L’Homme de Montreal, please go home

Ah, the forces of reaction in full throat! Of course, it was to be expected but it is also very ironic on a site which, or so I thought, permitted free and open discussion this side of libel. As I mentioned in my “Bitch” on the current page (see below) certain Respondents (rarely, if ever are they Bitchers themselves) are good at dishing it out but not so good at taking it.

A second point: It seems that the arbiters guarding the gates are in possession of the criteria as to what, in fact, constitutes a “Bitch.” It appears to have escaped them (if, that is, they were ever aware of the fact) that my “Bitch” was a “second-order one.” This is a philosophical term and, as such, entails a certain degree of intellectual awareness which my “targets” clearly possess only in very short supply. In other words, I was Bitching about a particular group of Responders whom I dubbed “the Redneck Strutters.” It seems to me that this qualifies as a “Bitch” albeit not of the pedestrian sort one usually encounters on this site.

So, Mr. Moderator and my dear friends in the Underclass, I await your decision.

Hello once again to my dear friends in the Underclass and, of course, many thanks for your kind words.

I note that we are now passing the 100 Comment mark which indicates, if nothing else, that opinion regarding my brilliant submissions is divided. The question which naturally arises as a result is this: Was I too precipitate in awarding stars as a “farewell gesture?” Was I closing the door too soon?

My concern, dear members of the Underclass, is not for me. No, it is for those among you – admittedly not great in number – who thirst for greater understanding of their social mileu in Halifax. For example, I was just about to broach the nub of the matter as contained in “The Grid” when I bid farewell. Did I snatch intellectual sustenance from those who clearly thirsted after it? Was I being selfish and uncaring about these tormented souls? These are matters for deep and sustained reflection. I am considering returning to the lists where I may continue to smite the Redneck Strutters.

I look for encouraging signs among the membership.

Cheerio!

Check that comment on “Camel Toes Complaint.” It just popped up on “Most Read” and guess where – right behind “Montrealman please go home!”

Can you believe it?

Cheerio!

“Intellect is dandy, but cleverness is handy.”

An interesting comment Kim, but I’m not sure what it means. Four apparently opposing concepts come into play: “Intellect” vs. “Cleverness” on the one hand and “Dandy” vs “Handy” on the other. I’m looking forward to you “unpacking” the concepts.

Cheerio!

“HOLY GROUND”

Hello Kim. Thanks for the reference to “You Are What You Eat” and my mission to “clean up the unwashed masses.” I guess that’s why I couldn’t find it on this thread.

Anyway, I’m having second thoughts about my second thoughts – does that make four thoughts? – and re-considering my “new” philosophical approach to this site. Let’s face it, “Bitch” is not any “Philosophers’ Circle” – far from it. The result is that it’s now time to revert to my original mission, that, as you put it, of “cleaning up the unwashed masses,” of smartly cuffing the Redneck Strutters when the occasion arises. However, the setting will be somewhat different.

How many Commenters on this site have a thread named in their honour? You’re right, none except for…. Montrealman! He has come to look upon this thread as his private property, as his “HOLY GROUND!” Any intruders on it, such as the cretinous zZz will get short shrift. However, this will not preclude Montrealman’s venturing out from the Holy Ground to smite the Strutters as they arise on other threads, as his inclination dictates.

Speaking of zZz, I was correct of course in my assessment that he is a typical Redneck Strutter. He combines the essential characteristics of inarticulacy and stupidity. Lacking the ability to give shape to his “thoughts” he resorts to posting an infantile link which, of course, is what one might expect given his minimal capacities. There are, of course, different qualities of links. Yours, for instance showed an amusing clip of Monty Python but that is clearly beyond zZz’s abilities. What a wanker.

Well, that’s the latest from the newly-established HOLY GROUND.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

The Holy Ground, February 24, 2011.

Two intruders have stumbled onto the Holy Ground, the Mutt and Jeff of “Bitch,” making their usual unwelcome appearance. (Kim, of course, is always welcome.) Montrealmamn will dispatch them without ceremony.

: The Appalling Buffoon (aka “Col” Ivan) at 9:05AM writes, in a burst of originality in reference to my reasoned, structured posts, that I have inadvertently proven that “brevity” is indeed “the soul of wit.” (No attribution; trouble with placement of quotation marks.) Two points come immediately to mind: (1) When wisdom is on offer, who cares about wit? Montrealman’s concern is with the former, not the latter. (2) Sadly, the Buffoon’s own attempt at wit falls far short – indeed he unaccountably threatens Montrealman with violence! The theme is carried over onto his link (12:25PM) portraying two men on a battlefield with apparently suppressed homo-erotic overtones. The image, of course, is immaterial. What is material is the nature of the mind behind the image. In standard psychological fashion, one may confidently assume that the Buffoon’s real life is far removed from the heroics of the battlefield. Indeed, I have him as a minor clerk in a seedy bookstore off Barrington St. the main feature of which is a soft-porn magazine stand in front of which old men in dirty raincoats foregather shortly after the premises are opened to be joined, shortly thereafter, by the Buffoon himself.

: Quelle suprise! The Simpleton (aka Hugo Phurst) is back up again with his usual bad taste comments but, after asserting that Bitch is no Philosophers’ Circle, inadvertently goes on to raise a philosophical issue. He claims that “I do not think it” (the honour of having a thread named after Montrealman) “means what you think it means.” The issue, of course, is the denotation of terms, the word-world relation. In his usual way, MontrealmanI constructed “honour” in its broad interpretetion, as a recognition for tasks admirably performed, rather than its narrow sense of simple adulation. This subtelty is obviously lost on the appropriately-named Simpleton. He also posts a link (12:45PM) which, like that of the Buffoon, is of interest only in relation to the psychological fantasy it portrays. We see a picture of a Big Bad Man and, of course, can confidently assume that the Simpleton in real life is a small, innocuous individual of indeterminate sexuality, perhaps the victim of a wasting disease like spina bifida.

Don’t forget to close the door quietly as you leave, boys.

: Kim’s link (12:13PM), by contrast, portrays a very humourous “King of the Castle” in the person of a deranged Henry VIII. Well done Kim!

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

The Holy Ground, February 25, 2011.

Just a quick peek into the mailbag.

: “Col.” Ivan Sonovabitch: “Two Bawds in a Chalice?” A delightful melange of theology and lust, although it does sound a bit crowded. Small Bawds or big Chalce? Anyway, I’m on! Another cheque is in the mail!

: The Psycho (aka Hugo Phurst): Like the French defender of the castle in Kim’s wonderful video – “I blow my nose at him!” Then, as in the other one, I’ll hit him with my metal gauntlet.

: Guerilla Funk: Stay with it, Funk. Good things are never easy but I can see you’re trying. Effort is everything.

: TTFN: No dear, you haven’t been there, to say nothing of having done that. Do you realize that Descartes was a… a dualist? Very passé, TTFN. Not really “au courant” in current philosophy but, what can I tell you?

Do you realize that we have just surpassed the sadly deleted “Do Your Job HRM” which topped out at 182 comments and which featured Montrealman’s inimitable Bitches? Gone, but not forgotten.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

Sorry, that should read “Kim” (8:19PM) and not “Donk” who was snacking on popcorn while watching the Psycho’s slide show.

Cheerio!

The Holy Ground, February 26, 2011

: To Oceanchick (12:02PM) – Now you stop that, Oceanchick, you stop it right now. The comment about “spina bifida” was not, of course, meant as an insult to those suffering from the condition but simply as an observation, an attempt to visualize the individual who would post something like the Psycho did. The picture I came up with was along the lines of Quasimodo in “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” but of course other visualizations might well be more fitting. Oceanchick, I want you to choose the condition of your preference. How do YOU visualize the Psycho? Be honest, be forthright but, of course, not vulgar. Post your thoughts when ready.

: To Kim (1:45PM) – I suppose the question comes down to what, exactly, your “pleasure IS dependent on.” I, for one, would be very interested in knowing this, Kim. You can be daring, even intimate but, unlike the Psycho, never vulgar. There are, of course, no restrictions as to the length of your relpy. Start now.

: To TTFN (2:28PM)- Would that be 1676 when you cancelled your subscription to “Philosophical Quarterly?” Descartes had been around until fairly recently and may well have had something published that year. He would have been big in 1676. Write back providing details but avoid vulgarity. Good video and a good idea – I think I might start an Argument Clinic but I suppose you would want to dispute that.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

REFLECTIONS ON THE CUNT: A PHILOLOGICAL APPROACH

“Onomatopoeia; Formation of names of words from sounds that resemble those associated with the object or action to be named, or seem naturally suggestive of its qualities.” (The Concise Oxford Dictionary)

The recent flap over the Psycho’s post featuring a penis attached to the nose of a dead animal stimulated further reflection on those words referring to the sex organs, in this case the female external organs. In contrast to the Psycho’s post, however, the present study avoids all charges of vulgarity since its focus is not necrophiliac titillation but rather a philological and, by extenson philosophical, reflection on the denotation the word “cunt.” In my view, the “cunt” is, in philosophical terms, “under-theorized” and the following constitutes a first step in bringing it up to academic respectability.

As the definition of “onomatopoeia” suggests, certain words resemble those things or actions they denote. I maintain that “cunt” has this onomatopoeiac quality whereas, for example, “penis” does not. “Cunt” immediately evokes visions of a crevice, a crack, a slit in the same way that a “sneeze” evokes a rapid expulsion of air from the mouth or “fart” a rapid expulsion of air from the anus. (However, the French for fart – “pet,” the same as our household animal – does not have the same robust quality as its English counterpart which indicates either that the French fart more discretely or that onomatopoeia is language-specific.)

In any case,the philological point is that words possessing onomatopoeiac qualities like “cunt” have greater rhetorical power which, however, declines with frequent usage. Look at the word “fuck” on this site. While it is debatable the extent to which fuck posseses onomatopoeiac qualities to the same degree as cunt – does “fuck” automatically evoke the action named? – its frequent use has drained it of most, if not all, of its rhetorical force. So the take-away lesson here is to restrict the use of “cunt” if its onomatopoeiac qualities are to remain intact.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

“There’s that darn word again {as puss hides}.” Puss n Boots (March 10, 4:36PM)

You wouldn’t mean “cunt” by any chance would you Puss? And no, I’m not going to let you get away with “pussy” either.

Why do you want to hide Puss? Do you have issues with your genitalia? Talk to us about your cunt, Puss. Put it on the table, so to speak.

Cheerio!

FINAL REFLECTIONS ON THE CUNT: (2) TAKING THE CUNT SERIOUSLY

“Man is the measure of all things, of things that are that they are, and of things that are not that they are not.” (Protagoras)

First of all let me say how delighted I am to be back on my own thread. Readers may have noted that Montrealman became side-tracked onto “When no means yes” where he nearly became feminized and co-opted, where he nearly lost his mojo and came close to being sucked up into the … well, never mind. Anyway, nothing is lost since he can now pick up the thread (little joke there) and can now continue with the second instalment of his masterpiece, “Final Reflections on the Cunt.”

My title, “Taking the Cunt Seriously,” is a little joke as well. The word “seriously” is often used by po-faced philosophers who want us to know that they are, well, taking their topic seriously. How else is one supposed to take their topic? I remember being at a conference where one of the speakers, with a straight face, actually used the word. One looked at him with incredulity. What an arse.

Anyway, I have opened with a quotation from the Sophist Protagoras, the famous “Man is the measure of all things.” My reason for doing this is to illustrate, for doubters, the “reach” of philosophy. Indeed, in a general sort of way, Protagoras may well have a bearing on our topic, the Cunt. (I’m going to capitalize the “Cunt” in future to indicate its importance.) Russell (that’s Bertrand, you wanker) claims that Protagoras was a relativist, i.e., that is that he maintained that there is no objective truth independent of what anyone happens to think. However, I’m not so sure if that’s the only reading. While, admittedly, it can be read that way, I read it to mean that there is nothing, not even even the Cunt, which is alien to man. All life, in other words, falls within philosophy’s “reach,” everything is fair game for philosophical reflection.

My next point is to refine just what we mean by the cunt as a physical object. Kim suggested that it is the semantic equivalent of the vagina, but I claim it is much more than this. For example, one doesn’t ordinarily say, “You vagina!” There is obviously a connotative dimension to the “Cunt” that goes beyond its purely denotative function. Speaking of its dentotative function, the French term is “la plotte” but this has a different meaning. It refers to the general area of the groin which includes, but is not limited to, the Cunt. The Cunt, then, can be taken as that area extending around the peritoneum, beginning with the Mons Veneris in the front and extending nearly to the anus in the back. It consists of two rows of the labia majora with the tip(s) of the labia minora peeking out to varying degrees.

But our mission lies at the connotative level. What, particularly for the female, is the meaning of the cunt? In a way, Montrealman is a feminist since he wants to lift the oppressive yolk of the Cunt from womens’ shoulders. He wants to set them free. But to do this, it will be necessary to confront the Cunt, to face it squarely. But that must wait for the next time.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

I started doing some research on the Cunt in classical literature but, in spite of the fact my post on the topic was deleted, I grew increasingly bored with the whole business. Since, in addition to deconstructing the female gender as based on the biological reality of the Cunt, my goal was also to induce terminal boredom with the term in Bitchland so that it would become domesticated and run-of-the-mill. Such was my success in this effort that I became the victim of my own strategy. I became bored out of my mind and so I now can truly say, “Mission Accomplished!”

Pretty Kitty: You must stop laughing like that. It sounds like you might be losing it. You don’t happen to have a Blue Waffle, do you?

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!