[Most of my viewers are neither intelligent nor well spoken. Even if I exclusively made videos about Aristotle, I wouldn't be able to expect any better from my audience. This is something that authors, creative artists and "content creators" need to be prepared for… but we are, perhaps, born unprepared.]
DiogenesofSinop
I take it the deletion of my comment is your warrant canary kind of acknowledgement?
Eisel Mazard
No, that is neither an intelligent inference on your part, nor a reasonable one.
DiogenesofSinop
Who cares, you didn't answer my question in the comment. And if you gave any thought about it, you'd have looked up my email. So much for common courtesy these days. Don't you think good manners matter?
Eisel Mazard
Re: "Who cares…"
You do.
DiogenesofSinop
How "laconic". I don't care about how I got your attention. I did get your attention. So your reply is moot. You're completely missing the point just to make content out of this. All I wanted was "Thanks for your email". Or is that too much to ask? Why be belligerent to strangers for no reason whatsoever?
Eisel Mazard
1.
Re: "Why be belligerent to strangers for no reason whatsoever?"
i. You are being belligerent to a stranger for no reason whatever. You have been throughout this correspondence.
ii. I have not been. Not yet.
Go ahead. Re-read the messages we've exchanged if you don't believe me. It is not a terribly verbose correspondence.
2.
Re: "I don't care about how I got your attention."
You do.
And you have to.
Because it forms my opinion of you.
E.M.
DiogenesofSinop
1.
Re: "You are being belligerent to a stranger for no reason whatever. You have been throughout this correspondence."
This must be a terrible misunderstanding on your part. Jumping too fast to conclusions and assuming the other's stance. In no conceivable way could anything I have said be understood as offensive to any impartial observer. You on the other hand have started off with unnecessary adjectives in your first message. Instead of addressing the purpose of the message.
Regardless, offense is taken and not given. I don't care about "not a terribly verbose correspondence" we had. My objective was to determine if you got my email. I will take the liberty of assuming you did. But you lack a sense of gratitude.
2.
Re: "You do. And you have to. Because it forms my opinion of you"
Awfully narcissistic of you to think I care about that. Again, you're jumping to conclusions.
In any case, I've enjoyed your last few videos about Sam and I hope my dollar will be helpful in education repayments. Keep up the good work. Tally-ho!
Eisel Mazard
1.
Re: "In no conceivable way could anything I have said be understood as offensive to any impartial observer."
No no, not "offensive": the word was "belligerent".
Far be it from me to suggest that you've said a single word that was offensive.
What I pointed out is that you've been belligerent. And you have indeed been belligerent to a complete stranger. And you have done so for no good reason. While complaining to that stranger that he has been belligerent to you, as a complete stranger, for no reason.
And this asymmetry continues in our still-not-too-terribly-prolix correspondence.
2.
"My objective was to determine if you got my email. I will take the liberty of assuming you did."
No, that is neither an intelligent inference on your part, nor a reasonable one.
3.
"But you lack a sense of gratitude."
I suppose you will soon insist to me that it is absolutely impossible that an impartial observer could think these words would describe your behavior, rather than mine, in this short correspondence.
This is a recurring pattern.
4.
"Awfully narcissistic of you to think I care about that."
It would certainly be impossible for someone to read this correspondence and interpret your character as narcissistic rather than mine. Or would you like to explain this to me, as I do not think it is true?
DiogenesofSinop
Well colour me impressed by your ability of psychological projection and deflection. Not to speak of impeccable self expression!
But you have to admit that continuing all this is childish and unproductive.
You know what to do to prove me wrong. Or right. But who cares, right? I've had my dollar's worth of entertainment. Have you satisfied your ego?
Cheerio!
Eisel Mazard
Re: "But you have to admit that continuing all this is childish and unproductive."
So… the scenario we're in right now is that YOU COULD HAVE just asked me if I'd received an email from you (that I evidently didn't receive / don't know about).
And, instead, you've sent me an unbelievably belligerent series of messages, asking "Don't you think good manners matter?", stating that I'm a narcissist, reproaching me for lacking gratitude, etc.
And the answers to your two questions (that, again, were neither stated in a manner that was intelligent nor reasonable) are (1) no, the deletion of your comment neither indicates (implicitly) that I receive a lot of hate mail (I don't), nor that my email address isn't working, and (2) no, I don't recall receiving an email from you (nor from anyone with a similar name, etc.).
(What it is that I supposedly should feel gratitude for that I'm failing to feel gratitude for is impossible to imagine at this point.)
So…
You seem to have put considerable energy and initiative into convincing me that you're a person of both very poor intelligence and very bad intent. And you did this, in your own idiom, by being belligerent to a complete stranger for no reason. In trying to justify yourself, you say that I used "unnecessary adjectives" in a single message (that is a single sentence long), but you find nothing unnecessary in your own absurdly truculent messages to me (demanding to know why I don't care about manners —whereas supposedly you do, in your own absurdly ill-mannered correspondence— and why I don't feel gratitude toward you, etc.).
If you want to communicate with a complete stranger, generally, or with a youtuber specifically, you have to put some effort into letting them know (1) that you are intelligent, and (2) that you are writing with good intent (otherwise, you will not receive a reply). You have instead convinced me of the opposite.
I would recommend you spend some quality time with my old video, "90% of People Are Stupid and Malign." You're in the 90%, old boy.
youtube.com/watch?v=WMvwwd0shMg
DiogenesofSinop
Re: "You seem to have put considerable energy and initiative into convincing me that you're a person of both very poor intelligence and very bad intent."
That is neither an intelligent inference on your part, nor a reasonable one.
Re:"If you want to communicate with a complete stranger, generally, or with a youtuber specifically, you have to put some effort into letting them know"
No, I do not. Because I simply do not care about anyone's self-aggrandizing behaviour. If they are too asinine to read between the lines, and make an effort to become offended, they are only good for laughs. Instead, maybe you could try clarifying the situation instead of putting your considerable energy and initiative at showing your poor intelligence and bad intent. But I fully understand your behaviour, it is very typical among many narcissists. So please do not assume I am in any way offended by our correspondence. It is intriguing to see how strangers show themselves in private.
Re:"I would recommend you spend some quality time with my old video, "90% of People Are Stupid and Malign." You're in the 90%, old boy."
Laddie, if I cared about your opinion (or your opinion of me specifically), we would not be here in this predicament. To me your life is as unimportant as anyone else's. You are light entertainment. I am under no obligation to extend my benevolence to the likes of you. Neither are you (which you have aptly demonstrated). Your way of conducting yourself in this correspondence has been very amusingly revealing. Now I can listen to your ramblings knowing who you truly are. So carry on! Give me more laughs!
Eisel Mazard
I will remove the word "seem" from my earlier statement:
as a matter of fact, you have indeed put considerable energy and initiative into convincing me that you're a person of both very poor intelligence and very bad intent.
Re: "No, I do not. Because I simply do not care about anyone's self-aggrandizing behaviour."
Whereas you seem to presume that I would be fascinated by your self-aggrandizing behavior, demonstrated throughout this correspondence.
Re: "So please do not assume I am in any way offended by our correspondence. It is intriguing to see how strangers show themselves in private."
On the contrary, absolutely nothing about this correspondence is private.
