JEFFREY DANE - Nonsense Man

The Essays of Jeffrey Dane

Nonsense Man - a second rebuttal to Stephen Birkett but addressed to Donald Grant DeMan and The Editor, with permission from Mr. Dane to republish in The Inditer.
For Donald Grant DeMan with cc to The Editor

(Note, for Bill: - This is not specifically intended for publication per se but the decision about whether or not you want it to appear anywhere in The Inditer is entirely yours. I'd have no objection if you make it happen - I'm ashamed of nothing to which I put my name).

I've already addressed everything at which Mr. B keeps hammering away. I addressed these things in my response - diatribe.htm which he obviously missed. In his recent rant to you (with copy to Bill), one of his ending comments, like most of what he says, is quite backwards. He proudly proclaims with an unmistakable defiance and with what's clearly a smug conceit, "I notice that Jeffrey Dane has not yet responded to the points I raised." You, Bill and I know that it's blown up in his face because he's successfully established his ignorance and carelessness. His statement should be so modified: "I neglected to notice that Jeffrey Dane responded (within two days) to the points I raised." He thinks he's so smart! I love it. I absolutely love it. The "Give people enough rope and they'll hang themselves" concept applies here. Give him all the slack he wants. In him is found the best example that a fool with a degree is still a fool.

He's in many ways comparable to the frustrated short-order cook who has deluded himself into believing he's a famous, world-class chef, but is still annoyed at everybody because he knows (but refuses to acknowledge) that he didn't reach his goal. Alas he's fooling no-one, certainly not me.

Some of his remarks manifestly reveal where he's coming from and show clearly where's he's going with all this. With these revelations, he raises lots of questions about himself. He admits he's not a musicologist - yet he feels he's qualified to claim that ". . . much of what that crowd says is utter nonsense." (Look who's talking. That's really logical, isn't it?). By his own admission, he wears "many hats" (none of which seem to fit very well), having been flitting perhaps in frustration from one field of endeavor to another (pianist, systems engineer, maverick, environmental science, ecosystem health, nutritional pig growth, etc., ad nauseum). These are the marks of a man with no direction, but who resents those, like us, who have one and can follow it. (Could be one of the reasons he wears so many of those hats). We've all seen this kind of mentality. He seems to think it's cute. It isn't, Don. It's very, very sad - but in it, there is one redeeming sanity: people like him are usually not taken seriously by those who matter.

He even alludes to being "the anti-musicologist." Hello??!! - There you have it, gentlemen. Herein lies proof-positive that he's got some kind of axe to grind. Tell me I'm wrong. Does anyone need further evidence to see it? After all he's said, he has the absurdity to also admit that piano building is "a sideline" for him. Lord, have mercy. I wouldn't want to cross any bridge that this man has "engineered." It wouldn't support me any more than his statements support his premises. So much for his credibility.

Friends, he's not interested in debate. He's interested in baiting. His words absolutely reek of Attitude in its most negative connotation. His aim is defiance and contention. It won't work with me. I answered him once and I see absolutely no reason why I should pay any further attention to him. Surely he wants us to, but I for one will not. I have important things to do (another book, another Points to Ponder, as just two examples), while he, it seems, has nothing better to do than complain about the work of others, invite petty, senseless squabbling by trying to chip away at what doesn't accord with his own sensibilities, and try to trivialize with double-talk what he disagrees with. As I said in my response, the artist creates, while the parasite destroys.

"Others are quite free to counter," says he. Plainly this is a veritable invitation. The gullible might accept it. Not I. I've wasted enough time on him. I'll be deleting, unread, any further e-mail messages I receive from him. The truth is that I'm just not interested in nonsense - which is what he's promoting - and it's obvious that nothing can be gained by further exchanges with him. He's welcome to call this whatever he wants to - and I'm certain he will - but that's the way it is. I have work to do.

He also has the distinction of being the most pompous and arrogant man I've ever come across in print. I've been around for a while and I've never seen the likes of it. That distinction is a dubious one, I assure you, though I have little doubt he'll take it as a compliment and that it would bring a smile to him. It figures. His actions speak for themselves, and though they speak loudly they say little. Gentlemen, rational people don't act that way.

I truly believe there's actually something wrong with him, and there's genuine pathos in what he's doing. He exhibits these symptoms: rigidity of viewpoint, unreasonable suspicion of the statements of others, evident feelings of near-persecution when others disagree with him, an obvious mania for perfection, a neurotic certainty that he and no-one else is in the right, and that he knows best even in fields in which he merely dabbles. Mindful of this, Don, for someone who has these symptoms there's a specific adjective used in psychiatry: paranoid. You can't reason with people like this - because they're right, and the rest of us are all wrong.

Can we all expect from this man a major work which will right all the wrongs he identifies? Why, certainly. We write. He complains. But we still write, and we still see our work in publication regardless of how much it annoys him and others like him. Maybe that's what he's most disturbed by - that he's just unable to make a positive contribution (as we do), anywhere. Make no mistake about this, Don: he is disturbed. We've all seen the dog that lifts its leg at the lamp-post. The creature must relieve itself of a toxic substance within its system - if it didn't do so, it would die - but you'll notice that the light in the lamp doesn't go out.

Yours,

Jeffrey Dane

The Jeffrey Dane Main Page - - - The Inditer Index - - - The Inditer Main Page - - - Email Jeffrey Dane