Young Martin Cizmar, Award Winning Journalist™, has posted a classically Cizmarianistic comment on PHXated, in response to my recent post about his fascinating essay on the Beach Boys.

I want to repost it here so it gets the attention it deserves, in all its one-paragraph glory.

I will have more to say about it later, but for the nonce I want to address just Young Martin’s charge in his first few indignant sentences to the effect that your host is not publishing all of the site’s comments.

There are exactly two legitimate comments in the site’s queue that have not been posted.

Both, I must confess, are about Young Martin.

But since they take as their chief point of departure the subject of Young Martin’s Penis™ or Young Martin’s sucking someone else’s penis, respectively, I didn’t think they were appropriate to post.

I wanted to encourage a more elevated tone in PHXated’s comments fora.

I would also note that in the past when Young Martin has commented, PHXated has bent over backward to give them their own post. The first time, in fact, this reposting was accompanied by this:

“The note below was originally placed here as a comment, but it deserves a higher profile. I had my say; It’s only fair that Cizmar have the last word.”

Hardly the actions of a dastardly comment-denier!


Anyway, Young Martin’s latest missive follows.

His Beach Boy’s essay is here.

PHXated’s comment on that essay is here.

PHXated’s complete commentary of the life and work of Martin Cizmar is here.



First, Bill, I’m going to echo comments I’ve heard privately from others and vow that if you don’t remove the vetting process for your comments I’m done leaving them here. I’ve heard allegations of you not posting certain things which, in addition to being intellectually dishonest, is ridiculous. I’m sure the 12 readers you get a day won’t mind looking at a few spam comments from time to time if that means we can freely discuss your work without threat of a heavy-handed moderator. Second, perhaps not surprisingly, your basic point about homerism is undone by your misunderstanding of the word. Not being very familiar with sports jargon, and apparently not being resourceful enough to put it in proper context with the use of the interwebs, you write that" “‘Homerism,’ as I understand the term, is derived from the more common word ‘homer,’ a slang term for someone who would give brownie points to something for being local.” The problem? Like most things you write about, you’re missing a huge piece of the puzzle. A “Homer” is not someone who gives “brownie points.” That would probably be called a “Fanboy,” depending on the context. From Urban Dictionary: “Someone who shows blind loyalty to a team or organization, typically ignoring any shortcomings or faults they have.” The whole point of calling someone a “homer,” you can hopefully now understand, is that you’re alleging they’re unaware of their subconscious but obvious preference. They’re blindly loyal. In the reverse of that, “reverse-homerism,” I called it, someone shows blind preference to the more exotic offering. So, working with that definition (we’ll call it “The Accurate Definition”) you can see that your whole argument falls apart. The non-coincidence I’m talking about is not a “dark international deed,” nor could anyone who knows what the word Homer mean think that. It’s about the fact that most American critics tend to laud British artists a little more than their own, and vice-versa. It’s a weird phenomenon, but hopefully one you’re familiar with. I’m hesitant to make any bigger points about this to you given your inability to understand the basics. So, yeah, you seem to be asserting that I’m some sort of tin foil hat idiot who is assigning dark motives to Rolling Stone editors when, in reality, the problem is that YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT ANY SLANG TERM COINED AFTER 1993 MEANS! Paired with your desire to criticize people for using words that are too old (my use — in a COMMENT, mind you — of the obsolete but more charming definition of “portend”) it makes you completely insufferable. Actually, looking at it this way, you’ve probably libeled me, at least according to the definition your little troll friend Tyler uses. Then again, neither of you have ever made much of a point to learn what words mean before acting nutty about them. Like the time you failed to understand how I meant straw man as “an opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.” Ugh. Like I said, insufferable. Honestly, Bill, when you do stuff like this is makes me question how you could ever make a living off the written word. It’s not that you’re an idiot, Bill, it’s just that you don’t read enough. At least not enough stuff outside the narrow world of your obsessions. So, yeah, I’m sorry for using syntax you’re only kinda-sorta familiar with in my work, as it tends to offer you irresistible opportunities to look like a jackass.