Friday, 26 March 2010

Shorter Jeff Goldstein It pisses me off that people I attack without cause think I’m a jerk. If my former professor didn’t want to be associated with what I’m writing now, he never should have worked with me then. His request to have his name removed my site is political censorship. OUTLAW! Goldstein’s old professor listed “a propensity for stifling opposition” as one of the reasons he wanted to distance himself from the site, but as Goldstein notes, that’s nonsense. Consider, for example, the condensed version of the rational arguments with which he and his commenters engaged my argument the other day: Scott is a cartoon, a hack; a clearly clueless and remarkably dishonest bracketing brackety bracketer who stands on the sidelines cheering while Lady Liberty takes it in the cornhole. This pretentious character is a lying cock, a fucking pussy, and a fucking retarded scrotumless fuck wearing a hot-pink thong, or maybe white lace boyshorts, and he would not stop a rape in progress, but would instead go home and be so turned-on he’d write a paper about it. Effete attention whores like Scott Eric Robespierre are routinely beat up by bread and, like all leftist twatwaffles lusting for power, he is a haughty apparatchik with a lisp and a pedo beard who couldn’t find cool were he to stumble pantless into a caribou orgy. He roots for the Mets and is truly a prick. Why wouldn’t an English professor want their name associated with the above? It’s a dazzling display of Oulipian restraint. After all, anyone can write a novel without the letter “e,” but writing in a way that attracts people who argue ad hominem and only ad hominem? That requires true literary talent.
Donald Douglas somehow managed to top himself. [Updated below the fold.] But honestly, because he’s proven it’s possible to be gainfully employed in academia and functionally illiterate, I can’t even manage a few moments of schadenfreude. Remember that post I wrote yesterday? The one in which I clearly indicated that I’d condensed a thread’s worth of insults into a nonsensical stream of ad hominem? Donald Douglas not only thinks Jeff Goldstein wrote it, he considers it to be a “deliciously devastating slam.” I’ll take the compliment on its face—the art of collage is an art—but the fact that someone employed by an institution of higher learning found that paragraph compelling is, I think we can all agree, probably the most embarrassing thing someone employed by an institution of higher learning could ever do. The only reasonable response to such a brazen display of idiocy is to take a screen-shot of it and put it on the internet forever: Click to embiggen. Update. Somehow, I always forget that when it comes to missing the point, Douglas will never be topped. He composed a "refutation" of this post in which he admits his error as only he can: The gist of the attack is that somehow I'm functionally illiterate: Because he’s proven it’s possible to be gainfully employed in academia and functionally illiterate, I can’t even manage a few moments of schadenfreude. Sure, to be fair to Skanky Little Scotty, my bad. I could have sworn that was Jeff's comments at the post, "Shorter Jeff Goldstein." Chalk one up for the Big Bad Boys at Lawyers, Gays and Marriage, where academic giants like Robert Fuckwad Farley stiff good-faith conservatives for a thousand bucks while sucking back a few whiskey sours. As a Cautious Man noted earlier, someone is not aware of all internet traditions; he is, however, attempting to start one of his own. It lacks a catchy name like "Shorter," but that doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a place in the Hall of Internet Traditions. It goes something like this: You demonstrate that Douglas has no idea what he's talking about. He responds by correcting a typo. I'm not kidding. He responded to a post in which I demonstrated that he has problems with basic comprehension by writing: Little Scotty's schtick is to attack conservatives for bad writing and alleged "functional illiteracy" while demonstrating—once again!—actual functional illiteracy. His proof? I mistyped "version" as "verion" in the "Shorter" post. I hate to be pedantic, but since winding Douglas up is damn entertaining, I will: making a typographical error isn't evidence of "functional illiteracy," which Wikipedia defines as "a term used to describe reading and writing skills that are inadequate to cope with the demands of everyday life," e.g. "reading blog posts if you're a blogger." You're a blogger who by his own admission is incapable of reading blog posts, meaning that by the power vested in me by Wikipedia, I am within my rights to hereby declare you to be "a functionally illiterate blogger." See how that works? Of course you don't. You...

Become a Fan

Recent Comments