Merciful hair-splits, largebuck! I'd thought allowing you to get in a few punches would assuage the embarrassment you suffered in the portables forum. Yet you persist in sniping, and seem no better at responding to tact than heeding logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Am I a nattering nabob of negativity too? Spiro Agnew LIVES!
|
Again, you've trained your myopic gaze on surfaces -- in this case, on what you take to be similar patterns. Allow me to respond in kind:
Yes, Agnew does live, in the sense that, like him, you show no understanding of prosodic effects. In this case, you've failed to distinguish between assonance and (Agnew's) alliteration. You've also confused a pattern of two like sounds for Agnew's less justifiable pattern of three. I'd address the third possible surface parallel -- adjectival phrase + noun + preposition + noun -- if it weren't numbingly arbitrary (
second-born son of Sam being an example of why that formulation has nothing to do with an Agnew speech).
A less-skin-deep similarity between you and the deceased: Stubbornness in your pursuit of ill-perceived enemies.
Lest you continue claiming your motives are innocent, let's splinter that roadblock with a fistful of history:
No one who's glanced at
this thread believes you're looking out for my so-called "audience." Far from being a disinterested party, you're trying to get back at me for making well-intentioned jokes in response to one of your posts.
To further highlight your dishonesty, here's a recap of your latest inconsistencies:
In your previous deleted post on this thread, you said you'd posted your first attack because you'd stopped reading me and were concerned about my "audience" (said deleted post being a commentary on one of the posts you'd claimed not to read). Then you posted an attempted correction of something I'd written pages ago, proving you were doing anything
but "skimming." (If you did skim and were bored, then this thread could have continued to be about the MacBook Pro instead of becoming Big-Shot's Vindictive Adventure.)
In my first response, I asked you to desist from personal attacks politely; you didn't. I said nothing when you attacked again, hoping my silence would give you satisfaction; that didn't work, either. Unfortunately, you couldn't maintain your pose of disinterest and had to snipe a third time, signaling your determination to stay the course.
Hence these two less polite responses. Sadly, it seems you're impervious to politeness.
Until you began to slime me with the rancid testosterone of your resentment, I hadn't realized your sig ("
See ya!") echoed your consuming need to zing your tormentors. I don't know what past indignity resulted in this dogged rancor, but I can tell you it doesn't matter here.
The tragic part of your compulsion to pay me back is this: You seem to believe your humiliation was my doing. But the truth is, you made an embarrassing pronouncement on a thread devoted to a piece of kit you hadn't heard and several people responded as I did. I wasn't even the first.
We've all made wrong-headed assertions at one time or another. But it seems to have hurt you deeply that a few members enjoyed the style of my responses (especially to your comment that people who preferred their iMods to their CD players were
probably unable to set correct levels). My comments (and others' amusement) seem to have led you to seek revenge against me through relentless attacks on my style itself. You want me to know how it feels to have people on a thread turn against me. But that isn't necessary: Like everyone else, I know already.
If I hurt you inadvertently, then I apologize. But it's time to let it go.
We all receive praise and ridicule, and it's pointless to go around stalking people who happen to notice when your argument's at its worst. You'll refine your argument ultimately, and no one will care that you once hit a few false notes.
The truth is, I had no intention of attacking you on that thread and no motive for doing damage. I had no idea you were upset. I joked with you about your assertions as I might with a friend, and was kinder than many posters in that forum tend to be.
You, on the other hand, have been seeking me out with pointed unneighborly persistence. Why go on parsing out these haiku of resentment instead of moving on?
A few last responses to insults you've lobbed so far:
1. Regarding your late career as my advice-doling would-be editor: Championing finely wrought style by selectively attacking a Head-fi member who writes carefully on an internet forum where certain beloved members barely know how to spell is as hypocritical as it is breathtakingly dumb.
2. Professing heartfelt concern for my so-called "audience" is pointless, since my true audience consists of people who actually read me. The reader who refrains is therefore not a member of my "audience," which is all for the best: they avoid being bothered and I avoid acquiring another stalker.
3. It seems especially condescending of you to call fellow Head-fi members another member's "audience." I'd thought these people were my talkative friends and equals, not some crowd of silent spectators.
4. Attacks on style are never about style at all, just as physical attributes don't matter until someone is disliked. When a sullen loner feels rejected by a weighty friend, the result is often paunch-specific insult.
Yet the loner's true concern is rarely the subject of the complaint. More often, the loner simply feels overlooked.
You weren't overlooked this time, Steve. Now be true to your word and pay me the compliment of your disinterest.
