eatvancouver.net

35 responses so far ↓

• 1 Andrew Morrison // May 18, 2007 at 1:04 pm

  For the record, the site is called Urban Diner. It isn’t my name. My name is Andrew Morrison, and I think you and your little buddy Jason are a real hoot.

• 2 Connoisseur // May 18, 2007 at 5:53 pm

  It seems like the death knell of the internet will be sprung from the massive loads of venom that springs forth from under-edited voices who finally find a forum to unleash their unhappiness on the world.

  This is such a blunt, boring and obviously personal attack on a local business person. It lacks punch, zing or any type of real critical analysis which would benefit the reader. Only a perverse personal desire to shout out “I told you so” like chicken little after the sky fell down.

  I have no affiliation with this particular gentleman, and quite frankly haven’t found the product to be earth shattering myself, but in the world of hamburgers, there are heroes and villains, and I couldn’t imagine what this poor soul of a writer has received in slight to brand an average little hamburger stand as the anti-christ of ground chuck.

  I wonder how small a man it must take that a burger shack is your Lex Luthor. Perhaps the freemasons have a plan for world domination that comes with fries on the side?

  When unabomber wannabe’s like this can sit at home in their mom’s basement and type venomous vitriol in any particular direction because of whatever ‘issues’ they might be struggling with at the time, then, the beautiful, world shrinking, democratizing and enlightening revolution of the internet is over.

  The king is dead.

• 3 Jason // May 18, 2007 at 6:08 pm

  Hi Connoisseur,

  Well I don’t think the author was aiming for an in-depth critical analysis. I, for one, was happy he wrote this because it’s a perspective that was not being explored by other outlets. Dan posted a well reasoned description of Vera’s burgers in very objective terms that was promptly deleted by Urban Diner. In fact, they deleted any comment that did not support the Vera’s cause. So I thought Dan’s perspective was refreshing, and well, correct.

  Insofar as making things personal, you can clearly see from the Moderne burger review (the very first time we mention Vera’s) that Dan called the burger overpriced and mediocre, taking no personal attacks at all. Gerald replied by calling him a “a half witted hack.” It’s crystal clear that things were made personal long ago, and not by us.

  I appreciate your opinion, however, as unlike our friends and Urbandiner, I do not delete comments, and actually support free-flowing nature of information, the tenets that my field of academia are based on.

  Thanks for reading, and thanks again for your input.

  From mom’s basement I remain,

  Jason Chin
  Eatvancouver editor

• 4 Michael Jenkins // May 18, 2007 at 6:10 pm

  First time visiting your website.

  Maybe someone should take the time to vet the content on this site before it is posted as a News Item. This wild eyed editorial disaster has all of the news worthiness of a spitball.

  Whatever axe this person has to grind is best left on his myspace blog. Right under his “10 things I hate about puppies” rant.

• 5 Andrew Morrison // May 18, 2007 at 8:40 pm

  The big pink elephant here is that out of the 500 members of Urban Diner, Jason is the only one that I have had to ban.

  For real. I actually had to BAN him.

  So, I didn’t delete your comments because you and Dan went off your little hamburger hate tangent or because I have some insidious desire to halt “the free flow of information”. I deleted them because the two of you are kind of scary and I don’t want to be one of your passive enablers.

  In the meantime, why don’t you just keep accusing the Courier of stealing your headlines? You’re at your most awesome when you are crazy.

• 6 Dan // May 18, 2007 at 9:22 pm

  I guess some of our new readers are not big on tongue in cheek humour. Not fans of Colbert I guess (or Seinfeld apparently–now that’s funny… because its real). I am not sure what is “scary” about having an opinion about a restaurant. I’m glad that at least one person saw the humour in calling what was blatantly an over the top rant a “news story.” At any rate I am not one to apologize for a joke, so that is not coming. We will however adjust the wording for clarity, as that is a fair request.

  If you really think WE are the ones who are out of line, you have clearly not read the other threads of discussion on this website.

  Dan

• 7 Jason // May 18, 2007 at 11:47 pm

  Hi Andrew,

  (first let me just say that it was my idea to call this a news feature, because i thought it would be funny. given the context of our history with vera’s i think it is. for the record: obviously, this was never a serious news report! to be fair to urban diner, and at their request, i have changed some details when they are mentioned)

  I’m going to reply in earnest to your comment with a response that I have actually put some serious thought into. If history is any indication, you will completely ignore it, but I’ll give it a shot.

  I think it’s clear from your writing that you claim to be a fairly left-leaning fellow. But, I believe if you pointed the microscope the other way, you’ll see that much of what you do epitomizes everything a liberal mindset fights against. For one, there’s the curtailing of discussion on your website when it doesn’t agree with your position. Liberals accuse the right of that all time time, yet that’s exactly what you are doing.

  Then when someone does make a valid point, you call them crazy (them being me). As many have pointed out, that’s been precisely the conservative tactic in justifying U.S. actions in places like Cuba, Lebanon (1958), and Iran (1953). i.e., we didn’t invade because of our own economics reasons, but because they were crazy communists!

  So I’m just asking you to step out of your current mindset for a moment and consider the possibility that things aren’t as you currently believe. I’m not trying to attack you personally, instead saying that even though you might think you are being open-minded, it’s possible that you are going about matters in a why that is antithetical to your belief system, and in fact thinking like the stereotypical conservative.

  Why did I post the Courier thing? First, I thought it would be funny to anyone who has seen a certain Seinfeld episode. Two, it is a striking similarity, especially interesting given I e-mailed a copy of my review to Tim Pawsey about a month ago when I read his comment that Rocky Mountain Flatbread had been ignored by the press. Had you simply asked me about that before deciding I was crazy, might you see things differently?

  And yeah I was banned from your forum, but given the circumstances, I don’t really regret it. I remember you emailing me to say watch what I post as members have asked that I be removed. When I asked you what to avoid saying (so that I could follow the rules), you would not tell me, which pretty much implies there was nothing that I could safely say. If you ask me, it was pretty clear from that point that I was not a valued member of the community.

  Regards,

  Jason (eating poptarts in Mom’s basement)

• 8 Andrew Morrison // May 19, 2007 at 12:17 am

  OK. I’m going to go back to Urban Diner. Don’t follow me. Give willpower a shot and delete UrbanDiner.ca from your bookmarks, too. Further, take it off your site’s blog roll. I’ll live with the consequences of not being associated with your informative gude to Vancouver’s restaurants if you will try to do the same.

  Deal?

  Excellent.

  And Dan, dude. You’re kind of scary, still.

• 9 Jason // May 19, 2007 at 12:26 am

  “I’m going to reply in earnest to your comment with a response that I have actually put some serious thought into. If history is any indication, you will completely ignore it, but I’ll give it a shot.”

  Well that answers my question. See you Andrew. If it’s all the same to you, I’ll leave the link on, because it helps bring all the information together, thus being enjoyable and useful to readers, and that’s my only real agenda. I hope you find the mission again one day.

• 10 Andrew Morrison // May 19, 2007 at 12:42 am

  I’ll take my chances. Please take it off. Enjoy your summer.

• 11 Dan // May 19, 2007 at 11:08 am

  Well, if nothing else at least this post has generated some discussion, which is all that you can really ask from a post. You can only post so many reviews on which no one comments before it starts to feel a little pointless.

  Connoisseur:
  You say the post is “blunt,” yet you completely miss the point, which is that it is supposed to be over the top. You say it is “boring,” but you still feel the need to reply, and you complain that it is a “personal attack,” and then go on to dedicate several paragraphs to a personal attack on me. All in all, a real tour de force of a comment and your concern over the fate of the internet is anonymously touching. And who is the “king”?

  Michael:
  Thanks for visiting the site and sharing your thoughts (and for actually leaving your name). I hope you will return, even if you didn’t like this particular piece. My only suggestion would be try reading things with a little more of a sense of irony and a little less of a sense of righteous indignation.

  Andrew:
  I find it interesting that you say you want to be left alone, but can’t resist taking one more swipe at me. I honestly had no idea when I posted on urbandiner that a) Jason had been “banned” from posting on that site and b) such a ban would somehow also apply to me. Thus when my first posts ever, which were completely relevant, were deleted for no apparent reason, I was surprised. And when other posts that were negative towards Vera’s were also deleted it seemed to me that urbandiner was interested in presenting one side of the issue only. Perhaps that was not the case, and such things could be rationally discussed by reasonable people, but you don’t seem to be interested in discussion, you seem more interested in playing the victim. Which begs the question, why bother posting on our site if you had no intention of listening to anything we had to say? And why say we were a “hoot”? Anyways, you might think about letting people know why their posts are deletd in the future, as it could save some confusion.

  Looking back on this piece, I wonder if I was blinded by my own words. It seemed pretty obvious to me that phrases like “heroes,” “visionaries,” “God Bless America,” and the suggestion that I would volunteer for anything, implied that this piece was not meant to be taken at face value, but perhaps I was wrong. Then again, maybe everyone else who read it was perfectly aware that it was a joke. At least it generated a lot of discussion, and isnt that kind of the point of writing anything?

• 12 connoisseur // May 20, 2007 at 10:01 am

  Good afternoon gentlemen,

  Frankly, I’m surprised to see a debate here.

  As an aspiring writer, which I assume you (both?) are. You can take considerable appreciation of the fact that the job of the writer is to engage the reader, encourage debate and inform others of your particular insights on a given topic. That being said, I would encourage you to revisit my post, which had very little to do with the context of this discussion, but more importantly on the nature, and seemingly self-gratifying mental masturbation that it was championing.

  When you fly the flag of left-wing liberalism so that you can hurl stones from a safe vantage (mom’s basement ;)) all that’s occuring is the general deterioration of a well reasoned and much appreciated debate. That, my self righteous friend, is the mission. Don’t get your head wrapped up in the philisophical turban and declare a left-wing jihad on another writer, or business interest, or person in general, and use your ‘mission’ as the rallying cry. If that were the case, your original post, and ‘the mission’ are seriously at odds.

  Now, ultimately, my original comment was directed at the decision to post such a diatribe, when doing so affects the quality and the relevance of any discussion. This particular diatribe I found to be completely unhelpful for public consumption, personally motivated, from what, I don’t care to know, and horrendously biased. On this note, I encourage you, as an aspiring writer, to investigate journalistic ethics. Just google it. That will do a far better job of enlightening you as to the devious nature of your post than I ever could.

  It is irresponsible, immoral and unethical, much the same way that any terrorist organization will justify it’s actions for its greater mission, so too, my friend, do you.

  Be careful when you introduce politics and philosophy to a personally motivated rant. You’ve clearly got a rant, and a voice, just label them as such. Don’t pretend for an instant that this type of discussion makes you the voice of the people.

  Besides all of that, I’m sure that you have an excellent motivation to do what you do, don’t lose the enthusiasm, just choose more carefully, how you label it.

  Good luck

• 13 Jason // May 20, 2007 at 10:24 am

  Hi Connoisseur,

  I appreciate the thought and care you’ve put into your comments, and many are indeed helpful.

  I’d just like to clarify a couple of things that may have gotten muddled in the fray.

  First, I wasn’t justifying Dan’s article by any “mission,” but pointing out that I will be leaving up links to Andrew’s site because my mission is to help inform any reader that might stumble upon my site (via google or something), and I think said reader would find his site informative. That’s the reason I do this. It’s not for money, and it’s not to make a career of it (I have one already).

  That brings me to my second point of clarification, that Dan wrote the article, and I don’t want people to confuse his words with my rant.

  Finally, I wasn’t saying we fly the liberal banner (my god, anything but), however Andrew clearly does, yet his methods are more indicative of close-mindedness.

  My main point is that I wasn’t justifying Dan’s article with my rant, but using it to explain Andrew’s subsequent reaction and unwillingnesses to discuss the issue further.

  And I’ll just echo Dan’s comments again because they don’t seem to have sunk in – if you take an article titled “ding dong, the witch is dead” as a serious news article, then really, any further debate is rather pointless.

  Still, I do appreciate that you’ve given this some thought, and your words have not fallen on deaf ears.

  The sky isn’t evil. Try looking up.

  -Jason

• 14 Dan // May 20, 2007 at 11:01 am

  Hi Connoisseur,

  As Jason point out, we are two seperate people and there are two seperate points here (at least). I think he has addressed what he said perfectly, so I will address what I said.

  First of all, as I said twice already, it was not meant to be a serious piece, and it had no “mission” as such, it was merely meant to be entertaining to those readers who understodd its context.

  Secondly, when you say that this post appeared to you to be “personally motivated, from what, I don’t care to know” you pretty much give up all ability to give an intelligent comment on it. Look at your first post. Look how little it took to get YOU to launch a personal attack against me, when my comments had nothing to do with you. You go so far as to compare me to a serial murderer, when you have not bothered to learn anything about the context of the article. On the other hand, Gerald has personally attacked me on multiple occasions, when I have only commented on the quality of his restaurants. All of the relevant posts are still up on this website (we don’t delete posts, even if they are personal attacks against us), so it would not be hard to follow them. Start with the Moderne Burger review.

  Finally, when you say that I “can hurl stones from a safe vantage” its lacks a certain punch, given that I use my real name and you are posting with an alias.

  I am glad that you are willing to discuss things, but at least try to make some decent points. It would would help if you actually read the relevant information.

  Dan

• 15 connoisseur // May 20, 2007 at 5:36 pm

  Yes, my friend, it seems as if deaf ears are all the vogue here.

  I’m still curious about the nature of the post, which hasn’t been answered. Neither of you fine gentlemen have seen fit to answer to the question of whether this truly is worthy of publishing.

  The question I originally posed, rather vehemently, wasn’t wether you had a right to feel slighted by the owner of the burger shack, but rather whether you’re responses to date have been appropriate to the debate on the quality of the man’s product. I vote no. Personal attacks be damned, is this the monkey bars at recess, or an intelligent and informed ‘grown up’ disussion. Right now, it seems from this unbiased viewpoint that someone stole your lunchbox and you just want to use this website to call them a poopy pants. This is the point. Not any of your previous diatribe on he said she said. That’s how the middle east got so screwed up.

  I’m doing my best to illustrate that when you undertake to create a forum of discussion, you also accept the responsibility of leadership. Letters to the editor can be biased, simple and poorly written, they sell newspapers. Editorial and ‘news’ are intended to be unbiased, free of perogative and for the betterment of the greater good.

  To be perfectly honest, you have at your disposal a tool, which can be used for a more noble and glorious purpose. The low road is easily taken, but a leader takes pains to accept that there are some, maybe few, but nonetheless some, who are watching, and learning and one day, want to be just like you when they grow up. Let’s give them something they can be proud of.

  And yes, although you believe that those knowing your name may be unwelcome exposure, it pales in contrast to the exposure you place on a small business. You, my friend, have nothing to lose. Your little blog costs $0. to produce and maintain. A family lives and breathes by this company, so do other families. Don’t pretend that your personal name carries the same investment and risk that even one franchise of their store carries. It is a very safe distance.

  Finally, my name would mean nothing to you, as you would never come accross it in your circles. Had I thought it had some relevance, I’d proudly post it on your website, for all to see. I don’t have a blog, or any of that stuff, because I value my privacy. I respect yours, as well, and since I only know your first names, you leave with your anonymity intact as well.

  Once again, good luck, keep up the good work, and remember the onus of stewardship. It will serve you well in the coming years. It’s time to separate yourselves from the rest of the babble.

  A fellow eater.

• 16 Jason // May 20, 2007 at 5:44 pm

  Well, to be fair, webhosting isn’t free and the opportunity cost of my time is substantial. Not to mention that everything is paid for out-of-pocket with no free meals accepted. Yes there are several livelihoods associated with Vera’s, but even more are subjected to mediocre burgers at inflated prices under the notion that it’s the best burger in town.

  I’ll let Dan handle the question about why it was published

• 17 Dan // May 21, 2007 at 1:00 pm

  Nicely done connoisseur, you nearly had me! For a while there I thought you really were that pompous. You’ve got that act down almost perfectly, but then I realized someone who was actually that pretentious wouldn’t spell prerogative wrong (let alone use it in a way that makes no sense no matter which definition you use). Well played sir, I almost thought you were being serious.

• 18 connoisseur // May 21, 2007 at 8:53 pm

  Nicely played, yourself.

  I seeee that by ur use of conjecture, you’ve happilly plaed off my own entendre, thus bipassing the most rudimentary facet of my arghument.

  Or, in definition for the baser class, “I am not left handed, either”.

  In every duel, there is thrust and parry. Your response is the equivalent of pointing to the shadows and shouting. . . “Is that a topless woman?”

  Go thaw a pizza pop and think about your answer some more, and only then should you decide to deliver an apropo parry.

• 19 Dan // May 21, 2007 at 10:18 pm

  As usual your point is hard to find among the zingers and clichés, but I think you are saying that you were actually serious in your last post. Hard to believe given how bad your arguments were, but ok, I will answer them.

  1. “I’m still curious about the nature of the post, which hasn’t been answered.”
  -For the third time (at least), the post was a joke for those people who know about our history with Vera’s. The question about whether or not it was worth posting is subjective, but I know some people enjoyed it, which is enough for me.

  2. “… That’s how the middle east got so screwed up.”
  -Really? That’s what happened in the Middle East? Someone wrote a review of a hamburger restaurant, got insulted, made fun of the person for insulting him, and then violence engulfed the region? That’s weird, I thought it had to do with religious persecution dating back thousands of years. Well, 6 of one, half dozen of the other I guess.

  3.”Editorial and ‘news’ are intended to be unbiased, free of perogative and for the betterment of the greater good.”
  -My point here was that for someone who spends so much effort trying to sound intelligent, you might try not making a spelling mistake listed in Wikipedia as “common.” Beyond the spelling mistake, the word doesn’t make sense how you have used it. Plus, it’s just not a very good point. This wasn’t an editorial, it was a spoof, and it was only necessary because my attempt to DO a public service (warn people away from a bad meal at a high price) was met with an insult instead of a willingness to listen to the criticism and see if improvements could be made, despite me going way out of my way to be fair and as helpful as I could.

  4. “A family lives and breathes by this company”
  -This may be the most absurd of your arguments. By that logic, all reviews should be glowing puff pieces, no matter the quality of the restaurant, as all businesses support some family. This would completely defeat the usefulness of a review. If someone really wants to support his family through a food service business they should either serve a product they have full confidence in (in which case they wouldn’t need to resort to attacking all criticism of their product), or they should be willing to put in the work to make sure they reach that point.

  5. “Finally, my name would mean nothing to you, as you would never come accross it in your circles.”
  -One of the most pretentious things I have ever read. I don’t include my name (which, by the way, appears in FULL at the top of the column) because I think it will mean something to someone, but rather so that I am accountable for what I say. Perhaps if you were worried that someone who does know you would see this, you would think twice before posting such ridiculous comments.

  6. “in definition for the baser class”
  -Holy crap man, stop trying to sound smart, it’s not working.

• 20 connoisseur // May 21, 2007 at 10:58 pm

  yeah, those zingers are tasty, aren’t they? They crunch as they pass the keys. Crunchy zingers.

  C’mon now, though. . . I’m sure even BA can tell you that your blog stats are up!

  And really, aren’t I just performing the same service as you are? I’m offering a counter opinion to yours, honestly providing constructive, polite criticism to your particular product, and to be perfectly frank, I’ve done a tremendous job at not taking your petty insults personally.

  Now, sadly, I have to end this, as it’s become tiresome. I hope I’ve succeeded in increasing your readership with a little controversy, and, as always, time is the greatest teacher, as I’ve learned that a closed mind won’t open with logic, reason or coercion. It’s certainly held true here.

  Have a great life, forget this little exchange, it will only bring you unhappiness later on, and I’m sure nobody needs any more baggage these days.

  I’ll leave you with one last gasp attempt to pry open the clamshell of your mind. . .

  “No one can disgrace us but ourselves”
  – Josh Billings

• 21 Dan // May 21, 2007 at 11:24 pm

  Hahaha, your Orwellian logic is actually pretty impressive. Thanks for not taking the zero insults I sent your way personally, and for your polite, constructive feedback, e.g. comparing me to a serial killer.

  My only complaint is that if you are going to post a five paragraph platitude, you could at least try to throw some humour in.

• 22 Pat // May 22, 2007 at 12:13 am

  connoisseur,

  The clamshell of your mind? Great metaphor…

  Any douche bag with a thesaurus (or Microsoft word) can write a sentence with a bunch of cliché metaphors and words consisting of 3 or more syllables. You aren’t impressing anyone.

  Consider the following sentences:

  Vera’s is an unparalleled culinary experience, like a brilliant incandescent beacon of hope pouring from the heavens above (but more delicious, naturally). Even the thriftiest of habitué will find jubilation in the baffling affordability of a product that is anything but mediocre.

  Sure… I used some big words here or there… but that doesn’t change the fact that what I said is totally retarded. I’d cut back on the pretentiousness a bit.

• 23 connoisseur // May 22, 2007 at 5:38 am

  If words like brilliant, jubilation and incandescent are big, pretentious words to you, then I can understand how you would percieve that. My appologies. When you complete your undergrad things will become clearer I’m sure.

• 24 Dan // May 22, 2007 at 10:40 am

  I have a BA . Trust me, you are pretentious.

• 25 connoisseur // May 22, 2007 at 4:49 pm

  Quite fervently, my good chap, that’s not quite cricket.

  Do you mean pretentious, as in pretty and high minded, or airy, with a penchant for snobbish snubbery? Because no one likes a snub, intended or otherwise.

  It can’t be fun going nose to nose with one on a friendly debate if their nose is turned up. Goodness, the view itself would be quite off-putting. My sincere appologies once again, I’m ashamed to think what you must think of me. I had no idea how we could be perceived by you people.

  If you mean, by pretentious, that I won’t come down to your level and attempt to throw mean spirited phrases targetting your personal character, then of course you would be correct.

  I’ve always preferred the high road. There’s not as much muck getting tossed around and the vistas are wide open.

  That’s a metaphor, many levels in that one. Not crunchy, more like, ‘just let it melt’.

  Another metaphor. Two more and I’m at metafour.

• 26 Dan // May 22, 2007 at 5:10 pm

  pretentious 1b : expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature

  From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. You should use it, it would help with a lot of the words you use. Personally, I can’t think of anything more “apropo” (you spelled that wrong on purpose too I assume?)

  Some quotations from you, since you are so fond of hearing yourself:
  Then:
  -“I wonder how small a man”
  -“unabomber wannabe’s like this can sit at home in their mom’s basement”
  -“my self righteous friend”
  -“When you complete your undergrad”
  Now:
  -“I won’t come down to your level and attempt to throw mean spirited phrases targetting your personal character”
  -“I’ve always preferred the high road”

  If you are going to make ridiculous claims, you might want to make sure they aren’t directly contradicted by information on the page on which you are posting them.

• 27 connoisseur // May 22, 2007 at 5:23 pm

  Oh, but you missed all the good ones!

  These were the tongue in cheek ones, you know, the way you like to write.

  The real good one’s were subtle and implied. It’s a game, go and find them.

  I’ll check back later.

• 28 Pat // May 22, 2007 at 8:08 pm

  connoisseur:

  I tried to come up with a sentence that could match your pretentiousness but I guess I just don’t have it in me, so after a few minutes I settled on the first thing that came to mind. I’m sorry I wasn’t able to live up to your self-righteous douchiness.
  I’ve decided that mean-spirited phrases (poor wording…phrases? come on…not very impressive for someone who has, *gasp*, finished undergrad) might be the way to go, since regardless of what I say, you will respond in condescending and self-important fashion while totally ignoring any points that are being made (such as the overall horrendousness of metaphors like “clamshell of your mind”).
  So, with that in mind, you are probably the most pretentious douche in the entire world. I feel confident making that claim. Hell, it’s less outrageous than 95% of what you have posted on this website. Don’t pretend after the fact that your pretentious comments were jokes that the rest of us were unable to pick up on, because not only is that pretentious in itself, it’s entirely untrue.

  Did somebody say pretentious?

  “The real good one’s (one-is, or ones? Looks like undergrad really paid off…) were subtle and implied. It’s a game, go and find them.” If pretentiousness were made of mediocre overpriced burgers, we’d all be eating a lot of Vera’s.
  Please, please, please take an IQ test. You might learn a lot about yourself.

• 29 connoisseur // May 23, 2007 at 11:13 pm

  Make an educated point, you might be surprised by the response.

  I’d say I’ve been waiting for quite some time so far. . .

  Allow me to list off what the three of you have listed as points.

  A. Vera’s burgers are bad
  2. Gerald Tritt is the devil, or his distant cousin
  c. Everybody has been unfairly deleting your posts
  IV – Everybody is personally attacking you
  5ive. What you posted under ‘news’ was just a joke
  6 – I’m pretentious
  se7en – I have grammer issues
  Ate – You are all really smart people
  9. – you are unable to resist my baiting
  J – You clearly have no taste for subtlety.

  I think that about sums up your points. If you think any of them deserves further clarification, please, feel free.

  I just can’t see how their relevant to the original post, and so have yet to address any of them. Discuss this proposition with a professional, be it legal, philosophical or even spiritual, and you’ll see they’ll agree.

  Discuss this with your therapist, and you’ll probably discover that you have narcissistic tendencies. It’s ok, though, because we all do, you’re just part of the herd.

  “An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself.” – Albert Camus

  Perhaps if you spent less time trying to figure out the nature of my pretention, you might manage to illuminate a few of your own.

  I warn you, sometimes we like to make love with the lights off to hide our horridly ugly humanity. If you turn the lights of your mind on too quick, you may find yourself horrified with what stares back.

• 30 Dan // May 24, 2007 at 12:17 am

  I would be more surprised if you actually answered any of the multiple criticisms of your posts. By my count 3 of your 10 points are accurate… pretty good by your standards (see below).

  Here is a sample of the criticisms of your posts thus far, which you have left unanswered, to refresh your memory:

  1. You hide behind an alias because you are afraid that if anyone who knows you saw what you are writing, they would laugh at you. I am sure they are laughing for other reasons already.

  2. You use pretentious language to mask the fact that you are afraid someone will notice you have no idea what you are talking about. This leads to spelling words based upon what they sound like, and using them inappropriately. It also leads to some of the worst metaphors I have ever had the misfortune of reading.

  3. You are afraid to debate anything upon the merits of the points being made, so you resort first to personal attacks, and then to diversionary tactics like falsely accusing other people of attacking you.

  And here’s a new one:
  4) “If you turn the lights of your mind on too quick, you may find yourself horrified with what stares back.” -> That is EXACTLY what Pat said to you, worded less concisely. Very original. And a great example of #2.

  See how I put a number next to them? That’s so you can easily reference them for those of us that are too ignorant to pick up on how you subtly address relevant points by saying things like “that’s how the middle east got so screwed up.”

  Here I will address the accuracy of your claim that we said the things you charge using your clever numbering system, if you disagree you can address these with THEIR tag too:

  A. True
  2. False
  c. False – Just one person, and not necessarily unfairly, simply without explanation.
  IV False, just a select few.
  5ive. For the 4th time, True.
  6 – True. True. True. True.
  se7en – True, but my problem lies more with you poor spelling and word choice.
  Ate – False, no one said this.
  9. – Well, this is fairly “tiresome” but I think I will get by.
  J – False, though it’s true I have no taste for people saying one thing, then trying to claim they meant something else later on once the original statement has been made to look foolish.

• 31 Pat // May 24, 2007 at 12:44 am

  As I stated before, I have no problem whatsoever with resorting to “mean-spirited phrases.” With that in mind, don’t ignore Dan’s legitimate points in favour of addressing my more subtle, tongue-in-cheek post.

  “I warn you, sometimes we like to make love with the lights off to hide our horridly ugly humanity.”

  I don’t even know where to begin… so let’s go with this. YOU ARE NOT SMART. Stop trying so hard to sound like you are. If you were smart, you wouldn’t have to make comments like that. Instead, you would make worthwhile arguments. No, pretending like you are making worthwhile arguments that are too subtle to be understood by “us people” doesn’t count. In fact, it’s sort of…what’s the word I’m looking for… oh, right, pretentious. That being said, what the hell are you talking about? Lights on is great! If you ask anyone who has ever “made love,” they will probably tell you that during “love-making,” “our horridly ugly humanity,” is the furthest thing from THEIR (note: not they’re) mind.

  When you lose your virginity things will become clearer I’m sure.

• 32 Jason // May 24, 2007 at 11:44 am

  After browsing these comments, I briefly considered going against Eatvan policy and deleting them this morning, but then I came to my senses. True, they rarely about the original article anymore, but they are entertaining as hell.

  Particularly entertaining are Conssr’s attempts at schooling on the nature of humanity, Dan’s losing attempts at reasoning with a black hole of logic, and Pat’s consternation in reaction to the sheer absurdity of the first two points of entertainment.

  I’d love to capitalize on this goldmine – conssr, are you willing to be interviewed by us for an upcoming feature? It can be done in person or via email.

  Thanks!

• 33 connoisseur // May 24, 2007 at 12:54 pm

  Well Jason, I think that’s a grand gesture. Perhaps this could signal a detente?

  I’m not entirely sure that I want to meet mr. fishman, though, nothing personal, but I get a distinct impression that he bears me ill will.

  As I said, I truly value my privacy, so I would prefer that you keep my email address to yourself. I find I have to change it often to avoid spam and the like.

  I don’t do personal interviews anymore, but I’ll gladly participate through email. I look forward to our next discussion.

• 34 Dan // May 24, 2007 at 1:02 pm

  No ill will here, I would love it if you would answer some questions.

• 35 food luddite // Jun 13, 2007 at 3:35 pm

  why don’t u all just get a life…

Leave a Comment