In a post from last week, I made an egregious error in assuming that the author of a blog about which I wrote was a male.
I was flamed back, which studies have shown is usually characteristic of male internet users, with a rather undeserved attack on my ethics. I thought that it was all said-and-done when I responded August 3rd with an email to the email of the author:
Honestly, when you said that marijuana does F*^# with your memory in your post, I laughed out loud. But I knew that if I included what you wrote followed by what I wrote, it wouldn’t be funny. That is the sole reason I made a joke at your expense, and for that, I appologize profusely.
However, when you go about attacking my ethics and comparing me to a corrupt journalist, you’ve gone too far. I didn’t personally attack you in my post linking to your blog. But I must have hit a nerve for you to attack me with such fervor.
And I don’t appreciate being called a “presumptuous dick.” You gave no indication of your gender in the post I read, so maybe I should have written “he/she” or “the marijuana lover” or the “cannabis consumer?”
However, my appology must have fallen on deaf ears, because Monday I got yet another comment to my post I Guess English Class Wasn’t as Important as Popularity stating that if I didn’t post the comment, the Cannabis Consumer would.
I went to the other site, and the flame was already there! I didn’t even have time to post the comment after I received the second comment before it she took action!
Does the author of Popnomination really expect to get anywhere by using foul and inappropriate language? Does she really not understand what I wrote in the email? That yes, I liked the joke about marijuana messing with your memory so much that I used it myself – at her expense?
Maybe I spent too much time learning the rules of grammar, but I certainly didn’t warrant such an attack as this:
Mark Kerrigan, owner of a blog called the “Communications factors: You have only one chance to make a first impression,” included Popnomination.Com in a post called “I Guess English Class Wasn’t As Important As Popularity.”
He omitted information from my blog post Orgy of the Hemp Eaters essentially to retell a joke I had already made. I tried to leave a comment responding but he denied it! So here is the comment I tried to leave:
Dear Mark,In all fairness, the paragraph immediately preceding the one you quoted from my blog acknowledges that marijuana really does impair a person’s memory. I wrote:
“Honestly, I love this stuff. Did I say that already? Fair enough: It’s true it fu–s with your memory a little. But it’s only temporary.”
You appear to have omitted that minor detail just so you could make a joke about weed making people forgetful, a joke I had already made. You made the joke twice, actually: “I guess he didn’t remember it” and “maybe he forgot!”
Mark, don’t you know a joke isn’t funny when told a second time? If you had included my paragraph it wouldn’t have been funny after being told a third time. Maybe you forgot.
You’re like a corrupt journalist who quotes people out of context. I guess the ethics portion of your studies weren’t as important to you as the grammar lessons.
You own a social/business networking platform huh? Tsk, tsk Mark Kerrigan. Being a douche bag isn’t very professional and it certainly isn’t good for your social life. (Is there a hyphen in douche bag? Oh my god I don’t know!)
By the way, it is not mandated by the gods of grammar that a person use a comma after the word “and.”
Anyways, I believe it was Shakespeare who said, “Arguing over the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you’re still retarded.
PS I’m not a “he” you presumptuous dick.
Thanks for the link!
If anyone can find a picture of this guy please send. I’d like to photoshop a dick going into his ear.
I have appologized, but I stand by my convictions that marijuana use is wrong. Maybe not for you, Ms. I’m-afraid-to-leave-my-name, but it is for me.
How ’bout it?