Writer Cat Fight

Hey, didn't you used to be me?

 

Has this joke been funny at any time in the last few years?

 

McGwire - no idea what you mean.

DD - I'm not sure I agree with you. First of all, I posted on this thread first, and did so anonymously. Jones is the one who decided to log on and engage. He could have sat back and watched the discussion unfold, as a lot of writers do when anonymous screennames are discussing their work. But he decided to swoop in. Which is fine. Except it is unfair to place the blame on the person who thought he was beginning a discussion with other anonymous users about a piece of work.

Second, there are downsides to anonymity. For example, you give Jones viewpoint more credibility because you know who he is. Jones is able to define me as anything he wants (and the fact that he chose to do so, and in his mind's eye views me as an inferior, should tell you a lot). Maybe I am just a hater who wants the illustrious existence that Jones apparently thinks he has. Fact is, my anonymity enables you to portray me as whatever you want me to be. That doesnt seem to be an advantage in my favor

 

Good explanation. The clique won't get it, though. They know the "right" people here know who they are, and that's all that matters.

 

Two Esquire writers bitching about who has the more inflated sense of self-worth...Jesus Christ, spare me.

 

Let's be fair here:

Chris Jones came out guns blazing from the opening page on this thread. The responses to criticism of his blog posts weren't exactly full of the decorum so many say they want. Makes one start to question the truth of how great this site used to be Before Jones And Other Luminaries Like Him Left.

Shouldn't it be easy to pay no mind to unimportant people braying on an Internet message board? The "Jayson Blair" comment was so outlandish, it didn't deserve a bit of attention.

typefitter's post on Page 7 was a nice reminder of why this place is supposed to be anonymous. I guess it was some kind of worthy "smackdown!!!" on some level. But it also read a lot like "Accomplished Esquire writer engages anonymous Internet posters, loses his temper, and swings his member around on an Internet Message Board."

If a Chris Jones repeatedly promotes the premise that this board sucks now, then responding to every perceived slight here seems rather pointless in the grand scheme of things.

 

You left out the word tiny before member.

 

Fighting "the good fight" is about making junior-high short dick jokes?

 

OK, maybe we're not coming out of the ditch this time.

 

Sure.. but yes, let's be fair:

He came out guns blazing to respond to someone who called him a sad case with a messiah complex who is a "solid writer" who got lucky breaks along the way. And that person is now insisting we're making up most of what he said, while assuring us that his dear friends at the Algonquin Round Table pity a li'l fella like Jones.

Should he have ignored it and walked away? Maybe, but he's not very good at that, as I think he has said himself.

 

Elmo weeps