Messages

Blight 2.

Q: Isn't that the whole point of choosing, as the editor, which interviews make it into the book?

A: Of course I will be making value judgements about which interviews suit my work better.

Of course I'm making judgments about if I'm willing to negotiate editorial decisions (other than in relation to their own interview) with people I interview (I'm not).

When I say I'm not making value judgments I'm saying that I don't think any one person is more important or more likeable or more interesting than any another. I am making choices about how I put my book together and those choices never amount to a personal assessment of how much I value one individual over another. 

Choosing not to give others input over the editing process (other than to veto or correct details of their own interview) or choosing to use or not use one of the interviews is part of me trying to create something of interest. It is not me pointing to people and saying 'I like you less' or 'I think you don't matter.' I cannot stop anyone who insists on taking my choices as a judgment of their personal value, but I don't do that.

Blight.

Q: So why mention him at all?
And
How is that representative of Discordia at all?

A: Some people seem to think I had some kind of list of Discordians where I hand picked the ones who were the most 'important' or 'classic' or the 'best representatives'' or whatever. 

I don't. 

I wanted to take myself away from any preconceived ideas of what I thought Discordianism was or meant, and hear it through the eyes of Discordians. For that reason my only measure of 'worthiness' for the interviews I have done and continue to do was 'do they self-identify as Discordian?' If they did, and were willing to give me the time for an interview, I wanted to do the interview. Actually even so, some of my favourite interviews have been people who have not explicitly self identified as Discordian, so hopefully that gives an idea of the breadth of who I was speaking to. The only interview subjects who offered an interview that I declined were refused because they would result in my making completely insane travel decisions (LA to Austin via Dakota for example).

So as far as the second question goes, if something is 'representative' of Discordia or not, is not something I'm addressing, although I have said previously in addressing concerns that I will note that Uncle BadTouch's views have been disavowed by large parts of the Discordian community.

As for the first, why mention Uncle BadTouch, one answer is that he meets the above criteria. Another is that he was kind of wrapped up in the early part of the book's process.

As mentioned there were mails from a number of people I now believe are Uncle BadTouch. His name was mentioned by the two of my Brisbane interviews where there had been conflicts, and then while Adam never named him, it was made clear to me by him that I was being played for a fool by the "original Discordians" I was in contact with: considering that he had never heard of them. Embarrassingly I had also asked Louise Lacy if she knew any of these names too, and she had, of course, no recollection.

This was all, I think, before the forum erupted with drama about Uncle BadTouch. But after that I also heard him mentioned in a handful of quotes in interviews, mostly (entirely? I think) in reference to the controversy. And then of course the controversy itself. So as far as why would I mention him, part of the answer is that he's been part of the story quite beyond my decision to interview him.

LMNO, all I can do is repeat that I'm not making judgments of importance. I was excited about your interview and disappointed that it didn't eventuate.

Nigel's Question. Why are you even still here talking about that to a bunch of people who didn't participate and don't matter with regards to your project as it panned out?

I said before, because I spoke up to correct some inaccuracies, that I would butt out unless people wanted to ask questions or if there was something too inaccurate to ignore. That's what I'm here for.

So, you're "stewarding your reputation", ala Ben Mack?

I'm answering questions.

On a slightly different note, I would be interested to hear more about what made Dingo start to believe he was talking to multiple Uncle BadTouch sock puppets...

I mentioned some of the early Discordians to Adam Gorighlty that didn't turn out to exist. That was pretty much the giveaway.

Adam Gorightly is a Uncle BadTouch sock?

No. He's probably the best informed person anywhere on early Discordianism. So if these people were real, he's have heard of them.

While I have a vibe I'll be told 'I saw it on Facebook somewhere' that number is completely inaccurate and I have no recollection of saying anything like that.

Jackass.

Oh thank you!

You in fact have the honor of tipping me over the 1/4 mark!

That donation would have made my Kickstarter reach $250. That was 1/4 of my Kickstarter of $1000. 1000$ is nowhere near a quarter funds spent.

On a slightly different note, I would be interested to hear more about what made Dingo start to believe he was talking to multiple Uncle BadTouch sock puppets...

I mentioned some of the early Discordians to Adam Gorighlty that didn't turn out to exist. That was pretty much the giveaway.

I decided to do interviews with those who would give them, and make choices on content in editing.

It puzzles me that you imply you haven't made your choice yet, when functionally you already have.  Even if the Uncle BadTouch section doesn't make it through the editing process, you lost a chunk of willing, even eager, content before you even got on your first airplane.

Well, then, he can say "SEE?  Uncle BadTouch ISN'T EVEN IN THE BOOK!  YOU SUCKERS RUINED THIS FOR NOTHING!"

There are basically two solution sets here:

Placid Dingo got a bunch of kickstarters to pay for a vacation, OR
Placid Dingo publishes a paean to a pedo.

Well done.

The Kickstarter overwhelmingly did not pay for this project.

If anyone is upset enough that they feel they need a refund I will provide one

Okay, then it's the second one.  Though you did mention that at least 25% of the funding came from that sort of thing.

While I have a vibe I'll be told 'I saw it on Facebook somewhere' that number is completely inaccurate and I have no recollection of saying anything like that.

Nigel's Question. Why are you even still here talking about that to a bunch of people who didn't participate and don't matter with regards to your project as it panned out?

I said before, because I spoke up to correct some inaccuracies, that I would butt out unless people wanted to ask questions or if there was something too inaccurate to ignore. That's what I'm here for.

I decided to do interviews with those who would give them, and make choices on content in editing.

It puzzles me that you imply you haven't made your choice yet, when functionally you already have.  Even if the Uncle BadTouch section doesn't make it through the editing process, you lost a chunk of willing, even eager, content before you even got on your first airplane.

Well, then, he can say "SEE?  Uncle BadTouch ISN'T EVEN IN THE BOOK!  YOU SUCKERS RUINED THIS FOR NOTHING!"

There are basically two solution sets here:

Placid Dingo got a bunch of kickstarters to pay for a vacation, OR
Placid Dingo publishes a paean to a pedo.

Well done.

The Kickstarter overwhelmingly did not pay for this project.

If anyone is upset enough that they feel they need a refund I will provide one

[No matter which choice you make, the end result will be an incomplete picture of Discordia as it stands today.]

Indeed.

Dingo, since we're playing with semantics here, I rewrote the above quote, and came up with:

"I insist on being the one choosing to include Uncle BadTouch."

And trust me, no one's going to take that from you.  Because no one wants to.

That is correct. I do insist on being the one choosing to include Uncle BadTouch.
I also insist on being the one to exclude Uncle BadTouch.
The same is true of every single person I have interviewed. I will decide was is and is not included and that choice will be made in the editing process.

Before I get into the ramifications of the last sentence, let's think this one out.

In taking ownership of the choice, there obviously must be a list of pros and cons. Among other elements, such as "did the interview go well?", there is a pro directly in conflict with a con:

Pro: "Including Uncle BadTouch furthers the goal of taking a snapshot of Discordia as it stands today."
Con: "Including Uncle BadTouch will not achieve the goal of taking a snapshot of Discordia as it stands today, as a vocal element of Discordia will choose not to participate."

And of course, the reverse:

Pro: "Not including Uncle BadTouch will increase the number of available interviews, and broadens the snapshot of Discordia as it stands today."
Con: "Not including Uncle BadTouch will not achieve the goal of taking a snapshot of Discordia as it stands today."

Or, to boil down the logic tree:
No matter which choice you make, the end result will be an incomplete picture of Discordia as it stands today.


So, at that point, the choice is what will give the broadest, yet still incomplete, picture.

Which means, in the end, you apparently feel that the inclusion of Uncle BadTouch will give you a more complete picture than the inclusion of us.  And to be honest, that's like you giving us the finger and telling us we're not as important as Uncle BadTouch.

That you feel Uncle BadTouch is somehow better than us. 

Hope that clears things up.

If you choose to interpret my position as such, I can't stop you.

Bu that's not my view.

My view is simply that I'm not interested in interviews that will require me to let anyone else make editorial decisions for me. And to be clear, that is me stating it matters to me that I make those choices not that I believe anyone else is trying to control my project.

I don't regard anything much as inherently more important other than the fundamental details of where Discordianism comes from, to give context.

Let's just unpack that:

The author of 30 Days of Eris is not more important than the guy who invented the "Shamlicht Body Shake".

Well done.

Not what I mean to say.

Allow me to rephrase.

I did not start with any assumptions about who or what was essential to my book. I decided to do interviews with those who would give them, and make choices on content in editing.

Firstly. I did not and do not insist on including Uncle BadTouch. I insist on being the one to make that choice.

Revisionism.

You said "No discussion about Discordianism would be complete without Uncle BadTouch."

I don't remember saying that, and it's not my point of view. Feel free to link me to where I said that.

FB, IIRC.

But then here you said:

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,32728.msg1223251.html#msg1223251

The link is to where I said

Repost from Facebook.

Regarding Reverend Uncle BadTouch.

My intention with Chasing Eris is and always has been "to document contemporary Discordia". I am not interested is writing a propoganda piece endorsing our culture (though if I didn't have personal reasons for valuing Discordia, I would not be, as I am, a Discordian), but rather presenting the whole spectrum of Discordia as it is. As a result I am not interested in cherry picking individual Discordians on the basis of whether they make the culture look good or bad. I am interested in letting those who identify with Discordia lend their voices to the project and speak for themselves in regards to their personal Discordia.

Uncle BadTouch is part of the community, and as the recent conversations have shown, has a large and very emotional impact on a number of Discordians. My interest is in presenting this tension as it is, not to cover it with a tablecloth and try to pretend that it does not exist.

I've spoken previously with individuals concerned that their name will be associated with Reverend Uncle BadTouch. My answer then and now was this; I am presenting contemporary Discordia, not publishing an endorsement. I intend to be emphasising the extent to which Discordians differ in their views, and will not be implying that any one individual speaks for any other. I am very comfortable allowing individuals to express personal concerns regarding differences of views within the community itself.

I will not be meeting Reverend Uncle BadTouch in person but I will be publishing extracts from conversations online.

That has remained my position. Edit; except replace that last 'will' with a 'may.'

I am not creating a Public Relations document to promote Discordia. I am endevoring to take a snapshot of Discordia as it manifests today. This means showing all aspects.

Which, boiled down, means "the creepy bits as most important".

I don't regard anything much as inherently more important other than the fundamental details of where Discordianism comes from, to give context.

Edit: I've learned from experience that the slightest ambiguity on what I say seems to lead to pretty wild accusations. Therefore I will post here where I was challenged on this comment, and my response.

I don't regard anything much as inherently more important other than the fundamental details of where Discordianism comes from, to give context.

Let's just unpack that:

The author of 30 Days of Eris is not more important than the guy who invented the "Shamlicht Body Shake".

Well done.

Not what I mean to say.

Allow me to rephrase.

I did not start with any assumptions about who or what was essential to my book. I decided to do interviews with those who would give them, and make choices on content in editing.

Indeed.

Dingo, since we're playing with semantics here, I rewrote the above quote, and came up with:

"I insist on being the one choosing to include Uncle BadTouch."

And trust me, no one's going to take that from you.  Because no one wants to.

That is correct. I do insist on being the one choosing to include Uncle BadTouch.
I also insist on being the one to exclude Uncle BadTouch.
The same is true of every single person I have interviewed. I will decide was is and is not included and that choice will be made in the editing process.