Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 12:31:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Jaszewski <ab975-AT-main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>
Subject: Re: Jim Jaszewski's contributions (?)



On Mon, 26 Jun 1995, Louis N Proyect wrote:

> Louis Proyect:
> 
> I say, Jim, old stick, the left wing of this list could use a spot of 
> shoring up.
> 
> We certainly could use a left-wing polemicist with a rapier wit.

	Certainly could. There's not a one here...


 This 
> person should be like the swordsman Zorro who had such a swift 
> sword that he could cut his opponent's belt or suspenders so quickly 
> that their trousers would be draped about their ankles before they knew 
> what hit them. The opponent would have no choice but to then leave 
> the fray red-faced and demoralized. 
> 
> We do not need, however, a fourth stooge.

	You mean, my calling Burford names?? What other thing was there 
to say BUT call him a twit, among other things...


Neither do we need temper 
> tantrums like the kind thrown by a 3 year old who rolls about the floor 
> holding his breath until his face turns blue.

	Did you, or _didn't_ you read that INCREDIBLE garbage Burford
posted?? Talk about tantrums... I'm kind of insulted you don't consider
carefully what an incredibly stupid thing it was he posted. It wasn't
WORTHY of any wit -- rapier or otherwise... 


> My suggestion to you would be to take some of that energy you expend 
> in answering every single post and take it with you to the library. 

	I've been reading politics for 25 years. Don't need much library
at this point. Need (hi gain/low noise) FEEDBACK.


> There you should choose a subject that matters to you, become an 
> expert on it and then come back to the list in a few weeks and defend a 
> left-wing perspective on that subject.

	Based on much of what I've read here, it's not a pressing concern.
I also don't take advice such as yours too often, as it is premature for
someone such as yourself to decide just what it is I 'need'... 


 (While you're at it, you should 
> dip into some P.J. Wodehouse. It might help you sharpen up your 
> prose style.) You will feel better and so will the rest of us.

	If the more petty here would just button up, there wouldn't be
such a problem, now WOULD there?? As for my style -- it is very conscious.
My fair lack of spelling or grammatical mistakes should give some clue to
that -- but then, subtle people would pick right up on that, wouldn't 
they??

	Wait and see: my punctuation may not be the best, but I DO have my
OWN style... 

	As for supposed 'wit': I've seen enuff 'wit for wit's sake' to
nauseate me for life. It doesn't impress me, especially as I see it as a
symptom more of bourgeois dissembling, than anything else... It's
something even comedy sketches have been written about: people coining
bons mots on and on and saying _nothing_ of consequence -- kinda like many
posts on this list (my replies to some banality notwithstanding). _True_ 
wit comes when it comes. Petty souls tying me down over idiocies is not 
inducive to wit (mine anyway). 

	What many of you interpret as 'over the top' in my posts is 
really my lack of interest in 'gentility'. I just want to cut thru the 
bullshit -- MUCH of which is event here (to my great chagrin).

	I am trying to perform a 'synthesis', a 'counterpoint' of ideas. 
Immediately I come here, I find MUCH in the way of tuneless Muzak, not to
mention 'Lite classics' (philosophical). So far I'm not getting much back
but bourgeois style caucaphony... You want wit...


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
   Jim Jaszewski   <jazz-AT-freenet.hamilton.on.ca>

   WWW homepage:   <http://www.freenet.hamilton.on.ca/~ab975/Profile.html>

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-




     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------