In which I sing a song for JonMon

[harrock.livejournal.com]

My creative energy has been just about zero lately, thanks to a very busy schedule at work. But I'll say this for JonMon: His Lawsuit of Mass Destruction has inspired me. My wife, firstfrost, has received a threat letter, but she is not yet named in the LMD. I'm proud of everything she has said about JonMon. I didn't need JonMon's validation to be proud of her, but data is data.

I haven't been named or threatened in the LMD (yet), and I don't mean to make light of the anxiety that it has caused in our community. In particular, if you have taken something down or remained silent thanks to JonMon's toolbox of intimidation, I want you to know that I think no less of you for it. Every situation is unique, and we all have our limits of what we can deal with right this minute. My limit is high right now, so I'm standing up.

Likewise, I respect the opinions of those who have counseled caution or outright silence. I disagree with some of your key points, and I feel that some of your arguments apply better to people who are more concerned with anonymity than I am, or who cannot afford to risk an extended legal fight. The bottom line for me is this: One of the basic functions of any community is to sound a warning when a predator is around. If we're not sure the law can handle that, then it's time to get out and push.

This song is about JonMon's Lawsuit of Mass Destruction, and it is sung to the tune of "Charlie on the M.T.A." Permission is hereby granted to $verb this song, for all values of $verb, for every human being on planet Earth with the exception of Jonathan Graves Monsarrat. No permission of any kind is willingly granted to Mr. Monsarrat. In case he hadn't noticed, that's what happens when you are in the habit of excreting on your community.

---

Let me tell you the story
Of a man named JonMon
Who would really like to have his way...
He's the internet icon
Who you can't use your Psych on
He's the man who never will learn!

  Oh, his bridges are burned
  Please don't let him return...
  'cause his lesson's still unlearn'd!
  He may scam forever
  In the Square of Davis
  He's the man who never will learn!

He used to go by JonMon
But his rep has gone creepy
What's a smooth operator to do?
When you need to sound wholesome
Though your act is still loathesome
Then I guess that "Johnny" will do.

  Oh, his bridges are burned
  Please don't let him return...
  'cause his lesson's still unlearn'd!
  He may lurk forever
  On the blogs of Davis
  He's the man who never will learn!

Johnny says he's a victim
Because people keep on talking
Of some things no court has ruled
He says "come on and prove it
Or I'll make you remove it"
He's amazed when nobody's fooled

  Oh, his bridges are burned
  Please don't let him return...
  'cause his lesson's still unlearn'd!
  First he's looking your pants off
  Then he's suing your ass off
  He's the man who never will learn!

In Johnny's world the only law
Is what he gets away with
'less it's something he can use
To club his detractors
And intimidate their backers
And escape from paying his dues

  Oh, his bridges are burned
  Please don't let him return...
  'cause his lesson's still unlearn'd!
  He will leave you disgusted
  His ways won't be adjusted
  He's the man who never will learn!

Now the citizens of Davis Square
Are standing up to Johnny
And we all know what to do
When he says that you've been served...
And whines "I'm not a perv"
Just smile, and answer "fuck you!"

  Oh, his bridges are burned
  Please don't let him return...
  'cause his lesson's still unlearn'd!
  He'll play his games forever
  In the Square of Davis
  He's the man who never will learn!
  He's the man...who never will learn!

Comments

[moechus.livejournal.com]

I use the King James translation like most people. Again, you miss my point which is based on one simple and unassailable observation: only the Gospels purport to give an account of the life and sayings of Jesus. The Old Testament doesn't, nor do the Acts of the Apostles, nor Paul's epistles. Ever since the Biblical canon was closed (4th century or so), there has been a long and often respected tradition of focusing on the life and sayings of Jesus (to be sure, Giordano Bruno was burned for it and today's evangelicals reject it). It was especially prominent in the 18th century Enlightenment, e.g., Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson (who went so far as produce his own version of the Bible based strictly on the Gospels). It has more recently gained renewed prominence with the discovery of previously unknown texts purporting to be the sayings of Jesus, e.g., in the work of Elaine Pagels. And I'm hardly the first to notice the close resemblance between the teachings of Jesus and those of the Buddha. Joseph Campbell is just one prominent example.

You find my prose dense? Ah well. I try to be as clear as possible and I think I usually succeed. Would you prefer that I write in loose fragments? Would that be easier? The burden of communication may be on the communicator but he shouldn't be required to assume a complete lack of effort on the part of the reader. For example, I write "Theologically, I am an agnostic pagan; ethically, I try to be a Christian." What could possibly be clearer than that I am making a distinction between theology and ethics? How could I be make that distinction clearer than by the contrast of "theologically" and "ethically"? Yet somehow you repeatedly missed that distinction. Since it requires only the most minimal effort, I disclaim all responsibility for your failure to recognize it; I made it more than clear enough.

I too have better things to spend mental effort on than LJ, For one thing, I do enough reading so that simple prose like mine (and it really is pretty simple) doesn't seem dense and I don't miss elementary contrasts.

[also-huey.livejournal.com]

I try to be as clear as possible and I think I usually succeed.

"But of course you are, my dear."

I do enough reading so that simple prose like mine (and it really is pretty simple) doesn't seem dense and I don't miss elementary contrasts.

If someone isn't understanding what you're saying, you really have two useful options: rephrase, or admit "I'm sorry, I can't really say it any clearer than that". You have chosen Option #3: insult your audience, suggesting that communicating is not really the point of the exercise, and you're about to take your ball and go home.

...and that's fine.

[moechus.livejournal.com]

No, I chose the second option. Communication is indeed the point but I really can't it say any clearer than I did. How could I have made the fact that I was making a distinction between theology and ethics any clearer than by contrasting the words "theologically" and "ethically"? I'm sorry but if you can't catch the distinction phrased thus, then it really is your fault.

[anyee.livejournal.com]

"I use the King James translation like most people. Again, you miss my point which is based on one simple and unassailable observation: only the Gospels purport to give an account of the life and sayings of Jesus."

Which is why the concepts I threw at you were from the Gospels. The fig tree parable was in Luke. The line about achieving holiness through Jesus is in John. Leaving your family is from Luke. Are you saying that I'm confusing Paul for the Gospels or are you willfully ignoring the interpretations I am taking from the same fucking source material?

What you're saying is that some number of people (n) see Jesus and the Buddha are the same.I know the Gospels pretty well, thank you Catholic upbringing. I know the message is superficially like that of the Buddha, but once you scrape past the surface, the paths diverge significantly. You don't need Paul to see that Jesus is preaching about a life thereafter full of holiness and a very different way of achieving it (versus that preached by the Buddha). Being nice to people is meshed with accepting Jesus as the savior...or were you and I reading a very different Gospel of Luke?

"You find my prose dense? Ah well. I try to be as clear as possible and I think I usually succeed. Would you prefer that I write in loose fragments"

And now you're just being obtuse. You use Shakespeare, which I call out as being dense, then backpedal and reassign it to your writing style. I write in fragments because this isn't a legal brief or a dissertation. This is a computer post that I'm slapping out in the space of 10 minutes or so. I don't need to string together paragraphs when in this setting, brevity is preferred.

"What could possibly be clearer than that I am making a distinction between theology and ethics? "

Christian ethics and Christian theology are intertwined.The basis for the ethics is the theology. You can't skim the top off, as I said, and pretend that the base doesn't exist. At best, it's like listening to Wagner as a Jew, when you need to actively accept that he made wonderful music while being a hateful person. To avoid being in that mental space, why even use the word? You can be nice to people without even referring to Christianity. Call it tikkun olam. Call it a variant of dharma. Are Jews and Hindus just not cool enough for you? Or do you use Christianity because the plebes will have an easier time understanding it.

You can insult me and I will insult right back. I'm a very persistent forum troll.

[moechus.livejournal.com]

You certainly seem to have had the Catholic interpretation of Christianity beaten into you. Suffice it that there are others.There was this little thing called the Reformation, which gave rise to myriad other interpretations, some very close to the Catholic, some very different.

Call me out on quoting Shakespeare. He has some difficult passages but the one I quoted ain't one of them. I can be sure whether it was freshman or sophomore year in high school that we read Hamlet in English class. It was one or the other (I had read it several years earlier). That should give you an idea of reading level required.

You may intertwine Christian ethics and Christian theology but it is not necessary and one can argue (as Jefferson did repeatedly in his letters) that it is theology that is the scum to be skimmed off the ethics rather than vice versa as you think. Forgive my obtuseness as you call it and let me throw another quote at you, this time from Benjamin Franklin (I am far more agnostic than he concerning the existence of a Creator and the immortality of the soul but agree almost completely concerning Jesus):

"Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by his Providence.That he ought to beworshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal,and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever Sect I meet with them.

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble."

If you had read what I have written here, you would see that I hardly limit myself to Christianity. I have invoked Buddhism, the philosophy of Schopenhauer and quoted the Hindu Upanishads (tat tvam asi). I see no reason to exclude Christianity.