how smelly is my house too
Tom hill wrote - Oh God, 'siily' bob is back, and 'mega-serious' bob has run for cover.
Your on-line persona is seriously schizophrenic.
Care to comment?
bob - Many writers aim for consistency of tone. Not me. All I'm going for is a chronicle of my thoughts, however foolish and changeable they might appear. In other words I write for myself first, give a bit of thought to clarity and style and edit once, maybe twice. If other people dig what I do that is seriously gratifying. If not, it can't be helped.
That's the silly side.
The other side knows what it likes: clear thinking, good logic, a solid humanistic grounding in life, forcefull, convincing writing (at least in an opinion peiece). Whenever that side of bob, lets call him pop, comes across something that insults those basic values little p pop comes out looking for blood.
Dangermouse and nammahottie for example both had to deal with that shift lately (nammahottie in the passion of the christ and danger in global warming) where suddenly I'm attacking their ideas like a mad man. Neither one took it "too" seriously because they know that like themselves, I also have differrent aspects and while some of our respective aspects might bump up quite comfortably on occassion others will be like two sumo's in heat on other occassions. It's not a problem. It's just life, and quite a lot of interesting, good fun.
That's about it I reckon.
TomHill - Well thanks for that reply. I am surprised you didn't comment on the fact that Tom even noticed your 'duality' in the first place. Anyway, good for you for writing for yourself. I believe, FYI, that TomHill is a reflection of me, (his owner) but not the complete me. Tom sometimes has ideas that his author doesn't fully agree with. Not many 'mosans know that. Thats why Tom is often written about in the third person. And I am aware that it annoys the living piss out of some posters!
One day soon Tom intends to reply to 'pop' in the global warming thread for challenging and insulting his 'bump on a log,' statement. His reply will explain his position fully.
TomlogbumperHill.
bob - I may not have said so, but I did take notice of the fact that you noticed "the duality". Surprised nobody else did. I had noticed too that you often write about Tom in the third person but thought that was intended to create a sympathetic tone and so it didn't irritate me at all. Doesn't irritate me now either. I enjoy your writing generally.
Apologies for the "bump on the log" thing but in that instance you were not only arguing from a position diametrically opposed to mine but you were doing so with an awkward metaphor. That's the kind of thing that sets little p pop a jumpin.
In any event I'm sure I've written worse here and if somebody were to call me on it I'd consider it a favor. Happy dappy is all fine and good but without the fear of criticism some of us would get sloppy pretty quickly and that would not benefit any of us.
Namahottie - bob wrote: Dangermouse and nammahottie for example both had to deal with that shift lately (nammahottie in the passion of the christ and danger in global warming) .
Me in the global warming. Okay someone is posting under my name cause I didn't go in there. But I did get in the Oprah thread about her hmm hmmm.
bob - No dear. Danger mouse and I went at it a little in global warming. You and I had a turn in The Passion of the Christ. I see that you are still traumatized by the whole thing. Almost traumatized enough to remember
Your on-line persona is seriously schizophrenic.
Care to comment?
bob - Many writers aim for consistency of tone. Not me. All I'm going for is a chronicle of my thoughts, however foolish and changeable they might appear. In other words I write for myself first, give a bit of thought to clarity and style and edit once, maybe twice. If other people dig what I do that is seriously gratifying. If not, it can't be helped.
That's the silly side.
The other side knows what it likes: clear thinking, good logic, a solid humanistic grounding in life, forcefull, convincing writing (at least in an opinion peiece). Whenever that side of bob, lets call him pop, comes across something that insults those basic values little p pop comes out looking for blood.
Dangermouse and nammahottie for example both had to deal with that shift lately (nammahottie in the passion of the christ and danger in global warming) where suddenly I'm attacking their ideas like a mad man. Neither one took it "too" seriously because they know that like themselves, I also have differrent aspects and while some of our respective aspects might bump up quite comfortably on occassion others will be like two sumo's in heat on other occassions. It's not a problem. It's just life, and quite a lot of interesting, good fun.
That's about it I reckon.
TomHill - Well thanks for that reply. I am surprised you didn't comment on the fact that Tom even noticed your 'duality' in the first place. Anyway, good for you for writing for yourself. I believe, FYI, that TomHill is a reflection of me, (his owner) but not the complete me. Tom sometimes has ideas that his author doesn't fully agree with. Not many 'mosans know that. Thats why Tom is often written about in the third person. And I am aware that it annoys the living piss out of some posters!
One day soon Tom intends to reply to 'pop' in the global warming thread for challenging and insulting his 'bump on a log,' statement. His reply will explain his position fully.
TomlogbumperHill.
bob - I may not have said so, but I did take notice of the fact that you noticed "the duality". Surprised nobody else did. I had noticed too that you often write about Tom in the third person but thought that was intended to create a sympathetic tone and so it didn't irritate me at all. Doesn't irritate me now either. I enjoy your writing generally.
Apologies for the "bump on the log" thing but in that instance you were not only arguing from a position diametrically opposed to mine but you were doing so with an awkward metaphor. That's the kind of thing that sets little p pop a jumpin.
In any event I'm sure I've written worse here and if somebody were to call me on it I'd consider it a favor. Happy dappy is all fine and good but without the fear of criticism some of us would get sloppy pretty quickly and that would not benefit any of us.
Namahottie - bob wrote: Dangermouse and nammahottie for example both had to deal with that shift lately (nammahottie in the passion of the christ and danger in global warming) .
Me in the global warming. Okay someone is posting under my name cause I didn't go in there. But I did get in the Oprah thread about her hmm hmmm.
bob - No dear. Danger mouse and I went at it a little in global warming. You and I had a turn in The Passion of the Christ. I see that you are still traumatized by the whole thing. Almost traumatized enough to remember
posted by david at 8:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home