Sylvia Plath's son commits suicide in Alaska

Poor Paula/BBJ - still obsessed; still deranged; still unwillling to simply move on. More to be pitied than censored, really. But one does wonder if somone is monitoring her medication intake. Obsessives often ignore the symptoms of their sickness until it's too late. Greg, you still have the honorary "last" - LOL.

Last lol

I owe you an apology Jason. I sincerely apologize for calling you a dick. I no longer believe that's the case. I truly believe you suffer from DPD, or at the very least NPD, and I apologize for exacerbating and exploiting your disorder. I urge you to seek the advice of a qualified mental health professional and begin your road to recovery as soon as possible. Good day to you.

Next, what typically will occur is a belittling "oh, look who's psychoanalyzing me on the internet"-type post, followed by more recounting of how many times the subject of obsession had has "posted" since the obsessives "last activity."* Note that that is a constant thread of the obsessives recent posts: "Jason has posted six times since my last activity here" (10:06 pm); "the multiple postings in between my own" (6:51 pm); "Jason's posts on this topic today outnumber mine...From Jason's first post today (because previous posts this morning from me were in response to someone else) the times between my posts have been as follows: 22 minutes, 88 minutes, 42 minutes, 21 minutes, 53 minutes, 6 minutes. The times between Jason's posts are as follows: 2 minutes, 161 minutes, 14 minutes, 4 minutes, 44 minutes, 14 minutes, 3 minutes, 52 minutes, 11 minutes, 5 minutes, 3 minutes, 4 minutes. He often posts 2 or 3 times in between my posts, doubling down" (6:10 pm). This is the key to understanding a principle element of the neuroses: as I increase the amount of time I spend addressing the matter of the obsessive, the pleasure of the obsessive rises. Only occassionaly does the obsessive feel the need to engage in "Last Wordism," and only then after significant time lapses. To the obsessive, the attention given is precisely the response she was hoping to engender. It is the *raison d'etre* of the entire exercise; the rich icing of the entire cake. The fact that it has unfolded by a predictable analysis is a matter of indifference to the obsessive: that it has is all that matters. Rinse, wash, repeat. *(Yes, I'm aware by stating the predictable next step by the obsessive I'm preempting it.)

This is apt to go on for a while, folks, and is precisely the point. In my last encounter with "Paula, MWC," aka "BBJ, Midwest City," she didn't, IIRC, stop the exchange for a week. On a clinical level, I found the matter fascinating. I recognized the posting style, but just misidentified the moniker: todd, norman is/was (he posts here now under "stinkerpants," "nocona, santa, fe," yada, yada) largely a harmless crank. "Paula/BBJ" on the other hand, ran a thread much like this one into the ground in almost precisely the same manner. Having reached the plausible terminus of being able to plead/argue/stipulate that she was simply responding to a "dick" (very telling epithet, in many ways), or defending whatever the Sylvia Plath of that thread was, or even just replying to replies, it simply became a matter of "Last Wordism" for the sake of said principle *itself*: it came, as now, cloaked in projective insults in almost precisely the same manner, *viz*: "Predictable and borderline disturbing. Seek help, Jason." *** 'But why bother?' the casual onlooker will say, 'it's just an anonymous somebody on the internet trolling and otherwise working out their own deep-seated pathologies with their keyboard.' This is quite correct. For instance, let's take the "endless question" that so provoke Paula/BBJ, and take a look at *why*: *why* both it provokes her so and *why* it is repeated to appparently stir that provocation. It is a deliberate trope; a constant reminder to Paula/BBJ that she is free *at any time* to terminate this entire obsessive search for my engagement in this exchange by simply saying "okay, here's my opinion on Sylvia Plath's poetry" - or "I think you're an ass and now you go on *ignore* goodbye." But that brings us back to the essential fact that Paula/BBJ *does not want the exchange to end*: she will post the "last word" for days and days on end, until either some major intervention in her real life intrudes, or she concludes that further time invested in seeking that *last word* no longer yield the same satisfactory emotional returns. When this article and its comment section finally, truly, and really *does* - in her mind - "fall off the page." This is the hallmark of such neurosis. A readministration of prescribed medication - if that be the case here - will also trigger an end to the episode, as reality returns and mental cognizance reasserts itself. In the meantime, this thread will be the "return carcass" of the obsessives focus - it will be perused, scanned, and monitored on a constant basis. The entire goal has already been accomplished: there are now just two participants, and one of them is the focus of the obsession. It's like being locked into a room with someone you have always found intensely attrative - and the latter party has been told that they are a party to their own liberation from that room to the extent that they pay attention to *YOU*. It is textbook, and a fascinating thing to watch unfold on an anonymous forum where the normal rules of human back-and-forth are largely absent; stunted, indeed, to a peculiar kind of interaction that involves pixels & antiseptic computer monitors, as opposed to human voices and observational gestures.

"Paul" = "Paula"

And once again Paul/BBJ proves me precisely correct with her continued and ongoing obsessive behavior: "The obsessive, in a grip of panic the exchange is slipping out of her control and by the sheer weight of accumulated proof of her own stalker/obsessive behavior, begins to level accusations, make insinuations, gin up inneundo out of thin air and pronounce it "fact" without a shred of corroboration. This may take the form of (a) "counter-stalker" accusastions. Even though the obsessive was the party that initiated the exchange, in her own mind she was "forced" - the obsessive in this case uses the term "incited" - to begin the parlay. This is simliar to the perpertrator of domestic violence, who often insists they were "forced" by some non-violent action to beat their wives." ***

As I said before: Paula/BBJ, do you wish to discuss anything related, even tangentially, to the topic of this article? Do you wish to argue the merits of Sylvia Plath's body of work? That was the supposed motive behind your entrance into this commentary thread, after all. So how about it? Do you want to argue about Plath, or do you want just want to continue to keep me engaged under the pretense of "proving" you "right"? I suspect we already have our answer, given your increasingly obsessive behavior.

Jason has posted six times since my last activity here. Yet he still insists I'm the obsessive one. Predictable and borderline disturbing. Seek help, Jason.

The obsessive, in a grip of panic the exchange is slipping out of her control and by the sheer weight of accumulated proof of her own stalker/obsessive behavior, begins to level accusations, make insinuations, gin up inneundo out of thin air and pronounce it "fact" without a shred of corroboration. This may take the form of (a) "counter-stalker" accusastions. Even though the obsessive was the party that initiated the exchange, in her own mind she was "forced" - the obsessive in this case uses the term "incited" - to begin the parlay. This is simliar to the perpertrator of domestic violence, who often insists they were "forced" by some non-violent action to beat their wives. This has already been discussed. (b) The rhetorical question as an accusation, "why are you so angry?," for instance. (c) The claim of a past laundry list of past wrongs, offenses, etc., etc., that the object of the obsession has supposedly engaged in, and that is the proximate *justified* cause of the obsessives behavior. In the obsessives mind, every step of the way has been a two fold process: 1. The object of her obsession requires corrective attention and 2. the object of her obsession wants *HER* corrective attention in particular, no matter what he may say to the contrary. This is manifest throught the exchange.

"need to the center of" = "need to be the center of"

Ah, and to remind us, this is the actual statement: "Me, I'm on call, so to speak, so, eh, I really got nothing better to do. What's your deal?" *** This, too, is problematic for the obsessive. It sets limits, and limits are anathema to the obsessive because limits imply a potential termination of the exchange in a manner not conducive to the obsessive's need to the center of the object of her obsession's attention. Resentment flares as the obsessive (a) brings up the subject of loneliness, but never quite answers it; parries it as a foil to (b) "having nothing better to do." This angers the obsessive, but also gives her an "out" for her transparent behavior to what she imagines is a large body of onlookers: it is the equivalent of "I may be 'lonely' but so are you, really!" It therefore becomes an important narrative in the continuing craving for the exchange to continue - to go on and on and on, *ad infinitum*. Again, textbook.

Falsehoods and large scale *projection* begin to creep into the obsessives claims, as it becomes increasingly apparent that the obsessive is losing control of the flow of the conversation. As note here: "the tracking and rehashing of every single interaction" - a statement made by the obsessive when just a short time ago the obsessive posted this: "22 minutes, 88 minutes, 42 minutes, 21 minutes, 53 minutes, 6 minutes. The times between Jason's posts are as follows: 2 minutes, 161 minutes, 14 minutes, 4 minutes, 44 minutes, 14 minutes, 3 minutes, 52 minutes, 11 minutes, 5 minutes, 3 minutes, 4 minutes." The more acute the danger becomes that the object of the obsession will terminate the exchange, the wilder the accusations become, and they are always gilded with a self-justifying bitterness and anger, as note - "According to him I post here because I'm "lonely." In point of fact, the poster was simply *asked* if she was lonely, but that becomes an outright assertion. And so the obsessive returns to the familiar loop it wishes to maintain: continued engagement with the object of her obsession. Textbook.

LOL! I called it so right @ 6:44 pm. Too, too, funny.

As I said before: Paula/BBJ, do you wish to discuss anything related, even tangentially, to the topic of this article? Do you wish to argue the merits of Sylvia Plath's body of work? That was the supposed motive behind your entrance into this commentary thread, after all. So how about it? Do you want to argue about Plath, or do you want just want to continue to keep me engaged under the pretense of "proving" you "right"? I suspect we already have our answer, given your increasingly obsessive behavior.

Eventually I'll wander off, giving Jason the last word he so strongly desires. More example of his pathology. All too easy. Notice the intense effort, the multiple postings in between my own, the tracking and rehashing of every single interaction. The textbook definition of "obsession." He spends an incredible amount of energy in an attempt to paint me as obsessed, yet he fits every single one of his own definitions. According to him I post here because I'm "lonely," but he can excuse his own posts here as having "nothing better to do." Jason not only fits the textbook definition of "obsessed," but also of "sociopath."

Wait for it...wait for it....wait for it..."i just want to amuse myself and keep proving me right and you keep repeating the question...and here's how many commas, periods, and dashes you've used in this thread ***THE EXACT AMOUNT*** and i'm eventually going to get bored and blah, blah, blah, blah..." Bank it.

"dow" = "down"

Now, one more time: Paula/BBJ, do you wish to discuss anything related, even tangentially, to the topic of this article? Do you wish to argue the merits of Sylvia Plath's body of work? That was the supposed motive behind your entrance into this commentary thread, after all. So how about it? Do you want to argue about Plath, or do you want just want to continue to keep me engaged under the pretense of "proving" you "right"? I suspect we already have our answer, given your increasingly obsessive behavior - who in their right mind would waste their time tracking dow *each* and *every* post in a comments thread by someone else but an obsessive, after all? And obsessives are not in their "right mind," as you continue to demonstrate this evening.

Note the deft deflection of the potential exchange-ending inquiries: "Paula/BBJ, do you have anything more for me? Do you wish to discuss Sylvia Plath? Or the literary merit of her works?...I'm wondering just exactly what it is you wish to discuss?" *** Since answering those questions might well lead to a termination of the discussion, the obsessive simply brushes them aside and attempt to continue the exchange by focusing on another, completely unrelated matter, in this case the timing of the particular posts. These are catalogued with a meticulous care, even though many of them were not addressed to the object of the obsessives focus: to the obsessive, each and every post by the object of her obsession is *really* somehow addressed to her; she begins to imagine scenarios where the object of her obsession might eschew dealing with any one other than her in such exchanges, and, thus, fulfill her desire to be the sole focus of his attention. This is "post-trolling" behavior, because it is not intended to disparage, argue, or otherwise dispute any assertion by the object of the obsession, but, rather, to simply keep that object "in the conversation." Textbook, this one.

"From Jason's first post today (because previous posts this morning from me were in response to someone else) the times between my posts have been as follows: 22 minutes, 88 minutes, 42 minutes, 21 minutes, 53 minutes, 6 minutes. The times between Jason's posts are as follows: 2 minutes, 161 minutes, 14 minutes, 4 minutes, 44 minutes, 14 minutes, 3 minutes, 52 minutes, 11 minutes, 5 minutes, 3 minutes, 4 minutes." - Note the intense effort; the tracking of every single interaction and the times of their intervals. The textbook definition of "obsession."

"7. Eventually, the target of her obsession wanders off, and the obsessive gets the "last word" - which is more example of the pathology" - All too easy.

I'm still, as I stated earlier, just letting you continue to prove me right.

Jason's posts on this topic today outnumber mine, yet he still claims I'm the one checking the thread every few minutes. Let's take a look at the facts. From Jason's first post today (because previous posts this morning from me were in response to someone else) the times between my posts have been as follows: 22 minutes, 88 minutes, 42 minutes, 21 minutes, 53 minutes, 6 minutes. The times between Jason's posts are as follows: 2 minutes, 161 minutes, 14 minutes, 4 minutes, 44 minutes, 14 minutes, 3 minutes, 52 minutes, 11 minutes, 5 minutes, 3 minutes, 4 minutes. He often posts 2 or 3 times in between my posts, doubling down and becoming increasingly agitated in an attempt to continue to engage. These fit, by his very words, the description of an obsessed troll. I take back my earlier disappointment, Jason. Well done!

I ask, because, having simply refused to answer my straightforward questions, I'm wondering just exactly what it is you wish to discuss? Is it just the obsessive need to hit "reload" and see that "Jason, Edmond" - some anonymous somebody you don't know - is taking the time to pay attention to something you've written? Are you *that* lonely? What exactly is it you wish to discuss in this thread going forward? Me, I'm on call, so to speak, so, eh, I really got nothing better to do. What's your deal?

Paula/BBJ, do you have anything more for me? Do you wish to discuss Sylvia Plath? Or the literary merit of her works? Or do you just wish to continue seeing my name in a post addressed to you?

You've done well with defining trollish behavior, Jason. Now you need to work on recognizing that behavior within yourself.

No, Paula/BBJ, I'm not interested in "tripping" anyone up - you've already done that quite well on your own, and the fall was self-inflicted. I'm interested in what I said here: Paula/BBJ, do you have anything cogent to add to my dissection of the moronic scribblings that were Sylvia Plath's collected works, either pro or con? And, if not, why, besides you own "amusement" (read: obsession) do you continue to engage in an internet discussion with someone whose commentary you proclaim you dislike? *** It's really not rocket science. *** Note folks: "6. The obsessive continues to check the thread every few minutes, craving a further interaction while using the defensive "I do this for my bemusement" argument when her self-apparent obsession with the opposing poster becomes so evident as to be undeniable" - it only took her *FOUR* minutes this time. That "reload" button is getting a workout.

Now, following up I'll rephrase my "endless" question (which is only "endless" to "Paula/BBJ" because she refuses to answer it): Paula/BBJ, do you have anything cogent to add to my dissection of the moronic scribblings that were Sylvia Plath's collected works, either pro or con? And, if not, why, besides you own "amusement" (read: obsession) do you continue to engage in an internet discussion with someone whose commentary you proclaim you dislike? Have I simplified the terms of the bifurcated inquiry enough for you?

Trying to trip me up with a repeat of The Endless Question after I've already answered it? Valiant effort, but unsuccessful. I'd like to point out that I have accurately predicted everything you'd do in this little exchange. I thought maybe you'd try something new in an attempt to prove me wrong. I'm somewhat disappointed, Jason.

The trademark pattern of the obsessed troll - this one once went by the name "Paula, MWC" - has played itself out here with textbook predictability: 1. The obsessive first posts a hostile, *ad hominem* reply to a post made by the target of her obsession. This isn't even done in the context of a direct reply, but rather in "support" of another poster. 2. The poster, having said nothing of consequence, is not replied to, so she doubles down and continues to try and engage the object of her obsession. 3. At some point her most fervent desire is met, and an interaction is started. 4. The obsessive is asked a straightforward series of questions in a vain - and a knowing one at that - attempt to elicit one of two things: (a) some sort of legitimate factual-counterfactual discussion, or (b) an inquiry into why, exactly the poster continues to engage in a conversation that does little but run around in *ad hominem* circles, with the poster herself becoming increasingly agitated. 5. The obsessive feigns disinterest at this point, tells falsehoods about how the discussion was initiated, and then proceeds to proclaim bemusement leading to eventual "boredom." 6. The obsessive continues to check the thread every few minutes, craving a further interaction while using the defensive "I do this for my bemusement" argument when her self-apparent obsession with the opposing poster becomes so evident as to be undeniable. 7. Eventually, the target of her obsession wanders off, and the obsessive gets the "last word" - which is more example of the pathology. 8. Another thread, another day: wash, rinse, repeat.

Hah! Seventeen minutes. Called it pretty close to the mark. Still waiting on an answer to the question: why don't you either reply with a decent argument sans the personal attacks to my posts, or simply put me on *ignore* if I "incite" her you much? *** "You still don't win Jason" *** Oh yes I have - I did that the second you proved every point I've made since this little exchange began. Please try again.

Oh yes I almost forgot your best trick! The endless question! Buried deep among the rhetoric and silly burbling so by the time people read it their eyes have glossed over, lies a question so keenly disguised that it almost isn't a question. When the time is right, you'll pull it out of the pile and exclaim to your adoring crowds (*chirping crickets*) "Look! She's so stupid she won't even answer my question!" You still don't win Jason. The answer to your "fundamental" question is easy. I never said you incited *me* personally. I merely pointed out your modus operandi. I'm interacting here with you for no other reason than my own amusement. Eventually I'll grow bored with your failed attempts to make yourself feel intellectually superior and I'll move along, allowing you to have the last word. Not just yet, but eventually. So come on, don't disappoint me!

Oh, and I repeat my post from 4:19 because the fundamental question has yet to be answered: why won't "BBJ" either reply with a decent argument sans the personal attacks to my posts, or simply put me on *ignore* if I "incite" her so much? I'd be very curious to see if this obsessed savant is ever going to answer, or just keep posting the internet equivalent of "Last Word!" like some sixth grader?

Jason, Edmond said @ 3:31 pm: " I got a good idea for you, "BBJ": instead of following me around from thread to thread like some yipping little puppy dog, why don't you respond to what I write sans the personal attacks, and refute my opinions with counterfactuals of your own? Or why don't you just put me on *ignore*? Ah, but that'll never work, now will it? Because my facts are almost always irrefutable, and being wrong most of the time is no fun. And the *ignore* option is simply not in the cards because you, like two or three others that post here regularly, crave my attention. It's kinda flattering and kinda creepy all at the same time, to be honest. Go figure." *** And, right on cue, "BBJ" showed up and proved me right - she is simply obsessed. *Quod Erat Demonstrandum* *** "But you better do it quickly before the article, and your audience, disappears off the page" - For starters, as long as you continue stalking me I'll always have an "audience," and you've given no indication that you intend to stop doing that. For seconders, these articles *NEVER* "fall off the page," savant: they stay in the system for as long as NewsOK.com remains a website, and that nifty little "search" function on the upper right hand side will take anyone who is interested to this article for years to come. Something else you know little about, apparently. (*snickers*). *** Time it, folks: she'll keep checking this thread and soaking up that attention she craves all night, I wager. It's almost pathological - and definitely hilarious.

*APPLAUDS* Good job, Jason! A lesser man might have refused to respond just for the sake of proving me wrong, but you are a shining beacon of predictability. What an inspiration! Eventually this story will no longer appear in the headlines of the A&E page, at which point only those who have a vested interest in it (or in its comments) will do a search for it. I'm quite aware of how a search function operates, but I've never had the need to search for an article after it is no longer a headline. I'm sure you are far more experienced than I in that area, given your expertise in flagellating deceased equine.

Jason, Edmond said @ 3:31 pm: " I got a good idea for you, "BBJ": instead of following me around from thread to thread like some yipping little puppy dog, why don't you respond to what I write sans the personal attacks, and refute my opinions with counterfactuals of your own? Or why don't you just put me on *ignore*? Ah, but that'll never work, now will it? Because my facts are almost always irrefutable, and being wrong most of the time is no fun. And the *ignore* option is simply not in the cards because you, like two or three others that post here regularly, crave my attention. It's kinda flattering and kinda creepy all at the same time, to be honest. Go figure." *** And, right on cue, "BBJ" showed up and proved me right - she is simply obsessed. *Quod Erat Demonstrandum* *** "But you better do it quickly before the article, and your audience, disappears off the page" - For starters, as long as you continue stalking me I'll always have an "audience," and you've given no indication that you intend to stop doing that. For seconders, these articles *NEVER* "fall off the page," savant: they stay in the system for as long as NewsOK.com remains a website, and that nifty little "search" function on the upper right hand side will take anyone who is interested to this article for years to come. Something else you know little about, apparently. (*snickers*).

I don't stalk you and I've not followed you around. I've seen you in different threads over the span of ... a couple of years, I'd guess. You don't show up in all of them, only the ones that hold the best chance of confrontation. If you only posted opinions it would be different. I might even agree with you. But you always insert some well placed jabs, ensuring that you get a response from someone you can then linguistically pound. And right on cue you address your audience, "folks", without whom you'd have no reason to perform your little antics. Now you'll continue to repeat yourself (look what I proved, BBJ is the villain here, I'm innocent, look at what she posted!) until the article falls off the page. Now I'll just sit back and relax while you do all the work in proving my point. But you better do it quickly before the article, and your audience, disappears off the page.

Greg, Edmond - check out that feminist "logic" at work in "BBJ's" posts this afternoon. Irony of ironies, it's the "logic" so-often employed by wife-beating scumbags: "you *MADE* me call you names because your opinions incited me!" Too, too funny.

"You are notorious for posting similarly in pretty much every topic you have the desire to bash, thus inciting those you've offended to flame you so you can pick them to death and then cry foul that they "attacked" you first" - You talk just a like some scumbag who beats his wife: "she *MADE* me hit her because she wouldn't shut up!!!" What you are basically saying is that I "incite" you with my opinions, and that somehow *FORCES* you to start hurling ugly names and indulging in personal attacks, like you did here: "And Jason's a dick. Always has been." *** Folks, note what "BBJ" did there - it has been proven that *she* initiated the name-calling and *ad hominems*, but then she turns around and has the unmitigated gall to say that she had no choice but to start attacking me personally - my *OPINIONS* supposedly "incited" her. If that's not the same logic as that of a domestic violence offender, nothing is; what "BBJ" is basically saying is - "you stated your opinion so I was forced to call you all sorts of juvenile names." I got a good idea for you, "BBJ": instead of following me around from thread to thread like some yipping little puppy dog, why don't you respond to what I write sans the personal attacks, and refute my opinions with counterfactuals of your own? Or why don't you just put me on *ignore*? Ah, but that'll never work, now will it? Because my facts are almost always irrefutable, and being wrong most of the time is no fun. And the *ignore* option is simply not in the cards because you, like two or three others that post here regularly, crave my attention. It's kinda flattering and kinda creepy all at the same time, to be honest. Go figure.

You give it a rest, BBJ - like so many members of my stalking fan club *YOU* appear to have both an intellectual inferiority complex, coupled with a peculiar fascination with everything I post. Nothing else seems to explain your following me around from thread to thread, spewing insulting bilge, and the playing the wounded victim. Here you have just done it again: sniveled around about my alleged "flaming," when it was clear from the evidence at hand that *YOU* were the one that initiated sad "flaming." That is your "MO," and it really is a rather pitiful act. "Passive-aggressive approach," indeed. My question to you is: since you cannot stand my commentary, why don't you just avail yourself of the *ignore* button? I think we both know why: my commentary is spot-on 99% of the time, and you simply lack the intellectual equipment to refute it. But keep sniveling and pouting: I'll keep laughing.

And it has nothing to do with your opinion of Sylvia Plath, to which you are entitled and matters none to me anyway. It's the degrading manner in which you refer to an entire group of people, as though the characteristic they have in common makes them all the same. Here it's feminists. In other threads it's been aimed at different groups, but it's always the same M.O.: Start off with a generalization that is insulting enough to a number of people who will no doubt read the article and comments but not personal enough to be directed at anyone specifically; wait for someone to respond directly to you; then feign innocence (or deny your part vehemently) as you rip them to shreds for attacking you. I will concede that your passive-aggressive approach does appear to fool people who can't precisely identify it. But from this vantage point it's glaringly obvious.

Give it a rest. You've been flame baiting here for years. The following two comments, which came before I ever posted on this topic, are but a tiny fraction of your flame baiting history: "that's very telling about the intellectual immaturity of 'feminism' in general and 'feminists' in particular: try as they might, the entire gaggle of them cannot yet but behave like teenage girls on their first period when it comes to real life." "Sylvia Plath was a minor poet - and not a very good one, I might add - whose only *REAL* claim to fame was that she became a pet favorite of the moronic 'feminist' movement." You are notorious for posting similarly in pretty much every topic you have the desire to bash, thus inciting those you've offended to flame you so you can pick them to death and then cry foul that they "attacked" you first.

"Kristin, you said" should be "BBJ you said" in the post below. Sorry for the confusion.

Greg, Edmond, your comment @ 9:11 am speaks for my take on the matter. Now that "BBJ" has explained her misimpression, I will go on to say this: Kristin, you said "although I'm 100% sure that Jason will use my mistake as an excuse to flame me for what he perceives as reduced mental capabilities." Well....it wasn't "Jason, Edmond," who initiated this glut of "flaming" back and forth on this topic. That would be the person who, unprovoked & unaddressed by me, posted this - "And Jason's a dick. Always has been. He only posts stuff here to insult people and make them angry." Take a wild guess at who posted that, BBJ? I hardly think you're in any kind of position to snivel about "flaming" since you initiated a pretty good round of it at the start of this discussion, not I.

Regardless, he's still wrong about my identity. I'm still very much a female.

When I posted at 12:30 this morning it appeared to me that Jason was referring to me in this statement:
"I wonder what our "professor" or literary genius "BBJ" (aka "todd, Norman") opinion is on this theory?"
I see now he was probably referring to Kristin as "professor" and me as "literary genius". It was late and I didn't catch it at the time, although I'm 100% sure that Jason will use my mistake as an excuse to flame me for what he perceives as reduced mental capabilities. He won't be able to resist. At any rate, I never claimed to be a literary genius either. If he's going to question my credentials, he should at least wait until I claim some.

BBJ-No one ever claimed you were a professor, so I am completely baffled as to why you are baffled that someone called you one.

Additionally I never claimed to be a professor, so I'm completely baffled as to why you felt the need to refer to me as one.

Sorry Jason but you lose. I'm a female.

Hey let's make fun of Special Olympians and see if our approval rating goes up..

Kristin, your admission that you are unable to rationally discuss this matter (which is essentially what your post @ 3:44 pm was) is noted, and your admission that your status as a "professor" is an online affectation ("I have tons of fake papers to grade in my imaginary office") is appreciated. It takes a big person to admit that they fabricated credentials to make their side of an argument sound more credible, and I applaud you for the admission. Good afternoon to you, and have a great day!

Anybody who knows anything about Plath knows she wrote "The Bell Jar." The idea that my not mentioning it would imply I didn't know she wrote it is ridiculous. Obviously, a sane conversation isn't going to occur today. Jason, I'm sorry that something obviously happened to you that made you feel so angry that you have to lash out at total strangers, but I'm not biting anymore. Enjoy your tirade. I've got better things to do. Besides, I have tons of fake papers to grade in my imaginary office.

One other thing real quick that got by me while composing my last post: note that "professor" and supposed Sylvia Plath fan Kristin had not nary a word to say about "The Bell Jar," Plath's only novel and one that was published under an assumed name until a few years after her death. This is most likely because she's never heard of it till I brought it up in this forum, but let's put that aside: the book is such an example of shoddy prose that folks often have trouble deciphering it as a roman a' clef, and in my opinion it is Plath's version of an extended suicide note. I wonder what our "professor" or literary genius "BBJ" (aka "todd, Norman") opinion is on this theory? I won't be holding my breath....

Phil, Yukon & Greg, Yukon: engaging with the feeble likes of "BBJ" is a waste of time - he's none other than repeat troll "todd, norman," "nocona, santa fe," and a dozen other silly pseudonyms. He just changes them depending on the topic, but his posting style gives him away every time. For instance, note how he parses every single syllable of other's posts, yet is all over the place with sloppy logic, fallacies galore, and *ad hominem* silliness in his own. He is a pitiful, laughable creature, and something of the butt of an ongoing joke from a lot of the regular posters here. He's more to be pitied than censored, really.

"Jason, like I said before, I'm so glad you're not in my class" - Uh-huh. Right. And if my grandmother had had wheels she'd have been a wagon. Funny thing, "professor," you have yet answer the straight forward inquiries put to you. I'm sure you'll get right on that right after you finish "teaching" (*Cough* Watching 'Days of our Lives' *cough-cough*) your afternoon session, eh? (*rollseyes*)

Thanks, BBJ. You're right. I would never tell my students that they have to think like me. As a matter of fact, I'm constantly telling them to question everything, including what I say. I would never tell a students to like the same things I like, As a matter-of-fact, I say to them, "You can hate this piece, but you need to be able to articulate exactly why you hate it." If you attack the author and not the work, you're copping out. I also would say this. There are plenty of authors I don't like, but I try to at least understand why other people might like them.

Did you read her question just before that, asking if anyone had read more than one or two of Plath's poems? Her suggestion was for those who are arguing against Plath because of her personal life, or because of who her fans are, or because of her not being a great "catch" or merely because everyone else was doing it. Not for those who have actually read her works and formed their own opinions. It appears you were taken to task for your "there once was a girl from Nantucket" comment, as you never actually voiced your opinion on Plath's works until after Kristin addressed what she perceived as a lack of maturity. I'm not Kristin, so I can't say for certain, but that's the way I interpreted it.

BBJ-Here is what she said, "Maybe before you reject someone or something altogether you should actually take the time to figure out why so many people study Sylvia Plath. I also find it hilarious that many of you are so offended that other women like her." I have taken the time to read her-I find her work uninspiring and pedantic. I have been taken to task simply because I don't like her work-that to me sounds like someone telling me how I need to think.

I don't see where Kristin said or implied that everyone must think like her. She was speaking to the low maturity level of a few people here, but never did she say she expects her students to all think like her. In fact, she was addressing those who belittle people for thinking differently than they do and having different opinions or tastes, such as those who implied that Plath's only fans are loopy feminist conspiracy theorists. From my perspective, it appears that THOSE are the ones who are trying to squash individual thought, not Kristin.

Kristin-it must be boring teaching such a homogenous class where you require everyone to like the same authors and be of the same mindset as you. Individual thought is not allowed in your class, apparently.

Calling people morons is okay, but calling someone a dick for calling people morons is wrong. I see. So you have the same type of "you're stupid if you don't agree with me" mindset. It must be cramped there in that closed mind of yours.

BBJ, MWC, in this case, it makes him right.

Jason, like I said before, I'm so glad you're not in my class.

Suicide is always tragic. Sometimes cliche.

Right. And Jason's (mundanely predictable) M.O. of calling anyone who thinks differently from him "moronic", his holier-than-thou questioning of everyone's intelligence and educational levels, and his insistence of being an overbearing, condescending jackass towards anyone who might disagree with him makes him... what?

Well said, Jason; each post. And by the way, the feminist form of debate is to reply by ad hominem attacks and insults as you no doubt noticed.

Who said anything about being offended by powerful women? Kristin said she found it funny that some people (you may or may not have been included in that) were offended "that other women like [Plath]."

Not offended by powerful women-in fact I find it a bit, dare I say sexy.
I just feel she is a hack and a bore. I feel that way about many male writers as well, that does not mean I am threatened by them. I just find their work unappealing to me.

And this is nowhere as bad as making derogatory comments about mentally and physically challenged kids like our President did.

Just trying to find a little gallows humor like our president...

Those who laugh off mental illness as self-indulgent moronic drama queen behavior are often assistants in suicide.

Kristin, OKC - if you're really a professor, which I highly doubt, you should be able to answer my legitimate criticisms without indulging in personal attacks. If she "thought she would be found" then she took a high risk gamble that didn't pay off - that makes her either a moron, a drama queen, or both. I tend toward the latter theory. But what is really appalling about Plath is that she put her kids in danger while acting out her little self-indulgent drama. I've read nearly everything selfish Sylvia has written, BTW, including her prose. I doubt you've ever heard of "The Bell Jar," but I suggest you check it out of the library to get a feel of what a really mediocre writer she was. *** "Professor" Kristin wrote: "I also find it hilarious that many of you are so offended that other women like her" - Rank nonsense. Here comes the "you just don't like powerful women" idiocy, right on cue. Sylvia Plath doesn't "offend" me in the least - her pitiful scribblings are of little consequence to me, regardless of her gender. I feel the same way about Norman Mailer, another literary fraud. Why don't you stow the Ms. magazine talking points, "Professor," and engage in honest debate? Or is that not in vogue with "feminism" these days? Or has it ever?

Kristin, don't bother trying to argue culture with these neanderthal rednecks. Any woman who doesn't spend her time barefoot and pregnant, cooking and cleaning, isn't worth their time. And Jason's a dick. Always has been. He only posts stuff here to insult people and make them angry. Don't give him what he wants. Brush them off like dirt on your shoulder and move along. Let the shallow end of the gene pool drown here in the negativity.

Wow. I'm an English Professor, and I'm so glad Jason, Greg, and BigDaddy aren't in my literature class because the level of maturity on this board is at about the 5th grade level. Have any of you guys actually read more than one or two of her poems? Maybe before you reject someone or something altogether you should actually take the time to figure out why so many people study Sylvia Plath. I also find it hilarious that many of you are so offended that other women like her. So if I think her suicide was tragic and that perhaps she thought she would be found, I'm a loopy feminist conspiracy theorist? Maybe if you worried a little less about whether or not she was a "catch" you might actually learn something.

Or her other Happy Ditty Haiku
Oh where did my daddy go...
Male misogyny...
Men can be blamed for all things...

Good one, Greg: I'd forgotten all about that little ditty.

LOL!

"so she pulled up her dress and said..."

Her most famous poem--Their once was a girl from Nantucket....

"their" instead of "there" folks ... my apologies to the spelling police lest they descend upon me; my mind is muddled from the Monday workday. Now, if I could just rid myself of that pesky ellipsis I seem to favor :)

Good poem, BigDaddy.

I did like her poem "Daddy" for its metaphoric weirdness. I think a lot of feminists connected with the idea of, as she described her own estranged husband, ridding oneself of the "vampire" in there lives; I understand that to mean what we now call an "emotional vampire". I wonder though if she was such a catch herself what with all of the pathos in her wake.

Case in point, James, Norman: thanks for posting that. A silly poem - IIRC she compares her skin to a "Nazi lampshade" or some similar ridiculousness - and in the end selfish Sylvia killed herself with her kids in the next room using a stove - thus putting those same children in danger of being gassed along with herself. The only thing she ended up eating "like air" was the means of her own suicide - the gas from the oven she stuck her head into on the last day of her life. Even with her evident self-destruction loopy "feminist" conspiracy theories have abounded for years that she didn't *really* mean to kill herself - rather, her "cry for help" went unheeded by a cruel misogynistic world. Thus, it's all the "patriarchy's" fault that she stuck her head into that oven, after all....(*rollseyes*).

Poetry sucks and is a waste of time.

Out of the ash / I rise with my red hair / And I eat men like air. -- http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/lady-lazarus/

Wrong, Michele: Sylvia Plath was a minor poet - and not a very good one, I might add - whose only *REAL* claim to fame was that she became a pet favorite of the moronic "feminist" movement. Had it not been for that factor, she would have long ago faded into well-deserved obscurity.

Wow...some of you really should've paid attention in school. What else did you miss???

I know exactly what he's talking about, but thanks for the advice. lol

Yes Amber, I would also define your education as poor since you have no clue what Burt is talking about in his post. When you have "..learned to work the Google on your internet machine" try searching for Winter Depression + Alaska and learn something new today.
Oh, I almost forgot. You might not know who Sylvia Plath was but I bet you could tell me the movie from whose line I quoted above.

I wish I had a Sylvia Plath
Busted tooth and a smile
And cigarette ashes in her drink
The kind that goes out and then sleeps for a week
The kind that goes out on her
To give me a reason, for well, I dunno

I don't have a clue who this person is. Sorry they've taken their own life, though.

"Ted Hughes had left her for another woman, and spent years battling feminists who blamed him for her death" - that's very telling about the intellectual immaturity of "feminism" in general and "feminists" in particular: try as they might, the entire gaggle of them cannot yet but behave like teenage girls on their first period when it comes to real life. "Feminism," in attempting to deny woman's essence, is the most anti-woman movement ever spawned on the face of the earth.

I would not define my education as poor just b/c I have not heard of a couple of poets. Burt, I always look forward to your strange comments. :-)

Winter depression is especially hard in Alaska but most people know how to deal with it. Full spectrum "happy lights" are available at most hardware stores up there.

blame courtney love.

No, it's because you got a poor education.

I paid attention in class...never heard of these names. Maybe it was b/c my teacher wasn't a feminist?

If you paid attention during your English class you would!