i feel like it would be really bizarre if i were to be like, 'well, i can totally make character judgments against you, but DON'T make them against me.' i feel like that would be weird. stupid even, so i suppose i understand your point. i guess that, in a bizarre way, i'm pretty mad at myself for saying some (or most) of the things i said. i don't feel like anger is unjustified, definitely, but i feel like there are ways of handling anger that are inappropriate or whatever. i suddenly feel like a four year old, and i'm like, 'i'm sorry, charlie, i mishandled my anger..' anyway, i'm really excited that i'm replying to your e-mail. i kept telling you that i was going to do it, which is weird, but for some reason, i felt like it was imperative that i respond. i guess the main thing(s) i wanted to say are that (yeah, i guess there are two):*i do tend to think of mania as being problematic. whether that's a problem i need to resolve within myself, i don't know. honestly, i don't feel like it is. i don't associate the feelings i have for ben harper or for dancing with mania, what can i say? i feel like maybe it's better that way. i feel like in a lot of ways, the reason we put a label like mania on a lot of things is so that we can sweep it under the rug and tell ourselves that it's wrong, and it's unjustified, so it shouldn't exist in the first place. i feel like in a lot of ways, that's kind of what you were saying, 'leslie, you're manic, this isn't real, this will pass'. maybe i'm crazy, but i feel like that's not the best way of dealing with things.
*i don't know if this is like off-topic or whatever, but i feel pretty strongly about democracy as a whole. as a concept, not necessarily in practice, but i feel that the reason that we have laws is because people have spoken, and they've said, 'okay, murder tends to annoy me; this is what's overwhelmingly important to me', and for that reason, we have the US constitution and whatnot. okay, having said that, i feel like it would be bad if we were all to decide, 'okay, fuck the constitution, forget the lives of these people, i'm going to kill people. and smoke pot, for god's sake'. i feel like that would be bad. i don't know if the parallel's really that obvious, but i just want to say that we don't all go doing what we want. that's all i'm saying. of course, i am in love with some of the doctrines of civil disobedience, but i don't feel like that's what i'm talking about.
i guess that's all, really. actually...i'll probably respond more later. bye, charlito, talk to you later, yo~leslie
On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 16:12:46 EDT "Maurice Q"
writes:
i'm slightly more calm now than when i read the first letter you wrote to me, and i thought it would be better to wait this time and collect my emotions before responding to your most recent diatribe against me and the vernacular usage of manic
to open, we'll start with a quote from a mister emerson who said, "Look next from the history of my intellect to the history of my heart. A blank, my lord. I have not the kind of affections of a piegon. Ungenerous & selfish, cautious & cold, I yet wish to be romantic. Have not sufficent feeling to speak a natural hearty welcome to a friend or stranger and yet sent abroad wishes & fancies of a friendship with a man I never knew. There is not in the whole universe of God (my relations to Himself I do not understand) one being to whom I am attached with warm & entire devotion,--not a being to whom I have joined fate for weal or wo, not one whose interests I have nearly & dearly at heart;--and this I say at the most susceptible age of man."
and with that, i will agree slightly with the character judgement you made against me, and that i do have trouble realting to other people sometimes, i am very much so best friends with my mind and at times do not feel the desire to be oh so friendly to others. but on the subject of character judgements, you said that i have not know you long enought to make them against you. but, haven't you known me just as long, so why do you feel that you can make them against me?
I'll hypothesize an answer: because you're leslie fucking j and the only thing of yours that is larger than the decibal level of your constant screeches would be your unjustified ego about your intelligence. and i'll hypothesize another thing while i'm at: you have just as much, if not even more, trouble relating to people.
the problem i have with you right now is that you see this as flaw, i don't. you tell me that i should think before i speak, i say fuck you- i'll say whatever the fuck i feel like saying, i'm not going to censor my thoughts to fit into your narrow framework that you think the world should exist in, and i will continue to use the word manic whenever i feel like it since to quote my good friend mr. webster, mania means "an excessive, persistant enthusiasm, liking, craving, or interest; obsession; craze [a mania for dancing]". you are the one that sees mania as a problem and as something negative, i don't bitch, so stick it up your ass. i am manic about dancing, i am manic about shane and other hot boys; manic does not nessecarily connatate whatever the fuck you believe it does, sorry, but it's the truth. you are raping the base meaning of mania to fit in your schema, but sorry leslie, thats not right. the fact is, contrary to what you said, i do know what i'm talking about.
but, back to character judgements and the many which you shot at me,i would like to respond similary to the way you responded to me, just a little bit more rationally. you have a very loose idea of who i am, i am not a very open person as you pointed out, i do often keep to myself, and i'm very cautious about what i do choose to display so the fact that you think you know me well enough to make an accurate assesment of my character, is why you are so appalled when i "act out of character" or do not fit into the ill-concieved character traits you have assigned me. so go ahead and make all the false descriptions of who you think that i am, but don't be so suprised when they aren't accurate.
and, i don't know where pete came into this discourse. but you said that i do not like pete because i don't agree with her. first of all, i do like pete, i tend to use the words "don't like" and "hate" in exaggeration. but you see the split between me and pete as a disagreement over facts, again you are wrong. it is a disagreement over what is a fact, that divides us. to pete her beliefs are "facts", to me they are far more, they are offensive to me, i see them as almost bigoted, i see them as something far more than facts that is hard to verbalize.
that is where this argument between me and you right now is based, i am in the position of pete and you are me. i see the use of the word "manic" as a fact, you see it as something more than that which you have attempted to verbalize but have fallen short, tripping over your own anger. i will not back down from my stance over the meaning and usage of "mania". you are the one that is not liking someone because you don't agree with my beliefs and my refusal to bow to your pompous self-righteousness. and your right that i don't care what the fuck you say or anybody says, and i would hope you are the same way. i am not too concerned with other people's thoughts and there adherence or disagreemnt with mine. you, appearatnly on the other hand do, and can get over the fact that my beliefs do not align with yours.
and i really don't understand what you were talking about when you said that i can not get along with people that don't agree with me. if that were the case i would not get along with anybody at this school. there are very few people here who like pat bucahanan and are quasi-liberal, quasi-crazy right wing. but see i do get along with tons of differnt people, i.e. nora, rebecca, you (at one point), casi, maggie, india, anne, keith, and just about everyone. there are very few people that i do not get along with. you are the one who cant get along with people because of their beleifs, as evidenced by your harangue of aggressive e-mails.
and on this subject of beliefs, at least i'm honest to mine, and don't agree because i should, or do things that i dont agree with, i.e. you doing amnesty even though on multiple occassions you have said that you don't agree with it.
and with that i shall depart, saying a FRIENDLY fuck you, followed by a quote from depeche mode:
"words are very unnesessary, they can only do harm"
charlie q
From: leslie j
To: indigopig@hotmail.com
Subject: am i making myself clear?
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 14:54:39 -0500
and by the way, you're an idiot--i'm not talking etymology, or forensics, as it is, here. i'm talking about the fact that i don't like the word, bitch. what the hell are you, charlie? i'm talking about the fact that i don't like you using it. i'm talking about the fact that the word offends me, charlie, whether it's 'common vernacular' or not. i don't like it, i don't like the connotations it carries, i don't like your fucked-up 'common american usage' of the word. what the hell, charlie? the fact that you don't know how to use it bothers me some, but what bothers me, charlie, is that you think you can get away with using it in the first place. the fact is, charlie, i am not upset about our fucking argument, charlie. do you get it, charlie? we can talk about our fucking argument, if you want, charlie, i don't care. i care about the fact that you're throwing words like manic around. maybe i should drum up a few slurs here and there to throw at you and then you can find out for yourself what it's like, charlie. charlie, it would be nice if you learned to care about something other than why, factually, new college is wonderful. maybe you should learn to respond to how people feel, charlie. maybe it'd make you a better person
On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 13:47:09 EDT "Maurice Q" writes:
you stupid motherfucker, i can't even deal with your quirkiness sometimes, this is defintily one of those times, in passing i said, "you at times are manic, so i think it will pass" --- i'm very fucking cognizant of the fact that mania is an illness, but i'm also very cognizant (which appaerantly you are not) of the fact that "manic" had entered the popular vernacular quite a while ago, and that it has a slightly adultered meaning from the one you are bitching about,,
and you are the one that is harping on this one word amongst the thousands that i directed towards you in your little fit last night, the fact that you so bothered by this one, i think definilty points towards the fact that this is something that has concerned you, and you have some baggage attached to this word that YOU need to deal with you, punk ass motherfucker,,, i do not need to deal with whatever your concerns over mania or whatever the other fuck illness you think you have,
and your method of dealing with confrontations (is used something you're probably going to harp on as mysgonistic (and i don't care how you spell it, we'll get to that later)) is so pussy. instead of confronting the actual arguments that i presented to you, you instead try to divert attention from issues you don't want to confront by instead delving into etymology, and attempting to dismiss an argument as idiotic, and not factually based well, which in fact it is, but you would rather not confront arguments and instead get into a discourse over irrelevant facts and if they are facts or not. your method in addition to being a pussy is so fucking childish. i can imagine you reading this and doing the exact same thing, sighing "char-lie" in that long drawn out con-da-fucking-sending voice in which you all to frequently talk, "you don't know what you're talking about." so, go ahead and give your fucking childish sigh, questioning the person's intelligence you're arguing with, rather than confronting the points the presented,
your e-mail is perfect evidence of this, our way too long conversation last night where you bitched for i don't know how many hours about how much you hated new college had absolutly nothing to do with psychological illnesses save for the passing reference i made to mania in the extreme phases you go through,
so go present your little arguement and leave out whatever you feel is nessecary for your argument, to rebecca or bonnie or whoever the fuck you need to, to make yourself feel righteous, whatever you need to do to make yourself feel secure,,
and do you still hate new college, or was it just a fucking PHASE? if you still hate it, instead of bitching about your situation and the meaning of words, why the fuck don't you take control over your situation and transfer. simple solution to an even simpler problem.
--charlie q
From: leslie j
To: indigopig@hotmail.com
Subject: barley rice
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 13:24:39 -0500
charlie, i'm mad at you. i'm sorry to say it, but i think i might hate you. i'm pretty upset about a lot of things you said yesterday (do you think i should diagnose you as manic, even though i'm not a psychologist?) do you want to know why i'm upset, charlie? you called me manic. i talked to bonnie and katie and rebecca about it, and they think you're wrong. actually, we're all pretty sure you're wrong. and i'm pretty sure that was an insensitive thing to do, even if i was manic. especially since i have a lot of concerns with mania. and the fact that you brought nora and casi into the equation, that's just bizarre. if i was nora or casi, i'd be pretty upset. and i have a feeling that you haven't been exposed to mental illness, is that right? nora and casi aren't representative of the whole, charlie, but i don't think you need me to tell you that. and even if you have been exposed to mental illness, charlie, you've only known me since august. you don't know whether i'm being manic in a particular situation or not. so i'm mad at you, charlie. i still love you, but i'm...pissed. just telling you (or maybe i'm and perhaps you should look into learning about mania and depression and bipolar disorder and anxiety. they're not all the same thing, yo. i'm sorry if this sounds like an angry e-mail, but i'm pretty upset about it, charlie. and even if i wasn't, i feel like you should think before you speak~
'the worst sin towards our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them; that's the essence of inhumanity." (george bernard shaw)
