Postings

[Robin Hufford]

     One contributor to this list has a most unequal temperament, a one
moment sweet and just and the next most sour and dissonant.  Filled with
antagonism, hatred and animosity and brimming  with a pompous vanity he
bills himself as a result of  this vanity as the Sanctified Prophet of
Equality/Inequality Expressiveness(SPEW)  - a holy eminence and
greatness destined to bring all to the light.  No matter how much we
protest that we don't care to know his particular view of unequality
brimming as it is, with is associated  meanness,  and that there are
others other who do not contaminate this particular subject and list
with their trembling, venomous "specialness",   SPEW insists on bringing
to the discussion, for our own sake, his unique, incomprehensibly, at
least to others,  advanced but unequal view - this he must do for our
own enlightenment.
      Either way, the greatness of SPEW is confirmed in the reactions of
the poor, ignorant, misunderstanding masses of the list as these
reactions  confirm to himself what he believes, not withstanding his
babbling , half-spoken claims otherwise,  - he is the greatest genius of
all time and must be recognized or else must suffer the cleansing,
sanctifying distinction and  martrydom  of the misunderstood, unreceived
and unrecognized prophet -  either way the pettiness of his vile conceit
is complete.  His greatness is confirmed.
       New readers of this list will be seduced by the momentary
rational and well stated cases to be made for his unequal view, and
think they were participating in a discussion of an interesting, worthy
subject, which it is,  and that with a lucid, well-expressed advocate,
and which, at the moment may well be, and who may be, at that moment,
brimming with useful facts.  .    Ah, but such is not the case.  An
illusion has been created.  Participants are merely the sacrificial
lambs of the greatness of SPEW and will, indeed, come to such painful
realization as time passes.   Were they warned away by older readers of
the list such warnings would be, pridefully, ignored as not consistent
with their true spirit of reasonableness and understandably so, and for
this reason I think this list should have a mechanism put in place to
eliminate a contributor whose purposes are like those of SPEW.
      These purposes are not what they should be, which is the
discussion of differing and, perhaps controversial, professional points
of view, in an attempt to improve professional understanding, and, or at
least should be, in a spirit of collegiality,  but rather personal
objectives of  a mind which needs, I am sure, but sadly, disdains
help.    Such disorder then is brought to the list for its own
purposes.
        Long time readers will know what both the  forthcoming and
numerous apologies of the past mean and have meant:  SPEW is afraid of
inattention and his unequal temperament will wax sweet and rational in
this fear to calm the antagonism he has raised against him, for he must
have the confused, misunderstanding and imperfect views shown in the
posts we make to use as a canvas on which to paint his greatness for all
to see.  The best solution for this is a complete lack of response to
any post, however informative and well expressed,  as they are simply
hooks in the water trolling to catch another victim, which will then be
used to perpetuate the, forthcoming, vain, obsessive meanness of SPEW
when disagreement is encountered.
     Unlike my view of the obsessive postings of SPEW, which must be
stoically endured,  I appreciate very much the original, lucid and
rational views expressed by Ed Foote whether I agree with him or not,
and, in general, I do,  and want to express my thanks to him for setting
the record straight and for his courage for doing so,  notwithstanding
the fact, as I am sure knew, that he would then become the target of the
viscious abuse seen on this list lately.
      Once the storm of  SPEW's abuse has ended, as it will,  we should
not be seduced by the upcoming, sincere, heart-felt apology into
thinking, ah, now things will change with SPEW, something  which, I am
sure, we all would like.  The cycle, if perpetuated by responses, will
continue.
Regards, Robin Hufford