The negative Bitch Squad

(1) “What bothers me is not the sometimes outrageous Bitches, it is the comment committee that not only can ever see the negative in all bitches or only have the the ability to post links to pictures.”

Passing by the non-existence of any “comment committee,” the first point is that this is not a sentence. It should be followed by a “but” clause to make it one. You must try, even at the grammatical level, to refine the quality of your Bitch. I trust you understand this.

That said, the assertion itself is incoherent since Bitches, being negative by their nature – they are complaints, grievances, accusations, and so on – which, of course, is what makes them Bitches in the first place. (You can call this the the ontological argument.) The negative comments, as a consequence, are STRUCTURED INTO the nature of the Bitch Board itself since negative Bitches, in the absence of rare agreement among the commenters with the Bitch, evoke a NEGATIVE comment, usually in the form of a “who do you think you are?” argument. (You can call this the epistemological argument.) So far, then, your position is both ungrammatical and incoherent.

(2) “It would be nice to see some intelligent posts here. I think the idiots here actually drive away the intelligent people.”

This is a philosophically interesting contention but, as is stands, it fails to satisfy its own criteria. What is needed is (a) a defensible definition of “intelligence” such that “intelligent people” can be distinguished from the “idiots” – examples here would help support your position – and (b) evidence to the effect that the latter (the “idiots”) “drive away” the former (the “intelligent people”). In the absence of (a) and (b) your assertion is little better than those you criticize and you position, as a consequence, collapses. Time to get to work.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: Donairious (Dec. 20, 8:13PM)

Thank you Donairious, it was rather a good post, wasn’t it. However, I would like to add a brief footnote to the poster’s claim that the idiots “actually drive away” the intelligent people.

The point is simple but I think you will find, logically compelling, and renders the poster’s Bitch additionally incoherent. It goes like this:

If the intelligent people have actually been driven away by the idiots then, by definition, they (the intelligent people) are no longer present on the Bitch Board. They are absent. But if they are absent then one can no longer comment on them since to do so requires, minimally, their presence on the Bitch Board. Yet this is what the poster, incoherently, claims to do. If you ask me, this drives another nail in the poster’s coffin.

I note that my present rating has gone up to a “3 of 6 people liked this” from an initial rating of only “1 of 3 people liked this.” Do you have any thoughts, Donairious, as to why this might be so?

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: Depeche Mel (Dec. 21, 10:17AM)

Thank you Mel, they are lovely aren’t they. In case you missed the backstory on them, see the last comment on “You Deserve Better, Hubbards.”

: Wheeliep Bader (10:29AM)

Many thanks for the Christmas wishes. I did enjoy the Miracle Whip analogy but, as it happens, I never touch the stuff.

: Xenophilia (Dec. 20, 6:25PM)

It occurred to me that the absence of those “more intelligent people” on the Bitch Board may not be entirely owing to being “driven away” by the idiots as the poster maintains. They might be “otherwise engaged.” For example, they might be in Xeno’s shower stall helping her to get at “those hard to reach places.”

I note the rating for my latest post has fallen back to “1 of 3 people liked this”
from a high of “3 of 6 people liked this.” This is disturbing. Will I regain my former pre-eminence with this post? Stay tuned!

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

THE SCHOLAR’S LEADERSHIP BID

: The Scholar (Dec. 21, 11:07AM)

Interestingly, from a philosophical point of view, The Scholar bases her bid for the lesadership of the commenters on Bitch on the basis of what might be called “the intelligence criterion.”

Rather than defining intelligence in terms of the depth of cogntivie analysis as is usually the case, however, The Scholar holds what might be called a “lateral” view of intelligence, that is, that it is not so much a question of depth but of breadth. She writes that the intelligent “can wrap their brains around the concept that others may have a point of view different than theirs.” Intelligence, then, boils down to the accomodation of the viewpoints of others, some of which may even conflict with one’s own.

By contrast the “nOObs” or those lacking intelligence “don’t like being called out and they don’t like it when people point out their lack of intelligence.” But does The Scholar’s definition of intelligence tell against herself? In pointing out the lack of intelligence of others does The Scholar display precisely the absence of that tolerant lateral view of intelligence? Does The Scholar, in other words, fall victim to a self-refuting assertion which thereby serves to undermine her bid for the leadership of the commenters on Bitch?

P.S. Stunningly, I note that my last post received a rating of only “1 in 5 people like this,” a sharp comedown from my previous “3 in 5 people like this.” Will the present post mark the beginning of a glorious resurgence in my popularity and, if so, will I then be able to put myself forward as a candidate for the leadership of the commenters on Bitch? Stay tuned!

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: Xenophilia (Dec. 27, 7:40PM)

Xeno, my apologies for not replying to your post but your’s was not up when I posted my post in reply to the two other feeble posters. Anyway, my reference to Tommy’s camera and its capability of portraying the majesty of your labial spread WAS a “paen to your sex.” Could any paen be more direct? It was also a comment on their daunting size which, no doubt, must have given all the readers pause.

I must say I found the picture unsatisfying on two counts: (1) What, exactly, was that red, bubbly material at the base of the labia? Was it some sort of SDT? and, (2) Cartoons, by their nature, are not satisfactory in conveying the real impact of your splendid labia. Quite simply, they (the cartoons, not your labia) cannot do adequate justice to the subject. I would have preferred something more, um, from real life. Perhaps you can oblige.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: Xenophilia (Dec. 28, 10:20AM)

An excellent story Xeno, but frankly I found the comment of your “witty pal” to be a bit lacking in taste (I will return to this matter of taste in a moment). I hope the bimbo put the conversational ball (or one of his) back over the net with some equally tasteless comment but I suppose she was stunned by his crudity. Moreover, Xeno, I must say that I don’t think that Ivan would have made a remark like that since, as we all know, he is not given to such insensitive and derogatory outbursts.

I also note that you did not vouschafe a quick glimpse of your “sugar walls” to the assistant rowing coach but, of course, you made no mention of the head coach for whom things might well have been different. In any case Xeno, I must emphasize that my concerns were only with the visuals of your daunting labia and not with compiling any tasting notes on the topic. I’ll leave that to your “witty pal.”

I was saddened to read about your interest in crossword puzzles, Xeno, since the mentality of the “puzzlers” (?) has always seemed to me to be rather pedestrian, not to say slavish. In effect, the puzzlers are attempting to work out the spelling of words set by some anonymous puzzle-maker who then comes to exercise complete if only temporary control over the poor wankers. And, of course, what’s the point? Is any greater insight into the human condition gained by such a pursuit or is it, in fact, little more than a mindless descent into trivia?

I had thought that you were more of an independent turn of mind, Xeno, but it seems I must revise my views.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

“TOYING WITH AMBIGUITY”

: Persevere (Dec. 29, 1:28PM) writes that he “enjoys the way you often toy with ambiguity – obscure or obvious – present in what is written.” But what does Persevere mean when he speaks about Montrealman’s “toying with ambiguity?” What, for that matter, does one do when one goes about doing this?

The first step, it seems to me, is to get clearer about what is meant by “ambiguity.” The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines it as relating to “an expression capable of more than one meaning” but for those given to philosophical reflection this definition may well be itself ambiguous. In other words, one could ask whether it is possible to be ambiguous about ambiguity. Can one, at the second-order so to speak, strike a position of ambiguity in respect to one’s own first-order ambiguous assertions and if so, does lead to the possibility of an endless and ultimately empty regress in which the entire structure comes crashing down? We will not go into that question here.

Perhaps the answer lies in Persevere’s use of the word “toy.” What does he mean by “toying” with ambiguity? The Concise Oxford gives the relevant definition of the verb “toy” as “to play with something for amusement rather than for serious use.” It seems, then, that one need not be serious when one is being ambiguous but, in fact, one might simply be amusing oneself. I believe that this is the sense in which Persevere intends to use the word but this then raises the question as to why Montrealman would want to amuse himself by toying with ambiguity on a site peopled by those who do not take kindly to being toyed with. They like to be taken seriously. So the question appears to ultimately drive to the nature of Montrealman’s motivation in posting the sort of comments that he does. What, then, is Montrealman’s motivation?

It seems to me that Montrealman’s motivation is, um, ambiguous. While at one level it is serious – it is intended, after all, to hold up a mirror to the commenters and their views (a wholly salutary exercise given their usual flatulent nature) – it is also complex and layered, seamed with humour and “bonhomie.” The case of Xeno’s labia, for example, would be an example of the latter. So, for that matter is the present post, “Toying With Ambiguity.” You could say that Montrealman is toying with toying with ambiguity. In any case, Montrealman’s posts, being ambiguous, are not easily rendered in unambiguous form. Even by Montrealman himself.

I hope that this has cleared up the concept of toying with ambiguity for you.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

“TOYING WITH AMBIGUITY:” PHILOSOPHIZING BY ANOTHER NAME?

Troon formosa (Dec. 30, 10:20PM) writes, in respect to “ambiguity,” that it relates to “something having unclear or uncertain meaning which could include double meaning.” I agree entirely but wonder just how it is to be distinguished from my Concise Oxford’s definition to the effect that it is “an expression capable of more than one meaning” which, one assumes, is why it might well be be “unclear” or “uncertain.” Perhaps Troon could explain. I also wondered about Presevere’s gender. Perhaps Troon could explain why he maintains that it refers to a female. Indeed, perhaps Persevere could come on and resolve the dilemma. But to cut to the chase.

We saw that “toying” was defined as “playing with something for amusement rather than for serious use” but it seems to me that it could also involve such serious use. The Concise Oxford defines “philosophizing” as “playing (!) the philosopher; speculate; theorize; moralize; render philosophic.” In other words, in “philosophizing,” one can adopt a lighthearted approach to philosophical questions which amounts to “playing” which, in turn, can amount to “toying.” But is there anything more philosophical than “ambiguity?” Therefore, by a process of deduction, “toying with ambiguity” is simply “philosophizing by another name.”

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: Troondon formosus ( Dec. 31, 2:53PM)

Yes, I see why you thought Persevere was female after studying her avatar, something I should do more but I find that they usually do not give away the gender of the commenter. Her reference to her “girly parts” definitely points to her labia and, as with Xeno, her sexuality. I must study avatars more closely in future.

However, and more importantly, you did not distinguish your definition of “ambiguity” from mine as requested and so, until this is done, the path ahead remains obscure, as does your concluding remark, “A brilliant suggestion otherwise.”

Other than that, all I can say is that it’s been great fun and wish you a Happy New Year!

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: persevere (Jan.2, 4:53PM)

Well hello persevere! I had hoped you would post – your comment to the effect that you liked the way I “toyed with ambiguity” sparked my interest in your thought – but I gradually gave up. But now, here you are!

Many thanks for the link on “ambiguity” with which I continued to toy with but without conclusive results. This is to be expected since ambiguity, by its nature, does not permit of unambiguous findings. That, of course, is what it makes it philosopphically interesting.

Yes, it is true that I thought you were male since the text of your post pointed neither to male nor female and I failed to scrutinize your avatar. So convention dictated that I address you as male. However, I hope that this does not indicate any latent patriarchical tendencies on my part.

Nice to hear from you.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!