by James Sanghyun Han (Tay Trefenwyd)

written Saturday, 8 January 2000 © (steal this and DIE ;P)

- -

(This rant is about the webmaster of TerryBrooks.Net - I'll call him "W" - the official Terry Brooks site which opened on the beginning of the year 2000. When his site first opened, a lady - I'll call her "D" - politely wrote a message on the TB.Net board suggesting that he properly verify the official nature of his site - at the time of the site's opening, there was NO verification on the site at all, other than the fact that W claimed it was the official site. Instead of replying graciously to the suggestion, W answered the D's message with rudeness veiled under rhetoric and hazy speech, and he even claimed to be "offended, but not very much so" - even though there was nothing about D's post that was offensive. D was just being helpful, and W's reply was to be rude, hide that rudeness under an attempt at pretty wordplay, and make himself out to be a scapegoat. In any case, W's reply escalated the matter, and as the discussion became an argument, more signs of inconsistency and immaturity popped up. Disappointed that the webmaster of Terry Brooks' official site should behave in this manner when he is supposed to be the liaison between Mr. Brooks and Brooks' online fans, I wrote a post on the TB.Net board about his actions. My post is below; the words of W are in italics, while mine are plain.)

- -

James Han of Jeddy.Org here. I'm replying to various things in one post, so that I can tie certain things together.

In response to message #24 by W, which was a response to message #22 by D...

W writes:

>Of course, the reverse could also be true, D. W could be a lie. W may not exist. Perhaps this is Terry typing right now?

Perhaps you were not trying to be, but the sentences above seem blatantly tongue-in-cheek and sarcastic to me. D was asking a perfectly legitimate question in message #22, and she was not trying to be rude in any way, shape, or form, and for you to answer in this manner is not only evasive and unnecessarily verbose, but also rather rude. Maybe you didn't mean to be rude, but then again you said to D in message #36 that: "I doubt you are any older than me mentally." Is it supposed to be taken as some kind of a joke when you imply that you doubt that someone is as mentally advanced/developed as you are?

>So we are at a perplexed state of being about what to do. It has nothing to do that the most current information that came onto this Internet, at least 98% of it anyway since 1997, came through The Wondrous Worlds of Terry Brooks in the first place.

*L* This Internet? You mean there's another? ;) *g*

>But me telling this to you also could be a fabrication; a swirling cacophany of cyber electron nonsense. > >I suppose, Anne, you will have your answer when you go to the Official Del Rey Books page this next month and you see a little icon on the right hand side of the page that says this page is the Official one (as soon as Del Rey updates their site, of course).

Instead of going on and on about what may or may not be true, and instead of trying to sound intelligent by writing paragraphs and paragraphs of attempts at lyrical prose as you did in message #24, you could have just said something like: "Del Rey's Terry Brooks site will be linking to this site as the official site in the near future, and that should alleviate any worries you have." Would that have been so difficult? I mean, it certainly would have been much more preferable to reading the posts you did make here in which we have to watch you enjoy listening to yourself talk about "a swirling cacophany of cyber electron nonsense" or about whether or not you "don't really exist" and are really a lie.

>I am offended, but not overly much.

You don't have any valid reason to offended be in any case, as D's question was perfectly legitimate and not phrased in a rude manner. It was merely inquisitive.

>I have brought alot of happiness to Terry's fans in the last few years.

Have these fans actually told you this, or is this just ego and/or delusion talking? I'm not one of those fans.

>Some of them who I call close friends,

"Whom," not "who."

>and who can verify the authenticity of my goodness, have received some lovely items that I helped get for them. The reason why I am not overly offended or upset over this is a simple fact; I am a learned man

Oh my. The authenticity of your goodness? You're a learned man? 98% of all Brooks info since 1997 came from YOUR site? Never mind, I suppose it IS ego.

>Give me the benefit of the doubt, and who knows what magic may aspire to become.

This is why I would suggest that you not attempt to write lyrical prose and instead keep your messages short and sweet, as the second half of that sentence makes no sense, grammatically and otherwise. Lyrical prose is for people who make sense while writing it.

In response to message #36...

>The reason why I completely forget to include a HOW THIS SITE CAME TO BE was because I thought that everyone knew.

Not all Shannara fans who go online regularly have been regulars at your site. *smiles* Frankly, I never went to your site till you announced its new opening on the first of this year, and I've been online since 1996. Therefore, Shannara fans won't necessarily know your site's complete history, and there are always new Shannara fans coming online, so to say that you thought everyone knew how your site "came to be" is not only a bit egotistical, but also a bad excuse (saying that you just didn't think to make such a page would be a better excuse, in fact! *g*).

In response to message #44...

>I feel I have no reason to have to justify myself to a woman (if it really IS her, that is) who logically is so blatantly wrong and angst ridden,

Why is she angst-ridden? Because she asked you a perfectly legitimate question phrased in a harmless manner? Or because she prefers not to associate with people who give her grief for no reason?

And frankly, if you're calling your site the official site, you have to justify yourself to EVERYONE, and not just "a woman." Whether or not I or anyone else believes that your site is official, YOU need to make it a point to justify yourself to the public, especially seeing as Del Rey Publishing's website hasn't as of now (8 January) linked to your site yet and listed it as the official one.

>AND who took her Terry Brooks page down for no other apparent reason that she grew tired of it.

*L* Oh my, are you implying that this is a bad thing? Some people run websites for personal enjoyment, you know. If they're not getting joy out of their hobby anymore, why SHOULD they leave a webpage up? It might be annoying to see a really good site go down, but the maintainer of an ultimately personal website has no obligation to ANYone to leave it up. You're making it sound like she's not a good enough Terry Brooks fan just because she won't sit down at the computer like you and type out some HTML and info about him. Not only that, but for you to imply that D or anyone else isn't a good enough fan - for whatever reasons, be they legitimate or not - is not only petty and egotistical, but it completely demeans the person of whom you are a fan (in this case, Terry Brooks).

>Your allegations are FULLY off base here, D. All I said was that this Site that you are viewing is TRUTHFUL because the information comes from the author himself. In no way did I say ANYWHERE that my Site is the ONLY site that should be looked at and all the rest are not worthy.

Oh really? How odd, because in message #35 you say: "The entire REASON I began a site in the first place was because I felt the Internet had not done justice to Terry's works." True, you didn't say that all the rest are not worthy. However, you DID say that all the rest have not "done justice to Terry's works." The last time I checked, saying that a fansite didn't do proper justice to the person or thing it was dedicated to would very strongly imply that it wasn't very worthy.

>So before you start putting words in my mouth

I'm afraid that in this particular instance, you put them there yourself.

>I don't lie down to people who feel all my efforts aren't worthy.

D never said your efforts aren't worthy, so I have no idea why you felt the need to mention that.

>You know why? Because they are worthy, and there are countless others who feel the same way and who actually KNOW me, Terry being one of them.

I mean no disrespect to Mr. Brooks when I point out that just because you think you "know" him it does not automatically make you and your efforts "worthy." If you and your efforts are worthy, they should be worthy because they ARE, not just because you "know" the author.

(Not to mention the fact that you just basically stated that your efforts are worthy "because they are worthy" - what a valid defense you have!)

>Those people who actually have other Terry Brooks sites are my friends. So be careful. They will see through you and your words quicker than I did.

One of my sites is dedicated to Terry Brooks' Shannara series, but I am not your friend - I've only been coming to your site for a week. I should add that the only words I can see through are the ones written by your good self.

My point is that just because you have friends on your side it does not mean you are that much more justified. Justification and vindication is not a matter of how many more people believe you than not - it's a matter of how strong your case is.

>And you are right, I am sure of myself. *smiles warmly* It is a confidence built out of years of patient reflection and understanding of human nature. If you actually think that I care what you have to say, you are wrong. The fans that I have befriended over the years (like [names edited out for privacy], etc.) know who I am, and that is all that matters. Those who meet me for the first time can see who I am. If you can't see that I am a caring person, with a loving soul,

Frankly, all I can see is your self-absorption. Maybe I'm stereotyping, but I notice that most people who openly claim to be "a caring person, with a loving soul" usually do so with a confidence built on presumption and ego, not one built on "patient reflection and understanding of human nature."

>As I said before, the Net is what you make of it. Perhaps you should rethink this, because right now you are making it a very disagreeable place to be.

Why is D the one being disagreeable, when you're the one who started things by taking offense in message #24 at a perfectly legitimate question she asked in message #22? Again, I emphasize that she phrased her question in a rather harmless way, and even if she didn't, that's no excuse for *you* to respond in kind, especially if you truly do harbor such a dislike for all things "disagreeable." You get more inconsistent with each post you make.

Responding to message #46...

>"sorry to have even gotten involved again in this childish online Shannara nonsense" -- D
>
>Wow, I guess you just really cut down all those people you said you were friends with.

Actually, it should be really obvious to any reader, even you, that D wasn't referring to her friends at all when she said "nonsense," but to such things as the situation you've created through your replies to her postings.

>You think they should be angry at me for something I said?? *laughs* Give me a break! Ever take a look in the mirror, D?

Do you realize how immature you sound right there? Odd how in message #36 you say: "I am an OLD SOUL." Are you really? I never knew an allegedly learned man with an old soul and authenticity of his goodness could still find the time to misinterpret and strike back childishly at a single comment.

>In fact, if you write something negative, I will censor it because there is no need for it.

Why is there no need? There is no need for differing opinions? Are you that afraid that people might - gasp! - actually disagree with what you have to say? Odd how you say you're going to censor anything negative, cause frankly I find comments like "have you looked in a mirror?" and "you're mentally no older than I" and your claims to "a confidence built on patient reflection" a LOT more negative than anything D has posted here so far.

Responding to message #78...

>You may not like this at all, but I have done nothing wrong in any of this. If you go back and read what I wrote you will see that I was neither malicious nor deserving of D's words.

You weren't malicious? Is that why you laugh and tell people to go look in mirrors? Or is that why you imply that you doubt that they're any more mentally developed than you are?

>She knows she was wrong, and yet she still didn't apologize.

She has nothing to apologize for. She asked you a simple question which she had every right in asking, and you chose to take offense and be long-winded and rude about it.

>As a public arena this BBS must be allowed to be a safe environment for friends, family, and children of all ages.

*rofl* Oh my. Name one thing in D's posts that's unsafe for family or children "of all ages." *rofl* Is her asking you to validate the official nature of your site for YOUR OWN SAKE (and yes, she suggested you do that for YOUR own good in message #22) really that negative and unsafe for friends and family?

>If someone begins to badger another person,

Badgering you? D was giving you a suggestion in message #22 that would actually HELP you and your site in the future, and you call that badgering? *smiles* You have the nerve to say that you are "offended, but not overly much" at such help? Don't try to make yourself out to be the scapegoat when you are the one who's been offensive.

>and then they are found to be wrong, generally they APOLOGIZE.

Why is Anne wrong? Just because your site is the official site it doesn't mean that she's wrong. She never said you were a liar and that this wasn't the official site; she just said that if this WAS the official site, you should produce more proof that it was, for your own good as well as for the peace of mind of people who come to visit your site. I don't see anything wrong in her posting about that, nor does she have anything to apologize for.

>In the meantime, if something maliciously occurs that upsets the whole BBS, I will erase it.

In that case, you'd have to erase your own post where you laugh at Anne and then go tell her to look in a mirror.

>I applaud intellectual argument.

Then I suggest you try making one - unless your idea of intellectual includes a great deal of inconsistency and ego.

>But she wasn't being intellectual; she was being down right bitter for her own reasons. Read it again. She is bitter from her first post.

No she isn't - in her first post she asks a perfectly valid question.

>I have a responsibility here. *shrugs* No personal attacks on anyone are allowed.

Oh really? Then why do you persist in making personal attacks of your own? Isn't saying "she wasn't being intellectual; she was being down right [sic] bitter" or telling someone to go away and look in a mirror a personal attack? Is it not a personal attack to say that D is a pathetic Brooks fan just cause she took down her website? Or is it not an attack for you to call someone bitter "from their first post" just because you personally THINK they are? Is that the kind of hypocrisy and lack of objectivity the maintainer of any message board should exhibit? Besides, you should be showing even MORE politeness and objectivity than other webmasters since you are the webmaster of Terry Brooks' official site (i.e. you are Brooks' online representative and the liaison between Mr. Brooks and Brooks' online fans - you should act the part).

Lastly, responding to message #79...

>there is NO reason to fight or be angst ridden.

Is that why you perpetuate it and participate in it by telling people to go look in mirrors? Or by making implications about their mental development or by claiming that what other people said wasn't intellectual just because you happened to disagree with it and because you took offense to it (even when the other party was trying to help)?

It may sound like I keep harping on the same issue over and over again with each sentence you write, but that's because in each sentence you write, you blatantly contradict yourself.

>This is a BBS. It is meant to pass along ideas and exchanges, but it is also a place where everyone should learn to except each other's ideas as valid points and to not become upset over it.

(Don't you mean "accept"?)

I find in highly amusing that you say we should accept other ideas as valid points and not get upset over them, when you're the one who actually got offended over a valid point Anne made when she was giving you a helpful suggestion.

>If you have something constructive to say, say it! By all means! But never put someone or their ideas DOWN. Purty please with sugar on top. :)

Again, total hypocrisy, seeing as you've put down D at least three times so far. So far, the rules you have made for this board apply to everyone except yourself, and it really saddens me to think that an author as awesome as Mr. Brooks has chosen to depend on such an unbelievably egotistical and hypocritical character as yourself to help maintain contact with his fans online.

Now that I've typed out my thoughts, I'm leaving this board. Well, check that - as I have no idea whether or not W will delete this post from the message board (after all, my post probably fits his definition of negative :p), I will repost this entire message at The Druid History Message Board, and when I have time I will also post this message at my own Shannara site. Once that is done I will return to this board for a final time so I can post a link to the URL, and that'll be the last time I return to this board at all after today, as I've seen quite enough of it to last me a lifetime already.

- James Han/Tay Trefenwyd, Jeddy.Org

- -

(I got a reply to my post at The Druid History Message Board from a friend of W; here is my response to that reply. As before, my words are plain while the words of W's friend are in italics.)

- -

>"I doubt you are any older than me mentally."
>
>I agree, that is a rude statement to make; however, when W tells D
>
>"I have brought a lot of happiness to Terry's fans in the last few years."
>
>and you say
>
>"Have these fans actually told you this, or is this just ego and/or delusion talking?"
>
>I would say that statment is more rude and insulting than W's.

After the kind of stuff I heard W say, either directly to D or just in passing, I will admit I was not feeling charitable to him at all, but I was not being rude, I was completely serious. Here's why:

1. "The authenticity of my goodness"
2. "I am a learned man"
2a. "I am an OLD SOUL"
3. "The most current information [about Brooks] that came onto this Internet, at least 98% of it anyway since 1997, came through The Wondrous Worlds of Terry Brooks [W's site]"
4. "I am a caring person, with a loving soul"

Is that not ego? Or am I just reading too much into someone's routine self-promotion? Or is it rude for me to state something about your friend that might - gasp! - actually be true?

For ANYone to claim that they have brought a lot of happiness to any sizable group of people is egotistical and pompous in certain contexts whether or not it is true, and the fact that he only said that as his way of trying to prove in some weird way that he was better than D only bears my point out. He actually tried to belittle her for taking down a personal page and implied that she wasn't a good enough fan of Terry Brooks because of that, and he seriously believes that nearly all Brooks info on the Web since 1997 is HIS doing. In such a context, is my assumption that W's self-promotion was a case of ego and delusion so wrong? Was it that rude of me to make an educated guess about his personality?

>And since W is a good friend of mine, and has brought me happiness by helping me get books signed by Terry Brooks,

Well, W wasn't talking about just you. He said: "I have brought a lot of happiness to Terry's fans in the last few years." That implies a lot more people than just you.

>I know that his statement about bringing happiness to Terry's fans is fact.

Good for him. Does that mean he has the right to make such claims *in order to prove him himself better* than another fan, as he was doing in his conversation with D?

>So, maybe you should make a better "...analysis..." before implying that they may be delusional.

And maybe you should read my analysis better before you criticize it.

>And also, I don't see how correcting someone's grammer is necessary when trying to state your position in an argument.

It is VERY necessary when the other party is claiming to be "a learned man" for no apparent reason other than self-promotion. I should hope a "learned man" would at least know the basic fundamentals of the grammar of his native language; but W does not, and it's just one more inconsistency in what he's saying. That's what I was pointing out.

>And there was nowhere in any of those posts where W was being "blatantly hypocritical."

Of course he wasn't. He insulted D at least thrice, and then he said that he wouldn't tolerate any negative comments on his board. He called D disagreeable, but he was the one who admitted to taking offense to her questions/suggestion, even though her post was in no way offensive or rude, and was in fact trying to be helpful. I should have seen it before, he wasn't hypocritical at all! :p

It's interesting that in your defense of W, you haven't given any evidence or reasoning. You state that my comment was more rude and insulting than W's, yet you don't say why; likewise, you state that W was never hypocritical, but you don't bother to actually try and disprove all the claims to his hypocrisy I made in my first post. Exactly why should I listen to you when I took the time to back myself up and you haven't? You tell me I should make a better analysis, but you don't bother to back up your criticisms of my analysis.

>In all those posts D was not trying to be rude, and neither was W.

Not true. I don't think W attacking/insulting D for not being a good enough fan was accidental.

>In the end, your post was the most rude and insulting of them all.

I'm sorry, all those mature debates and group discussions I've had with sane and polite people must have gone to my head, as I never realized that pointing out gross inconsistencies in someone's arguments and statements in mere Socratic fashion was rude. Nor did I realize that it's oh-so-insulting to call someone to task for such inconsistencies.

>And insulted a very fine person, who only wants to bring more of Terry's fans as close to him as he is.

Provided these said fans do not question the official nature of his site, provided they do not say anything disagreeable, provided they allow him to be as disagreeable as he wishes them not to be, and provided they listen to his self-aggrandizement without gagging.

- James/Tay