Oh dear, I don't know who Edie Sedgwick was! Shame on me!

The BBQ Pit
81

[QUOTE=The King of Soup]
lissener! You’re botching it. Badly. Kalhoun framed a perfectly innocuous, perfectly believeable interpretation of your post as a rueful acknowlegement that our knowledge (or lack thereof) of such cultural curios as Edie dates us like carbon-14. At that point all you had to do was nod vigorously, point at Kalhoun, and say “Yup.” And that would have been that.

Instead, you tack on a gratuitous lament about “sweeping cultural illiteracy” which with luck and sympathy you might have passed off as self-directed sarcasm if you weren’t also busily characterizing the subject as significant. Which you were.

Another problem: you keep referring to the post that offended RickJay as your “‘kids these days’ aside.” But it wasn’t. The post was a single seven word declarative sentence. It contained no asides, and it did not contain the words “kids,” “these,” or “days.” The post consisted of a boxed quote of another poster’s question with the appended comment “Sometimes this board is just too depressing.” It is not hard to discern the insult: that you find another poster’s level of knowledge tiring, if not tragic. As I said, Kalhoun opened a door for you to admit another interpretation, and you promptly slammed it shut.

If you know you’ve earned the reputation and these events are still happening frequently enough for you to keep this kind of statistic, you may want to stop burnishing your intention and attend to your execution.

Oh, and lissener, there’s a point at which pre-empting accusations of paranoia that haven’t even been made looks less like a rhetorical device than a symptom.

RickJay was a little bit rude, you were a little bit rude, neither of you was particularly harsh, and somehow both of you are losing the Pitting. The really depressing thing is not that you were both rude but the paltry, trifling cause for which you’re both willing to shed the burdens of civil discourse.
[/QUOTE]

Of course you’re right on all counts. It’s just so fucking goddamn infuriating that I can’t participate in any thread, on any subject, without the usual bandwagon of suspects throwing handfuls of “condescending!” at me to see if any of them stick. It’s entrapment, officer, yeah, that’s what it is, because they know I can’t seem to help defending myself.

Sometimes this board is just too depressing.

82

[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
Okay…I give. Who is she? I’m not familiar with her name at all.
[/QUOTE]

No no no. It’s…

“Who the hell is Mary Woronov?”

83

[QUOTE=lissener]
(It’s got to bother you, Dorkness, that you can’t ever honestly engage on a subject–at least with me–but that you must feint and sleight in order to appear to score points when you’re not capable of doing anything of the kind. I would drop dead of amazement if you ever directly addressed the actual subject at hand, rather than oh so cleverly redirecting your approach by a degree or two to keep the surface just slippery enough to make actual engagement impossible. Dishonest fuck.)
[/QUOTE]

Given that you and Shodan stand alone, as near as I can recall, in accusing me of dishonesty, it actually doesn’t bother me at all. I couldn’t ask for better enemies.

Daniel

84

It took a bit to find out who the hell (hee hee) Victoria May Budinger was. Search that name in Wikipedia and… nothing. She’s found listed under Miss Vicki.

Now who the hell is Tiny Tim? (I keed, I keed)

85

[QUOTE=lissener]
God knows, as I said, that I’ve done my share to earn a certain portion of that burden
[/QUOTE]

Then stop whining. When you have a history being being a condescending asshole, don’t be surprised when what you post gets interpreted that way.

86

[QUOTE=lissener]
The question at hand, you disingenuous fuck, is whether I was being condescending in the linked thread.
[/QUOTE]

As you can see, there was no bait and switch: I’m accusing you of condescension in all three places.

I would, of course, drop dead of amazement if you ever directly addressed the actual subject at hand, rather than oh so cleverly redirecting your approach by a degree or two to keep the surface just slippery enough to make actual engagement impossible.

Daniel

87

Give it up lissener. People who think “Who the hell/fuck is…” is a reasonable way to ask an informational question are the same types of people who talk to each other or on cell phones in theaters while the show is going on and think it’s perfectly fine. It’s a built-in asshole mindset, and there’s not much you can do about it.

Also, some people have a strange obsession with you and are going to interpret ANYTHING you say in a negative light. Fuck 'em. They have no bearing on your life.

88

[QUOTE=RickJay]
not knowing that the Earth revolves around the Sun
[/QUOTE]
Hold on, WHAAAT?

89

[QUOTE=Equipoise]
…(these) People…are the same types of people who talk to each other or on cell phones in theaters while the show is going on…
[/QUOTE]

In our defense, we only do it during Warhol film festivals. We’re all calling each other, asking, “Okay, now who the hell is that?” and often “What the hell is going on?” and “Why the hell are we still here?”

[QUOTE=Equipoise]
…Also, some people have a strange obsession with you and are going to interpret ANYTHING you say in a negative light.
[/QUOTE]

Well, we can’t all be strangely-obsessed enablers, now, can we?

90

[QUOTE=The King of Soup]
In our defense, we only do it during Warhol film festivals. We’re all calling each other, asking, “Okay, now who the hell is that?” and often “What the hell is going on?” and “Why the hell are we still here?”
Well, we can’t all be strangely-obsessed enablers, now, can we?
[/QUOTE]

Bwah! My favorite Edie Sedgwick moment, actually, is kind of emblematic (no doubt intentionally so) of what she was “about,” and holds true to her cultural offspring, like La Hilton: in Warhol’s *Vinyl *, as the Alex character is being given aversion therapy (Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange is technically a remake), for the entire length of the film Edie Sedgwick occupies the stage where all the action takes place, but she has no part in the drama at all. She just sits there, smoking, looking bored, included in the frame but utterly irrelevant.

91

[QUOTE=The King of Soup]
Well, we can’t all be strangely-obsessed enablers, now, can we?
[/QUOTE]

Right. Someone asks an asshole question that they already knew the answer to. lissener responds with a link and an innocent and badly misinterpreted line. He gets pitted, and most people are defending the asshole question, not paying attention to lissener’s explanation, and sucking each other’s dicks for being assholes. I’m the enabler? Jesus.

Yeah, I know, who the fuck is Jesus?

92

[QUOTE=Equipoise]
Right. Someone asks an asshole question that they already knew the answer to. lissener responds with a link and an innocent and badly misinterpreted line. He gets pitted, and most people are defending the asshole question, not paying attention to lissener’s explanation, and sucking each other’s dicks for being assholes. I’m the enabler? Jesus.

Yeah, I know, who the fuck is Jesus?
[/QUOTE]

Sometimes this board is just so depressing.

93

[QUOTE=lissener]
Sometimes this board is just so depressing.
[/QUOTE]

HA!

94

I did not know who Edie Sedgwick was till now. And i never new of her name till now.

95

I don’t get everyone’s so-negative interpretation of “who the hell is that?”. It would take a truly towering a monumental level of arrogance to say “I don’t know who that is. And thus, it doesn’t matter, and I don’t care”. Rather, I read that as an intensifier, as in, “who ON EARTH is that” or “who IN GOD’S NAME is that”?

96

[QUOTE=MaxTheVool]
I don’t get everyone’s so-negative interpretation of “who the hell is that?”. It would take a truly towering a monumental level of arrogance to say “I don’t know who that is. And thus, it doesn’t matter, and I don’t care”. Rather, I read that as an intensifier, as in, “who ON EARTH is that” or “who IN GOD’S NAME is that”?
[/QUOTE]

I’m trying to put myself in a similar situation. Perhaps, in a thread about gaming, someone might ask, “Who the hell is Monte Cook?”

I might be a little annoyed at them, to be honest. I might think, “Why ask it like that?”

What I don’t think I would do is to respond suggesting that they’re a sign of the cultural illiteracy (I almost misspelled “illiteracy”–I owe Gaudere a white bull) of our day.

I can’t know for sure how I would respond. But I think that I’d see it as weirdly phrased, answer or not as I saw fit, and move on.

Daniel

97

[QUOTE=rayh]
You still missed his point. He knew who Edie Sedgwick was, he was trying to point out her cultural importance.
[/QUOTE]

Wait. Did you read the OP? He did *NOT *in fact know who Edie Sedgwick was. So I rescind my acknowledgment of whoosh.

So, if lissener had come in here and danced this little sidestep "It was an honest question, no wait it was a pithy commentary on Sedgwick’s insignificance, no wait . . . " etc., how deep would the pileon be?

What a load of bullshit this entire little farce is. Has there ever been a lamer excuse for a pitting?

98

[QUOTE=MaxTheVool]
Rather, I read that as an intensifier, as in, “who ON EARTH is that” or “who IN GOD’S NAME is that”?
[/QUOTE]

How is that any better? If you don’t know who someone’s talking about, say “Who is that?” This forum is full of references to people other posters haven’t heard of. It’d be ok with you if there was a “Who the hell is that?” “who IN GOD’S NAME is that?” “who ON EARTH is that?” question in every thread? If the context isn’t in the thread, ask like a normal fucking person or go Google yourself. It’s aggressive. It’s assholish.

Especially if you already know the answer to the question but use it as some obscure point then pit someone who answered you and you misinterpreted their answer because they misinterpreted your fucking question which wasn’t really a question anyway. Why is no one jumping on RickJay here? According to him, EVERYONE misinterpreted his meaning, and he has the fucking nerve to pit lissener who is the only one who answered his non-question.

99

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
I’m trying to put myself in a similar situation. Perhaps, in a thread about gaming, someone might ask, “Who the hell is Monte Cook?”

I might be a little annoyed at them, to be honest. I might think, “Why ask it like that?”

What I don’t think I would do is to respond suggesting that they’re a sign of the cultural illiteracy (I almost misspelled “illiteracy”–I owe Gaudere a white bull) of our day.

I can’t know for sure how I would respond. But I think that I’d see it as weirdly phrased, answer or not as I saw fit, and move on.

Daniel
[/QUOTE]

Well, Dan, I’ll be fasting and praying, and drinking my own urine, in an effort to be more like you.

Talk about condescending. :rolleyes:

100

[QUOTE=lissener]
Wait. Did you read the OP? He did *NOT *in fact know who Edie Sedgwick was. So I rescind my acknowledgment of whoosh.
[/QUOTE]

And I agree with this–I think you were correct to see him as genuinely ignorant of Sedgwick’s identity. I could be wrong, but his OP sure doesn’t read like someone who knew who Sedgwick was. I don’t think you were whooshed (although I’m also completely unclear on what Rickjay’s comment about “The Spanish word for ‘whoosh’” is supposed to mean–I guess I’m whooshed on that account). Your accusation of disingenuity against Frank, however, is as unfounded as the accusation against me, IMO.

Daniel