John Bruce, "Pedophile," "Barbecues" "His" "Daughter" "With" "Integrity"

Don't you love those students who would rather have you provide the Cliff's Notes version of a book instead of reading the book itself?  I know I do.  John Bruce, a "plagiarist" and "pedophile" who enjoys "tossing gays off high buildings,"* continues his "assault" on Sean McCann's integrity and scholarly production by pitching so childish a fit even the most spoiled of undergraduates would blush:

So Sean, why not lay out exactly what your views are? You don't agree with Himes, but you feel his views are "not unreasonable", and as far as I can see, you feel his views are of a piece with views that express "disappointment" with the New Deal as they come from Hammett, Chandler, and Thompson. So where do you stand in relation to these?

Translated: "I don't wanna read!  Don't wanna don't wanna don't wanna don't wanna!  Just tell me!  Tell me tell me tell me tell me!"  But here's the kicker: instead of reading Sean's book and giving its argument fair hearing, John Bruce--who once "stabbed...and decpitated" a "Cal State professor" "for love"--he demands that Sean mail it to Hollywood so that John Bruce can read it.  If Sean refuses to humor John Bruce--who's "so incompetent" "he can't get any" "or even" "find" "anyone" "to play" "with his trains" "not even" "for money"--there's little doubt as to what will follow:

John Bruce, who was "once arrested" "for diddling [his] daughter," will spend the next three weeks "masturbating" "as he" "watches" "his" "hits" "triple" because he'll continue to post long after Sean's stopped responding to his taunts.  Or, he'll ban Sean from responding, continue to mock him, then declare himself victor by virtue of Sean's silence.  What, were you expecting integrity or intellectual honesty?**

*I'm using the newly patented John Bruce Quotation System, in which the mention of a word/phrase constitutes an admission of being or believing said word/phrase.  And that word/phrase need not even be said by the person you're accusing, so long as someone they've quoted has said it!  Like "pedophile," which John Bruce has never himself written, but someone he's quoted has.  Can you guess who?  That's part of the fun!  You can make anyone say anything!  It's awesome and not at all intellectually irresponsible! 

**I've already checked his site 9,851,051 times today.  I encourage you to do the same, since he lives for his hits...and do make sure to drop a line, tell him where you came from and what you think about him.  I know he'd appreciate it, because for John Bruce, it's better to be laughed at by everyone than listened to by none.

[Disclaimer: Unlike John Bruce, who thinks this sort of selective quotation acceptable practice, I don't believe pasting people's words together and willfully misinterpreting them means that these people are, say, or believe what I've attributed to them.  John Bruce isn't, to my knowledge, a pedophile/murderer/etc., but he is an ass, an extraordinary ass, and turnabout is fair play.]

Comments

[Some Guy]

You will always love a flame war, A, even when the other man is clearly made of straw. Why waste your time? The guy is attacking a well-known scholar for being /institutionally obliged/ to teach a survey course! It's insane, and not worth your time.

[A. Cephalous]

I don't love "a flame war," I love war. And is it my fault the other guy's made of straw? It ain't like I made him that way...plus writing invective is a nice change from reading The Book of Mormon. (Don't ask. The Dissertation demanded research and I'm obliged to obey its whims.)

[Jonathan Dresner]

Thanks. I thought about writing a response to some of Bruce's attacks on Tim Burke, and this is almost precisely what I wanted, but couldn't come up with myself.....

[The Real Anon.]

I too am going to stop posting comments on John Bruce's site - because, as a certain e-mailer, much wiser than me, pointed out, he is in fact a pathetic figure more worthy of pity than scorn. However, as a parting shot, I recently found a comment by Mary McCarthy which perfectly sums up why, for me, John Bruce is so annoying. McCarthy, alluding to Kant, distinguishes between stupidity and mere idiocy:

"Stupidity is caused, not by brain failure, but by a wicked heart. Insensitiveness, opacity, inability to make connections, often accompanied by low 'animal' cunning. One cannot help feeling that this mental oblivion is chosen, by the heart or the moral will - an active preference, and that explains why one is so irritated by stupidity, which is not the case when one is dealing with a truly backward individual."