Search

Not a good way to be

Sunday 8/21/22

Dipped into the mailbox here, which I don't regularly do, though I get around to it. This came in at 4:48 AM.


I'm curious, what was the angry Beatles-related piece targeting David Remnick about...? Where do these accusations come from?


This is not a good way to be. The passive aggressive--and also indolent--approach will not induce me to take your bait. I take no bait. That is a house rule. Here we have someone who is likely a David Remnick apologist. I take great care with these pages. They are decidedly free of anger. I don't have the luxury of anger. Anger would only vitiate my purpose. I will not allow anything to vitiate my purpose. What I say here is factual and it is based in truth. This journal is a number of things, and I'll spell out the intentions in a forthcoming entry, or at least some of them. Further, this journal is thorough. Anything you might have a question about, regarding background and details, is in this record. There is no need to ask me about it, in some pot-shot-y kind of way, especially when everything has been answered and documented, and you're trying to lead me to an answer you wish to get, as this person was with the whole "anger" allegation.


What I've said is true. I've said so clearly. There's a lot we can talk about with David Remnick. A lot that we have talked about, and more we will talk about. For instance, I once proposed a piece to David Remnick on unreleased music by a giant of jazz, a saxophonist. I was in touch with a man who had a priceless collection he'd made, and which no one had heard. I sent this idea to David Remnick, who then stole it. I watched him steal it. I had his IP address. I knew when he was stealing my idea and working on the piece. His piece, stolen from my idea, was published in The New Yorker. That is just one basic, truthful, verifiable thing I can tell you about David Remnick. Do I sound angry, or do I sound like a man who is telling you what he knows to be the truth, and is the truth? Let me spell this out even more clearly: The idea in question was not pegged to anything in the news. It was not pegged to a box set release or any kind of album release. It was not pegged to an anniversary, such as a musician's centennial. It was pure idea. Pure Fleming. David Remnick does not write about jazz. He didn't then. He doesn't now. But that time he did, when he stole my idea.


Further: this is a blog. A journal. These are not pieces. They are entries. Also: saying the truth is not synonymous with anger. One sees what someone tries to do: Anger equals bad! This doubles as an attempt to silence someone. Not going to work. This journal is the presentation of a case. It may be full of life, but it's not some forum for one individual's venting. Everything goes up for a reason, for a set of purposes. Everything is part of a design.


Don't try me. Don't try to get me to take your bait. You are not going to get me to play your game. I am not going to expend time and energy giving you answers that you are not honestly seeking, especially as you hide behind a veil of anonymity--though it's easy for me to learn who you are--and which are readily available to you if you were. Don't be an apologist for bigots and frauds. It's not a good way to be. You act in good faith with me, I'll act in good faith with you. Then I will give you my time and energy. Anything short of that, no. It's not going to work.