For my readers allergic to drama, I encourage you to skip this post, and I apologize. But I wanted to set the record straight once and for all, and to meet the bluster and boastings of a bully with the facts, for better or worse. Some say that the only result of wrestling with pigs is to get oneself dirty, but sometimes, it makes you feel better, especially when one can just go home and take a shower. But if you don't want to get mud-specked, I suggest you keep your distance. When people bring up out-of-bounds personal communications/conversations, then present what I supposedly said inaccurately or way out of context, that's an attack on my reputation at a near libelous level -- not mere trollage. Since it's bullshit, I simply went back and hit CUT and PASTE. Easy.
And now, it's part of the public record, since King Baeksu wanted to take it there. Well, I'm finishing it by publishing it ALL. You be the judge of who's the crazy one. I may be overreacting, but when people fuck with my reputation by talking about shit I said or allegedly said, it's not play time anymore.
So again, I apologize to those of you who don't like this sort of thing, but I don't bring it to the level of the post often. So I urge you to just skip it this isn't your cup of tea.
But for those of you who like to poke a bruise or rubberneck at traffic accidents, and maybe even sneak in a bit of Jerry Springer when no one's looking, this complete piece of drama may be one for you...
So, I hate to do this, but Scott's constant mention of people and incidents that are clearly in the realm of the personal (and not the public discussions that are legitimate to have, no matter the fact of how much we might disagree) have really ticked me off. And I want to set the record straight, since I HAVE all the records, of at least the conversations that Scott constantly brings up, both here and in the comment sections of other sites (namely, the Marmot's Hole, where these exact issues have been brought up by Scott).
My email records go back to 2001.
As usual, Scott takes things completely out of context, to the point of distortion. And the degree to which he obsesses over a conversation had on a Korean Studies discussion list in 2003 (I hadn't had any correspondence of any type with him until this year of 2008, when he wrote an out-of-line and accusatory email to me out of the blue). Since he is going around quoting personal conversations and years-old interactions in comments sections, I felt I'd just set the record straight. It's a good thing that I keep records obsessively. I want to address this disturbed blowhard and call his BS once and for all. This is getting ridiculous. Here goes:
As usual, Scott's stripped the context completely again. Here's both our FIRST interaction in 2003, on the Korean Studies mailing list, and the context that surrounded it:
There was an ongoing discussion on this highly moderated message board about anti-Americanism. There were lots of scholars agreeing, disagreeing, and sharing their views and experiences about anti-Americanism in Korea at the time. Even my then-director and mentor to us all, Dr. Horace Underwood, chimed in, and we disagreed somewhat. It was all good. Some said it was just recurring waves, some said it was markedly different in type, some said it was different in terms of degree -- all good. There is no flaming on this list, and anyone who does risks both immediate deletion from the list and professional suicide. So that's both what was going on, combined with the atmosphere of the board. Dave's ESL cafe it ain't. And despite the fact that yes, Scott isn't and wasn't an academic, he was on the list. It's open to anyone with an interest in Korea and subject to the moderator's approval. But the only person stressed out or concerned with the fact that *GASP* he's not an academic being afforded some kind of specific or deferential treatment is, not surprisingly, Scott (King Baeksu) Burgeson himself.
As the conversation went on, Michael Robinson, a HIGHLY respected scholar in the field asked the following question:
Dear List:
I am working with a group who are preparing a study tour of Japan and
Korea this summer. It has taken quite a while to get the organizers to
realize how valuable Korea is to such a tour. Now I discover that the issue
of "dangers" and Anti-Americanism has clouded the issue or whether to
include Korea in this year's program. We would be in Korea between roughly
June 20-28.
My question to my colleagues living in the ROK is: what is your
assessment as to the actual chances of our tour members being hassled or set
upon by Koreans who are upset at the recent string of U.S. gaffs on the
peninsula and the rising trend of anti-Americanism reported in the U.S.
press. My sense is that there couldn't be a better summer to be in Korea
and understand the underlying dynamics that have driven political
development here for the last 50 years.
I need some ammunition to use against my liability focused organizers.
Thanks
Mike (Michael Robinson)
Now, although my response has been characterized by certain people who don't read closely as negative, anti-Korean, or misrepresenting the issue, my response was careful, thought-out, and fair, especially considering the extreme level of crap I was taking for daring to ride the subway at the time:
Hello -
I've been a lurker here for some time, so I'll introduce myself quickly. My name is Michael Hurt from UC Berkeley, presently in Korea doing dissertation research related to national ideology/race/nationalism. For those working in similar areas, please drop me a line.
Regarding the Dr. Robinson's academic group visit to Korea, I concur with everything said on the list, although I would like to add a few things as a non-white Korean Studies guy working in Korea. Since I first came here in 1994, I've noticed that there are certain situations that are "high risk" for simple verbal harassment, which I think is as likely to happen as it has ever been, and obviously even more so with the recent wave of anti-Americanism. Still, my overall assessment is that you shouldn't even worry about the possibility of there being a physical altercation between a Korean and one of your visitors. It's much more likely that they'll be involved in a traffic accident than a scuffle over being a foreigner. Still, there are a few things that seem to increase one's chances of people taking (sometimes negative) notice of you.
1) Riding the #1 line at night, especially on the weekends. There seems to be an older crowd on this train, and more people in this group tend to be drunk at these times. Almost all the negative incidents I have experienced in Korea (from being verbally harassed to being chased off the platform) have occurred on the #1 line. It's a connector to a lot of more rural places, as well as the line many GI's use to get back and forth to other bases. In September, 3 soldiers were attacked (one kidnapped and forced to apologize for the US military's crimes); I wasn't at all surprised to hear that it was the #1 line they had been taking to base.
2) Traveling in groups and speaking English in closed spaces. Although not generally a problem, it definitely increases your visibility and grates on some people's ears. Speaking English at the same volume level as other Koreans in the same space still means you sound twice as loud. Alone, I'm generally never even talked to - just ignored. When I occasionally meet an American friend and are talking in public, I am quickly reminded of how much more noticeable this makes us. As a pair, I've had everything happen from people coming up and wanting to speak English with us, to an airline stewardess asking us to be quiet (although we were speaking no louder than any other person on the plane) because a passenger had complained about our loudness. When a large group of people speaking English is traveling around (and it doesn't look like a tour group), it will be quite noticeable when taking public transportation or walking in public places. I came to Korea as a Fulbright English teacher in 1994, and we would often go as a large group (around 30 people) to places for orientation, meetings and such. Everywhere we went, it caused quite a stir. Although it's 2003 and there are more foreigners than there were then in Korea, large groups of foreigners walking around everyday parts of Korea are still unusual. I don't think it would be much different for, say, 10 people to get on a subway and be speaking English, having multiple conversations and such, than in 1994. People will inevitably talk to members of such a group, although I think that, with little exception, the conversation would be quite congenial. But just know that I have several colleagues and friends who have been slapped for no other reason than 1) being American, and/or 2) speaking English. Especially for Asian Americans (who may or may not be/look Korean American), this has been a problem. I regularly hear about not just the standard "taxi driver story" in which they admonish Korean Americans for not speaking Korean, but also about women especially who are verbally assaulted or slapped by older Korean men who see them as a "miguk-nyun." Even recently, a colleague of mine was told to "Speak Korean!" while talking with a friend on the subway. Again, I don't think it necessarily a problem for you, but I don't know your group. Forewarned is forearmed.
3) Looking like or being a GI, meaning being male, in good shape, relatively young, having a short haircut - or just being African American. Although I don't wish to stereotype academics (I'm one myself!), most of us don't meet most of the above criteria. If you do, there might be places that are just a bit more sensitive to you. Near the Hongik University area (Hongdae) there are still many places - mostly clubs and bars - that have signs that say "Due to unpleasant experience in the past, no GI's are allowed" or something to that effect ("No GI's!") Since Itaewon has been hooked into the Seoul subway system directly with Line #6, IGI's and their families have been much more inclined to travel outside Itaewon. Hongdae has become the #2 spot to be now, outside of Itaewon. Since 9/11 and recent anti-American and anti-military incidents (one officer was set upon by multiple attackers and stabbed with a 5-inch blade on the way back to his camp in December) a strict curfew has been in effect. MP's in Itaewon regularly patrol and strictly enforce the 1 AM (weekends) curfew to be back on base. So Hongdae has become an additional attractor for GI's who want to party bcs the MP's do not patrol in this area. Almost as soon as the verdict hit, the "no GI's" signs went up. But "normal" looking folks have no problem. It's all pretty subjective and questionable, I know. But know that individual businesses scattered around the city (and other places in Korea) made similar acts of discriminatory protest. Ever since the government has been trying to reign in the anti-Americanism (superficial as it is), I think you won't find many places outside of Hongdae that do this. But it's hard to account for everyone, so don't be surprised if you come across something like this or similar sentiments, especially if members of your group look GI-ish. But being in a large, diverse-looking group will tend to cancel this factor out. Just something to be aware of for individual members of your group, methinks.
4) Seeming unsympathetic to US military crimes. A small factor, and one that you probably won't have to think about at all, since the major protests are over and there are now few college students maintaining booths and handing out flyers in subways and on major streets. But it's something to think about. The 3 GI men who got into trouble were a convergence of several of the above factors: they were traveling in a small group on the #1 line at night - AND THEN got into trouble when they refused (perhaps angrily?) a flyer from an activist. Given the language difference, the graphic photos used, and the strong feelings on both sides of the issue, I doubt it was taken by either side as a friendly exchange of ideas. I've been handed flyers on the street, I think sometimes being singled out bcs I looked American, but I always neutrally accepted the material and walked away. When I have spoken with these people, they were always more than willing (usually very much so!) to "fill me in." Just know that this isn't a matter of debate or even an analysis of pertinent facts with many people here. I can't blame people directly as much as the willfully irresponsible media here, which misreported or simply didn't report certain things to people here, especially in the matter of public apologies made, compensation given, the fact that Korea is in SOFA agreements with several other countries, or even that this was not a deliberate act of murder, at the most extreme. In any case, the misconduct of the military - in the way many people here understand it from the news they've been getting - is simply an article of faith for many people. If you don't speak Korean and don't know the person well, I wouldn't even broach the topic, to be quite honest. If someone does ask you "what you think as an American", I suggest you be really up on the fine points of this incident and plan to have some time to get into it. If you want to have pleasant dinner conversation, I'd suggest talking about something else.
5) Walking around as an Asian female/non-Asian male pair. This greatly increases your chances of people at least looking askance at you. Especially in this time or relatively heightened tension, grumbling over the recent James Bond film, and the general distaste that many Korean men express towards foreign men taking "their" women, this is something to keep in mind. Even when walking around with a female friend being completely and consciously platonic, people stare. Since they hear that we converse in Korean, it's generally a non-issue. But in many other cases I know of, as well as observing people's reaction to such "couples", I know that this can be a major trouble attractor, possibly as great as all of the above ones but together. I've heard of a taxi driver taking a couple and dropping them off way outside of their destination out of spite, a Korean female adoptee who had her Caucasian father visit and when they expressed normal familial affection caused serious social scandal around them, women being verbally accosted in Korean (the Korean man assuming the foreign man doesn't understand), ad nauseum. The general reaction to an obvious couple - especially if the man is not white - is barely-concealed distaste and snickering. This is even more so if the couple is conversing in English in public. Then some of the issues described above (the woman being a "miguk-nyun", English attracting attention) are additional factors. Some people might disagree with this description, but I've seen this reaction a LOT. Just be aware of it if members of your group fit this demographic and decide to go on a day trip together. This is the closest I think any situation will bring members of your group to the possibility of having an unpleasant experience, but even still, I don't think it will actually cause any real problems.
6) Being black, or otherwise racially marked. In my total of three years spent living in Korea, I've seen an African American friend be called "nigger" (yes, in English) exactly once, but it turned out (as the police came after he near attacked my friend) that he had been living in LA for the past ten years, and had obviously brought some baggage with him that can't be declared at customs. In Korean (and most people don't assume I speak it), I've been called "kkamdungi" exactly twice. Once in passing as a man wondered to his friend what a kkamdungi was doing on Cheju Island in 1994, and once by a kid at a wedding who asked his immensely-embarrassed mom if I was really a kkamdungi or not. As you can see, this sort of stuff is rare, unintentional, and relatively innocuous. I say this because the American term "nigger" has different historically-specific and heavily loaded impact than its Korean "equivalent" that roughly means "blackie." In terms of other ethnic backgrounds, know that in general, South Asian laborers are not looked upon too highly here, although I wouldn't say there is active popular resentment that people tend to act out individually. Still, I find that many of these people seem to be sort of socially invisible, it seems. But take that as my subjective and relatively uninformed opinion in that regard.
Don't let this mini-list deter you. Just writing about the above points makes the issue seem much larger than it is. For the most part, the most interaction your group will have with ordinary Koreans they don't know will be limited to passersby or passengers asking where they are from, why they came to Korea, did they watch the World Cup, etc. I would be quite surprised if anything untoward happened to your group. Even if something uncomfortable were to take place, I think it would be limited to the random yell from afar. And even in the RARE event of something serious taking place, like being verbally or physically accosted, 1) speaking Korean almost instantly defuses the situation, and 2) a conscientious Korean will likely intervene on the behalf of the hapless foreign visitor who is being harassed by a drunk ajussi. I think many Koreans who actually witness such an out-and-out, unprovoked attack on a foreign visitor would take this as an embarrassment to the country. I've never seen an entire group of people encounter outright hostility here, and I would bet money that your experience won't be any different. Just watch out more for individual members of the group, while keeping the above things in mind and using a little caution with the entire group when you are out and about in public. And as an organizer, if you are the main worrier, then your guests don't have to be. Just watch out for them a bit as you have your groups's likely QUITE enjoyable stay in Korea!
-----
Michael Hurt
Korea-American Educational Commission
Fulbright Building
168-15 Yomni-dong, Mapo-gu
Seoul 121-874, Korea
After that detailed and reasoned response, this was Scott's message:
From: "J.Scott Burgeson" <ADDRESS DELETED>
Subject: RE: [KS] anti-Americanism in ROK
Really, it's all about the attitude of the individual foreigner in the ROK. Just as, say, the wrong kind of look from a white person directed towards an African-American in the States could very well provoke a hostile or even physical response (ie., "What you lookin' at white boy? You got a problem?" etc. ), the same kind of perceived lack of disrepect coming from certain foreigners here is likely to provoke hostile responses from certain locals. Often this kind of behavior tends to come from American servicemen who are simply being "rowdy" while out on the town and having a good time, but this kind of loud, boisterous behavior is generally frowned on here by locals and can be misinterpreted by Koreans as a lack of respect, arrogance, etc. And in a sense, such Koreans do have some justification in their feelings about this, because foreigners acting this way here (esp. these days) are being rather insensitive about local ways of acting in public and behaving with a sense of decorum. In other words, it's all about street smarts, which is not always that highly developed in the average 20-year-old GI from Kansas on a first-time tour of duty here.
As for me, I eat out every day here. Often Korean ajosshi's eating/drinking near me will ask me where I'm from, and I always just say in Korean that I'm from America. I never have problems when saying this, and am often offered a shot of soju as a gesture of goodwill. Call it street smarts, call it nunch'i, but definitely make sure you bring it with you when you come over here, and things will be fine...
--Scott Bug
Regardless of who did the writing, I didn't appreciate nor agree with the sentiment that it was 1) basically a bunch of rowdy GI's or "ugly Americans" who were basically bringing it upon themselves, but something more akin to the (strange) image of a belligerent black person waiting for unsuspecting white boys to make eye contact with them (because THAT typifies most racist encounters in the US, right?). I made no bones about the fact that I found the argument condescending and, looking at it now, typical of Scott's penchant for dismissing any experience other than his own when defining the "true" state of things in Korea (even when he's wrong, and comes completely to the other side, the only legitimate factor is his OWN experience, e.g. "I was there!"). This kind of thing annoys me, and I didn't appreciate my experiences being completely dismissed.
Basically, I was very careful to collect the experiences of myself and others, many white, some "people of color", and try to give concrete advice to a group of people who were very concerned (as MANY people were) about the possibility of being attacked for being foreigners. I basically said that it should be FINE to come, but that there were situations in which one might be careful; "King Baeksu" was basically saying that any problems were basically the problem of the people being attacked, and that yes, his SINGULAR experience as a WHITE MALE CIVILIAN means that it's all good, and that if you were marked as a GI, woman, or non-white, well...it's all good because "King Baeksu" said so. In short, "Nothing happened to me. So what's the problem?" Anyway, the next immediate response in the thread, which concurred with my experience, was:
From: "Joel Motsay" <ADDRESS DELETED>
My own perception of dangerous situations in Korea differs somewhat from
what I've read on the board here. I have lived very close to Yonsei's main
gate and seen more than my fair share of protests there. I've also
accidentally stumbled upon huge demonstrations downtown. I have not had any
trouble in those situations, and I would agree with the characterizations of
those events that have already been posted in this thread. My own experience
has been similar to those expressed by Michael Hurt: the real problems occur
in bars, on subways, or street corners away from the demonstrations.
Once I was beaten pretty thoroughly in a club in Hongdae. I can't say for
sure that anti-Americanism was the cause, but I couldn't think of any other
reason. No one said a word to me before or after the attack. I was just
standing there, drinking a bottle of water, when someone punched me from the
side. I turned to defend myself and a bunch of people knocked me to the
ground. People pummeled me until some huge US GI pulled me to my feet and
dragged me out. I agree with Michael Hurt's opinion about Hongdae: It can be
dangerous.
Another time I was simply walking down the street with a German friend early
in the evening when I noticed a couple of Korean men glaring at us. One of
them walked right up to me and hit me over the head with his umbrella.
Again, no words were exchanged.
After the first incident, I was told that as a white male I look like I
might be a GI, and maybe I was assaulted for that reason. To avoid a similar
situation, I grew a beard. That didn't matter. Korean people still were
incredulous when I told them I'm not in the military. I was wearing a beard
when the second incident occured. I then grew my hair so long that I wear it
in a pony tail, and Korean people still tell me they think I'm in the
military. It seems that it's hard for a non-Asian male to not look like a GI
in the eyes of many Koreans.
Despite these phyical incidents, as well as a few very uncomfortable verbal
encounters, I agree with the poster who said that it's probably safer to
bring a group of students to Korea than to Washington DC (I've lived there
too). I would not be here if I felt the physical risk was great. I don't
know anyone else who has been physically attacked, although I've read about
3 incidents in the newspaper. I honestly believe that I was just unlucky.
However, the students should know before they come that there is some risk.
I heard that the US Embassy here in Seoul keeps tabs on reported assaults.
Perhaps it would be wise to contact them about this issue.
Regards,
Joel Motsay
And the next post in the thread was this one, which didn't really agree or disagree, but which the poster thought would add an additional point-of-view:
From: "N eo"
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 03:48:19 +0000
Subject: [KS] "baek-man-oh-hae"
Reply-To: [email protected]
I would like offer to Michael Robinson a word or two to to set his group's mind at ease. There seems to be quite a lot of hype over the anti-American sentiment in this country propagated in the press in the States and elsewhere. I'd encourage Michael's group take it in context.
It is of interest to me that this discussion occurs on the anniversary of the Axis of Evil speech which seems to have sent shudders through so many millions glued to TV screens across the United States.
The imagery of that inapt WWII trope seems to have slaked the thirst of many consumers of news for something to fret over.
A delicate nexus of problems was thus encapsulated in a slogan relieving us of the burden of having to examine any nuances while stimulating our "fear glands" with Pavlovian predictability.
One reason that "axis of evil" has had such a shelf-life is that multi-cultural, multi-ethnic communities existing harmoniously, grappling with problems and solving them is "dull". It does not sell many papers nor generates the revenue that conflict and discord does.
Perhaps that is one reason for the exaggeration in media of perceived threats...even to potential visitors to South Korea.
I would humbly offer the most obvious advice possible. Tell the group to keep in mind that seeing a huge protest or a flag burn on your TV as a viewer/consumer of news is a vastly different experience from seeing, tasting, touring Korea and experiencing the people of this country in person.
There are protests. There is "anti-Americanism". I have no doubt that there is hostility here if you look hard enough. In my personal experience, I've found that an overwhelming majority of people make the axiomatic distinction between the policies of a government and it's people.
Mark Hurt's very interesting personal account inspired me to add to the list of things to bring: tell them to bring their preconceptions along. Tell them to pack their curiosity, their fear, hesitation, biases, mistrust, even bigotry if there's room. All the more reason for them to come and discover this country for themselves.
Like many visitors to Korea, I had acquired most of that "baggage" in my hometown of Manhattan. It is no secret that New York City, as a theatre for outward displays of hostility, might compare well with Beirut.
I left Manhattan almost six years ago and have seldom been back to visit.
I live, now, in a medium-sized city on the coast of the East Sea. In six years, I cannot honestly recall a single outward display of hostility toward me as a foreigner worth mentioning. Frankly, I haven't felt this welcomed by other people since I left the womb.
The closest I came to hostility due to a misunderstanding was during my first Summer in Korea. Desperately late for a class, I stepped out of my apartment to find a taxi. --There, idling in the street before me, was a bright yellow car bedecked with lettering and a sign on its roof.
"A Taxi!" I could hardly believe my luck. There was a passenger in the front seat, but I was becoming accustomed to the sharing of taxis in Korea. Without hesitation, I opened the door and jumped in.
With Manhattanite self-importance, I called out my destination authoritatively from the back. Whereupon, the older gentleman-passenger pivoted in his seat to glare at me, "NO! NOT TAXI!"
He yelled this three or four times before I realized that I had interrupted the driving lesson of the poor young woman crouched in fear and grasping the steering wheel.
The memory of panic and terror on that student's face is something I will carry with me into my old age.
That following spring, my Korean study had been, progressing well. On my first day on the job at a boys high school, I had prepared a special presentation to tell of my home country with photos of my family.
Having learnt the appropriate vocabulary, I planned to tell the boys that about a dozen deer lived near my Mother's house and often came to visit. Anticipating looks of wonder, admiration and awe, I began by holding up a photo to a class of 50 freshman boys and announced that my Mother had "at least 12 breasts if not more..."
(cf. "kassum", "Sassum")
I can recall a million misunderstandings in my life in Korea "baek-man-oh-hae" :)...some tragic, some comic, but none of them justification for staying home. They have mostly been met with good humor and kind indulgence.
These misunderstandings are simply a million opportunities to wake up and pay closer attention. I leave my apartment eager for the next encounter.
Your group probably doesn't need reminding that experiencing another culture is steeped in risk and tension. A healthy dose of conflict is to be embraced not avoided. If misunderstandings didn't occur in this country, I wouldn't learn a damned thing about Korea or it's people and should've stayed in New York and spent the plane ticket money on a new TV.
Please tell your group to come and ask them to pack a sense of humor about themselves. By the end of their visit, perhaps they'll find that they've laughed off most of their heaviest baggage.
If you're in the Kangnung, Kangwon-do area and need a guide. Please look me up.
*************************
Like Mr.. Hurt, I have been a "lurker" for some time. Although I'm not an academic and not presently engaged in any formal Korean Studies program, I thought I might contribute.
Happy New Year.
A colleague offered her two cents:
Subject: RE: [KS] Anti-Americanism
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 10:38:00 -0500
From: "Gage, Sue J" <ADDRESS DELETED>
This may help as well. Over the summer I conducted 30 interviews with South Koreans in Seoul and its outer regions on "race" in South Korea. I also asked the participants and anyone I became acquainted with about the "anti-American" sentiments. They uniformly responded, "It's not you, you're ok. It's your/the American government." Two Canadians and I also witnessed one of the protests and we did not feel threatened. Hope this may provide some more (or less) "scientific" ammunition for Dr. Robinson's group.
Besides other general, academic posts about the history of anti-Americanism in the ROK, these are the only posts that responded directly to the question originally posed by Michael Robinson, and they were all quite heartfelt and honest in trying to address the question, and all fell on the side of "Bring them! It'll be OK, but they might think about certain things..." No grandstanding, no BS. But of COURSE, Scott Burgeson won't let it stand at that, and comes stomping in, eagerly dismissing all the experiences of everyone else. Because, of course, it's HIM. And listen to the way he starts off his broadside, punctuated with exclamation points and all caps at the end basically by saying, "Well, facts and history aside, and other people's direct experiences notwithstanding, this is the way it is":
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 17:46:27 -0800 (PST)
From: "J.Scott Burgeson" <ADDRESS DELETED>
Subject: Re: [KS] anti-Americanism in ROK
Political dynamics of anti-Americanism in Korea aside, I really want to object to some of the advice proferred about avoiding conflict in public here. Many people have commented (here and elsewhere) that they know of foreigners who were minding their own business and then were attacked or accosted by locals for no apparent reason. I just want to say that minding your own business here just isn't good enough! As a foreigner here, you will attract attention whether you want to or not. The point is how do you return that attention? If you just ignore it, some locals will find that attitude standoffish and feel insulted or provoked by it and want to do something about it. But if you pay attention and accept it and deal with it, you'll be amazed at how few problems you have here. Some people have talked about how the No. 1 Seoul subway line is a danger spot for foreigners, particularly at night. Well, two weeks ago I was riding that line at midnight with my Korean girlfriend who is 15 years younger than me--she looks like a college student (because she is) while I clearly look like I'm in my thirties. We were holding hands and whispering in each other's ear and laughing and sitting very close, all the while surrounded by drunken ajosshi's everywhere. Yet there was no problem at all because as soon as we sat down, I looked at them briefly, simply to acknowledge their presence, and that was enough. In other words, I acknowledged them, rather than being superior and pretending that their stares or attention weren't important to me. And that was enough, after a second they ignored us and that was that. When I was in Port Moresby in PNG two years ago, a very dangerous city with armed guards everywhere, I did the same thing--I nodded at people in the streets, acknowledged them by making very brief eye contact or whataver, and that was enough to make a lot of people smile back at me, say hello or just be friendly. Meanwhile, the few middle-aged Aussie businessmen I saw in the streets there were strutting around like lords of the place in their suits and haughty attitudes, ignoring everyone, and I'm not at all surprised that some of them got mugged or ripped off--they didn't even have the energy to acknowledge the locals as real people. And isn't that what all this pan-mi demonstration in Korea is about--desire for acknowledgement? Again, I cannot stress enough that minding your business here in Korea ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH! It's all about interacting with people and engaging them rather that ignoring them, which is what "minding your own business" means. Assume that everyone is looking at you even if you can't see them looking at you (because they often are). And if someone checks you out directly, check them out in return and ACKNOWLEDGE THEM! All politics is local, isn't it? By acknowledging people on a personal level, maybe that's enough to satisfy in a minor, intimate way their desire for political acknowledgement on an "international" level--at least long enough to avoid any sticky situations, which is what everyone here is talking about, right?
--Scott Bug
I had let the first one go, but THIS was the point that I had had enough. Not only was his tone and method of argument condescending, it was FAR more confrontational than anything that fits within the tone of all others who write on that list. Scott says he mentioned no one by name, and he didn't -- he just merely dismissed EVERYONE at once, implied that any negative experiences were essentially their own faults, and qualified that only by offering his OWN anecdotes.
And Scott wonders WHY I didn't afford him the courtesy I and others would to the other academics on the list? Because he doesn't act in a way to receive it -- no one on that list speaks in exclamation points, all caps, dismisses historical/political arguments (we're academics, so of course we're going to speak in such terms!), and rudely dismisses other people's narratives and personal experiences with none other than -- HIS OWN. The King's experience, like now, trumps everyone else's.
The essential question: Why are his experiences any more valid than others? Why, when no one else is making sweeping prescriptions, but offering advice to keep in mind, is he dismissing everyone else's left and right? To me, both the tone and message were rude and out of line, given the character of the board. So I responded here -- and now you have the context. Funny how my response is the only one Scott referred to, and presents neither of his initial two posts. My response was not a raging flame, nor dismissive, like Scott's. And I wasn't merely responding on my behalf, but because he had dismissed SO many other people's experiences while privileging only his own. I don't have any problems with what I wrote, and wouldn't change a word of it today:
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 15:41:51 +0900
From: Michael Hurt <ADDRESS DELETED>
To: [email protected]
Subject: [KS] Re: anti-Americanism and individual experiences...
Regarding advice offered to others on this list -
I offered my experience not as a prescription for others to behave, but rather as my observation on what has gotten me and others here in trouble, in my own and my friends' experiences. And I feel that no matter what, one cannot actively control how others perceive you, no matter how much you bend over backwards to assuage whatever prejudices about you.
Professor Robinson solicited opinions about the nature of anti-American sentiment here. I and several others offered them. I thought the discussion this sparked an interesting one, and somewhat relevant to the topics discussed on this list, in that it had to do with how members of his tour group might be received as they came to Korea.
However, I do not appreciate being given advice (especially in all caps and exclamation points) as to how to comport myself in public. My experience is not one to "object" to, to be quite blunt. You may disagree with my opinions as to what the cause of these reactions to me are; but, Mr. Bug, you are in no position to offer prescriptions to everyone in Korea as to how to successfully avoid confrontations just because in your own experience you have been able to do so.
So if you mean to imply that my African American friend and I walking down the street brought being called "nigger" upon ourselves, and also that she being almost physically assaulted by him and his two friends was due to our lack of "acknowledging people on a personal level" so we might "satisfy in a minor, intimate way their desire for political acknowledgement on an "international" level", you're way out of line. Minding our business, which is what we were doing, IS and SHOULD BE good enough not to be verbally or physically attacked.
From your argument, it seems as if the onus of responsibility for the behavior of some drunk or belligerent people is on the person on the receiving end. Sorry, uh uh, no way. I draw the line here:
"The point is how do you return that attention? If you just ignore it, some locals will find that attitude standoffish and feel insulted or provoked by it and want to do something about it."
"Attention?" Last month when I was crossing through the turnstile of Shinchon subway station, alone and in a good mood, about to walk towards one of the exits, a man appeared out of the throng of people - I had not even seen him - and grabbed my wrist forcefully and pulled me close to him, at which point he yelled something intelligible in what I think was English. He absolutely reeked of liquor and his face was red as as a beet. It was obvious he was blasted beyond return. I simply broke his grip and briskly walked to the exit. I know enough from being here not to get angry in such situations and just walk away. He was not behaving in a manner he likely thought to be belligerent; he probably saw me as an interesting foreigner through his drunken haze and wanted to engage in conversation or go drinking or some such. It's happened before. But I knew instantly that this was a dangerous situation, since I had been in them many times before. I did not provoke or solicit it through my ignorance. On the contrary, ignoring people's verbal taunts is a survival strategy, whether they are anti-american jabs here or racist slurs in the States. I don't think this particular man had ill intent, but as drunk as he was, I know that can change in an instant.
I take offense to you implying that foreigners somehow passively provoke others into attacking them. I am not a gum-chewing, swaggering buffoon who gets on subways yelling and swearing in English, Korean girls on each arm, giving older men the "evil eye" with my American arrogance. Even if I were, I have to right to not be physically assaulted.
In the situation in which my Korean American female friend was slapped for speaking in English on an inter-city bus, it was not a situation that could be prevented by the maxim "all politics is local", an astute observation that is completely out of context here. People looking at an individual as a symbol of something that is hurtful to them are, in the end, responsible for working out their own issues. If some young Korean American woman is seen as crass for speaking English, the living, breathing symbol of her immigrant parents having "abandoned" Korea during its hardest times, that is not her fault. If I, as a black man, cause people to think my female companion is a woman of low breeding and ill repute just because she is standing next to me, that is not my fault. If he attacks me or my companion, the onus of moral and legal responsibility is on him.
I resent that you even bring me to even state this, but I will: I am conversationally fluent in Korean, comport myself politely in public, and even smile quite a bit. We black folk are known for having to do that a lot in "mixed company." Always have, will have to for as far as I can see. I bow deeply when meeting people older than me, hold my drink glass with two hands, and have even eaten all kinds of still-moving, soon-to-be seafood offered to me as a gesture of good will. I've done my part for king, country, and good international relations many a time in the noraebang by singing all the Elvis and Beach Boys any Korean people have requested of me. I've smiled respectfully and bit my tongue when older men at dinner yelled at the top of their lungs at me for drinking too much of the Coca-Cola they assumed I wanted to drink but didn't, for being too fat, for not being married, or Christian, and even been scolded for getting tan in the summer because I was already "too dark."
I've done more than my fair share of taking up the social slack for the minority of ill-behaved and rude Koreans who really and truly do exist. And I know these people do not define the norm; if I believed that, why would I be here? Why would I be on this list? Why would I even be talking to you? But the only reasons I have been (and I said from the beginning - only rarely) subjected to violent behavior has been because I simply EXIST here. A very few people, mostly after much drinking, think I shouldn't. It's that simple. And no amount of nodding "acknowledgments", smiling, shuffling my feet, or doing a tap dance is going to change that. If I get beat up in the deep South for being kissy with a white woman, am I guilty of not rooting myself in the behavior of "local politics"? In America, we call that a hate crime. I guess you define this in the Korean context as a failure of "international relations" played out on the personal level. Should we then call hate crimes in the States "failures of race relations" on the personal level?
How dare you arrogate yourself to 1) completely dismiss other people's experiences w/o any direct knowledge of what transpired (since you weren't there), and 2) think you can tell others how to behave?
It's great you're all kissy-poo with your Korean girfriend, holding hands and whispering sweet nothings in her ear in all the most public of places. Whatever floats your boat - I can't tell you how to live your life. But even assuming for a moment that I were the type of person to publicly engage in such tasteless displays of affection, I would fear that meeting the gazes of drunken ajussis sitting around me could me misinterpreted as a challenge or a boast. But that's just me. It's probably related to how I look, how people perceive me. And I probably fall into different racial/social categories (based on other people's assumptions about me), in their eyes, than you do. I don't know you nor you me, but I think that's a fair assumption. I trust that you've adapted to life in Korea in the way that's best for you; I simply ask that you don't discount and condescend to others based on your own single experience.
I apologize for the flame, but Mr. Bug, you were way out of line. Offer your point of view based on what you have experienced or observed, but don't think you're in a position to prescribe catch-all remedies for how to live successfully in Korea. A lot of us are doing just fine at it, thank you very much, despite occasional hardship or bumps in the road.
No one can prevent bad things from sometimes happening to good people.
-----
Michael Hurt
Korea-American Educational Commission
That's my post. I continue to wonder how Scott talks about presenting things "in context" but then doesn't even bother to provide any, since this was a response to two of his own posts. Why post the response but not what started the conversation? Isn't that "context," Scott? And here's the crux of the post:
"I trust that you've adapted to life in Korea in the way that's best for you; I simply ask that you don't discount and condescend to others based on your own single experience."
That's the point. That's been my unchanged attitude that guides my travels and travails through Korea, and which informs how I process and mitigate the experiences of others against my own. It's how I learn, and how I have always come to make better sense of this place.
And that's where I left it, that's where our conversation ended. Although Walter Lew chimed in with an email much more snarky and sarcastic than mine in response to Scott's post, and the flip dismissal of history and politics that Scott started his post with:
Good advice, Scotty. Glad to know you finally found a girlfriend!
Also glad to know that "pan-mi" sentiment is just "desire for
acknowledgement," a Hegelian Other-ordaining, subjectivity-granting
glance or wink in a midnight subway from young American men when they
are "surrounded by drunken ajosshi's everywhere" (Seems like all
ajosshi's are always already drunk, lurching out of every corner of
Seoul, right? Hey, I may have been one of 'em!). I mean I thought
pan-mi kamjOng had something to do with revived Cold War geopolitics,
two country schoolgirls crushed by an incompetently driven and
maintained Army vehicle distortedly reported and lightly dismissed,
the basing of 40,000 US troops w nuclear capability in the heart of
one's dependent country, and the concomitant inability to realize
one's dream of reunification with the northern provinces where every
day the hope of seeing one's separated family members tragically
dwindles. (My father gave up hope long ago.)
That's right!--I shd have remembered: it's like when anti-Americanism
was all abt a botched call in the Winter Olympics speed skating
competition! I don't know why I exaggerate things so much. After all,
Koreans are such passionate sports fans and they just want to hear
and say, Hello!
--Walter K. Lew
So, I guess that means you have a grudge against Dr. Lew, too? I mean, if you held onto one against me for so long...
2003 passes...
2004 passes...
2005 passes...
2006 passes...
2007 nearly passes...
I HAD NO COMMUNICATIONS TO OR FROM SCOTT "BUG" BURGESON UNTIL NOVEMBER 26, 2007, when I received this message in my inbox at 8:56 in the morning:
Robert, Michael--
BTW, I just listened to your podcast talk together
and the main point I got was that Robert thinks
"things in Korea are just fine the way they are." I
know that millions of North Koreans would disagree, as
would the millions of South Koreans who have either
left the country or want to leave because things
aren't just fine they way they are now. Ditto for
millions of women here who face gender discrimination
daily, and ditto for hundreds of thousands of young
South Korean men who think enforced military service
sucks and is a waste of their youth. And then there
are all the foreign immigrants here who face various
forms of discrimination, and the hundreds of homeless
men and women who sleep in the subway stations of my
neighborhood and who probably aren't very satisfied
with the way things are here either. I could go on but
I think you get my point.
Michael, you talk a lot aboout defending the rights
of foreigners in Korea and ESL teachers in particular,
but when you can't even answer emails from a foreign
English teacher such as myself (Hongik University,
etc.) your commitment/concern rings a little hollow
and comes across more as showboating than anything
else.
Don't worry, I won't bother either of you any more,
just doing my own research at the moment and wanted to
share my thoughts.
Good luck,
Scott Bug
I'm like "huh?" since I received no emails from him. Apparently, he had addressed the Marmot as well. Although I was a bit irritated at being called out for not replying to emails I never received, and for the aggressive tone of the email, and the fact that all this was at 8:56 in the FRICKIN' morning, here was my response:
Hello, Scott -
I don't recall getting any emails from you.
As for being bad about answering emails, guilty as charged. As for my "commitments ringing hollow" – hey, if that's what you think. I do what I can to get the word out, raising awareness, trying to be a voice out there that's a little different. If you think that because I didn't answer your email, my sentiments are false or exist merely for my own self-aggrandizement, feel free.
And I'll let Robert speak for himself regarding his opinion of the South's attitude to North Korea (which, from even the briefest glance at his blog and the voluminous amounts of writing on the topic of South Korea's attitude towards the North vis a vis human rights violations, one would know that he likely shares your sentiments on the matter), but taking an opinion made in one context and then extrapolating it as one's official stance on another seems pretty ridiculous to me.
I don't believe we were talking about North Korea or human rights or social problems in South Korea, but about Korean "culture" in general, especially in the context of outside cultural influences and the "traditional" versus the "modern," or more generally about "development" and the patterns of everyday life.
So, good morning to you, too, Scott. I see you've led off with a broadside against two people in a single email, as opposed to any real inquiry, or an opening to a real conversation.
In sum, then Robert is so blindly a booster for South Korea that he doesn't see the social problems here, nor human rights violations there (guess you don't read his blog often, then), and I'm a wanker for not answering your email?
So far, I am still 1) in the dark as to why he wanted to email me in the first place, and 2) still being far more polite than I needed to be, given this all coming from out of the blue. Scott's next email:
Wow, answers from the both of you pronto! A first!
Funny how the both of you only seem to respond to
critical rather than positive and productive
engagement.
OK. No explanation for emailing in the first place. What was so important I had to be yelled at for, but I guess not important enough to now be told about? I had emailed back, and now I'm being baited for doing THAT? Scott emailed ME, not the other way around, and yes, in this day and age, sometimes people don't respond to, or even receive, emails. But if he wanted something from me, this was certainly not the way to go about it. And I was still irritated that I didn't even know why Scott was contacting me. My email response:
Yeah, because most people respond to "annoying" and "unnecessarily confrontational" and "rude" and might be more apt to let something more friendly slip through the cracks.
The way of the world.
But not in "Scott World," where one leads off with jabs and uppercuts, instead of "Hey, I sent you this email, but in case you didn't get it or it slipped your mind, here's what I said, and here's what I would like to talk about."
But if your purpose was just an out-and-out attempt to irritate, you've succeeded!
I wonder – are all your professional correspondences written this way?
And so we can get down to "positive and productive engagement" already, is there a point to you getting in touch with me/us, or was it just to tell us you thought we were uninformed, disingenous showboaters?
I'm annoyed, but not any more out of line than I felt Scott to be. After all, who needs this crap at 9 in the morning? And I'm still biting my tongue, even though at this point, I don't feel I have to. But I inquire AGAIN as to the point of wanting to contact me in the FIRST place. Scott's response:
Michael--
you can go back to 2002 when you attacked me
unprovoked on the K-Studies List and refresh your
memory before you lecture me on Internet etiquette.
I don't believe you didn't get my previous emails
but you can ask Robert about it if you really don't
know. For the record, the first email I sent you last
week was extremely polite to you, despite your
intitial attack on me 5 years ago (which I chose to
look past in the interest of a greater good).
Yes, I do think you are a drama queen. And you
could also use a good editor (it's not just my own
personal opinion either).
--Scott
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. 2002! (Well, 2003, actually.) He was still licking his wounds over that. Now, let's be clear:
-- Who is holding old, irrelevant grudges over perceived slights? Me? Or the guy who wrote me an aggressive, ranting email and then who brings this up?
-- "Unprovoked?" Even his memory of his own grudge was wrong. Whether or not one agrees, the response I wrote up there (and to which Scott refers to in this singular link, out of context), was in response to exactly TWO of his posts that were written in direct response to both my own and ones others had written. This wasn't an "unprovoked" attack, but was part of a conversation that HE had chimed in on. Usually, when someone -- take Bruce Wayne, for shits and giggles -- experiences a trauma that s/he remembers and dwells upon for years on end, playing it over and over again in their mind, to the point of near-vigilante obsession, they at LEAST remember the series of events correctly. Bruce Wayne's parents got iced by Joe Chill in an alley after an opera performance; Scott Bug got "attacked" in a Korean Studies forum in 2003. Yeah, I see the similarity. Still, one would think his memory would be better?
-- He doesn't believe I didn't get his previous emails? See, the thing about the real world (and not Scott-world) is that, even if I *HAD* received them, I'm not under any real obligation to return his email, other than as a function of my desire to do so. And the way the world works is: If YOU want something from someone, YOU don't have the authority to get mad about them ignoring you, not wanting to talk to you, or just plain not liking your proposal. I mean, that is, if you still want that thing from them.
And notice -- Scott STILL hasn't yet explained WHY he emailed me in the first place! Although he believes me to be a liar in Scott-world, in the real world, I HAVE NO IDEA WHY I AM TALKING TO THIS MAN RIGHT AT THIS POINT. Ah, what a happy way to start the week, right? My response, because I'm extremely irritated at this bullshit now, and see what this is truly about. This is a waste of my time, and I make no bones about telling him to go piss off:
Oh, I remember 2002, quite well, Scottie. I was just being polite.
And refresh your memory, son. I seem to remember you telling me to smile and be more polite to those coming up and attacking me.
I don't appreciate being lectured on how to be safe as a minority by a white man with a complex about being seen as the cultural expert about a culture in which he is equally a guest. Talk about white privilege gone wack.
So refresh da memory and learn a little basic respect, and follow the policy of not saying stuff online that you wouldn't say to my face.
Because I don't smile at people who call me "nigger", son.
And as for editing, how about making something that people actually want to read? Or you still making irrelevant "zines", then?
And YOU started out being rude, both times. So I'll end it by telling you to go fuck yourself, because YOU're the biggest drama queen of them all, with your self-important email out of the blue at 9 in the morning.
You're just pissed because you're an irrelevant aftersight to whom few even listen anymore. Keep up the good work, and YES, you can forward this email to anyone you'd like, but just make sure to include the full exchange from 2002, as well as your email to me this morning.
And I still don't recall getting a previous, private email from you at any time. So if your panties are up in a knot about perhaps being caught in my spam filter, not my problem.
And if we ever meet in person, I WILL have the balls to say this to your face, not lash out in angry, unsolicited emails.
Yep -- NOW, I was mad. I don't make any bones about it, and I don't like re-presenting moments of my anger here. But I'm sick of King Baeksu bringing this crap up in public, so I'm squashing it. In my world, you write someone a vitriolic, angry email in the early morning, don't even explain yourself after being asked politely, and then bring up random bullshit and STILL not explain yourself, this is a waste of time, and now, I'm truly pissed. So I got nasty. But to hear Scott tell it, he sent an innocent little email and I jumped down his throat. Riiiiiiight. His response, after it was now clear I was PISSED:
Michael--
I never called you "nigger" and I never knew who
you were till you started dissing me first back in
2002. Playing the race card here is cheap, frankly. I
went to Berkeley and grew up in Oakland, I've been
around and know the real deal.
FYI, I do more than just make zines. I've published
3 bestselling books in Korea. Kyobo's Web site
recommends my books. When I write for the Chosun Ilbo
2 million people read it and I get thousands of
comments on Naver. People pay good money to read my
work, thanks, how about you?
Anyway, let's just agree to disagree because this
is no longer a good use of energy.
Cheers,
Scott
Always about HIM. I never said HE called me "nigger." I was making the point he NEVER got. And he's again claiming aggrieved status, as if he didn't place himself squarely into the conversation back in 2003, and yeah, he got a response he didn't like. Then he plays the role of taking the high road, saying we should "agree to disagree" -- about WHAT? 2003? Or was there a POINT in even CONTACTING ME IN THE FIRST PLACE? That's what I truly didn't get, and was really pissed about. And I even point out, one more time, that I DIDN'T receive any emails:
When I surpass you, I'll be sure to drop you a line.
And I didn't say YOU called me "nigger," but you don't listen to anyone but yourself, do you?
And you've just needlessly made an enemy because you want to go off on someone for not responding to an email they DIDN'T EVEN RECEIVE.
With people skills like yours, it certainly won't be long before we'll meet on equal territory.
Have fun riding on your white privilege until I get there, Scottie-boy.
His reply:
Michael--
I'll look forwarding to reading your future books
as I am a curious sort above all else.
BTW, you friend <DELETED BY REQUEST> emailed me 6 months
ago asking me for advice on how you could get a book
published since you were having problems. I sent a
long reply to her giving very specific and helpful
suggestions, but never even got a thanks from either
her or you for taking the time to do so.
You seem to be getting my emails fine now. And
actually it was several emails I sent you last week,
not just one. Robert and Regina never responded once
either.
Regards,
Scott
WHY AM I DEALING WITH THIS BS AT 9 in the MORNING? So, I decide to tell this Scott Bug to buzz off once and for all:
Well,
1) <DELETED>'s inquiry is news to me, so don't hold me culpable for anything but my own actions. She's my friend, not an extension of me. If you're looking for "thanks" then take it up with her.
2) Yes, I'm getting your emails fine. From this morning. If I had been avoiding you, I'd simply continue avoiding you, now wouldn't I? If it had slipped my mind, I would have apologized.
3) Robert and Regina may have having an "R" at the front of their names in common, but I'd say that's about it. And as for me, what you sent to Robert and/or Regina has nothing to do with me.
First I've heard from you since 2002 was at 8:56 this morning. You don't believe me? You don't have to. Doesn't matter to me.
And you wonder why it seems that some people DO seem to be ignoring your emails? If I had known I'd be getting the 3rd-degree like this, I'd have ignored your emails, too. As it was, I was dumb enough to take the bait and reply.
I won't make that mistake in the future.
Good luck with all your future endeavors.
And that was that. I got a bit hot under the collar, but given the unsolicited attack and bullshit barrage in my email box, and his grudge-slinging from years ago, I think it was expected. But basically, it breaks down like this, a few life lessons that Scott Burgeson might take to heart (but should have learned in grade school):
1) RE: 2003 -- If you don't want a response you might not like, don't jump into the conversation.
2) RE: OUR EMAIL EXCHANGE -- If you don't want to get into an email argument with someone, don't send them angry, accusatory emails from out of the blue.
3) RE: MY BLOG -- If you don't like it, if you really think I'm an intellectual blowhard who can't take criticism (I don't recall deleting responses or doing anything other than responding to criticisms of me with anything other than specific facts or proof, like now, to back up my statements), then STOP COMING HERE. Pretty simple.
Other than that, I'm sick of Scott Bug doing all but making shit up, bringing up years-old conversations, and nursing old, irrelevant grudges. Unlike Regina's case, which was a conversation, I at least have the correspondences here. And remember -- SCOTT KEEPS BRINGING THIS ALL UP, AGAIN AND AGAIN. The 2003 exchange, our little email tiff years later, and keeps returning to a web site he makes no bones about saying he dislikes.
Who's the crazy one here?
So, before it comes up again, in any annoying form, I wanted to squash it once and for all.
Since we have never actually met in person, these are the complete records I have, for all of the correspondences I have EVER had with Scott Burgeson, a.k.a. Scott Bug, a.k.a. "King Baeksu."
If I have omitted anything, please feel free to add to the record, Scott, but at this point, a sincere piece of advice would be to simply drop it and stop digging yourself further into the hole.
YOU bring this crap up repeatedly on this and other blogs, and YOU are the one who can't drop it, and who can't recognize when YOU'RE out of line. Your memory is faulty, and that's WITH the availibility of a document trail. Given your faulty memory of our written correspondences, I am highly suspicious of your account of your bar conversation with Regina, the mere mention of which is cause for rolling my eyes.
This is a public forum. We're talking about X-isms and disagreeing about protests, or arguing about who was right about violence amongst FTA people. But for as much as we might disagree about that, you still can't realize that bringing up old personal conversations, personal email exchanges (the Marmot erased the entire comment exchange), or other things that are irrelevant just makes YOU look bad, and forces the hand of whom you potentially slander or defame into setting the record straight.
And it just makes you look petty (and has dragged me into the mud of pettiness, as well). But I refuse to be cowered by an intellectual bully such as you, and my temptation for calling you out once and for all is because it is simply to EASY to set the record straight with you.
You obviously have nursed a grudge for nearly 4 years over a bulletin board conversation that wasn't even out of line. Yet, you're some hapless victim. You then send angry emails, mentioning that grudge without even mentioning WHY you emailed me in the first place. You then bring all this up in the course of a conversation that has nothing REMOTELY to do with either of those things.
Is this healthy or normal? I mean, seriously?
Scott "Bug" Burgeson -- seek help.
Recent Comments