Ashok, since you are set on a lawyer’s path and – by definition – should therefore be objective, cooly detached and dispassionate about your client and the other party’s plight I chose your blog as the platform to voice my view with regards to Conradgate. However, you ruled that no one involved should be named (interesting take for a lawyer): I therefore use my own platform.
The good Conrad made allusions as to corks to be popped. My maths teacher once opened a bottle of champagne. Instead of holding the head of the bottle away from him – hardly takes Einstein to work out that law of physics – he managed to let the cork hit him into one of his eyes. The sad result being that for the rest of his life he made his pupils’ lives a misery. It wasn’t our fault that he was such an idiot. But that’s bad mood for you: It distorts perspective.
At this point the judge in Ashok’s independent court will ask me to get to the point instead of wasting time on poetic licence.
Your Honour: I put it before the court that Conrad has not only tried to assassinate my character. He has defamed me, my name and my reputation amongst his, admittedly rather small, audience.
Why should this be so, you may ask, since all I did was raise the “lever” of Conrad’s “intelligence”.
Learned Court: My stringing words together is not appreciated on all blog playgrounds. Unless one’s circle sports roughly the same IQ as one’s own or higher you will be ostracised.
Let me put it another way, for the dense: You, Conrad, remind me of two boys who, travelling back home on the train after school, were sitting behind me. I was about ten or eleven years of age. They pulled at my beautiful long curls. OUCH! Reasoning? Apparently my hair was too perfect to be ‘real’ and therefore was deemed to be a wig which, naturally, had to be pulled off. They pulled once, they pulled twice. The third time I turned round. They never did it again.
That which sets us apart has potential to make enemies. It is how wars start. You accuse me of flaming. Flame what? You can’t flame wet wood. Conrad, leaving some of your entourage aside, the only person flaming was you with your diatribe entry. Read what you wrote. Then decide how much of it applies to yourself.
I know I am sharp with words, my tongue, both lubricated by my brain, but I am always considered. I spend time and thought on my comments. It’s not my fault if some of you don’t appreciate, can’t comprehend what I am trying to convey. I never asked anyone to agree with me; all I did, what should be done in any discussion, was to contribute my point of view.
Learned council: A much higher literary authority than Conrad said of me: “Acerbic, witty, but never rude”.
‘Acerbic’ is not to everyone’s taste. Granted. ‘Witty’ is not always recognized. Conrad, that is no reason to throw up and be sick all over one of the guests on your blog.
Your main bugbear, Conrad, appears to be, often cited by you, that I don’t “reveal much” about myself. Early on you even sent me an email asking me questions (which I ignored as irrelevant to the purpose of your blog). If only you weren’t so impatient you’d find plenty about me on the platter of your and your friends’ blogs. Anyway, what’s the rush?
Conrad, I had no idea that in order to contribute some intelligent comment to a conversation I had to hand in my passport, provide character references and pot my life history first. I am not saying you are one, however, you are displaying symptoms of being a control freak. You stab your finger at me.
As to Grannymar: My god, haven’t I known girls and women like her when I walk into a room or – heaven forbid – open my mouth. Hers is a mindset I don’t understand, never have. There is plenty to go round for everyone without backstabbing another female on the block/blog. In one of her comments addressed to me she jealously ‘defends’ her consortium ‘family’ like a cat does seeing another off HER ”patch’. If that is your idea of ‘family’ I dearly hope that, in another life, I won’t be adopted by either of you or come back as your daughter-in-law.
As an aside, Grannymar, and to help you deal with being so possessive of your ‘friends’: Don’t include links to them on your blog only to then jump down my throat when I follow them up and have the audacity to comment on their thoughts.
You, Conrad, accuse me of deception. You say that my name might not be my name, that I might be a man (what’s wrong with being a man?). Needless to say that sweet Grannymar has joined your chorus; she, at least once, viciously hitting me below the belt (since I am not a man it didn’t hurt that much).
Conrad, how do you know that Ursula is not my real name? As it happens it is; blame my Grandmother who registered my birth and went against her daughter’s (my mother’s) wishes. And if that second chromosome had turned into a Y, yes Sweetheart, I’d be the man you make me out to be. Possibly gay and chasing you; obviously I wouldn’t chase Grannymar since I have no wish to join hands with her, nauseatingly often cited, toyboys.
You say I am making personal attacks. In the same breath you accuse me of deception : On what grounds, Conrad? If that is not a personal attack I do not know what a personal attack is.
Come to think of it (not that the question occurred to me till you planted that destructive seed of yours in my mind): How do I know that you are Conrad in need of leverage? For all I know you might have eight fingers, as many heads as Hydra and dance in the moonlight; you might even be a big elephant in a small china shop. Would it matter? No, not to me: I don’t want to have your babies just an intelligent conversation. I thought that’s what blogs were about when comments are invited.
If ever there was a miserable witch hunt you, Conrad, and your second in command, Grannymar, conducted it – and didn’t you just enjoy the drama of it. Both of you and those who joined in, unreflecting, kicking the shit out of me, go and look into your own broom cupboards before throwing around dirt and dust.
When, in the wake of your accusations, I tried to explain something about myself you then accuse me of pulling the ‘sympathy’ card. There is no pleasing you, is there? Other than pleasing YOU. Since you appear to have certain tendencies which I shan’t name here it might give you (and the ever ready with her needle grannymar) pleasure, and please do enjoy the moment, that indeed you did manage to make me cry – briefly. Precious water and salt wasted. Still, we are all human, aren’t we, Conrad?
You, Ashok, say that I might consider “writing myself”. THAT IS what I did on the consortium’s blogs.
Grannymar, in a fit of hysteria presumably borrowed from my own ‘drama queen’, even called for the cops. Grannymar, let me tell you: Character defamation is a punishable offence. I don’t want to eat into your pension so I won’t press libel charges.
Ashok, I do not know what is going on within the dynamics of some of the consortium and its commentors. You say you won’t use words like ‘venom’ or ‘spite’. Though you do. I might be a tough boot when challenging other people’s perceptions but I am not venomous or spiteful. I have looked over some of my copy again. I can’t see what is offensive. All it proves is that communicating via the internet, without knowing each other in flesh and spirit, you do so at your peril. People will either appreciate your prose and/or give you that wonderful British “benefit of the doubt” or they’ll try to tear you apart.
If the purpose of the consortium’s comment boxes is to be part of a mutual admiration society then, yes, some of the consortium’s blogs I should not have commented on.
Ashok, you have asked me to apologize to the consortium. What for? Having contributed some wit and thought to some of your blogs? Ok, my apologies. Won’t happen again.
As much as I’d love to, I can’t go to into every single commentator’s name popping up on your blogs. It has been an education and an insight into all your characters: Those who said nothing staying as neutral as Switzerland; those who unthinkingly joined the witch hunt and jumped on the band wagon; one cheerful monk who, in her subtle way (largely unnoticed by Conrad), tried reason and hinted at the possibility that there is more than one way of looking at the same scenario; one bike hike babe who spoke up for me and is now paying the price; and those sitting on the fence just like some kids and a few grown men who cheer on a fist fight without getting their own hands dirty.
Ashok, on a side note, don’t hedge your bets. It does not inspire trust. You, Ramana: Don’t reprimand me only to then delete a perfectly good response of mine for none of your readers to see. It’s censorship at its worst. But then people burn books too when it goes against their interests.
All those members of the consortium whose blogs I haven’t commented on: Sorry. Or maybe you just had a lucky escape.
I have met (number unspecified) remarkable people via the consortium’s blogs and for that I am grateful.
I have misjudged some of you as worthy of my attention – and for that I only blame myself.
I would have liked to continue the conversation, not least with some commentors who made me shake my head, made me smile and – over time - had me intrigued in equal measure (not least Baino, Looney and Nick). Deb – and please don’t blow your top – stop hanging your flag into other people’s wind: You’ll sail much better under your own steam.
Some of you were so very keen for me to start my own blog. One aims to please. No censorship here. Say it how you see it. It’ll sort the squeamish from the supercilious.