Letters

Have a comment on this page? Email the Odd Emperor!

Mott World part 2

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wm. Michael Mott" <mottimorph@earthlink.net>
To: <oddempire@blackfish-enterprises.com>
Cc: <oddempire_list@blackfish-enterprises.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 4:44 PM
Subject: SUBTERRANEAN MYTHS AND MYSTERIES

> > SUBTERRANEAN MYTHS AND MYSTERIES
> >
>
>
http://home.earthlink.net/~mottimorph/SubterraneanIntro2.html
>
> First, Thanks for the attention.

Why; you are quite welcome! Thanks for the feedback!

>
> > The thesis sentence here seems to be something
like. "Since many cultures have
> > recorded myths of strange underground cultures, we
must assume that they are
> > all correct and there really ARE strange
underground civilizations.
> > Interesting idea. I would suggest the author of
the site take a couple of
> > cultural anthropology classes and REALLY blow his
mind!
>
> I recommend that you clarify the thesis of your
Empire site to reflect your
> own apparent ignorance in regard to folklore,
mythology, anthropology,
> or any number of the topics that you disdain on your
site with an
> arrogance which seems somehow over-compensatory for
-- ?.

Sorry, your sentence kind of faded out there, would
your care to clarify what "-- ?." means?

>
> Here, learn something:
>
> http://www.rense.com/general37/waves.htm
> http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=648
>
Thank you; I am *very* familiar with the content on
both of those web pages. Are you aware that
www.rense.com is well known to print anything without
reguard to the relative truthfulness of the author?
Are you also aware that Whitley Strieber has so
totally discredited himself on so many occasions that
one would need to look out a window if that fellow
said that it was daylight. You call these reliable
sources?
As for your other recommendation, I'll take a rain
check on that, thank you very much. What I find
arrogant is people expounding on subjects that they
have little knowledge of. If you fall under this
framework I would call you arrogant. Since I know you
only from some of your work and this letter I can only
say that your conclusions appear misguided and more
than a little arrogant. That is simply one opinion
based on what I have read on your web page. Your
letter here serves to confirm that I was correct.

> If ignorance is bliss, then you must truly be in
Nirvana....

The last statement demonstrates that you have little
understanding of the Hindu religion. That’s OK, the
concepts are rather complex. Lots of people have a
hard time with them.

"The worlds of Hinduism and Buddhism, and the concept of nirvana, are rich and multi-faceted. As in most religions, you can summarize the fundamental ideas quickly, but you could easily spend your whole life studying the details." ( http://people.howstuffworks.com/nirvana3.htm ) . This is very true as I picked up in one of my freshmen anthropology classes. The Hindu religion is very old and from it emerged a number of other beliefs including Buddhism. In the same way that the Catholic Church is an amalgamation of Judaism and Roman paganism.

Holy crap! Cartoons characters are not supposed to know stuff like THAT!

>
> >Underground
> > civilization is only the tiniest portion of a huge
body of recorded mythology.
> > Let me tell you about the Native American myth
about how the jackass got his
> > tale (tail?)
> >
>
> It's certainly evident that you may have some degree
of authority on
> jackasses' tales--but paradoxically, your own
thoughts, personal history,
> philosophy, or even meaningful thoughts leave your
story woefully flaccid
> and thus the world unenlightened as to the fullness
of your asininity.

It’s very interesting how you cannot refute my
argument; you can only insult me personally. This is
known as the ad-homonym approach to debate, if some
opinion offends you then you go after the person who
made the statement, not the statement itself.
Generally speaking it is better (and much more mature)
to go after my assertions and not my personality.

Case in point; my review of your web page is mocking
in tone, a little insulting to your conclusions but it
does not in any way insult or offend you personally,
nor does it call you names.

You on the other hand seem to delight in hurling a
mass of insulting words in my direction *without once
refuting my position*. This suggests that you actually
agree with me! This is a very bad stance if you are attempting to
bolster your position against mine. It actually
strengthens my position and makes you (in the opinion
of some people who read these words) *look* like a
jackass. If you wish to invoke debate on some point
reflected on yur web page I am quite willing to debate
you.

(Quoted from the Empire of the Odd webpage)

> > Aw bummer, Subterranean Myths has caved in! The
page author has a new page up
> > that advertises his crappy self published book,
here is the original site.
> >
>
> Website URLs change--but ignoramuses never do, as
you are so willing to
> demonstrate.

Well technically; it looks very much like this fellow had to yank all of his content because that's what is actually published in his book . This is a pretty standard thing in most publishing houses. Having content on the Internet is a deathnell for many publishable items. This is *just* a guess mind you. Too bad because I thought the content on his web page was pretty neat and the book is impossible to find unless you order it from a single company.

>
> Your ignorance is surpassed only by your gall. The
nonfiction book is not
> "self-published," and is available in several
editions, one of which is a
> slick tight paperback with both black-and-white and
color plates, from
> http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/caverns . This is
the book that was called
> "a fascinating, informative, groundbreaking work" in
a review in FATE
> magazine (June 2001 issue, if you'd care to look it
up).
>

And I did indeed look it up. I'm under the impression that much of the content of that book had also been published in FATE magazine ( www.FateMag.com ) which has allways been a clearinghouse for all kinds of oddball stuff. I'm sure that the editor would give this book a glowing revew, otherwise he would invalidate his own publication.

Additionally it seems that Mr Mott lashes out at anyone who dares to criticize his omnipotent knowledge of whatever, case in point. What I found fascinating about this so called rebuttal is that nowhere does he actually identify where this article appeared. This sort of illustrates Mr. Mott's beliefs of what constitutes a fair and even dialog. The origianl critique can be found here. - - January 2001 edition of CRIPTO.

If you would be so kind to tell me the publishing
house name and perhaps the ISBN code I will be happy
to retract that statement. BTW, self-published
includes “on demand” publishing houses.

> If you're referring to the fiction work, it's
published by Softbook
> Press/Gemstar:
>

Thank you for the information, (little author hint,
next time give your prospective customer the TITILE of
the book so that they don’t have to run author
searches.) The item ID number is little help when the
company database doesn’t seem to use that as a search
field.

Perhaps it does but I was not able to make the dang thing work. I had to do an author search, waaa!

>
http://www.gemstar-ebook.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eBookstore.woa/wa/find?asset
> ID=5459
>
> ....and has been, for some time. The edition at my
personal site is more
> expansive and is a personal project, as it features
additional graphics and
> extra written material.

Very cool! I don’t read fantasy very much (I’m more of
a hard science fiction guy). I may even pick the book
up and take a look, do you mind?

Not only that but the book is apparently illustrated by the author! I'm actually referring to his fantasy novel this time BTW. A little side note, Mr Mott seems to be an accomplished artist however he discovered computer art and seems to have embraced this medium to the detriment of the more messy forms. (pen and ink, painting, that sort of thing.) I'm not a professional artist (I do oil painting from time to time and I have taken formal art classes) I think his earlier stuff was much better. In fact it was professional quality. The computer stuff looks like it was done with Brice or Persistence of Vision. Not bad technically but I have found that its difficult to make figures look fluid and not like some sort of doll. I note that Mr. Mott seems to have the same problem.

He has the chutzpa to put his stuff in Science Fiction convention art show, that's pretty cool! http://www.asfa-art.org/gallery/mott.html

It's sort of strange however (unheard of actually) for an author to illustrate their own works. Most publishers hire people to do that.

>
> Tell me, how many glowing reviews have you seen in
regard to your own work,
> research, website, or even your personality? Little
to none, I'd wager.
>

That would be untrue. Oddempire is a hobby, nothing
more. Over the years I have found that the plethora of
nonsense and outright lies on the Internet has grown
much faster than critical review of such things. I
used to jot down notes on pages that interested me and
the Oddempire page grew out of that.

> For that matter, where are your _original_ works,
ideas, concepts, or
> writings to be found in the marketplace of ideas?
Again, I would guess a
> resounding NOWHERE will answer this.

I certainly don’t self publish if that’s what you
mean.

One of the interesting things about this exchange is Mr. Motts seeming obsession regarding my publishing credits, like this has anything to do with his web page.

>
> If you wish to publish this message, at least have
the guts to publish it in
> its entirety.

That sounds like a republication licence to the Odd Emperor.

Of course, I fully expect you not to
do so. Self-styled
> "cynics" (not skeptic mind you--cynic) such as
yourself tend to spend their
> time attacking those things which they either lack
the mental capacity to
> comprehend or of which they are woefully uniformed,
as well as in tearing
> down others in envious fits of pique which only mask
their own self-loathing
> and (deservedly) low self-esteem.

OK, So I'm a Self-styled cynic" meaning I labeled myself as cynical. Well he's right! I am rather cynical about most of the self proclaimed "experts" out here. This fellow included. But what is really interesting is how recursive his arguments are. He is by any standard attacking the Odd Emperor which means by his reckoning *he* does not have the mental capacity to comprehend what the Odd Empire is all about.

Of course this argument (and most of this fellows writing) is a bunch of dingo's kidneys.

>
> Rest assured: Should you decide to go the route or
message reproduction,
> I'll be glad to reciprocate in multiple forums.
With full message thread
> content, of course.
>

Oh thank you thank you for the wonderful instruction!
I will have to put that down in my little instruction
book, (lets me see…) print the entire message and make
sure you include the author’s fits of pique directed
against you.

Hmm, yup! I think I can do that!

Are you aware that when I choose to republish an email
message I always reproduce them in their entirety
unless they are relating what I would conceder
personal or sensitive information.
I’m not exactly sure what “I'll be glad to reciprocate
in multiple forums” means in this context. Please be
aware that I have a minimal copyright on any published
material reflected on the Empire of the Odd web page.
If you intend to re publish this letter I must ask
that you run it by me first. I already have your
permission to publish your words, thank you very much!

And that was a copywrite, unsurprisingly he really doesn't give a crap about that kind of thing.

> Oh--and you may want to try actually reading a book
once in a while. You
> might even learn something.
>

I’m reading about four right now, I’m in the middle of
a re-write of one and in the primary write of another
(it’s a slow week).

Most of this was true, I was in the midddle of a class at the time, I was re-writing novel one and working on novel two. It was actually, kind of a busy week.

As for learning; I learned a lot about you today,
thanks!

> p.s., "non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter
necessitatem" is part of the
> primary thesis of the nonfiction work
> (http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/caverns). Read it,
and you might have a
> better understanding of the depth of meaning behind
Ockham's words.
>

I have used Ockhams statement in its pure form, Not
the watered down version that we use colloquially,
I.E. “the simplest explanation is usually the correct
one”.
Now, let me see if I understand the last thing. you
want me to *purchase* your book and that somehow
proves that I don’t understand William of Ockham’s
words? What sort of logic is that? (seems rather
convoluted which makes my point precisely)
Take care- take a few deep breaths and calm down
before you reply to me again.
OK?

=====
Sincerely;
The Odd Emperor
http://blackfish-enterprises.com/oddempire/index.htm

A fun exchange indeed. Mr Mott seems to have a foot bullet problem but otherwise, not too bad. Mr Mott seems to have some significant problem keeping on the subject and his method of delivery is kind of laughable. Will he respond to the slightly jeering but oh-so polite tone of the Odd Emporer? Click here and find out!