- 2,587
Ok, so, two of my friends are having a quarrel. Each one thinks they're right, and the other is wrong. So I'll give you the back story and everything else to be able to choose who is correct... I don't give a ****, but they wanted neutral ground to find a verdict upon.
Let's start...
Needed Background: Jack has been trying to convince Yolanda that David is an unhealthy boyfriend and they are in an unhealthy relationship. Names have been changed.
Jacks blog:
It's 4:47 in the morning. I'm not tired in the slightest. But I have nothing to do. So I'm going to write this blog that I'll probably end up deleting within a week. I have no idea what I want to write about, so I guess I'll just write what's on the top of my mind.
I have to take an assessment test for Evergreen Valley College tomorrow, but I don't really feel like it. I already know I'll pass and it just seems like a waste of time to me. I don't even belong in community college. It's just a waste of two years. Plus, none of the things I want to accomplish in life really require a degree.
I want to write a novel. I don't need a college degree to write a goddamn book. I can do that right now if I had the motivation. "Oh, but what about an English degree? Won't that help?" No. I don't need a degree in English to think of a coherent, meaningful story. Unless you plan on becoming a teacher, an English degree is almost as useless as a degree in Business.
I want to become a recognized musician. A degree won't help me become a better musician. The most I'll be able to learn is technicalities, and why pay over $1,000 to have someone teach me technicalities when I can learn it on my own for free?
I want to learn to pilot an airplane. I want learn to sword fight. I want to travel the world and collect meaningless objects. I want to swim across the ocean. I want to discover an island.
But we don't always get what we want, do we? Most of those are too fantastic and unrealistic anyways. Oh well. I know I'll accomplish something with my life. I already have the outline for the book I plan on writing. Perhaps if someone actually reads this blog, they can tell me what they think:
The book will largely be a short story collection. But they'll all be interrelated metaphorically and physically. The thing that links them all together is that all the stories are about people who ride the bus and are met by the main narrator. There will also be an overarching story interspersed throughout the short stories about the narrator and his cocaine-addicted girlfriend. The short story ideas I have floating in my head are one about a feral child (the story is told through the perspective of her caretaker), one about a serial killer, a story about a homeless old man who's found true love, and then the story about the narrator and his girlfriend. I don't even know if this is really a good idea though. I think it sounds interesting and engaging, but will anyone else think so?
Sometimes I feel like I'm extremely smart and everyone will like my ideas. Other times I feel like maybe I'm just one of those pseudointellectuals who has no grasp on anything and everything I think up is a result of this pseudointellectualism. Maybe all my views on everything are misguided and wrong. Maybe I'm just another idiot who tries to be deep, but falls short and is shallower than a three-day old puddle.
Sometimes I think I try to hard. I put too much effort into things that don't matter, and not enough effort into things that do matter. I focus too much on little details, and not enough on the big picture. I immitate people I think are smart, funny, courageous, etc. I don't think I'm original at all and sometimes I wonder if I even have a personality of my own.
My thoughts are all jumbled now and I don't think I can type any more of my thoughts and make them still transition at least semi-smoothly. So I'll end this blog here. And I'll probably end getting self-conscious, thinking everyone is reading this and thinking "wow, this guy is an idiot," so I'll probably delete it within a week.
Posted by David on August 12, 2008:
[In response to one of Jack's friends saying his book idea is similar to The Metamorphosis] First of all, The Metamorphosis is not a ****ing collection of short stories. Nor does it resemble Jack's concept at all. Finish something before you act like you know what you're talking about. Secondly, the short stories themselves sound moderately intriguing, the way you plan on connecting them, not so much. You'd be better off just publishing them as short stories. It keeps the plotline simpler to follow, and it won't seem like you're trying really hard to connect them and sound innovative. Maybe you should read a book on the subject of creative writing, since you're too cool for school. There's a lot of logistics and technicalities you need to know about before you decide to try and publish. (I too thought I was capable of masterpieces without prior knowledge upon the subject.)
Since you think I'm stupid and irresponsible I doubt you'll take what I have to say seriously anyway.
Jack:
I'd prefer it if you didn't try insulting other people in my blog. Attacking me is fine, but acting like a douchebag to try and make yourself look like some sort of almighty intellectual is just obnoxious. It's also petty and stupid. Just because you don't make the same connections that someone else does, doesn't mean they're wrong and you're right.
The short story ideas themselves sound boring and cliche to me, actually. The whole point of the book would be the connection they have. I wouldn't be trying all that hard to connect them or sound innovative anyway. It's not really difficult. And I'm not going for a simple to follow plotline. This idea isn't meant to be a simple story.
I have read about and know about the "logistics and technicalities", as you put it, of the publishing business. I already know it's a difficult process. Also, I don't quite see how a "book on the subject of creative writing" will teach me the "logistics and technicalities" of the publishing industry. I've read at least three books on creative writing and all I got out of it was how to write a formulaic, dull story. As I said, writing a coherent, meaningful story isn't that difficult. I never claimed it was easy to get published.
And don't you think it's a little hypocritical and ironic for a high school drop-out to say I'm "too cool for school"? Especially when I never claimed such. I said I don't want to take the time to get a degree, because nothing I want to do really requires one. I still want to learn new things and I'm still happy to be going to college.
I don't recall ever thinking that you were stupid. You're ignorant and misinformed in many areas, but who isn't? Someone who is stupid doesn't have the capacity to grow and learn. You have that potential, and like so many others you just waste it. But irresponsible? Definitely.
Hm. Arguing over a MySpace blog. Isn't this fun?
David:
"Attacking me is fine, but acting like a douchebag to try and make yourself look like some sort of almighty intellectual is just obnoxious. It's also petty and stupid. Just because you don't make the same connections that someone else does, doesn't mean they're wrong and you're right." <-you have just done all of this.
Just because you don't make the same connections that I do doesn't mean I'm wrong and you're right. (Also, writing an essay to retort my offhand thoughts doesn't make you look like you're trying to be an almighty intellectual at all.)
"The short story ideas themselves sound boring and cliche to me, actually."<-how is the reader supposed to care or be intrigued if the writer isn't? (I was trying to be nice anyway)
"And I'm not going for a simple to follow plotline. This idea isn't meant to be a simple story." <- you have just countered the definition of 'short story collection'.
"Also, I don't quite see how a "book on the subject of creative writing" will teach me the "logistics and technicalities" of the publishing industry. " <- I was not referring to the publishing industry. Had I been, I would have suggested a book about the publishing industry.
"And don't you think it's a little hypocritical and ironic for a high school drop-out to say I'm "too cool for school"? Especially when I never claimed such. I said I don't want to take the time to get a degree, because nothing I want to do really requires one. I still want to learn new things and I'm still happy to be going to college" <- cause you did so well in high school, right?
You have also proven my actions by stating that
A. I never claimed I was and
B. nothing I want to do really requires one.
And I think you put it best. "but who isn't?"
You are a hypocritical, close-minded, presumptuous, pompous, arrogant, and above all else, loathsome person Jack Bennington.
Jack:
"<-you have just done all of this."
I did none of that.
"Just because you don't make the same connections that I do doesn't mean I'm wrong and you're right. (Also, writing an essay to retort my offhand thoughts doesn't make you look like you're trying to be an almighty intellectual at all.)"
Except we're not making connections here at all. The whole basis of your argument here is already flawed. And I only wrote an "essay" in response to you because you attempted to verbally attack a friend of mine. Had you left the first part off, I would have just said something like "I see your point, but I disagree for the most part." You provoked me though. If you want, you can repost your comment without that first part, and I'll reply with that, and we can delete this silly argument. However, I'll doubt you'll agree to that.
"<-how is the reader supposed to care or be intrigued if the writer isn't? (I was trying to be nice anyway)"
I'm interested in the project as a whole. The short stories are just ideas, and I'll probably be scrapping some of them. And trying to be nice when the rest of your comment sounds arrogant and bigoted, comes off as sounding demeaning.
"<- you have just countered the definition of 'short story collection'."
I don't recall the definition of "short story collection" being "having a simple to follow plot line".
"<- I was not referring to the publishing industry. Had I been, I would have suggested a book about the publishing industry."
The logistics and technicalities of creative writing then? That makes a lot of sense.
"<- cause you did so well in high school, right?"
I graduated. Which, in the grand scheme of things, is all you really need to do with high school.
You have also proven my actions by stating that A. I never claimed I was and B. nothing I want to do really requires one.
I didn't "prove" or justify (which would be a better word for you to use there) your actions at all. You're trying to manipulate my words to your own advantage and it's not working. Maybe if you think for yourself, you can come up with a valid counter argument.
"You are a hypocritical, close-minded, presumptuous, pompous, arrogant, and above all else, loathsome person Jack Banta-Boyer."
When all else fails, resort to attacks on your opponent's character! Good idea. I'd like to think I'm above false name calling though.
Jack:
And with that, I'm done. Post what you will, David, but I'm not going to respond to it. If you want to continue this conversation, we can do it over AIM or by some other private method.
David:
Yeah, bringing up me dropping out of high school and calling me ignorant isn't demeaning of my character at all.
There was a text of “Okay, did you read it all?” before David opened AIM...
David (7:03:53 PM): Unfortunately
Jack (7:04:19 PM): When I call you ignorant but say "but who isn't?" it isn't really demeaning because it implies everyone is ignorant in areas.
And I brought up you dropping out of high school because it was relevant to the conversation. The sole reason wasn't to make a personal attack against you.
Jack (7:05:48 PM): Also, I've deleted the whole conversation, becaue arguing over MySpace is a tad silly and I don't think it shows either of us in a positive light.
Jack (7:05:59 PM): If you want, I saved the bulk of your first comment and you can repost it:
Jack (7:06:00 PM): the short stories themselves sound moderately intriguing, the way you plan on connecting them, not so much. You'd be better off just publishing them as short stories. It keeps the plotline simpler to follow, and it won't seem like you're trying really hard to connect them and sound innovative. Maybe you should read a book on the subject of creative writing, since you're too cool for school. There's a lot of logistics and technicalities you need to know about before you decide to try and publish. (I too thought I was capable of masterpieces without prior knowledge upon the subject.)
David (7:06:32 PM): oh it's ok
David (7:06:56 PM): I figured you would do that so I saved the whole thing for future refrence
Jack (7:07:08 PM): Well okay then.
David (7:10:29 PM): Why do you have such a problem with me?
David (7:10:38 PM): or is it what I represent?
Jack (7:11:55 PM): What is that you represent?
David (7:12:49 PM): I don't know. I represent something different to everyone.
Jack (7:14:03 PM): I don't really have a problem with you at all. I think you can fun to be around for the most part. However, I think you're unnaturally mean sometimes. And I don't like that at all.
David (7:14:40 PM): I am unnaturally mean?
Jack (7:15:05 PM): At times, yes. Ever since I've known you, you have been.
David (7:15:48 PM): I'm not that one reduced Yolanda to tears last night. And many times before that.
David (7:16:12 PM): I am not saying I have never done it though
David (7:16:23 PM): nor am I saying I'm not mean
Jack (7:17:12 PM): I'll admit I made mistake last night. And I apologized for it. That's the only time I've ever "reduced" her to tears though. And I'm sorry for it.
David (7:17:54 PM): that you know of.
David (7:18:27 PM): and why did you quote rediced
David (7:18:38 PM): *reduced
Jack (7:20:09 PM): I don't know actually.
Jack (7:20:31 PM): And I'd think she'd tell me if I had reduced her to tears before.
Jack (7:20:42 PM): I don't know though. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe she wouldn't tell me.
David (7:20:57 PM): She is a very sensitive person
David (7:21:06 PM): as you undoubtedly know
Jack (7:21:12 PM): Yes.
David (7:21:59 PM): and she relates every significant conversation you two have to me.
David (7:22:06 PM): and her feelings
David (7:23:01 PM): and the particular line of conversations you two had upon our relationship was a particularly emotional one
David (7:23:28 PM): and I realize I'm overusing particularly
Jack (7:24:31 PM): Hm okay. I guess I should talk to her then.
David (7:24:55 PM): Also.
David (7:25:17 PM): though I cannot recall the details
David (7:27:00 PM): I must state that you seem to be trying to lead Yolanda to the conclusion that this relationship is flawed, damaging, and dommed to fail.
David (7:27:15 PM): I do not appreciate your interference
David (7:27:56 PM): and I feel that you have no knowledge upon such things as relationships
David (7:28:36 PM): and should not interfere because of that lack of knowledge
David (7:29:22 PM): *doomed
Jack (7:31:51 PM): I understand your opinion, but I disagree. I lack experience with relationships, not knowledge. You make the false assumption that because I haven't experienced something, I'm completely ignorant to every aspect of it. And if you don't appreciated my interference, talk to her. She's the one who talks to me when things are rocky and is usually the one who brings up the subject.
And in all honesty, your relationship is flawed and damaging. At least to her. I hope you guys work things out and live happily ever after though. Good luck.
David (7:33:18 PM): I have heard you use this argument many times.
David (7:33:24 PM): and frankly
David (7:34:05 PM): one cannot have knowledge upon this subject without experience.
David (7:35:28 PM): I don't care how many books, theroys, poems or any other form of communication you have to back up your 'knowledge'
David (7:35:41 PM): this is emotion
David (7:35:56 PM): and it is between two people
David (7:36:24 PM): a third party cannot hope to understand this emotion through observation
Jack (7:36:40 PM): Oh. Well excuse me then. I guess I can't recognize a healthy relationship from an abusive one. I forgot all relationships run on is emotions. There's NOTHING else that goes into them. My apologies.
David (7:37:00 PM): your sarcasm is noted.
David (7:37:36 PM): and who draws the line between a healthy and abusive relationship?
Jack (7:37:52 PM): Society.
David (7:38:35 PM): well then let society decide.
David (7:38:38 PM): not you.
David (7:39:44 PM): and the irony of your sarcastic statement of "I forgot all relationships run on is emotions." is that is true.
David (7:40:00 PM): *it's
Jack (7:40:43 PM): Except it's not. And if you think that, then you're very blind.
David (7:41:36 PM): I will feign blindness then. give me the other things that a healthy relationship has that ours does not.
David (7:42:08 PM): since we have an overabundance of emotion.
Jack (7:44:48 PM): I don't recall saying there was an overabundance of emotion. I'm not denying that emotions aren't important, because they are. But there's so much more that goes into a relationship than emotions. Communication, trust, honesty. None of which are emotions. Even if emotions were the sole thing going into them, there's multiple emotions going into it, and to claim that I haven't experienced any of these emotions is just absurd.
David (7:47:13 PM): You have obviously never felt love, since you deny we are in it or have ever felt it ourselves
Jack (7:47:33 PM): You just completely disregarded everything I said.
Jack (7:47:34 PM): Nice.
David (7:47:53 PM): and you are your own undoing in the fact that all the things you have stated
David (7:48:02 PM): let me finish thankyou
David (7:48:41 PM): are in fact present in this relationship
Jack (7:52:38 PM): Saying I am my own undoing doesn't make sense in the slightest. And I listed three common things. There's still more, but making a big long list of things other than emotions found in a relationship would be a tedious and uninteresting task. If you seriously don't know, you can easily find what they are just by examing your relationship.
David (7:54:30 PM): but if you are given the benefit of the doubt, and our relationship is 'flawed' and 'unhealthy' then those things will not be present for me to examine, now will they?
Jack (7:55:20 PM): Nope. But I'm giving YOU the benefit of the doubt here.
David (7:57:54 PM): Ah, so by examining my current relationship, I would see marital(for lack of a better word) perfection?
Jack (7:59:07 PM): I didn't say that.
David (8:00:41 PM): but it seems to be implied through your benefit of doubt and aforementioned arguments. unless I am mistaken, and if so, pllease correct me.
Jack (8:02:24 PM): Just because all the things necessary for a healthy relationship are present, doesn't mean that you've achieved marital perfection.
David (8:03:26 PM): maybe not perfection, but at least a healthy relationship
David (8:03:45 PM): if I seem to be understanding you correctly
Jack (8:04:16 PM): Yes. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually do have a healthy relationship.
David (8:05:02 PM): Then why are you telling Yolanda that we have an unhealthy relationship?
David (8:05:25 PM): if
David (8:05:31 PM): according to you
David (8:05:38 PM): we in fact do
Jack (8:07:00 PM): Because you do have an unhealthy relationship. By giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'm letting you examine your relationship. You probably won't be able to see anymore than the basic three things I listed and emotion.
Jack (8:07:22 PM): But then again, if that happens you'll just think "Guess Jack is wrong. There isn't really anymore to relationships than this."
Jack (8:07:33 PM): So either way I guess it's a lose-lose situation.
Jack (8:07:34 PM): Oh well.
David (8:09:40 PM): Not if you list in detail what a healthy relationship entails. Or if you find such a task too tedious for you to help your friend, then I'm sure someone has created a similar list that you might agree with.
Jack (8:11:18 PM): Ok. Hold on.
Jack (8:18:00 PM): I'm having various other people list things for me. Some of these things may seem shallow, but they're true. And this still isn't all: sex appeal, attraction, common interests, similar sense of humor, money, flow. I'm sure you'll say you have all that though.
David (8:18:40 PM): What makes you so sure?
Jack (8:19:28 PM): Because all that stuff is still basic. I haven't gotten into anything deeper than the surface yet.
Jack (8:20:30 PM): Hm. Here's a good one: acceptance.
David (8:21:20 PM): acceptance.
David (8:21:58 PM): Are you suggesting I am unaccepting of Yolanda?
Jack (8:22:42 PM): I didn't say that. I just that's a good one.
David (8:24:55 PM): but since you are arguing that our relationship is flawed in some way, it would seem logical you would be trying to bring up things our relationship is lacking in.
Jack (8:28:32 PM): No, I'm just bringing up various things that a relationship requires other than emotion. Whether you have these things or not is for you to judge. I think I've proved you wrong that there's more to relationships than emotions though.
David (8:29:39 PM): In that respect you have.
David (8:29:45 PM): However
David (8:31:42 PM): I believe that the argument has progressed to why you believe our relationship is flawed, and why you feel it is your responsiblity to convince Yolanda of it's unhealthyness.
Jack (8:32:30 PM): I don't feel it's my responsibility.
David (8:33:26 PM): You obviously do if you bring up the topic with her so frequently, and defend it so velhemently against me.
Jack (8:33:38 PM): She's the one who usually brings it up.
David (8:36:32 PM): "Does Jack often bring up that he thinks our relationship is unhealthy?"
David (8:36:38 PM): "yeah."
David (8:36:55 PM): "Have you ever brought it up?"
David (8:37:20 PM): "that our relationship is unhealthy?"
David (8:37:28 PM): "yes."
David (8:38:32 PM): I'm still waiting for that last answer, but I think we have established that you do in fact bring it up.
David (8:38:37 PM): ah
David (8:38:44 PM): "oh. no."
David (8:38:46 PM): so
David (8:39:04 PM): either
David (8:39:14 PM): you're both severely confused
Jack (8:39:22 PM): Well, she has. But it's my word over her's, and naturally you're going to side with her. So I can't really argue this anymore.
David (8:39:23 PM): or one of you is lying
David (8:40:08 PM): So you are calling her a liar?
Jack (8:40:34 PM): Yes. Or she doesn't remember. But that seems unlikely.
David (8:41:46 PM): Well if she is lying, then our relationship does not have any trust, you are right that it is unhealthy.
David (8:42:11 PM): But since she's the one lying
David (8:42:48 PM): sholdn't you be convinceing ME that it's unhealthy (before now) instead of vice versa?
Jack (8:44:15 PM): Probably. But I think some of the things you've done are much worse than this lie.
David (8:44:29 PM): Such as?
Jack (8:46:58 PM): I really don't want to list them, because it will just come off as an attack against you. If Yolanda's told you all our significant conversations then you should already know.
But, this argument is pointless. I'm not going to persuade either of you. You don't want me "interfering". Fine. I won't bring up the subject, and when she does, I'll divert it or ignore it.
I don't have to deal with your guys' melodramatic bull****, and you have me not interfering anymore. Win-Win situation.
David (8:48:21 PM): I merely wanted to understand your reasoning and third party perspective, but if that is what you wish, so be it.
The end. Kinda long winded and everything but they need to sort this out and they cant seem to do it on their own.
Let's start...
David and Jack’s Discussion.
Needed Background: Jack has been trying to convince Yolanda that David is an unhealthy boyfriend and they are in an unhealthy relationship. Names have been changed.
Jacks blog:
It's 4:47 in the morning. I'm not tired in the slightest. But I have nothing to do. So I'm going to write this blog that I'll probably end up deleting within a week. I have no idea what I want to write about, so I guess I'll just write what's on the top of my mind.
I have to take an assessment test for Evergreen Valley College tomorrow, but I don't really feel like it. I already know I'll pass and it just seems like a waste of time to me. I don't even belong in community college. It's just a waste of two years. Plus, none of the things I want to accomplish in life really require a degree.
I want to write a novel. I don't need a college degree to write a goddamn book. I can do that right now if I had the motivation. "Oh, but what about an English degree? Won't that help?" No. I don't need a degree in English to think of a coherent, meaningful story. Unless you plan on becoming a teacher, an English degree is almost as useless as a degree in Business.
I want to become a recognized musician. A degree won't help me become a better musician. The most I'll be able to learn is technicalities, and why pay over $1,000 to have someone teach me technicalities when I can learn it on my own for free?
I want to learn to pilot an airplane. I want learn to sword fight. I want to travel the world and collect meaningless objects. I want to swim across the ocean. I want to discover an island.
But we don't always get what we want, do we? Most of those are too fantastic and unrealistic anyways. Oh well. I know I'll accomplish something with my life. I already have the outline for the book I plan on writing. Perhaps if someone actually reads this blog, they can tell me what they think:
The book will largely be a short story collection. But they'll all be interrelated metaphorically and physically. The thing that links them all together is that all the stories are about people who ride the bus and are met by the main narrator. There will also be an overarching story interspersed throughout the short stories about the narrator and his cocaine-addicted girlfriend. The short story ideas I have floating in my head are one about a feral child (the story is told through the perspective of her caretaker), one about a serial killer, a story about a homeless old man who's found true love, and then the story about the narrator and his girlfriend. I don't even know if this is really a good idea though. I think it sounds interesting and engaging, but will anyone else think so?
Sometimes I feel like I'm extremely smart and everyone will like my ideas. Other times I feel like maybe I'm just one of those pseudointellectuals who has no grasp on anything and everything I think up is a result of this pseudointellectualism. Maybe all my views on everything are misguided and wrong. Maybe I'm just another idiot who tries to be deep, but falls short and is shallower than a three-day old puddle.
Sometimes I think I try to hard. I put too much effort into things that don't matter, and not enough effort into things that do matter. I focus too much on little details, and not enough on the big picture. I immitate people I think are smart, funny, courageous, etc. I don't think I'm original at all and sometimes I wonder if I even have a personality of my own.
My thoughts are all jumbled now and I don't think I can type any more of my thoughts and make them still transition at least semi-smoothly. So I'll end this blog here. And I'll probably end getting self-conscious, thinking everyone is reading this and thinking "wow, this guy is an idiot," so I'll probably delete it within a week.
Posted by David on August 12, 2008:
[In response to one of Jack's friends saying his book idea is similar to The Metamorphosis] First of all, The Metamorphosis is not a ****ing collection of short stories. Nor does it resemble Jack's concept at all. Finish something before you act like you know what you're talking about. Secondly, the short stories themselves sound moderately intriguing, the way you plan on connecting them, not so much. You'd be better off just publishing them as short stories. It keeps the plotline simpler to follow, and it won't seem like you're trying really hard to connect them and sound innovative. Maybe you should read a book on the subject of creative writing, since you're too cool for school. There's a lot of logistics and technicalities you need to know about before you decide to try and publish. (I too thought I was capable of masterpieces without prior knowledge upon the subject.)
Since you think I'm stupid and irresponsible I doubt you'll take what I have to say seriously anyway.
Jack:
I'd prefer it if you didn't try insulting other people in my blog. Attacking me is fine, but acting like a douchebag to try and make yourself look like some sort of almighty intellectual is just obnoxious. It's also petty and stupid. Just because you don't make the same connections that someone else does, doesn't mean they're wrong and you're right.
The short story ideas themselves sound boring and cliche to me, actually. The whole point of the book would be the connection they have. I wouldn't be trying all that hard to connect them or sound innovative anyway. It's not really difficult. And I'm not going for a simple to follow plotline. This idea isn't meant to be a simple story.
I have read about and know about the "logistics and technicalities", as you put it, of the publishing business. I already know it's a difficult process. Also, I don't quite see how a "book on the subject of creative writing" will teach me the "logistics and technicalities" of the publishing industry. I've read at least three books on creative writing and all I got out of it was how to write a formulaic, dull story. As I said, writing a coherent, meaningful story isn't that difficult. I never claimed it was easy to get published.
And don't you think it's a little hypocritical and ironic for a high school drop-out to say I'm "too cool for school"? Especially when I never claimed such. I said I don't want to take the time to get a degree, because nothing I want to do really requires one. I still want to learn new things and I'm still happy to be going to college.
I don't recall ever thinking that you were stupid. You're ignorant and misinformed in many areas, but who isn't? Someone who is stupid doesn't have the capacity to grow and learn. You have that potential, and like so many others you just waste it. But irresponsible? Definitely.
Hm. Arguing over a MySpace blog. Isn't this fun?
David:
"Attacking me is fine, but acting like a douchebag to try and make yourself look like some sort of almighty intellectual is just obnoxious. It's also petty and stupid. Just because you don't make the same connections that someone else does, doesn't mean they're wrong and you're right." <-you have just done all of this.
Just because you don't make the same connections that I do doesn't mean I'm wrong and you're right. (Also, writing an essay to retort my offhand thoughts doesn't make you look like you're trying to be an almighty intellectual at all.)
"The short story ideas themselves sound boring and cliche to me, actually."<-how is the reader supposed to care or be intrigued if the writer isn't? (I was trying to be nice anyway)
"And I'm not going for a simple to follow plotline. This idea isn't meant to be a simple story." <- you have just countered the definition of 'short story collection'.
"Also, I don't quite see how a "book on the subject of creative writing" will teach me the "logistics and technicalities" of the publishing industry. " <- I was not referring to the publishing industry. Had I been, I would have suggested a book about the publishing industry.
"And don't you think it's a little hypocritical and ironic for a high school drop-out to say I'm "too cool for school"? Especially when I never claimed such. I said I don't want to take the time to get a degree, because nothing I want to do really requires one. I still want to learn new things and I'm still happy to be going to college" <- cause you did so well in high school, right?
You have also proven my actions by stating that
A. I never claimed I was and
B. nothing I want to do really requires one.
And I think you put it best. "but who isn't?"
You are a hypocritical, close-minded, presumptuous, pompous, arrogant, and above all else, loathsome person Jack Bennington.
Jack:
"<-you have just done all of this."
I did none of that.
"Just because you don't make the same connections that I do doesn't mean I'm wrong and you're right. (Also, writing an essay to retort my offhand thoughts doesn't make you look like you're trying to be an almighty intellectual at all.)"
Except we're not making connections here at all. The whole basis of your argument here is already flawed. And I only wrote an "essay" in response to you because you attempted to verbally attack a friend of mine. Had you left the first part off, I would have just said something like "I see your point, but I disagree for the most part." You provoked me though. If you want, you can repost your comment without that first part, and I'll reply with that, and we can delete this silly argument. However, I'll doubt you'll agree to that.
"<-how is the reader supposed to care or be intrigued if the writer isn't? (I was trying to be nice anyway)"
I'm interested in the project as a whole. The short stories are just ideas, and I'll probably be scrapping some of them. And trying to be nice when the rest of your comment sounds arrogant and bigoted, comes off as sounding demeaning.
"<- you have just countered the definition of 'short story collection'."
I don't recall the definition of "short story collection" being "having a simple to follow plot line".
"<- I was not referring to the publishing industry. Had I been, I would have suggested a book about the publishing industry."
The logistics and technicalities of creative writing then? That makes a lot of sense.
"<- cause you did so well in high school, right?"
I graduated. Which, in the grand scheme of things, is all you really need to do with high school.
You have also proven my actions by stating that A. I never claimed I was and B. nothing I want to do really requires one.
I didn't "prove" or justify (which would be a better word for you to use there) your actions at all. You're trying to manipulate my words to your own advantage and it's not working. Maybe if you think for yourself, you can come up with a valid counter argument.
"You are a hypocritical, close-minded, presumptuous, pompous, arrogant, and above all else, loathsome person Jack Banta-Boyer."
When all else fails, resort to attacks on your opponent's character! Good idea. I'd like to think I'm above false name calling though.
Jack:
And with that, I'm done. Post what you will, David, but I'm not going to respond to it. If you want to continue this conversation, we can do it over AIM or by some other private method.
David:
Yeah, bringing up me dropping out of high school and calling me ignorant isn't demeaning of my character at all.
The Aim Conversation:
There was a text of “Okay, did you read it all?” before David opened AIM...
David (7:03:53 PM): Unfortunately
Jack (7:04:19 PM): When I call you ignorant but say "but who isn't?" it isn't really demeaning because it implies everyone is ignorant in areas.
And I brought up you dropping out of high school because it was relevant to the conversation. The sole reason wasn't to make a personal attack against you.
Jack (7:05:48 PM): Also, I've deleted the whole conversation, becaue arguing over MySpace is a tad silly and I don't think it shows either of us in a positive light.
Jack (7:05:59 PM): If you want, I saved the bulk of your first comment and you can repost it:
Jack (7:06:00 PM): the short stories themselves sound moderately intriguing, the way you plan on connecting them, not so much. You'd be better off just publishing them as short stories. It keeps the plotline simpler to follow, and it won't seem like you're trying really hard to connect them and sound innovative. Maybe you should read a book on the subject of creative writing, since you're too cool for school. There's a lot of logistics and technicalities you need to know about before you decide to try and publish. (I too thought I was capable of masterpieces without prior knowledge upon the subject.)
David (7:06:32 PM): oh it's ok
David (7:06:56 PM): I figured you would do that so I saved the whole thing for future refrence
Jack (7:07:08 PM): Well okay then.
David (7:10:29 PM): Why do you have such a problem with me?
David (7:10:38 PM): or is it what I represent?
Jack (7:11:55 PM): What is that you represent?
David (7:12:49 PM): I don't know. I represent something different to everyone.
Jack (7:14:03 PM): I don't really have a problem with you at all. I think you can fun to be around for the most part. However, I think you're unnaturally mean sometimes. And I don't like that at all.
David (7:14:40 PM): I am unnaturally mean?
Jack (7:15:05 PM): At times, yes. Ever since I've known you, you have been.
David (7:15:48 PM): I'm not that one reduced Yolanda to tears last night. And many times before that.
David (7:16:12 PM): I am not saying I have never done it though
David (7:16:23 PM): nor am I saying I'm not mean
Jack (7:17:12 PM): I'll admit I made mistake last night. And I apologized for it. That's the only time I've ever "reduced" her to tears though. And I'm sorry for it.
David (7:17:54 PM): that you know of.
David (7:18:27 PM): and why did you quote rediced
David (7:18:38 PM): *reduced
Jack (7:20:09 PM): I don't know actually.
Jack (7:20:31 PM): And I'd think she'd tell me if I had reduced her to tears before.
Jack (7:20:42 PM): I don't know though. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe she wouldn't tell me.
David (7:20:57 PM): She is a very sensitive person
David (7:21:06 PM): as you undoubtedly know
Jack (7:21:12 PM): Yes.
David (7:21:59 PM): and she relates every significant conversation you two have to me.
David (7:22:06 PM): and her feelings
David (7:23:01 PM): and the particular line of conversations you two had upon our relationship was a particularly emotional one
David (7:23:28 PM): and I realize I'm overusing particularly
Jack (7:24:31 PM): Hm okay. I guess I should talk to her then.
David (7:24:55 PM): Also.
David (7:25:17 PM): though I cannot recall the details
David (7:27:00 PM): I must state that you seem to be trying to lead Yolanda to the conclusion that this relationship is flawed, damaging, and dommed to fail.
David (7:27:15 PM): I do not appreciate your interference
David (7:27:56 PM): and I feel that you have no knowledge upon such things as relationships
David (7:28:36 PM): and should not interfere because of that lack of knowledge
David (7:29:22 PM): *doomed
Jack (7:31:51 PM): I understand your opinion, but I disagree. I lack experience with relationships, not knowledge. You make the false assumption that because I haven't experienced something, I'm completely ignorant to every aspect of it. And if you don't appreciated my interference, talk to her. She's the one who talks to me when things are rocky and is usually the one who brings up the subject.
And in all honesty, your relationship is flawed and damaging. At least to her. I hope you guys work things out and live happily ever after though. Good luck.
David (7:33:18 PM): I have heard you use this argument many times.
David (7:33:24 PM): and frankly
David (7:34:05 PM): one cannot have knowledge upon this subject without experience.
David (7:35:28 PM): I don't care how many books, theroys, poems or any other form of communication you have to back up your 'knowledge'
David (7:35:41 PM): this is emotion
David (7:35:56 PM): and it is between two people
David (7:36:24 PM): a third party cannot hope to understand this emotion through observation
Jack (7:36:40 PM): Oh. Well excuse me then. I guess I can't recognize a healthy relationship from an abusive one. I forgot all relationships run on is emotions. There's NOTHING else that goes into them. My apologies.
David (7:37:00 PM): your sarcasm is noted.
David (7:37:36 PM): and who draws the line between a healthy and abusive relationship?
Jack (7:37:52 PM): Society.
David (7:38:35 PM): well then let society decide.
David (7:38:38 PM): not you.
David (7:39:44 PM): and the irony of your sarcastic statement of "I forgot all relationships run on is emotions." is that is true.
David (7:40:00 PM): *it's
Jack (7:40:43 PM): Except it's not. And if you think that, then you're very blind.
David (7:41:36 PM): I will feign blindness then. give me the other things that a healthy relationship has that ours does not.
David (7:42:08 PM): since we have an overabundance of emotion.
Jack (7:44:48 PM): I don't recall saying there was an overabundance of emotion. I'm not denying that emotions aren't important, because they are. But there's so much more that goes into a relationship than emotions. Communication, trust, honesty. None of which are emotions. Even if emotions were the sole thing going into them, there's multiple emotions going into it, and to claim that I haven't experienced any of these emotions is just absurd.
David (7:47:13 PM): You have obviously never felt love, since you deny we are in it or have ever felt it ourselves
Jack (7:47:33 PM): You just completely disregarded everything I said.
Jack (7:47:34 PM): Nice.
David (7:47:53 PM): and you are your own undoing in the fact that all the things you have stated
David (7:48:02 PM): let me finish thankyou
David (7:48:41 PM): are in fact present in this relationship
Jack (7:52:38 PM): Saying I am my own undoing doesn't make sense in the slightest. And I listed three common things. There's still more, but making a big long list of things other than emotions found in a relationship would be a tedious and uninteresting task. If you seriously don't know, you can easily find what they are just by examing your relationship.
David (7:54:30 PM): but if you are given the benefit of the doubt, and our relationship is 'flawed' and 'unhealthy' then those things will not be present for me to examine, now will they?
Jack (7:55:20 PM): Nope. But I'm giving YOU the benefit of the doubt here.
David (7:57:54 PM): Ah, so by examining my current relationship, I would see marital(for lack of a better word) perfection?
Jack (7:59:07 PM): I didn't say that.
David (8:00:41 PM): but it seems to be implied through your benefit of doubt and aforementioned arguments. unless I am mistaken, and if so, pllease correct me.
Jack (8:02:24 PM): Just because all the things necessary for a healthy relationship are present, doesn't mean that you've achieved marital perfection.
David (8:03:26 PM): maybe not perfection, but at least a healthy relationship
David (8:03:45 PM): if I seem to be understanding you correctly
Jack (8:04:16 PM): Yes. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you actually do have a healthy relationship.
David (8:05:02 PM): Then why are you telling Yolanda that we have an unhealthy relationship?
David (8:05:25 PM): if
David (8:05:31 PM): according to you
David (8:05:38 PM): we in fact do
Jack (8:07:00 PM): Because you do have an unhealthy relationship. By giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'm letting you examine your relationship. You probably won't be able to see anymore than the basic three things I listed and emotion.
Jack (8:07:22 PM): But then again, if that happens you'll just think "Guess Jack is wrong. There isn't really anymore to relationships than this."
Jack (8:07:33 PM): So either way I guess it's a lose-lose situation.
Jack (8:07:34 PM): Oh well.
David (8:09:40 PM): Not if you list in detail what a healthy relationship entails. Or if you find such a task too tedious for you to help your friend, then I'm sure someone has created a similar list that you might agree with.
Jack (8:11:18 PM): Ok. Hold on.
Jack (8:18:00 PM): I'm having various other people list things for me. Some of these things may seem shallow, but they're true. And this still isn't all: sex appeal, attraction, common interests, similar sense of humor, money, flow. I'm sure you'll say you have all that though.
David (8:18:40 PM): What makes you so sure?
Jack (8:19:28 PM): Because all that stuff is still basic. I haven't gotten into anything deeper than the surface yet.
Jack (8:20:30 PM): Hm. Here's a good one: acceptance.
David (8:21:20 PM): acceptance.
David (8:21:58 PM): Are you suggesting I am unaccepting of Yolanda?
Jack (8:22:42 PM): I didn't say that. I just that's a good one.
David (8:24:55 PM): but since you are arguing that our relationship is flawed in some way, it would seem logical you would be trying to bring up things our relationship is lacking in.
Jack (8:28:32 PM): No, I'm just bringing up various things that a relationship requires other than emotion. Whether you have these things or not is for you to judge. I think I've proved you wrong that there's more to relationships than emotions though.
David (8:29:39 PM): In that respect you have.
David (8:29:45 PM): However
David (8:31:42 PM): I believe that the argument has progressed to why you believe our relationship is flawed, and why you feel it is your responsiblity to convince Yolanda of it's unhealthyness.
Jack (8:32:30 PM): I don't feel it's my responsibility.
David (8:33:26 PM): You obviously do if you bring up the topic with her so frequently, and defend it so velhemently against me.
Jack (8:33:38 PM): She's the one who usually brings it up.
David (8:36:32 PM): "Does Jack often bring up that he thinks our relationship is unhealthy?"
David (8:36:38 PM): "yeah."
David (8:36:55 PM): "Have you ever brought it up?"
David (8:37:20 PM): "that our relationship is unhealthy?"
David (8:37:28 PM): "yes."
David (8:38:32 PM): I'm still waiting for that last answer, but I think we have established that you do in fact bring it up.
David (8:38:37 PM): ah
David (8:38:44 PM): "oh. no."
David (8:38:46 PM): so
David (8:39:04 PM): either
David (8:39:14 PM): you're both severely confused
Jack (8:39:22 PM): Well, she has. But it's my word over her's, and naturally you're going to side with her. So I can't really argue this anymore.
David (8:39:23 PM): or one of you is lying
David (8:40:08 PM): So you are calling her a liar?
Jack (8:40:34 PM): Yes. Or she doesn't remember. But that seems unlikely.
David (8:41:46 PM): Well if she is lying, then our relationship does not have any trust, you are right that it is unhealthy.
David (8:42:11 PM): But since she's the one lying
David (8:42:48 PM): sholdn't you be convinceing ME that it's unhealthy (before now) instead of vice versa?
Jack (8:44:15 PM): Probably. But I think some of the things you've done are much worse than this lie.
David (8:44:29 PM): Such as?
Jack (8:46:58 PM): I really don't want to list them, because it will just come off as an attack against you. If Yolanda's told you all our significant conversations then you should already know.
But, this argument is pointless. I'm not going to persuade either of you. You don't want me "interfering". Fine. I won't bring up the subject, and when she does, I'll divert it or ignore it.
I don't have to deal with your guys' melodramatic bull****, and you have me not interfering anymore. Win-Win situation.
David (8:48:21 PM): I merely wanted to understand your reasoning and third party perspective, but if that is what you wish, so be it.
The end. Kinda long winded and everything but they need to sort this out and they cant seem to do it on their own.
Last edited:
👍 +1
