If You Want To Contact Me, I'm at
(This isn't a link, but I'm easy to reach; just TYPE email@example.com
on your e-mail form and press the SEND button.)
I sign what I write with my real name, Glen Roberts. My address
above is obvious and easy to use, without any checkpoints like joining a club, signing in, or making up a password. I employ no robots so you won't get an "automated response."
If you're an American who's been to Cuba and haven't the courage of your convictions or a cover like mine (an at least temporarily regular news-reporting website like this one will do), you should think twice before telling me about it, because, though I wouldn't blow your cover, sad to say and to what should be the everlasting shame of the nerds who run the internet, creepy government spooks apparently can read everyone's e-mail. But (even though most people are either afraid to get caught by the spooks talking to me or afraid to confront my command of the English language with theirs) I get lots of letters from Cuba travelers who live in places where the CIA can't get at them, and from people with private questions and comments, people with Cuba or another of my subjects on their minds who just want to correspond. Their letters are welcome; I read all of them and answer all the serious ones, reasonably promptly I hope, and I won't publicly post anything unless I'm asked to and not even then if the writing standards clarified below aren't met.
But I'm actually talking to myself, neither seeking nor rejecting input, posting my soliloquies on the net for reasons clearly explained on my Motives & Qualifications page, about things often equivocated and lied about but usually off limits
to public conversation. I'm not trying to save
or persuade the world. I gave that up in 1970
and again in 1990. I AM reporting objectively on places I've been, for readers tired of embedded media lies who somehow find this site, but I'm also very uniquely realistically, coherently, carefully
articulating all the facets of a realistic philosophy
for myself and, collaterally, if it happens, for
others capable of getting it. I'm doing this,
by the way, having made the mistake of growing old, deliberately and at the pace I'm doing
it, so it will take a while to complete.
IF other equally objective and coherent philosophers find this site and want to initiate a posted dialogue (which hasn't happened yet, whether because my arguments are so near perfect, because my rules are intimidating, or because nobody wants to be associated with me by the spooks or, politically-incorrectly, by anyone else), I'm open to and (ONLY IF ASKED TO) will post
and hail or rebut logical,
articulate reactions written in very good English to any essay,
news critique or rap poem on the site. If that happens,
here are the philosophy and the unusually sensible rules of engagement:
Philosophy: I'm convinced that the best way to debate or converse is NOT by emotionally stuttering on the passing air or even by coolly delivering gem-cut soundbites that are also instantly forgotten, but by printing thoroughly edited, short and reasonably comprehensive essays on paper or on the internet screen that can wait patiently in re-readable print just for my own review and revision or for the carefully considered and composed responses of others, not hurriedly fired back and forth, but with thinking space between them.
Rules: A survey of my own notes proves that almost any point can be well made in far less than 1000 words. Except for a set of documents tagged as definitions, none of which exceed 1000 words, and another set I'm calling New Rap Poems, which for a calculated effect employ a deliberately different style, I usually make my point here in 500 words or less. So, given that statements longer than 500 words, depending on their quality, tend to stop reading like brilliant conversation and start reading like blather, it makes sense and is relevant to the point of this site to try to limit each response and counter response to less - hopefully much less - than 1000 words.
Acceptable English style is required here. As any true poet knows, intelligent rule bending is sometimes brilliantly helpful, but I won't post anything illiterate unless it's from some harmfully influential force whose illiteracy needs to be exposed. I may invite verbally challenged, otherwise intelligent writers to perfect their style, but I'm unwilling to edit anyone else's composition.
Again, I always sign and take credit for my own words, I studiously refuse to read unsigned "editorials" in the newspapers (you're invited to join my boycott), and I won't post unsigned material. While people without self suspicion probably shouldn't write, anyone who'd be embarrassed to be caught saying what he, for some reason, wants to say, definitely shouldn't write, either. Writing honestly is a more certainly courageous undertaking than war, and every writer should know that going in.
Responses will be posted on the same page following the documents discussed, or, by direct link from documents discussed to a response page, so that any document that provokes a really useful response can then become an open ended scroll - an ongoing exchange of printed statements and counter or supplementary statements constituting an actually coherent conversation or argument between me and the theoretical reader, which, like the initial document, may forever after, just by being well crafted and re-crafted, posted and accessible, allow me and maybe you to avoid the quicksand of emotional coffee-shop or cocktail-party blabber battle by directing questions or challenges to this website.
I often review and improve what I've written, and, if I get any responses and it doesn't get confusing, I'll also try to accommodate correspondents who want to fix their statements.
The rules above aren't at all unreasonable. They are what should be normal, and they're certainly easy to handle for thousands of self or formally educated people who know the English language. But this isn't a lumpen blog-board. Incoherent responses from texters, tweeters, or twitterers, pointlessly profane macho blusterers, and sputtering gusanos are not welcome here and will be deleted on sight.
P.S. I recently found two web-pages (look up anti-social images) (one more conservative, one more p.c.) full of colorful logo/slogans, some brilliant, some not-very-brilliant, posted by people as tired of the oppressive omnipresence of social media as I am. Ironically, several on the more conservative page, said, "I'm not anti-social, just anti-stupid," while, just as ironically, the more p.c. page selectively avoided THAT idea. I have to acknowledge that I am both anti-social (which is why there's no row of social media symbols at the top of this page) AND anti-stupid. But I'm here, all alone and right out in the open.
BACK TO THE FRONT