I remember long nights sitting with a dictionary and thesaurus trying to make some sort of sense out of convoluted Academic Texts.

If I have to read too many threads along these lines, I might have to rumble around in the boxes down stairs and dig them out again.

But at least you haven’t personally abused your current or potential interlocuters here without cause. I suppose it’s a start for all concerned.

“No you’re not here�

should read

“No you’re not alone here�

Do you think? I liked it better the first time.

should read

“No you’re not alone here”

Damn leather kimono sleeves catching on the keyboard.

If you think there is something psychologically demented about challenging Mark’s article on Barbara Bennet …

No I don’t think there’s anything psychologically demented about challenging anyone’s views here. However I do wonder about the psychological state of anyone that predominately uses cheap and nasty second-hand neologisms as a substitute for actual debate. No you’re not here and yes there are few that materialise here from the far left as well behaving the same way. But I haven’t for long while seen anyone get quite so consistently personal and content free with it as you have. At least Jack Strocchi does try to set his abuse up first with some dialectic tactics and topspin.

As I’ve discussed elsewhere (I can’t be arsed finding the Troppo Armadillo link) you can draw an interesting analogy between a well patronised blog and a well patronised pub. They both have their regulars, traditions, in-jokes and general house vibe and they both welcome newcomers who get all that while still being good value shitstirrers.

Now consider John, the two following scenerios.

Scenerio A.
You’re having a drink at your local and some new bloke turns up and soon gets into a heated debate with some of the regulars. But come closing time, it’s:
“No mate, you’re completely fucking wrong and I’ll prove it if you come back tomorrow night. Have a good night.”
“No, you’re the one that’s got it arse up. See you tomorrow night and looking forward to that proof if you can find it. Yeah, cheers.”

Scenerio B.
You’re having a drink at your local and some new bloke turns up and initially joins in some of discussions. But after he’s got he’s got a few drinks him, he starts shouting “You’re all a pack of wankers!”
“Really? Why?’
“Fucken cunts the lot of you.”
“I think you may have had enough.”
“Bloody typical, you luvvie poufters.”

Now which scenerio do think best illustrates the behaviour here of someone like Razor, BBB or yourself?

And how would you behave if you were on the big end of such a scenerio?

FXH has perceptively observed that one of the problems with comments-enabled blogs is that they are a social media yet the nature of the medium does leave itself open to many contributions by those who aren’t adequately socialised.

That is people that have never had to deal in detail and/or at length with group situations focused on common goals despite often conflicting views, like for example running a business with double digit employees, particpating in school boards or Neighbourhood Watch, managing a family or being an active and useful member of a sporting club.

Or as that great Western Philosopher, Kenny Rodgers once said:
“You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run.
You never count your money when youre sittin at the table.
Therell be time enough for countin when the dealin’s done.”

In have been dead-on topic the entire thread. Look to others for avoidance and topic-diverting.

Clearly the answer to my question is Yes.

And you are off your rocker if you think I would not, and do not, do exactly the same in other face-to-face situations.

You must find personal interactions pleasant, then.

I’ll point out what the comments policy states:

Excessively frequent comments, where the effect of such comments is to discourage the participation of others or turn a debate around into one about themselves.

I’m not interested in discussing John Greenfield but Barbara Bennett and the issues related to her role in the tv ads, and I’d ask others to do the same.

Grow up.

I am hardly “abusing” anybody. I am engaging with folks on their own terms. If you think there is something psychologically demented about challenging Mark’s article on Barbara Bennet then you do have some things to work through. And you are off your rocker if you think I would not, and do not, do exactly the same in other face-to-face situations.

For goodness sake, this is a political blog with people taking pot shots at others 24/7. Why has not even ONE of you commented on Mark’s article? Given the bile your little clique will dish out to Babs Bennett, Janet Albrechtsen, Ali, etc. you are hardly ones to be throwing stones, now.

Look, you may or may not like or agree with every post and comment here, and I certainly do or do not either, but at least the majority try to go beyond mindless and completely unoriginal abuse like “feminazi” or “HoWARd” when arguing their point. You could take a cue or two from the likes of Razor or BBB (or even SATP sometimes, and not even always during a year with Halley’s Comet in it) who come on here to enjoy arguing points contrary to the prevailing attitudes but with a willingness to engage and the ability to display thought and knowledge beyond just reflex power point style insults.

Like your namesake mini-J, it’s increasingly apparent you’re only here to try and feel better about yourself by abusing people you’d never do so in person and boasting about your great throbbing cranium.

We all enjoy a good “gotcha” moment from time to time but there’s far more to a balanced online diet than just that. Especially when your “gotchas’ are just cheap knockoffs of what was cheap junk food to begin with.

C’mon, it’s clear you’re not entirely unread or an utterly barren ground for humour. Chill. Relax and goof off on some of the lighter threads. Surprise, inform and entertain us with your sleeping habits.

All pique and no play makes J. a dull boy.

Do you spend your entire life in a bubble where your thinking is never questioned?