Ok,
Recently I've received an e-mail or two about this cat the "Odd Emperor."
I checked, and it seems he's mentioned me a few more times on his website and blog, and apparently this was supposed to upset me (not according to him, necessarily, but according to others).
Au contraire.
Look, this is a free country (I think), and a (hopefully) free internet. The Odd Emperor, whoever he may or may not be (or who you think he may or may not be) has EVERY RIGHT TO VOICE HIS OPINION. Just like you do. Just like I do.
Listen, this world would be a pretty boring place if everyone agreed with one another, all the time. Wouldn't it?
The "Odd Imp" provides a valuable service in a sense, in his spelling-challenged way...a skeptical sounding board of an extreme if mocking nature upon which various theorists, claimants, and researchers rebound ideas, whether they like doing so (or are even aware of doing so) or not. This should keep you "on your toes." And how many hits do you think your websites have received as a result of being mentioned on his pages? Think of it as free advertising...and as the free exchange of ideas.
He and I have had our heated exchanges in the (distant) past, but I don't hate the guy. In fact, we're probably more similar in some ways than we are different (he would be surprised to learn just how much I agree with him on some matters). So when he mentions me, I won't take genuine offense, although I might be a bit bemused or amused by the whole thing. He is definitely entitled to his opinion, and so is everyone else.
So jeez, lighten up, people. You can't expect everyone to agree with you all the time. If he gets nasty, get nasty back if that's your urge. I have a feeling he can take it. Of course, he feeds off the attention...just like many other people do.
Now, below is the original Oddity of the Empirical Idiot material. Boring stuff really, but apparently valuable to some.
-W.M. Mott
Well, it would seem that the loser who calls himself "emperor" is at it again....
I usually don't pay any attention to this parasite. Really, I don't. Recently, however, he attempted to join the fantasticreality group at yahoogroups, a fortean research group which I moderate, using his REAL NAME. And here is his little note:
-------
Hello,
The following person would like to join the fantasticreality group:Email address: g_____p______l (g_____p_____l@arlof.eckerd.edu)
Comment from user:I,ve always been interested in the subject. I,ve done extensive readingon the subject including CCCC.
G.P.
------
Hmmm, he seems terribly eager to be in a group which discusses subjects he ridicules and reviles. In fact, that pretty much describes all of his commentary on any topic, an ongoing indication of his lack of knowledge, insight, research, and reasoning ability. Yet he continues to lie at his "odd imp" website, by saying that he has read CCCC:
"I've read the book, it doesn't really make much of a case for the hollowEarth theory or other Fortean concepts."
Well of course not, since it doesn't attempt to "make a case" for the hollow earth. The theory is just one of many which is examined for archetypal clues and parallels, and in fact is examined in the smallest written section of the entire volume. But of course, if this "guy" had read the book, he would know that, wouldn't he?
As always, this "guy" is a liar and fraud, a sour-grapes and envious parasite (and again, a wannabe writer) who can't stand being exposed for what he is. At his website, he has recently added even more new commentary:
"I felt kind of ripped! I would think the publisher of the book would feel the same unless; well, dare we say...?"
Of course, the publisher of CCCC is TGS/Hidden Mysteries, a company in Texas in which I have no ownership--or influence--whatsoever. My attorney tells me that this is, in fact, a statement which is verging on libel...Or is in fact libelous, intentionally misleading and malicious, and designed to interfere with both my reputation and personal business affairs....
The imp continues:
"What did I get from all of this? Well the feeling that Mr. Mott HATEScriticism. Hates it with a passion. To the point where he apparently cannotdiscuss his assertions without descending into ad hominem type arguments."
Actually, rational and factually-based criticism is something I welcome and even enjoy upon occasion, particularly for the interesting discussion and debate it opens up (as anyone who really knows me can attest). The really amusing part of this, however, is that he FINALLY learned how to spell "ad hominem," (see our previous exchanges, below) and even figured out what it means after I corrected his juvenile spelling of the term (which best describes his own disjointed invective and spew). However, preceding his statement above, he says this:
"Now, why would the Odd Emperor be reviewing a book here on the Empire of theOdd you might ask. Well; much of his book happens to be on his web page too,over half of it as a matter of fact."
And here we have a number of things. First, we have a blatant lie concerning my reputation, a small (admittedly) part of my livelihood, my research, and so forth--because only one article (due to numerous requests) at the website is excerpted from CCCC, the treatise called "The Deep Dwellers," which is a study of archetypal, folkoric, mythical, fortean, and religious views of the underworld and its inhabitants, and parallels which exist between these views. This article has also been reprinted in magazine form (in NEXUS Magazine, specifically), and at different "web magazines" over the years. All of the other content on the site--from artwork to essays and other writing, to art galleries and so on--does NOT appear in the book, never has, and never will. In fact, we're talking approximately 90% of the site--as "The Deep Dwellers" comprises approximately 10% of the data at the site, being a somewhat lengthy piece of work. The rest (writing and art) has been published in print (magazines, mostly), web magazines, cdroms, and other locations previously, as can of course be demonstrated and proven in a court of law.
Now, my attorney tells me that this is completely actionable, and I would be well within my rights to take this individual to court for defamation, libel, interference with business practice, and any number of other things. Interstate commerce laws may even have been violated in some fashion, and my publisher may have similar grounds for a lawsuit. It also seems that the preponderance of evidence indicates that a certain degree of harassment has taken place here, but that particular bit doesn't bother me at all. In fact, this is pretty much a cut-and-dried case, or so I've been told, if I decide to pursue it. I have enough technical evidence to demonstrate exactly who this guy is, that he is in fact the would-be-anonymous "odd emperor," and so on. However, his ego would not allow him to remain completely anonymous, as the Empire of the Odd site contains the following fine print:
G. P________l, editor in chief.
Now, according to my attorney, this is an additional admission of responibility for all content at his site, which I can prove to have been created by him anyway (internet headers from prior communication and other such information being what they are, after all). But for those of you out there who wonder who this guy really is, the following image, from an outdated, non-copyrighted, automated, and State-of-Florida/University maintained webpage (publicly funded and belonging to the people), pretty much tells the world all that needs to be known:
And there it is, a picture worth a thousand words. Really.
Mr. P. should really confine his frustrated writing ventures to his tediously ongoing, long-winded, self-absorbed (self-loathing, actually?) BLOG, where he ruminates constantly on his food allergies, colon problems, interpersonal relationships, computer problems, and so on. The rest of the world can see him for what he sadly is as he lashes out at all. I'll probably quit wasting any time on him whatsoever, since he seems to thrive on any attention thrown his way....
....Unless, of course, I'd like to try living in sunny Florida after a stint in court.
Nah, enough blowhards, meteorological and otherwise, there already. Still, it's nice to have options....and besides, the occasional laugh or two.
The original Oddity of The Empirical Idiot is below.
ODDITY OF THE EMPIRICAL IDIOT
or
An exchange of commentary with a self-appointed scoffer badly in need of a remedial spelling dictionary.
The gutlessly anonymous webmaster of EMPIRE OF THE ODD(http://blackfish-enterprises.com/oddempire/) has a strange way of gettinghis jollies.
Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal
Pronunciation: -i-k&l
Variant(s): also em·pir·ic /-ik/
Function: adjective
Date: 1569
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard forsystem and theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
Recently, someone pointed me toward an asinine URL, pretty much devoid oforiginal content and thought, where the SMM website was featured in a verynasty, ad hominem blurb. Given that the comments of the individual clearlydemonstrated that he has read neither my fiction nor non-fiction work (which he both admits and then denies--his grasp of the facts about the works was nonexistent), I thought it only fitting to contact him and find out the basis for his statements, and his specificcriteria.
The result is a lesson in the pomposity and arrogance of the trulycretinous, as well as in circular reasoning and argumentation, hypocriticaldouble-standards, and petty jealousy of the ineffectual, directed at the world ingeneral--giving credence to the old saying that there is nothing moredangerous (or funny) than a stupid person who thinks he is clever.
I give you the anonymous, parading yet naked Emperor of the Odd, complete with hisaudacious blunders of reason, argumentation, fact, copyright law, spelling, punctuation, and grammar.
Additional commentary has been added for this page, in italics.
--W.M. Mott
1. Mott to Imp, reciprocal volley.
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003
Subject: SUBTERRANEAN MYTHS AND MYSTERIES
From: "Wm. Michael Mott"
To:
CC:
> SUBTERRANEAN MYTHS AND MYSTERIES>
http://home.earthlink.net/~mottimorph/SubterraneanIntro2.html
First, Thanks for the attention.
> The thesis sentence here seems to be something like. "Since many cultures have
> recorded myths of strange underground cultures, we must assume that they are
> all correct and there really ARE strange underground civilizations.
> Interesting idea. I would suggest the author of the site take a couple of
> cultural anthropology classes and REALLY blow his mind!
I recommend that you clarify the thesis of your Empire site to reflect your own apparent ignorance in regard to folklore, mythology, anthropology, or any number of the topics that you disdain on your site with an arrogance which seems somehow over-compensatory for -- ?.
Here, learn something:
http://www.rense.com/general37/waves.htm
http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=648
If ignorance is bliss, then you must truly be in Nirvana....
>Underground
> civilization is only the tiniest portion of a huge body of recorded mythology.
> Let me tell you about the Native American myth about how the jackass got his
> tale (tail?)
>
It's certainly evident that you may have some degree of authority onjackasses' tales--but paradoxically, your own thoughts, personal history,philosophy, or even meaningful thoughts leave your story woefully flaccidand thus the world unenlightened as to the fullness of your asininity.
>
> Aw bummer, Subterranean Myths has caved in! The page author has a new page up
> that advertises his crappy self published book, here is the original site.
>
Website URLs change--but ignoramuses never do, as you are so willing todemonstrate.
Your ignorance is surpassed only by your gall. The nonfiction book is not"self-published," and is available in several editions, one of which is aslick tight paperback with both black-and-white and color plates, fromhttp://www.hiddenmysteries.com/caverns . This is the book that was called"a fascinating, informative, groundbreaking work" in a review in FATEmagazine (June 2001 issue, if you'd care to look it up).
If you're referring to the fiction work, it's published by SoftbookPress/Gemstar:
http://www.gemstar-ebook.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eBookstore.woa/wa/find?assetID=5459
....and has been, for some time. The edition at my personal site is moreexpansive and is a personal project, as it features additional graphics andextra written material.
Tell me, how many glowing reviews have you seen in regard to your own work,research, website, or even your personality? Little to none, I'd wager.
For that matter, where are your _original_ works, ideas, concepts, orwritings to be found in the marketplace of ideas? Again, I would guess aresounding NOWHERE will answer this.
If you wish to publish this message, at least have the guts to publish it inits entirety. Of course, I fully expect you not to do so. Self-styled"cynics" (not skeptic mind you--cynic) such as yourself tend to spend theirtime attacking those things which they either lack the mental capacity tocomprehend or of which they are woefully uniformed, as well as in tearingdown others in envious fits of pique which only mask their own self-loathingand (deservedly) low self-esteem.
Rest assured: Should you decide to go the route or message reproduction,I'll be glad to reciprocate in multiple forums. With full message threadcontent, of course.
Oh--and you may want to try actually reading a book once in a while. Youmight even learn something.
p.s., "non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem" is part of theprimary thesis of the nonfiction work(http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/caverns). Read it, and you might have abetter understanding of the depth of meaning behind Ockham's words.
--------------------------------
2. Imp to Mott, startled blather.
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003
From: Odd Empire
Reply-To: oddempire@blachfish-enterprises.com
Subject: SUBTERRANEAN MYTHS AND MYSTERIES
To: mottimorph@earthlink.net
> > SUBTERRANEAN MYTHS AND MYSTERIES
> >
>
>http://home.earthlink.net/~mottimorph/SubterraneanIntro2.html
>
> First, Thanks for the attention.
Why; you are quite welcome! Thanks for the feedback!
>
> > The thesis sentence here seems to be somethinglike. "Since many cultures have
> > recorded myths of strange underground cultures, wemust assume that they are
> > all correct and there really ARE strangeunderground civilizations.
> > Interesting idea. I would suggest the author ofthe site take a couple of
> > cultural anthropology classes and REALLY blow hismind!
>
> I recommend that you clarify the thesis of yourEmpire site to reflect your
> own apparent ignorance in regard to folklore,mythology, anthropology,
> or any number of the topics that you disdain on yoursite with an
> arrogance which seems somehow over-compensatory for-- ?.
Sorry, your sentence kind of faded out there, wouldyour care to clarify what "-- ?." means?
>
> Here, learn something:
>
> http://www.rense.com/general37/waves.htm
> http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=648
>
Thank youl; I am *very* familiar with the content onboth of those web pages. Are you aware thatwww.rense.com is well known to print anything withoutreguard to the relative truthfulness of the author?Are you also aware that Whitley Strieber has sototally discredited himself on so many occasions thatone would need to look out a window if that fellowsaid that it was daylight. You call these reliablesources?
As for your other recommendation, Ill take a raincheck on that, thank you very much. What I findarrogant is people expounding on subjects that theyhave little knowledge of. If you fall under thisframework I would call you arrogant. Since I know youonly from some of your work and this letter I can onlysay that your conclusions appear misguided and morethan a little arrogant. That is simply one opinionbased on what I have read on your web page. Yourletter here serves to confirm that I was correct.
> If ignorance is bliss, then you must truly be inNirvana....
The last statement demonstrates that you have littleunderstanding of the Hindu religion. That’s OK, theconcepts are rather complex. Lots of people have ahard time with them.
(Including anonymous malcontents. "That,s?")
>
> >Underground
> > civilization is only the tiniest portion of a hugebody of recorded mythology.
> > Let me tell you about the Native American mythabout how the jackass got his
> > tale (tail?)
> >
>
> It's certainly evident that you may have some degreeof authority on
> jackasses' tales--but paradoxically, your ownthoughts, personal history,
> philosophy, or even meaningful thoughts leave yourstory woefully flaccid
> and thus the world unenlightened as to the fullnessof your asininity.
It’s very interesting how you cannot refute myargument;
(Apparently he's not paying attention....)
you can only insult me personally. This isknown as the ad-homonym approach to debate, if someopinion offends you then you go after the person whomade the statement, not the statement itself.Generally speaking it is better (and much more mature)to go after my assertions and not my personality.
(Nice run-on sentence. Apparently he can dish it out but can't take it. He also needs to go back and take 5th-grade grammar again; perhaps he could retain the meaning of "homonym" if he did so.)
Case in point; my review of your web page is mockingin tone, a little insulting to your conclusions but itdoes not in any way insult or offend you personally,nor does it call you names.
You on the other hand seem to delight in hurling amass of insulting words in my direction *without oncerefuting my position*. This suggests that you actuallyagree with me!
(Oh yeah, that's logical. Apparently this guy suffers from the "If I say it, it must be so" syndrome.)
(Whaaah! How dare anyone refute "the Emperor? How can such an august personage not realize how thoroughly he's making a fool of himself?)
This is a very bad stance if you are attempting tobolster your position against mine. It actuallystrengthens my position and makes you (in the opinionof some people who read these words) *look* like ajackass. If you wish to invoke debate on some pointreflected on yur web page I am quite willing to debateyou.
> >
> > Aw bummer, Subterranean Myths has caved in! Thepage author has a new page up
> > that advertises his crappy self published book,here is the original site.
> >
(It seems that this surly buffoon was too lazy to differentiate between the fiction and nonfiction works featured at the site--or to investigate the possibility that early editions, under different imprints, of one or both books existed. In other words, he made a cursory examination of the site before exploding in a paroxysm of self-revelatory ignorance. As will become obvious, the "book" he refers to he has never read--he doesn't even differentiate between the different works.)
>
> Website URLs change--but ignoramuses never do, asyou are so willing to
> demonstrate.
>
> Your ignorance is surpassed only by your gall. Thenonfiction book is not
> "self-published," and is available in severaleditions, one of which is a
> slick tight paperback with both black-and-white andcolor plates, from
> http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/caverns . This isthe book that was called
> "a fascinating, informative, groundbreaking work" ina review in FATE
> magazine (June 2001 issue, if you'd care to look itup).
>
If you would be so kind to tell me the publishinghouse name and perhaps the ISBN code I will be happyto retract that statement. BTW, self-publishedincludes "on demand" publishing houses.
(...And here is the nature of this poor hack's problem. All he had to do was genuinely examine the website, and he would have found a link to the publisher Hidden Mysteries at the top and bottom of every page. What a buffoon!)
> If you're referring to the fiction work, it'spublished by Softbook
> Press/Gemstar:
>
Thank you for the information, (little author hint,next time give your prospective customer the TITILE ofthe book so that they don’t have to run authorsearches.) The item ID number is little help when thecompany database doesn’t seem to use that as a searchfield.
(Perhaps the typo of "titile," above, gives some indication of the writer's infantile nature. "Don,t?" "Doesn,t?")
>
http://www.gemstar-ebook.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eBookstore.woa/wa/find?asset> ID=5459
>
> ....and has been, for some time. The edition at mypersonal site is more
> expansive and is a personal project, as it featuresadditional graphics and
> extra written material.
Very cool! I don’t read fantasy very much (I’m more ofa hard science fiction guy). I may even pick the bookup and take a look, do you mind?
(So now it's "very cool," eh? This is the kind of guy who'll never get up off a buck to buy anything but porn. And why the hell would I "mind?" Here is his first flat admission that he hasn't read any of the work he criticized.)
>
> Tell me, how many glowing reviews have you seen inregard to your own work,
> research, website, or even your personality? Littleto none, I'd wager.
>
That would be untrue. Oddempire is a hobby, nothingmore. Over the years I have found that the plethora ofnonsense and outright lies on the Internet has grownmuch faster than critical review of such things. Iused to jot down notes on pages that interested me andthe Oddempire page grew out of that.
("That would be untrue?" Because the "Emperor" says so, of course. No evidence is provided one way or the other, but the lack thereof is quite telling.)
> For that matter, where are your _original_ works,ideas, concepts, or
> writings to be found in the marketplace of ideas? Again, I would guess a
> resounding NOWHERE will answer this.
I certainly don’t self publish if that’s what you mean.
(Does he mean self-publish? And what's with that "don,t" thing? And why would I "mean" that, when I clearly didn't state it? The question was quite clear, and unanswered--again, very telling.)
>
> If you wish to publish this message, at least havethe guts to publish it in
> its entirety. Of course, I fully expect you not todo so. Self-styled
> "cynics" (not skeptic mind you--cynic) such asyourself tend to spend their
> time attacking those things which they either lackthe mental capacity to
> comprehend or of which they are woefully uniformed,as well as in tearing
> down others in envious fits of pique which only masktheir own self-loathing
> and (deservedly) low self-esteem.
>
> Rest assured: Should you decide to go the route ormessage reproduction,
> I'll be glad to reciprocate in multiple forums. With full message thread
> content, of course.
>
Oh thank you thank you for the wonderful instruction! I will have to put that down in my little instruction book, (lets me see) print the entire message and make sure you include the author’s fits of pique directed against you. Hmm, yup! I think I can do that!
(There he goes with that funny, juvenile punctuation and grammar again.)
Are you aware that when I choose to republish an email message I always reproduce them in their entirety unless they are relating what I would conceder personal or sensitive information.
(...And yet again. Was this a question? He should "conceder" some basic skills writing and language courses.)
I’m not exactly sure what "I'll be glad to reciprocate in multiple forums" means in this context. Please be aware that I have a minimal copyright on any published material reflected on the Empire of the Odd web page. If you intend to re publish this letter I must ask that you run it by me first. I already have your permission to publish your words, thank you very much!
(His "minimal copyright" is apparently based on his "minimal knowledge" of copyright law. Perhaps his minimal intellect has something to do with this.)
> Oh--and you may want to try actually reading a bookonce in a while. You
> might even learn something.
>
I’m reading about four right now, I’m in the middle ofa re-write of one and in the primary write of another(it’s a slow week).
(Wowzers! He's reading "about" four books simultaneously, while writing two others! How impressive. How absurd, even for a "slow week.")
As for learning; I learned a lot about you today,thanks!
> p.s., "non sunt multiplicanda entia praeternecessitatem" is part of the
> primary thesis of the nonfiction work
> (http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/caverns). Read it,and you might have a
> better understanding of the depth of meaning behindOckham's words.
>
I have used Ockhams statement in its pure form, Notthe watered down version that we use colloquially,I.E. "the simplest explanation is usually the correctone"
Now, let me see if I understand the last thing. youwant me to *purchase* your book and that somehowproves that I don’t understand William of Ockham’s words? What sort of logic is that? (seems ratherconvoluted which makes my point precisely)
(Here is his second flat admission that he hasn't read the work. "Ockham,s" theorem makes this quite clear as well, when examining his diatribe and recurring inconsistencies.)
Take care- take a few deep breaths and calm downbefore you reply to me again.OK?
=====
Sincerely;
The Odd Emperor
(Nah, that's not even a wee bit pretentious and pompous, is it?
-------------------------
3. Mott to Imp, bursting frail bubbles of pseudo-reason.
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003
From: "Wm. Michael Mott"
To: oddempire@blachfish-enterprises.com
Subject: Re: SUBTERRANEAN MYTHS AND MYSTERIES
>
> Sorry, your sentence kind of faded out there, would
> your care to clarify what "-- ?." means?
>
Knowledge; reasoning ability; veracity--The list goes on.
>>
>> Here, learn something:
>>
>> http://www.rense.com/general37/waves.htm
>> http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=648
>>
>
> Thank youl; I am *very* familiar with the content on
> both of those web pages. Are you aware that
> www.rense.com is well
> known to print anything without
> reguard to the relative truthfulness of the author?
> Are you also aware that Whitley Strieber has so
> totally discredited himself on so many occasions that
> one would need to look out a window if that fellow
> said that it was daylight. You call these reliable
> sources?
>
The point is a simple one. These anomalies exist, and are unaccounted for without the consideration of non-human or pre-human agency. The Eltanin antenna, for instance, was discovered decades ago, by a U.S. government survey ship. Your (typical) ad hominem, personal attack on someone reporting it (in this case Streiber, since this particular instance of the story was at his site--but it is in plenty of other places), in no way changes this fact. You use the typical ad hominem discrediting tactic of someone who is short on knowledge and long on nerve. This seems to be your modus operandi in general, though.
> As for your other recommendation, Ill take a rain
> check on that, thank you very much. What I find
> arrogant is people expounding on subjects that they
> have little knowledge of.
My, this is certainly the pot calling the kettle black. In fact, you expound on books--with intellectual adjectives like "crappy," no less--that you have never read. Arrogance, cluelessness, and pomposity--as revealed by your nom de plume of "Emperor--" certainly are accurate terms to describe you. BTW, this is not "ad hominem;" it is observation based on demonstrable facts and examples.
>If you fall under this
> framework I would call you arrogant. Since I know you
> only from some of your work and this letter I can only
> say that your conclusions appear misguided and more
> than a little arrogant. That is simply one opinion
> based on what I have read on your web page. Your
> letter here serves to confirm that I was correct.
>
Au contraire, I believe that your reply more than demonstrates your own abysmal arrogance and ignorance. You repeat the same errors of reasoning in your arguments; you make sweeping generalizations, ad hominem statements and pronouncements (based in no discernable fact, but only in your own arrogance and self-certainty), and puerile statements of various sorts.
>
>> If ignorance is bliss, then you must truly be in
> Nirvana....
>
> The last statement demonstrates that you have little
> understanding of the Hindu religion. That.s OK, the
> concepts are rather complex. Lots of people have a
> hard time with them.
>
Nirvana is a Buddhist tenet and concept--in fact, it is the penultimate goal of that religion. There you go again, demonstrating for all your complete ignorance of topics you stand in judgement of--in this case, religion, mythology, and related fields. You are truely a pompous cartoon, "Emperor." Unfortunately, you have no clothes. Your nude mind, shriveled and unrounded as it is, is not an appealing sight....
>>
>>> Underground
>>> civilization is only the tiniest portion of a huge
> body of recorded mythology.
>>> Let me tell you about the Native American myth
> about how the jackass got his
>>> tale (tail?)
>>>
>>
>> It's certainly evident that you may have some degree
> of authority on
>> jackasses' tales--but paradoxically, your own
> thoughts, personal history,
>> philosophy, or even meaningful thoughts leave your
> story woefully flaccid
>> and thus the world unenlightened as to the fullness
> of your asininity.
>
> It.s very interesting how you cannot refute my
> argument; you can only insult me personally. This is
> known as the ad-homonym approach to debate, if some
> opinion offends you then you go after the person who
> made the statement, not the statement itself.
No, this is _your_ methodology. This is the method you demonstrate on your webpage, where you expound on matters and works of which you have absolutely no clue whatsoever. Again, to call you a buffoon is not an ad hominem attack; it's simply an observation based on your behavior and very poor reasoning ability. By the way, it's "ad hominem," not "homonym". Again, you demonstrate your ignorance, combined with a laughable arrogance.
> Generally speaking it is better (and much more mature)
> to go after my assertions and not my personality.
>
Again, you are calling the kettle black. You're also ahypocrite--demonstrably so. You decry your own methodology here.
> Case in point; my review of your web page is mocking
> in tone, a little insulting to your conclusions but it
> does not in any way insult or offend you personally,
> nor does it call you names.
>
See the above statement. In fact, such insult is clearly implied; and the fact that you are clueless about the material you deride indicates clearly what kind of person you are. Have you read the books in question? Of course not. This paints quite a clear picture of you, or would seem to do so.
> You on the other hand seem to delight in hurling a
> mass of insulting words in my direction *without once
> refuting my position*. This suggests that you actually
> agree with me!
>
Your "position" (a lack of one, actually) has been clearly refuted. Your own attempts at rebuttal only assist, in your self-discrediting (see all of the above).
> This is a very bad stance if you are attempting to
> bolster your position against mine. It actually
> strengthens my position and makes you (in the opinion
> of some people who read these words) *look* like a
> jackass. If you wish to invoke debate on some point
> reflected on yur web page I am quite willing to debate
> you.
>
What do you call what we are doing?
You see, your entire position is based on ad hominem garbage; you know nothing of that of which you write. You have no basis for argumentation, since you have no knowledge of the topics (or books) you seek to refute. You've really stuck your foot in it, haven't you?
>>>
>>> Aw bummer, Subterranean Myths has caved in! The
> page author has a new page up
>>> that advertises his crappy self published book,
>> here is the original site.
>>>
>>
>> Website URLs change--but ignoramuses never do, as
>> you are so willing to
>> demonstrate.
>>
>> Your ignorance is surpassed only by your gall. The
>> nonfiction book is not
>> "self-published," and is available in several
>> editions, one of which is a
>> slick tight paperback with both black-and-white and
>> color plates, from
>> http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/caverns . This is
>> the book that was called
>> "a fascinating, informative, groundbreaking work" in
>> a review in FATE
>> magazine (June 2001 issue, if you'd care to look it
>> up).
>>
>>
>> If you would be so kind to tell me the publishing
>> house name and perhaps the ISBN code I will be happy
>> to retract that statement. BTW, self-published
>> includes .on demand. publishing houses.
>>
0-9713166-3-5. That's the ISBN of the paperback edition.
>> If you're referring to the fiction work, it's
> published by Softbook
>> Press/Gemstar:
>>
>
> Thank you for the information, (little author hint,
> next time give your prospective customer the TITILE of
> the book so that they don.t have to run author
> searches.) The item ID number is little help when the
> company database doesn.t seem to use that as a search
> field.
>
>
Thanks for the very little hint. Given the fact that I gave you the URLs to the books, your statement is meaningless.
>>
>> http://www.gemstar-ebook.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eBookstore.woa/wa/find?asset
>> ID=5459
>>
>> ....and has been, for some time. The edition at my
>> personal site is more
>> expansive and is a personal project, as it features
>> additional graphics and
>> extra written material.
>
> Very cool! I don.t read fantasy very much (I.m more of
> a hard science fiction guy). I may even pick the book
> up and take a look, do you mind?
>
You will need a Gemstar e-book reader. The deluxe illustrated edition I offer on CDROM runs on any platform, as long as you have a web browser.
The fiction work is a satirical blend of fantasy and scifi.
>>
>> Tell me, how many glowing reviews have you seen in
>> regard to your own work,
>> research, website, or even your personality? Little
>> to none, I'd wager.
>>
>
> That would be untrue. Oddempire is a hobby, nothing
> more. Over the years I have found that the plethora of
> nonsense and outright lies on the Internet has grown
> much faster than critical review of such things. I
> used to jot down notes on pages that interested me and
> the Oddempire page grew out of that.
>
I agree with your statement here. In fact, I'm a stickler for facts and for verifiable evidence of any statement or claim. This has gotten me into hot water more than once, and has left no love lost among certain "new age" claimants and self-styled gurus.
>> For that matter, where are your _original_ works,
>> ideas, concepts, or
>> writings to be found in the marketplace of ideas?
>> Again, I would guess a
>> resounding NOWHERE will answer this.
>>
>> I certainly don.t self publish if that.s what you
>> mean.
>>
As you should have seen, neither do I. Hidden Mysteries and Gemstar are certainly not owned by me.
You sound suspiciously like a frustrated aspiring writer....
>>
>> If you wish to publish this message, at least have
>> the guts to publish it in
>> its entirety. Of course, I fully expect you not to
>> do so. Self-styled
>> "cynics" (not skeptic mind you--cynic) such as
>> yourself tend to spend their
>> time attacking those things which they either lack
>> the mental capacity to
>> comprehend or of which they are woefully uniformed,>> as well as in tearing
>> down others in envious fits of pique which only mask
>> their own self-loathing
>> and (deservedly) low self-esteem.
>>
>> Rest assured: Should you decide to go the route or
>> message reproduction,
>> I'll be glad to reciprocate in multiple forums.
>> With full message thread
>> content, of course.
>>
>
> Oh thank you thank you for the wonderful instruction!
> I will have to put that down in my little instruction
> book, (lets me see.) print the entire message and make
> sure you include the author.s fits of pique directed
> against you. Hmm, yup! I think I can do that!
>
You're welcome. BTW, feel free to lift that "fits of pique" from my previous message if you're at a loss for words. Oh--you already did.
> Are you aware that when I choose to republish an email
> message I always reproduce them in their entirety
> unless they are relating what I would conceder
> personal or sensitive information.
>
(I just love that "conceder" bit.)
> I.m not exactly sure what .I'll be glad to reciprocate
> in multiple forums. means in this context. Please be
> aware that I have a minimal copyright on any published
> material reflected on the Empire of the Odd web page.
Your copyright does not supercede my own. In other words, a conversational exchange of e-mail is equally owned by both recipients. This is a matter of fact under the law. Surely you already knew this?
> If you intend to re publish this letter I must ask
> that you run it by me first. I already have your
> permission to publish your words, thank you very much!
>
Yours is assumed by your participation in this conversation. You can further assume that any reproduction will be reciprocal.
>
>> Oh--and you may want to try actually reading a book
>> once in a while. You
>> might even learn something.
>>
>
> I.m reading about four right now, I.m in the middle of
> a re-write of one and in the primary write of another
> (it.s a slow week).
>
Re-writing...What? Surely not your own work(s)?
How about a little evidence? Can you point me to your published works? I'd love to take a look at them.
> As for learning; I learned a lot about you today,
> thanks!
>
Ditto.
>> p.s., "non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter
> necessitatem" is part of the
>> primary thesis of the nonfiction work
>> (http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/caverns). Read it,
> and you might have a
>> better understanding of the depth of meaning behind
> Ockham's words.
>>
>
> I have used Ockhams statement in its pure form, Not
> the watered down version that we use colloquially,
> I.E. .the simplest explanation is usually the correct
> one..
>
I utilize Occam/Ockham's theorem in a similar frame of reference. If you go to http://home.earthlink.net/~mottimorph/Earth.html, and read Section 8, you'll see what I mean.
> Now, let me see if I understand the last thing. you
> want me to *purchase* your book and that somehow
> proves that I don.t understand William of Ockham.s
> words? What sort of logic is that? (seems rather
> convoluted which makes my point precisely)
>
The above point should clarify that for you. If you want more information (or knowledge on the topic of the book) you can buy it if you wish. I certainly don't care either way. But you should read something before you pan it.
> Take care- take a few deep breaths and calm down
> before you reply to me again.
> OK?
I actually enjoyed our exhange. Good mental exercise.
--Wm. M. Mott
--------------------------------
4. Prodding the stooge.
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003
From: "Wm. Michael Mott"
To: oddempire@blackfish-enterprises.com, mottimorph@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: SUBTERRANEAN MYTHS AND MYSTERIES
Cc: oddempire_list@blackfish-enterprises.com
I'm still waiting for you to post my reply to your statements. I see that you tend to only post your own "rebuttal" statements.
Taking some time to compose this one, eh? How about posting my reply as it stands? Of course, you couldn't do that....
Don't worry, I'll get around to putting up an accurate representation of our exchanges at a site you don't control.
I'm still interested in seeing your pubished works, btw. Be sure and include any and all pertinent publishing information or URLs which relate to all your writings and "re-writes."
Oh, and be sure and post this message as well.
--W.M. Mott
-----------
5. The Wrath of the Imp.
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003
From: Odd Empire
Reply-To: oddempire@blachfish-enterprises.com
Subject: Re: Re: SUBTERRANEAN MYTHS AND MYSTERIES
To: mottimorph@earthlink.net
>
> >
> > Sorry, your sentence kind of faded out there,would
> > your care to clarify what "-- ?." means?
> >
>
> Knowledge; reasoning ability; veracity--The listgoes on.
OK, why did you not say that in the first place?
>
> >>
> >> Here, learn something
:> >>
> >> http://www.rense.com/general37/waves.htm
> >> http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=648
> >>
> >
> > Thank youl; I am *very* familiar with the contenton
> > both of those web pages. Are you aware that
> > www.rense.com is well
> > known to print anything without
> > reguard to the relative truthfulness of theauthor?
> > Are you also aware that Whitley Strieber has so
> > totally discredited himself on so many occasionsthat
> > one would need to look out a window if that fellow
> > said that it was daylight. You call these reliable
> > sources?
> >
>
>
> The point is a simple one. These anomalies exist,and
>are unaccounted for without the consideration of
>non-human or pre-human agency. The Eltanin antenna,
>for instance, was discovered decades ago, by a U.S.
>government survey ship. Your (typical) ad hominem,
>personal attack on someone reporting it (in this case
>Streiber, since this particular instance of the story
>was at his site--but it is in plenty of otherplaces),
>in no way changes this fact. You use thetypical ad
>hominem discrediting tactic of someone whois
> short on knowledge and long on nerve. This seems to
>be your modus operandi in general, though.
Once again you are failing to address the issue andbringing up a number of other unrelated things tomuddy the waters. I pointed out that nether rense.comnor Undiscovered Country are what I would concederreliable sources and I gave you a few reasons why Ibelieve this. Then you have attempted to reverse myargument that your (unending) personal attack is infact coming from me directed at those other twogentlemen.
("Once again" he resorts to the very thing he accuses another of doing--changing the subject, dodging the question, raising ad hominem issues in order to avoid exhibiting his actual ignorance of the topic at hand.)
Are you unable to stick with one subject or is theresome other problem?
(Ad hominem, ad hominem.....)
>
> > As for your other recommendation, Ill take a rain
> > check on that, thank you very much. What I find
> > arrogant is people expounding on subjects thatthey
> > have little knowledge of.
>
>
> My, this is certainly the pot calling the kettle
>black. In fact, you expound on books--with
>intellectual adjectives like "crappy," no less--that
>you have never read. Arrogance, cluelessness, and
>pomposity--as revealed by your nom de plume of
>"Emperor--" certainly are accurate terms to describe
>you. BTW, this is not "ad hominem;" it is
observation >based on demonstrable facts and examples.
I actually read much of your material on your old webpage (and enjoyed much of it). The adjective "crappy"was describing self published books in general.
Besides, I am arrogant! I admit that! Would you careto send me a copy of your book so I can read it anbecome more enlightened? It probably won't do anythingfor my arrogance problem but it might give you thesatisfaction of trying.
>
> >If you fall under this
> > framework I would call you arrogant. Since I knowyou
> > only from some of your work and this letter I canonly
> > say that your conclusions appear misguided andmore
> > than a little arrogant. That is simply one opinion
> > based on what I have read on your web page. Your
> > letter here serves to confirm that I was correct.
> >
>
> Au contraire, I believe that your reply more than>demonstrates your own abysmal arrogance andignorance.
>You repeat the same errors of reasoningin your
>arguments; you make sweeping generalizations,ad
>hominem statements and pronouncements (based in no
>discernable fact, but only in your own arrogance and
>self-certainty), and puerile statements of various
>sorts.
Only the discernable facts of your statements, nothingelse.
>
> >
> >> If ignorance is bliss, then you must truly be in
> > Nirvana....
> >
> > The last statement demonstrates that you havelittle
> > understanding of the Hindu religion. That.s OK,the
> > concepts are rather complex. Lots of people have a
> > hard time with them.
> >
>
> Nirvana is a Buddhist tenet and concept--in fact, it
>is the penultimate goal of that religion. There you
go
>again, demonstrating for all your completeignorance of
>topics you stand in judgement of--inthis case,
>religion, mythology, and related fields. You are
>truely a pompous cartoon, "Emperor." Unfortunately,
>you have no clothes. Your nude mind,shriveled and
>unrounded as it is, is not an appealingsight....
Here we go again.....
Nirvana is indeed a Hindu concept as well as aBuddhist one. You might want to check your tailoragain. It also proves my point that you don't reallyunderstand, achieving "nothingness" is not what I hadin mind.
(It would seem that he has achieved "nothingness," nontheless....)
>
>
> >>
> >>> Underground
> >>> civilization is only the tiniest portion of ahuge
> >>> body of recorded mythology
.> >>> Let me tell you about the Native American myth
> >>> about how the jackass got his
> >>> tale (tail?)
> >>>
> >>
> >> It's certainly evident that you may have somedegree
> > of authority on
> >> jackasses' tales--but paradoxically, your own
> >> thoughts, personal history,
> >> philosophy, or even meaningful thoughts leaveyour
> >> story woefully flaccid
> >> and thus the world unenlightened as to thefullness
> > of your asininity.
> >
> > It.s very interesting how you cannot refute my
> > argument; you can only insult me personally. Thisis
> > known as the ad-homonym approach to debate, ifsome
> > opinion offends you then you go after the personwho
> > made the statement, not the statement itself.>
>
> No, this is _your_ methodology. This is the method
>you demonstrate on your webpage, where you expound on
>matters and works of which you have absolutely noclue
>whatsoever. Again, to call you a buffoon is notan ad
>hominem attack; it's simply an observationbased on
>your behavior and very poor reasoningability. By the
>way, it's "ad hominem," not"homonym". Again, you
>demonstrate your ignorance,combined with a laughable
>arrogance.
>
Why, you are correct! Thank you .
(Indeed. On both the misspelling and buffoon points, I might add.)
See how easy that was, now what were we really talkingabout?
(As I've said all along--he DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. At last he admits as much!)
>
> > Generally speaking it is better (and much moremature)
> > to go after my assertions and not my personality
. > >
>
> Again, you are calling the kettle black. You'realso a
> hypocrite--demonstrably so. You decry your ownmethodology here.
>
Really; I attack your argument and you attack me. Ipoint this out and you say this is MY method?
> > Case in point; my review of your web page ismocking
> > in tone, a little insulting to your conclusionsbut it
> > does not in any way insult or offend youpersonally,
> > nor does it call you names.
> >
>
>
>See the above statement. In fact, such insult is
>clearly implied; and the fact that you are clueless
>about the material you deride indicates clearly what
>kind of person you are. Have you read the books in
>question? Of course not. This paints quite a clear
>picture of you, or would seem to do so.
Of course I have, much more than you can possiblyimagine.
(AND HERE WE HAVE IT. NOW he has read my books "much more than you can possibly imagine." Of course, all of his previous statements give the lie to this one. He's not only a gutless hypocrite, but a liar as well.)
Say, are you running this through several languagetranslators before reading it or someting? You do notseem to understand what I'm saying at all.
(The only language which would seem to work for this guy is gibberish.)
>
> > You on the other hand seem to delight in hurling a
> > mass of insulting words in my direction *withoutonce
> > refuting my position*. This suggests that youactually
> > agree with me!
> >
>
>
>Your "position" (a lack of one, actually) has been
>clearly refuted. Your own attempts at rebuttal only
>assist, in your self-discrediting (see all of the
>above).
I have seen it, you have not rebutted any shred of myposition (that you have a silly web page).
(This guy is really a legend in his own cowardly, anonymous mind....)
>
> > This is a very bad stance if you are attempting to
> > bolster your position against mine. It actually
> > strengthens my position and makes you (in theopinion
> > of some people who read these words) *look* like a
> > jackass. If you wish to invoke debate on somepoint
> > reflected on yur web page I am quite willing todebate
> > you.
> >
>
> What do you call what we are doing?
I am debating, you are abusing.
(Hmmm. He's grasping for straws now. As he loses on every front, he characterizes my side of the debate as "abusing." Fair enough, as I characterize his reasoning and presentation as "amusing.")
>
> You see, your entire position is based on ad hominem
>garbage; you know nothing of that of which you write
. >You have no basis for argumentation, since you have
no >knowledge of the topics (or books) you seek to
refute.
> You've really stuck your foot in it, haven't you?
>
Prove that please. I have not once insulted youpersonally, unless you call poking fun at your ideas apersonal affront, in which case I would closelyexamine why you are so offended.
<
> > If you would be so kind to tell me the publishing
> > house name and perhaps the ISBN code I will behappy
> > to retract that statement. BTW, self-published
> > includes .on demand. publishing houses.> >
>
> 0-9713166-3-5. That's the ISBN of the paperbackedition.
>
Thank you, that was easy too was it not?
>
> >> If you're referring to the fiction work, it's
> > published by Softbook
> >> Press/Gemstar:
> >>
> >
> > Thank you for the information, (little authorhint,
> > next time give your prospective customer theTITILE of
> > the book so that they don.t have to run author
> > searches.) The item ID number is little help whenthe
> > company database doesn.t seem to use that as asearch field.
> >
> >
>
> Thanks for the very little hint. Given the fact
that
>I gave you the URLs to the books, your statementis
>meaningless.>
Nope, you gave me the URL of the electronicpublishing house, I had to look up the rest.(http://www.gemstar-ebook.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eBookstore.woa/wa/find?asset)
> >>
> >
> >> ID=5459
(My God, what an idiot. And he flaunts it!)
> >>
http://www.gemstar-ebook.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eBookstore.woa/wa/find?asset> >> ....and has been, for some time. The edition atmy
> > personal site is more
> >> expansive and is a personal project, as itfeatures
> > additional graphics and
> >> extra written material.
> >
> > Very cool! I don.t read fantasy very much (I.mmore of
> > a hard science fiction guy). I may even pick thebook
> > up and take a look, do you mind?
> >
>
> You will need a Gemstar e-book reader. The deluxe
>illustrated edition I offer on CDROM runs on any
>platform, as long as you have a web browser.
>
> The fiction work is a satirical blend of fantasy and
>scifi.
>
> >>
> >> Tell me, how many glowing reviews have you seenin
> > regard to your own work,
> >> research, website, or even your personality? Little
> > to none, I'd wager.
> >>
> >
> > That would be untrue. Oddempire is a hobby,nothing
> > more. Over the years I have found that the
plethora of
> > nonsense and outright lies on the Internet hasgrown
> > much faster than critical review of such things. I
> > used to jot down notes on pages that interested meand
> > the Oddempire page grew out of that.
> >
>
>
>I agree with your statement here. In fact, I'm a>stickler for facts and for verifiable evidence of any>statement or claim. This has gotten me into hotwater
>more than once, and has left no love lost amongcertain
>"new age" claimants and self-styled gurus.
I could not agree with you more. This is essence ofskepticism and in case you have some doubt over theway I am using that term it is defined as .
A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind;dubiety.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=skepticism
(WOW, he can use a dictionary! Except of course for purposes of spelling, punctuation, grammar, and other trivialities. He fancies himself a "skeptic;" this must make him feel "special." Apparently, his personal definition of "skepticism" includes shoddy or non-existent research, no grasp of fact, and strident pomposity.)
>
>
> >> For that matter, where are your _original_ works,
> > ideas, concepts, or
> >> writings to be found in the marketplace of ideas?
> > Again, I would guess a
> >> resounding NOWHERE will answer this.
> >
> > I certainly don.t self publish if that.s what you
> > mean.
> >
>
> As you should have seen, neither do I. Hidden
>Mysteries and Gemstar are certainly not owned by me.
Did you pay a fee to have your stuff published?
>
> You sound suspiciously like a frustrated aspiring
>writer....
Aspiring yes, not frustrated a bit yet. give me aboutten years and we shall see. ; )
(AH, so he's a pup! That would explain a lot, but is still no excuse for his arrogance.)
>
> >>
> >> If you wish to publish this message, at leasthave
> >> the guts to publish it in
> >> its entirety. Of course, I fully expect you notto
> >> do so. Self-styled
> >> "cynics" (not skeptic mind you--cynic) such as
> > yourself tend to spend their
> >> time attacking those things which they eitherlack
> > the mental capacity to
> >> comprehend or of which they are woefullyuniformed,
> > as well as in tearing
> >> down others in envious fits of pique which onlymask
> > their own self-loathing
> >> and (deservedly) low self-esteem.
> >>
> >> Rest assured: Should you decide to go the routeor
> > message reproduction,
> >> I'll be glad to reciprocate in multiple forums.
> > With full message thread
> >> content, of course.
> >>
> >
> > Oh thank you thank you for the wonderfulinstruction!
> > I will have to put that down in my littleinstruction
> > book, (lets me see.) print the entire message andmake
> > sure you include the author.s fits of piquedirected
> > against you. Hmm, yup! I think I can do that! > >
>
> You're welcome. BTW, feel free to lift that "fitsof pique" from my previous message if you're at a lossfor words. Oh--you already did.>
Much obliged!
>
> > Are you aware that when I choose to republish anemail
> > message I always reproduce them in their entirety
> > unless they are relating what I would conceder
> > personal or sensitive information.
> >
> > I.m not exactly sure what .I'll be glad toreciprocate
> > in multiple forums. means in this context. Pleasebe
> > aware that I have a minimal copyright on anypublished
> > material reflected on the Empire of the Odd webpage.
>
>Your copyright does not supercede my own. In other
>words, a conversational exchange of e-mail is equally
>owned by both recipients. This is a matter of fact
>under the law. Surely you already knew this?
Natrally but what I'm refering to is the web page.
("Natrally." What a scholar.)
>
> > If you intend to re publish this letter I must ask
> > that you run it by me first. I already have your
> > permission to publish your words, thank you verymuch!
> >
>
> Yours is assumed by your participation in this
>conversation. You can further assume that any
>reproduction will be reciprocal.
>
Nope, I did not agree to any such thing. I'm not tooworried though and I never assume anything. Youhowever made it very clear that you want me to publishthis letter on the Empire page. I am making it clearthat any content on the Odd Empire web page located atURL http://www.blackfish-enterprises.com/oddempire/ iscopyrighted material as described by the disclaimer.
> >
> >> Oh--and you may want to try actually reading abook
> > once in a while. You
> >> might even learn something.
> >>
> >
> > I.m reading about four right now, I'm.m in themiddle of
> > a re-write of one and in the primary write ofanother
> > (it.s a slow week).
> >
>
> Re-writing...What? Surely not your own work(s)?
>
Who else's - not the stuff I'm reading. Sorry thatstatement *was* a little unclear.
> How about a little evidence? Can you point me toyour >published works? I'd love to take a look atthem.
>
- I bet! ; )
I have several things on the web under differentnames. One is actually based on stuff that I found onyour own web page if you can believe that.
(Sure--Plagiarism is rampant on the web. Note that he still won't put his own work out for public consideration, or even reveal his identity. Of course, the fact that he has no original work or even thought may have something to do with his reluctance.)
Unfortunately I'm a little reluctant to tell you more(for reasons that should be obvious) , maybe later, ifyou'r really really good!
> > As for learning; I learned a lot about you today,
> > thanks!
> >
>
> Ditto.
>
>
> >> p.s., "non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter
> > necessitatem" is part of the
> >> primary thesis of the nonfiction work
> >> (http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/caverns). Readit,
> > and you might have a
> >> better understanding of the depth of meaningbehind
> > Ockham's words.
> >>
> >
> > I have used Ockhams statement in its pure form,Not
> > the watered down version that we use colloquially,
> > I.E. .the simplest explanation is usually the
correct one..
> >
>
> I utilize Occam/Ockham's theorem in a similar frameof
>reference. If you go to
>http://home.earthlink.net/~mottimorph/Earth.html, and
>read Section 8, you'll see what I mean.
At some point I may, I suspect that you are in a datacollection mode right now so any perusal of a web page(presumably) under your control would not be a goodidea concerning the level of attack you have alreadydemonstrated.
(Ah, effective and factual rebuttal of his incosistencies and falsehoods is "attack." What a megalomaniac!)
>
> > Now, let me see if I understand the last thing.you
> > want me to *purchase* your book and that somehow
> > proves that I don.t understand William of Ockham.s
> > words? What sort of logic is that? (seems rather
> > convoluted which makes my point precisely)
> >
>
> The above point should clarify that for you. If you
>want more information (or knowledge on the topic of
>the book) you can buy it if you wish. I certainly
>don't care either way. But you should read something
>before you pan it.
>
> > Take care- take a few deep breaths and calm down
> > before you reply to me again.
> > OK?
>
> I actually enjoyed our exhange. Good mentalexercise.
>
> --Wm. M. Mott>
Ditto!
Take care!
("Take care?" What, are we pals now? Gee, I'm so honored to be wished well by "the Emperor.")
>
>
=====
Sincerely;
The Odd Emperor
-----------
6. The Imp in a snit.
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003
From: Odd Empire
Reply-To: oddempire@blachfish-enterprises.com
Subject: Re: SUBTERRANEAN MYTHS AND MYSTERIES
To: mottimorph@earthlink.net
>I'm still waiting for you to post my reply to your
>statements. I see that you tend to only post your
own
>"rebuttal" statements.
>Taking some time to compose this one, eh? How about
>posting my reply as it stands? Of course, you
couldn't >do that....
I have a life outside of getting insulted by people
like you! So sorry you had to wait a couple of hours.
What the hell do you do all day, sit around and
compose nasty-grams to people?
("Nasty-grams?" How cute. Looks like someone's in a snit over being repudiated. What fun!)
>Don't worry, I'll get around to putting up anaccurate
>representation of our exchanges at a siteyou don't
>control.
I can’t wait!
(And I'll take THAT as a go-ahead....)
>I'm still interested in seeing your pubished works,
>btw. Be sure and include any and all pertinent
>publishing information or URLs which relate to all
your >writings and "re-writes."
Excuse me? You are presuming to order me around now?
What? is this some tone-40 thing?
(Ah, Gee, is the Emperor losing control? Is he not giving all the orders and making all the grand pronouncements? How irritating! Hilarious!)
=====
Sincerely;
The Odd Emperor
---------------
7. Mott: Prodding the potentate.
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003
Subject: Re: SUBTERRANEAN MYTHS AND MYSTERIES
From: "Wm. Michael Mott"
To:
CC:
on 5/29/03 2:03 PM, Odd Empire at odd_empire@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> Knowledge; reasoning ability; veracity--The list
> goes on.
>
> OK, why did you not say that in the first place?
>
>>
I think the statement is self-explanatory.
>>
>> The point is a simple one. These anomalies exist,
> and >are unaccounted for without the consideration of
>> non-human or pre-human agency. The Eltanin antenna,
>> for instance, was discovered decades ago, by a U.S.
>> government survey ship. Your (typical) ad hominem,
>> personal attack on someone reporting it (in this case
>> Streiber, since this particular instance of the story
>> was at his site--but it is in plenty of other
> places), >in no way changes this fact. You use the
> typical ad >hominem discrediting tactic of someone who
> is
>> short on knowledge and long on nerve. This seems to
>> be your modus operandi in general, though.
>
> Once again you are failing to address the issue and
> bringing up a number of other unrelated things to
> muddy the waters. I pointed out that nether rense.com
> nor Undiscovered Country are what I would conceder
> reliable sources and I gave you a few reasons why I
> believe this. Then you have attempted to reverse my
> argument that your (unending) personal attack is in
> fact coming from me directed at those other two
> gentlemen.
>
Again, you use ad hominem tactics to avoid and dodge information whichshatters your shallow worldview. I recommend that you go to google.com anddo a search on "Eltanin Antenna." Just don't click on any links toStreiber's or other sites which you disdain.
> Are you unable to stick with one subject or is there
> some other problem?
>
I'm on topic. You're dodging with the same old ad hominem tactics.
>>
>>> As for your other recommendation, Ill take a rain
>>> check on that, thank you very much. What I find
>>> arrogant is people expounding on subjects that they
>>> have little knowledge of.
>>
>>
>> My, this is certainly the pot calling the kettle
>> black. In fact, you expound on books--with
>> intellectual adjectives like "crappy," no less--that
>> you have never read. Arrogance, cluelessness, and
>> pomposity--as revealed by your nom de plume of
>> "Emperor--" certainly are accurate terms to describe
>> you. BTW, this is not "ad hominem;" it is
> observation >based on demonstrable facts and examples.
>
> I actually read much of your material on your old web
> page (and enjoyed much of it). The adjective "crappy"
> was describing self published books in general.
>
Glad to see that you enjoyed some of it. Again, the books aren'tself-published, but your innate hostility indicates to me that you areprobably a very frustrated, often-rejected writer.
> Besides, I am arrogant! I admit that! Would you care
> to send me a copy of your book so I can read it an
> become more enlightened? It probably won't do anything
> for my arrogance problem but it might give you the
> satisfaction of trying.
>
Nah. If you really want to read it you'll buy a copy.
>>
>>> If you fall under this
>>> framework I would call you arrogant. Since I know you
>>> only from some of your work and this letter I can only
>>> say that your conclusions appear misguided and more
>>> than a little arrogant. That is simply one opinion
>>> based on what I have read on your web page. Your
>>> letter here serves to confirm that I was correct.
>>>
>>
>> Au contraire, I believe that your reply more than
>> demonstrates your own abysmal arrogance and
> ignorance. >You repeat the same errors of reasoning
> in your >arguments; you make sweeping generalizations,
> ad >hominem statements and pronouncements (based in no
>> discernable fact, but only in your own arrogance and
>> self-certainty), and puerile statements of various
>> sorts.
>
> Only the discernable facts of your statements, nothing else.
>
>>
Meaningless. Yet again.
>>>
>>>> If ignorance is bliss, then you must truly be in
>>> Nirvana....
>>>
>>> The last statement demonstrates that you have little
>>> understanding of the Hindu religion. That.s OK, the
>>> concepts are rather complex. Lots of people have a
>>> hard time with them.
>>>
>>
>> Nirvana is a Buddhist tenet and concept--in fact, it
>> is the penultimate goal of that religion. There you
> go again, demonstrating for all your complete
> ignorance of topics you stand in judgement of--in
> this case, religion, mythology, and related fields.
> You are truely a pompous cartoon, "Emperor.
"> Unfortunately,
>you have no clothes. Your nude mind,
> shriveled and unrounded as it is, is not an appealing sight....
>
> Here we go again.....
>
> Nirvana is indeed a Hindu concept as well as a
> Buddhist one. You might want to check your tailor
> again. It also proves my point that you don't really
> understand, achieving "nothingness" is not what I had in mind.
>
>>
Nirvana found it's ultimate expression--and development as a religiousconcept--in Buddhism. The same came be said of Maya. Since Buddhism isrooted in Hinduism, your confusion or lack of understanding is, well,understandable.
Basically, you continue to demonstrate your ignorance.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Underground
>>>>> civilization is only the tiniest portion of a huge
>>>>> body of recorded mythology.
>>>>> Let me tell you about the Native American myth
>>>>> about how the jackass got his
>>>>> tale (tail?)
>>>>>
>>> It.s very interesting how you cannot refute my
>>> argument; you can only insult me personally. This is
>>> known as the ad-homonym approach to debate, if some
>>> opinion offends you then you go after the person who
>>> made the statement, not the statement itself.
>>
>>
>> No, this is _your_ methodology. This is the method
>> you demonstrate on your webpage, where you expound on
>> matters and works of which you have absolutely no
>> clue whatsoever. Again, to call you a buffoon is not
>> an ad hominem attack; it's simply an observation
>> based on your behavior and very poor reasoning
>> ability. By the way, it's "ad hominem," not
>> "homonym". Again, you demonstrate your ignorance,
>> combined with a laughable arrogance.
>>
>Why, you are correct! Thank you .
>
You're welcome.
> See how easy that was, now what were we really talking about?
>
>>
>>> Generally speaking it is better (and much more mature)
>>> to go after my assertions and not my personality.
>>>
>>
>> Again, you are calling the kettle black. You're also a
>> hypocrite--demonstrably so. You decry your own
> methodology here.
>>
>
> Really; I attack your argument and you attack me. I
> point this out and you say this is MY method?
>
Pointing out a fact--such as your self-protective double-standards (i.e.,hypocrisy) is not an attack. It is an observation of fact.
>
>> See the above statement. In fact, such insult is
>> clearly implied; and the fact that you are clueless
>> about the material you deride indicates clearly what
>> kind of person you are. Have you read the books in
>> question? Of course not. This paints quite a clear
>> picture of you, or would seem to do so.
>
> Of course I have, much more than you can possibly
> imagine.
>
You have read neither of my books. Your last message left this quite clear.So now you're adding "lying" to your other "methodologies?"
Tell me specifically which books of mine you have read, or have in yourpossession. This is easy enough to verify.
> Say, are you running this through several language
> translators before reading it or someting? You do not
> seem to understand what I'm saying at all.
>
I understand you quite well....
>>
>>
>> Your "position" (a lack of one, actually) has been
>> clearly refuted. Your own attempts at rebuttal only
>> assist, in your self-discrediting (see all of the
>> above).
>
> I have seen it, you have not rebutted any shred of my
> position (that you have a silly web page).
>
It would seem that you are the one suffering from a lack ofcomprehension....
>>
>>> This is a very bad stance if you are attempting to
>>> bolster your position against mine. It actually
>>> strengthens my position and makes you (in the opinion
>>> of some people who read these words) *look* like a
>>> jackass. If you wish to invoke debate on some point
>>> reflected on yur web page I am quite willing to debate you.
>>>
>>
>> What do you call what we are doing?
>
> I am debating, you are abusing.
>
Whatever. You're debating--What? The fact that I've pointed out yourvarious inconsistencies and untruths? The facts speak for themselves andare apparent.
>>
>> You see, your entire position is based on ad hominem
>> garbage; you know nothing of that of which you write.
>> You have no basis for argumentation, since you have
> no knowledge of the topics (or books) you seek to refute.
>> You've really stuck your foot in it, haven't you?
>>
>
> Prove that please. I have not once insulted you
> personally, unless you call poking fun at your ideas a
> personal affront, in which case I would closely
> examine why you are so offended.
>
Actually, I'm not offended. Did I not thank you for the attention?
I do, however, believe that your approach is petty and mean-spirited. Idetect more than a touch of (un)professional jealousy, due to your methodsand language--not to mention your deceptive and inept means ofargumentation.
> <
>
>>> If you would be so kind to tell me the publishing
>>> house name and perhaps the ISBN code I will be happy
>>> to retract that statement. BTW, self-published
>>> includes .on demand. publishing houses.
>>>
>>
>> 0-9713166-3-5. That's the ISBN of the paperback edition.
>>
>
> Thank you, that was easy too was it not?
>
You asked once, you got it once. What's your point?
>>
>>
>
>> I agree with your statement here. In fact, I'm a
>> stickler for facts and for verifiable evidence of any
>> statement or claim. This has gotten me into hot
>> water more than once, and has left no love lost among
>> certain "new age" claimants and self-styled gurus.
>
> I could not agree with you more. This is essence of
> skepticism and in case you have some doubt over the
> way I am using that term it is defined as .
>
> A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind;> dubiety. > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=skepticism>
Empirical thought is imperative. But this doesn't mean that you discount everything in order to inflate your own ego of sense of omniscience. You'llfigure this out as you grow older and more experienced in life, though.
I would wager that you are still a teenager, or have been one very recently.
>>
>>
>>>> For that matter, where are your _original_ works,
>>> ideas, concepts, or
>>>> writings to be found in the marketplace of ideas?
>
>>> Again, I would guess a
>>>> resounding NOWHERE will answer this.
>>>
>>> I certainly don.t self publish if that.s what you
>>> mean.
>>>
>>
>> As you should have seen, neither do I. Hidden
>> Mysteries and Gemstar are certainly not owned by me.
>
> Did you pay a fee to have your stuff published?
>
Of course not. I have standard publishing agreements as a result of thetime-honored hell of writing query letters. What about yourself? Anyvanity-press versions of your work out there? How about any versions, fromany publishers?
>>
>> You sound suspiciously like a frustrated aspiring
>> writer....
>
> Aspiring yes, not frustrated a bit yet. give me about
> ten years and we shall see. ; )
>
Keep aspiring. Attacking the work of others will certainly not help you to achieve your own desires or ambitions, though.
>>
>> You're welcome. BTW, feel free to lift that "fits
> of pique" from my previous message if you're at a loss
> for words. Oh--you already did.
>>
>
> Much obliged!
>
No problem.
>
>> Your copyright does not supercede my own. In other
>> words, a conversational exchange of e-mail is equally
>> owned by both recipients. This is a matter of fact
>> under the law. Surely you already knew this?
>
> Natrally but what I'm refering to is the web page.
>
So am I. Mine, to be precise. Expect to see our exchanges there.
>>
>>> If you intend to re publish this letter I must ask
>>> that you run it by me first. I already have your
>>> permission to publish your words, thank you very much!
>>>
>>
>> Yours is assumed by your participation in this
>> conversation. You can further assume that any
>> reproduction will be reciprocal.
>>
>
> Nope, I did not agree to any such thing. I'm not too
> worried though and I never assume anything. You
> however made it very clear that you want me to publish
> this letter on the Empire page. I am making it clear
> that any content on the Odd Empire web page located at
> URL http://www.blackfish-enterprises.com/oddempire/ is
> copyrighted material as described by the disclaimer.
>
Your agreement is not required. Get a lawyer and find out. You lifted the copyright title of my webpage from my site, without permission, and reproduced it on your own. Copyright notices are clearly displayed at thesite and have always been so. Technically, you have already violatedcopyright. Unlike yourself, I have a publishing history to back up myclaims.
On the other hand, I have the right, as a writer, to respond to any review.Yours is no exception.
Look for a nice long piece about our interaction.
>>>
>>>> Oh--and you may want to try actually reading a book
>>> once in a while. You might even learn something.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I.m reading about four right now, I'm.m in the middle of
>>> a re-write of one and in the primary write of another
>>> (it.s a slow week).
>>>
>>
>> Re-writing...What? Surely not your own work(s)?
>>
>
> Who else's - not the stuff I'm reading. Sorry that
> statement *was* a little unclear.
>
I'm actually interested--in a non-critical way--in seeing your work.
>
>> How about a little evidence? Can you point me to
> your >published works? I'd love to take a look at them.
>>
>
> - I bet! ; )
>
Well, it's all a matter of courage, isn't it? I mean, you remain anonymous;you revile and critique others while making dubious claims about being awriter yourself--yet you do not demonstrate either your identity or yourwork. This leads to an inevitable series of possible conclusions:
1) You are a phoney and have no original work;
2) You are a coward;
3) You have original work yet are still a coward when it comes to displayingit, and your true identity.
It will be interesting to see if you have the "courage" to anonymouslypublish this as the Emperor, at your site. I certainly don't expect you tohave the courage to back up your contentions by revealing your trueidentity. For the same reason, your copyright claims and statements arelaughable. You've put no name of ownership on your site, and since your legal name is almost certainly not "The Emperor" or "The Webminister," your material is fair game.
> I have several things on the web under different
> names. One is actually based on stuff that I found on
> your own web page if you can believe that.
Like I said, I'd like to see it. Sounds interesting.
> Unfortunately I'm a little reluctant to tell you more
> (for reasons that should be obvious) , maybe later, if
> you'r really really good!
>
(Wow, if'n I'm good, "you'r" gonna tell me a secret! How special that makes me feel, to be considered for enlightened knowledge from "the Emperor!")
I don't expect you to have the courage to reveal your actual identity.
>>
>> I utilize Occam/Ockham's theorem in a similar frame
>> of reference. If you go to
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~mottimorph/Earth.html, and
>> read Section 8, you'll see what I mean.
>
> At some point I may, I suspect that you are in a data
> collection mode right now so any perusal of a web page
> (presumably) under your control would not be a good
> idea concerning the level of attack you have already
> demonstrated.
>
You are simply experiencing reciprocal energy. You put out negativity, you get it back.
I'm not sure what you mean by "level of attack." What you are seeing isgenuine rebuttal and debate, factually based--something which you are apparently ill-equipped to deal with or demonstrate, thus far.
>>
>
> Ditto!
>
> Take care!
>
Take it easy.
Have a beer or something.
--W.M. Mott
----------------
8. A further nudge.
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003
Subject: Re: SUBTERRANEAN MYTHS AND MYSTERIES
From: "Wm. Michael Mott"
To:
CC:
on 5/29/03 2:13 PM, Odd Empire at odd_empire@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Taking some time to compose this one, eh? How about
>> posting my reply as it stands? Of course, you
> couldn't do that....
>
> I have a life outside of getting insulted by people
> like you! So sorry you had to wait a couple of hours.
> What the hell do you do all day, sit around and
> compose nasty-grams to people?
>
My goodness, you're funny!
"Nasty-grams," eh? What a "crappy" thing to say, don't you think?
Either you can take the heat of a genuine debate, factually based, or youcan't. Obviously, you can't.
>> Don't worry, I'll get around to putting up an
> accurate >representation of our exchanges at a site
> you don't >control.
>
> I can?t wait!
>
(Gee, is he asking me or telling me? Can?t?)
>> I'm still interested in seeing your pubished works,
>> btw. Be sure and include any and all pertinent
>> publishing information or URLs which relate to all
> your >writings and "re-writes."
>
>
> Excuse me? You are presuming to order me around now?
> What? is this some tone-40 thing?
>
>
(There's that "loss of control" issue, again! Looks the "Emperor" can't stand not calling the shots, dictating the action, or having his asinine reasoning abilities questioned! This is a gut-splitter!)
Don't worry, it will end up being posted somewhere, very soon.
--W.M. Mott
-------
A Brief Respite.
And now we'll see if he has the fortitude to continue.....Maybe I'll get lucky, and he'll SUE me. Then I can reveal his name, and all the sordid details, to the world at large via the world wide web.....What fun!
Well, the respite didn't last long. The Imp of Od has carried on a merry exchange, mostly designed to convince me that he IS a "real writer," that he is special, talented, enlightened, equal, pertinent, wise, and so on. Most of this material is a waste of space (and time), but he decided to reproduce some of it at his website, ending it all with yet more lies and hypocrisy.
Again, he has demonstrated his own absurdity:
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 15:12:30 -0500
Subject: Aren't you funny?
From: "Wm. Michael Mott"
To:
CC:
My, aren't you *funny?*
In reply to:
>
> This was because I was getting multiple copies of his messages, and he
> complained that supposedly my email was "bouncing". In actuality he was CCing
> to oddempire_list@blackfish-enterprises.com , a mailing list he had not signed
> up for. I would have no problem giving him access if he requested it.>
I joined this mailing list, and in fact it was my first point of contactwith you. I have the various e-mail announcements which prove this, ofcourse (here's one):
----------
> From: oddempire_list-help@blackfish-enterprises.com
> Date: 28 May 2003 20:38:30 -0000
> To: mottimorph@earthlink.net
> Subject: WELCOME to oddempire_list@blackfish-enterprises.com
>
> Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the
> oddempire_list@blackfish-enterprises.com mailing list.
>
> I'm working for my owner, who can be reached
> at oddempire_list-owner@blackfish-enterprises.com.
>
> Acknowledgment: I have added the address
>
> mottimorph@earthlink.net
>
> to the oddempire_list mailing list.
>
> Welcome to oddempire_list@blackfish-enterprises.com!
>
> Please save this message so that you know the address you are
> subscribed under, in case you later want to unsubscribe or change your
> subscription address.
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to:
So you see, you are indeed a liar, as you've demonstrated throughout our exchange. You lie, dodge, and exhibit an amusing hypocrisy.
Apparently you've taken me off your list--you did it pretty quickly,actually. But that's ok, you've already demonstrated, YET AGAIN, that you are a liar who will say anything to attack or discredit someone else. Thisis an ad hominem tactic, btw.
Actually, the reason messages to you bounce is because YOU are stupid. You see, you've set your personal e-mail account up incorrectly, so that when anyone replies to your personal e-mail by hitting "reply," YOUR RETURN ADDRESS IS GENERATED INCORRECTLY and has to be MANUALLY CORRECTED. Case in point (one of many which I have retained):
The original message was received at Thu, 29 May 2003 08:36:57 -0700 (PDT)from pintail.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.122]
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
(reason: 550 Host unknown)
----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 5.1.2
----
You see, your OWN e-mail address is at blackfish-enterprises.com, NOT"blachfish-enterprises.com." This is the reason that you hardly ever getany e-mail at the blackfish address (I bet you've been wondering about that, hmmm?). Yet again, another example of your buffoonish nature.
More examples will be found here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~mottimorph/OdEmp.html
...with meticulous attention to your hypocrisy and absurdity, your anonymous cowardice and self-tripping lies and statements. Your claims to being a writer are examined as well, although I have yet to add a great deal of thepersonal claims which you've made. As I told you in a recent message, Ican't take you seriously in any regard or on any level of discussion, untilyou abandon your deceptive methodologies, identify yourself, and provideverification for all your claims (whether it's the self-negated claim tohave read my books "more than you can know," or the assertions that you area writer with published work under different pseudonyms). The fact is, youare simply a wannabe sniveller, filled with petty jealousies and frustrations. Until you prove otherwise, you are a waste of time as well,and won't receive much other than a critical examination.
> I did send a join request to his mailing list
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fantasticreality/ as of this writing (May 31,
> 2003) I've been ignored, what kind of bird was that again?
>
>
Deceptive, underhanded sorts are removed from that list. They certainlyaren't allowed on it to begin with. Some of the foremost Forteanresearchers around are on that list, and the presence of a petty littletroublemaker would only be an irritant. In short, you have nothingwhatsoever to offer to that group.
Keep dreaming.
--W.M.M.UPDATE!!! 1/30/04, 7:30 P.M. CST
Well, the cat is out of the bag, the puss is out of the boots, and the human chicken has come home to roost! I base this latter statement on photos of the Imp which I've seen.
Turns out that the "Odd Emperor" is a low-level, forty-something technoflunky at a small university in the St. Petersburg Fl. area.
For now, however, I'll keep his identity secret. As the "Odd Imp," he has apparently ticked off a lot a people on the internet, and I certainly wouldn't want to spoil his fun....Or clue them in as to who he is. Not yet, at any rate. At this point, I'll just refer to him as "Mr. Pattinfinn."
He also owns a "computer services" company, which features about the most unappealing, boring, lackluster, link-dead and probably customerless webpage I've ever seen....Judging by the utter lack of content and links (as in to customers of his supposed services), anyway. Somehow, this isn't surprising--it seems to be rougly equivalent to his writing credits. I have discovered that he is an aspiring writer who has "finished a novel" and is "working on the next one--" but of course, he's too gutless to share his fiction or his professional writing credits with the world at large. After reading his attacks against the work of other writers, I'm sure the world is a better place without it!
This "guy" is big into the SCA (not that there's anything wrong with that, but in his case....), dressing up and pretending to be a tough guy, and apparently (from his hodge-podge of webpages) dreaming of glories past, faded, or which never were. Pretty sad and pathetic, actually. He loves Linux and builds monuments to himself on Mars (no, really--he does! Virtually, anyway, with mediocre Bryce renderings). He keeps elaborate blogs of his boring, boring, boring life, talking to himself about his latest Linux adventures and forays into self-discovery, or probing, or whatever. After seeing a bit of this stuff, I understand the misery he must be wallowing in. I guess this is why he feels compelled to lash out at the rest of the world....
It seems that THIS page, this homage to his idiocy, being much more accurate in terms of reproducing our various exchanges (he tends to edit out his own faux pas, lies, and so on at his site) has really set him off! His personal blogs reflect his chagrin at being pegged so accurately as the loser that he is. Much to my delight, he has expanded and elaborated on criticizing my artwork, fiction, nonfiction, job description, and anything else he can think of, at his website, in a paroxysm of futility and spite which is absolutely hilarious! Regardless of the fact, of course, that the artwork has been professionally published by book and magazine publishers, software companies, and others for years, and the novels have been published by two electronic publishing companies (not owned by or affliliated with yours truly) in the past. Of course, all of this is meager when stood alongside the monumental creative accomplishments of this....guy. Unfortunately, he seems to have reduced the ease by which one can find links to THIS page from his website....Gee, I wonder why! He still hasn't read the fiction or non-fiction works, of course, but I certainly appreciate all the traffic he's sent my way!
Judging by the actual pictures I found of this...guy, he DOES looks pretty lonely and pathetic. This probably explains his obsession with the lives and work of other people....He really needs to get a life of his own.
STILL a sad, sad little man.