Update:Will checked his comments yesterday and discovered he was not the "William" in question. He graciously writes, "I'd like to claim that it's been a more challenging year than usual for me, but that doesn't excuse my over-sensitivity anyway. I hope Roberta will accept my apology; I was out of line and out of order."
I do accept his apology, which is very much in order and lined up. Status quo ante, Will; you're not so silly after all.
Or, No, They Are Not Always Talking About You
Found myself with an unlooked-for link today, from some guy who links to me sometimes, and who some of the people I read link to -- and I write that as some chick most readers know only 'cos Tam links to me occasionally, so don't mistake me for any kind of big-noise blogger. I do this for the fun of it and for the writerly exercise of having to put semi-coherent words on a screen every day.
Seems he is accusing me of, and I quote, "Gratuitous Innuendo," leading off by telling me to, "Just drop it woman."
Until today, he was a fellow I barely knew online and towards whom I bore, at worst, mild goodwill. What's got him spun up is a post in which I described how the Nazi-wannabe Djørk in Norway exploited people's normal deference to a cop and cited two chaps who are an example of what happened in one case when even a mild manner wasn't enough, the abusive, threatening behavior of Canton, Ohio Police Officer Daniel Harless towards one "William" (William Bennett, according to later reports).
You see, my offended linker's name --or nom-de-web -- is William, too.
To cap it off, he ends thus: "While I quite enjoy your extra-planetary fiction (I suppose an autograph for my copy of the book is right out), your more down-to-Earth delusions - at least as they involve myself - are becoming tiresome and quite rude. Please desist."
Ahead of that is some unclear thing about how he appears to believe I have twitted him over not thinking that shooting a guy in the back of the head could ever, ever be self-defense. I do not recall having done so [nevertheless I did, see update at 1], have difficulty imagining a scenario outside a James Bond movie where shooting a person facing away could be self-defense and can only conclude he's blown some throwaway comment by someone, maybe me, maybe he only thinks it was me, into a titanic Internet diss war, the stuff of song and legend.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Until today, I barely noticed you, William, and if you wanted an autograph on my little hack pulp, it only costs a note to me and postage both ways; that offer is open to anyone who actually paid good money for the thing. If I was going to call you out, I'd do it directly, I'd do it plainly and I'd link you ya to be sure you'd see it. Here's how it would look:
I wasn't talking about you, William. You have imagined some level of discourse between us that does not exist and I find you a silly, silly man, seeing slights and digs where none existed.
See? No innuendo. Oh, one more thing: I'd be pleased if you'd take me off your blogroll. I am painfully shy and suffer from a significant amount of social anxiety. I'm barely capable of dealing with most people even over the Internet and you, sir, you have made yourself exceptional that way. I do not care to be linked to by you. You have become, as one blogger once wrote, "...tiresome and quite rude. Please desist."
1. Update: found it! Tell me, if you were in line at the convenience store, the person ahead of line pulled a gun or a knife on the cashier and you beaned the robber with a milk bottle or whatever was in your hands, would he fail to turn away from his intended victim and towards you? It's a Walter Mitty scenario and one I work to avoid, but what you cannot avoid, you'd better confront).
2. I do think shooting mass-murdering mad dogs in the back, front or side of the head (or elsewhere) while they are themselves initiating force is something of a public service but I have come to accept that not everyone -- including some prosecutors -- feels that way and that fewer still ever get the chance.
2 weeks ago