[Vision2020] Shape Shifting Reptilian

[Edna Wilmington]

Forum Members,

My response to Ms. Smoucha:

Sorry that I bore her, sorry my words carry no
substance for her, sorry my arrival turned the
listserv into a slum, and sorry to see her ears shut,
and so soon. I admire her openmindedness most of all.

Just one quick question: What's monologic? Oh, I know
the customary definition, but since it doesn't seem to
fit, I figured she meant there's something called
polylogic, too.

Anywhere I can take a class on that, or is it
something liberal feminists are born with?

Edna Wilmington


Just one question: Since 
--- amy smoucha <asmoucha@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Whew.  This is getting more boring than waiting in a
> car.  I am now going to 
> delete any Edna-related thread withoug reading it,
> as I'm sure the listserve 
> will be much improved.  If a person emerges to talk
> about anything of 
> substance, without the monologic, masturbatory
> writing style, someone let me 
> know so I can tune in again.
> 
> Amy Smoucha
> 
> 
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: Edna Wilmington <edwilming@yahoo.com>
> To: Aldoussoma@aol.com, vision2020@moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Shape Shifting Reptilian
> Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 11:54:58 -0800 (PST)
> 
> Forum Members,
> 
> Actually, I don't remember the last time someone
> "played this anonymous identity email...game."
> Sorry,
> read about it, but I wasn't around to witness it,
> nor
> does it matter.
> 
> Because some folks seldom, if ever, stay on topic
> and
> defend their basic assertions (whether explicitly
> stated or not), but instead resort to incessant
> personal attacks, clever innuendo, and inane
> diatribes, they get all crossed up when it comes to
> dealing with me, that is, unless they assume I work
> for Happy Saggers. Why is that?  No, seriously now,
> dear reader, ask that question as strongly as you
> can:
> WHY?
> 
> The sagacious target chosen for my "venom" and
> "onslaught" had nothing to do with anything that
> happened in the past with someone's email address.
> It
> had everything to do with what's happening right
> this
> minute.  It had everything to do with overdrawn
> epithets like, "cult," "fundamentalist,"
> "Neo-Confederate," "bigot," and "racist." It had
> everything to do with grandiose, but unsubstantiated
> universal claims (and implications) of right and
> wrong
> in our ever-evolving universe.  It had everything to
> do with the ongoing minstrel show, replete as it is
> with blackface, humorous yet vacuous criticisms, and
> lyric insults.
> 
> I'm not saying, "There's no way to substantiate
> those
> claims." I'm saying, "Let's see how well they hold
> up,
> how definitive they are, how rational and logical
> they
> are, how unassailably true they are, how universal
> they are, how timeless they are, and how proven they
> are."  Not only that, let's try doing it while
> playing
> strictly by the epistemological rules put forth by
> the
> person making the claim.  No trickery there.
> 
> Several hundred people have joined this list.  Some
> listen.  Many probably don't.  Maybe the latter are
> wiser, because I'm still waiting (and max patiently)
> for a reply to my initial, reasonable, and very
> simple
> ethical question.  I stand ready and willing to
> dispense with all the cute diversions. It's a darn
> good thing I'm not standing on the street, short of
> time to read someone's dissertation on the subject,
> but trying to decide whether or not to be arrogant
> to
> a hot dog vendor. Man, I didn't ask for proof of
> Heisenberg's Uncertaintly Principle.
> 
> Mr. Fox was right about one thing: It's easy to ask
> the questions, and I submit, cast aspersion. Answers
> are tougher to crank out.  Problem is, unless we
> have
> any solid, defensible answers, what basis have we
> for
> leveling insults? Can anyone spell b-i-g-o-t-r-y?
> Well, the right-wing radical fundamentalist
> theocratic
> Neo-Confederate cultists and their inspired book
> have
> spent enough time on the meathook.  Let's assume
> they're all full of crap.  They can stand by and
> ride
> the pine for awhile.  Now it's time for the liberal
> opposition to have their ideas vetted; or will this
> deafening silence and bitching about preoccupation
> with Wilson/CC issues continue forever and ever,
> Amen?
> 
> Even the message below from Ted slips from its lofty
> perch and resorts without cause into over-the-top
> attacks like, "staging the current onslaught,"
> "another shape shifting chameleon cyber ghost,"
> "pesky
> phony monikers," and "lording it over us with jabs,
> reptilian tongue hissing and sliding." Give me a
> break, Ted.  Does your other (i.e. left) ear work
> okay
> or do you need to turn it up a couple notches?
> 
> As for my posing as though above the fray to hide
> the
> deep-seated nastiness hidden behind my requests for
> calming discussion, I'll say this:  In the immortal,
> twisted lipped, and raspy words of that great
> individualist warrior, Rambo, "They drew first
> blood."
> They changed the subject; I followed along smirking.
> They resorted to sarcasm; so did I. They
> collaborated
> to put together our little storybook; I played along
> all by my lonesome, lead by my imperial mind,
> implementing policy by committee of ten digits, none
> of them equal. Call it a little prefatory game of
> quid
> pro quo before the main event. I would rather have
> bypassed the exercise, but now, what's done is done.
> I had fun. Did you?
> 
> By the way, did you know that I wouldn't give a hoot
> if someone located my phone number and address?
> That's
> right. I wouldn't care one bit.  Actually, I'd
> really
> like it a lot.  Not only that, it would prove once
> and
> for all how presumptuously nincompoopish the
> speculators really are and what's more, would
> confirm
> my third party status "above the fray."  You might
> ask, "Well, if you don't care if we know, then tell
> us." Nice try. My personal information is private
> for
> reasons outside this realm and will remain that way.
> Consider it an act of forbearance and mercy.  Trust
> me, you don't want to know.
> 
> Please don't take this as pompous, but I've already
> anticipated each move, every outcome, and none of it
> matters one lick to pertinent discussion on the
> forum.
>   Before you jump to conclusions and accuse me of
> having delusions of grandeur, this isn't a tribute
> to
> ingenuity on my part.  This group, with all due
> respect, ain't that hard a puzzle to figure out. 
> Nor
> is the pattern of behavior enjoyed by some:
> 
> I ask a few schizophrenic megalomaniacal
> carefully-crafted leading questions, and all of a
> sudden, a frenzy erupts to determine my identity.
> Frustrated, the curious and bucketless rain catchers
> resort to diversions, insults, and characteristic
> quietness about the core question at hand.  Who
> cares
> where I live or how to reach me by phone?  Better
> yet,
> as I already said above, ask yourself, "Why do some
> care?"
> 
> Would someone (perhaps a valiant soul from among the
> numerous kind folk on both sides who have emailed me
> off-list with compliments and encouragement) please
> call the bumps off their log?  The more of you who
> go
> public, the better. But then again, I don't expect a
> groundswell of public support from those whose
> address
> and phone number already appear in the
> intelligentsia's database.  Why subject yourself to
> needless abuse?  Just head down to the SUB, grab a
> placard, and toe the line.
> 
> How about we just get on with it?
> 
> Really now, everybody have a pleasant weekend.
> 
> Edna Wilmington
> 
> 
> --- Aldoussoma@aol.com wrote:
>  >
>  > All:
>  >
> 
=== message truncated ===



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/