July 09, 2006

David Dauncey Backpedals

[What follows is an update to this posting.]

by Jerome du Bois

Phoenix artist David Dauncey should have quit while he was behind; instead he feels the need to share more of his mind. And with embarrassing results, because he comes across as a vacillating, contradictory fool.

We don't know why he sent his previous (duplicated) message in the first place. There we were, cruising along, singing our song, when these emails came out of the blue, fizzling as badly as North Korean missles. Now he tries again, and again with two emails, both identical to the other. What, does he have ADD? or does he think saying the same thing twice doubles its weight? Mystifying.

The reader may wonder why I bother with him at all. Three reasons: he reveals glaring tells in his admissions and omissions; he reflects the thinking of the local zeitgeist; and these tells justify his new nickname. I'll reproduce the thing verbatim after the jump, then fisk it.

He writes:

a couple of things. i read your blog about every three years or so, then i move on to other things that are more stimulating than bird photography and ghostly motes (in my opinion). i am neither barbarous or cruel, nor am i a twit. i really don't give a fuck if your wife shows her face or not, however glamorous it may or may not be, and if i did have a photograph of her i would have to be bereft of things to occupy my time if i chose to deface it. as for my comment regarding your 'old man', it was intended in a 'tip-of-the-hat' manner, but yet again i really couldn't give a hoot either way. this is the part of the e-mail where i am supposed to pitch some wild physical threat at you and your wife involving dark allies and socks filled with golf balls, isn't it? i have seen some of the more vulgar replies before in your track-back sections, and this, frankly, is just not my style. it would be petty.
p.s. david 'dingaling' dauncey is so jauntily '5-year-old-girl talk' as to be rendered amusingly pathetic when dribbling out of the corners of your face. maybe you should be nick-named jerome 'poppy-doop' dubois? catherine 'kaka' king? fucking pathetic sounding aren't they.

To fisking:

a couple of things.

But he ignores the first thing, his objection to our characterization of Kimber Lanning as "Stenchworth." Why does he avoid even mentioning her in this second message? I did go on about her, after all, since we believe she's a key player in keeping the Phoenix art scene debased and unhealthy. But not a peep from Dauncey about it this time. One wonders why.

i read your blog about every three years or so

We've been blogging for a little longer than three years, so the one or two times --according to him-- that he's checked in, he must have a done a lot of reading.

then i move on to other things that are more stimulating than bird photography and ghostly motes (in my opinion).

Whatever floats your dinghy, dingaling. Besides Catherine's beautiful parrot photographs and the amazing paranormal captures --she will be posting a major piece about this subject soon-- we've published gorgeous flower arrangements, my Portraits of her, and digital net art; and we've covered illegal immigration, Islamic depredations, antisemitism, anti-American artists, Cuban art hypocrisy, our ongoing Cuban novel, and what we call The Rebarb. We can see why these substantive and serious subjects wouldn't interest your superficial mind, and we're not aiming to stimulate the likes of you.

i am neither barbarous or cruel, nor am i a twit.

Your own words indicate otherwise. We'll let other readers decide for themselves.

i really don't give a fuck if your wife shows her face or not, however glamorous it may or may not be, and if i did have a photograph of her i would have to be bereft of things to occupy my time if i chose to deface it.

This contradicts your first message, though, doesn't it? If you don't care, why make that presumptuous and peremptory demand? Who the hell do you think you are, anyway? You're a lightweight, man. We've seen the other things which occupy your time --old typewriters, white shoes ("they got no soul," Catherine comments)-- and they are a waste of good paint.

as for my comment regarding your 'old man', it was intended in a 'tip-of-the-hat' manner, but yet again i really couldn't give a hoot either way.

So, again, why write it in the first message? And this comment is typical of the Rebarb attitude: call somebody an "arse," then follow up with a little bandaid of make-nice, as if the insult was never delivered. Don't you even know what your brain is doing?

this is the part of the e-mail where i am supposed to pitch some wild physical threat at you and your wife involving dark allies and socks filled with golf balls, isn't it? i have seen some of the more vulgar replies before in your track-back sections, and this, frankly, is just not my style. it would be petty.

I think you meant "dark alleys," not "dark allies." Too lazy to spellcheck yourself, I suppose, which shows how much you care about your own words. And you're the one with the dark allies, anyway.

I admit I get vulgar when someone threatens my wife with bodily harm, and if it ever did get physical with anyone, no matter the outcome, the attacker would find out what their bones look like sticking out of their skin. I'm long done with tolerance.

And "vulgar" from a guy who calls me an "arse" and a "patsy," and throws the tired word "fuck" around? Pot, meet kettle.

p.s. david 'dingaling' dauncey is so jauntily '5-year-old-girl talk' as to be rendered amusingly pathetic when dribbling out of the corners of your face. maybe you should be nick-named jerome 'poppy-doop' dubois? catherine 'kaka' king? fucking pathetic sounding aren't they.

as to be rendered? dribbling out of the corners of your face? Jeebus, you're a terrible writer.

Yes, your scatological nicknames are as pathetic as the stripped gears of your worn-out mind. But "dingaling" was carefully chosen. ("Pissant" was in the running, but didn't alliterate.) It's meant to convey the capricious shallowness, the completely unserious nature, of your psychology. Even a bird flitting from branch to branch, its head jerking this way, then that way, is more consistent than you. And probably smarter, too.

Posted by Jerome at July 9, 2006 11:15 PM | TrackBack