makes me look on my last entry and want to apologise. but I may not - you are right in your last line

anyway, was thinking about you today - am organising a dinner at eminem. my shout

xxx

my problem exactly over the last two weeks and for that reason... i'm glad you wrote when you did.

and btw. i love you.

hi,

i detect a note of insecurity in your most recent post and i just wanted to say, by way of guidance, that if you're not sure that humanity stands to gain all that much from your self-obsessed musings on booker-prize winning authors and your white-boy exaltation of hip-hop, then i advise you to err on the side of caution. take your hand off it, marty, even if just for a year or two.

here's the thing. you seem like a nice guy with good intentions. i just wonder if there's not a more constructive, socially productive way to spend your time and use your brain than carefully crafting your next publicly-issued opinion on 'x'. the faculty for critical thought is a great thing to have. i'm just not convinced it doesn't stop at that for you. get off your ivory tower. get your hands dirty.

or prove me wrong. either way, i'll be happy.

t

hi "t",

insecure? i've suffered from flatulence, anxiety, befuddlement, hangovers, regret, guilt and the flu in my time, but, I'm glad to say, never insecurity.
also, it seems my post has stirred something personal in you--which it shouldn't have because my rant was one of two things: 1. a silly exercise to get me writing again, and 2. a cheap shot at the state of the general blog.

your use of the word "insecure" strikes a different chord now, no? bla-di-bla-di-bla-di-bla....

anyway, hope that "happy" thing's working out for you,

okay,

m

marty have you been making enemies again? tsk tsk

someone who doesnt know you too well obviously...

I'm thinking - dear martin, that the disgruntled tone of our beloved 'long time listener, first time caller' may have been owing more to the soapbox you've come to own at said community radio station.

It's just a hunch, but it might be the dry-retching inspired by the ill-informed rants of the Al Jones's of the world isn't quite rendered a minty-fresh burst by your slightly lefter - but equally informed spin.

Your blog is your own - and for this invasion I apologise - but we've listened at length, and it's time to call in.

marty,

is that how you respond to all of your detractors? by latching onto the first word in their comment that you can convert into a cheap gag at his, or in my case, her, expense?

it would have been nice if you could have taken the time to respond to the substantive part of my argument, dick jokes aside. and to have the courtesy to acknowledge that my post wasn't simply in response to your single most recent post, but to "the vibe of the thing". my concern is that you and people of your ilk think that preaching to your self-affirming community of fellow bloggers (or community radio listeners) is progress. or art. or good enough. it's neither.

anyway, i hear you're big in japan. good luck with that.

best,

t

jackson,

what's going on? no word for a while, my man. Here? Not too much, though the revelation that white-boys can't appreciate hip-hop has hit pretty hard. All of my A Tribe Called Quest CDs are now up on EBay, for good prices too, & I would have recommended you pick them up if you weren't white, &, you know, into that morose, slow-picking post-rock slosh thing.
this hip-hop revelation has hit others pretty hard, too. I informed Dan the Man at RTR that he could no longer spin his hip-hop records &, after sheddding a few tears (I thought he was remarkably brave), he staggered down the stairs & established a bonfire in the station's carpark. The fire-brigade were soon alerted by alarmed residents, & so this cruel weirdness now threatens our broadcasting license. Positively, Dan's house, hard-house (I've never understood that genre), Norwegian funk, and Saudi Arabian disco records are all safe. Praise be to Allah.

So I guess the above answers a question you may or may not have asked: I still haven't grown up, but it's difficult to erase an impish smile from my face as I wait in vain for the day They genetically engineer some maturity. I'll be first in line for that fucking shot, my man.
But let's get back to some real ground, eh? How are you? Send some words and pics, bones and bridges.

love,

m

marty, sweetheart, this is getting ridiculous. you've returned to a comment that you failed to exploit in your first response and are now clinging to that in lieu of responding in any meaningful way to the second paragraph of my first post, and my second post altogether. we both know that's where the beef is, my man. it's a shame you can't face up to it.

i may have to make this my last post. friends of mine are friends of yours and it's a miracle we haven't already been introduced...

t

arnie - if it's time to call in, call in with your real name. anonymity provides no respect. stand behind what you say. and if you disagree with what's said on the radio, call the fuck in. we'll put you to air. or not. nobody ever calls to disagree, and i really wish they would. also, get involved yourself. it's community radio - marty got a pedestal through being involved and being eloquent and giving at least one shit. you could do the same, if you wanted. but perhaps it's easier to sit outside and criticise.

t - i presume i'm one of the people of his ilk. what is it that we should do differently to not invade your ears and minds so offensively? what will bring us down from the ivory towers and onto the streets where we can interact so much more realistically and tangibly? how can i get my hands dirtier? you wanted response to your post so you've got it. so tell me -- i'd really, really like to know.

i agree sweetheart, this is getting ridiculous, but i can't help but think it's a little bit of dumb fun for those in the grandstands. Anyhoo, we should really hook up, if only you'd reveal your identity....

sweet dreams,

m

patrick, hi, you can relax. i may have taken a shot at your mate, but my beef isn't with you. i think you do great work, and your blog has never exhibited the level of self-absorption to which i take exception.

i appreciate your engagement of my argument, but it was never meant for you.

t

i recently watched X-Men 3: The Last Stand a few weeks back--a terrible film, philosophically slippery and blackened with that sledgehammer exposition that's been used to explain more than one strange sci-fi plot.... Anyhoo, the pre-screening club sandwiches were a delight, and the film introduced me to the coarse excitement of silly "them" v "us" binaries. So, to hell with nuance, i say, and in that the man i respect beyond most has introduced himself to this weird bit of correspondence, I'm gonna stand on Paddy's side....

T--I expect a base level of reasoning and capacity with language to pique my interest in debating with anyone. I didn't get that from you, so I turned to dick/fart/Saudi Arabian jokes instead. In this shit-fight's context, they seem just as meaningful, and a helluva lot more fun to write.

And, like Patrick said, call up. Come out for coffee. Beer. Ribena. Whatever. The radio's there for you to use, too. It always has been.

okay,

m

sure, marty. a beer sounds good. at the moment, i've got an exam period breathing down my neck, but maybe we can hang out after that. share a cupcake. whatever. although the thing you said about me not having a base level of reasoning and capacity kind of hurt my feelings. so assuming i recover from that and can bring myself to not glower at you should we meet, i look forward to continuing this shit fight - which only became one because you took it down there - in person.

very best,

t

damn it, i just can't help myself.

see the thing is, marty, i just wanted you to take me seriously. i get the feeling patrick read my post, went - that might be a valid criticism, but in my case, it certainly isn't - and made his point. and that's fine. as you may (or may not, 'cause i'm not sure you bothered reading that far down) remember, in my first post i asked you to prove me wrong. that would make me happy. i would like to be wrong about all of this, i really would.

but you don't seem to have countenanced my comments at all. and so far, that appears to have been because of the medium i've chosen - a medium i've chosen because i'm studying and the only kind of procrastination i feel okay about is the kind that i can do while still sitting at my desk, in front of my computer.

sheesh. give a girl a break, marty. no need to get so nasty.

Three things.

1. In reviewing the above round-table I would like to point out that the first use of reference to a penis of any kind was in fact made by the character "t", in her comment: "take your hand off it, marty, even if just for a year or two".

2. I actually don't ever understand anyone's need/desire to openly criticise the actual theme or content of any particular individuals personal blog by using that very same blog as their place of criticism. Commenting (positively, negatively, neutrally) on their opinions or such is one thing (and obviously encouraged in the spirit of intellectual exchange) but to basically say "hey! i reckon you should stop writing such shit!" is pretty pointless, wouldn't you say?

Example: If I write "I hate Israeli government policy against the Palestinians" in every post I wrote I would expect it to be quite fair that someone who objected to my opinion took the time to rebutt my opinions and offer arguments to the contrary. I would not, however, appreciate it so much if someone decided to use my own blog to (a) attack my character, or (b) complain about the subject of my writing. If you don't like it at all, can find no merit in it, don't read it. That would be my personal response, I guess.

3. I, Chris Stokes, would like to raise with the assembled that I object to the phrase "people of your ilk" in total and would like to urge individuals who may choose to use such phrases to explain, in as much detail as possible, what exactly this phrase refers to. Which people, and how do I spot them in a crowded room, etc?

Thankyou.

"t" is clearly for troll...

whoever you are, marty and i were mortal enemies for a time; we are now the best of friends. i have the utmost respect for marty's personal integrity and, though he – like many creative people – can grandstand or bluster from time to time, I put it to you that *everyone* does, and that marty (who i have lived and worked with) more often than many is usually *very* well researched/knowledgeable on what he speaks about.

additionally, being opinionated is not a crime, especially in an online journal. it is, in fact the fucking *point* of them.

it's like tv; you don't like, you switch channels/turn off, or do something *yourself* that attracts more attention, if you really are so freaking noble and hell-bent on policing the views of all those hapless listeners, unable to make up their own minds and tear themselves away from the lad's views or mode of expressing them, should they not like them.

suddenly i smell a confederacy of dunces.

clearly you have some other axe to grind (invoking RTR politics); marty is a very amenable lad – take him up on the in-person offer.

if *your* insecurity permits making that leap from hiding behind an online veil...

hi chris,

1. i absolutely agree that i was the first one to make a dick joke. when i said "it would have been nice if you could have taken the time to respond to the substantive part of my argument, dick jokes aside", i meant it to read "i wish you'd address my actual argument, rather than meeting me at my dick-joke level, because clearly the heart of my post isn't the dick joke". i'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

2. there are a lot of reasons why i disagree with your second point. first, i think your definitions of "personal blog" and "intellectual exchange" are arbitrary. take marty's blog, for example. they may be his own words, but his subject matter is often political - and to that extent it's a legitimate subject of public debate. second, if it's not a blogger's expectation that people will seize on what they've written and take issue with it publicly, then they should keep a journal. and lock it. and hide it. thirdly, what is a "comments" function for if it's not an invitation to criticise?

3. finally, by 'people of your ilk' I mean thoughtful, articulate people who purport to give a shit but still insist on putting themselves at the centre of every narrative. In my opinion, giving a shit is about taking yourself out of the picture. i just hope that the sound of a thousand acquiescent radio-listeners or bloggers isn't an end in itself.

Please let me know if in your spare time, you’re making the tangible contributions to the community (and I use that word in the broadest sense possible) that a community with problems as tangible as ours needs from people as bright and privileged as yourselves and I’ll make a satisfied exit. I say satisfied, because I’m speaking out of concern and, naturally, I’d be delighted if someone assuaged it.

I hope this is all okay with you, chris.

cheers,

t

this really is insane, t, but I'm in an exceptionally good mood tonight (germany/costa rica kicks off soon), & I've just realised that you may be serious about all of this. So....

Perhaps your frustration can be expressed in your line: "thoughtful, articulate people who purport to give a shit but still insist on putting themselves at the centre of every narrative"? If this is the case, then fine. What good is it if I can recite the first 10 presidents of the United States and give you an idea of what they did? (i can't). What use is it if that knowledge isn't brokered practically? If there aren't tangible changes? Sure, sure, I agree with this, and in fact the thinking about the translation of academic knowledge into a practical (if imperceptible) quality has consumed some time--some years. In fact, it's probably been the main source of my chats with Patrick over the years. I'm not suggesting for a second I have achieved even a hint of this translation, but I find it a little odd to be defending my social worth to a stranger whose definitions of that worth are vague at best (I've understood the "don't be a wanker" bit).
So, T, am I a good, constructive guy? I don't know, but to be frank, I've worked myself into a nice, anxiety-riddled nightmare over that for years. I don't know what your standards are, but by my own my scorecard seems to be this: i'm a good friend, and brother, though my capacity as a son leaves a little to be desired. My girlfriend thinks I'm a bit of alright, & our love seems to this guy proof of something really, really vague, but really, really magical.
I contribute to various publications and, obviously, radio stations--not because I like the sound of my own voice, nor to change the world but, rather, because i have to write. I won't reflect on this here, because i'll have to resort to tiresome platitudes about how "writing's in the blood" & shit like that, so....
I also know, and only slightly proudly, that my private chats with friends and lovers have achieved some great and small things, and on the other hand, I also know that many of my private chats have achieved nothing other than a hangover.
I joined a charity once, too. There's a lot to that middle-class guilt thing, but then a zeno's arrow starts up, and it's enough to say that good people trusted me with good children. Which brings me to Chris Stokes. Chris travels the world with his group, helping kids in many places, but, most recently, in Israel and Colombia. This really is getting earnest, a quality i've never liked, but i'm sure chris could tell you more if he feels the perverse need to defend himself to a stranger.

& so what a note to end on, as i muse over that.

i'm off to watch football with me mates, t, so you have yourself a good weekend,

okay,

m

hi reuben,

okay. i'm sure marty's a lovely guy. in fact, i know people like marty who i also think are lovely, who are friends of marty's in fact, but with whom i don't always agree. i've never disagreed with them openly, because it's not really polite, and i have genuine affection for them. this is why i'm using anonymous online posts to get this all of my chest. forgive me if it's cowardly - i'm just not sure what bearing my identity has on the substance of my argument.

i also don't take issue with marty's opinions nor with his readers/listeners. i'm sure that in my respects, we're on exactly the same political page. if you read through all of my previous posts you would see that that's not at the heart of my gripe at all.

i'm not sure what the basis is of your deduction that i have a problem with rtr politics. all i can really do is refer you to what i've already said. i'm not sure how many more ways i can paraphrase this.

i'm not sure that you're going to find this a very complete response, but there have been so many misconstructions of my intention that i'm uncertain that there's much to gain from taking you on on a parallel ground.

i'm sorry if that falls short of what you were hoping to hear.

best,

t

i'd almost given up, marty, but now i'd actually like that beer. thanks for putting the bullshit to one side and actually talking to me.

i don't think i have the balls to do this again, but for one deluded moment on thursday, i thought someone might actually appreciate someone else questioning their motivations and confronting them about why they do the things they do. i think it's a healthy exercise and that the most important facet of thinking critically is the courage to be self-critical.

i'm glad you think the same.

amen,

t

This reminds me of a paragraph from Hugh Prather's Notes To Myself:
"Whenever I find myself arguing for something with great passion, I can be certain I'm not convinced".

except that i am, natty. but thanks.

It's a great attribute though t, to always be open to being proved wrong.
Especially as the source of our passions is a thing to be questioned,. We should look deeper at why we care.

people seem to be arguing in different planes here. and really, t's argument seems to be an interrogation of the very principles that underly blogging, which possibly explains why it's been so hard to get a proper call-response thing going on. it can be hard to expand your frame of reference that far if you're not prepared for it.

blogging is an interesting phenomena, because to my mind it signifies the greatest proliferation of publishing power in the history of humanity. suddenly the right of written expression has diffused amongst the (admittedly white, western and typically female) populace and all are suddenly striving to be heard. but i believe that with this diffusion has come a change in the nature of writing, an intellectual stratification between the formally published and the individually created. because we are now being given the opportunity to express for ourselves and for a select (or not) group of our associates, rather than having that sphere of expression delimited and rendered anonymous by the broader economic and social forces of a capital-driven publishing industry. and i think that's where t's query begins to fall down. while entries in this "blogosphere" (god i hate that word) of ours are admittedly emblematic of our self-obsession, i hesitate to declare them moreso than any of those other declarative activities by which we assert ourselves. we play music publicly, we perform theatre publicly, we play sport publicly. we even make ourselves public to a certain extent. and now we write publicly. it's another method by which we perform ourselves to others, with the same (if not greater) capacity to inspire change, to leave unmoved or induce disgust. it's a form with worth of itself, and with the possibility of greatness or immense change when spoken with the right inflection.

at the very least there seems to be a veiled compliment sketched within this overarching cynicism though, for, if nothing else, t seems to believe that marty has the intellectual capacities required to actually render some difference in this world. but, as far as i can tell, it seems tied to a stream of anti-intellectualism, a type of rampant cultural suspicion: the thought that by spending time here, writing yourself and assessing the work of others you're somehow depriving the world of your better efforts. but hell, despite the fact that this argument would have to reduce down to the nigh on complete eradication of creative expression in favour of practical social betterment (mmm, mao), marty, with a typical blog rate of one entry per month, hardly seems to be devoting an excess of time to this place. while you are entitled to believe that marty may not be doing everything he could to make this world a better place, and there's not many of us for whom that could not equally be applied, i think that in attacking marty's blog as the root of this poison (or at least it's most obvious manifestation) you have chosen a very poor and incapable scapegoat.

cheers,

l

(it stands for luke)

hi luke,

your argument is compelling, but i'm unconvinced that it's me you're arguing against.

i have no problem with blogging in and of itself, and i'm certainly not of the belief that creative expression that isn't aligned with, motivated by, or part of some overarching movement for practical, social change is not a legitimate end. i indulge in enough of that myself.

i have also made no attempt to obscure the fact that my whole argument turns on marty's apparent intellectual capacity; if i thought marty had nothing to offer, then i wouldn't be so hell-bent on interrogating him about the use to which he puts his brain.

i guess the reason that marty's blog and rtr duties have attracted my rancour is because they seemed illustrative (and, to my mind, symbolic) of eloquent, socially-conscious individuals - and they're certainly a minority - who are content to limit their social contribution to tinkering at the friendly fringe rather than wading into the heart of the rot.

i think it's a privilege to be armed with the kind of social and political insight that these guys have, and it guts me to think it might not be used to effect the full spectrum of change that it could. the freedom to choose your vocation may not be so exclusive in a community like perth's, but that freedom combined with the awareness that things out there really aren't okay is bestowed upon a select few.

by all means, keep blogs, observe what's going on around you, make the point that it's not good enough. i just hope that the corollary of that is the recognition that it shouldn't stop there.

cheers,

tess

damn, i wasn't going to contribute to this odd, shaggy line anymore, but i do appreciate the effort and lucidity shown by both you, tess, and luke, & so a few more, final words, and then we really should stop boring the others....

Tess--My initial responses to you were facetious because--it seemed to me--that your line of argument was personal, and coloured with presumption. It seemed I had already been trialed, but never asked to attend the court. Anyroad, your last few posts are not personal, nor incoherent, so I'm happy to offer a few more silly little words here.
I very firmly refute your suggestions that my blog and my rtr guff constitute, for me, an exhaustive social contribution. I have never said that, have never believed it, and it's unlikely that I ever will. My blog is my blog because I have to write, and you'll note that the subjects of my posts are rarely myself. Like Luke says, blogging offers a unique opportunity for publishing, which, as a writer, appeals to me. But I've never been able to appreciate abstract audiences, and when I write it really isn't with the idea that others will read it (aside from friends, and others involved with the concrete blog), but with the desire to 1. write, and 2. exploit the ability to humbly publish it.
The radio is what it is because it's me, and I want to involve myself with a community radio station that I respect. It's a small thing, but I believe in small things now. A few years back i didn't.
Other small things I believe in are talking to friends over beer--about them, or me, or the latest film we've seen. I also believe in reading, and watching film, and talking about it. Having studied journalism and literature, I now want to study politics, and will next semester with an eye to involving myself in some future policy advisory role, if anyone will have me. I also believe in joining a Labor Readers meeting, and there's a possibility that a membership to the Labor Party will result. But, Tess, i'm doing exactly the thing I never wanted to do on this thing--I'm talking about myself, and silly things like how i like to chat with my buddies. My only exception with you was that it seemed like you had made some sweeping, aggressive assumptions about me, and others, and when you challenged the always active, practical, smart and humble Chris Stokes to prove himself, well, then it seemed like you were just being rude.

Anyroad, your comments have settled on some good, human ground, & so I'm happy to chat with you on that level. I do think, however, that future correspondence should, perhaps, exist via email, or in person, for risk of irritating the others reading this thing.

& thanks to you, luke, for a clear post.

okay,

m

hi marty,

if you don't mind me invading your space again, would you mind emailing me? i don't have your email address and have a couple more things to say but, like you say, am loathe to subject your readers to anymore of this.

cheers,

tess