To all the ‘bitchers’ out there that claim to have their day ruined by simple insignificant things, such as: your coffee being made wrong or someone giving you the finger in traffic… Here is a reality check for you! Today my friend had to remove her 20 year old daughter from life support after a terrible car accident 2 weeks ago… Think about having to wake up and make that decision before you think that you have had a bad start to your day! —Heart Broken
This article appears in Aug 11-17, 2011.
My reality check’s been going on for six years with a disabled Hub-Unit who struggles with each step he takes. I wish to fuck I had something petty to complain about.
I’m so sorry to hear about your friends’ loss, OP. That is a terrible TERRIBLE thing for any parent to have to do. We have friends of the family who lost a daughter at the age of three as well as their other daughter at the age of 23. It’s been a few years, but they still seem devastated. They only had two children and now they’re childless.
One thing I will mention though, is that some of us complain about petty things because it helps us forget about the big things. That’s kinda how I operate — I’m wonderful in a crisis and I really don’t bitch about the major things, but it’s the little things that get to me. I guess I’d rather get pissy about something that’s not really important in the grand scheme of things than something major because that would just be too hard.
Again, condolences to your friend and her family.
Just because I’m bitching about coffee doesn’t mean I don’t have loved ones dropping dead around me.
Reality is, things get to us.
Do you want this board to be all “my kid died today” posts? It’s. A. Message. Board. On. The. Internet.
There’s gonna be dumb shit, serious shit, and shit that you don’t understand.
Nice TrollTry at making us feel bad.
Remember after 9/11 when actors said “we are so unimportant, what we do is frivolity”?
I called bullshit. The arts(even acting) are vital to how we view our place in the universe, and can be tied up into the fabric of our sadly short lives.
Yes, a kid dying sucks. It wasn’t my kid(and anyway, I’ve seen my mortality in it’s tenuousness, and have people dying around me- I GET IT!). letting off a bit of steam is important for people, in all forms. Having a virtual group of friends is important to some people.
Things that you consider frivolous in the face of a family losing a child, are not unimportant just because YoU say they are.
Sincere condolences to the family, but you go fuck yourself, OP.
Jesus I’m in a mood today.
People die every day, and you chew chewing gum? How can you chew chewing gum at a time like this?(fart noise)
Wheels, I’m going to send molly over to your crib, man. She’s pretty darn insistent herself today! Sounds like you two would get along swimmingly! 😉
While I am in no way, making light of your friend’s situation or suggesting that it is anything less than what it is, (a tragedy. No parent should have to make the decision your friend did), I feel like I should put my 2 cents in towards your post. I understand what you’re saying, “Before you start bitching about something that could be considered relatively insignificant in the grand scheme of things, remember that things could be much, much worse.” There is nothing wrong with a reality check every once in awhile. And you’re right, things could be much, much worse. We could all be living in a 3rd world country where you don’t know where your next meal is coming from. We could all be living in a war zone where you live in constant fear of being killed. Or in your case, we could have to make an impossible decision – to take a loved one off of life support. (Again, not making light. My sincere condolences). Or, we could all live in a country or under the rule of a dictatorship gov’t where we are not allowed to publically express our feelings, emotions or opinions. Aren’t we lucky that we have that right here. That we live in a society that allows such things as free and open forum discussion, (like this Bitch board), and comments without fear of persecusion, (except maybe from Lord Suckulous lol teasing), detention, or death. Aren’t we so very lucky that we can come on here and basically say whatever the hell we want, (loosely within the bounds of reason and good taste. I know, those boundaries are pretty fluid here sometimes) It’s freedom of speech at it’s best. So, while you may see it as people being petty and griping about things that have no value or significance, I see it as people celebrating the fact that things could be much, much worse and so, are taking full advantage of this fact. That’s how I see it, anyhow.
Everything is relative.
that has to be the worst thing a parent can have to do. i could never even think of putting myself in their place, not for one second.
i sincerely hope, that the time, will never come for me to do this, because i know, i won’t have the guts to do it.i empathize with your friend here, and yes, every other thing in this world is just trivial to that scenario. i’m sorry for their family, hope they have the strength and stamina to get past this, and move on with their decision.
yeah, that would be a hard thing to do o.p., just be glad, it wasn’t you that had to pull the plug.dying and death is a bitch, in reality. and some should go, but not the ones that have not did any wrong or the innocent.
but we are left to mourn, sometimes forever. my own self included. my first wife died in a car crash years ago, and it still bothers me at christmas today.
drunk driving, should get you 25 years automatically in jail.
http://wiki.urbandead.com/images/5/57/EatB…
they have plenty of fresh meat there,
The crematorium always over-cooks my top sirloin steak though.
I asked for medium rare, not burned to a fucking ash.
Hopefully she had a private life insurance policy.
TTFN, you do have something petty to complain about. You just fucking posted it the other day. Did you forget about your fucking banjo already? That stuff was really life and death!
http://southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com/ima…
Same here, PK. I pride myself on being able to handle really shitty, stressful and dangerous situations really well but I’ve always let little things piss me off, not being able to find something (like my keys, oh fuck that really burns me) has always been one thing that gets me goin. I’ve been working on it though, and trying to live a more positive life. OP’s right, don’t sweat the small stuff.. and it’s all small stuff!
My condolences OP, I lost a friend in a car accident a few years ago, she was only 21, and she was one of the most amazing people I’ve ever known. I’ve seen how her death changed everyone’s everything forever, and just typing about it is making me sad as we speak. I wasn’t even all THAT close to her either. You never get over that kind of thing, you just try to get through it.
On the other hand if I want to bitch about coffee or bus drivers or whatever small petty thing I want to get off my chest I’m not going to feel guilty about it just because there is some real shit going on somewhere in the world.
I see your point though OP.
In the grand scheme of things my coffee being screwed up, getting flipped off in traffic or whatever else really isn’t that big of a deal.
While none of us are discounting what your friend is going through the reality is things irk us. And those small things seem much bigger at times when they happen first thing in the morning. You mess with my cuppa java I’ll mess with you.
I am not at all saying that my screwed up coffee in anyway compares to the anguish your friends are going through. What I am saying is day to day shit bothers people, some more than others. And given the nature of this board you are going to get serious bitches and some not so serious bitches.
My sincere condolences to your friend. I do not envy the position they are in. That is a decision no parent should ever have to make.
Let me start by saying I’m sorry for her loss, nobody deserves to have their life cut short, and a decision like that weighs heavy on the soul.
Let me finish by saying;
Ok captain buzzkill, thanks for pointing out that people have real problems. We’ve all seen family members die, had family members be hurt in accidents, get sick and spend time in the hospital. But belittling someone for not having “big” problems is just plain fucking rude. I don’t think the purpose of this site was to be all serious, it’s meant to be a humorous outlet to everyday occurrences that piss people off. If she takes offense to this site, then maybe she should write a bitch about it not you.
i’m sort of with stephen harper on this one.. life is a series of small irritations punctuated by one or two huge tragedies. And hopefully a lot of small stuff in between.
It’s like saying “Who cares that you found ten bucks on the sidewalk today?? MY friend won the lottery” Your stuff is your stuff. Doesn’t do any good to compare it.
THE CONCEPT OF “BITCH”
The OP clearly does not understand the concept of “Bitch”. Well, what IS the concept of “Bitch”? I’m glad you asked.
The concept of Bitch is not, as is apparently supposed by some previous commenters on this thread, directly a matter of topic. The criteria of topic selection can vary from the serious – yes, even the philosophical! – to the trivial and fatuous. The central criterion, however, is that the Bitch illustrates a failure of responsibility or accountability on the part of those targeted in the Bitch. In one way or another blame can be apportioned to those who have violated an aspect of some unspoken code of acceptable behaviour. This often results in Bitches relating to etiquette, manners, or common consideration to be shown to others. So, the Bitch immediately preceding yours concerned throwing a water balloon from a car at innocent bystanders while the Bitch immediately following concerned the failure of the mother to control her screaming child. Both cases point to a failure to accept responsibility for their behaviour.
However in cases like yours no such criteria exist. They are either “acts of God” about which it is absurd to post a Bitch or suffering on a large scale brought on by the stupidity of man. For example, a Jew posting a Bitch about the conditions in Treblinka would fall outside the criteria governing the concept of “Bitch”. The moderator would, no doubt, reject his Bitch.
So there we are. Philosophy to the rescue as always!
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
1st year philosophy bores me!!
RSVs
: Stephen Harper (Aug 17, 7:15PM) – Really Stephen, is that true? As a matter of interest, could you possibly indicate what you have in mind by “1st year philosophy?” Take your time, Stephen.
And when you’ve finished Stephen, could you possibly explain why, using examples of course, just why you’re “bored”? Are your philosophical insights perhaps drawn from 2nd year philosophy? Take your time, Stephen. Help us all to understand, Stephen. Help us all to climb that mountain.
We’ll be waiting Stephen, but really, we both know better, don’t we. There will be no coherent response will there Stephen because, quite simply, you are neither sufficiently capable nor intelligent.
Say goodnight, Stephen.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Well montrealman, I suppose you’re right, I do lack a certain intellect and I digress that you are much smarter, more handsome, morally richer and just plain better than I am in virtually every way. Oh but wait… I never professed to be anything other than “regular”, that’s just who I am. Guess what? I’m not rich either. But thank you very much for implying that I have many shortcomings.
I get bored by reading your long winded explanations, of your explanations, about why you think a certain way by giving me definitions of words I already know the meaning of. You don’t come off as super intelligent as you think you do, you just sound condescending. You seem to think you are addressing a group of ill attentive grade 6’s. You see, I can form an opinion on something I read in a bitch forum without resorting to text book philosophically formulaic responses. Yup, that’s right, little Stevie took philosophy as an elective, but I have since shaved off my thinking beard and hung up my tweed sportscoat, because the only person who likes philosophers is other philosophers. So I guess I shall now bow to your superiority…
But thanks for coming out
Always a pleasure
Cheerio
SHITD, I could not have said it better myself x 3
Lolz ‘Stevie’ 😉
When I first read annie, I thought he was a sophomore, does this mean that I have a higher opinion of Montremoleman than you do?…naaahh.
RSVPs
: Stephen Harper (Aug. 17, 9:54PM) – Oh dear, oh dear. One hoped for something better from Stephen than a knee-jerk “ad hominem” attack but it seems it was not to be. None of my queries was addressed, just a series of personal insults. You really should ask for you money back for that “elective” philosophy course Stephen since, in addition to having learned no philsophy, either from a substantive or methodological perspective, your professor failed dismally in his task of demanding “No ad hominem attacks!” I never reply to such attacks, of course, not because I am not able but simply because they are irrelevant to the matter under discussion. However, as an observation, it is standardly the case that it is not the target of such attacks who suffers from the conditions which are so deplored by the attacker but rather the attacker himself. In other words, Stephen, it is you and not me who suffers from those deficits in humility.
However, as an indication of my magnaminity, I want you to know that I stand ready to engage in substantive philosophical debate should you so wish, assuming of course that you are able (admittedly a large assumption).
: Tommyjules (1028PM) – No, I don’t suppose you could and, of course my reply to Stephen applies equally to you. Read it over carefully to yourself, Tommy, and try to avoid moving your lips.
: The Turd – Oh, forget it. No point.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Stephen has a way with “knee-jerk” responses. I’ll give you that much MM.
“No point.” – Of course you don’t have a point, everyone knows that you’re blunt in form, and rounded at the extremity.
As William James would say, your “stream of consciousness” more resembles a puddle.
I am truely humbled. I didn’t realize that I had to submit a paper to be graded by you professor MM. I see by the length and girth that my intellectual penis is much smaller than yours. I just don’t appreciate the way you hide behind the guise of intellectual debate to insult someone or make them feel inferior. This is an opinion based forum, and everyone is ENTIGHTLED to have their opinion no matter how ridiculous it seems to anyone else. I don’t feel I need to have someone quote things I have written and be belittled by someone who believes they are your intellectually superior.
As for ad hominem attacks, I do believe that you threw the first stone in the sluts bitch, you advised me that “I would make a good cop in Toronto” as per my response, or actually providing a situation where actions may lead to rape. Since that comment I read your comments/insults with reserved skeptasizm of the intention you portray.
I believe you see your education as a weapon with which to attack peoples intellectual inferiority. Your self proclaimed superiority makes you think that people don’t understand your “pokes” be we do, we all do. I don’t believe myself to be any more intelligent than anyone else on the board, and I admit that your educational background is much more diverse. That does not make you any more intelligent than anyone else, just more educated. It’s too bad they don’t teach class in philosophy.
“I believe you see your education as a weapon with which to attack peoples intellectual inferiority.” MM has a way in making one feel small. I’ll give you that much Stephen.
RSVPs
: Donk (Aug. 18, 10:08 & 11:35AM) – Donk, you are a Solomon-like equal-opportunity “giver.” That must be why we all love you.
: The Turd (11:30AM) – Would James really have said that?
: Stephen Harper (11:18AM) – Stephen, you’ve got to stop those “ad hominem” attacks which emerge solely from your fevered imagination. Any criticism I may make is always firmly based on textual evidence, even the “Toronto cop” bit. Always give grounds, Stephen, give reasons that are publicly accessible. My offer, of course, still stands.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
“Would James really have said that?” – Sure, why not? You’re shallow and stagnant 🙂
I’ll take it MM.
“We’ll be waiting Stephen, but really, we both know better, don’t we. There will be no coherent response will there Stephen because, quite simply, you are neither sufficiently capable nor intelligent.”
“However, as an indication of my magnaminity, I want you to know that I stand ready to engage in substantive philosophical debate should you so wish, assuming of course that you are able (admittedly a large assumption).”
“: Tommyjules (1028PM) – No, I don’t suppose you could and, of course my reply to Stephen applies equally to you. Read it over carefully to yourself, Tommy, and try to avoid moving your lips”
I guess those would not be personal attacks, or implications of intellectual shortcomings, but maybe I’m not capable nor intelligent enough to make that distinction. Perhaps in your infinite wisdom you can guide me as to where I can find out exactly what these compliments mean.
I myself can admit that after your first provocation I insulted the shit out of you, because I think you’re a smug little douchebag with a superiority complex. This is why I will decline your invitation for a philosophical debate with you on any topic.
RSVPs
: Stephen Harper (Aug. 18, 8:33PM) – Two points, Stephen: (1) In philosophical debates, or any other kind for that matter, it is (or should be) the issue itself and not the personalities of the debators which is of central concern, and (2) such personalities (abilities, intelligence, etc.) become legitimate targets only when responding to ad hominem attacks and even then only when supported by direct textual evidence, i.e., a posted Comment in the present context. Montrealman never engages in #2 except when responding to insults or ridicule, and even then only when supported by direct textual evidence or which can be clearly inferred from that evidence. Let’s look at #1 first.
(1) The issue here goes back to your first post in which you said, “1st year philosophy bores me.” The debate, in other words, was started by you. Being involved with philosophy, which I consider the most central aspect of human existence, my first reaction was: “OK, Stephen, now let’s hear your support for the claim.” Why did it bore you? Was it the nature of philosophy itself? In that case, what do you understand by philosophy? Let’s hear it, Stephen. Or were you only bored with 1st year philosophy and would have preferred a more sophisticated level. Well, let’s hear that then Stephen. Or still further, perhaps the failing lay with you. Boredom usually results from the inability to see the point of something, from a failure to understand it. Did you fail to see the point of philosophy Stephen? Then let’s hear what you think. These questions would have been my focus, but you didn’t respond with your reflections on the issue – your boredom with philosophy. You immediately replied with an ad hominem attack on me. Okay, I can go that route too, Stephen.
2. (a) You make reference to my “neither sufficiently capable not intelligent” and “large assumption” comments. You want to play ad hominem, okay Stephen, let’s play. The difference between you and me, however, is that I had a textual basis for my comments (Aug. 17, 7:15PM; Aug. 17, 9:54PM; Aug. 18, 11:19AM). I wasn’t just spinning unfounded comments out of my head. They were based on the Comment transcript. Black and white. Scroll back and read them, Stephen.
(b) The “without moving your lips” comment made to Tommyjules. Tommy was just cheerleading you Stephen. It was a cheap ride, so Montrealman thought he’d give him a taste of that old Montrealman humour. I thought it was pretty funny Stephen, but I guess you didn’t. I guess Tommy didn’t either since he didn’t bounce back. But there’s also a serious message here as well – Montrealman’s posts are always layered, always textured, Stephen. Don’t just cheerlead Tommy, don’t just pile on, that is if you want to stay out of the line of fire.
So now, as you conclude Stephen, I’m just a “smug little douchebag with a superiority complex.” Things haven’t changed much, have they Stephen. But philosophically, you’re just spinning your wheels. No traction, no discussion of the issue. You do understand that, don’t you Stephen. I guess the only thing that remains is whether or not you will be nominating me for the 2011 Golden Douche Award. Write back soon, Stephen. Don’t keep me in suspense.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Actually the central aspect of human existence is “survival” closely followed by procreation of the species. I don’t think philosophy is central to anything but your own ego.
To address my comment, “1st year philosophy bores me”, it was not an attack but my attempt at humor which you obviously took to heart and decided the appropriate way to address it was to demean me my implying that I was stupid, which I guess would in turn make you my intellectual superior. I guess I misread that because personal attacks are beneath you, thus making you morally superior to me. Those are not personality traits that you are questioning, those are personal attacks that a type A personality uses to establish dominance. Thus the attack on your superiority complex. The fact that the first thing you attack is someones intelligence in my opinion is a douche move. The purpose of philosophy is not to make people feel less intelligent, it is to inspire thought in a methodical manner, thus my comment about you using your education as a weapon. The same basic principle is applied in martial arts, you do not take martial arts to pick fights.
The way to spark philosophical debate is not to first insult intelligence, or establish dominance, it is the fine art of inspiring thought, with that comes a responsibility to respect opinions other than your own, which you clearly do not. Thus making you a self appointed authority, which is clearly not the point of any philosophical debate. Which part of a meeting of minds coming together to establish a prognosis for the greater good of humanity did you missunderstand? There are no winners in philosophy, just participants. I am sure that anyone who has taught you would be very disappointed with how you use the knowledge they have bestowed upon you.
RSVPs
MONTREAL MAN’S PEDAGOGY
: Stephen Harper (Aug.19, 12:01PM) – Good evening Stephen. Thanks for your thoughts. I guess the best approach would be to take your points in serial order. Let me know if I have missed any.
– You claim that, in contrast with philosphy, that “survival” and “procreation” are the “central aspects of human existence.” But note that I said “human” Stephen. Your criteria, while true, apply only to cattle or to the beasts of the field, not to humans. Could our present dialogue, for example, be reduced to questions of “survival” or “procreation?” Think about it Stephen.
– Stephen, as I thought I made clear in my last post, one must distinguish between ideas and the one who holds them. I wasn’t critcizing you personally, (your “personality traits”) only your ideas as I understood them.
– Clearly, I didn’t understand that your assertion to the effect that you found 1st year philosophy “boring.” It seems that it was your “attempt at humor.” So the entire dialogue which ensued was misconceived.
– However, “Montrealman’s pedagogy” – see the title of this post – was very successful. It is a pedagogy of provocation, the pedagogy of the Socratic gadfly and it resulted in the lengthiest philosophical dialogue on “Bitch,” as far as I am aware. Congratulations Stephen!
By the way, what about my nomination for the 2011 Golden Douche Awards?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
SHITD – Your noon-time post, very well said. BZ.
By chance, did I detect just the slightest amount of ironic mockery?
Montremoleman, I fancy myself to be a bit of an amature anthropologist, so I definately have to side with SHITD, the primary function of all living things (Humans most definately included), is the continuation of the species.
Your assertion is just another inane proclamation, and a fine example of your NPD.
“By the way, what about my nomination for the 2011 Golden Douche Awards?” – It’s done. I e-mailed Big, he says you’re a shoe-in with 28 nominations.
RSVPs
MORE ON MONTREALMAN’S PEDAGOGY
: Stephen Harper (Aug. 19, 12:01PM) – “The way to spark philosophical debate (consists of) the fine art of inspiring thought…”
Stephen, this is very true but it presupposes some conception of just what that “fine art” might consist. Unfortunately you did not elaborate but you still may want to give it a shot.
As I said in my last post, my methodology is that of the “Socratic gadfly” which boils down to asking those two old questions, “What do you mean?” and “How do you know?” Those two questions will lay bare the philosophical landscape of your interlocutor. However, this Socratic questioning requires a context. What, then is the context of “Bitch?”
The context of “Bitch,” among other things, is its rigorous egalitarianism. Woe to him who “puts on airs,” who considers himself “superior.” This predictably incites a blind rage in the breast – breasts if they are female – of the usual Bitch commenter. Of course, in my pedagogy, this just what I play to. My background in philosophy and linguistic facility enables me to “carry it off.” I draw them out and, ideally, make them reflect on their philosophical presuppositions. If you like, I am their Socratic “midwife.” Stephen, how did it feel “giving birth?” Was I gentle enough?
An important note. I mentioned before that my posts were textual or “layered.” My Socratic midwifery is not just a game. It ultimately has a serious purpose. It is intended to listen to the mind of my interlocutor at work in his words all with the goal, in dialogue, of achieving philosophical understanding. That, in a nutshell, is why I am on this site. To listen to the minds of the commenters at work in their words.
Now, Stephen, would you call that “the fine art of inspiring thought?” Say “Yes” Stephen.
: The Turd (9:17PM) – You must understand that philosophy and anthropology have different epistemic criteria the discovery of which, while the natural product of the first, are beyond the competence of the second.
Many thanks for your nomination for the 2011 Golden Douche Awards but since I am on the Selection Committee, together with Donairious, I must decline your kind offer.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Ok, thanks Yoda, your humble student awaits your further instruction. If and when you can use your midwifery skills to birth your head from your ass, let me know.
There is no possible way that none of the points that I have made, and none of my opinions are valid. That in itself would be a statistical anomily, even a broken clock is right twice a day. It’s too bad your own arrogance stands in the way of you seeing the world through the eyes of anyone but your own. There is one thing I will say, you are doing a great job of making yourself out to be a even bigger ass than i had originally thought possible.
Congratulations on your nomination, or should I say, congratulations on the ability to remove yourself from contention by conflict of interest. I’m sure that someone in your self absorbed state will be able to justify your actions.
RSVPs
: Stephen Harper (Aug.21, 11:02) – Good evening Stephen, and thank you for your thoughts. I enjoyed looking at your mind at work in your words. A couple of preliminary remarks before addressing a comment that may have some philosophical interest.
I’m afraid the reference to “Yoda” lacked its intended impact since I am only very vaguely aware of who he is or was. You might like to bring me up to speed.
I did enjoy you reference to “birthing my head out of my ass,” a very humourous reference to my acting as “Socratic midwife” to your philosophical presuppositions. However, I found your last sentence, the one about my self-absorption enabling me to justify my actions (declining the nomination for the Golden Douche Awards) incoherent since it was the result of a conflict of interest and had nothing to do with my “self-absorption” as you seem to suggest. But maybe I missed something.
But my main interest relates to your claim that my arrogance prevented me from “seeing the world through the eyes of anyone but your own.” This, of course, is the old charge of solipsism but the difficulty is just how else are we to “see the world?” Stephen, do you see the world through eyes other than your own? Does it make sense to say that you do? In other words Stephen, what becomes of your own eyes when you are seeing the world with other eyes than your own? Does this make any sense or are we all solipsists, including you? Or, more likely, is your charge of solipsism simply incoherent?
Write back with your thoughts. I look forward to looking at your mind at work in your words.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Well… I would argue that every time you read a book, wether it be fiction, non fiction or biography, you see the world through the authors eyes. Possibly I should have said due to your arrogance you choose not to see the world through anyone elses eyes. That is the purpose of the written word, to portray a vision by the author to the reader. Needless to say I think your argument is a little childish, but that’s what I have come to expect.
Monsieur, would you mind taping all of your rants/discussions/lectures and send them to me so I can have something beautiful to fall asleep to at night instead of Seinfeld? I do love that George but he makes it hard to sleep, same with absolute silence.
RVPs
: Stephen Harper (Aug. 22, 11:58AM)
Good afternoon Stephen. Thank you once again for your thoughts. I was taking your comment about “seeing the world through another’s eyes” in a deep phosophical sense, i.e. assuming the world-view of one’s interlocutor as one’s own and necessariy discarding one’s own since, by definition, one cannot, simultaneously have two (possibly conflicting) world views. Of course one maintains one’s own world view when one reads a book. It would be incoherent to suggest that one loses one’s idetity (i.e. one’s world view) when one happens to read a book. This is, of course, only a very profoundly diminished sense of a world view.
So it seems that I am to be condemned for “childishnss” as well as “arrogance.” Is there no limit to my infamy? Any chance of a definition (and illustrations) of the latter? Write back and let me listen to your mind at work in your words.
: Depeche Mel (1:06PM) – They’re on their way!
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
have you met laerrus monsieur?
I could send you a pic of a horses ass (that’s where the poop comes out), but I’m sure someone claiming your level of pragmatism can summon the mental picture and come to your own conclusion. For someone of your intelligence, you seem to need to be spoon fed a lot of relatively simple information.
RSVPs
: Paingirl (Aug 22, 3:40PM) – “laerrus”?
: Stephen Harper (4:14PM) – Good evening Stephen, and thank you once again for your thoughts. It was a pleasure listening to your mind at work in your words.
I note that I made a mistake – yes, Stephen a mistake! – when I reversed the order of “arrogance” and “childishness.” I have been accused of many things but childishness was never one of them and it was this I asked you to define and give examples of. This might have led you astray and for which you gave the murky example of the “horse’s ass.” But it seems to me that you did not respond to my distinction between those “other eyes” conceived in terms of a philosophical “world-view” (or, as we say in German, “ein Weltanschauung”) and those “other eyes” conceived in the diminished sense of sharing the views of an author of a particular book. I look forward to your thoughts on this distinction, Stephen.
But your most wounding comment, Stephen, was your reference to me as “someone claiming your level of pragmatism.” My God, Stephen, me a pragmatist? I can see that we have a long way to go, Stephen. You might start by explicating your concept of Pragmatism (yes, capital “P”). I look forward to listening to your mind at work in your words on this topic, Stephen.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
annie – This is a song from my youth, what do you think of it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiimzQ0KqBA…
Why did god give seagulls wings???
To beat the Frenchmen to the dump.
I grow bored with this conversation. Maybe I’ll go read something more interesting… Like Spanish instructions on how to use my toaster. *yawn*
Paingirl: Never fucking speak my name again.
OP: Sorry to hear that, and you make a perfect point.
Also:
I can’t believe you sick fucks are Trolling this thread.
May Karma fist your asshole till it blows in the wind.
http://karmadogs.org/
That’s right PG, the punishment for saying surreal backwards is a public stoning followed by cocktails and hors d-ouevres, you’ve been warned.
By the way, surreal flipped, do you know little Charlie Manson got his followers to butcher a pregnant woman and they did it because they thought he was so wise. Just food for thought.
I thought the penalty for apostasy at the Spahn Ranch was to have to listen to the White Album WITHOUT benefit of consciousness-altering substances. After that fifth “Number Nine” you’d be begging for the cleansing fire, and lots of it. Fortunately our Painey is a good witch and impervious to such torments. Plus, you can build a bridge out of her. *cackle*
RSVPs
: The Turd (Aug 22, 8:05PM) – Your question as to what do I think of “The Dark Side of the Moon” is incoherent because, as far as I can see, it has no thought content. By definition, one cannot think of something which is conceptually empty.
: Stephen Harper (8:05PM; 8:27PM; 8:30PM) – “I grow bored with this conversation.” Stephen, review my post on “boredom” (Aug. 19, 10:22AM). Stephen, in addition to the fact that you are slipping philosophically – a sign of an enfeebled intelligence – it is very bad form to pompously announce the status one’s emotional states, particulary for one who prides himself on his humility (a little paradox there Stephen – do you see it?).
: laerrus (Aug.23, 5:40AM; 5:44AM) – I briefly checked out Paingirl’s query about “laerrus” (Aug 22, 8:54AM) and came to the following conclusion(s): 1. That laerrus is irrational is incontestable. His posts, while full of furious energy, completely lack rational thought (i.e. coherent reasons for what he “thinks”); (2) His messianiac pronouncements – he claims to have seen the “Other Side” on the basis of which he will correct the world’s problems – clearly mark him as a psychotic; (3) The only question which remains is the methods he will employ. If laerrus is indeed a pathological psychotic, such methods might well resemble those of the Oslo shooter. Laerrus might take his hunting rifle up to a prepared position on the top of the Lord Nelson Hotel from which he will have a clear field of fire down Spring Garden Road. Watch this man! Do not correspond with him since, as with psychotics generally, this only increases their rage.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Thank you for your reply annie. If you don’t mind, critique these also, please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPD7_hQk7hk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP39YAUdUXQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww5DJjiH_zQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkfSHKx_WHQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHAA82tyo1k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpIOP_pkqis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuVtij67Wag
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDHTwvopOdQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCtK0E50OLc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0roF-ufaMU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3CpfKkc8ao…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS5vCSNdsU4
I look forward to reading your opinion.
It is weird how all the Trolls on this forum are interconnected.
Does The Coast hire you losers to generate traffic in here?
Sound’s like Laerry wants his ‘cut’.
You’ll have to attend a Summit, to register for your royalties kid.
This Sunday, noonish, I think.
Umm… Here we go again with the insulting of intelligence. This is exactly why I’m bored with this conversation, no real depth. Just the same reiteration of the same, tired old argument that I lack intelligence so therefore I can’t be right. I doubt that someones intelectual fortitude would be solely based on philosophical aptitude, but I think it would be pretty arrogant for you to think that even if it was, that you would preside over the grading process.
I shall now refer to you as “Philosophicles” (the mythological demi-god of arrogance, condescension, and pompous assery).
Laerrus,
If I were to say your name three times in quick succession facing a mirror would you take on a supernatural form, devouring me with a swarm of angry devil bees? I didn’t think so. I don’t think that threats on an anonymous bitch forum hold much weight, but laughable nonetheless. Are you related to Philosophicles? Are you his retarded angry little brother?
RRSPs
: The Turd (Aug. 23, 10:36AM) – See my post to you (Aug. 22, 9:53AM) and multiply by 10. Use a calculator if necessary.
: Laerrus (3:08PM) – Could you possibly expand on that? As I am sure you will agree, there is an undeniable clinical interest in listening to the mind of a psychopathic psychotic at work in his words. Thanks.
: The Turd (3:33PM) – It will never happen (splitting the cut, that is).
: Stephen Harper (6:39PM) – I was sorry to learn that your boredom arose because the discussion had “no real depth.” Two things Stephen: (1) Could you specify the conditions that would satisfy your criteria of “real depth?” and (2) Proceed to initiate a discussion that embodied precisley those conditions? Rest assured, Stephen, that I will be there to give a helping hand should you falter.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Well that’s the last time I’ll ever give Sméagol a chance to prove his ‘intelligence’. It didn’t even occur to him to think what Sha Na Na and The Offspring, might have in common. I bet that he considers every band/musician I’ve mentioned to be “underclass”, fucking simple bastard that he is.
RSVPs
: The Turd (Aug 24, 2:29PM) – Your’re right. It didn’t occur to me to ask what Sha Na Na and The Offspring might have in common, but you’ve solved the dilemma.
They are both members of The Underclass! Thanks for that.
No sign of Stephen or Laerius. I guess they’ve shot their bolts, such as they were.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Hey Sméagol, I’m just fine tuning the definition of “underclass”, in my head.
Does a phd, automatically preclude membership in the underclass, or can someone with a ‘higher’ education still be ‘underclass’?
Saying it another way, can a philosopher with a phd, be considered ‘underclass’?
Frig, when am I going to learn….don’t expect an answer from a philosopher, for a direct yes/no question ;(
Oh well, as Richard Rorty said – “Time will tell, but epistemology won’t.”
RSVPs
: The Turd (Aug 25,10:36AM) – “To put it another way, can a philosopher with a phd, be considered underclass?”
The answer lies in an interpretive (sometimes called “hermeneutical”)assessment of the preponderance of the evidence. While, in principle, a philosopher with a Phd. might be considered underclass, having become “declassé” on other grounds, in fact it is extremely unlikely.
(2:15PM) – “Time will tell, but epistemology won’t.”
Ah, the American post-modernist Richard Rorty. Unfortunately for Rorty, epistemology proves his undoing. The quotation is a knowledge claim to truth, but such a claim is itself identical to an epistemologial claim. In other words, Rorty has uttered a knowledge claim having universal applcation, precisely the sort of claim which is precluded by his premises. In still other words, this is called self-contradiction “ex suae orae” (“out of his own mouth”) as we say in Latin. (Did I mention that I gave a devastating critique of Rorty at an annual meeting of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain held at New College, Oxford University? You chose the wrong boy.)
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
To: Annie Kleinmen, narcissistic epistemological solipsist, Ph-Duh.
It’s become obvious to me now, you have no idea what you like, you just like what you know.
You’ve said, that certain peoples posts are incomprehensible (mine included), news flash here skippy – those posts are only incomprehensible, to you. I have no problem understanding what the others are saying, and they have no trouble understanding me (I’ve asked). So obviously, the problem is your severely limited comprehension.
Your Musical Revue 😉
ELO – I think you said their music was on a level of a nine year old. Yeah, whatever.
I’m sure that you have no idea, that most of the band members are classical musicians. They also do a bitchin version of Beethoven’s Fifth.
Dark Side of the Moon, I purposely posted the video with the lyrics, so you could read them. Fuck, you missed the bus on that one. It sold about 45million copies worldwide, and was on the charts for 741 weeks from 1973 to 1988, longer than any other album in history. Guess what, Pink Floyd has had more books published about them, than you’ve had published. But even one book would have been more than you, wouldn’t it? 🙂
Now, for your dismissive attitude of he bands/musicians I posted. I’m sure you didn’t even look at a single one, because you automatically knew that they were all underclass.
Greg Graffin – Lead singer and songwriter for Bad Religion. PhD in zoology from Cornell and regularly teaches courses in geology at UCLA. Graffin has co-authored two books.
Brian May – Queen guitarist and composer, close friend of Freddie Mercury (remember you dissed him). PhD in astrophysics from Imperial College London.
Brian Briggs – Singer and co-founder of the British folk-pop band Stornoway. PhD in zoology from the University of Oxford.
Brian Cox – Keyboardist for D:Ream. PhD in physics at the University of Manchester.
Sterling Morrison – Co-founder and guitarist for Velvet Underground. PhD in medieval studies at the University of Texas, and earned his captain’s license. “That’s Dr. Captain Morrison to you.”
Milo Aukerman – Lead singer for the Descendents. PhD in biochemistry from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Mira Aroyo – Keyboardist, singer and songwriter for Ladytron. She is also a research scientist with a PhD in molecular genetics from Oxford University. And speaks several languages.
Dan Snaith – Composer and musician. PhD in mathematics from Imperial College London. Snaith’s father is a mathematics professor at the University of Sheffield and his sister is studying mathematics at the University of Bristol.
David Grubbs – Guitarist for Gastr del Sol, founding member of Squirrel Bait and Bastro, member of The Red Krayola and The Wingdale Community Singers. PhD in English at the University of Chicago. Grubbs is also an assistant professor of Radio and Sound Art at Brooklyn College.
Karl Precoda – Guitar player for The Dream Syndicate. PhD in English from the University of Virginia.
Robert Leonard – Founding member of Sha Na Na, responsible for spawning the 50’s music and culture revival that gave us Grease and Happy Days. PhD in linguistics from Columbia and currently teaches linguistics at Hofstra University.
Dexter Holland – Singer and guitarist for The Offspring. Ph.D. in Molecular Biology at University of Southern California. Possess a pilot’s license, and made a solo trip around the world in 10 days.
So, not only are these ‘underclass’ people actually NOT underclass, and at least as educated as you, they are more tallented, skilled and dare I say, more intelligent than you.
Your ignorance and closed mind, are your greatests weaknesses.
To be proud of learning is the greatest ignorance. -Jeremy Taylor
Later, dip-shit.
RRSPs
: The Turd (Aug 25, 4:52PM) – You have no mind.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Ohhh noses, such a scathing retort, what ever shall I do?
BTW – you have you definitions screwed up again, I’m not jealous, I actually hold you in the highest of contempt.
Jealous adjective
1. feeling resentment against someone because of that person’s rivalry, success, or advantages (often followed by of ): He was jealous of his rich brother.
2. feeling resentment because of another’s success, advantage, etc. (often followed by of ): He was jealous of his brother’s wealth.
3. characterized by or proceeding from suspicious fears or envious resentment: a jealous rage; jealous intrigues.
4. inclined to or troubled by suspicions or fears of rivalry, unfaithfulness, etc., as in love or aims: a jealous husband.
5. solicitous or vigilant in maintaining or guarding something: The American people are jealous of their freedom.
Contempt noun
1. the feeling with which a person regards anything considered mean, vile, or worthless; disdain; scorn.
2. the state of being despised; dishonor; disgrace.
3. Law .
a. willful disobedience to or open disrespect for the rules or orders of a court (contempt of court) or legislative body.
b. an act showing such disrespect.
http://images.cheezburger.com/completestor…
One more post before bed.
Annie Kleinmen, narcissistic epistemological solipsist, Ph-Duh, wrote that I have no mind.
I was completely mistaken when I thought he was insulting me, turns out he was saying that I’m perfectly enlightened =)
“Buddhahood is attained when there is no mind to be used for the task.” – Hui-chung
“Only have no mind of any kind, and this is known as undefiled knowledge.” – Huang-po
Thank you for acknowledging my superiority, and since you’re being so gracious in defeat, I’ll be magnanimous in my victory.
Nitey-nite, sleep well, we’ll talk about ‘opening’ your mind, tomorrow.
Nah I’m still here mm, just watching Hugo whip your ass. You crack me up Hugo, well done, that made my day.
Thank you , good sir.
Lolz, I wasn’t sure anybody was reading my long posts.
MM dude, seriously how is it physically possible for you to be so condescending and obnoxious? I don’t know how anyone could say some shit like that and consider themselves a decent human being, much less think they’re better than everybody else.
Maybe you should try being not so much of a uppity prick, then maybe you’ll get some friends and you’ll be able to actually go out and enjoy life, instead of spending time spewing psychobabble to e-strangers who really could give a shit about what you have to say. Do you ever talk like someone who isn’t teaching a philosophy course? If I wanted to hear this shit I’d go study philosophy.
I’m all for everyone’s right to say whatever they want on these boards, lord knows I probably ruffle a few feathers and rub a few people the wrong way on here, and for what it’s worth I’m happy that people have for the most part let me be. I try to just ignore you but I just can’t fucking help it dude, you are a bloody nuisance.
Just fuck off already.
Fuck
and by fuck off I don’t mean respond to my comment in any way shape or form. I mean fuck off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-FzOxc14d8
LOL Tommy, heres one I like:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPZuYwYxnL4…
This little lady is caaa-yute and she got some moves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv3tadz5Q3o
RRSPs
I thought this thread was finished but, tiresomely, I discover a couple more punters that I have to spank.
: Stephen Harper (Aug. 26, 7:08PM) – So you’re still there Stephen. I thought you flew the coop when I asked you to specify the criteria to satisfy your demand for “greater philosophical depth” for our recent discssion which is on this thread I believe. But no, you were just out there, hiding in the shadows. And no, Stephen, my stalker the Turd, is not whipping my ass as you seem to suppose. As a result of the disparity in our respective educational attainments, one which he was never able to accept owing to his over-inflated ego, his comments have reached the level of the libellous. As a result I neither read nor respond to them. Now Stephen, back you go into the shadows.
: Tommyjules (8:15PM; 8:33PM) – Hey Dude! What’s up? I recall having had to spank you some time ago in respect to your philosophical incoherence and, indeed, have had occasion to spank you again on a current thead (“Tolerate This”) for the same reason. Just a couple points, Tommy.
First, I didn’t come on this site to make “friends” as you seem to suppose – what does the concept even mean in cyberspace? Rather I came to listen to the minds of the Commenters at work in their words and, where possible, to offer my philosophical assistance in helping them clarify their rational processes.
Admittedly, this has not always been successful, you being a case in point.
Secondly, there is no need to take a “course in philosophy,” Tommy. Just listen to the words of Montrealman. For example, did you realize that your posts are larded with philosophy? They invariably deal with questions of justification which, of course, is the subject of ethics, the third branch of philosophy. However, your ethical reasoning could stand refining, Tommy, and this is where Montealman might come in. Know that I’m there for you Tommy, as soon as I hear your cry for help.
Later dude.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
ANNIE – You came back =)
We thought that you were a goner.
A song in your honour….bitch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrXIsD1AGOI