Bitch on the Blog

May 24, 2011

On the narrow

Filed under: Communication — bitchontheblog @ 20:18

As the Jewish say: “Let’s talk Tacheles.” No need to google: It means “Let’s talk STRAIGHT”. Got it?

Having set the tone I don’t need to tell you that I am PISSED off, BIG time. Oh yes.

Mainly with myself – having let myself been drawn into some of the most vacuous of discourses on various blogs – take your p(r)ick.

By thy blog you will know thee. Some of you I wish I’d never met. Still, you can’t choose time your tyre goes flat. Oh, yes.

Blogging akin to tiny Monaco. Think Grace Kelly, head scarve, open top, race course, Casino. Gamble. Beginner’s luck. Eventually you’ll crash. Particularly if you wind your way down that  road every day.

I like people with integrity. GM has shown none. Beyond contempt. Other than mine.

You, Conrad: Remember the desert island metaphor I sometimes use? I’d rather starve on my own.

Same goes for you, Ramana. You will talk the talk but do you actually ever WALK the plank?

Ursula

Advertisements

28 Comments »

  1. I’m thinking that whenever you are really “PISSED OFF” you get really funny. I laugh down to “take your p(r)ick”. After that I don’t laugh.

    Jean (CheerfulMonk) has a good philosophy about blogging. “Such fun.”

    “Blogging akin to tiny Monaco. Think Grace Kelly, head scarve, open top, race course, Casino. Gamble. Beginner’s luck. Eventually you’ll crash. Particularly if you wind your way down that road every day.”
    That ‘s so delightful to read.

    Comment by bikehikebabe — May 24, 2011 @ 22:54 | Reply

    • My dear BHB, if you reckon that my being ‘pissed off’ makes me funny then I shall adopt it as my ‘default mode’. Won’t be a hardship. Angel too thinks that there is nothing funnier than when his mother his fuming.

      Wish someone, anyone, would take me seriously.

      U

      Comment by bitchontheblog — May 25, 2011 @ 04:26 | Reply

  2. Isadora Duncan….. long flowing scarf…..

    Thinking of beauties that went to France….Josephine Baker.

    Comment by Magpie 11 — May 24, 2011 @ 23:21 | Reply

    • Magpie, quite the Romantic, as befits you. Who did I discuss with the other day the lure of dark skin? First you procreate with a member of the Master Race, or at least a Danish/Dutch/English lookalike; then you get distracted – not least by Italians.

      Not that Isadora Duncan was anything but pale. I never liked scarves. Now they have become a trademark of mine. Nothing to do with keeping warm. Expecting to be strangled any moment.

      Yours,
      U, down the alley

      Comment by bitchontheblog — May 25, 2011 @ 04:40 | Reply

  3. So why are you bad mouthing your betrothed and my dear friend? What particular talk do you have in mind, and how is he not walking it?

    I tend to notice inconsistencies, in myself as well as in others. Do they really matter if the person has a good heart? Not to me. Hence my “We’re all a bunch of nuts.” The “And we might as well enjoy one another,” is implied.

    Comment by Cheerful Monk — May 25, 2011 @ 03:12 | Reply

    • I am not badmouthing anyone. Just stating facts. Ramana is chicken. By his own admission. If you think it through, which I try very hard NOT to: How come he flirts with idea of elephants yet doesn’t have gumption to comment on his betrothed’s blog? If that is communication I’ll enter a convent instead. No, on second thought, I can’t and I won’t. Because I do not wish to be Jesus’s bride either.

      You mention ‘inconsistencies’. Indeed. I don’t know, Jean; your thought well worth pondering. On the whole I don’t think people are ‘inconsistent’. They, including myself, very much perform to type. Sometimes I allow myself the pleasure of reading through a whole sequence of many weeks/months worth of blog postings (my own and others) as if I were reading a novel. Takes away the ‘soundbite’ element. There is no inconsistency. Only a lot of scales falling off my eyes.

      Main thing is not to have any illusion. Which is NOT the same as saying: No expectation. I expect an awful lot. Mainly from myself; not that much of others.

      Briefly back to (in)consistencies: Personality is like a fingerprint. Just like writing style you can’t falsify yourself. And that’s good. And that’s why some people will always be that which invective is so descriptive of.

      U

      Comment by bitchontheblog — May 25, 2011 @ 04:19 | Reply

  4. “Just stating facts. Ramana is chicken. By his own admission.” Assuming that’s true, how is he not walking his talk?

    Comment by Cheerful Monk — May 25, 2011 @ 07:17 | Reply

  5. Should have been “assuming that were true, how would he not be walking his talk?” The sentence definitely needs the subjunctive.

    Comment by Cheerful Monk — May 25, 2011 @ 08:57 | Reply

    • Subjunctive aside. Ramana will play. But only on HIS homeground. Nothing wrong with that. It’s what men do. Not all of them, but most. Watch a dog or a tomcat: They will mark their territory. Enter the sniffer dog. In no time at all you’ll have another version of my all time favourite: Cayote and Road Runner; closely followed – call me simple – by Tom and Jerry.

      Thinking about it: Considering that I don’t like cartoons I like them a lot. A bit like people.

      U – beep beep

      Comment by Ursula — May 25, 2011 @ 11:07 | Reply

      • To cut the topic to the bone, I think that abuse doesn’t particularly bother you, I think that people not paying attention to you does.

        Is yours a derivative personality? Does your well-being, your substance, require our presence?

        Comment by Conrad — May 29, 2011 @ 17:31 | Reply

        • “Blogging is such fun” (quote from Jean). In any case, it’s never boring.

          Comment by bikehikebabe — May 29, 2011 @ 18:55 | Reply

        • From what viewpoint are we taking our idea of personality?

          scientific?

          psychological?

          philosophical?

          humanistic?

          Reading your comment, Conrad, put me in mind of one of my College Lecturers. Dr Davies taught me to recognise the “Aha! Experience.” (said in his inimitable Welsh accent) and to be aware of the idea that we all present ourselves differently to the different people with whom we associate. He was emphasising the fact that children present different personalities in the playground, the classroom, the Head Teacher’s office and at home. I dare say he would also have included Church and Chapel too. I was surprised to learn that this idea of different presentations of person had been pointed out back in the 19th Century.

          It has taken some time but I think that this is what he referred to:

          Properly speaking, a man has as many social selves as there are individuals who recognize him and carry an image of him in their mind. To wound any one of these images is to wound him. But as the individuals who carry the images fall naturally into classes, we may practically say that he has as many different social selves as there are distinct groups of persons about whose opinion he cares. He generally shows a different side of himself to each of these different groups. Many a youth who is demure enough before his teachers and parents, swears and swaggers like a pirate among his “tough”young friends. We do not show ourselves to our children as to our club-companions, to our customers as to the labourers we employ, to our own masters and employers as to our intimate friends. ([1890] William James

          So, what do you mean by a “derivative” personality? I am married to someone who suffers a Derivative Personality Disorder and I have yet to learn exactly what this means. It occurs to me that all personalities are “derivative” ( Copied or adapted from others)in that we are all influenced by others… including you Conrad. Or perhaps you mean in this light: adj. based on or making use of other sources; not original or primary….. that is all of us again. Or perhaps the psychologists have a meaning that has yet to make it to the dictionary.
          Please enlighten.

          Comment by magpie11 — May 29, 2011 @ 21:11 | Reply

  6. David, what you are implying is that I’m a hypocrite. Not in this case. I’ve locked horns with Ursula on several public fronts and have made it clear for a long time that I do not appreciate her barbed remarks and continuous trashing of me and my friends.

    My meaning for derivative personality was just an intuitive construct and had no formal psychological reference contained in it at all. Accept or discard it at will, but don’t be distracted by it. I was simply trying to figure out why she continuously disparages certain people, historically with me prominent.

    Let me say this to you in terms that shouldn’t be misconstrued: I am tired of coming over here to this blog and finding nasty comments that I actually have to look up dates to see what they might be referring to. And, they aren’t general remarks, they specifically have my name on them.

    Comment by Conrad — May 30, 2011 @ 17:03 | Reply

    • Yes, this is true.

      This blog is clever & fun. 😀

      Or hateful. 😦

      Comment by bikehikebabe — May 31, 2011 @ 14:05 | Reply

    • Mm! Well, I have re read what I wrote several times.

      You used the word hypocrite not me. I see no connection between trying to tease out exactly what you mean by Derivative Personality and hypocrisy.
      As to the former being an intuitive construct: all I can say is that it seems to me that it was less than useful to me if it had no relevant meaning, which appears to be the case. Perhaps there is also a touch of the politician in your answer? What I mean is that you din’t actually answer satisfactorily.

      As to me saying that you are an Hypocrite: As I aid not so. However, there may be a lesson in your response. If I assume that if I had called you an hypocrite you would have taken it as an insult, or at least a criticism, then perhaps we have the beginning of a process which appears all too familiar. That which starts with a presumed insult and builds into an irreparable breakdown of meaningful communication.

      I assure you that I had no intention of calling you an hypocrite. Mind you, if the cap fits then you may wear it.

      If you are indeed tired of coming over here and seeing comments that name you then might I suggest that you do not travel in this direction? In addition, beware of comments that could be misconstrued or might appear to have something “written between the lines”.

      Comment by magpie11 — June 1, 2011 @ 12:42 | Reply

  7. Ursula, you are an attacker, but don’t respond to the attackee except to say you are hurt & crying.

    Or you move on, guessing we will forget.

    Comment by bikehikebabe — May 31, 2011 @ 16:09 | Reply

    • I am an “attacker”. And Conrad is Mickey Mouse.

      Sure, you’ll forget. That’s what people in the WORLD WIDE WEB do: “Forget” and “move on”. Why waste time.

      U

      Comment by bitchontheblog — May 31, 2011 @ 16:23 | Reply

      • You are right. You choose your playground.
        If you want general info & kidding around with friends, you go to Conrad’s levintel blog – (Great pics). If you want tips on organizing your life for the better, you go to Jean’s CheerfulMonk or StressToPower. If you like drama you come here. I’m a bit of a drama queen. 😦 That’s why I come here.

        Comment by bikehikebabe — May 31, 2011 @ 16:50 | Reply

      • Ursula, I am no saint and do regret some of the hurtful things I’ve said to you. Why? Because I cannot justify my behavior because of the behavior of someone else. I really am trying to work on it.

        bhb is right, you do attack and await responses. Then, if someone fights back, you do just what bhb says and then see yourself as justfied. You can’t do that and be an honest person.

        Let me give you an interesting example: you try to blame me for derailing your mending fences with Grannymar. Ursula, you know better. It wasn’t but a few days earlier that you said,”I like people with integrity. GM has shown none. Beyond contempt. Other than mine.”

        Do you think that people don’t read your blog? You say these things, unbidden, about anyone and everyone.

        “Firstly: Con is no fun. If he were a piece of cinder he’d burn just fine. If he were my brother I’d put a certain question to my mother.” I included a very mild one. Another is “You, Conrad: Remember the desert island metaphor I sometimes use? I’d rather starve on my own.” “Which reminds me: Con is NOT a gentleman. I laboured under impression that he is only ONE year older than me. Don’t believe it. Neither did he bother to correct my misconception. Not that there is anything wrong with older men. Like a good wine they will get to their best once laid down. Unless they cork.” What? I’ve never had any reason to hide my age or have intended to. Or the fact that I’m rapidly balding or any other loss that comes with age.

        Do you think none of us have feelings? We are left a few choices: 1) to leave you or 2) to harden ourselves to your continuous invective or 3) to rise above it. None of those satisfy your needs unless your need is to feel superior to others as you imagine them.

        Comment by Conrad — May 31, 2011 @ 16:54 | Reply

        • Whatever, Conrad. I am nearly done. Can both you and BHB please retire to “The Joker in the Pack” (29 May) and address what I said there in response to you.

          Thanks. Will come back in a minute.

          U

          Comment by Ursula — May 31, 2011 @ 17:11 | Reply

    • Never forget that attack is often the best defence. I learned that when I tried to play chess.

      Certainly I try to teach children that if you build a position from which you can attack and then attack (with a plan of course) then you are more likely to defeat your opponent.

      On the other hand someone said (don’t ask me who because i don’t know), “More games of Chess are lost than are won.”

      Same goes for arguments I think.

      Comment by magpie11 — June 1, 2011 @ 12:46 | Reply

  8. No, Ursula. You repeat this pattern that when someone else homes in on a question about you that makes you uncomfortable, you either back out as you are doing now or you conveniently forget. My belief is that you want us over at the Joker post because you feel like it is comfortable home turf for you. You don’t like the way this conversation thread is turning. That is more understandable than laudable by your own standards.

    This is not a witch hunt and I know how uncomfortable it can be to be confronted on your own blog. I have at points wanted to give up blogging because of it. But, to have any integrity, each must live up to our own standards.

    Comment by Conrad — May 31, 2011 @ 17:28 | Reply

    • Put ” quote marks ” on Conrad’s comment here & say I said that.

      Comment by bikehikebabe — May 31, 2011 @ 17:33 | Reply

      • Drama is not good for the health. Why don’t we ditch this playground? “What if they gave a war & nobody came?”

        Comment by bikehikebabe — May 31, 2011 @ 17:48 | Reply

        • I have no idea what you are talking about, BHB. Do ditch. Follow the leader.

          U

          Comment by Ursula — May 31, 2011 @ 17:58 | Reply

      • Done. I’m out of here with you.

        Comment by Conrad — May 31, 2011 @ 17:52 | Reply

        • Conrad, wish BHB hadn’t thrown in her pound’s worth of little. I agree with you. I am out of here too. However, it was good to know you. Sorry it didn’t work out.

          Good luck. I will keep visiting your blog to peek at what you have to say.

          Ursula

          Comment by Ursula — May 31, 2011 @ 18:02 | Reply

  9. I discovered what a “U” is.

    A “U” will normally have a conventional appearance, so they do not stand out visually. But then the definition becomes interesting. They are glib and superficial, are manipulative and conning, have a grandiose sense of self, are pathological liars, they lack remorse, shame and guilt and they suffer from shallow emotions. But it gets better. They are callous and lack empathy, they are irresponsible and unreliable, they lead a parasitic lifestyle, they do not perceive that there is anything wrong with them, they are secretive, paranoid and authoritarian and they have an over riding need to find victims. They have an emotional need to justify their disgraceful deeds so they actually need the victim’s affirmation, respect, gratitude and love. How sick is all that ? Does any of it ring any bells for you ? Are they alarm bells by any chance?

    Comment by Brighid — June 2, 2011 @ 20:21 | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: