On Mar 4, 2010, at 7:14 PM, imago Asthetik wrote: > whether we agree with Mr Miller or not, he has of late been one of the most > active posters, and has been offering his own reading notes of books he > finds worthwhile. We may disagree with his tastes, but this is still a > service, and we should not dismiss him or his efforts to keep this list > vibrant so easily.
I disagree with you on this point. Until recently, Miller never started a topic, but he readily sabotaged every other thread and turned it to his favorite subject. In fact, in the past, I suggested to him that, instead of lying in wait to ambush the artist or theory advanced by other members, he should on his own initiative propose or advocate for a given artist, theory, historical epoch, school of production, etc. He ignored the suggestion. He has not held up anyone for out consideration on that person's own merits, but only as a counter-example to rebut someone else's message. In the last six months or so, Miller has initiated two threads, the recent one about Smith's book and an earlier one about another book. And how does he do go about discussing a book? Not by fairly quoting or summarizing the author and then, separately, offering a counter-argument. Instead, he recites or paraphrases one or two sentences or a paragraph, then proceeds to disassemble it by means of poor logic and almost invariably specious reasoning. If someone else begins a book review, as I did with Camille Paglia's Sexual Personae, he resorts to sniping from the hillside, not letting a theme or topic develop, circumventing issues and shooting others on the ground. I concede, he is an active poster for two reasons: he responds to practically every thread that is started, and then he poisons those threads by his incomprehensibly mangled way of writing, he stupendously stupid reasoning, his utter ignorance of history, and very often by ad hominem attacks or simple snarky comments. **And he does this for sport and amusement, as he has admitted on a number of occasions.** He greatly resembles what is called a "troll," a person who joins a list or blog for the purpose of baiting others and engaging in argumentative exchanges. I have tried to avoid his comments by deleting them, but others respond to his posts as if they have genuine merit. So the wit and wisdom of Burninglogic--an appropriate nom de plume--live on in the replies by others. Everyone else is a facilitator for his bad behavior. He so insulted me several years ago, referring to me as Sancho Panza to William's Don Quixote and then as schoolyard child--that I simply stopped sending in message for well over a year. He never missed a beat, and everybody else let him play along. > Suspending Mr Miller for the sake of Mr Conger sets a bad precedent. At the > very least, it undermines in principle the radically democratic potentials > of the medium, and suggests to those following silently that they might be > served better by remaining silent. This isn't a matter of principled radical democratic participation. Miller is both rude and disruptive. In every conversation or thread that someone starts, he joins in in quick order and immediately drags the topical focus to his single interest, so that in short order, we wind up talking about his distorted view of the villainy of the art establishment. As I said, in my view, there is nothing of merit in Miller's comments and participation. And what few and infrequent messages he posts with some sensible comment are completely negated by the overwhelming bulk of his relentlessly unpleasant, impolite, bigoted, and stupid messages. Let me remind everyone how many of you were greatly annoyed by Kirby Olson and his apparent disingenuousness, and you were relieved when he was dispatched. I don't remember any voices being raised in protest then. How is Miller's exile any different? I have lobbied off-list for his removal for a long time. I don't see his expulsion as some failing of comity or broad democratic principles. I see it as the application of good sense in escorting a rude, a persistently disruptive guest out the front door. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady
