Venom’s Gone Mad!

by Venomous Kate

Allow me to introduce the fourth member of the Envenomed, Mad William Flint, who not only remembers CBGB in its heyday as I do, but who has done an admirable job of getting under your skin, as a true Venomite should.

I’m so excited to have Anwyn, Jeff and Mad William joining me here at EV. Please make them feel welcome among us Venomites, folks. They hiss for all of us. Long may they hiss!

6 Comments to “Venom’s Gone Mad!”

  1. w00t!

    What I find positively hilarious is that with that particular comment I was quite precise in my language. “Jim” decided to read what he wanted to read and “Foxy” decided to read what (s)he wanted to read.

    People always will. :-)

  2. I read that link too and was amazed (but shouldn’t have been) that at the end of all that Jim went back to his blog and posted that conservatives were incapable of dialog (surprise!) and espousing “kill ‘em all” after it had clearly been explained to him that your comment had nothing to do with killing people.

    Myopic see-what-he-wants-to-see.

  3. What matters more: impact, or intent?

    If someone says a culture should be utterly destroyed, then does not reply to queries with any qualifiers to that statement, then the reader is left to interpret as they will.

    If Mad Bill had come back and say “well I didn’t mean DESTROY” … or “I didn’t mean UTTERLY.” or, “By CULTURE, I mean the following … ” Then we could have had a dialog.

    So you can blame me for misunderstanding the statement if you want. But doesn’t a good writer leave the intended impression. Does a good writer blame the reader for getting the wrong impression?

    Just wondering …

  4. First, because I’m nit-picky (;)), it’s Will. Not Bill.

    Second, yes, I understand where you’re coming from on the “That culture needs to die” comment. I’ve had other interactions with Mad William in which I liked the way he handled himself, even if our views aren’t always the same.

    Third, check your email.

  5. What matters more: impact, or intent?

    I could say the culture of fast food should be utterly destroyed. Would that imply the killing of any human beings?

    Honestly I think you widened the meaning of the stated words. And yes, a good writer could blame the reader for getting the wrong impression if it appeared as though that wrong impression was willful.

    That said, though, you’re right that he didn’t come back to clarify himself … but somebody else did and you staunchly refused the explanation he *may* have made … jump in here any time, William, if I’m misrepresenting you … that I certainly would have made if it had been me. Really, if “Foxy’s” explanation was not the correct one, then yeah, it was probably meant as closer to what you took it as, Jim, so you essentially refused to consider the other major possible interpretation, in my view.

  6. Well, since Will (not Bill, sorry) has been given a stamp of approval by Kate, he probably doesn’t want to engage in genocide. I realize that’s fallacious reasoning on my part, but … I’ll go with it.

    I must have misinterpretted Will, but he used inflammatory language. Maybe he didn’t mean to make it sound like it sounded. If he didn’t, his message is more subtle and complex and warrants further explanation, which I would be very interested in hearing.