Correspondence With Mary Matthews

By John "Birdman" Bryant


>To: Mary Matthews, Sounding Editor [the rag of Tampa Bay Mensa]
>From: Birdman (
>I thought religous people, even if they are Mensans, were supposed to be
>humble, and here you are calling your site [] --
>and yourself by implication -- 'extremely smart'. Is this a case of
>stuffed shirtism, or just stuffed blouseism?
>And speaking of extremely smart, the beginning sentences of your
>'Diversions' section ends with an extremely dumb typo -- especially dumb
>because it is in the context of telling the reader how extremely smart you
>are. Here's those sentences:
>The Wisdom Dude [Mary's live-in] and Mother Mary are both members of Mensa,
>the social club for people who do well on standardized tests -- in fact, we
>met at a Mensa party. Mensa is open to anyone who scores in the top two
>percent on any number of these tests, including I.Q. tests, the SATs, the
>GREs, and many others; if you're reading this page, you probably quality.
>And again speaking of extremely smart, in the Sounding this month you just
>happened to omit my website, It's kinda hard to
>believe you don't know about it. In fact, we are now one of the most
>popular sites on the web (out of more than 20 million), ranking (by
> 48,295, outranking such major sites as Newsweek, the New York
>Times Online, the Weekly World News, and David Duke, while your site ranks
>3,253,360 which is not quite as good as the American Nazi Party, ranking at
>510,195. The question is, are you going to correct your error and publish
>a note about my site in the Sounding? Hey, what about an 'Atta M' for me?
>What would Godde doooo?
>[Mary replies; Birdman interleaves his comments:]
>I have added comments marked with ********, and clarified your comments by
>marking them with ##### My original statements are unmarked.
>On 02:21 PM 08/29/2002 -0400, John Bryant said:
>I thought religous people, even if they are Mensans, were supposed to be
>humble, and here you are calling your site -- and yourself by implication -
>- 'extremely smart'. Is this a case of stuffed shirtism, or just stuffed
>######Why do you presume (a) that false humility is the same as true
>humility, and just as good (or bad), and (b) that someone who you believe
>ought to be humble and does not appear to be humble by your definition,
>must therefore be a stuffed shirt?
>****** Your response is incoherent. This is apparently your way of
>avoiding confronting the fact that, by calling your site and yourself
>'extremely smart' you are being a stuffed shirt/blouse.
>And speaking of extremely smart, the beginning sentences of your
>'Diversions' section ends with an extremely dumb typo
>######## You obviously don't have much experience with typos if you think
>that one character, typed with the finger of the correct character but just
>on the wrong row of the keyboard, is "extremely dumb" -- but thank you for
>pointing it out to me; I'll fix it right away.
>****** I call your typo 'extremely dumb' because it LOOKS extremely dumb,
>ESPECIALLY when done by someone with the gall to call herself 'extremely
>smart'. Of course you don't want to recognize that, so you respond with
>mumbledy mouth nonsense.
>######An extremely dumb typo is one found on a r=E9sum=E9, for example. I once
>misspelled the word "vacuum" on my own r=E9sum=E9 -- THAT was extremely dumb.
>######I might add that on the top page of your site I found one spelling
>error, 17 errors of punctuation (NOT counting your inability to tell the
>difference between a hyphen and a dash), three errors of syntax, two errors
>of grammar, and more than 12 errors of HTML design, not to mention dozens
>of instances of "mouth-frothing ugliness." And a minimum of eight instances
>of gender bias, one of them viciously disgusting.
>******* I would be most interested to see what you consider my errors to
>be, but I will say this: That I have been over the page carefully, and it
>is unlikely that anything which is there was unintentional. I often use
>divergent spellings and style. As for HTML, I am not so dumb that I write
>the code myself (I use Frontpage), anymore than I would write machine code
>to program a computer. (But evidently 'extremely smart' people don't do
>things this way.) Thus I challenge you to prove my purported errors by
>listing them -- or at least some of them. I would expect that such a list
>would prove to be a big embarrassment to you -- that is, if it doesn't
>prove you to be a liar.
>And again speaking of extremely smart, in the Sounding this month you just
>happened to omit my website, It's kinda hard to
>believe you don't know about it.
>########How so, John? Did you fill out your Crewe List form and send it to
>me, either by the August 4 deadline or otherwise? No, you did not. Do I
>have ESP? No, I do not.
>******* But by your own admission you remember it. And you are 'extremely
>smart', remember? So it sure looks like a case of not wanting to list it.
>But that must be because I am not 'extremely smart', right?
>######Am I impressed that your site has received more hits than the sites
>of David Duke and the American Nazi Party, which you misinterpret as
>evidence of its popularity? No, not particularly. I do remember visiting it
>once before, during one of your earlier dust-ups with AML -- possibily in
>the early '90s. (In every controversy with AML in which you have been
>involved since 1986, incidentally, I have been convinced that AML was in
>the right.) I have never proceeded beyond the top page, but I presume the
>rest of your site is as ugly and biassed as its home page.
>****** Biassed? Oooh! Are we extremely smart today? And 'evidence of
>popularity? What do you want -- Jesus Christ to appear and tell you the
>facts of life? But the real point here is that I have created a website
>which is now in the top 1/4 of 1% of all websites worldwide, purely on the
>basis of word-of-mouth. That suggests some pretty powerful content -- not
>that an 'extremely smart' person like yourself would be able to appreciate
>it. And maybe you aren't impressed that I outpull David Duke, but it would
>seem -- liberal and establishmentarian that you are -- that you would be
>impressed by my outpulling the New York Times Online and the many other
>establishment and liberal publications that I leave in the dust. Of course
>you probably ARE impressed -- except that perhaps you are just a tad
>dishonest because you don't want to admit that my ideas have potency and
>popularity. But then that is exactly the way the Mensa establishment has
>treated me, and apparently you are just another dishonest liberal Jewish
>arse-kisser who is following the Party Line. There is nobody in his right
>mind that would not say my accomplishment is formidable -- except someone
>who is dishonest up the tush. So you can mark yourself as dishonest or not
>by what you put in the next Sounding under 'Atta M' -- I will be waiting to
>see what you do. You can't hurt ME by leaving me out, but you CAN hurt
>#######Nevertheless, I have updated the TBM online page to include a link
>to your site. You can check it out at
> Hey, what about an 'Atta M' for me? What would Godde doooo?
>#######Are you asking me whether Godde would applaud you? I thought you
>didn't believe in Godde, God, Absolute Unitary Being, Brahma-Atman, or
>anything outside your narrow little circle of self-congratulation.
>********* You intentionally miss the point. I was mocking your use of the
>term Godde. Narrow circle? Is an Alexa rank of 48 thousand something
>narrower than a rank of 3 million something? Is this the New Math? Or
>just the math of an 'extremely smart' person?
>Just what do you want an "Atta M" for? Having a site that's gotten more
>hits than David Duke and the American Nazi Party? Being more ignorantly
>offensive than either one? -- not an easy trick, that.
>******* See my comments above on Atta M.
>I AM rather amused that you haven't yet attacked me as a pawn of Judaism --
>I have been repeatedly warned that that is your "thing," to make some
>outrageous demand and, when refused, accuse the one doing the refusing of
>being either Jewish or a pawn of the Judeo-Illuminati conspiracy to destroy
>the slumbers of crackpots everywhere. You really ought to get a more
>inventive shtick.
>[Mary did not respond.]



Freedom isn't free! To insure the continuation of this website and the survival of its creator in these financially-troubled times, please send donations directly to the Birdman at
PO Box 66683, St Pete Beach FL 33736-6683

"The smallest good deed is worth the grandest intention."

Please contribute today - buy our books - and spread the word to all your friends!
Remember: Your donation = our survival!

* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *