John Pelan - The Autobiography (Reviewed)

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 21:11:52 GMT, "C.S.Strowbridge"
wrote:

Bud Webster wrote:
"C.S.Strowbridge" wrote:

Obviously I've walked in on some psycho-drama between you two, so I'll
just back away slowly and let you two settle this on your own.

Problem is, C.S., it NEVER settles.

Maybe they should meet face-to-face. Seeing each other as a real human
being and not just some text on the screen should help put the debate
into perspective.

Or maybe they'll kill each other. Either way, it's problem solved as far
as the flamewars go.

C.S.Strowbridge

An interesting idea... Barker challenged me to visit him last year so
that he could "sort me out". When he was provided with a bit of
information regarding my background in MMA and my plans to visit the
UK he fell strangely silent...

I'll be in the UK next year and will be only too happy to stop by
(waiver in hand) and give Hoppy the chance to "sort me out". I'm 47,
long past my prime and have bad knees and ankles, Still, I'm pretty
confident that I'd give Hoppy the ass-kicking of a lifetime.

Cheers,

John

On 19 Dec 2004 05:45:59 -0800, wrote:

Sock puppet allegations of child abuse, quack diagnosis of syphillis
and mental illness, ugly references to male rape, faeces and pus - what
illuminating insights you give us into the workings of the John Pelan
mind.

CB

Sorry, old bean... It's really difficult to discuss your works without
calling to mind the aforementioned. Thanks for playing.

Cheers,

John

The fact that you can't find these posts in Google's
alt.books.ghost-fiction's archives doesn't surprise me in the elast.
After all, you couldn't spot a blatant Pixies reference in another
post.

Non sequitor. My failure to acknowledge the allusion and to praise you
as a genius is not evidence that that I didn't spot it. The fact that
I still found your poem clumsy and incomprehensible does not alter the
fact that I understood the allusion.

Really, it is pointless exchanging words with you.

Then why do you keep doing it?

A five year old child could search Google's
archives and find those two Pelan posts in less than five seconds.

Then you should have no problem providing links. The fact that you
refuse to do so is the surest sign these posts do not exist.
Kevin L. O'Brien

I was strolling through alt.books.ghost-fiction this morning when I ran
across this post:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...c1558727a680e9

In it Chris Ward describes a suggestion for dealing with posts people
consider offensive, by merely responding once with "inappropriate post
ignored" and then not responding further regardless of the provocation.
It is meant to register disapproval of specific messages without
contributing to a flamewar.

As such, Harader's use of this response was not meant to logical; it
was just an exercise indicating that Harader considered Barker's post
to be offensive.

I should also point out that the definition of ignore is "to refuse to
pay attention to; disregard". This suggests that while one can ignore
a post by not reading it or not responding to it, one can also ignore
it by responding with "I consider this post be inappropriate so I shall
disregard it."

Hence it is logical to ignore a post by replying to it, as long as the
reply indicates your intention to disregard the post in question.

And since I must be pedantic when dealing with Strowbridge, disregard
means both to ignore something and "to treat without the proper respect
or attentiveness"; it also means "lack of due regard". Hence stating
you plan to ignore a post rather than respond to it is treating it
"without the proper respect or attentiveness" and showing a "lack of
due regard" for that post. Hence one can respond with "inappropriate
post ignored" and not be illogical.

Kevin L. O'Brien

PLONK


wrote:
I was strolling through alt.books.ghost-fiction this morning when I
ran
across this post:


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...c1558727a680e9

In it Chris Ward describes a suggestion for dealing with posts people
consider offensive, by merely responding once with "inappropriate
post
ignored" and then not responding further regardless of the
provocation.
It is meant to register disapproval of specific messages without
contributing to a flamewar.

As such, Harader's use of this response was not meant to logical; it
was just an exercise indicating that Harader considered Barker's post
to be offensive.

I should also point out that the definition of ignore is "to refuse
to
pay attention to; disregard". This suggests that while one can
ignore
a post by not reading it or not responding to it, one can also ignore
it by responding with "I consider this post be inappropriate so I
shall
disregard it."

Hence it is logical to ignore a post by replying to it, as long as
the
reply indicates your intention to disregard the post in question.

And since I must be pedantic when dealing with Strowbridge, disregard
means both to ignore something and "to treat without the proper
respect
or attentiveness"; it also means "lack of due regard". Hence stating
you plan to ignore a post rather than respond to it is treating it
"without the proper respect or attentiveness" and showing a "lack of
due regard" for that post. Hence one can respond with "inappropriate
post ignored" and not be illogical.

Kevin L. O'Brien