Friday, July 13, 2012

What the fuck are you talking about?

Got the below e-mail last night re my Joan Crawford website. I read it, and e-mailed back one line: "What the fuck are you talking about?"

--------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL MESSAGE, 7/12:

Hello... Iam ________. Ive written to u a few times and have also supported ur wonderful website as i TRULY believe with all my heart that you have...little by little...piece by piece..brought Joan's reputation back where it belongs. Thats why sometimes when i see pics of a joan impersonator with a wire hanger, or this current very unflattering portrait of Joan done sometime in the 1980's, confuses me. I do for the MOST part think you are quite fair in HOW you portray Joan. She was NOT perfect by any means, and i am glad you continue to be, as i said, quite fair. BUT does Joan really need the exaggerated paintings or wire hanger pics??? Arent we DONE with all of that?? I will ALWAYS be a HUGE fan of ur site and will continue to contribute when i can. Iam just a regular person with this thought i wanted to share with you. God Bless you, girl! Sincerely, ____ :-)

Sent using Samsung's Galaxy S Blaze....
J.C.ALWAYSACLASSACT
---------------------------------------------------------

In my defense, I did go back and forth about the "fuck" before I replied---changed "fuck" to both "hell" and "heck," considered deleting the expletive altogether in favor of "What are you talking about?" In the end, was so irritated by the horrible misuse of the English language (blathering) below that I decided to leave the "fuck" in just for shock value.

What I THINK (50/50 chance) the person below is talking about is a raunchy 1980 painting of Joan by Playboy artist Olivia De Berardinis: http://www.joancrawfordbest.com/artdeberardinis.htm

But the thing is, I posted this painting in the "Art" section of the site maybe 6 weeks ago. And I'm just GUESSING that that was what this person was talking about last night. I really did not know WHAT she was talking about. WHAT "Joan impersonator with a wire hanger"? What "current very unflattering portrait of Joan done sometime in the 1980's"?

In short: "What the fuck are you talking about?"

All of that said, though, would I have been so irritated with, and rude to, the writer had the message not been so full of "Iam" and "u" and "ur" and "Thats" and horribly generic feel-good things like "Iam just a regular person" and "God Bless you, girl!" and "J.C.ALWAYSACLASSACT." (RE the latter: Joan was HARDLY "always a class act"!) :)

Not to mention that the writer says she will "continue to contribute when i can"---this person has, in the past 8 years that the website has been in existence, never contributed a single thing. I don't know who this person is! (At least she spelled "exaggerated" correctly...)

In short: "What the fuck are you talking about?"


1 comment:

Alessandro Machi said...

So this comment left by this person would be one notch above advertising spam. Might be fun to come up with a name.

It definitely sounds like an offshoot of "Concern Troll" talk. Concern Troll responses can be found in Politics.

In 2008, Obama bots would use concern trollism comments as an attempt to convince Hillary Clinton Voters to vote for Obama even though they understood the Clinton voters pain.

It was ghastly having to read such condescending tripe from people who were actually dumber than the people they were talking down to.