See , not all Americans are insane

by IMC Dalek Wed Nov 13, 2002 11:22

But theres no SWP involvment. So its probably safe.

by Eoin Dubsky Wed Nov 13, 2002 12:13

I saw Bowling a few weeks ago and though I like Michael Moore and think he's doing good work, his movie needs a director or editor even. You leave the cinema feeling like you've been listening to someone thinking out loud -- what they're saying might be right, but its all confused and jumbled up.
To some perhaps its AMAZING that Moore can have an interview with the head of the NRA... and this is the kind of thing that make his documentaries popular... but it all seemed so improvised that I think the movie should have had a stronger director or editor working with Moore.

by Ray Wed Nov 13, 2002 12:52

If you're going to complain, at least try to come up with a point that hasn't been addressed before.

If someone recommends a film, book, play, or concert in which they have no commercial interest, that's a recommendation.
If someone recommends a film, book, play, or concert from which they stand to profit, that's advertising.

This distinction was made months ago. Pay attention.

(BTW, Michael Moore is being interviewed in the College of Surgeons next Monday, 7.00. Its organised by Easons, and tickets are a fiver. Presumably there'll also be a reading from his book or a showing of clips from the film)

by IMC Dalek Wed Nov 13, 2002 12:58

But you said it shouldn't have been posted.
Typical duplicity.

You have now advertised a commercial launch of a book. You really must revel in hypocrisy.

by Ray Wed Nov 13, 2002 13:41

I've got a big scoreboard here beside my desk, where I write up all the times I've put one over on you Dalek. That's why indymedia was set up, or didn't you know?

by pat c Wed Nov 13, 2002 14:00

Well you certainly exposed yet more of Rays two faced activities.

Yes I contributed the bloody sunday piece & it was attacked by ray as being commercial. He then even managed to attack the ken loach film "land and freedom" as being commercial.

The reality is that postings will be censored or deleted depending on the mood of Ray and other IMC censors. Consistency has nothing to do with it.

by Ray Wed Nov 13, 2002 16:27

If only Pat would condescend to get involved in the running of IMC. All our problems would be solved! Alas, the risk of contamination is too great for him - if Pat were to contribute to the mailing lists or (horrors!) come along to a meeting, next thing you know he'd be wearing a sash and singing God Save The Queen. Being the IMC's watchdog can't be an easy task, and its one that would have reduced a lesser man to a raving lunatic - we're so lucky to have Pat watching out for us!

by pat c Wed Nov 13, 2002 17:48

i didn't really expect an answer regarding his hypocrisy.

hes incapable of explaining why an ad for the commercial mike moore film is ok but one for the bloody sunday film isnt.

hes incapable of explaining why his ad for the commercial moore book is ok but one for the shelley book should be deleted.

ray you are a two faced hypocrite & none of your silly attempts at satire or sophistry will allow you to escape that fact.

"pull down thy vanity,
thou art a a beaten dog
beneath the hail."

by IMC Dalek Wed Nov 13, 2002 17:59

I have noticed how the IMC high and mighty lately have reffered to critics as "headcases" , "paranoid shizophrenics" and now "raving lunatics". You see if you disagree with them you must be mad.

Quite simple.

Ray also mentioned the danger of IMC involvement causing you to sing "God Save The Queen". Again its obvious critics of IMC are all raving Republicans.

The term West Brit was over used here (and its use should be discontinued) but there are undoubtdly pro imperialists on Indy and even some in IMC. Did Ray leave his Anti Imperialism behind when he left the WSM?

by Ray Wed Nov 13, 2002 18:04

I _knew_ I'd forgotten something.

Could everyone keep an eye out for my anti-imperialism next time they're in the Bachelor?

Don't bother looking for my anarchist principles or my faculty for critical thinking - I had to hand them over when I joined the IMC Cabal.

(On the bright side, they gave me a badge and a secret decoder ring, as well as teaching me some cool handshakes, so I think I did well out of the deal)

by Phuq Hedd Wed Nov 13, 2002 20:12

While reading Episode 27 of Series 1 of the "Ray'n'Pat Show" is amusing, perhaps we could talk about the film instead?

Although Moore is fun ( I would really like to see "Corporate Cops", his spoof of what a _real_ crime program would look like), there are several irritating things in the movie (btw it's available as a DivX pirated download if you look for it!):
1. Moore cites statistics for gun deaths in the US versus Canada, but they're not _per_capita_ numbers (admittedly there's still at least an order of magnitude to explain once that's taken into account).

2. Moore doesn't break down the figures to explain how many of the shooting deaths come from the pigs gunning down citizens.

3. He takes cheap shots at the concept of the right-to-bear-arms by setting up the laughable figureheads of McVeigh's brother and Charlton Heston.

4. He neglects to point out that Sweden and Switzerland have comparable gun-ownership levels and lower gun-death rates.

All of this leaves a weak, emotional argument which implies that restricting guns would be advantageous because the American character has some fatal flaw that is not held by other nations (he implies the flaw comes from their history of invading other countries and murdering the citizens of democracies).

Oh yeah, he also claims that Torontonians don't lock their doors. Bullshit. He sets up Canada as a Utopia of free-health-care, open-doors, civility etc. It's better than the U.S.A., but it's still a far way from Utopia (check some of the Canadian indymedias!). Before Seattle even happened demonstrators were being pepper-sprayed at the APEC summit in Vancouver and the Prime Minister (Chretien) joked about "Pepper? I put pepper on my steak. Ha hah". Canada also has an appalling record of treating the aboriginal inhabitants (First Nations), a couple of years ago this got so bad that the Cree had roadblocks with light machine-guns on them so that they could blockade roads in protest. A Crown Commission report recommend _huge_ changes in 1995 none of which have been implemented.

by Ollie - Katalyzer Thu Nov 14, 2002 03:51

Well, well ,well, some things never change. I pop into indymedia-land every now and den, and , lo and behold, politico-structural arguments abound.
Ray ,Pat C, IMC Dalek, de Bouys, get a room, as GerManic boy says to Homer and Bart in dat episode...
Lads, things beyond the potential nuiances of emphasis of non-deleted mails' political bias also happen...its called trying not to post other people's stuff and passing it off as your own. AKA Free movement of information, without inhibiting other's rights to post.
As regards stats use, Moore is makin a 'high -impact' documentary ,so what works, works. Sometimes micro, sometimes macro figures; sometimes comparative, sometimes not; sometimes contextualised, sometimes not. People work and live on soundbites, Moore realises this and acts accordingly. Fair Play.
To mention that the per capitia (what exactly is that ?) figure for Canada and US aren't mentioned, is, IMO, overly pernicity.
Phuq Hedd...I reckon you would, in a different conversation, back up that documentary to the hilt. Surely Michael Moore is an Antidote to the madness of America, and that needs to be, on some level ,supported. At least supported. :
As it happens:
1: 31,000,000 live in Canada.
165 gun-related deaths.
USA 287,400,000 (not in trailer, .: ref: http://www.prb.org)
c. 11,000 deaths (its too late for me to go and check exactly how '11,000y' 11,000 is - but its a fuckload.)
Therefor, (or; '.:')For every 26,127 people , 1 gets shot in USA , and for every
187,000 in Canada, 1 gets shot.
So its more likely to get shot in the US than Canada.
2: Pig figures are, to some very real extent, important. But he can be forgiven for leaving them out. That, in itself, is another film. Yes, he could have 'gone there;, but, why do a half arsed job? Why half tell two full stories? Why not do one thing properly?
3: 'Laughable figureheads'? ... whatever... oh yea, I forgot, relative levels of 'esteem' Charlton Heston is held in, amongst older US Gun owners is common knowledge in Ireland...I mean really...
4: And no, socio-economic, cultural and 'relative measures of happiness and contentment' aren't cross-compared between Sweeden and the US in this 2 hour documentary. Let's shoot that bastard Michael Moore.
(Imaginary #5) As the southpark choir sings..."blame Can-id-a"
OK I've been a bit OTT, but this guy seems Ok - Michael Moore that is. And I didn't just cut n paste stuff accross and make it into an article. I wrote a tiny bit and gave a link to a genuinely funny 3.18 minute cartoon depicting an alternative history of America (Southpark style, but with more direct/overt politics) and to the site in general. And, as mentioned, I've nothin to do with the film etc. Maybe indymedia editorial guys aren't 100% right 100% of the time. They do a better job than most overpaid bureaucrats and businessmen do for 6 figure sums, IMO, never mind volunteers on an alternative news/info site.

Snap the fuck out of it.

No one in particular, just politico-structuralist IMC contributers. Just once.

by Daithi Thu Nov 14, 2002 04:23 in exile

Right. Editorial hat off for a moment as I really don't want to get into the ads thing again...

Yeah. Michael Moore. I went to see the film in a cinema here (Canada). Funnily enough when I came out of the cinema I didn't recognise the city I had seen on screen. Actually some of it wasn't in Toronto but in Sarnia, but that's a minor point.

Sure, I'd rather be here than in the US. But PH is right..it's a gross oversimplification. And I like the film, but I can't let this go. Just a sample of the current issues from last few week's papers here:

* Racial profiling by Toronto police against black Canadians. Figures released that are pretty stark.

* Tent City (essentially a small shanty town on derilict land) evicted

* Pope Squat (Ontario Coalition Against Poverty) evicted on "fire safety" ground by Fire Services and police. I guess homeless people are more at risk from a loose socket than the disease-ridden shelters. I should mention that rent control was effectively abolished by the "Tenant Protection Act" a few years back. About as well named as the Partnership For Peace.

* Privatisation of electricity supply is an unmitigated disaster; Tory government now freezing the rates and paying the difference to the private utilities

* Business groups working pretty strongly to stop Kyoto being ratified

* Creeping entry of private-sector healthcare and a government that would rather keep taxes down than put money into what was once a great system

* Chronic underfunding of public transit and a huge amount of money going into a train-line-to-nowhere in a rich part of the city. Which is by coincidence the area of the current mayor.

* University tuition fees? some schools now at $22,000 per year.

* Muslims being harassed at the US border and a foreign minister who says "It's not our problem"

Just cause the US is a mess doesn't make Canada ("Soviet Canuckistan", according to Pat Buchanan..ha! bet you thought he was gone) perfect.

by Pat C Thu Nov 14, 2002 12:21

I did not start the argument here. My name was mentioned & I corrected misinformation given by Ray.

What I object to is double standards.

There is one law for the IMC censors like Ray, he can post ads for the commercial moore book launch which you have to pay €5 to get into. But he supports the deletion of an ad for the Shelly book launch which was free in.

Ditto regarding the moore film versus the bloody sunday film.

In IMC all are equal, but some are more equal than others.

by Aidan Thu Nov 14, 2002 14:40

Pat if you'll check you'll see your "bloody sunday" piece is still up on the newswire it wasn't deleted.

So suggesting it was is untrue. Allowing Ray the right to "attack" your piece is also allowed, you also have the same right, if you recall the only comment of yours was censored because?

Secondly the Shelley book launch was replaced with a version which did not have the advertisement details at the bottom of it. I.E. where to buy the book outside the launch.

So suggesting that there is a double standard is untrue.

Finally Ray nor I have editorial rights on the site at the moment so gibbering on about him censorsing at the moment is also untrue

by Aidan Thu Nov 14, 2002 14:42

the mention of the book launch is made as a comment in addition to the article, not in the body of the article as you imply

by pat c Thu Nov 14, 2002 14:58

the facts are:

the original shelly item was deleted. ray supported this deletion and continues to do so.

the reposting was only allowed to stay up because of the controversy which resulted. (thats what you wrote at the time)

i never implied rays ad for a commercial book launch which costs €5 to get in was in the main article.

my point about double standards stands. ray wants certain articles deleted because of his own prejudices. but he wants other commercial items left up.

this is two-faced to say the least.

a bloody sunday film which will make small bucks is commercial but the moore film which is making megabucks is not. what kind of logic is that?

i'm just glad that neither of you can delete anything.

by IMC Dalek Thu Nov 14, 2002 16:03

Aidan at least tries to justify what is going on.

Ray shows the synptoms of a leading cult member. The rules for everyone else do not apply to him . He is happy to flaunt it.

Hey guys I hear there is a Starship waiting for you on the dark side of the Moon. Now before it comes to pick you up, you just have to drink this bitter fruit juice...

oh, and dont forget to put on the silver jumpsuits and lie in a circle.

by Ray Thu Nov 14, 2002 16:15

that the Moore film isn't commercial. It clearly is, just like the Bloody Sunday film is, just like the Shelley book is. Budget and likely profits don't come into it. The people behind all of those projects are paid for their work, and the more people buy their work the more they get paid. That means they have a commercial interest in advertising those works.

Ollie doesn't work for Michael Moore (as far as I know), and neither do I. We have nothing to gain from telling people about the film or book. That means neither of our posts are advertising.

This distinction was made _months_ ago, when somebody posted an article about a film that was on at the IFC. I think its an obvious and important distinction, and I'm satisfied that IMC has been pretty good at applying it.

If you don't agree, the open and democratic way in which indymedia is run offers you some simple options.
1. You can post to the main newswire list, proposing a change in the editorial guidelines, to redefine or remove the ban on advertising. This may lead to a change in the guidelines, if the other people on the list find your arguments convincing.
2. You can post to the editorial list, arguing for this guideline to be applied or not in cases as they come up. There have been some lively debates on the editorial list in the past, and I'm sure there'll be more in the future. If you can construct a convincing argument then you've a chance of getting your way.
3. You can wail and moan on the newswire about the double-standards you think are applied, the secret cabal that runs the IMC, and the bogeyman under your bed who comes out when you turn off the lights. This will almost certainly lead to people writing you off as a paranoid obsessive, and whatever salient points you have being dismissed as the same old rantings.

The choice is completely up to you.

by IMC Dalek Thu Nov 14, 2002 17:07

You supported the deletion of the Shelly book, this was a low printrun book, admission was free. Yet you posted an ad for the bestselling moore book launch which costs €5 to get into.

This has got nothing to do with anyone getting on the lists and discussing IMC policy. Its got everything to do with your hypcrisy.

You think commercial ads for books should be deleted. Unless you are the person who does the posting. You really are drunk with power. If this how IMC has warped you, then I'll stay away from your cult. I'll do my posting and make my criticisms on the newswire.

The very fact that no one in IMC is going to delete your ad proves that some on indymedia are more equal than others.(I dont think the Moore Ads should be deleted.)

This is not paranoia. Its simply stating facts.

by Ray Thu Nov 14, 2002 17:23

- You supported the deletion of the Shelly book, this was a low printrun book, admission was free.

Print run is irrelevant. Most books have a small initial print run, and if that sells out they go back for a second printing. Admission to the _launch_ was free, the book itself was not. The ad for the book and launch was posted by someone who stood to gain from increased sales, therefore it was an advertisement.

- Yet you posted an ad for the bestselling moore book launch which costs €5 to get into.

I let people know about the interview because people had expressed an interest in Michael Moore. I have nothing to gain from people turning up, I have no personal interest in the sales of his book or the profits from his film (and neither does Ollie). Therefore its not an advertisement.

I've explained this distinction to you again and again. Is it a problem with the language? Should I try it in French? In words of one syllable? Do you have an interesting form of blindness that prevents you from seeing the words 'personal interest'? Do the Daleks constitute a hivemind that does not understand the word 'personal'? Are you just personally incapable of letting go?

Whatever your problem is, I think I've explained that distinction often enough. Unless your next complaint (and I'm sure there'll be one) demonstrates that you've (finally) understood it I don't think there's much point in replying to you again.

by IMC Dalek Thu Nov 14, 2002 17:56

What gives with ray? Words mean different things to him than to other people. Maybe hes like humtedy dumpedy, who made words mean what he chose them to mean.

Anyway he thinks that by spewing forth words in volume he can change reality.

Why do you think you have so many critics?
Are we all obessed?
Are we all paranoid?

I venture the men in the white coats are more likely to come for you than for us.

by Tamerlane Thu Nov 14, 2002 18:14

You are seeing the Dictatorship of the Middle Class in action.

If Ray and his buddies ever get in to power we had better watch out. If this is how they behave when they are running a penny ante outfit like IMC, what would they be like with real power?

Ray and his 'Anarchist' Cheka will get you!

by Phuq Hedd Thu Nov 14, 2002 18:32

I'm not saying that your post should be taken down, I think it's fine. It's a link to information that other people here will probably find useful.

W.r.t. the film: I might defend certain aspects of it in another conversation, yes! But it depends very much on what the conversation is.

I was disappointed with the "Bowling for Columbine" because it over-stated its case. That's going to mean that it's easier for people that don't agree with Moore's politics to make it seem as though the whole thing is a farrago of lies because they can easily pull apart a lot of his hyperbole. It's like a lot of Moore: fun, tabloid journalism from a "right on" perspective.

B.t.w. there've been accusations from his right-wing critics that during his massively popular "Stupid White Men" book tour on the West Coast of the U.S.A. he refused to leave a school auditorium at the agreed time http://www.leftwatch.com/articles/2002/000034.html so that the janitorial crew could start their night shift. Reportedly they had to call the cops to get him to leave. Moore presented this as himself being censored http://www.theconversation.org/mooreupdate.html which seems like hyperbole again.

I don't know if this is true, I know people have emailed him to ask about it, but it shows a certain disregard for the "little folks" if it's true. Might be worthwhile someone asking him at the College of Surgeons.

At any rate, yes he's interesting, but he's perhaps not the best critic of the administration as he is too sloppy and provides a convenient distraction from more accurate critics such as Zinn, Chomsky and Hermann, Pilger, Fiske, Roy.

If you do see the film and you already agree with him then you'll be disappointed that it doesn't go far enough. If you don't want to agree with him then you'll find plenty in it to justify your dismissal.

Meanwhile Moore gets rich as the official popular opposition.

by Aidan Fri Nov 15, 2002 00:44

I noticed you've avoided my answers to your questions in another thread. See your comments on the gardas charged threat. I stand over what was said there.

No Pat the repost stayed up because the people who objected to the orginal post were statisfied with the new wording. The debate was an added bonus. You're grabing at straws to prove your "point" here.

IMC Dalek, how many ways can this be said till you grasp this Ray is an individual who has involved himself in a few meeting he does not nor never has editorial rights to the site and ranting about him is such crap.

Pat said bloody sunday film is looking like a storming sucess in the US and the possibility of potential oscar status. Considering your long rants about low budget independent films deserving space on indymedia, will this sucess retract your championing of this film? people involved in Indymedia feel that no commerical product should gain special status, of course you disagree but when a film becomes the darling "radical" of the american middle class will you retract your position?

This is our point, we're trying (it's not easy to be impartial) you're demanding a bias to causes you like the tone and content of a specfic film.

Pat before we go on I should point out I worked as an assistant sound editor on "bloody sunday". I consider it to be the best and most worthwhile thing I've ever done in my line of work, but I don't consider Indymedia as a suitable forum to promote a film. Even a film that I'm immensely proud, gain nothing from it's promotion (I've been paid) and feel it should be seen. I donot see Indymedia as aforum to advertise films no mater how worthwhile.

Finally theres an interesting article in todays Guardian Phud Head, Moore says, and I believe him that he donates between a third and a half of his income to groups and charities which makes him beyond generous.

by pat c Fri Nov 15, 2002 14:04

i will continue to point out duplicity on indy as i see it. (and i'm not the only one who sees it this way)

the excuses given for delleting the shelly item were at best 1/2witted.

by Aidan Fri Nov 15, 2002 18:31

Threaten to attend a IMC meeting with "twin machetes"

Pat trying to come off as a rational voice now, is a bit late in the game.

by pat c Fri Nov 15, 2002 18:36

did u take that seriously? did u take rays suggestions of human sacrifice & satanism on another thread seriously?

come on now aidan.

by Tamerlane Fri Nov 15, 2002 19:26

your lies and distortions on the other thread.

'bout the flicks, you are ignoring the point that Ray (blessed be his name) wanted Bloody Sunday deleted but in his usual hypocritical manner wanted different reatment for the Moore film.

I hope the Dalek has more to say 'bout this.

by Aidan Fri Nov 15, 2002 23:31

Pat considering you've previously threatened to use physical violence at Indymedia meetings on a seperate threat, I'm not behaving irrationally.

Furthermore you've consistently praised violent tactics by the IRA, INLA, and Palestinians in other threads, and talked about your willingness to use violence to back up your arguments and worldview. You've made threats and boasted about previous fights. Simply put Pat you've consistently used violent language and supported the use of violence, so I'm not taking anything you say lightly or humourously.

Tamerlane. Which lies/exaggerations exactly? care to elaborate? You raised a point, made a few snide accusations, I responded, and you don't raise them again. Come out and say them. What exactly didn't you believe and what do you disagree with? Spit it out. A title was changed because it was untrue, the new version is better and I explained my reasoning.

by Aidan Fri Nov 15, 2002 23:40

Ray didn't want it deleted, he argued that it was againist the ideas of Indymedia but respected the ideas that others might disagree.

It's his opinion, not necessarily the opinion of the IMC collective. You may dislike his opinion, fine, but I don't see why you and Pat revell in Ray bashing.

by Phuq Hedd Sat Nov 16, 2002 23:16

Found the link in the Guardian that you referred to. It is indeed generous of him to give away so much of his income. I still don't see him as much of a critic though and I think he is a distraction from people that make stronger cases against what's wrong with america.
Here's the link in case someone else is interested:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,6737,839688,00.html

There's a really good two part interview here:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,6737,841083,00.html

Here's a review that I largely agree with:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian_Film_of_the_week/0,4267,839840,00.html

except that it (and I earlier) didn't mention the one part of BFC that I found quite moving: it was the section that dealt with a 9 year old kid that had shot another kid with a handgun that he found in his uncle's house. The reason that his mother was living there with him and wasn't around to stop him bringing the gun to school was that she had been forced to take two minimum wage jobs by Clinton's "Welfare to Work" reforms. Even then they were barely able to survive. Moore catches up with the sleaze bag that ran the restaurant chain where the mother did a "minimum wage" job.
(There's a great book that goes into the min-wage trap "Nickled and Dimed: On Not Getting-by In America" by Barbara Ehrenreich).

by Aidan Mon Nov 18, 2002 14:11

neither of you has bothered to get round to responding. I'll consider the matter closed tamerlane, and I'd appreciate if you'd keep your false accusations to yourself in future

by pat c Tue Nov 19, 2002 12:53

i usually take a break from indy at weekends, this was a long wknd. idont want to get obsessed..

"Pat considering you've previously threatened to use physical violence at Indymedia meetings on a seperate threat, I'm not behaving irrationally."

i did so previously after a threat of violence was made against me. check up on your facts. i didn't see you objecting to his threat.

"Furthermore you've consistently praised violent tactics by the IRA, INLA, and Palestinians in other threads,"

so, the conor cruise obrien mentality rules in imc. because i dont condemn certain groups out of hand, i'm aterrorist myself. this is the sot of mindset which led to pat finucane being seen as a legitimate target. i didn't expect it from an imc champion.
"and talked about your willingness to use violence to back up your arguments and worldview. You've made threats and boasted about previous fights."

when challenged about what i had done, i made it clear that i dont just talk. yes, i have physically protected pro choice & anti racist events & i am proud of doing so. i have also been in conflict with state forces. should i apologise for that?.

by Aidan Tue Nov 19, 2002 16:18

Pat that threat came from an anonymous source, you then threatened to come to an IMC meeting.

What were you planning on doing beating us all up, so you'd get the right one eventually? Even though you'd no proof it was someone who'd arrive at meetings.

I didn't say not condone, I said cheered, you've revelled in reports of violence, and boasted of previous conflicts.

Furthermore I never said you had to apologise, I'm saying that after what you've said and threatened to do, you look vaguely comical trying to come off as calm and rational.

But I'm breaking a promise to myself by speaking to you again.

by pat c Tue Nov 19, 2002 18:51

Pat that threat came from an anonymous source, you then threatened to come to an IMC meeting.

"What were you planning on doing beating us all up, so you'd get the right one eventually? Even though you'd no proof it was someone who'd arrive at meetings."

the person wrote as if he was active in imc. i suggested a meet up at an imc mtg after he threatened to "knock me sideways". you have to twist everything dont you?

"I didn't say not condone, I said cheered, you've revelled in reports of violence, and boasted of previous conflicts."

i have supported those who fight against imperialism. i made no boasts. i made it clear that i dont operate from an armchair or pc, i have defended my beliefs against ypouth defence, racists & southern unionists.

"Furthermore I never said you had to apologise, I'm saying that after what you've said and threatened to do, you look vaguely comical trying to come off as calm and rational."

you certainly implied that i had done something wrong. who ever said i wanted to come off callm & rational? thats a ohrase you keep repeating. your own interminable rants are hardly rational.

"But I'm breaking a promise to myself by speaking to you again. "

you're not speaking to me. you are writing (well, typing). anyway, i have no great desire to have any further discourse with you.