Saturday, December 10, 2011

Censored Replies ... and more...

I used to upload my censored comments to my ISP's server, but they no longer provide webhosting for personal webspace for their customers, so I'll post these here. Most of these are comments from Perfesser Simpson's blog, specifically following the "Romancing the Flag" entry -- and replies submitted by moi that never made it to the comments section.... Keep in mind that this is the man who complains about "censorship" at the SHPG.

Can you say double standard?


SIMPSON: So let’s see. A painting that’s historically inaccurate and of which you say, “The flag does look quite outsized, or else the guy’s a midget — oops, very unPC… a little person,” nevertheless strikes you as “a stunning portrayal.” Indeed. You would think that your own comments on proportion are denigrating. To each their own.

ME: Ah, no. Joking about it is not denigrating. Using it to insinuate other people are racists is denigrating it.


ME: So, it’s historically inaccurate. Perhaps the artist should be arrested and fined? Lemme see if I can get this across — I don’t CARE if it’s historically accurate or not. I don’t even care if the flag is too big, something I noticed years ago when I first found the print online. It’s a stunning painting, and it reminds me of North Georgia…. Besides, the flag doesn’t appear to be any more out of proportion than at least two of the flags in the painting in your blog header. And my comments don’t begin to denigrate the painting in the manner that this blog entry of yours does.

SIMPSON: I find it interesting that someone who complains about a “thought police” immediately thinks of arrests and fines for an artist who offers a historically inaccurate image. That’s quite repressive of you, Connie. At least you admit that you’re denigrating a picture you also say is “stunning” … which we’ve heard several times now, suggesting that your vocabulary is somewhat limited. No wonder writing is so challenging for you. I’ve simply pointed out that it was historically inaccurate. As you agree with that, it would seem that we have found common ground.

ME: Intentionally mischaracterizing sarcasm, are you? Is that what they teach you in perfesser-school? No, repeating a word doesn't indicate limited vocabulary -- otherwise, one has to wonder about your limited vocabulary indicated by your overuse of "historically accurate" (3 times just in the blog entry, twice more in the comments) and "historically inaccurate" (3 times in the comments).


SIMPSON: Well, given that the artist was known for his art work on various paperbacks, including fantasy and fiction, I can see why someone who dabbles in both likes it. It’s her taste, not ours. Besides, if you ever looked closely at her own efforts along this line, you would see why she likes that form of art. I look at the book cover art she designed and I see Ben Affleck surrounded by the cast for a dinner theater revival of Designing Women. That’s what happens when you do your own publishing … and she needs to learn how to spell nascent, too. So much for being your own PR person.

ME: "Ours" who? BTW, I know how to spell nascent; I just make typos sometimes: Ben Affleck, huh? I never thought of that. The microstock photo model is a Brit (or, at least, his photographer works in the UK), and he's light haired and blue-eyed, and I had to do a lot of processing to make him dark like Troy. This fellow has dark hair and eyes, and he's a dead ringer for Troy. I'll put him on the book when I have time to track down all the places where the old cover has gone and update them. The two blond ladies in the background are reasonable facsimiles of the characters in the book. The dark-haired woman bears a remarkable resemblance to Patty Stevenson. I'm not an illustrator. I do page layout and I photoshop existing images. Here are covers I've done for others: Where are the book covers you've done, Professor? I'd love to see them.


KEVIN LEVIN: Is that Fabio holding the flag?

ME: Interesting you should bring up Fabio, the romance-cover icon from the 1990s, Mr. Levin... I speculated on whether Perfesser Simpson is a closet romance reader -- and perhaps a Fabio wanna-be -- when he acknowledged familiarity with "some of the passages" in my publications. Said he: "Ms. Chastain is not above showing us that she’s quite familiar with some sexually suggestive sites (which may explain some of the passages in her publications)."

Actually, I believe I've found a cover-hunk Brooks could aspire to emulating:

He's even got his own Facebook page...


SIMPSON: It looks more like one of those fellows from Western pulp fiction. I think Connie should use it as cover art for a forthcoming book.

ME: Oops -- too late. I already have cover-art-with-flag....


No doubt, the Prevaricatin' Professor, the wielder of the censorship button at his own blog who disapproves of others who do the same thing.... this professor who is a master of the Double Standard, will no doubt chide me for posting so much about him on my blog, as he has done in the past.
From November 14: See, since July, the content of Connie’s blog has been almost exclusively devoted to commenting on the blogs of people she defines as “anti-Confederate bloggers.” Now, while it’s someway bizarrely flattering to have all this attention thrown one’s way, I thought the public display of this continuing obsession was a bit disturbing (maybe I’ll become a character or even a subject in one of her self-published e-books. :) ). However, rarely do Ms. Chastain’s posts amount to anything more than that, and so, with the exception of a few moments which I have found too amusing to pass up, I don’t particularly care to draw attention to her rantings and ravings.
Notice the lie that I have a "continuing obsession" with him? Well, it's not an obsession, and it's not so much him that interests me -- it's his dishonesty about Southern heritage advocates; it's his twisted view of the Civil War and Confederates, it's his obsession with slavery and white supremacy, and, frankly, it's his double standard.

I don't get to blog every day like he does. Some months I have several posts, some only two or three. The time period he speaks of -- from July to November 14, is five months. Between July and Nov 14, I made 25 posts -- which, if they had been evenly distributed in time, would average out to 5 per month.

But before chiding me, maybe he should look at his own blog first. Interesting that between November 14 and December 8 -- less than one month, he has posted 8 -- count 'em, EIGHT, viii, (8), posts either about me, or that include references to me.

Heritage versus History -- Dec 8
Romancing the Flag -- Dec 6
Help Connie Chastain Out -- Dec 4
The Sunday Question: A Better Symbol for Southern Heritage? Dec 4
The Strawman as Other -- Nov 30
New Discoveries From Ann DeWitt -- Nov 20
What’s Wrong With This Icon? -- Nov 17 (Doesn't mention me by name, but the entire post is about a graphic I designed)
Guilty Pleasures … and the Hypocrisy of Connie Chastain Nov 14
Petty and hypocritical attitude he exhibits, isn't it?

I'm thinking next of posting all his announcements that he's finished with me and/or the SHPG. Swearing us off. Bidding us adieux. Quittin' us. Saying adios, au revoir, sayonara, hasta la vista, baby. I might even include the usually very short time period that follows before he starts posting about me/us again...

I can be pretty smartaleck in my comments to and about Simpson, Levin, Meyer,, but I don't make comments designed to question Simpson's intelligence ... only his integrity. I endeavor to refrain from the kind of ad hominem attacks he employs, although one or two may have slipped past me. Having said that, I note that it is very sobering to think of young minds in learning mode coming under his influence....

No comments :

Post a Comment

Comments are welcome, but monitored.