Tomhill

TomHill - Existential misathropy Vs Grandiose Narcicocity. (Spellings gratefully received from bob on high.)

bob, you have ascribed the aesthetic role to the grandiose. These are the domain of the manic and the bi-polar. I challenge your perception of narcicosity, as you have weighed it too heavily against the misathrope. The existential misathrope is the universal narrator. Think of Mr Lockwood, and recall also the miserable young chappy in Howards End. These too embrace elements of the aesthete. And they are firmly in camp A. The all-seeing existential misathrope. I count Plutarch in these ranks also. They are our historians, our observational artists. The grandiose narcicosity camp embrace the obnoxious far more. Hate for hates sake. And here I draw thechief into the debate once more. For thechief appears, at least to these watchful eyes, to glorify the curmudgeon who bites at your ankles, and makes us feel empathic towards such adandoned, bereft and self-loathing souls. Bitterness is the domain of the thoughtful? I question that thus: what role for the bitter and the jealous and the spiteful? These are the weasle traits of the shallow, and poor of thought... No long nights with whisky and backgammon there.

bob - TomHill wrote:
The all-seeing existential misathrope. I count Plutarch in these ranks also. They are our historians, our observational artists.


Gosh tom that was optimistic. I mean really, wake up or go home would you. Some people are trying to write here.

bob - It is difficult to know how to respond to this without a grammar lesson. bob is no longer god of anything. He has, ladies and gentlemen, made a mistake. I know that's probably difficult for you alll but in the interest of truth it must be admitted. The weasel character in Tom post was not bob but the chief. bob was wrong ladies and gentleman, bob was wrong. It is the end of an era.

canucktyuktuk - bob is dead and no one cares
if there is a hell, I'll see you there