SIAW claim I’ve nicked one of their jokes. If true, this is appalling behaviour and I shall have to ritually kill myself. First person to work out what the fuck they’re talking about wins the proletariat.
SIAW claim I’ve nicked one of their jokes. If true, this is appalling behaviour and I shall have to ritually kill myself. First person to work out what the fuck they’re talking about wins the proletariat.
Give us a headstart, John – who the fuck are SIAW?
This lot. Humourless Trots, or possibly Leninists.
For a taste of what weblogs will be like come the revolution, do check out the comments at ‘Drink-Soaked Trots For War’, where every other post has been deleted by the moderator. The bourgeois counter-revolutionaries are getting about, clearly.
Does the winner get the entire proletariat in one go, or can it be delivered in instalments?
where’s the accusation? We need clues, man, clues.
"One of *their* jokes"? When did *they* ever have anything other than superciliousness and platitudes?
I suspect "SIAW" is the nom-de-blog of Princess Anne. The royal ‘we’ is the giveaway.
This is rather like seeing Bernard Manning accused of lifting lines from the complete works of Jacques Derrida.
Given your attitude to women, Muslims and the Johnny Foreigner, irony should have stopped you dead in your tracks before raising Bernard Manning – a man who you resemble in more ways than one.
Bernard Manning – a man who you resemble in more ways than one
What, is Peter enormously fat, sweaty, and ugly as well as everything else?
I should stress that the reference to Derrida was not meant to be complimentary.
Not last time I checked, Larry.
Lenin, can you explain your impression of my attitudes to women, Muslims and Johnny Foreigner?
What, is Peter enormously fat, sweaty, and ugly as well as everything else?
Going from this evidence, "lissom" is certainly not a word that springs immediately to mind, though he’s admittedly nowhere near the Bernard Manning stage just yet. Mind you, I don’t know what Manning looked like at 21…
Well, that picture does look bad in that respect – probably because my hair is cut off and all you can see is the face. from a couple of days before that doesn’t do that and probably represents me more accurately. I’d be very surprised if I didn’t have a thinner waistline than most bloggers.
Whoops:
Well, that picture does look bad in that respect – probably because my hair is cut off and all you can see is the bottom half of the face. from a couple of days before that doesn’t do that and probably represents me more accurately. I’d be very surprised if I didn’t have a thinner waistline than most bloggers.
Sheesh. Something is seriously wrong with your HTML, John B. Again:
Well, that picture does look bad in that respect – probably because my hair is cut off and all you can see is the bottom half of the face. Here’s a picture from a couple of days before that doesn’t do that and probably represents me more accurately. I’d be very surprised if I didn’t have a thinner waistline than most bloggers.
Well you’re certainly not *enormously* fat or ugly, but in both picture you do seem to be wearing the same soaking wet shirt. So your sweatiness might not be too far off Manning-levels of enormity. Or maybe you just get drinks thrown over you with great regularity.
I’d be very surprised if I didn’t have a thinner waistline than most bloggers.
Well, let’s put this to the test – though I think you have to factor in height as well to make it meaningful.
The waist:height ratio (your waist divided by your height) seems as good a yardstick as any, and has the advantage that it doesn’t divulge too much detail.
So, to start the ball rolling, mine’s 0.48.
Well I’m not sure about this methodology – I don’t see why short people should be penalised, or tall fatties let off the hook. The "not divulging too much detail" issue is rather the point – it’s not an fair measure.
But since you ask, my waist:height ratio is 0.42.
0.47, though they seem to be setting the bar very low at 0.55 as a standard of health.
Since you asked, John: "As fair-minded and non-partisan as Torquemada". Not a joke, but an accurate description.
You think this trivia is worth devoting a post to? Sad, very sad.
I think that SIAW might have made a joke once, but it died for lack of company.
0.411 here.
D2, in what sense are you a "A fat young man"? We’ll have you under the trades descriptions act, mate. Though the "without a good word for anyone" goes without saying.
hmmm I was a lot fatter (and four years younger) when I started that blog …
Torquemada: a leader of the Spanish Inquisition in the 15th century.
John B: middle of the road British blogger in 2005.
Yep, I think the similarities are quite striking don’t you? ;-)
Make sure you check out the Spittle Flecked Trots for WAR, for more madness!
Dave, I think the line about Torquemada was what was stolen. And your description of John B as being "middle of the road" tells me never to be a passenger in your car.
Michael, I’m sceptical of the reasoning that says a man is allowed to gain two inches on his waistline for every four inches he is taller than someone else and still be considered equally healthy, so I can’t quite support your methods. Nor do I see why your test is evidence of anything – it’s a very self-selecting sample so obviously those with the smallest figures are much more likely to post. But the answer for me is 0.507. But can I ask why you care? I’m starting to feel a bit embarrassed and vain going to these lengths to defend myself. I’m very surprised if anyone has looked at photographs of me and concluded I was fat or obese or anything approaching it. But if it comforts you to think that, it doesn’t do me any harm, either.
Lenin, I’m still waiting. Don’t disappoint me. I was genuinely amused the time I was called a misogynist for posting my concerns about NHS figures showing how many women were being hospitalised on a weekend through drunken brawling.
But can I ask why you care?
I don’t care one iota – I was merely commissioning a small-scale sampling of actual figures to back up (or, as seems to be the case here, counter) your claim. Credit where it’s due, though, I’m impressed by your honesty.
And your description of John B as being "middle of the road" tells me never to be a passenger in your car.
For (I suspect) very different reasons, I’d take issue with this too – "middle of the road" implies something bland, safe, consensual and disinclined to rock any boats, which doesn’t really square with a typical John B conclusion like "I hope everyone who supports this egregious and sick piece of legislation gets put to death by mistake. And then fucked by necrophiliacs."
The original tagline "Dangerous centrist extremism" was rather closer to the mark.
No, I think "middle of the road" is about right.
For example, if the Sun rights an editorial about rounding up the Muslims and putting them into camps, then one reaction would be to disagree politely; another reaction would be to burn down Wapping and smash the printing presses with hammers. John has taken a course midway between the two.
Or when Charles Clarke makes a speech about ID cards, one reaction would be to say "tut tut" and take another sip of tea; another would be to send Clarke turds through the post. By calling him a cunt on a website, John is once more taking the via media.
Or when someone posts a silly comment at the Biased BBC website, John doesn’t engage that person in constructive debate to try and show him that he is misinformed; nor does he launch a DDoS attack on blogspot; he just once more calls them a cunt on a website. Moderation in all things.
In general, calling someone a cunt on your website (which basically accounts for about 75% of SBBS content which is why we love it) is almost always the Aristotelian course of action, midway between not doing anything and actually doing something. Middle of the road.
(btw, roughly on topic, I stole this joke. Anyone who can tell me where I stole it from wins the bourgeoisie. Petty producers and intellectuals of the stinking ninth category not included. terms and conditions apply. Peter "Shoeboy" Johnson, his friends and family are not eligible for participation).
SBBS is middle of the road, with a very British sense of humour.
I should add to that that John has an admirable commitment to annoying all the right people, which is also a very middle of the road thing to do; you’re not doing nothing, nor are you inflicting physical violence upon their person. You’re just annoying them. This is a thoroughly admirable way to behave, and I’ve often thought that if I ever achieved political power, ‘annoying all the right people’ would be the guiding principle of my day-to-day activities.
In general, calling someone a cunt on your website… is almost always the Aristotelian course of action, midway between not doing anything and actually doing something. Middle of the road.
The problem with this, is that we have to therefore conclude that almost all blogs are "middle of the road", and I’m not really happy about applying those words to extremist cunts such as Neverdock.
Peter, in this country, we drive on the left. ;)
Remind me never to be a passenger in your car. ;)
Popinjay Will on dsquared:
http://www.gentheoryrubbish.com/archives/000343.html
Ah the irony, the self parody.
Apparently dsquared is "arrogant" and condescending. This from a man who calls dsquared a "fucker", and congratulates Eric – another Spittle Flecked Lefty Monger – for "stamping on ignorant fools".
What was that about arrogance? :-)
To be honest, arrogance and condescension are cornerstones of my personality and account for the fact that I have to turn to the internet for conversation having alienated more or less everyone in the real world. But the bit I like is
the way he runs away from what he has implied by hiding behind semantics.
This is, IIRC, also Eric’s main complaint about me; that I tend to write things in such a way as to make it difficult to pretend that I have in fact taken the position of the strawman Stopper in his head. Fucking inconsiderate.
At least I know how so many of you can think the BBC unbiased now.
I don’t really get accused of arrogance and condescension, but it does get dull seeing others face it all the time. Frankly, whether someone is humble or incredibly arrogant matters less than whether they are right – and too often in blogs, accusations of arrogance are a way of avoiding the need to prove someone wrong. (As indeed, it’s worth noting, is the foul language used in – at least – 75% of this site’s posts.)
It’s probably good strategy to be humble if only because if you’re smug and arrogant then you look especially stupid when you get it wrong.
Frankly, whether someone is humble or incredibly arrogant matters less than whether they are right
When I say this, I mean it in the context of online debates. I’d rather have a friend or wife with mistaken politics and a humble manner than the reverse.
True enough. Although in SBBS case I think its just a style rather than anything else.
Peter,
…a way of avoiding the need to prove someone wrong. (As indeed, it’s worth noting, is the foul language used in – at least – 75% of this site’s posts.)
Maybe slightly, but (a) the same would go for a whole spectrum of rhetorical devices in which you and every other blogger on the internet indulges, (b) some people don’t need "proving" wrong (in the eyes of anyone sane), and (c) extreme hyperbole and excessively foul language are a damn sight more entertaining to read than a whole host of comparable rhetorical tricks. So if you don’t like it (or even if you do), go and fuck a corpse ;-)
I’d rather have a friend or wife with mistaken politics and a humble manner than the reverse.
I really, really hope that the word "mistaken" was used satirically – because if not, it speaks not so much volumes but veritable encyclopaedias about how humble your own manner really is. Or rather isn’t.
In all seriousness, can you highlight a single example of you being unambiguously and unsarcastically self-deprecating? I find this so hard to imagine that I’m sure if I’d come across one myself it would have scorched itself onto my retina for at least a good few hours.
But you’re welcome to prove me wrong – and with my blessing.
(As for John’s copious swearage, Larry summed it up perfectly – there’s a huge difference between someone resorting to foul language because their vocabulary really is pitifully limited and someone deliberately resorting to extreme terminology for precisely calibrated comic effect. John’s posts often make me laugh out loud – not that unusual in the blogosphere, admittedly, but it’s nice to be able to laugh with the writer rather than at him.)
Well, my point was it’s not important to be humble in online debates, and it’s not much of a criticism that one isn’t, so I don’t see why I need to prove how humble I am. If you can find it, a post I did on a Richard Dawkins lecture this February may meet your request, but I’m damned if I can find it. I’ve done a lot of googling, but I can’t seem to find parts of my own site.
It surprises me that some find John B’s swearing etc. amusing. I didn’t realise it was even intended that way. I think your rival options are part of the same thing. The bloggers whose posts are filled with vitriolic profanity don’t have the vocabulary or eloquence to lend force to their statements in any other way than "kill this piece of shit" style verbiage, so they rely instead on apparent comic effect.
Here it is.
Peter,
It surprises me that some find John B’s swearing etc. amusing. I didn’t realise it was even intended that way.
Then (controlling my use of invective) you are a not very intelligent person.
Anyway you’re not even making sense: they rely instead on apparent comic effect.
What do you mean "apparent" comic effect? In John’s case it wasn’t even apparent to you, apparently. To most readers however it’s not "apparent comic effect", it’s just "comic effect", except when it isn’t of course, when it might be described as "a failed attempt at comedy". Moreover he doesn’t "rely on" it at all, it’s incorporated for its own sake, for the enjoyment of his discerning readers.
But I guess you don’t have the vocabulary or eloquence to express whatever it is that you think you mean.
However fucking humble you are Peter, I’m humbler. Any of you other motherfuckers think you’re humbler than me?
Hey, fuck you. I’m so humble I can dig up Mother Theresa and bitch slap her round the graveyard.
Peter: You do of course have the option of not reading it if it offends you so much. I find John f**king hilarious, but I have a foul mouth at times as well.
Did I indicate that I read this site often or that I find it offensive?
Cuthbertson being "humble"
"Here it is. "
Oh yes.
And dear lord what a load of steaming ego it is. He spends an hour listening to an expert on a topic he claims to be interested in, and takes twice as much space telling us how much sleep he had. It’s hard to imagine even George Galloway, or the great (says PC) Simon Heffer being so pleased with himself.
Peter: Your commenting on posts here, and your description of at least 75% of them as using ‘foul language’ would suggest the answer to both questions is yes.
Well, my point was it’s not important to be humble in online debates, and it’s not much of a criticism that one isn’t, so I don’t see why I need to prove how humble I am.
Obviously, this depends on one’s personality, but I don’t agree with this at all.
People who are happy to admit that they’re wrong (better yet, those who can be funny about it in the process – search this blog for the word "fucksticks") are usually far more congenial company both online and off than those who cling rigidly to their belief in their intellectual supremacy, petrified that even the tiniest chink in their armour might reveal a hollow core.
And I’d argue that this is much more important than you’re making out – I can think of a great many people in the blogosphere and elsewhere who I almost invariably disagree with as a matter of principle, but who I nonetheless genuinely like, and because I like them I read their stuff much more regularly than would normally be the case – and am much more likely to take their views seriously as a result.
If you can find it, a post I did on a Richard Dawkins lecture this February may meet your request.
It doesn’t at all – I can see why you might have been under the impression that it was, but it’s not self-deprecating in the sense that I was using the term, in that while you’re letting your hair down a little bit (literally and metaphorically), you’re still very careful not to own up to (let alone, heaven forfend, poke fun at) any personal weakness other than being temporarily tired. And even then you construct the story so that the butt of the joke at the end is the pair of Jehovah’s Witnesses rather than yourself, as underlined by your post header, which is the very opposite of self-deprecating ("Peter Cuthbertson 1 Jehovah’s Witnesses 0").
A genuinely self-deprecating anecdote would reverse that score and have you doing or saying something embarrassing in front of them – explicable through lack of sleep, granted, but embarrassing nonetheless, and where the butt of the joke is clearly yourself rather than the other characters in the story. Long experience tells me that this approach is far more likely to win friends and even influence people than the one you actually took.
That said, you have posted at least one genuinely self-deprecating comment in your time – I can’t for the life of me remember where, but in it you rather touchingly confessed that your antennae for sarcasm (and, by extension, verbal humour based on nuance in general) are so poorly tuned as to be effectively useless.
This admission came, inevitably, after you treated an obviously piss-taking post (and "obviously" is a bit of an understatement, as I recall) with typically furrowed-brow seriousness, all of which added greatly to the entertainment value – in fact, I recall your post being a lot funnier than the original. But fair play to you for being honest when caught out.
But this presumably explains why you don’t find John’s posts funny either – and certainly why you can’t appreciate the difference between them and something genuinely inane. It’s there, and to me (and Larry, Andrew, Dsquared et al) it’s obvious, but I suspect a point-by-point explanation would be worse than useless, in much the same way as explaining Private Eye jokes to anyone who hasn’t grown up with the magazine is generally an exercise in utter futility.
Fucksticks. Feel free to point and laugh.
(This proves my point so perfectly that I wish I’d engineered it deliberately – but sadly it’s bona fide cack-handed idiocy).
The bloggers whose posts are filled with vitriolic profanity don’t have the vocabulary or eloquence to lend force to their statements in any other way
Or possibly they just can’t be bothered, and really, when they’re attacking the kind of people John B does, who could blame them? More to the point, the commentators who’re more concerned with showing off vocabulary than swearing appropriately end up using terms like "insouciance" when they actually mean "sheer bloody-mindedness", and then there’s nothing for it but to point and snigger.
And yes. I love my polysyllabic words and get ever so excited when people introduce me to new and obscure ones, but John’s way with words is hysterical.
Um. How d’you turn the italics off? Like this?
this should work.
maybe this will work.
That’s the post where Hitchens refers to "the criminals who shattered London’s peace at rush hour" as well. Ahhh the pastoral idyll of Edgeware Road at quarter to nine.
And yes. I love my polysyllabic words and get ever so excited when people introduce me to new and obscure ones, but John’s way with words is hysterical.
As someone who pushes words around for a living (both my own and other people’s), I couldn’t agree more.
Any boring tosser can don horn-rimmed glasses and write a pompous piece beginning "I disagree with the widely-held view that an Islamic takeover of the Western world is a serious threat" as the intro to a 10,000 word screed that no-one but himself is ever going to read in full (except for the purposes of piss-taking fisking), but a comment like "Anyone who thinks that an Islamic takeover of the Western world is a serious threat is a maniac and should be sedated, obviously." is pure blogging gold.
I particularly love the tacked-on "obviously" at the end – it somehow manages to be both utterly gratuitous and strangely essential at the same time.
pure blogging gold
I agree, but I also think John’s arsehole is nice and clean now, so we’re probably all safe to stop licking it.
"Here’s a picture from a couple of days before"
and yet you appear to be wearing the exact same outfit. interesting.