Don't let your anonymous stalker get to you. Someone who has nothing better to do than criticize (anonymously), using as many big words as he can to demonstrate his formidable intelligence is just pathetic.
Stalker? Hah, how harsh. I suppose concerned citizens who deluge the Gang of 535 with pleas for sanity are also stalkers. Perhaps those who write letters to newspaper editors should also be considered such? No, dear lady, I think you've incorrectly defined the word 'stalker' as meaning 'one who disagrees with me and presses the issue'.
No one will dispute the truth that had I come here offering vapid and nigh unintelligible replies along the lines of "hey man meshugga spice rox mmmmmmm shes ded sexy & singz goooood n i hav her latist cd", I would have been welcomed by all here as an astute critic of modern music. Your comments demonstrate beyond any doubt that your real problem is a simple hatred of the demonstrably superior.
What, pray tell, does it mean for civilization's future, when incisive commentary, expressed in good English - superior thought, in other words - is derided as 'pompous and affected' by the plainly semi-literate?
"No one will dispute the truth that had I come here offering vapid and nigh unintelligible replies along the lines of "hey man meshugga spice rox mmmmmmm shes ded sexy & singz goooood n i hav her latist cd", I would have been welcomed by all here "
The satirical tone in which you depict Shankar is quite obscene. Playing the devils advocate, however entertaining, shall prove to have a quite deleterious effect on the one you criticize. Must you show contempt toward an individual's divergent views of what is "good"? "Astute critic"? Sounds a bit self-rightous. I have observed your so called "astute" observations and found a mere opinion expressed through the medium of another's words. Demonstrably superior... your capacity to arrange words in a manner considered "eloquent" by some, as well as your musical predilections, are not enough to assert superiority over one who posts a few slapdash entries in his journal. You feign nonchalance, however, were you so superior to Shankar (or anyone else, for that matter), you would have no interest meddling with his private affairs. Carry on with the trenchant remarks, however, direct them at me. We shall see who is the worthier opponent. ********
You are right; had you left simply an innocuous comment on Shankar's site with misspellings, grammatical errors, and silly slang no one would have said a thing. However, as you hatefully attacked Shankar, his writings, and his tastes, people took issue with your comments. I suppose our disagreement stems from our very different values-- you see intelligence as more important than common decency and kindness, I do not. Obviously you are smart, perhaps even as smart as you think you are. I imagine that you pride yourself on your intelligence so much in part because it is all you have. That has often been the case when I meet someone as arrogant and snobbish as you appear to be. I don't know you, so I could be completely wrong. I will try not to do you the injustice of assumption. As far as your last jab goes, you would do better to attack me in another way-- logic, writing, or beliefs for example. Anyone who knows me would think characterizing me as "semi-literate" a joke.
In other words, as long as I pay homage to the One True God of 'Tolerance' (and not really 'tolerance', but 'approval'), and don't do anything that suggests that people, in fact, are not equal and oughtn't be so considered, I am on safe ground. But when I dared to suggest that there are indeed standards up to which Shankar's 'music' and nonsensical scrawlings cannot hope to measure, you Jacobins went berserk, attacking person, motives and propriety alike as heresies, refusing to make the reasoned attempts at refutation which are the domain of civilized men, now almost wholly dead in the West
( ... )
Comments 21
Don't let your anonymous stalker get to you. Someone who has nothing better to do than criticize (anonymously), using as many big words as he can to demonstrate his formidable intelligence is just pathetic.
- Meg
Reply
Reply
No one will dispute the truth that had I come here offering vapid and nigh unintelligible replies along the lines of "hey man meshugga spice rox mmmmmmm shes ded sexy & singz goooood n i hav her latist cd", I would have been welcomed by all here as an astute critic of modern music. Your comments demonstrate beyond any doubt that your real problem is a simple hatred of the demonstrably superior.
What, pray tell, does it mean for civilization's future, when incisive commentary, expressed in good English - superior thought, in other words - is derided as 'pompous and affected' by the plainly semi-literate?
Reply
Tell us then, why exactly did you come here?
-vj
Reply
Carry on with the trenchant remarks, however, direct them at me.
We shall see who is the worthier opponent.
********
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment