[Image-1]
I am so, so, SO, so sorry for daring to walk on the sidewalk! You see, I wasn’t aware that that particular bit of PUBLIC sidewalk wasn’t actually PUBLIC at all, and in fact belonged to you and your company! I should have realized that I had to ask your permission before walking on it, or that I had to wait while you took however fucking long it was that you were gonna take to move that giant ass thing you were moving, OR instead of waiting, just gone ahead and walked right into that inches deep puddle of mud that would have gotten my shoes completely wet and disgusting instead of just quickly walking by you on the sidewalk! That was really MY mistake, kind sir.
Thinking back, I really should have just gone ahead and done that, because right now I could be having SO much more fun cleaning mud and god knows what else off my shoes and my apartment and apologising to my building’s janitor for tracking all that throughout my building!
Gosh, I really, TRULLY, DEEPLY, am SO, SO, SOOOOO sorry!!! I’m such a fucking bitch! Ugh! Wow, don’t worry though, your sarcastic little fuckface sure taught me! I won’t ever dare to walk on a PUBLIC FUCKING SIDEWALK EVER again. —Go fuck yourself and your fucking fence, Asswhipe.
This article appears in Apr 23-29, 2015.
Why didn’t you walk through the mud and then track it into the business in question? The owner would have gotten the message.
WHAT IS “PUBLIC?”
“You see, I wasn’t aware that that particular bit of PUBLIC sidewalk wasn’t actually PUBIC at all, and in fact belonged to you and your company!” Go fuck yourself and your fucking fence, Asswhipe
Clearly, the issue turns on what is “public” and under what conditions it ceases to be so, if only temporarily. Greater purchase on the question would have been attained if some account had been afforded in respect to what that “giant ass thing” might have been. Was it someone’s iron lung, perhaps, the delivery of which one thinks would rightly require temporarily closing the sidewalk to pedestrian traffic. So that’s the first difficulty.
A second crops up with the signing of the bitch. Until hat point the reader was unaware of any “fucking fence” preventing such pedestrian traffic suggesting that the blockage was not caused by any emergency but rather was of an extended nature. This then raises the question of the fence itself. Was it a regular low wooden fence or just a rope barrier? In the case of the former, how did the bitcher proceed to walk on the sidewalk at all as she reports she did? Did she climbed over it, perhaps displaying a delightful flash of thigh? Further clarification is required here.
On the other hand, if the barrier were simply rope, she might have just lifted it up, stooped down, and proceeded along the sidewalk. But then this raises the question of the legality of the rope barrier blocking the sidewalk. Would it have satisfied the conditions of temporarily removing that part of the sidewalk from pedestrian use? Would it be legal to have removed that part of the sidewalk, albeit only temporarily, from being “public?” Once again, further clarification on this point is required.
Write back soon.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
Must be a MSVU grad – possibly a classmate of the current mod.
And how are the whippets, MM?
I accept your apology.
RSVPS
: Arf, Arf. Arf (9:55AM)
Wynnie is still in bed having her noon nap while Lily is watching TV in the next room. Both are doing very well, thanks very much.
: Willard (10:02AM)
That was very good Willard. It was you moving that bad ass thing. I should have known, you old bad ass.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
Bitcher here to clear up a few questions:
@Montrealman, the “giant ass thing” is in fact part of the fence itself, which was not blocking the sidewalk off, but was parallel to it, leaving a little over half the sidewalk available for pedestrian traffic. The fence was one of those giant ass things that construction companies put up when doing construction.
Furthermore, we are just coming out of a shit show of a winter, with temperatures still on the colder side, so alas I was moderately layered with the only skin showing being on my face and hands. But thank you for the completely unwarranted and unwanted sexualization of my body when I’m just trying to vent. Really just made my day!
As for your worries on the legality of the issue, might I suggest contacting one of our wonderful elected officials for clarification? And concerning your confusion on the meaning of the word “public”, I suggest consulting the dictionary, instead of burdening your fellow The Coast readers with having to explain what is actually a very simple concept, I should think. Unless you do in fact already know what it means, and your verbose rambling was actually an ill-conceived attempt at seeming philosophical? In which case, I’m afraid it didn’t work, and all you’ve managed to do is come off as a pompous asshole.
Cheerio!
^^^ Hear! Hear!
It seems that Pops is a bit of a perv in addition to being self-indulgently long winded at times. Good rant, SLS.
RSVP
:sarcastic little shit (4/28, 2:20AM)
My extended reply was deleted. Don’t know why.
Cheerio!
It’s this moderator. She’s crazed with power. A regular Caligulette, she is. The Madame Debarge of the keyboard, knitting joyfylly as bitchers are led to the guillotine.
You’ve got to be careful there, Philip. You never know when your turn will come. (By the way, I believe that should be Madame Dufarge, “La Tricoteuse.”)
“A POMPOUS ASSHOLE” : A POSTSCRIPT
As postscript to my deleted reply to “sarcastic little shit” (04/28, 10:05AM) in which she called me a “pompous asshole” I would like to draw her attention to the old saying, “All discourse is self-referential.” In the present instance it simply means that her calling me a “pompous asshole” says more about her than it does me. But I know that she will never understand this. Keep smiling!
Cheerio!
Montrealman, so your response is basically “I know you are, but what am I?”
“ALL DISCOURSE IS SELF-REFERENTIAL”
Well no, I wouldn’t say that my response was basically “I know you are but what am I?” Indeed, I’m not sure if I understand what you mean at all. In fact my “All discourse is self-referential” is not an “old saying” at all – I was just being humble – but the fact of the matter is that I coined it myself. So what does it mean?
It means that any assertion means two things, that to which the assertion refers and the mind of the one who makes the assertion. They are not the same thing. When someone asserts something – in philosophical parlance we call that “making a knowledge claim” – I look THROUGH the knowledge claim to the mind of the individual who makes it. In colloquial terms it usually takes the form, “Where is s/he coming from?” Where s/he is “coming from” is self-referential and it is upon that basis that I make my reply.
In your own case, by calling me a “pompous asshole,” I disregard the epithet itself and look THOUGH it at the mind of the person who uttered it. What sort of person, I ask myself, would call someone a “pompous asshole” without supporting the assertion with reasons? Clearly it is a slatternly remark tossed off by someone without reflection, probably by one who is used to the rough-and-tumble of coarse, gutter-type social interaction.
So there we are, my “All discourse is self-referential” in action.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
u mad bro?
One never gets “mad” contemplating the mind of another. It is an intellectual, not an emotional exercise. One must keep one’s categories separate if they are to be coherent.