Bitchers,

RSVPS

; Good dog Molly (03/02, 10:12AM)

Good dog, whatever are you talking about? I never discussed your “unmentionables and the delights that lie therein”. I assume you mean your labia. Believe me, Good dog, nothing could be further from my mind whether they were firmly shut or otherwise.

: TTFN (11:51AM)

MC Mod, the claim that she engaged in a “flame wars with two silly trolls” is not quite accurate. In addition to posting the hate bitch against Wogdog in the first place and continuing to bully her with her usual smutty vulgarity, she proceeded to turn on me as I attempted to come to Wogdog’s defense. If anything, SHE is the troll but she’s not “silly.” On the contrary, she’s a nasty one.
Interestingly, in spite of her protestations that publishing the real names and addresses of individuals “IS NOT COOL” she was the first one to explicitly post mine.

Instead of shutting down the entire LTWWB site it seems it would be more fair to target individuals who continually post bullying and hate comments. There are a few whose comments lack any substance and simply take it as an opportunity to wage their bullying and hate campaigns. Perhaps an initial warning would be sufficient. In the words of Bob Dylan, then they wouldn’t “talk so loud.”

Anyway, just a suggestion.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: TTFN (03/03, 10:53AM)

The Last Refuge of the Hypocrite.

I’m not trying to get a “rise” out of you. I’m just stating the facts. After posting the original hate-bitch against Wogdog, after posting a storm of bullying and hate-filled posts at her, after challenging her to a fist fight, after re-directing your abuse at me after I came to her support – I hate bullies and bullying – including posting my real name, you now cry out: “I’M THE VICTIM! I’M THE VICTIM!” As I say, victimization is the last refuge of the hypocrite. It’s too bad you didn’t understand your “true priorities” before your launched your malicious campaign of vilification.

: The Chairman (11:24AM)

Some might be confused by my reference, in respect to the Chairman, as “blowing with the wind”. He saw which way the wind was blowing when multiple haters jumped on the bandwagon and hurled their abuse at Wogdog. He saw his chance and posted how he would “Like to F**k her like an animal.” (I’d give the date and time but the thread has been yanked.) Nice, eh? But why the asterisks? Was he overcome by a moment of delicacy? Who knows? Who cares?

The Chairman wanted that popularity he gains from “blowing with the wind,” from cheerleading “popular” causes like vilifying Wogdog. He is unquestionably the most popular poster on Bitch and, since his popularity is his power base and since he conceives of all relations on this board in terms of control, he scored a major coup. His popularity and consequently his control sky-rocketed. He has sucked in many – most? – bitchers but not this one. Quite the contrary. When I read his slur on Wogdog I knew that our previous fairly friendly relations were at an end.

: Stephen Harper (1:38PM)

Good afternoon Stephen.

Once again you have made another blunder. You claim that if I didn’t want my “online personality” to become public then I shouldn’t have posted it on other sites. But Stephen, everyone on this site has an anonymous online personality and I do too, more or less, but on the other sites they don’t. They don’t need to hide behind pseudonyms. They’re not afraid, Stephen. So it was never a “slip up” on my part as you seem to think. Further, it was never the issue of whether or not I care about it being made public on this site – I don’t – but those other posters revealing it, as MC Mod and others have said, crossed a line. Those spiteful posters hoped that they would bully or intimidate me but as I say, Stephen, I really don’t care. They should have known better. I would never say anything different on this site even if I were using my real name. To say as you do, that without a “slip-up”on my part this was not even be an issue is then very wide of the mark. The cause of the “issue” is not me but, as usual, the bullies and the haters. I hope you can see that Stephen. There’s the lad. (I’m going to have to revise your mark back to C- for effort. You must try to focus your mind.)

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: Senor Campana (03/03, 3:41PM)

“I don’t think I know.”

What Campana has done, unknowingly of course, is to enshrine the motto for many (most?) commenters on this site. Let me explain.

Ordinarily, the possession of knowledge is the third stage in what might be viewed as a three-step process. There is (a) an initial state of ignorance. If there were not, then the concept of knowledge itself would be incoherent. It would have no meaning. Then there is (2) a stage of thinking, however defined (reflection, judgement, reading, etc.) whereby one passes out of the stage of ignorance but not yet into (3) the final stage, that of possessing knowledge. It is at that stage where, like Campana, one can be said to “know.”

But what has happened in Campana’s case? What has happened is that he has leap-frogged from (1) to (3). He has passed over stage (2) and gone directly to stage (3). But how has he done this? There can be only one answer. Camapana’s stage (3) is the outcome of a direct, unerring and unmediated grasp of the object of knowledge. For Campana, the second stage, that of thinking, is unnecessary. His knowledge, in other words, has been attained by direct intuition of the truth which, simultaneously, he also knows to be infallible.

It is, of course, exactly what many (most?) commenters on this site maintain about themselves. Camapana is not alone.

:More (4:01PM)

“Its (sic) a truely (sic) pathetic individual, who would come to a site like this & actually believe saying you (sic) are enlightened. Thus elevating yourself above the rest” (sic).

(1) “It’s” for “its;” (2) “truly” for “truely;” (3) “one is” for “you are;” (4) Not a sentence.

Oh dear, More’s at it again. One question only. Can you point to a specific example where I said that I was “enlightened”? Can you point to a specific example where I said that I was “above the rest”? I’m not talking about your inferences, More. Just specific, verbatim (that’s Latin for “word for word,” More) examples. No, I didn’t think so.

: The Chairman (5:47PM)

Yes, that is “so very wrong.”

: heather_ann01 (7:06PM)

“Let’s just stick to the point… you know, the one you obviously missed and keep missing over and over again.”

You can guess what’s coming, can’t you Heather. That’s right! What’s “the point”? You know, the one I have obviously missed and keep missing over and over again. If you could tell me what point that might be Heather, then we could talk. Otherwise we find ourselves in an intellectual “cul-de-sac” (that’s French, Heather, for “dead-end”) from which no egress is possible. You understand that, don’t you Heather?

A minor point: You seem to think I am a grammar & spelling Nazi but that is not the case. See my reply to More above. The “sic” is a standard form (meaning “thus” in Latin) which indicates a mistake but – and this is important Heather – it is not intended to ridicule the author. Anyone who has written for publication knows that this is simply to direct the reader’s attention to a mistake IN THE TEXT which must – yes, Heather MUST – be quoted ACCURATELY AND IN FULL. Far from intending to ridicule, it is an obligatory rule – yes Heather, OBLIGATORY – in all writing which aspires to a even a minimum standard of written prose. (Of course, in the case of More, I was having my bit of fun as well.) Now, Heather, tell me that you understand.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVP

: (03/05, 2:13PM)

Good afternoon Heather.

Ah, so that was your point, the point that it was the one I have obviously missed and keep missing over and over again. Well Heather, let’s have a closer look.

The point that you were trying to make was the point that I was, um, “always trying to make a point.” Heather, doesn’t that strike you as a bit self-contradictory? In addition to self-contradiction do you see that your point is also incoherent? Heather, it appears, without any reason being given, that your point trumps my point. But Heather, in the absence of demonstrating the grounds of your claim, why should your point trump my point? You’ve got to give reasons for your claims, Heather. You just can’t assert that your point trumps mine and just leave it at that. In other words Heather, your point is not simply self-validating. You do understand that, don’t you Heather? But I must admit it is a common failing on this site. Simple assertion is erroneously confounded with demonstration. Now, what else is there?

Well Heather, I just don’t see how what is called assuming one’s own conclusions is “off topic”. In fact it lies at the very heart of the “Bitchers” thread – smearing and slandering without reasons. Indeed, to slander and smear someone as many haters and bullies have done to wogdog is conceptually identical to “assuming one’s own conclusions” and therefore is definitely ON TOPIC. You do see that, don’t you Heather?

Heather, I don’t understand what you mean by your claim that I “agree to disagree.” In any case the phrase in itself is vacuous – empty of meaning. Maybe that’s why I didn’t understand it – there’s nothing to understand.

Ah, now we’re on to something. The point that I keep on missing is that I “over-analyze”. Well, you know what’s coming next, don’t you Heather. At what point does one begin to “over-analyze”? What is the tipping point, so to speak, where one leaves appropriate, moderate, and otherwise legitimate analysis and begin to “over-analyze?” Once again, Heather, do you have any criteria, any grounds to support that assertion or is it simply self-validating like your other assertions? If you could advance your criteria of what it is to “over-analyze” then we could talk. You do understand that, don’t you Heather?

I also had difficulty in grasping the characterization you attribute to your Grade 11 English teacher, i.e., that she was both “the most liberated” yet “ANALytical bitch” you had ever met in your life. My problem Heather, I hope you can see it, is reconciling her being “liberated” on the one hand and “anal” on the other. I have always thought that these were mutually exclusive concepts but, of course I could be wrong. I await your tutelage on this matter.

Finally Heather, I realize that you’re not here for an English lesson. It was never my intention to give you one. However, I think you might profit from a little philosophical reflection, the principal lesson of which requires, if communication is to aspire to rationality, that one give reasons for their assertions. You do see that, don’t you Heather? It’s not difficult but for some reason many on this site, like you, have failed to grasp this elementary truth.

I hope you won’t be downcast and crestfallen by these remarks Heather, but they were offered in the spirit of cultivating your philosophical flourishing.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!