but not different enough to suggest a rethinking by a single
thinker. 
===============================
>Category Six: capitalized words
>
>[08 April 93]
>You accuse your questioners, Jorn, of being Kneejerk Scientismists.

>Please, Old Mythologizer, 

>[16 April 93]
>I lead my legion of EctoDemons in the fight against
>all that is good--the angels in flight for the Good Witch Jorn.

Weak, Jorn.  Everyone uses caps to ironically suggest that the
capitalized phrase is an Official Term.  And really, Old Blusterer, I'd
have thought you'd have caught the Joyce. 
===========================
>Misc punctuation:

>Two-hyphens no spaces: thruout

>Two spaces after end of sentence: thruout

All this means, Jorn, is that Jeff and I learned to type by the same 
method.  Both of these are typing conventions that are habit, I'm sure,
for a lot of people.

>Apostrophes: no errors, thruout (its-it's, plural-possessives)

>Their/They're: correct thruout

You flatter us, Jorn.  And I thank you for pointing it out.  I never
realized that I had in Jeff a fellow anal grammarian.

>Paragraph layout changed for anonymous [08 April] only, telegraphed by 
>several slips in uniformity.  Hyphenation turned on for [08 April] (MLA 
>hyphens)

What?

>Colon-space-space
>March 28: once
>April 08: four
>(others, none)

>Quotation marks: double everywhere but once [April 16]

>Double or triple exclamation marks: never

Conventions, Jorn, conventions.  Jeff is obviously as careful a reader 
and writer as I am.

    Now to the style:
    Reading over some of Jeff's posts, I think I can say that my sentences
tend to be longer, if more ponderous.  
    I'll own to the stress I put upon my tone with my wanton poetasting. 
    My usage is arguably more archaic. 
    Does Jeff address you, patronizingly and repeatedly, by your name?
    The similarities are there, Jorn, but you'll agree they're superficial
and inconclusive.  The differences are far more difficult to dismiss.  Read
it again.  
    I write the preceding not to give you any clues, though you'll doubtless
stay awake sifting for them, but to convince you to render unto Jeff that
which is Jeff's, and render unto us the silence we so richly deserve.
    I think I may speak for all of us, Jorn (that's who I am--I am 
Everygaffan) when I say (and this is not, I think, the first time) that
it's time to put up or shut up.  And since you absolutely refuse to do the
former, we hope and we pray that you will choose the latter.
    I really believe that every one of us would be fascinated to discuss
your theory seriously, maturely, and with open, educable minds, if you  
would only allow us to.  You have repeatedly (I repeat myself) focused
on the writer rather than the writing, and refuse to meet us halfway 
*in re* semantics.
    You insist on a clear division between Science and Seance, which I
believe is utimately dangerous to your position.  We will never achieve a
unified theory until the scientists are willing to think more spiritually
and the spiritualists admit that there is something to be learned from
science.  When these two frames of mind meet and meld, and the practition-
ers of each stop saying "That's my concept--get your mind off of it!", 
then will we have a new science.  
    What will we call it?  Scientuality?  No--Spirience:  Rhymes with "experience"; evokes, playfully, "spurious".

    The anonymous poster is dead.  Long live Everygaffan.
=======================================================================

    I disagree with my correspondent on a couple of points; I feel
that Jorn's thesis is, was and will remain a load of dingo's kidneys.

    Also it pains me to see Jorn's breakdown in public. When we moved
to Chicago from Kansas City, Jorn showed up to help us unload an 18'
truck and dragged his roommate along to help. We had spent the last of
our cash on the deposit for the apartment and Jorn bought us dinner.
    I've tried to return the favors Jorn has done for us, and hope
the karmic balance is at equilibrium, as I have no wish to be in
his debt.  
    I've considered him a friend, but recent events (this flamewar
the least among them) make me doubt that he has any empathy at all,
the quality I consider the defining characteristic of a "human being."
If this is bridge-burning, fine. If Jorn's current state is an abberation
and if he actually posesses the emotional equipment necessary for
friendship, then someday we may talk again.

                            Chris Williams of
                               Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago
                                  chrisw@fciad2.bsd.uchicago.edu