At 10:10 PM 4/8/2009, Chuck Grimes wrote:
>Shag. Shag often annoys me and does it on purpose. We've known each
>other on email for something like fifteen years. But she too gets me
>to think, write and develop through a different sort of stimulus- response
>syndrome. Also because shag started the Angela thread, which
>lead me to re-create the climate of the times, the stuff that was in
>the air ... where many resources of thought and action lay almost
>buried now in time.
i have spent the last 12 hours or so thinking about how to annoy you: respond? not respond? what, oh what, would be best?
seriously, though, maybe you've never read them but i've written to the list a couple of times to tell you that a post rocked. and twice now, i've invited you to a read a book i thought you might like, because of St.... that years-long thingy you went through and are currently in remission over. in other words, the admiration is mutual.[1]
i doubt this will matter, chuck, but take it to heart if you can: it has never once occurred to me to write to the list to purposefully annoy you. Carrol? yes. Yoshie? yes. Asschomp? Yes.
not that i include you in this category, but over the years I have picked up my fair share of people who've been obsessed with my online persona. who've been angry enough with me to try to get me fired, harass me in real life, deface web sites i've built, spend serious time trying to figure out who i really am because they're convinced i'm not really a feminist or a leftist or whatever.
all of that is enough to know that they have no good reasons to respond the way they do AND they have nothing but good reasons to respond as they do.
we are never as ugly or beautiful as we imagine.(tm)
*shag sez to self: bitch, put *down* the zizek and back away from the desk slowly*
[1] like you said, everyone on this list, well, it makes it the list it is. i can't think of anyone who's contributions i don't value. i do have a filter file, though it's not big. ha. the fascinating thing, to me, is that it keeps on ticking with or without doug. that is an important thing to have achieved doug. there is research out there on the life-cycle of groups in cyberspace, especially email lists. the list doesn't fit the pattern. it stays robust whereas other lists almost inevitably become moribund.