Had a shock just now because in looking for a pic of a lady in a fur coat, I saw this one [left] and in thumbnail form, I could have sworn it was my ex-gf [mentioned below in the context of fur coats]. Enlargening the pic revealed it not to be her and so the heart settled down again and brekky could be quietly had.
There was a moment at work yesterday when a lady customer made a comment on her daughter wearing a coat with holes in it – a sort of coat version of ripped jeans but her arms and chest were basically bared to the elements.
In the name of fashion.
The ridiculousness of this in sub-zero temperatures [at that stage of the day] reminded me of a certain ex-gf who wore a fur coat with open neck in minus 20 temperatures and no hat because she’d just had her hair done.
She’d come down with two weeks of flu of course, as a result, a result she flatly denied, blaming it on the weather.
The lady yesterday asked what I’d said to the ex-gf and I replied that it contained the terms “logic” and “night follows day”.
“Bet you didn’t win that argument. Never use the L word to a woman. What did she say?”
“She said: ‘It’s my logic and my logic is as good as yours any day.’ ”
“There,” said a second lady who’d heard all this, “I knew you wouldn’t win that one. You had no hope. And she was quite right.”
A third lady who was tuned into the banter might have mentioned something about “tilting at windmills” but I can’t be sure.
I thought it wiser to allow the ladies the last word yesterday – my daddy taught me that decades ago. It helps preserve life and limb and enables one to live to fight another day. What really is illogical in all this is that their “logic” actually endeared them far more than if they’d been
log … er … of another opinion.
The priceless Cherie has coined the F-word to mean something different to … er … the other F-word. The F-worders, to employ this Cherie-ism, would have called that remark patronizing and misogynist.
So yes, it would be nice not to hear the F-word and yes, to address another stunning lady from a few days ago – it would be lovely to have strawberries and cream [I tried to follow her logic but it was an uphill battle - it mentioned strawberries for some reason] … but not to mention at NO what is topical would be illogical.
The logic behind and the raison d’être of this blog
The blog was set up to debunk humbug in whatever form it occurs. It may be that in twenty years, the F-word will not be topical any more and the way women are savagely turning on these harpies …
… gives one hope that that will be so and the iniquities which the F-worders have wrought will have bitten the dust but while topical, it therefore needs to be mentioned with each new outrage.
Just as with Cameron, Them, Obama, loss of freedom, the banksters and corporate raiders, PCism and anything else iniquitous in our society today – smoking banners for example. If it’s topical and iniquitous, then it gets debunked.
Ofttimes it will be une bête noire which mainstream consciousness has not yet latched onto but which is doing its damage behind the scenes, e.g. Chatham House and Common Purpose [post by Ken at OoL later today]. What – should the CP-word or the CH-word not be mentioned at all, on the grounds that members of Them might be sick and tired of reading it?
Similarly, the peerless Julia M continues her one woman campaign against PCishness. Should she desist because people are sick of reading about PC atrocities on the minutiae of everyday life? Or should she continue because that is her bête noire?
Which is not to say there’s not a certain perverse logic in desisting. That perverse logic states that:
1. Yes something is wrong;
2. You will have little effect because though the bête noire continues on rampantly, readers themselves are tiring of your message;
3. Therefore you should stop attacking wrong.
There is another interesting logic which says:
1. It’s much better to be nice to people and use soft words because they’ll respond to you better;
2. Unreasonable people, e.g. the F-worders and Them, have no interest whatever in niceness and softness except as a smokescreen for what they’re up to, i.e. they use feelgood words to describe their iniquities;
3. Therefore it’s best not to mention anything wrong these people do because to do so might be not nice and not couched in soft language.
There is another logic behind NO and it was summed up years ago by the highly estimable Tom Paine:
James’ posts are so frequent, his interests so varied and his contacts so extensive that his blog is rather like the Scottish weather. If you don’t like it now, just wait a few minutes.
There are many posts on different topics and so, if you don’t like certain topics, then read others. We have a few authors at our place and I, for one, enjoy their posts immensely. Not only that, they free me up to be able to pursue bêtes noires in a more focussed way.
The shelf life of a blog
As the incorrigible Bucko has shown, blogs often have a shelf-life. In the case of NO, it can be external factors, e.g. the host moving on and so later today I might be getting the news of the demise of this blog. If that is so, one of the other blogs will be reactivated for the nonce, although real life events are threatening like recent weather and that could kill my blogging semi-permanently. Timeframe is the next couple of weeks.
All things eventually come to pass
Sadly that is so. No man and no blog is immortal.