Remember lads: no quarter, for you certainly shall receive none.
Sexuality is a funny thing.Like "ha-ha" funny? Yeah, it certainly can be. I think there's been, what, a group of people called comedians or something that can possibly make a lot of money telling bawdy jokes.
I don't know I haven't really looked into it that much, but I think it's like the third oldest profession after prostitute and professional murderer.
Until 1973, the American Psychiatric Association considered homosexuality to be a disorder
And before you get all butthurt at how close-minded they were, the debate centered more around what constituted a disorder than whether or not homosexuality was one.
Though they weren't exactly free thinkers back then.
One often gets the impression, however, that we are no more sure about these matters today, despite our modern veneer of self-assured sophistication, than we were in 1903, when Major-General Sir Hector MacDonald, knight of the British Empire, hero of the Battle of Omdurman, and an icon to every schoolboy in Scotland,
COMMAS.
put a gun to his head and blew out his brains. He did this to avoid court-martial for serious 'moral failures', code for homosexual practice.
Yeah death before dishonor.
Holy shit that's back when knights knew how to act like knights.
currently prevailing dogma that one is either gay or straight with no continuum between the two poles.
Well I'd say if you're between two poles you're more one than the other.
Anyway let's move on because I get the feeling we're not coming to a point ever.
What is truth, said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer.
Nope we're skipping this entry too.
Now there's a quote by Marcus Aurelius. I think it might be out of context.
Now there's a quote by one of the smartest people ever, Tacitus--
starting to get a little bored, frankly.
I have no idea what he's talking about. Some sort of politician?
When film producers mine the quarry of great literature for new movies, one of the perpetual problems they face is that there was usually someone there before them.
I always thought the problem of movie adaptations was they either miss the point entirely or have to cut 90% of it to fit it an hour and a half (or fourteen hours if it's a new movie).
Lynne Truss had a surprise hit a few years ago with her light and breezy (and did I say ‘surprise’?) bestseller, Eats, Shoots and Leaves, about, of all subjects, punctuation.
Something that could stand a little brushing up from you, friend.
It was a kind of anally retentive primal scream, if such a paradox can be imagined, and one which appealed to all of us anally retentive punctuators who insist on spelling out the words correctly when we text, not even baulking at the use of the semi-colon.
"Baulking" looking a little funny to me ("balk" is how I've always seen it spelled) but a quick check confirms that is perhaps a UK spelling (though it seemed somewhat hesitant to call it commonplace) so I'm giving you a free pass on this, but I'm watching you. Scum.
There must be quite a big constituency of anally retentive punctuators out there, because in the same vein, the author has returned with this perusal of manners (or rather, their demise) and the rise of rudeness in our increasingly belligerent societies.
Let's correct some sentences.
Ignoring for the moment "punctuator" isn't a word, of course, since he seems to be coining a new term.
If it were me I'd first edit "quite a big" to either "quite large" or simply "big" because "quite a big..." is needlessly wordy but if there were ever two terms to describe philosopher and blogging in general those would be they, and then I'd probably look into splitting some of these massive paragraph sentences into smaller sentences.
See how annoying that gets? Fuck me.
That’s important because many literary writers seem to think that ‘literary’ means that Joe Soap shouldn’t be reading it. There’s no such attitude here; on the other hand, it’s not an easy read.
>not easy to read
>for the general public
>general public
>read
Well I think I found a flaw in "David Pearce's" master plan.
Ritual, whether it be at a Tridentine mass or in the precise depth of bow one person renders to another, is all about putting the participant into a particular state of mind; it’s about being, not thinking, and in order to read this book you really need to be Japanese.
Tridentine?
Why do I really need to be Japanese when it's a book written in English by a non-Japanese person?
Does this imply that you can somehow capture being Japanese better than the Japanese themselves have done it? Is it possible to be more British than the British? How could one even being to objectively quantify how part of a culture a person is in a given culture?
Either Magnus Mills occupies a surreal, sub-Kafka world, or the rest of us do and just don’t know it
This sounds so much like the opening line to a book I'd have to read for school I got chills thinking about what my late June and early July schedule will be.
Douche chills, that is.
Christ all mighty. Well I guess that's it for today. I have some shit I'd rather be doing.
No comments:
Post a Comment