Funny that you ignore the response I made arguing that "deep smart lonely" claim to parrot it yet again. I like how in this thread, you ignore all my posts where I'm directly responding to your accusations and focus only on the ones where I discuss with other people, and then you only nitpick.
Look: You're a teacher! Your goal is to save the people who are so shitty that they don't know what they're doing wrong. What you're doing is condemning them to further ignorance. If you can't stand that it'll take hours and hours to make a student learn something, stop teaching. There certainly are eager people waiting to take your place.
But no, instead you criticize the writing of somebody online like an arse, then you defend yourself with a series of vague accusations. No organization? It's broken up clearly into four parts, each led by a quote that illustrates the content of the section. The first quote discusses the nature of worship, preceding my discussing what it means to worship. I quote Joyce's excellent statement about what he requires of his readers to talk about what kind of demand I want art to place on me. I end that section with "These were my altars", then transition to a second Joyce quote to discuss what kinds of strain such an intended worship places on a person. Finally I end with the Mangum quote, which summarizes my concept of God as elaborated throughout the essay, and I conclude by writing about what the things I write about matter to me and, potentially, to other people.
You want an opening statement? First fucking paragraph. "I don’t treat the question as a polite necessity. When I ask it what I’m trying to get at is: Why are you alive? What’s your reason?" That's the central core of the essay, as stated in the opening. Hell, you can use the opening sentences of the opening quote — "Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship" — and use that equally well, because it works. I know it works, because I deliberately chose the quote to frame my piece, because I've spent a very fucking long time learning how to write, and the majority of the people who read the piece rather than skimmed it seemed to get it without complaint.
I mean, I guess here's the part where I'm supposed to get down and get you off because you're a professional grader-of-papers and your word goes without mandate, but regarding my writing you are wrong. Either you skimmed it and misinterpreted it or you were in a bitchy mood and decided to troll, but you're saying things about my writing that simply do not hold up. I'm not particularly surprised considering your stated attitude towards your students. I've had fuckface professors before, professors who were so certain of their intelligence that they'd gloss over students' work and forgive themselves. I wouldn't be at all surprised if you're one of the fuckfaces. Just being a professor doesn't instantly give you a mandate in debate, particularly not when you're online, talking on a forum where I'm able to quote my criticized essay back at you and go point-for-point about how it's better and more logical and less jerk-offy than you want to say it is. Motherfucker, I grew up debating on the Internet. I learned how to form concise logical statements in writing before I was a high school freshman. Look at this comment in its entirety and there's a logical construct to it. If you're going to criticize me, go for my weaknesses. Don't suggest I don't know how to write a goddamn argument.
But I don't think that's worth it for you. I think you should bow out, apologize for being a douche — because you were a douche: You called out my paper for no reason other than to be a dick about something somebody else said they liked — and call it a night. Let's not start measuring our e-dicks, because all respect, my e-dick is something monstrous. Your tumblelog linked in your profile is a series of random-ass quotes and ramblings. Me, three times a week I sit down and write long essays about how I feel. And I don't submit them online places, I don't promote myself, because — apologies for the arrogance — apparently what I write is good enough for people I don't know to like. So my story was submitted here, and people upvoted it, and then when it was killed somebody cared enough to post comments complaining about it. I'm not raising a stink about myself, but I'm not going to let you be an ass about the work I do, not if I'm not being a cock about it and irritating you, not if you're only being an ass go get over whatever irritations you have about your job. So apologize, say you didn't mean to be an ass, and we'll smile and shake hands and not waste our time arguing with people we'll never meet, and it'll be cool. Or you can decide it's somehow worth insisting that you were right to be a fuckface, and I can take an hour of my free time to grind you, point by point, into the fucking dust, until you're forced to act like the troll you are.
When I get uppity, you're allowed to smack me down; but when I write something on a personal blog that means something to somebody, you are not allowed to slap them without me challenging you to a fight. I'm aware of my weaknesses and flaws; some other time you can point them out to me and I'll try and grow. But when somebody else innocently says they like my stuff, you will not use my writing as a prop for your own insecure bashings, or I'll take sides, and motherfucker, I play to win.