tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post115513175427740782..comments2024-02-27T16:59:54.089-05:00Comments on (The New) Theatre Ideas: Final WordsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1155225371212077952006-08-10T11:56:00.000-04:002006-08-10T11:56:00.000-04:00Scott,What I find objectionable about this whole t...Scott,<BR/><BR/>What I find objectionable about this whole thing is that the experiment was on some level rigged, and then you cherry-picked responses to continue to prove your point.<BR/><BR/>I wrote you a private e-mail stating that I felt you misrepresented what I was saying, and your response was to never mention my accusations on my blog that your "Experiment" was designed simply to prove yourself right. <BR/><BR/>Saying that George p'wnd on this one was an effort to encourage a member of the conversation who had managed to be both witty and constructive. He engaged your online flame (let's call it what it was) and respoded to it constructively by providing his ten examples. he was sharply critical of you and your (now we know, "performed") worldview. But that was about it.<BR/><BR/>I didn't praise James Comtois or Ian Hill, two friends of mine who I felt had gone a bit too far. I was planning on saying so, but you yanked the cord on your perpetual-bullshit machine before I had the opportunity.<BR/><BR/>Nor did you address my criticism that you degraded people solely for the purpose of proving yourself right, and that that was, in a word, wrong. Morally, ethically, wrong. You took advantage of people's trust, people whom you had recently counted on for favors.<BR/><BR/>Instead, you have consistently clamed that the online flamewar you started is akin to any kind of theater that challenges your audience. What George, Alison and I have consistently, ever since you started this blog, disagreed with you about is this charactarization. We aren't saying "its' good that theater does this" we're saying-- "Scott, we don't really think theater does this and that the problem is as pervasive as you say it is". Your consistent unwillingness to site examples only gives more fuel to the fire.<BR/><BR/>This is the last comment I'll write on this subject (or on this blog, for that matter). Your intellectual dishonesty and insistence in proving yourself right at all costs in a debate we were no longer really engaged in is truly startling.<BR/><BR/>And I wouldn't comfort yourself by saying that what you said was neither personal nor abusive. It was both. And you knew it. You knew that by insulting the work of your blogopeers, by calling our work nothing more than shouting fuck in an empty theater, that you would ensure a reaction.<BR/><BR/>You need to stop the preening and offer a sincere and genuine apology. You took advantage of people, and that is reprehensible. I'm not justifying the flame war that rained down on you, I don't think it was a good thing, and I think there are some people who owe you an apology as well. I don't think I'm one of them. Your rant was illinformed grandstanding, you admitted as much in your explanation for the attack you waged in the Great War To Prove Scott Walters Right.<BR/><BR/>In choosing to be Right instead of choosing to build and sustain your relationships with the online community here, you have only hurt yourself. And that should make you at least pause and reflect a little.parabasishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12476856869466695694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1155216788700966232006-08-10T09:33:00.000-04:002006-08-10T09:33:00.000-04:00Allison -- I'm not certain where you are seeing se...Allison -- I'm not certain where you are seeing self-pity. I am trying to analyze the process as it occurred. The list of tactics used is not a "Woe is me" list, but a documentation: these were used in the discussion. It's a fact -- I could provide the links. I don't feel battered and abused (although I do think some of the comments are abusive and unethical, and that reflects badly on the commenter).<BR/><BR/>By the way, I admire your courage during your time as a reviewer, and while I understand why you resigned as a critic, I think that the theatre suffered when you did. Thank God for blogging.<BR/><BR/>Disingenuous and narcissistic? Well, maybe I am. There are other adjectives that could be ascribed to others who have participated in this discussion, and who continue to justify, as do I my own, their tactics.<BR/><BR/>I think if you read my comments you will see that my tone throughout has attempted to be calm, objective, and impersonal. It didn't help, but that is an attitude I tried to maintain.<BR/><BR/>I'd rather be fair than right, too, believe it or not. And like you, I try to operate by my principles. I felt, with this post, that I needed to summarize my perceptions for those who have been following the discussion but perhaps not contributing their insights. I suspect that there might be some who understood the point I was trying to make. <BR/><BR/>I am not going to post anymore on this subject. As you'll note, I've offered up a comment on "Buried Child." I'm truly sorry that I have overdrawn my good will bank account with you and many others. I was surprised that the balance started out so low in the first place.Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04177922467901223790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1155162925144623172006-08-09T18:35:00.000-04:002006-08-09T18:35:00.000-04:00Scott, the self pity in this post (and your previo...Scott, the self pity in this post (and your previous posts and comments) fits badly with the aggression of what you've been writing. I still don't know what your agenda is, but it's hard to see past the self-aggrandandising. (And I'm talking, as always, about what you <I>wrote</I>, not you personally. I don't know you from a bar of soap.)<BR/><BR/>Why this pious insistence that you are a victim? You are not a victim. You said some provocative things and people were provoked. How the hell were you addressing "injustice" by this so-called "experiment"?<BR/><BR/>I've been a critic of theatre and poetry for many years. The frankness of my opinions has often got me into trouble. Over the years, I've been abused - by letter and telephone - and was profiled in newspapers and on tv as the "bitch critic". I was sued. There was a very public campaign to get me sacked from my job as theatre critic, and when I got sick of all the shit, I decided I would rather just write poetry and resigned. After that, I couldn't get a paying job as a critic (why do you think I started a blog?) <BR/><BR/>Now, that's just what happens. I don't feel sorry for me - I say things in public and, right or wrong, I wear the consequences of that. If I dish it out, I should be able to take it. I could, after all, just shut up and live a quiet life. I stand by what I say, and I'll defend it; I say what I say because I believe certain things are worth fighting for. If I'm mistaken, I'll admit it - what have I got to lose? I'd rather be fair than "right". I'm as flawed as the next person, but I try my best to operate by my principles. But maybe that history makes me particularly impatient with the disingenuous and, it has to be said, narcissistic self-justifications I've read here over the past three days.Alison Croggonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08398213223487458758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1155156398029171742006-08-09T16:46:00.000-04:002006-08-09T16:46:00.000-04:00Scott,Regarding your notion about Malcolm X, MLK a...Scott,<BR/><BR/>Regarding your notion about Malcolm X, MLK and the Black Panthers. MLK was already on the cover of Time magazine in 1964, which was when the Lowndes County Freedom Organization was founded. That organization gave rise to the BPP in 1966. MLK was already making an impact by then. Some historians would no doubt make a case that the BPP was a mini sub-generation of the movement. <BR/><BR/>As well, the BPP was actually feeding children in the early days. <BR/><BR/>While all belonged to the Civil Rights Movement, they didn't have the same philosophy. Certainly not the same tactics. And, in fact, Hoover did all he could to shut down and marginalize MLK - even with the BPP and Malcolm X.<BR/><BR/>In short, MLK was regarded as a major pain in the ass in his day. Hardly the hero that he would later be proclaimed. <BR/><BR/>I understand your point about moderates and provocation. But since I just spent a year at the LBJ Presidential Library studying the history of what you just described, I had to clarify that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1155137486374515492006-08-09T11:31:00.000-04:002006-08-09T11:31:00.000-04:00Why do you insist on painting yourself as an outsi...Why do you insist on painting yourself as an outsider?<BR/><BR/>Of all the bloggers, the only one I know personally, in a flesh-and-blood sense, is Matt.<BR/><BR/>You're one of the main voices of this theater blogosphere. It's why we read you. It's why I read you.<BR/><BR/>I CAN'T BELIEVE I'M COMMENTING. AAAAAHHHHH.<BR/><BR/>You weren't an outsider, Scott. And you can write thousand word rationalizations and draw asinine conclusions about some great, grand social experiment. The fact of the matter is you were a trusted arts blogger who smugly betrayed that trust. Hell, I believed you when you came back to blogging with this new "positive" attitude. I had been one of the people to have flamed you in the past. I reformed. I read you; indeed, I was often one of your precious hits.<BR/><BR/>Art is life, and vice versa. How could people NOT take your sweeping generalizations personally? You might not have initially taken direct personal shots at individuals, but you did unload a lot of buckshot. <BR/><BR/>Any point you wanted to make is utterly lost because of your high-handed tactics, and your self-pitying defense.<BR/><BR/>I shouldn't be posting this. I should participate in validating this whole fiasco. I'm just flummoxed. <BR/><BR/>You're kind of scary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com