If You Are Going to Argue With Me About Jill Munroe, at Least Spell Her Name Correctly

---

I recently received the following response to something I wrote about the two proposed Farrah Fawcett statues in Texas. I removed the commenter’s name because this isn't about who wrote it. It is about what he wrote. I am reproducing the comment exactly as it appeared:
​
“This post is a joke , one the statues represent her in the images the larger public associated her with , really Jill Monroe wast from tx , we know that ! But ther person who played her is forever linked , get over it , most people all ages in tx know who she was and who she played, and the poster for christ sake! I have always been a huge fan of hers life long and this is going to be a great tribute to her, you goal here was to get attention ties to her name and you obviously didn't post about the artist, the origin, and who was involved , so go seel attention somewhere else , if you really respected her you would know how silly this post is , I applaud tx for honoring her .... you may want to as well”

​Where exactly does one begin?

Perhaps with Jill Munroe, whose name somehow became “Jill Monroe” in a comment lecturing me about how little I apparently understand Charlie’s Angels. That is an unfortunate mistake when your larger point is that you know the subject well enough to correct me. If you are going to climb onto a soapbox and appoint yourself a spokesman on Jill Munroe, knowing how to spell Jill Munroe would seem like a fairly reasonable place to start.

We also have “wast,” “ther,” “you goal,” and the particularly memorable “go seel attention somewhere else.” I assume that last one was supposed to be “go seek attention somewhere else,” although deciphering it required considerably more effort than the writer apparently invested in writing it. There is also “one the statues,” which presumably means “one of the statues,” and “attention ties to her name,” a phrase that appears to have suffered some kind of structural collapse on its way to the keyboard.

Normally, I would not give a damn about somebody’s spelling or grammar in a Facebook comment. People make mistakes. I make mistakes. Everyone does. But context matters. If you are going to accuse someone of seeking attention, tell him he does not respect the person he has spent years researching, announce that his work is “a joke,” and tell him to “get over it,” then at least take thirty seconds and read your own response before hitting Post. Spell-check is built into practically everything. Grammarly is free. And Jill Munroe has been spelling her last name the same way since 1976.

Then there is the punctuation. Commas aimlessly wander through the comment with spaces in front of them, appearing wherever the hell they please, apparently unconstrained by the usual expectations of written English. Entire thoughts slam into one another without periods. Capitalization comes and goes. “Texas” becomes “tx.” The whole thing reads less like a rebuttal and more like a run-on sentence desperately trying to escape from itself.

More importantly, underneath this wreckage of punctuation is an argument, or at least the beginnings of one. The commenter apparently believes that Farrah Fawcett became so permanently associated with Jill Munroe and the famous red swimsuit poster that using those images for permanent public monuments is entirely appropriate.

​Fine.

That is an argument.

I disagree with it, but I could have had an interesting discussion with someone who actually made it.

Instead, I got “get over it.”

Compelling.

I also learned that “most people all ages in tx know who she was and who she played.” This does absolutely nothing to address my argument. Leaving aside the rather ambitious claim to know what most people of every age throughout the entire state of Texas know, I have never disputed that Farrah Fawcett is associated with Charlie’s Angels. That would be ridiculous. I have never disputed the cultural importance of the red swimsuit poster. I have written about both. My question has always been whether those images should become the permanent public representation of Farrah Fawcett in two Texas communities when her life, work, art, career, and identity extended far beyond them.

But why respond to the argument I actually made when you can invent an easier one and get pissed off at that instead?

​And then it gets personal.

My “goal here,” apparently, “was to get attention ties to her name.”
​
Again, I am translating.

Apparently my motive for researching public records, examining the histories of two separate statue projects, writing thousands of words about them, documenting what has been made public, discussing Farrah’s artwork and Texas roots, and questioning whether Jill Munroe should define her permanent civic legacy was simply to attach my name to hers. That is an impressive amount of mind-reading to squeeze out of one Facebook comment.

It is also wonderfully convenient. Once you decide that someone has bad motives, you no longer have to deal with what they actually wrote. You can simply announce that they want attention and congratulate yourself on having defeated an argument you never bothered to understand, much less address like an adult.

Then comes the credential: “I have always been a huge fan of hers life long.”

Good. 

So have a lot of people.

Being a lifelong fan gives someone every right to love these statues. It gives someone every right to believe Jill Munroe is the perfect way to represent Farrah. It gives someone every right to disagree with every damn word I have written. What it does not provide is magical access to Farrah Fawcett’s intentions, ownership of her legacy, or the authority to declare that anyone who reaches a different conclusion does not “really respect” her.

And that is ultimately what makes this comment interesting to me. Buried beneath the misspellings, mangled sentences, wandering commas, personal accusations, and Jill Munroe losing the spelling of her own last name is a remarkably simple proposition: if I respected Farrah, I would agree with him.

No.

That is not how respect works. And it sure as hell is not how an argument works.

Tell me why Jill Munroe is the right choice. Tell me why the poster deserves to define a permanent monument. Tell me why Farrah’s other accomplishments should carry less weight. Tell me why the wishes her own son attributed to her should not matter. Tell me why I am wrong. Bring evidence. Bring reasoning. Bring an argument.

For Christ’s sake, bring something.

“This post is a joke,” “get over it,” and “go seel attention somewhere else” are not rebuttals. They are what you write when you are angry that somebody reached a conclusion you don't like and you can't be bothered to understand how they got there.
​
And if you are going to do all of this shit while lecturing me about Jill Munroe, at least spell her fucking name correctly.