Academia Responds to Symbolic Order

The following was received as a comment and, as the author expresses an interest in seeing a broader discussion by the SO community, we’ve decided to repost it as a full story.

Hello, Trevor & Aaron, administrators of Symbolic Order

I visit your site on the recommendation of one of my postgraduate students, who is currently working on her MA dissertation. This piece of work takes as its subject the treatment of politics (in the English language, only) on independent Internet fora. She monitors a total of approximately two-dozen sites closely, yours being one of them, and a very great many others less closely. As you note elsewhere, while there are many sites extant, very few are of durable quality. You might feel justly proud that Symbolic Order manages well a difficult job, and one that few others pull off. It may also encourage you to know that your work is appreciated and forms part of the basis for what will, in time, be a published academic study (though I note, with a degree of sympathy, your scepticism regarding the quality of some university discourse!)

Anyhow, on to the point of this mail.

My student contacted me this morning to inform me that, and I quote, ìall hell had broken looseî and to advise me that I should visit SO as soon as possible lest the phenomenon which had so startled her disappear. I followed her exhortations accordingly and have to say, for my part, found what I discovered to be extremely interesting. I advised Sally to write to you but she felt unable to do so, given her desire to remain objective in her orientation to the sites she monitors. I advised her that participant observation was a valid form of analysis, but it was not one with which she felt comfortable here. She was not averse, however, to my suggestion that I should enter the debate that currently enlivens your site.

Before offering my perspective, I should first acknowledge that, being British and not having any intimate knowledge of the US beyond its exported culture, some of my analysis might be off target or lack nuance. The rumblings do seem to have a peculiarly American flavour! I hope you will bear with me if I misread some of the subtleties. I should also state that, as a cultural scientist with a long background in sociology, I inhabit a particular discursive framework and that this will inevitably prejudice my observations. Once again, I can only hope enough of interest remains to make this intervention worthwhile or, failing that, not altogether without value.

A couple of my impressions, then:

What had been an eminently stable virtual-community has suddenly been thrown into a state of considerable confusion through the interruption of a new and discordant voice. It would be folly to attempt to impute motives to Kid Woof Woof with any degree of certainty. But this much seems clear: he revels in an iconoclastic persona and is dismissive of attempts to ëunderstandí him; he enjoys unsettling people and can be crude in his methodologies; his arguments are not entirely without basis, though they are sorely reductive; he holds his beliefs with a degree of conviction that borders, perhaps, on the paranoid. Notice, incidentally, that I assume Kid Woof Woof to be male. I think we are safe in that assumption.

Reading through his posts and the responses they elicited, I was reminded of nothing so much as the character of Inspector Goole from JB Priestleyís An Inspector Calls. Here we have a suddenly emergent stranger who arrives unheralded and begins to demand, on what authority it is not altogether clear, questions of the cast assembled. Now, as with Goole, whatever we think of the impertinence of some of those questions, we must accept that the answers they throw up are, at times, revealing.

Priestley is at pains in his play to lay bare quite how fragile are our routines, practices and, indeed, habitual defences, when assaulted by the unexpected. In this design, I have long taught that Priestley is the precursor to that first rate Canadian sociologist Erving Goffman, whose best known works, with which you may well be familiar, make an identical point. If nothing else, then, it seems that Kid Woof Woof, knowingly or not, precipitated a form of social crisis or catastrophe, as a consequence of which much that might not otherwise have happened, did happen. It is the Chinese, I believe, who speak positively of living in ìinteresting timesî!

I was particularly struck by the tendency of your community of commentators to rather over-react to his jibes and taunts. It is certainly to your own credit that you remained largely aloof from reciprocal histrionics, but other contributors posted intemperate replies which, once sufficiently calm, they had the good sense to ameliorate or partially retract. Given that one of the consistent themes of SO is reasonable and reasoned debate, we cannot afford to overlook lightly this Achilles Heel, that even the most level-headed amongst us demonstrate: when prodded and poked, we all too easily lose our cool! This surely is an impediment to the vision of a more decent and rational society that SO envisages and might form a fertile topic for future discussion.

I was also struck by the alacrity with which you allowed Kid Woof Woofís actions to curtail the essential ëlivenessí of Symbolic Order. This had been one of its unique strengths and had featured heavily, and to good advantage, in Sallyís research ñ you were one of only 7 sites that allowed this level of spontaneous interaction. Yet the Kid Woof Woof phenomenon was able, quite precipitously, to inhibit this feature. Visiting the site today, it seemed to me that, while some of his postings were abrasive, none were offensive or disturbing. Possibly there were others that you have since removed and I am not in receipt of the full picture. However, for better or worse, I think it is interesting to consider the relative ease with which the ëOutsiderí was able to perturb the smooth working of an established community. This, again, might be an interesting topic for discussion, as it would seem to have genuine repercussions for any future model of a sensible, embracing yet robust Natural Society. The French anthropologist-cum-sociologist, Rene Girard, now resident in the US, has written to fascinating effect on the role and scope of the Scapegoat.

I will finish here, though there is more I might have said. I hope these notes might be of some interest to you and your other contributors. I do not mean to seem to criticise; quite the contrary, you all deserve congratulation for engaging in sophisticated debate on some of the twenty first centuryís most absorbing and contentious topics. I merely hope to help engender further debate.

Let me sign off by saying that, for someone living and working in the United Kingdom, home of Oxford and Cambridge, let alone Warwick University, it is sad but true that all but one of the 26 sites which my student monitors are located in North America and that the remaining one is to be found not in Europe but in South East Asia! Letís hope for better days!

Best wishes for your continuing venture.
Richard Dyer
University of Warwick
England

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Articles. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Academia Responds to Symbolic Order

  1. Sarah Hughes says:

    This really takes the biscuit. Yesterday we had to put up with A. Powell dismissing several thousand texts, homogenising the writings of several hundred thinkers, and he supported this with several conversations with friends and professors which he had over a five year period.

    Today a rather dubious e-mail is posted on the site, why? Because its author is meant to be a professor. So what if he is a professor? Why does he assume the kid is male? Is this some talent he has? He can tell what sort of genitalia someone has by reading a few lines! This site is incredible! Pointyflecks – or whatever its name is – reads the Kids mind, McZen totalises the Kid’s being with some half baked, unclear, MTV analogy which makes no sense at all.

    I used to enjoy this site now it irritates, I’m hooked though. I can’t get enough. The problem, I feel, is that those who run this site are looking for any sort of verification, so full of doubt, so inconsequential do they feel that anything, even an e-mail from a professor is seen like a stamp of authentication from god itself. The Kid’s scintilla of doubt was too much for symbolicorder (which the lovely professor points out).

    “The following was received as a comment and is worthy of a more substantial posting.” Would it had merited “substantial posting” if a 17 year old kid had posted it? – have the decency not to deny this symbolicorder! You ban the kid for refusing to play your game in the terms you want it to and set aside ‘valuable’ web space to those who agree, especially if they have a nice enough title. It’s sad. Very, very, sad.

    Please pointfecks do not respond to this, I can’t bare reading another one of your comments!

  2. Aaron Powell says:

    Sarah-

    Because I’d like to keep comments on stories as on topic as possible, I’ve replied to this not here but in the forums. Let’s try to continue the conversation there:

    http://www.symbolicorder.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=94

  3. Trevor Burrus says:

    I find Sarah’s comment disheartening. Far from Professor Dyer’s comment being a ringing endorsement of SO, it more resembles a cautionary constructive criticism.

    Which is precisely why it was reposted on the main page. If the comment is re-read the tone is far from that of a lauding encomium. Professor Dyer is respectful to our endeavour but is certainly critical of some of the practices that have occured recently. Knowing that others on this site feel similarly about this site’s seemingly heavy-handed actions toward Kid Woof Woof, Professor Dyer’s comment provides a well-written, intelligent and interesting perspective from which discussion of SO can be launched.

    As for his University status. Does it matter to us? To be honest, yes. It has some relevance. However, as may be clear by now, Aaron and I are somewhat critical and distanced from the majority of university-employed humanities academics. We are overtly critical of their status as “deep, profound thinkers.” Therefore, the content and style of Professor Dyer’s post was paramount to deciding to re-post the comment. Dyer clearly has something to say about SO, and he says it clearly and well – something that many academics seem to be simply unable to do.

    Yes, titles, degrees and other status symbols matter in our society. They are meant to supplement ignorance. I have a philosophy degree, so, all other things being seemingly equal, I am a good person to ask about Kant’s metaphysics. If I am in competition with two others who do not have a similar degree, and our degrees is all that you know about us, then I would be the rational person to ask philosophical questions.

    Would we have reposted a 17 yr old’s post on the same topic? Perhaps, if the content of the post was similarly interesting and showed a like level of erudition. Right now, the main topic on the site seems to be SO itself. Therefore, Professor Dyer’s post was a good starting point for such discussion. Furthermore, we understand that University titles and degrees have import to many people out there – assuredly much more than they do for Aaron and me. Therefore, choosing to post Professor Dyer’s comment makes sense in terms of attempting to supply users a product they can esteem.

    I must say, I don’t appreciate placing doubt on the authenticity of our site. Calling Dyer’s post “dubious” and saying “its author is meant to be a professor,” is as equally presumptious and simplistic as Sarah’s attacking of Dyer’s conclusion that Kid Woof Woof is seemingly male. However, Dyer points out that he is making such a conclusion. Sarah makes many such conclusions in her post that are meant to be elucidated by well placed question marks, exclamation points, and quotation marks. (“Is this some talent he has?,” “He can tell what sort of genitalia someone has by reading a few lines!,” “have the decency not to deny this symbolicorder!” “and set aside ëvaluableí web space to those who agree.”)

    I agree, and I feel that most people would concur, that Kid Woof Woof is more likely male than female (living in the world on a daily basis and interacting with members of both sexes is my basis for this conclusion). However, the fact is also irrelevant. Sarah was the first to try and make it relevant. Whatever sex, Kid Woof Woof’s posts still have the same status.

    What is strange about Sarah’s post is her simultaneous attacking of SO’s users and Administrators for “read[ing] minds,” “making no sense at all,” and saying further that “those who run this site are looking for any sort of verification, so full of doubt, so inconsequential do they feel that anything, even an e-mail from a professor is seen like a stamp of authentication from god itself.” First of all, Sarah’s post seems to be attempting a like form of “mind reading” as she attacks. Seemingly, she has read Aaron and my minds – commenting on our low self-esteems and possible desire to make up posts from fake members of academia. I need to reiterate that, for Aaron and I, an endorsement from academia (except, perhaps from an Economics department) is far, far, from being an “authentication from god itself.”

    It is somewhat difficult to respond to Sarah’s post with the tranquilty I have shown. She has attacked our site, and me personally, on many levels. However, my philosophy towards certain types of posts, such as Sarah’s, is to respond in the manner that I want to be addressed. I would appreciate similar treatment.

    Thanks for taking the time to respond, Sarah.

    Trevor Burrus

    Incidently, here is Professor Dyer’s info:

    http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/film/about/staff/dyer/

  4. McZen says:

    In response to the professor’s letter specifically:

    I sympathize with his surprise at the efforts undertaken by the adminstrators to inhibit the “liveness” of the site. For me personally, that was one of the major attractions. In my mind that “liveness” signified an open embrace of dissent. Although I personally don’t suspect the adminstrators of deleting any posts simply because they present a dissenting opion (many posts here do and remain undeleted), I still can’t fault others here for entertaining that possibility.

    Under the current setup, the decision as to what the user reads and doesn’t read is no longer the user’s decision alone. That strikes me as paternalistic. And why be paternalistic unless you’re afraid that we the users can’t make valid decisions? Again, I personally don’t believe that this is the adminstrators’ motivation, but it’s certainly a criticism that I can understand.

    I don’t know what’s possible with the techonology here, but I’d love to see you bring back live comments and adopt an alternative method of censorship. A method that remains *transparent* to all of the users here and still allows everyone to post anything they want.

    Instead of deleting a live comment that’s off-topic, or cleary intended to be offensive, leave it for a week. During that time, mark on it explicitly that you, the administrators, have found it to be in violation of one more of your comment criteria. After that time move it to another page. At the top of that page again list your criteria for what’s acceptable. And declare that, as the adminstrators, you have determined that all comments on this page are in violation of one or more of these criteria. This page would be accessible from the comments page, via a link at the very bottom.

    I think most users here who trust your judgment probably won’t bother accessing that page. However, those who’d rather make the decision for themselves can still visit it. Most importantly though, by leaving it up for at least a week and marking it unaccetable, the users here have a chance to debate your decision, even if that debate ultimately has no impact on your decision (And that’s fine by me. This site is an oligarchy, not a democracy. And I don’t see any of the users here volunteering to pay a tax to keep it up and running).

    Again, this is all still censorship of a form. But at least it’s transparent. *All users* have a means by which they can see *everything* that gets posted. And there’s nothing to stop *anyone* from posting *anything*.

    In response to Sarah’s post specifically:

    She says:”So what if he is a professor? Why does he assume the kid is male? Is this some talent he has? He can tell what sort of genitalia someone has by reading a few lines!”

    Maybe the professor assumes the Kid’s a male in part because everyone else who posted a reply to the Kid also assumed as much.

    Maybe the professor, along with just about everyone else here, also in part assumed the Kid’s a male because the Kid says so in one of his posts. The Kid wrote, “And who are you speaking for, Trevor Burrus, when claiming ìwe allî want more justice? Not for the Kid, thatís for sure. He wants a whole lot less ëjusticeí…”

    As a matter of fact, I suspect that the professor only bothers to specifically note it’s an “assumption,” because even though he feels safe in that “assumption,” he’s not claiming certainty.

    Moreover, I suspect that the professor didn’t explain why he was assuming it, because all of the reasons I listed were more or less under your nose, and he probably respectfully decided you and the other users here didn’t need to be reminded of something rather obvious.

    PLEASE NOTICE THAT NONE OF WHAT FOLLOWS IS SPECIFIC TO THE LETTER, BUT I’D LIKE TO RESPOND TO A PERSONAL ATTACK IN THE SAME PLACE THAT THE ATTACK IS PRESENTED, AND SINCE THAT ATTACK WAS MADE BEFORE THE CRITERION WAS IN PLACE.

    You go on to say: “You ban the kid for refusing to play your game in the terms you want it to and set aside ëvaluableí web space to those who agree, especially if they have a nice enough title. Itís sad. Very, very, sad.”

    A)They didn’t “ban” the kid. They didn’t even delete his comments.

    B)The comments space is obviously not reserved only for those agree. You seem to think “Pointyflakes” and I are getting special treatment. If you look at my comments on some of Trevor’s other articles, I clearly disagree with his perspective. As a matter of fact, I was one of the first to post under his article about the poor, and it was clearly a dissenting opinion.

    The fact that you’d claim something so blatantly absurd as “only people who agree get to post comments” leads me to believe you probably didn’t even read all the posts before you decided to make any sweeping claims.

    You also say:”McZen totalises the Kidís being with some half baked, unclear, MTV analogy which makes no sense at all.”

    Maybe the reason it didn’t make any sense to you is because you didn’t really read my posts… I repeatedly point out that my problem is not with the Kid himself, or his perspective, or his “being.” My real criticism is of his *communication style.* The analogy was never claimed to be about his “being.”

    Moreover, I outright state that I personally believe there’s much *more* to the Kid than what he’s *showing* us. In other words, I delcared that he’s intentionally hiding part of “being” from us behind his *communication style*. I even *invited* him to “tell us what you really think and why.” That I outright said the Kid is hiding part of himself from us is a far cry from “totalizing” his being; it’s even LOGICALLY INCOMPATIBLE with the idea. There’s simply no way you can make sense of the idea that I claimed there was more to the Kid than what he’s showing us AND that I claimed theres’s nothing more to the Kid than what he’s showing us. *Your claim* is what makes no sense at all.

    Again, that you’d make such an absurd and sweeping claim leads me to believe that you probably didn’t actually read my posts before responding.

    Maybe you’re so irritated with the site and some of its users because some of *your* ideas about the posts here seem to be half-baked, and occasionally, even make no sense at all.

  5. Trevor Burrus says:

    McZen, I LOVE your post. Just a few comments.

    It is hard to iterate and reiterate exactly what is our theory behind SO. There are SOOOOOOO many sites on the web that embrace open discussion about intellectual topics. However, given that the web is frequented by all types of people, a very large majority of those people do not want to engage in productive, postive, stimulating debate. Aaron and I started this site because we grew tired of all other “similar” sites degenerating into pits of name-calling, straw men, and the pure unability to listen to, and address, other’s arguments.

    In the posting guidelines, in the “About us” page, and elsewhere I have tried to be very clear that attitude and not opinion is what matters here. At some level, if we wish to produce such a site, our recourse must be censorship. However, Aaron and I have engaged in some debate about exactly how to do this.

    Yes, Kid Woof Woof was a provocateur extrodinaire, and an intelligent one at that. However, he refused to subdue his rhetoric or offer cogent opinions that could be addressed. He called me an idiot more than once. He called other posters like names. When I mentioned Kant he launched into a particularly vociferous diatribe on Kant’s person, not his ideas. Kid Woof Woof seems to be unable to contain ad-hominem attacks. He is so convinced of his intellectual unassailability that he feels he needs no defense that amounts to anything more than verbose use of invectives. This behavior reached such a point that it could no longer be countenanced.

    However, your point is well taken. I believe that, for the most part, leaving the comment up and allowing commentary on it will help the site in the long run. There are, of course, exceptions, i.e. “you are an ignorant fuck-head,” that will not be tolerated. This is one reason Aaron and I are trying to promote the forums. The current commentary system is meant to be used for more formal arguments and comments relating directly to the story. The posting on the comments has certainly moved away from that type of discussion. However, the forums are set up in such a way that administrators can use a graduated warning system to inform users that their post is unacceptable. Therefore, comments aren’t just deleted, they are warned, and all users can see the warning. Furthermore, the warnings accumulate and can result in eventual banning. This seems to be the exact type of system you are talking about and, hopefully, more discussions can move to the forums where its use can be instilled.

    Kid Woof Woof also represented another possible problem that may rear its head in the future. There is a contingent of intellectuals, both professional and amateur, who do not believe in the value of logic, reason, and argumentation. Some have a well-codified belief system for this position built on the opressive quality of white-male, Western philosophical thought. Other philosophical positions, such as the meaninglessness of language and the non-existence of Truth, further seek to undermine the existence of rational thought and productive discourse. Kid Woof Woof showed some signs of the post-modernistic tendency, and others may show it stronger in the future. However, they beg the questions: how do you debate someone who doesn’t believe in debate, how do you use rationality against someone who believes it is a construct of white-males with which to oppress women, how do you speak clearly to someone who doesn’t believe in the meaning of language? I am somewhat remiss in answers to this question. I have encountered enough of these people in my day to realize that discussion is better left aside and you would do your best to invite them to play a nice game of billiards.

    Anyway, keep up the good posts McZen. You are making SO what we want it to be.

    Thanks,
    Trevor Burrus

  6. jwgibbs says:

    I read the SO announcement that precipitated the letter from Richard Dyer. I confess that I thought to be appropriate, the actions that Aaron and Trevor took with respect to the “lower level” commentary from Kid Woof Woof (glad he doesn’t call himself Kid Wolfe Wolfe). Now however, I find myself appreciating the quantry that KWW has created for you. In fact, if I may draw an analogy between KWW and the artist Maplethorpe, who was a darling of the right because he allowed them “justification” for attacking the National Foundation for the Arts. It would appear that by “censoring” what gets posted on Symbolic Order (as a result of the KWW catalyst) your site has taken actions that I imagine would be diametrically opposed to the philosophy that both you and Trevor espouse.

    Understand that I am not laughing at your predicament or saying “I told you so.” Rather, the recent events underscore the problem that a free society faces when it tries to engage all of the people in the dialogue of free expression. You are right to try to protect your site from dialog/monolog that will alienate more thoughtful and articulate participants, but how to do this without compromising SO’s fundamental philosophy or overprotecting; well, that is indeed a problem.

    One answer is to trust your members to look past the muck and stay focused on the ideas that deserve dialog, as Richard Dyer has done. This is an approach that makes sense but does involve some risk to SO or at least maintaining high level and civil discourse. To carry my previous analogy a bit further, both you and I would agree this approach is beyond the capacity of the current “family values-oriented” Administration and the religious right and does indeed represent a genuine threat to free expression in the United States.

  7. mulalu says:

    …I also support the general feeling that the benefits of ‘live’ posting far outweigh the deathly atmosphere of ‘dead’ posting.

  8. kid woof woof says:

    So, we’re live again – about freakin’ time. Much as the Kid objects to being in the same laboratory as Professor R Dyer, who sounds like a nut, he has to take issue with JWGibbs. Why NOT laugh at SO’s predicament? C’mon, after all, it’s funny. Here are Burrus and the Witchburner, imagining with all their hearts (as well as ‘every philosophical bone in their bodies’), that they’re at the cutting edge of rational debate when actually, at the very first sign of dissent, they pull the plug on the whole damn show. THAT’S NOT RATIONAL, THAT’S FUNNY!! Gibbs, get a sense of humour, you sourpuss.

    You see, what these nincompoops don’t understand is that discourse resides not in what you say you do but in what you do do. So here’s that fancy Continental philosophy, in which Burrus is supposedly so well read, coming back to haunt his ass – Evil Twins, the Kid directs you not to your sanctimonious, kindergarten “user’s policy” with all its tired old cliches and legitimations, but to your actual lived knee-jerk reactions the very instant something happens along that makes you feel in the tiniest bit ill at ease. Whoo! Black dog’s in the house! RUN!! Yeah – woof woof.

  9. Sarah Hughes says:

    On the nightmare on dealing with you idiots I am met with the response (and it is one!) that ‘you’ (who ‘you’ are is not ‘my’ problem!) are engaging in a privileged discourse, unearthing ‘truths’ fundamental to all.

    My distaste and disregard for ‘your’ project leaves me thinking whether or not I am projecting my own fears, my own distastes, of ‘my’ own project, onto ‘yours’.

    Here’s my answer to me and to you: “I have always found extremely repulsive the common practice of sharing the main dishes in a Chinese restaurant. So when, recently, I gave expression to this repulsion and insisted on finishing my plate alone, I became the victim of an ironic “wild psychoanalysis” on the part of my table neighbour: is not the repulsion of mine, this resistance to sharing a meal, a symbolic fear of sharing a partner, i.e. of sexual promiscuity? The first answer that came to my mind, of course was a variation of de Quincyís caution against the “art of murder” – the true horror is not sexual promiscuity but sharing a Chinese dish: “How many people have entered the way of perdition with some innocent gangbang, which at the time was of no great importance to them, and ended by sharing the main dishes in a Chinese restaurant.” – S. Zizeck

    Adieu suckers!

  10. Pointyfecks says:

    Hey, what’s going on?

    Wow!

    Sarah you just make no sense what so ever!

    How can you compare gangbangs to sharing chinese food? that’s real pointless and stupid!

    Let’s just ignore the kid, he’s no good to anyone, he’s just like that guy who stands in the corner, while you’re debating, and says, “what’s the point, we’re all going to die!” maybe you are Kid, but I’m gonna hang around here for a long time yet and I’m going to debate with as many people as possible!

    And McZen, I still think what you said about MTV is really true and about the Kid as well. It’s all true. I hope to debate with all you guys again, and remember, if the kid ever doubts us, just remember, we were endorsed by an English Professot!

  11. MthNrd says:

    I truly enjoy the lively discourse found on SO. It is rare to find a site that allows both free discourse between differing opinion and yet at the same time, doesn’t normally degenerate into an emotion-laced tirade of name-calling between those that post their thoughts. It seems however that at times there has been the over-emotionalization of a response here or there. I chalk that up to being more a lack of self-control than being a lack of intelligent thought, for it seems that even those that do cross the line from rational debate to personal attack (i.e., calling others idiots, etc.) seem to be able to reign themselves back in and a state of normalcy returns.

    It is this state of normalcy that makes the site great and is the primary reason for my continued visitation.

    MthNrd

  12. Josiah Gibbs says:

    Wow! I haven’t looked into this site in a week and wasn’t ready for the venom that Sarah and kid let fly. Everyone else seems to be trying to understand what happened; to step back and look at things with some degree of thoughtfulness and civility. It’s too bad that Sarah and kid don’t seem to be able to do this. I used to date a lovely woman who came quickly to anger and hated herself for being so emotional. She hated herself even more, and me as well, when I became thoughtful and did not descend into emotion. My actions made her feel less competent. The point of all this is that while sometimes things are revealed in the moment of anger, you tend to listen better and hear more when the other person isn’t shouting. Aaron, Trevor, I disagree with you guys a lot, but I like your site and will continue to look in, even after this storm passes.

    P.S. Here’s a thought. Is it possible that kid woof woof and Sarah Hughes are the same person? That would be interesting.

  13. kidwoofwoof says:

    Josiah, truly(c) you are a mad, necrophiliac scientist. Wow – what a post! Those emotional women, eh? What are they good for?! Are you sure the ‘lovely woman’ didn’t actually hate *you* for being so ‘unemotional’ (as if ‘unemotion’ were not an emotion), which is to say, inhuman? At least she escaped in the end. Which poor soul are you torturing now? ‘Descend into emotion’. You are insane. Period.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Josiah, I’ve been in a similar situation. Some women love the attention anger and drama afford them. Although the same is true of some men. Anyway, in regard to SH’s and KWW’s letting the venow fly, check out this link.

    http://www.symbolicorder.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=99

  15. Josiah Gibbs says:

    To “showtopic 99”
    Thanks for the note. It shows that the “heart and mind” this is site is coming together again, KWW notwithstanding. I had considered replying ot KWW’s rant of January 31, but decided that I would rather attend to the articulate and thoughtful posters.

  16. kidwoofwoof says:

    The Kid considers himself told, Professor Mad Scientist Gibbs. Your freakishly necrophiliac project of “not descending into emotion” is proven to walk the walk.

    You may be cosying up to the wrong guy in Showtopic99, however – it’s just our old buddy McZ, infecting the site under another handle, and who has, in the past, demonstrated himself to be hyperemotional, not to say irrational, neurotic and haunted by De-aaatttthhhhhhh … though only in the most unenlightening of fashions.

Comments are closed.