I enjoy reading LTWWB. It’s a great outlet for people to let off some steam but it’s also an interesting forum to learn about varying sides of issues and debates. Hell, sometimes I change my view on things based on the thought-provoking posts and comments I read on here. That being said, it really irks me that the comment threads are dominated by people who can’t seem to make their point with insulting other people and their arguments. Not everyone does this but there are an awful lot of ‘regular’ commenters out there who go from zero to sixty and absolutely attack people with opinions different from theirs. Do you realize that getting offensive and ignorant causes your actual point to be lost? You know it is possible to have a healthy debate without resulting to rude, profanity-filled commentary. I’m not asking that we all hold hands and sing Kumbaya but a moderate sense of decorum and, I dunno, maturity, would go a long way. —Regular LTWWB Reader
This article appears in May 31 – Jun 6, 2012.
Welcome to the internet.
agreed bitcher, i don’t mind the cussin it’s the context it’s used in. this is my facebook
Much depends on the combatants; how seriously they take the subject and how much respect they have for their nemesis, in general. Every bitcher has different rules of engagement.
*rules of engagement* too true, little skirmishes break out, here and there. it’s the way of the bitch
Ivan is right.
OB, I suggest you pick out the intelligent regulars who are witty and provide useful entertaining commentary then ignore everyone else. That’s what I do when I’m not trolling.
I don’t even really troll anymore which means I don’t have any reason to post here. The regulars suck you in…trick you with their kindness then rape your brain with illogical statements.
I hate all of you….well no….I hate the majority of you. The list of people I don’t hate is growing, which is sad….so very very sad.
brainrapists, who’d a thunk it
OP mustn’t have been here back in the kaydays. It’s a whole lot tamer here nowadays.
the old geezers remember, sischickpea
no matter what social situation there’s numerous opinions in there will be insults. Some are in a more diplomatic manner but it still happens
You’re right OP, we’ll all change now.
OP. I couldn’t agree more. Too many times have the comments on a particular bitch gone off on a tangent to issues irrelevent to the OP.
That’s when I remark Purple,Monkey,Dishwasher.
i’ve gotten some of my best information from the tangents
I’ve never met a tangent I didn’t like.
This reminds me of P.G. Wodehouse’s description of ‘The Anglers’ Rest,’ a fishing themed bar where men meet to drink and tell stories:
“In a mixed assemblage like the little group of serious thinkers which gathers nightly in the bar-parlour of the Anglers’ Rest it is hardly to be expected that there will invariably prevail an unbroken harmony. We are all men of spirit: and when men of spirit, with opinions of their own, get together, disputes are bound to arise.
Frequently, therefore, even in this peaceful haven you will hear voices raised, tables banged, and Tenor Permit-me-to-inform-you-sirs competing with baritone And-jolly-well-permit-me-to-inform-yous. I have known fists to be shaken and on one occasion the word ‘fat-head’ to be used.”
Yep. sounds like LLTWB!
OB, sometimes profanity is used to accentuate a piont.
Sometimes it’s for fun.
Take Smeagol, for example. I do rather enjoy refering to him as a horrible boring dreary ghastly old fat spotty two-faced dirty snot nosed lying vicious snivelling little rat-faced dumb ass wanker git.
Shut your whore mouth, OB. Nobody asked you, ya fuckin dick!!!
Too soon? Ahhhhh…FUCK IT!
Did you not realize when you post a bitch you are fair game for the regular click of commentors who love to make fun of you, and your dillema/ problem? Welcome to Bitches on trial.
See what I mean?
Meh. Status quo is fine by me.
This wouldn’t have anything to do with a recent skirmish over EI changes would it?
I understand what you are talking though OP, one should be able to illustrate their point without getting nasty or condescending. But this is the web and anonymity breeds a certain kind of aggression that wouldn’t happen face-to-face. Then again some people need to be knocked down a peg or three. It isn’t my style but some are quite good at it.
I enjoy the bitchers more than the actual bitches. I get a lot of laughs and learn a bit, people always have something to teach you, give you something to think about.
I do like the edginess of the forum I admit and that easily spills over into a name-calling match but I wouldn’t really want it any other way. This is a community with all kinds of different personalities with different approaches to topic and discussion. It is fun to read. I would worry that trying reign it in might dilute the punch.
we are meat eaters here, and to us, you are just another piece of meat. that being said, how would you know if we were wrong, you don’t listen to the advice given, and when you do, well fuck me. you twist it to your own warped little way of thinking. god, i think i love you.
RSVPs
: Xenophilia (05/31, 8:04PM)
You still read Wodehouse, that mindless collaborator broadcasting from his place in France after the Nazis over-ran it? I guess he didn’t have the services of Jeeves which would have helped. He’s lucky he got off after his trial in England. Of course Lord Haw Haw, also a collaborator, wasn’t so lucky. He got the rope.
Anyway Xeno, after copying out that passage from “The Anglers’ Rest” – did it take you long? – can we expect any more literary tidbits in the future? What about a couple of snippets from Gibbon’s “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” or perhaps even Acquinas’ “Summa Theologica”? I do, however, drawn the line at poetry.
: troondon formosus (10:27PM)
“I would worry that trying to reign (sic) it in might dilute the punch.”
Troon, the word is “rein” as in, “Rein in the horses!” “Reign” is something the Queen does. I had to “sic” Canned for this earlier this week and I supposed that everyone had taken note. Sadly, this was not the case.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
“Troon, the word is “rein” as in, “Rein in the horses!” “Reign” is something the Queen does.”
I knew that so why I do that?
I know it’s anal but I hate spelling errors, I did the same thing with “boarder” and “border” not too long ago. Damn homonyms!
“Damn homonyms!”
Just because you made a spelling error doesn’t mean you have to be homophobic….
If you want healthy debate, you’ve come to the right place…
unlike the republican debates where no-one knew what the hell they’re talking about.
Next leader of the free world my ass…
Things may get heated…
but it’s all in jest.
I’m guessing you’ve never been on multiplayer modern warfare.
You think this is bad? try having a 7 year old frag you while calling you a ‘stupid fucking noob’
I mean, the only thing worse than getting beaten at something is having some putz narrating the whole incident out for you while he’s doing it.
the world is doomed.
Moman-
Wodehouse is my go-to book whenever sleep eludes me, and I once named a feral cat I adopted ‘Bertie’…
Yes, I know about his cozying up to the Nazis in France, and the irony is that his best and funniest work was written during this time. As a Kennedy Democrat, I’m well used to cognitive dissonance. So your point was…?
Regarding future quotes, who knows what muse may strike me henceforth? You may draw lines wherever you wish: I shall cross them whenever I wish.
WODEHOUSE’S WITTERINGS
RSVP
: Xenophilia (06/1, 10:11AM)
Well Xeno my point was, since Wodehouse was the first one in the annals of British jurisprudence to have escaped a charge of treason on the grounds of simple-mindedness, that you might share this particular characteristic. As you seem to be aware, his witterings from Nazi-occupied France were just that, witterings. As you are probably also aware, he wound up in Hollywood where his witterings matched the cognitive level of the wittering locals.
Also, since the subtext of Wodehouse’s work was invariably the English class system, particularly the upper classes, I was wondering how you managed to accomodate this with your being a “Kennedy Democrat” (whatever that might be). Was the “cognitive dissonance” you experienced class-based – Wodehouse’s English “uppers” vs. Kennedy’s “man of the people” or was it based on contrasting behaviours – Wodehouse’s uxoriousness vs. Kennedy’s adulterous philandering?
I trust you will give this your serious consideration Xeno, and not resort to Wodehousian wittering.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Moman-
I thought such a great intellectual as you claim yourself to be would be able to connect the dots. Perhaps you are only half right when you claim to be a wit.
Once again, you have tripped up on your definitions-is it that paperback dictionary again? Because, really, ‘Wodehouse’s uxoriousness?’ I mean, really—fondness for one’s wife? Maybe I should call you MoMalaprop.
This brings a poem to my mind—
(see how much I care about where you draw the line?)
AMO, amas,
I love a lass
As a cedar tall and slender!
Sweet cowslips’ grace
Is her Nominative Case,
And she’s of the Feminine Gender.
Can I decline
A Nymph divine?
Her voice as a flute is dulcis!
Her oculi bright!
Her manus white!
And soft, when I tacto, her pulse is!
O, how bella
Is my Puella!
I’ll kiss seculorum!
If I’ve luck, Sir!
She’s my Uxor!
O, dies benedictorum!
**
NB the second to last line…
RSVP
: Xenophilia (06/01, 5:32PM)
“Uxorious, a. excessively fond of one’s wife.” (The Concise Oxford Dctionary)
Xeno, you yourself do not seem to have been able “to connect the dots.” Let me put them in a row for you.
While I did use the substantive form of “uxorious” I thought the meaning was clear, i.e., an EXCESSIVE fondness fr one’s wife. (“uxor,” Latin: wife.) My point, which you appear to have missed again, related to that “cognitive dissonance” which you claim fuelled your reading of Wodehouse at bedtime. Consequently, in the hope of exploring that cognitive dissonance, my hope was, first, that you would contrast Wodehouse’s excessive fondness for his wife with whom he shared a home in France during the Nazi occupation – he was, as far as is known completely faithful – with the adulterous philanderings of JFK since you proudly claim to be a “Kennedy Democrat.” Sadly however, we hear no more about sex as a possible basis of your cognitive dissonance.
Secondly, a further possible dimension of that cognitive dissonance for which I hoped some clarification was the class contrast between Wodehouse’s English uppers and JFK’s posturing as a “man of the people.” (I assume that this is what it means to be a “Kennedy Democrat.”) Sadly, however, we again hear no more either about the “Kennedy Democrats” or Wodehouse’s aristocrats. Very disappointing, Xeno.
As far as the poem goes, I must say that I found it very self-regarding to the point of being masturbatory. The description of the love-object “As being a cedar tall and slender” – I recall your previous references to your height – is clearly intended as a description of yourself. Xeno, you must stop that auto-orgasming. Hair will grow on your palms and you might go blind.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
1. I was referring to Teddy Kennedy, for whom I voted many times despite certain unsavory aspects of his past.
2. Thanks for the compliment, but the poem was written by John O’Keefe. It is a clever way to remember intro Latin verbs and nouns.
RSVP
: Xenophilia (06/02, 10:07AM)
At length we seem to be cutting to the chase, Xeno. Three questions only:
(1) What was it exactly about Teddy Kennedy that made you vote for him many times in the past “despite certain unsavoury aspects of his past”? Was it his glorious war record? Driving Joan into alcoholism? Chappaquidick? Or do you just support the American plutocracy in general, particularly as embodied in political preminence passing progressively down within the hands of the same famly? I’m looking forward to hearing your political theory which I’m sure is subtle, nuanced, and reflective. Don’t disappoint me, Xeno.
(2) We’re still in the dark regarding that “cognitive dissonance” in respect to reading Wodehouse, Xeno. You might want to give a general theory of such dissonance while relating that theory to the specific degrees, forms, and even possibly its acceptable/unacceptable manifestations. I mean, I suppose one could “justify” even reading pornography on the basis of its “cognitive dissonance” relative to one’s regular reading material. I’m looking forward to a penetrating analysis of the concept, Xeno, with particular referenc to “Plum” Wodehouse. Don’t disappoint me.
(3) Well, I suppose the poem *might* be a “clever way to remember Latin verbs and nouns” Xeno, but this strikes me as a very utilitarian view of poetry. Wouldn’t you say that poetry should be appreciated in its own right, on the basis of its substantive content and pleasing cadence? I’m looking forward to your mature theory of poetry, Xeno, one which distinguishes the good from the mediocre. Include examples if you like. Don’t disappoint me, dear.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
1. Teddy: A. His seniority in the senate-anyone’d be crazy to elect a n00b over ‘the lion of the senate’ like our Ted. B. seniority notwithstanding, kept his brother’s desk in the back rows of the senate floor (where he befriended junior senator from Illinois Barack Obama) C. despite his (OK ill-gotten, on his father’s side) wealth, always stood up for the less fortunate and disenfranchised D. Always supported women’s rights despite opposition from the RC church. I didn’t vote for him in the primary for the 1980 election-Between his behavior at Harvard and the whole Chappaquiddick thing—it cost him the Presidency; he got over being the baby of the family the hard way. Once he atoned, everything else (the drinking, girls -off-shore drilling, indeed!, the exclusive clubs) was not that hard to forgive.
2. Feh, I love Jane Austen too, but I doubt very much that I’d enjoy her company tete a tete (nor she mine for that matter). Yet despite her dismissive views on the slave trade or insensitive reporting of ‘wild curs’ fighting (Mansfield Park and Emma) I still love to read her novels. Many authors have sketchy pasts (O’Henry served time in state prison) or do questionable things (Wodehouse, Dorothy Parker, Ring Lardner -just at one table!) You could extend that to music as well: Miles Davis was an asshole, but does that mean I can’t enjoy his music? Who resides on your shelf or on your playlist is not necessarily someone you would want in person eating your bread and salt. Look on your own bookshelves, Moman (I’m assuming that you have them). Could your own authors pass the test you set for Wodehouse? Take your time here, old man.
3. Since you ‘drew the line’ at accepting any poetry, which I then supplied with alacrity, I have already disappointed you. In that case, it seems my work here is done. It’s been a pleasure!
RSVP
: Xenophilia (06/02, 10:29PM)
Many thsnks for your reply, Xeno, to which I have given considerable reflection. As a result of my philosophical background (as you can imagine) I always look for the theoretical subtext when I encounter something like this. So then, what can I say about Xeno’s subtext, her governing concept, her perspective on the matter? Not unexpectedly, lacking the philosophical turn of mind, her subtext was “personal” rather than theoretical which, rendered her efforts interesting but theoretically light. Now watch what I’m going to do next, Xeno. I’m going to take my theoretical position as contained in the previous sentence and apply it to specific cases, i.e., your “Political Theory,” your “Theory of Cognitive Dissonance,” and finally your “Mature Theory of Poetry.” This is what is called “structure” Xeno, a basic requirement of any endeavour aspiring to scholarly attainment. I shall be brief.
1. Xeno’s Political Theory
Rather than being subtle, nuanced and reflective, we find reference to “the lion of the senate” and “our old Ted,” in other words, Xeno’s personalized estimation of him. While he may have championed womens’ rights and aid to the poor and disenfranchised, it seems to me that this falls short of a mature political theory which Ted may (or may not) embody.
Mark: (25/50)
2. Xeno’s Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Xeno appears to have stumbled here. Instead of discussing the theory of cognitive dissonance itself, i.e., the different idiomatic usages specific to different modes of discourse, she interpreted the matter as one of her personal preferences (or not) for different novelists, those with whom she might like (or not) to have a “tete-a-tete.” This falls far short of my theoretical requirements. As far as my own authors go, the fact is that I have no fiction at all on my shelves so the question, as they say, is moot. In any case, my comments on Wodehouse were not on his literary style but rather on his political acumen, or the lack of it.
Mark: (15/25)
3. Xeno’s Mature Theory of Poetry
It is true as you say that I “drew the line” at poetry but, since you crossed it, it then falls to you to articulate a mature and defensible theory of poetry. I must say that was looking forward to this since I am, admittedly, deficient in this regard – I have often wondered if indeed there *is* such a theory – and was hoping for guidance in the matter. However, it was not to be.
Mark: (10/25)
So Xeno, you have managed a mark of 50/100 which is not bad but – I am sure you will agree – subject to considerable improvement. Work more on your theory and bring your personal observations in only as supporting illustrations.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!