What was Dustin's problem? Aside from the probable need to have his Prozac dosage upped, he was one of the participants in that ludicrous "City Streets" argument over in the baltwash-burning list, about whether or not the fact that one could be seen from one of the so-called "streets" in the fictional Black Rock City meant that one was in a public place and subject to arrest for indecent exposure. Notice that my mention of that argument was one of the so-called "rants" that he linked to. This argument was a losing one for Dustin's side, from the very beginning. How can one get to Burning Man, and not notice how many people there are naked?
Obviously, the moment the newbies reading this get to the event, Dustin's side will lose the argument, unless Dustin's side can either succeed in rewriting history, or get the newbies to not notice, oh, about 10,000 naked bodies or more. Like a lot of the crazies online, Dustin didn't like losing arguments, and started following me from list to list, seeking revenge for the terrible injury I did to his ego, through the thoughtless act of making sense, at a time when he felt like babbling.
Some like to use the term "cyberstalking" for the kind of behavior I would see out of Dustin. I think that's overdramatic, and prefer the expression "revenge posting". His opportunity to be petty would present itself on the New York Burning Man list, in August of 2001.
I'm sure you've noticed the title of this page.
Have a feeling of Deja Vu? Like you're seeing something that you thought was over? I know the feeling. The day after I told Tara Ball (from the New York list) to go away, with amply good reason as you have already seen, she decided to sob on the list about the fact, even after I had apologized to her by private e-mail for something that didn't call for an apology. Looking back, I wish I had told her to grow up and maybe go to Hell, but I just had to be nice to somebody who clearly didn't deserve it, a decision I would soon regret ...
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, taraball wrote:> .. Listen Shady I was just talking about good old common sense. Something > .. we could all use a dose of, Between you and that Joe guy I almost cried > .. myself to sleep last nite. Well, I am sorry to hear that you cried, but I am a little surprised. This is not how you've been portrayed in private e-mail, at all. There, people have been painting an image of a vindictive individual who delights in going for blood when somebody contradicts her. Here, I see somebody a lot more human than the person I've been told to expect, and maybe a lot easier to hurt than I thought. I am sorry if you were that upset. I would have been far gentler with you, had I known. But Tara, playing with somebody's head a little, especially a stranger's,is just not a game we play in the wee hours of the morning. People are tired. They want to go to sleep. They tend to be a little cranky. So, please, save this sort of thing for earlier in the evening, when people are more themselves, and I think that you might get a better and more playful response out of people. I assume that's what you want. .........................................................................Joe |
Dustin then used this effort to make peace as an opportunity to initiate a gang flame ...
You might try not reading your e-mail when you know you are likely to be a cranky twit. ----- Original Message ----- |
... and Jessea Perry just couldn't pass up the opportunity to talk down to somebody whose entire "crime" consisted of telling Ms.Ball to go away, and stop bothering him with foolish messages ...
i've got to say, i'm really concerned about the serious LACK of SENSES OF HUMOR i see on this list. |
For some odd reason, I found the condescension annoying, ...
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Dustin wrote: |
And then Phil offered a flawed analysis of the situation ...
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Jessea Perry wrote:
|
I could not believe what I was reading. The entire mini-flamewar had begun after Dustin and a few of his friends had gone on the attack in response to my attempt to soothe Tara's nerves. Taking the proverbial sight of a flag of truce as the signal to begin shooting is one of the cowardly acts imaginable in any setting. Responding as gently as the repulsive circumstances allowed, I wrote:
... which was followed by another mindless "me too" post ...
i concur...one of the greatest things i've learned about living a happy life is when you realize that taking yourself so seriously is silly, and you can laugh and joke about yourself more.....you guys seem to just need to relax, do yoga, masturbate, have an awesome meal, whatever, and then laugh and be silly and chill out....hopefully the playa will unwind some of the springs....(Full text of Jessea Perry's letter deleted for brevity). |
Taking myself too seriously? (Note that Jessea Perry's letter was a direct followup to my letter, and this one to Jessea's, so there is no mystery as to who this commentary was directed at). Because I asked somebody to stop bothering me with bizarre and foolish messages? What could this woman possibly have been on, as she wrote this?
I was getting more than a little annoyed by now, and probably would have said something about this, but Jonathon Moll soon popped in with something far more obnoxious. Being careful to change the title, making it difficult for the casual reader to find the thread from which Moll had taken this quote (ripping it out of its context), and being careful to remove all quoted material from my reply, and the other names from the carbon copy line, Jonathon deceptively wrote ...
Jeez Joe, cover the left eye and read the second line... Who's dredging? Kudos to Phil for reminding us to breathe deeply and calm the nerves and to Jessea with her call to keep it light. Just because you think all emails are about you doesn't make it so. By all means DON'T forward the list anything. |
"What?", I thought, "are you fucking kidding me?". There was quoted material in those letters, and there were the addresses in the carbon copy line, leaving no real mystery as to which letter was a followup to which in the mind of any remotely reasonable man who had seen all of the posts in that thread and remembered them. There was a context created by the history of these threads ... in other words, these weren't isolated letters, there was a discussion going on, simple enough that nobody with an IQ higher than that of a stalk of celery could have had any trouble telling who was responding to whom at any given moment. At least, not without an opportunistic attempt to quote one out of context.
Trolling like this did not deserve a gentle response ...
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Jonathan D. Moll wrote: |
I couldn't help but wonder if people on this list even knew how to read. Around this point, expecting nothing more than more trolling, I stopped reading this thread, and so missed seeing this letter until about a year later, as I was putting this page together. Here, Jamie Slater, also known as "Pippi" today, affecting a friendly tone, would go for manipulation where intimidation has failed, and actually have the nerve to imply that Jon and company had simply been misunderstood, as if I could not see the personal attacks that had just been written with my own eyes.
She would start the "soft soaping" by saying that maybe I was feeling ganged up on. Gosh, what ever would have made me think that? I wasn't at all suprised, about a year later, to find that this 'friendly' individual had joined with her friends in a group backbiting at my expense, almost 11 months after I had left the list, and was no longer there to defend myself. Why not? Like any good actress, she would have no trouble changing scripts, once it was time to put on a new show ...
<everyone huddle up |
Yes, if you aren't awake, and are just hearing the tone without paying attention to the content, that sounds like a very pleasant letter. But then we all know the game where one bends down to one's pet dog, and in the sweetest tone of voice says the most awful things to it, only to be amused as it wags its tail. If we should show a little more understanding than that dog, how strange that so many will object!
Getting past the tone, one finds a barely veiled insult in that letter. Ms. Slater suggests that I've been a fool, and have done her friends an injustice (that I haven't given them a chance), and that I did wrong by standing up for myself (and should stop doing so). No matter what one's tone of voice is, that's a really insulting thing to imply, to say nothing of its being an inversion of reality. For example, look again at Moll's letter. There is no reasonable doubt as to who he is referring to when he says "you". No rational person could dispute that I was being attacked, a fact that the 'friendly' Pippi voiced no objection to then, or ever, in the year to come. These are supposed to be my "friends"? In real life, most of my enemies deal with me on more honorable terms.
Showing about as much concern for the facts, Colleen Mulleedy then chimed in with a "both sides are wrong" type post ...
hey yall |
Seeing his opportunity, Dustin then spoke up in support of this mini-rant. To read his letter, one would never suspect that he had been the original instigator who started the very flamewar that Mulleedy was now complaining about. Nor did any of the regulars care enough about the truth to bring this minor detail up. The man gains political points by disassociating himself from the very argument his personal attack had started, without ever apologizing for or even acknowledging the existence of that attack? How can anybody not see the injustice of that?
I second that emotion. If anybody's short of ideas or projects to work on, let me know, I've got dozens that I won't have time to get to this year. |
The friendly exchange about drinking preferences that I had mentioned near the top of an earlier page had spun off of this flamewar at about the point where Phil showed up, and this lead to a private e-mail exchange between me and Ms. Slater, whose position seemed to change when nobody else was around. After we wrote
" JS : We always wondered if the winos had a nice chardonnay if the rules would change. |
Ms. Slater sent me a bit of e-mail where, suddenly, she was on my side, or so one might think if one was reading her letters out of context. Which, of course, I was, as she knew, once I mentioned that I was no longer following the thread ...
" JS : True, true. Dim Sum, anyone? |
But, of course, I was wrong, as I found out the moment that I got to Asylum village, where I immediately found myself being cold-shouldered by most of the people there, the moment that they knew my name. Reportedly Tara, who had acted like we were at peace by private e-mail, had spread the bad word in my absence, with a little help from her friends. This is something that I have come to hate about a lot of burners. One never knows where one stands with them.
What is remarkable about this thread? Go into the New York list archives. Note that I have chopped nothing out, that this really is the chain of followups that were in place. Something would be said at one moment, and in the next, it was as if the regulars couldn't remember what they had just heard, and couldn't see why it mattered. There was no sign that they even thought that the truth was an issue, here, an attitude which I would find to be very common in the Burningman forums.
The bizarre and disjointed thought processes seen here aren't unprecedented or even, in retrospect, much of a surprise. They fall under the category of what some would call "junkie logic", and drug use was certainly widespread at Burningman and related events. There was a lesson in that fact that I should have picked up on far more quickly, and probably would have, but for the lingering prejudices from a libertarian past.