the_bone: I assure you I am extremely relaxed, but thanks for your concern. As for your opinion that my highlighting the extremely selective way tracicle applies the alleged MoFi principles of interaction makes me sound like a child... noted. That's an interesting perspective, certainly.
Perhaps you should re-read Nostrildamus's splenetic frothings on this thread and bask in something a little more refreshingly mature than my inexcusable juvenilia, eh?
Alex: you go, guy. You're bang on the case re Arafat. It's refreshing.
Well, well, and indeed well. I drop in to see if the old place is maintaining its standards of decency and mommy-approved nanna-flinging puerility and what do I find? Insult-hurling, personal abuse, "ignorant assholes", "racists", "fuck yous" and "burn in hell, you murdering cunts".
Nice.
Oh - and well done Alex Reynolds for putting some reasonable perspective on Arafat in the face of Nostrildamus's frankly deranged and highly biased propaganda-spewing. Not to mention his knee-jerk pro-Israeli idiocy: anyone who calls someone anti-semitic for attacking Sharon and Israel (both eminently justifiable and decent things to do, given the current and historical behaviour of both) is an inexcusable fool.
So, tracicle - you'll be threatening Nostrildamus with expulsion soon, right? Oh, silly me. I forgot. That rigorous application of MoFi principles only applies to newbies.
Pip pip, kiddies! You're much more fun when you interact and vent like real people, you know. You should keep it up.
In fact, screw it, tracicle. I'm out of here. You can all go back to your insular, cliquey little circle jerk now. Sorry to have caused such a disturbance.
Oh for Christ's sake. There seem to be a whole bunch of you who CANNOT READ ACCURATELY.
To those of you who have leapt off the deep end and claimed I said or implied that all Americans are blah blah blah..., get a grip. Here's what I actually said:
"You and all the other Americans who seem incapable of seeing what an utter horror Bush is"
See that? "All THE OTHER Americans WHO SEEM INCAPABLE..." This is NOT a general insult against all Americans, for pity's sake. I think some of you people just like to play "beat up the newbie", don't you? That's certainly how it looks from where I sit.
And tracicle, don't threaten me with the mother hen stuff. I'm rapidly losing patience with being continually misread and misrepresented here. You claim in the FAQ that anything is acceptable for posting but in my short time as a member I've seen more whining and bleating and squealing about ad homs and trolling than on any other message board I've been part of. Get over yourselves.
I have made some uncontroversial, mild posts and I have expressed some general opinions here. I have directly and personally insulted NO-ONE, yet I have been directly and personally insulted by several people. I have been called immature, compared to Ann Coulter, accused of trolling and so on, yet I have seen none of the people responsible threatened with expulsion.
If this pathetic schoolyard nonsense continues you won't have to suspend my account, I'll be gone.
/bullshit detector
Lord. Too big a subject, so I'll list a few personal favourites and leave it at that.
1. The Magus, John Fowles. An absolute head trip, mind fuck, beautifully-written, page-turner of a novel that (if you're anything like me, God help you) will have you up until the wee hours, desperate to know what happens next.
2. Lanark, Alisdair Gray. Long, surreal, mundane, contrived, moving, fascinating, original and thoroughly odd. An engrossing blend of fantasy and reality.
3. 1982 Janine, Alisdair Gray. His other great book. Who'd have thought a journey into the sexual frustrations and emotional inadequacies of a sad, stunted middle-aged man could be so unbearably moving?
4. Several of Iain Banks' serious novels (as opposed to the SF ones - some of which are fun, but none of which are as good as these)
- The Crow Road
- Complicity
- The Wasp Factory
- The Bridge
5. Cat's Eye, Atwood. Somebody already mentioned this. I second it.
6. Crusoe's Daughter, Jane Gardam. A wonderful and affecting portrayal of a stunted life.
7. Catch-22, Joseph Heller. No, look, you HAVE to. Still the funniest book about serious things ever written.
8. Vonnegut essentials: Slaughterhouse 5, Mother Night.
9. The Gormenghast Trilogy, Mervyn Peake. Makes Tolkien look like an overrated, humourless, dessicated, dreary old twat. Then again, I think Tolkien makes Tolkien look like that.
10. The Regeneration Trilogy, Pat Barker. Three powerfully moving books about WWI, featuring real people (Sassoon, Owen, Graves etc.) and some real events. Great stuff.
11. Birdsong, Sebastian Faulks. While on the subject of great WWI novels...
12. Iain McEwan collection: Enduring Love, Atonement, Amsterdam, The Child In Time. All great.
13. Fall On Your Knees, Anne Marie MacDonald. Showing us how superior literary soap opera should be done. Thoroughly engrossing.
14. Earthly Powers, Anthony Burgess. Sprawling. Erudite. Linguistically hyper. Surprising. Great.
OK, I could go on all day. I'd better not, eh?
Plegmund:
"So I really don't care which of them sits on top of Behemoth as he ambles forward."
I see that, and I find that reprehensible and incredibly blinkered of you. You and all the other Americans who seem incapable of seeing what an utter horror Bush is, and that it does make a difference - to the world, not just America - whether you continue to support a bunch of lying, vicious, ignorant, destructive, Orwellian war criminals or not.
However, the point of my post - which some here seem determined to ignore - is that there are plenty of non-Americans who do care about this, and who are frustrated by their inability to influence the matter.
That's OK. I'll just rate them on their treatment of Arabs, child criminals, gays, atheists and people detained under the Patriot Act. Oh, and on their grotesque obesity quotient. Fair enough?
shawnj: so, your idea of "passing" an offer to discuss your accusation that I lack perspective is to simply restate the accusation, to call me immature and to compare me with Ann Coulter?
Duly noted.
Fes: how charmingly simplistic of you. I suppose you think that the only aspect of Exxon's business we need to concern ourselves with is that it's just oil, people. How silly are those of us who like to look a little beyond that, eh?
It's always interesting to see what people choose to ignore or minimise about a given subject. It certainly helps us understand their political position.
Fes: you seem to have misunderstood where I was coming from. My previous disgusted post was directed only at those here who said or implied that they didn't care who won what is arguably the most important election of our times. You seem to be talking about people who don't care to discuss the issue any more, having made their mind up. Different people.
dng: I'm not sure what your point is. What do you mean, what would happen to me? If you've made your mind up for Bush, that's not the same as not caring who wins, is it? So how is it relevant?
Most on this thread: whatever you think about the advisability or usefulness of the Guardian's little gimmick, you seem to have missed the point that this is a new angle. It is not simply a bunch of yanks discussing the election, it is a reaction to the very real concern, anger, worry and frustration many, many non-Americans feel. Non-Americans? You know? Ring any bells? Those of us who reap the whirlwind of your nation's vicious insularity and arrogance?
"It is exactly that view that resulted in various forms of mental illness not being given their proper recognition for decades."
I dispute that. Firstly, mental illness can receive recognition before it is properly understood, just as physical illness can. Secondly, demanding proper scientific investigation into phenomena is not what typically led to the appalling way certain mental conditions were regarded in times past. It wasn't the scientifically-minded who dismissed people as witches or who said that they were possessed by demons. It was the kind of dangerous fools who preferred to leap to conclusions or make unfounded assumptions rather than carefully and logically assessing the evidence.
Of course, some mental conditions were treated idiotically and irrationally by so-called men of science, but their inadequacy as scientists does not damn scientific method. The answer to unintelligence is not more unintelligence.
Leaping to conclusions in the absence of decent physical evidence, on the other hand, has frequently resulted in a whole pile of nonsensical and unjustified medical bogeymen and balderdash - witness the recent idiocy of the usual suspects (panicky, pampering, highly irrational parents who can't see beyond the whims, wishes and ailments of their own precious spawn) surrounding the MMR jab.
Well, I definitely misjudged.
Frankly I'm disgusted (although wearily unsurprised) to read that there are people here who not only don't care who wins the election but who actually seem rather smug about the fact.
Whatever, d00dz. Hey, what does it matter if the US re-elects an insane, god-bothering war criminal who destabilises the middle east and sends anti-US, anti-west hatred through the sky? I mean - what are they gonna do? Destroy the WTC and kill thousands in your home town, or something? Pshaw. Let's stay real, eh sheeple?
I do so love humanity.
Sandspider: yeah, I saw that. I just thought this was sufficiently interesting to merit a main page post. Looking at the replies so far, I may have misjudged.
flashboy: Oh yeah... I used to go in The Bricklayers Arms quite a lot, but usually Saturday lunchtime. The seating upstairs was a bit weird - low tables and obscure chair arrangements - but it could work.
And yeah, north of Oxford Street is good. That's where those Goodge Street pubs I can't remember the names of are...
I've long suspected that ADD/ADHD is - at least to a large extent - just the latest trendy label for those bratty, over-exciteable, pain-in-the-arse kids who have always existed but who used to get their obnoxious antics curbed by a few well-deserved whacks round the head.
Until I see some convincing physically demonstrable medical evidence to the contrary - as opposed to the very predictable behaviour of a generation of over-indulged, cosseted, spoilt, over-protected sprogs - I'm not inclined to change that view.
Well, let me come clean here: I've lived in NYC for the last two and a half years and it's been a while before that since I regularly made central London a major watering spot. I tended to hang out more in Clapham, Camden and Hoxton. Especially Clapham (yes, I am a South Londoner of long standing).
Of course, it's virtually impossible to find a decently sane pub in the central area, especially on a weekend. But the Chandos is in about the second most insane location, after Piccadilly.
Places I used to find close to tolerable (assuming you need reasonable size, reasonable beer and a central location) were the Freemasons Arms in Long Acre (just about at Drury Lane), the Hole in the Wall at Waterloo (and it IS a hole, but it stays relatively uncrowded), a number of places in the Goodge Street area whose names I forget (helpful this, isn't it?) and the Three Compasses on Shaftesbury Avenue (or it might have been New Oxford Street. Damn this senility).
None of these are especially wonderful, but they did tend to stay a bit more sane and tolerable than the Chandos. But again, I'm several years out of date so I'm probably talking through my arse.
Of course, you should really meet up in the Intrepid Fox and gothpunk out to the max. I would.
Eww. The Chandos. Bad choice, Londoners - unless they've changed it significantly since I used to meet people there. It used to be this dull, dark place that was always absolutely rammed with tourists, work-leavers and pre-theatre folk. The only consolation was the Sam Smiths.
Still, have fun. If you'd done it a couple of weeks ago, I could have joined you. Lucky escape for you all there...
shawnj: I'd be happy to actually discuss how it is possible to still be a Bush supporter without being wicked or stupid (I'll add 'uninformed' to that) to some degree. Rather than your just loftily suggesting that this shows a lack of perspective on my part, I mean.
the_bone: I assure you I am extremely relaxed, but thanks for your concern. As for your opinion that my highlighting the extremely selective way tracicle applies the alleged MoFi principles of interaction makes me sound like a child... noted. That's an interesting perspective, certainly. Perhaps you should re-read Nostrildamus's splenetic frothings on this thread and bask in something a little more refreshingly mature than my inexcusable juvenilia, eh? Alex: you go, guy. You're bang on the case re Arafat. It's refreshing.
posted by Decani 20 years ago
Well, well, and indeed well. I drop in to see if the old place is maintaining its standards of decency and mommy-approved nanna-flinging puerility and what do I find? Insult-hurling, personal abuse, "ignorant assholes", "racists", "fuck yous" and "burn in hell, you murdering cunts". Nice. Oh - and well done Alex Reynolds for putting some reasonable perspective on Arafat in the face of Nostrildamus's frankly deranged and highly biased propaganda-spewing. Not to mention his knee-jerk pro-Israeli idiocy: anyone who calls someone anti-semitic for attacking Sharon and Israel (both eminently justifiable and decent things to do, given the current and historical behaviour of both) is an inexcusable fool. So, tracicle - you'll be threatening Nostrildamus with expulsion soon, right? Oh, silly me. I forgot. That rigorous application of MoFi principles only applies to newbies. Pip pip, kiddies! You're much more fun when you interact and vent like real people, you know. You should keep it up.
posted by Decani 20 years ago
In "My Fellow Non-Americans...."
In fact, screw it, tracicle. I'm out of here. You can all go back to your insular, cliquey little circle jerk now. Sorry to have caused such a disturbance.
posted by Decani 20 years ago
Oh for Christ's sake. There seem to be a whole bunch of you who CANNOT READ ACCURATELY. To those of you who have leapt off the deep end and claimed I said or implied that all Americans are blah blah blah..., get a grip. Here's what I actually said: "You and all the other Americans who seem incapable of seeing what an utter horror Bush is" See that? "All THE OTHER Americans WHO SEEM INCAPABLE..." This is NOT a general insult against all Americans, for pity's sake. I think some of you people just like to play "beat up the newbie", don't you? That's certainly how it looks from where I sit. And tracicle, don't threaten me with the mother hen stuff. I'm rapidly losing patience with being continually misread and misrepresented here. You claim in the FAQ that anything is acceptable for posting but in my short time as a member I've seen more whining and bleating and squealing about ad homs and trolling than on any other message board I've been part of. Get over yourselves. I have made some uncontroversial, mild posts and I have expressed some general opinions here. I have directly and personally insulted NO-ONE, yet I have been directly and personally insulted by several people. I have been called immature, compared to Ann Coulter, accused of trolling and so on, yet I have seen none of the people responsible threatened with expulsion. If this pathetic schoolyard nonsense continues you won't have to suspend my account, I'll be gone. /bullshit detector
posted by Decani 20 years ago
In "Good Books!"
Lord. Too big a subject, so I'll list a few personal favourites and leave it at that. 1. The Magus, John Fowles. An absolute head trip, mind fuck, beautifully-written, page-turner of a novel that (if you're anything like me, God help you) will have you up until the wee hours, desperate to know what happens next. 2. Lanark, Alisdair Gray. Long, surreal, mundane, contrived, moving, fascinating, original and thoroughly odd. An engrossing blend of fantasy and reality. 3. 1982 Janine, Alisdair Gray. His other great book. Who'd have thought a journey into the sexual frustrations and emotional inadequacies of a sad, stunted middle-aged man could be so unbearably moving? 4. Several of Iain Banks' serious novels (as opposed to the SF ones - some of which are fun, but none of which are as good as these) - The Crow Road - Complicity - The Wasp Factory - The Bridge 5. Cat's Eye, Atwood. Somebody already mentioned this. I second it. 6. Crusoe's Daughter, Jane Gardam. A wonderful and affecting portrayal of a stunted life. 7. Catch-22, Joseph Heller. No, look, you HAVE to. Still the funniest book about serious things ever written. 8. Vonnegut essentials: Slaughterhouse 5, Mother Night. 9. The Gormenghast Trilogy, Mervyn Peake. Makes Tolkien look like an overrated, humourless, dessicated, dreary old twat. Then again, I think Tolkien makes Tolkien look like that. 10. The Regeneration Trilogy, Pat Barker. Three powerfully moving books about WWI, featuring real people (Sassoon, Owen, Graves etc.) and some real events. Great stuff. 11. Birdsong, Sebastian Faulks. While on the subject of great WWI novels... 12. Iain McEwan collection: Enduring Love, Atonement, Amsterdam, The Child In Time. All great. 13. Fall On Your Knees, Anne Marie MacDonald. Showing us how superior literary soap opera should be done. Thoroughly engrossing. 14. Earthly Powers, Anthony Burgess. Sprawling. Erudite. Linguistically hyper. Surprising. Great. OK, I could go on all day. I'd better not, eh?
posted by Decani 20 years ago
In "My Fellow Non-Americans...."
Plegmund: "So I really don't care which of them sits on top of Behemoth as he ambles forward." I see that, and I find that reprehensible and incredibly blinkered of you. You and all the other Americans who seem incapable of seeing what an utter horror Bush is, and that it does make a difference - to the world, not just America - whether you continue to support a bunch of lying, vicious, ignorant, destructive, Orwellian war criminals or not. However, the point of my post - which some here seem determined to ignore - is that there are plenty of non-Americans who do care about this, and who are frustrated by their inability to influence the matter.
posted by Decani 20 years ago
In " US to rate its allies on their treatment of Jews."
That's OK. I'll just rate them on their treatment of Arabs, child criminals, gays, atheists and people detained under the Patriot Act. Oh, and on their grotesque obesity quotient. Fair enough?
posted by Decani 20 years ago
In ""Tell them we're busy.""
shawnj: so, your idea of "passing" an offer to discuss your accusation that I lack perspective is to simply restate the accusation, to call me immature and to compare me with Ann Coulter? Duly noted.
posted by Decani 20 years ago
In "Supersize Me: The Debate"
Fes: how charmingly simplistic of you. I suppose you think that the only aspect of Exxon's business we need to concern ourselves with is that it's just oil, people. How silly are those of us who like to look a little beyond that, eh? It's always interesting to see what people choose to ignore or minimise about a given subject. It certainly helps us understand their political position.
posted by Decani 20 years ago
In "My Fellow Non-Americans...."
Fes: you seem to have misunderstood where I was coming from. My previous disgusted post was directed only at those here who said or implied that they didn't care who won what is arguably the most important election of our times. You seem to be talking about people who don't care to discuss the issue any more, having made their mind up. Different people. dng: I'm not sure what your point is. What do you mean, what would happen to me? If you've made your mind up for Bush, that's not the same as not caring who wins, is it? So how is it relevant? Most on this thread: whatever you think about the advisability or usefulness of the Guardian's little gimmick, you seem to have missed the point that this is a new angle. It is not simply a bunch of yanks discussing the election, it is a reaction to the very real concern, anger, worry and frustration many, many non-Americans feel. Non-Americans? You know? Ring any bells? Those of us who reap the whirlwind of your nation's vicious insularity and arrogance?
posted by Decani 20 years ago
In "Exposing the fraud of ADHD."
"It is exactly that view that resulted in various forms of mental illness not being given their proper recognition for decades." I dispute that. Firstly, mental illness can receive recognition before it is properly understood, just as physical illness can. Secondly, demanding proper scientific investigation into phenomena is not what typically led to the appalling way certain mental conditions were regarded in times past. It wasn't the scientifically-minded who dismissed people as witches or who said that they were possessed by demons. It was the kind of dangerous fools who preferred to leap to conclusions or make unfounded assumptions rather than carefully and logically assessing the evidence. Of course, some mental conditions were treated idiotically and irrationally by so-called men of science, but their inadequacy as scientists does not damn scientific method. The answer to unintelligence is not more unintelligence. Leaping to conclusions in the absence of decent physical evidence, on the other hand, has frequently resulted in a whole pile of nonsensical and unjustified medical bogeymen and balderdash - witness the recent idiocy of the usual suspects (panicky, pampering, highly irrational parents who can't see beyond the whims, wishes and ailments of their own precious spawn) surrounding the MMR jab.
posted by Decani 20 years ago
In "My Fellow Non-Americans...."
Well, I definitely misjudged. Frankly I'm disgusted (although wearily unsurprised) to read that there are people here who not only don't care who wins the election but who actually seem rather smug about the fact. Whatever, d00dz. Hey, what does it matter if the US re-elects an insane, god-bothering war criminal who destabilises the middle east and sends anti-US, anti-west hatred through the sky? I mean - what are they gonna do? Destroy the WTC and kill thousands in your home town, or something? Pshaw. Let's stay real, eh sheeple? I do so love humanity.
posted by Decani 20 years ago
Sandspider: yeah, I saw that. I just thought this was sufficiently interesting to merit a main page post. Looking at the replies so far, I may have misjudged.
posted by Decani 20 years ago
In "London Meetup - The Sequel Sequel"
flashboy: Oh yeah... I used to go in The Bricklayers Arms quite a lot, but usually Saturday lunchtime. The seating upstairs was a bit weird - low tables and obscure chair arrangements - but it could work. And yeah, north of Oxford Street is good. That's where those Goodge Street pubs I can't remember the names of are...
posted by Decani 20 years ago
In "The Acid Age of San Francisco Rock "
A little heavy on the Grateful Dead? I didn't know Albert Goldman had done a biography...
posted by Decani 20 years ago
In "Supersize Me: The Debate"
I think McDonalds' main problem is that it's perfectly obvious to anyone with a modicum of taste that their food is noisome excremental filth.
posted by Decani 20 years ago
In "Exposing the fraud of ADHD."
I've long suspected that ADD/ADHD is - at least to a large extent - just the latest trendy label for those bratty, over-exciteable, pain-in-the-arse kids who have always existed but who used to get their obnoxious antics curbed by a few well-deserved whacks round the head. Until I see some convincing physically demonstrable medical evidence to the contrary - as opposed to the very predictable behaviour of a generation of over-indulged, cosseted, spoilt, over-protected sprogs - I'm not inclined to change that view.
posted by Decani 20 years ago
In "London Meetup - The Sequel Sequel"
Well, let me come clean here: I've lived in NYC for the last two and a half years and it's been a while before that since I regularly made central London a major watering spot. I tended to hang out more in Clapham, Camden and Hoxton. Especially Clapham (yes, I am a South Londoner of long standing). Of course, it's virtually impossible to find a decently sane pub in the central area, especially on a weekend. But the Chandos is in about the second most insane location, after Piccadilly. Places I used to find close to tolerable (assuming you need reasonable size, reasonable beer and a central location) were the Freemasons Arms in Long Acre (just about at Drury Lane), the Hole in the Wall at Waterloo (and it IS a hole, but it stays relatively uncrowded), a number of places in the Goodge Street area whose names I forget (helpful this, isn't it?) and the Three Compasses on Shaftesbury Avenue (or it might have been New Oxford Street. Damn this senility). None of these are especially wonderful, but they did tend to stay a bit more sane and tolerable than the Chandos. But again, I'm several years out of date so I'm probably talking through my arse. Of course, you should really meet up in the Intrepid Fox and gothpunk out to the max. I would.
posted by Decani 20 years ago
Eww. The Chandos. Bad choice, Londoners - unless they've changed it significantly since I used to meet people there. It used to be this dull, dark place that was always absolutely rammed with tourists, work-leavers and pre-theatre folk. The only consolation was the Sam Smiths. Still, have fun. If you'd done it a couple of weeks ago, I could have joined you. Lucky escape for you all there...
posted by Decani 20 years ago
In ""Tell them we're busy.""
shawnj: I'd be happy to actually discuss how it is possible to still be a Bush supporter without being wicked or stupid (I'll add 'uninformed' to that) to some degree. Rather than your just loftily suggesting that this shows a lack of perspective on my part, I mean.
posted by Decani 20 years ago
(limited to the most recent 20 comments)