Monday, March 30, 2009

Just like that robbery in '62

Monday, March 30, 2009
Gimme present (that's not a typo, we meant to use the first person plural there. We're a 'we' now, we've decided) a detailed look at how one might go about responding to the kind of comment that makes one want to reach aha like through the monitor and pull out the words in question so that one might set them on fire, piss on them, dry them out, set them on fire again and piss on them again before putting the resultant sodden pile of ashes in a tupperware bowl and posting said bowl, old school style, to their composer:


1) Read comment:

All too true Bock. The problem here seems to be that while the wife had another relationship she was not content to take his marriage away from him but also his family and his home and to set up the other man as a surrogate parent to his family.
While what he did was obviously wrong I personally can understand the pain and suffering he was going through. When someone is fucking with your mind you can get so deep into the mire that you can see no light at the end of the tunnel except maybe the train coming at you.

2) Physical and vocal but non-verbal reaction:

Do what feels right here. Grab your hair. Shriek. Realise that you don't really have any hair to grab anymore. Allow this to inform your shriek.

3) Verbalisation:

Mutter this to yourself, it's not suitable for the children. Something like: 'For the love of fucking christ fucking mary fucking the holy ghost, he fucking killed her.' Mutterings may be high in their pitch. Make use of this.

4) First draft:

Go on, get the mindless cursing, the ad hominen attacks, the scathing references to shitty, shitty tunnel end clichés out of the way. You'll want to open with something along the lines of 'He fucking stabbed her in front of their children you at the absolute best obtuse cunt.' Close with more cunts. Release the beast.

5) Second draft:

Do your smarty pants one.

'She was totally fucking asking for it, the bitch', works well.

'I'm not racist but...' is good too, but perhaps a little subtle for the kind of creep upon whom you are calling.

'You killed your wife too, didn't you?' on the other hand, fits the bill nicely.

6) Third and final draft:

This one is extremely labour-intensive involving as it does much thought, time, and trawling for the mot juste. It will be reasoned, logical and will have the power to lift the scales from the eyes of the horrible, the blind and the horribly blind. But you won't write it. It's too much work. Instead you should dial it back to smart-arse, and take it to your own bleugh where there's a chance not every fucker is firm in the believe that the ladies are our property to do with as we see fit.


This advice is applicable not just to the comment above but to the majority of comments on the same post. The post itself, being merely an incitement to misogyny, may need a different approach. We're guessing running repeatedly and face first into a brick wall might well do the trick.

64 Johns and Janes for the comment whore:

V said...

shoulda got a seomera.

Andrew said...

It just goes to show, you can't be too careful!

Kel D said...

I gave up outrage on the internet when I ran out of it a few months back. Whenever I have some left, I post it on my blog but I do not squander it on others'.

I wonder if people can be talked round from misogyny.

Manuel said...

well put......I hummed....haaaa-ed.....and walked away when I read it.....I have no hair to grab and no children I need to protect form swearing.....so I swore out loud and moved on.....

Medbh said...

In any case concerning femicide, our first impulse should be to always identify with the killer.
It's always already about the menz!

Misogyny and femicide are just myths doctored up by wacky ideological feminists, don'tcha know.

Twenty Major said...

Bunchacunts.

fatmammycat said...

There was an interesting article/study released from the states that claims leaving a relationship was second only to being pregnant in terms of danger for a woman.(http://www.pcawa.org/wap4.php) That's a really horrible statistic when you think about it sans hyperbole.
The woman in this case is dead, mudered before her children's eyes. I can't fathom why the man's emotional state should be of consideration. She didn't attack him, she didn't try to murder him, it wasn't self defense. She wanted to leave him. Shit, who amongst us has not been through a break-up at some point in our lives. We don't resort to murder, we don't practically orphan our children. This is a horrible tragedy, but one that can't be laid at the feet of the victim.
Break-up < murder. Always.

Betty said...

Word, FMC.

Andrew, that link made me laugh. I especially love 'Ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydon'tyougolivethere.com'.

Darwin said...

Maybe someone should write a song or make a movie about the motivations of a spouse killer?

gimme a minute said...

V:
Incredibly, they have yet to include 'not murdering your wife' as a selling point in their marketing materials.

Andrew:
I think that would be more appropriate on Bock's site, but thanks anyway.

Kel D:
It seems pretty ingrained, Kelly, bu there's always hope if you get them young, I suppose.

And I'm right with you on the 'no squandering' rule.

Manuel:
And I applaud you for your restraint and powers of on moving.

Twenty:
That sounds somehow like a new range of corn snacks.

Fatmammycat:
'This is a horrible tragedy, but one that can't be laid at the feet of the victim.'

It cracks me up, in the ironically hysterical way, that this needs stating.

Betty:
I always preferred Jeremy.

Darwin:
Thirteen years of abuse. Getting dumped. Uh huh.

Good song though. (Starts at 2'18)

C'est La Craic said...

of the postI believe the originl intent was ask the question what was going through the killers mind, which degenerated into a debate about whether it was typical male, patriachal You, mine. You try leave, I kill you or whether it was due to more complex emotions. The problem I had was the idea that this only happened because the perpetrator was a man.

FMC cat is right in saying that the man's emotional state shouldn't be of consideration, he ended his wife's live and destroyed his children's, but we can wonder why and not just accept the over simplified (in my opinion) that it's just because he a misogynist.

C'est La Craic said...

Sorry, mouse button jammed, the first line shoul read;

I believe the originl intent of the post was to ask the question...

Andrew said...

Oh, I left it on Bock's page too, but without the link. His confused minions were turning up in their droves on my page after that.

Conan Drumm said...

The Law Reform Commission's deliberations on the defence plea of provocation in homicide cases, and the possibility of cumulative provocation (particularly in cases of domestic homicide) make for interesting if exhaustive reading.

savannah said...

well, sugar, not that y'all asked, but i'm going with c'est le craic on this. i read this, my first reaction was: did we read the same original entry? when i first read bock's post, i understood that he were not defending the man or excusing his action. that was very plain. he were asking why. as in what causes a human being to commit such an act. to my mind, that is the larger question and one that has been obscured. isn't it appropriate to ask why someone goes postal anymore? perhaps if we studied aberrant behavior(s) more, we could find causes and/or solutions to avoid crimes of this sort.

gimme a minute said...

Le Craic:
And the original intention of this post was to express frustration at my inability to respond to misogynistic losers, not to comment on the case.

It is, as ever, all about me.

Andrew:
Ha! I missed it among the reams of hate. Caps next time.

Conan:
Can you give us the gist in 140 characters or less?

Savannah:
The post sought, and received, comments that blamed the victim. Such as the one quoted.

And it's not the first time.

Eejit meeja said...

The offence I took from this article was that it appeared based on the the premise that there must have been a quasi-valid / explicable reason(s) for this man to murder his wife.

The tone of most of the comments seemed to ignore / explain away or summarily dismiss the theory that the murder stemmed from a man thinking of his wife in terms of a possession, a thing that is acquired, kept or dispensed with.

Amid all the "she was planning to leave, he was losing his wife, his family" not one of those commenters saw the irony in what they were saying.

Identifying with his loss of wife / family and yet insisting that it wasn't a conditioned response by a man raised ultimately in a society that for generations has objectified women in a singularly possessive sense.

I would have left this comment on his site, but I am not officially one of twenty's lapdogs...

Yet.

Conan Drumm said...

Regrettably I can't, Gimme. Mitigating defences to the charge of murder have evolved over hundreds of years. The actions of victims are occasionally accepted as having induced another person to kill them, thereby reducing the crime to manslaughter and, sometimes, a more lenient or suspended sentence.

C'est La Craic said...

Sorry Gimme, I ment Bock's post, I wasn't clear.
It may well be that Bourke was everything you say, posessive, misogynist etc, but we don't know. If it was a woman who killed her husband because she smelled another woman's perfume off him, and everyone was saying You see, typical insecure woman. She couldn't control her jealousy. That's the matriarchal mindset for you, I think most women would feel a little insulted by the assumption that her mental instability and her resulting actions were somehow automaticaly associated with her sex. That this is something that is typicaly feminin but most women are able to control.
That's how I feel when I see people write that Bourke's actions were motivated by his patriarchal mindset when we simply don't know.

fatmammycat said...

C'est, there's no comparison. Women by and large DON'T go about killing their husbands when the husband wants to leave the marital home. A woman might kill her hunband for any number of reasons and I'm not for a moment saying women have not done so, but it's not the norm, where as in Ireland there have been a large number of women killed by husbands and partners and ex-partners.
It's also not and us versus them world. I love and man, he loves me, not all men are murderers or emotionally volatile, (does this even need to be said?) but it is sexist to note that this happens and that it happens with sickeing regularity. If women were going around murdering their husbands for daring to leave them or because they had had enough of the relationship, I'd be pretty quick to call it out.
http://www.village.ie/ had this to say in november 07
"Since 1996 138 women have been murdered in Ireland, a majority of these relating to domestic violence. Far more women have been murdered by domestic violence than there have been gangland killings and yet the latter gets all the media and political attention. Research, by Women’s Aid shows that nearly 48 per cent of the murders were committed by a husband, ex-husband, partner or ex-partner. And 63 per cent of the women were killed in their own homes."
We can add a few more names onto the list since then.

fatmammycat said...

That should read, 'it is NOT sexist to note...' Damned tired eyes, apologies.

gimme a minute said...

Eejit Meeja:
You went and wrote my third draft for me.

You'll notice I didn't comment on his post either, so this does not prevent you being Twenty's lapdog. I, however, do. I want all those delicious Major fag ends to myself.

You can be his lap dancer, I gather he's in the market.

Conan:
Come on down off the fence there, we have macaroni cheese.

Do you think believe that infidelity or abandonment are doing enough mitigation when it comes to murder?

C'est La Craic:
You were perfectly clear. I attempted to use the word 'and' as in 'and the orginal intention of this post' to bring you back to the matter at hand, viz, me.

If I wanted to debate this I would have left a comment on the OP. And not written a post about how I wasn't arsed debating it.

Fatmammycat:
Thank you for assuming the mantle of Keeper of the Bleedin' Obvious. Your reward will come in 8.5 minute miles.

sniffle said...

Hey Gimme, you're no one’s lapdog and he's no misogynist.

grimsaburger said...

Gah.

That is all.

The Hangar Queen said...

" The post itself, being merely an incitement to misogyny"

Dude, I love you and all but that sentence of yours is far from right.

I left no comment on the original post because I thought it an irrelevant academic exercise. The actual thought was "Who the fuck cares what the bastard was thinking? He fucking well murdered her! End of."

As the comments show plenty of people DO care.Or say they do at least before lining up with depressing regularity behind their unassailable versions of truth. Some of the comments sickened me and I wanted no part of that conversation yet I can't fault Bock for asking a hard question.

Ah fuck it! We'll all be doing the same thing after the next horrific murder. Chalk it down.

Queen Of The Obvious? Right fucking here.

Wisewebwoman said...

Thanks for this, Gimme.
I didn't know I was in for a dose of 'trite' from Mr. Bock after spouting off on his blog which dared to ask the most incomprehensible question of all time.
Twenty and I are fighting over which lap to sit on.
XO
WWW

gimme a minute said...

Sniffle:
Thank you, Sniffle, I don't believe that I am either. Check out my comment on his new Gimme rant in relation to the accusation of the accusation of misogyny.

Grimsaburger:
Yes, indeed.

Hangar Queen:
We have to agree to disagree, Devin. I really believe the post was framed to garner the kind of comments that subsequently appeared.

I'm not saying Bock agrees with these comments, but I do believe he wrote to elicit them, for whatever reason.

Wisewebwoman:
More! More lapdogs for the Gimmearchy!

Twenty Major said...

There was another example a few weeks ago when Bock engaged Medbh in a debate about the German lad who shot dead those people in his school, all of them but one female.

When he found he couldn't 'win' the argument on Medbh's site he wrote a similar kind of post to the one Gimme objected to.

It allowed people who shared his way of thinking to provide validation for his opinion. Entirely his prerogative, of course.

What I got from this latest series of posts was that Bock identified and empathised much more with the killer than the victim, and it's not a surprise to me that people called him on it.

Conan Drumm said...

"Do you think believe that infidelity or abandonment are doing enough mitigation when it comes to murder?"

The smart answer is that nothing excuses murder, otherwise it wouldn't be murder.

But there are two questions here really: firstly does it offer a defense of provocation - ie was it "was unacceptable by the ordinary standards of the community" and, secondly, should one allow for the possibility that people respond to provocation differently, in line with their individual capacity to handle provocation.

You know what I mean, one person who is verbally abused can walk away, another gets into a fight.

Any person who has killed another (and possibly even admits it) and is charged with murder can offer the defense of provocation. If the court accepts the defence the defendant will be found guilty of manslaughter.

Every killing, be it hot-blooded or cold-blooded, has its own circumstances, its own motivational impulse.

My personal view is that a statisical aggregation of killings in a particular jurisdiction, over a particular period of time doesn't explain the circumstances of any individual killing.

Persons charged with domestic homicide are almost always convicted of murder in this jurisdiction. They are found guilty by a jury of their peers, even on circumstantial evidence.

Using convicted murderers Catherine Nevin, Brian Kearney, Joe O'Reilly and David Bourke as examples I would suggest that Bourke's murder least reflects the commonality of all four cases.

However, each case of domestic homicide may be differentiated from others on the basis of unique characteristics.

In terms of causation it is my opinion that it is to be found in the psychological make-up of the individual murderers.

An individual murderer may be said to belong to any number of classes of person - by social class, by sexual orientation, by race, by nation, by gender, by creed, by category of employment, by unemployment, by age, etc - but only the individual is guilty of the crime.

I do not believe that any discrete form of social consciousness (being Irish or being black or being a Traveler or being Jewish or being heterosexual or being a man or being in one's twenties or being working class) frees, or licences an individual in this country to commit murder.

Just my opinion, and I respect the opinions of others.

Sniffle said...

"Persons charged with domestic homicide are almost always convicted of murder in this jurisdiction."

Hi Conan, not sure about this but, my casual understanding is that mostly, when a wife or female partner is charged with murder, the case is mostly found as manslaughter. (because mostly there is acknowledged provocation). See all my mostlys there !

Betty said...

Not to be a pain in the bum, Sniffle, but do you have any statistics for the 'mostlys'? I'm not asking to undermine you or anything, it's just that I'd be very interested to read them. I've just been poking around the Crime Council's statistics page, which was totally unhelpful, and the CSO (likewise). No info on murderers at all, really. No breakdown by gender and no indication of how frequently manslaughter is accepted as a defence against murder - for men or women.

My feeling is that the overall number of female murderers is so small anyway that any analysis isn't going to hold statistical water. There's too few of them to say that what they 'mostly' do means anything. I would say, though, that the prominence of murder trials like Catherine Nevin's, and that moron last year who tried to hire a 'hitman', in the media show that 'we' (that nebulous 'we' as a society) have plenty of appetite for cold blooded female killers, when they present themselves.

I'm struggling to think of any female murderer who claimed provocation in the form of years of domestic abuse, in Ireland. I can think of a few in the US, UK, and places like India but I don't know if it's ever happened here. Such cases usually get lots of attention, but maybe one didn't here. (I can see why it wouldn't, maybe, even though those trials tend to be sensational when they happen elsewhere).

Conan Drumm said...

Betty, at the risk of being pedantic a person who kills another is not necessarily, in law, a murderer. A person of either gender who kills someone and pleas provocation may be found guilty of manslaughter, and be sentenced more leniently as a consequence.
Mr Justice Paul Carney, a judge who hands down judgements and sentences which may seem legalistic and out of kilter with some ordinary citizens' notion of justice, has cited two instances where defendants cited provocation.

A woman who killed her husband by striking him on the head an inordinate number of times with a lump hammer while he slept successfully set up the defence of provocation by contending that the relationship had been an abusive one towards her.
After the verdict was brought in the family of the deceased released diaries which strongly contraindicated the acts which had been alleged and strongly suggested that the deceased had been the party in the marriage who was the victim of abuse.
There had been no mechanism for this information to come to the attention of prosecuting counsel let alone come to the attention of the jury in the course of the trial on the issue of provocation.
I would also instance a case where it was alleged by the accused in support of a defence of provocation that the deceased, a native of Africa, had said to the mother of the accused that he would cut her up into little pieces, put her in the fridge and eat her bit by bit. Again this material entered the trial on a totally hearsay basis.



Here follows a fairly random list of killings from the last decade or so, none of which, for a variety of reasons, is adjudged to have been murder.

Brendan O'Connor killed Edward Joseph Clancy
Laurentino da Silva killed Fernando da Silva
Thomas Connors killed Michael Hughes
Lynn Gibbs killed Ciara Gibbs
Padraig Nally killed John Ward
Una Black killed John Malone
John Egan killed Frances Ralph
Mary Prendergast killed Jessica Prendergast
Pearse McAuley & ors killed Gda Jerry MacCabe
Dolores O'Neill killed Declan O'Neill
Patrick Dwyer killed Marguerite Dwyer
Christina Williams killed Andrew Foley
Mark Warner killed Jamie Keogh
Kelly Noble killed Emma McLoughlin
James Harmer / Noel O'Flaherty killed Ly Minh Luong
Paul Lane killed Michael Lane
Norma Cotter killed Gary Cotter

sassysundry said...

I think I'm experiencing another reaction. I'm silently shaking my head, because there are some people not worth arguing with.

Senseless.

Betty said...

Indeed you're right Conan. I chose 'murderers' in the final paragraph because 'killers' seemed a bit cold. I suppose it is the most suitable term for someone convicted of manslaughter though?

Sniffle said...

Hi Betty, no I haven’t. As I mentioned it was a uninformed “casual” understanding and I was thinking that Conan would know some more, and he’s detailed some cases here . And yes you are correct my casual opinion is informed by those sources you point to, or maybe by the Simpson’s.

Update : Just goggled those women versus man cases from Conan’s listing and two are domestic, and both were found as manslaughter.

Now my opinion is better informed – Thanks Conan.

Una Black killed John Malone – Not relevant – not domestic
Dolores O'Neill killed Declan O'Neill – Domestic - Manslaughter

Christina Williams killed Andrew Foley - I can’t see but not relevant – not domestic

Norma Cotter killed Gary Cotter - Domestic – Manslaughter after a retrial.

Conan Drumm said...

Betty, I know what you mean. In common usage we all say "Person A murdered person B", although person A may not be convicted of murder.

Sniffle said...

One more thing Betty. You're correct on the stats. The numbers are way too small.

Sniffle said...

Googled

gimme a minute said...

Everyone:
Well, isn't this nice? Fact based, civilised discussion.

Of course, I can't help but feel that there should be more analysis of me. Me and my demons.

Conan Drumm said...

Sniffle, I quoted the list because while some the cases may have factors in common they are all very different, and each case was found on its individual merits.

Conan Drumm said...

At the risk of being flippant, demons (they arise in two cases in the list, I think) may give rise to a verdict of not guilty by virtue of insanity.

gimme a minute said...

Conan:
As ever, Conan, I appreciate and respect your opinion even on the rare occasion when we disagree.

I'm flippant because I'm lazy. I should work on that. Then again, I'm not sure that I can be arsed.

Betty said...

How are those demons, Gimme? Is it like in Northern Lights, do they follow you around and offer helpful advice? Have you named them?

Conan Drumm said...

I appreciate that, Gimme.

Now I'll stop, unless I'm asked to further explain myself.

Twenty Major said...

Now I'll stop, unless I'm asked to further explain myself.

What do you mean by that?

gimme a minute said...

Betty:
I have named them Data and Riker and they're the boss of me. But don't imply that I don't believe in the Patriarchy because that will ruin our relationship.

Conan:
Hug?

Aaaaaaah!

Twenty:
Shut it, you cunt.

See, everyone, see?

mack said...

"I'm flippant because I'm lazy"

That sounds about right. Maybe you should be more careful in what and who you're flippant about. Decent bloggers take responsibility for what they write.

Conan Drumm said...

Twenty, Gimme earlier asked me what I meant. I've since gone on at length and I don't want to hog the conch.

gimme a minute said...

Mack:
Who the fuck are you, the blog police? I'm sure Conan will get over it.

If you're talking about the post, there's fuck all in there that's flippant.

Conan:
I think Twenty was trying to be funny there. Jesus, Twenty, you're so not funny.

I think the lady may be doing that doth thing she does.

Common law said...

Duff, duff, duff, duff, duh, duh, duh, duff!

Conan Drumm said...

Big :) @ CL. I think Burnham Wood's on the march

gimme a minute said...

Common Law:
I don't know what game you were watching, but it was Keane that equalised.

Conan:
You should have seen Burnham Wood marching in the Second Age production I was in.

Three guys with twigs.

Twenty Major said...

I think Twenty was trying to be funny there. Jesus, Twenty, you're so not funny.

I was. I bet you're sorry you allowed me to lapdogify you now.

Have I just invented a new verb?

mack said...

"Mack: Who the fuck are you?"

Odd. That's precisely what Twenty said when I commented at his place. Did you perhaps borrow a little from his style?

Twenty Major said...

When did you comment on my blog?

gimme a minute said...

Mack:
Firstly, I didn't say 'Who the fuck are you?' I said 'Who the fuck are you, the blog police?' Different. But I take your point.

Now, let's have a look see what the common denominator is here. Well, what do fucking know, it's a sanctimonious stooge offering unsolicited advise on how one should conduct oneself on one's own bleugh.

Mad.

Twenty:
I believe you did. I am proud to be the first to have been lapdogified.

mack said...

'gimme a minute' refers to me as,
"a sanctimonious stooge offering unsolicited advise on how one should conduct oneself on one's own bleugh."

He disapproves.

Tell me Gimme, why don't you practise what you preach? Take your fucking sanctmonious nose out of other people's blogs? I don't like double standards, Gimme, but people with inflated heads like yours rarely understand them.

We don't need blog police - whether it's you with your smart-arse faux-Americanisms, or anyone else. Thank you and 'have a nice day'.

Twenty Major said...

When did you comment on my blog, Mack?

gimme a minute said...

Twenty:
I think you're on a 'Did you threaten to overrule him?' there...

Mack:
Ah, such a wealth of material. You truly are the troll who keeps on giving.

Let's break this bad boy down, shall we?

You spelled 'sanctimonious' incorrectly. I know this may seem a little petty but really Mack, it's right there in my comment. Which you quoted. If you intend to become a regular commenter you should know that I'm a bit of a stickler for these kinds of things.

So. My sanctimonious fucking nose was nowhere near Bock's blog until he called me a whole load of names at which point I attempted to engage him in rational debate only to be further abused. The original three word critique was on my blog contained in a post that had next to nothing to do with Bock or indeed the case he was so innocently opening to debate. I have a modest readership and sharing with them a brief opinion on a blog post can hardly be described as intrusive. So much for my nose.

I don't like double standards, Gimme, but people with inflated heads like yours rarely understand them.

Now this a very disappointing sentence. I suppose that I should have been prepared after the 'sanctimonious' debacle, but still, I feel let down.

Have a read of it there. See where you went wrong? It's mostly the placement of the 'them' leading to a lack of clarity as to what is being rarely understood. Now, I'm not saying that I don't have some idea as to what it is that you're trying to say, but really it's just so very, very inelegant. Also, the use of the conjunction 'but' is all wrong. Do you see why? Does my understanding of double standards have any effect on your dislike of them? No? Well then. This will explain further.

Finally... Ha! If only. We have so much more to get through.

I didn't say we needed blog police, I asked if that was what you fucking were, remember?

Smart-arse is a weak insult. The fact that I am constantly and proudly referring to myself as just that drains it of all its impact. Might I offer 'nit-picking dullard' instead? But that's not going to work either due to its being my suggestion. Oh well, I'm sure you'll think of something.

What is a faux-Americanism? Can you give me an example? I'm willing to bet that whatever you come up with is either an Americanism or not an Americanism. You probably meant 'affected Americanisms'. And you should probably read something apart from poorly written blogs.

And finally, for reals this time, might I direct you to the wonderful unnecessaryquotes.com? It will amuse and inform in equal measure.

It's been a while since a single comment has provided me with so much laughter and opportunity to educate. I look forward to a repeat performance.

Andrew said...

Bravo, Gimme! Partly for a superb lancing of a nasty little boil, but largely for directiing me towrd the magnificent Unnecessary Quotes website. "Thanks."

mack said...

Jesus, Gimme, you're fucking pathetic. Those who are impressed by you are even more so.

Anyone who resorts to pulling apart typos and grammar in an effort to be 'smart' never got past juvenile. You poor sod.

If you're interested in "real" English you might consider dropping the illiterate "off of" which you're so fond of using. It gives away your love affair with everything 'USA' including their frequently bad grammar -- the same English grammar you profess to be so concerned about.

As for the term "troll", resorting to that (along with harping on typos and grammar) again exposes your lack of maturity. A grown-up blogger can deal with dissent without resorting to that hoary old chestnut -- a worn-out clichéd attempt to discredit someone whose views you don't like, without writing anything of substance yourself.

Go and do some more "creative writing", Gimme. You're good at the "creating" if not the writing. Only, do write in Hiberno-Engish, for god's sake, before someone throws up all over your blog. Wannabe Yanks we can do without.

If you're hell bent on writing a script for a B-movie based on the LAPD, practise in private, there's a good lad. Just a friendly word of advice.

And lastly: if you want to get 1.5 posts out of someone else's blog by referring to what they write as an 'incitement to misogyny', and later as 'faux-naive rage bait' (someone else's term I believe?) don't fucking ask ME if I'm 'blog police' after you've done it. Therein lies the kernel of your hypocrisy.

Now write another wonderful screed on grammar. I won't be here to read your painful efforts.

Twenty Major said...

When did you comment on my blog, Mack?

gimme a minute said...

Andrew:
"It's very funny, isn't it?"

Mack:
Maybe you should be more careful in what and who you're flippant about. Decent bloggers take responsibility for what they write.

This is not dissent. You're not disagreeing, you're just being a dick.

'Off of' if anything, is an Dublinism. 'Come down off of that Sinita, before I rip the bollox off of ye.' I take it that you are some class of bog trotting mucker who is unfamiliar with the capital's speech patterns?

Write in Hiberno-English? Why? Why would I write in any fashion but the one that pleases me most? I assume that your lack of imagination is a comfort, but honestly, life is more fun if you allow yourself to wander a little.

'faux-naive rage bait' (someone else's term I believe?)

Yes, Mack, that's why I put it in quotes. Do you still not understand them? You never looked at the website, 'did you'?

And lastly: if you want to get 1.5 posts out of someone else's blog

Three words do not a wanting to get 1.5 posts out of someone else's blog make. I was stunned by his reaction. Saying that you should check out the latest update on the 'The New Authoritarianism Post'. Bock appears to have moved on. Your failure to do so is beginning to make you look a little ridiculous.

No, really, your dignity has been intact up until now.

I won't be here to read your painful efforts.

Aaaawww! Nor to answer Twenty's question, one assumes.

You fucking liar.

Bock the Robber said...

It seems not everyone has moved on.

 
◄Design by Pocket