Bitch on the Blog

May 29, 2011

Joker in the Pack

Filed under: Communication — bitchontheblog @ 19:58

A few days ago Conrad tells me that I am the “highest maintenance person” he knows. Don’t know what it means. Sounds grand.

Some minutes ago I receive from him (in response to my “On the Narrow”):

“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?”

Yes, Conrad, let’s employ the boning knife:

Over the last eighteen months or so you, Conrad, have accused me of many things. Not least that I am liar. A liar. Whatever you say, Conrad. Whatever you say. You have also diagnosed me as borderline psychotic. Whatever you say.

Let’s concentrate on your last pronouncement: “Abuse does not bother you”. No, Con, it doesn’t. Keep going, Conrad. Put it to the test.

“I think that people not paying attention to you does [bother you].” Apply leverage here, Con: People ARE paying attention to me. Wonder why. Don’t you? It’s whyI am laughing all the way home to my EGO bank, isn’t it, Con? And no, it doesn’t bother me in the least if someone doesn’t [pay me attention] since, all my life, I have had more than my fill. Question: Why do YOU [pay attention to me]?

“Is yours a derivative personality?” Conrad, I can’t answer your question. I do not know what a ‘derivative personality” is.

You ask: “Does your well-being, your substance, require our presence?” No, it doesn’t.




  1. “Our” presence? Is that the singular (aka Royal) “our” or is it a collective. If the latter…exclude me please. You seem to get along well enough when I’m not around.

    The whole thing begs a question….. Doesn’t everyone’s well-being require the presence of others? We are social animals but, unlike the bees, it would be interesting to find out if we really need a royal personage in our circle.

    Comment by magpie11 — May 29, 2011 @ 20:32 | Reply

  2. I was actually surprised that this struck a nerve so directly, Ursula (and David). I only returned to your blog because you seemed to be in such distress. Remember that this was the stretch when you said that you were going to throw yourself off a bridge or a cliff or something. That is when I told you I was here.

    It was my observation that when I appeared here and gave you attention that all became sweetness and light and I became your “Dearest Con”. But, if I was not paying attention to you, when I returned to read your blog after several days abscence, I would find that you were increasingly trashing me. However, if I said anything that gave you attention again, things were well again.

    I am simply wanting to withdraw my funds from your ego bank and forego the interest you offer. If you now have the support of the friends you need, that should be no problem.

    Comment by Conrad — May 30, 2011 @ 16:41 | Reply

  3. Conrad, dearest. You really do not have a clue, do you? Not the faintest idea.

    It’s all falling into place now: You do not understand mockery. You don’t understand irony. In fact you don’t understand anything, the little nuances of discourse. Unlike both Ramana and most certainly David.

    I don’t know how many sisters you have: Hot tip of the day: Don’t take yourself so seriously.

    Shortly after welcoming me into your circle you tear me to pieces Nov/Dec 2009, villify me, my character, my name, accuse me of lying, doubt my gender, doubt my name and now have the gall to sniffle (see your response to David under “On the narrow”) You haven’t apologized ONCE. Not once. In fact, periodically, see above, you’ll come up with another little gem, pathologizing me. You don’t get it, do you, Conrad? If anyone needs their head examined and their ego bank emptied it’s you.

    Let’s be kind, Conrad (dearest): You may be intelligent in your field; indeed your prose, as I have often complimented you, is rather poetic, if sometimes incomprehensible. Style over matter – why not? It’s endearing. Your EQ (emotional intelligence) however does not make much of an impact on the Richter Scale, does it? You do not get nuances. You take things literal. No subtleties for you. Took me till today to finally realise that you probably don’t even know what you’ve saying, don’t know what’s bugging me. I will now say something, Conrad, and it is unforgiveably below the belt: But then you don’t exactly recognize where a waistline is, do you, Conrad (dearest)? So I’ll ram home to you how to hurt someone, by getting deep down personal when you know nothing of that person.

    No, I won’t. It’s unethical.

    You do not know what a lucky escape you have just had, Conrad (dearest). It would have made you both weep and hit your fist on the table with fury.

    By the way, thanks for ruining that little comedy side show Ramana and I were running over at his. It was fun. Enter stern Conrad (dearest): Now it’s dead. Thanks to the dragon slayer. But then, occasionally, we all piss on someone’s parade, don’t we, Conrad (dearest)? To what purpose not always clear.

    One thing you have not understood, never will, is that I am one of the most loyal, persistent people you can ever hope to meet. I do not give up on potential friendship to be formed because of some initial blips. Neither do I suffer those gladly who arbitrarily – as you do (and not just with me) – stab their finger at another person. You never ever ever ever, and it leaves me breathless, will concede that YOU, yes, you Conrad (dearest) have put a foot wrong. Oh no. Conrad is perfect. You talk such dry rot at times, Con. If you were a house we’d have to get an expert in. Lovely, isn’t it, Conrad (dearest), to be psychologized.

    It has not been recognized by you that I tried hard, really hard, to lighten and brighten our dialogue. I even “deluded” (as you, no doubt, would say) myself that GM and I, over at Ramana’s, had a glimmer of hope of mending our relationship. Funny isn’t it? Ramana and his elephant. Hindsight. Elephants never forget. And Ursula never gives up.

    Let’s summon up: It probably ain’t going to work, Conrad. Whether it does is entirely up to you. Please do not sacrifice yourself on the altar of my ego. Let’s worship on yours instead. If you, Conrad,as we say in the mother lingo, manage “to jump across your own shadow” we might salvage something and wire won’t be barbed.

    It could have been so good, so much fun. Fun as in fencing (swords; not planks of woods to keep the neighbours out). And if you take the s out of swords you have words. Ever noticed that? That’s what I do with my real and closest friends, not least with my father, crossing (s)words. Exhausting, exhilarating, enlightening. No sweet talking. Not one false note. Sheer joy.

    Think it over. We can all learn from each other. You might like to revisit, on your own blog, what your INITIAL intention was: ‘Watts’ and all that.

    Conrad, and if you can’t see it you can’t: I keep stretching out a hand. Take it or leave it. But any relationship, any communication, is not a one way street; neither is it necessarily an easy ride.

    Ursula de Vile

    Comment by Ursula — May 31, 2011 @ 03:56 | Reply

  4. Ursula, I know that you keep reaching out a hand. I would just appreciate it if it didn’t always have the middle finger raised! 🙄

    Comment by Conrad — May 31, 2011 @ 17:12 | 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: Logo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: