Thread: Veiled in flesh the Martin see Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005645
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Behold, denizens of Hell, I bring you tidings of great joy, for unto us this day is brought Martin60 - straight from the right hand of the Father.
Yes, while you and I poor mortals were bumbling along in our unenlightenedness and godless stupidity, thousands of miles beneath his all-knowing intellect and as we are repeatedly told, "ten thousand years" behind, Martin60 and God were watching telly together.
As befits someone sharing the couch with God, he is unknowable and paradoxical, asking you for information even as he enjoins you not to answer:
quote:
Why do you ask? (That's rhetorical btw).
But fear not. Help, or at least incarnationality is at hand.
Yes, Martin has come down to earth to dwell among us.
Of course, coming straight from the Father, he is more than a little patronising quote:
Bravo mon brave ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
and may sometimes express frustration at how slow we disciples are to understand quote:
Sod me man! How many times? Of COURSE I believe in the miracle and miracles of Jesus and the disciples.
and if we still don’t understand, well of course it’s our fault; as our pathetic maths teachers used to tell us, all we need to do is go away and think about it hard enough and Martin in all his mystery will be revealed unto us: quote:
Why do you ask? You decide. All the information you need is in front of you. Again. As always.
Then, too, there are the sort of mysterious one-line epigrams one might occasionally expect from a freshly-incarnated divine being: quote:
Moses' face glowed
Not quite "I am who I am", admittedly, but there can be no doubt, this divine presence is among us! Veiled in flesh the Martin see!
But lest we be provoked to idolatry on his account (and, incidentally, in a piece of emotional blackmail sure to see off any challenges, or indeed claims of blasphemy) he makes sure to emphasise how supremely bad he is at this incarnational business. Never mind that he would be better getting a blog for all that stuff.
So you do what you do. You chuck in a ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
from time to time and add an extra measure of patience when asking for clarification. When he finally gives you some and you thank him instead of calling him to Hell like you should have done the first time, you get this gem quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Thanks for being more explicit. It really makes a difference.
You and your bloody graciousness.
And when you dare to suggest that this conciliatory response might put an end to dialogue, you get told that was merely Martin’s quote:
puckish sense of humour
(Or perhaps there’s a spelling mistake there?)
You then get a follow-up by PM which is not an apology, but another one-line epigram which according to the Cambridge English Dictionary is "used to tell someone angrily not to do something", which I suppose is befitting for a near-deity responding to his minions.
So you go to ask for clarification off the boards, by PM - and, as we might expect from the non-interventionist God in whom Martin60 believes, his PM box is full.
Martin, you may be pleased as man with man to dwell, but I am seriously pissed off with you.
Can you manage to explain yourself without being enigmatic, gnomic, self-pitying, or egomaniacal? Sir?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Can you manage to explain yourself without being enigmatic, gnomic, self-pitying, or egomaniacal? Sir?
Leopard. Spots. Immutability.
ETA: I am reminded of Andreas/Andrew/Andy/whatever, a shipmate of some while back, who emerged on the board claiming to be Orthodox. He was insufferably self-congratulatory, all-knowing, and rude.
Then he had an epiphany and became an atheist. And he was insufferably self-congratulatory, all-knowing, and rude.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. The more one thing changes, the more something else stays the same.
[ 14. December 2016, 12:40: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Can you manage to explain yourself without being enigmatic, gnomic, self-pitying, or egomaniacal? Sir?
He can, but he won't. A classic case of hiding insipidness behind a veneer of obfuscation.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I watched the conversation Eutychus and knew you would become frustrated.
Martin has no more answers than I do, he just has a more poetic, enigmatic way of saying so.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Eutychus. I'm sorry.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Enigmatic as ever. What for?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Making you extremely pissed off.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
By being enigmatic, gnomic, self-pitying and egomaniacal.
[ 14. December 2016, 15:17: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Yeah, well that's not good enough. As it stands, that's self-centred remorse, not genuine regret.
If you want our relations to become anywhere near normal again, that would involve considering just why you have made me extremely pissed off, whether I'm justified in my pissed-offness, and whether you are going to do anything about it.
I would have much preferred this to be resolved privately, but the final insult that made me consider coming here was very public, and I couldn't respond to your PM, the content of which I judge to have been manipulative and not apologetic in the slightest, so here we are.
Besides, I'm not the only one having to put up with this kind of crap lately, so I think going public might be worthwhile.
[x-post but most of the above still applies]
[ 14. December 2016, 15:24: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
You can't stop yourself, can you?
You can't make a compliment without an implicit criticism and an added dash of patronising.
[and, for clarity, the post linked to here was written AFTER your last one above]
[ 14. December 2016, 15:48: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
By being enigmatic, gnomic, self-pitying and egomaniacal.
So you're God then?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
OK Eutychus. I'm pissed off now. Must be the weather. Got pissed off last night too. Metaphorical weather. Most unlike me. Other nastiness is like me. But we mustn't talk about my unincarnationality must we? Which I use to offset any appearance of a claim to incartionality.
My ever popular inbox has space.
From me to shadeson, that's praise indeed (it's called litotes I think you'll find) as he's not above shooting from the hip, good for him. His heaven approximates to mine despite his earlier reactions, which were making me go slitty eyed wondering if he were a damnationist.
I think you got some weather going on too.
I'm nonetheless still sorry my insipidity (the better word MtM) has got under your skin despite other takes being possible.
And no... yes.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Does anyone have an English translation of Martin's latest post - and yes, I do know what litotes means, it's the rest I have trouble with.
[ 14. December 2016, 19:36: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Does anyone have an English translation of Martin's latest post - and yes, I do know what litotes means, it's the rest I have trouble with.
Yes.
Every post says the same - "I don't know, but I still believe and I do my best to love in my unbelief"
Why does he wrap it up in obscurities and vague language? Because he's not willing to appear thick/lacking thought/untheological/less holy/less humble/whatever.
It's something of a smokescreen.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
"incartionality", hmmm. That's the lo-sodium salt version. That doesn't help. Loses its savour. But nothing would except a terrifying moment of lucidity I s'pose? Na.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Why is lucidity terrifying?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Not sure about the why, but finding lucidity terrifying certainly would explain Martin's posting style.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
My ever popular inbox has space.
So has mine. I think the ball's in your court here. Now that I've chosen this forum through lack of any other choice at the time, that's where I'm keeping this for now.
quote:
I think you got some weather going on too.
Whether I have or not is irrelevant to your rudeness and whether or not you are going to do something about it.
quote:
(the better word MtM)
Would it really be so difficult not to use non-standard acronyms? More obfuscation.
quote:
And no... yes.
And this epitomises why I'm not letting go on this or caving in to my indulgent side in response to your brief flashes of humanity.
Seriously, why do you insist on posting such drivel? What is it supposed to add to your post?
As far as I can see it's you trying - and increasingly failing - to appear mysterious for mysteriousness' sake.
I would be tempted to excuse you as not being able to do better, but what really removed the scales from my eyes, as I said at the time, and is making me even madder now, was this post.
With your back against the wall, in fear of being banned and losing your little playground here, you suddenly developed 100% clarity and lucidity, doubtless because as you saw it, you had no option if you were going to survive here.
Thus proving that you are capable of clarity - if you set your mind to it and it suits your needs.
Instead - and in defiance of the responses on that thread - you apparently delve into your dictionary of oxymorons and antonyms to maintain an air of guru-like superiority, constantly positioning the rest of us as your initiates. You don't just do this from time to time, you do this more often than not. It's your persona. It's cultic, and the more it goes on, the more vapid it appears.
It's also utterly selfish. Most long-term posters around here have learned the basics of communication in this medium: attempting to be clear, asking for clarification, reformulation, and so on. All this appears to be beneath you.
And when I patiently get you to be a little clearer, and thank you for doing so, I get insulted in return. That feels cultic to me, too. I am through with making the effort and sustaining the damage.
This makes me all the madder in that I'm convinced that somewhere under all that, you have some genuine insights and could form an even more valuable part of this community. But unless you change (I submit: in favour of being more of who you really are, as evidenced by that Styx post), I suspect that increasing numbers of people will simply scroll past your posts.
Including me (speaking as a shipmate. As a Host I have to read the wretched things).
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
What's worse, happy as la-la-la-la-la-Larry dementia or dementia with utterly random rationality with memory of the dementia and the dementia with memory of the rationality? I used to get morphine grade IBS attacks one day at a time with one or two days in between. Torture on torture. Two nights clear always meant four hours torture from midnight. Completely psychosomatic too. Talk about punishing yourself. Positively Dantean.
Analagous for being a prat on SOF.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
What would be better, in my view, would be less self-indulgence and more comprehensible interaction. Your post above displays no interaction; none at all.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Again, an English translation please. This latest is totally meaningless, Perhaps I should conclude that you have nothing to say but want to say something.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
(the better word MtM)
Would it really be so difficult not to use non-standard acronyms? More obfuscation.
Ah. light dawns. And darkness. And grammar nazism. Insipidity or insipidness. And pronunciation communism. THAT. For most of you. Except YOU. As I saw in XP201D on Thursday. Friday. Wazzocks all, aye, including me (meaning thee, of course). And he DOES.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Come on guys. This is Hell. All round. Fair shares for all.
...
I'll see what I can do.
In the words of Radar O'Reilly, that is all.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It's something of a smokescreen.
It's something of passive aggressive.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Perhaps it is better to be obscure and be thought an arsehole than to be clear and remove all doubt.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
No. Clear arseholes have the advantage of not playing mysterious mind games with you.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Come on guys. This is Hell. All round. Fair shares for all.
Over 30 years of marriage have taught me the following:
a) that saying "I'm sorry" without detailing what for and what steps one is going to take not to do the thing in question again is of no use at all
b) that retaliating by saying "I may annoy you but you do this bad thing" - which is the implication I take from "Hell all round" and "fair shares for all" - makes things worse.
We are here to have out something I have against you, not hand out "fair shares". I've called you on repeated unacceptable posting and a direct insult, not the other way around.
Yet another deflective, elliptical, non-interacting post from you, in the face of your proven ability to be perfectly lucid if you can be bothered, gives me no confidence whatsoever that you have understood the problem or are going to change your ways.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
"incartionality", hmmm. That's the lo-sodium salt version. That doesn't help. Loses its savour. But nothing would except a terrifying moment of lucidity I s'pose? Na.
Now that one I understand! ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Very clever, indeed! ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Perhaps it is better to be obscure and be thought an arsehole than to be clear and remove all doubt.
I said the same thing, but my view is that Martin60 has no answers but wants to be seen to have answers - therefore shrouds his posts in amusing (to him and sometimes to us) obscurity.
The problem comes when he shrouds insults in the same obscurity - and, yes, that's passive aggressive.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
'strewth, one can't be passive aggressive even in Hell?
No, not in this case.
Eutychus. You're right. Again. Regardless. I take full responsibility for provoking you. Again. I am sorry. Again.
And Boogie and everyone else, you're wrong. I DO know. I have no doubt whatsoever that God does not intervene except through His spirit working normatively in us and I will clear up my stupid-compulsive, toying, aggressive play act with you Eutychus as I have tried to with mr cheesy and mdijon recently.
Woe, woe and thrice self piteous woe, I find it extremely difficult NOT to throw questions back or be orthogonal to them with one liners. Leopards, spots as the ship's rare maculate thieving rodent knows.
It's the only way I know to stop Jamat in his tracks. I must learn a better way. At 62 it ain't going to be easy.
And thanks W Hyatt, but there is a mote in my eye there, the 'salt' over eggs the pudding don't you think?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
My ever popular inbox has space.
So has mine. I think the ball's in your court here. Now that I've chosen this forum through lack of any other choice at the time, that's where I'm keeping this for now.
quote:
I think you got some weather going on too.
Whether I have or not is irrelevant to your rudeness and whether or not you are going to do something about it.
quote:
(the better word MtM)
Would it really be so difficult not to use non-standard acronyms? More obfuscation.
quote:
And no... yes.
And this epitomises why I'm not letting go on this or caving in to my indulgent side in response to your brief flashes of humanity.
Seriously, why do you insist on posting such drivel? What is it supposed to add to your post?
As far as I can see it's you trying - and increasingly failing - to appear mysterious for mysteriousness' sake.
I would be tempted to excuse you as not being able to do better, but what really removed the scales from my eyes, as I said at the time, and is making me even madder now, was this post.
With your back against the wall, in fear of being banned and losing your little playground here, you suddenly developed 100% clarity and lucidity, doubtless because as you saw it, you had no option if you were going to survive here.
Thus proving that you are capable of clarity - if you set your mind to it and it suits your needs.
Instead - and in defiance of the responses on that thread - you apparently delve into your dictionary of oxymorons and antonyms to maintain an air of guru-like superiority, constantly positioning the rest of us as your initiates. You don't just do this from time to time, you do this more often than not. It's your persona. It's cultic, and the more it goes on, the more vapid it appears.
It's also utterly selfish. Most long-term posters around here have learned the basics of communication in this medium: attempting to be clear, asking for clarification, reformulation, and so on. All this appears to be beneath you.
And when I patiently get you to be a little clearer, and thank you for doing so, I get insulted in return. That feels cultic to me, too. I am through with making the effort and sustaining the damage.
This makes me all the madder in that I'm convinced that somewhere under all that, you have some genuine insights and could form an even more valuable part of this community. But unless you change (I submit: in favour of being more of who you really are, as evidenced by that Styx post), I suspect that increasing numbers of people will simply scroll past your posts.
Including me (speaking as a shipmate. As a Host I have to read the wretched things).
Sorry, missed that, I need you to understand that I wasn't being nasty at all, 'just' comically so, in my "You and your bloody graciousness.". But it gets lost in all the other ... push back. You were being very gracious. I meant that. Most patient. Too patient, too gracious for your own good for too long perhaps and that's my fault for putting you in that position.
I'm sorry.
Please launch straight away when I do it again. Don't be patient with me, no need.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Thank you. Those two posts go a long way towards resolving this.
Just a couple of things: quote:
I wasn't being nasty at all, 'just' comically so, in my "You and your bloody graciousness."
I'm prepared to accept that, but I think you really need to consider just how this came across, which was as an almost physical slap in the face.
There's a reason we invite people to stop and think before posting. I've lost count of the number of posts, sometimes quite long ones, I've thrown away before hitting the post button.
Again, 30 plus years of marriage have taught me that absence of intent to harm does not mean no harm done, and maintaining a relationship requires that fact to be acknowledged and factored in in future exchanges. quote:
Please launch straight away when I do it again. Don't be patient with me, no need.
As you can imagine, crafting that OP took me quite some time.
I reserve the right to do it again if I see fit, but I think the onus is legitimately on you to put in the work to stop me (or anyone else, I'm hardly in a minority here) having to go to all that effort.
Just because we're enjoined to forgive 490 times does not grant licence to offenders to offend 489 times.
See what I mean?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Yes, thank you very much Eutychus. It's wrong of me to be hard work. I am in my own front room too ...
[ 15. December 2016, 13:55: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
It's his appalling vanity that annoys me most. Passive aggression is the norm on t'interweb, but Martin60 adds vanity to the mix.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Yes, thank you very much Eutychus. It's wrong of me to be hard work.
Thank you for this.
Peace.
Hosts, I'm done here as far as my OP is concerned.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
'strewth, one can't be passive aggressive even in Hell?
I don't think mt or boogie were referencing Hell. Kinda think you know that.
Nice that you and Euty are chums again, but this thread will return as inevitably as the Grinchmas threads.
Three of the whinging things this year! Enough Christmas moaning to make the baby Jesus crawl back into the womb and forget the whole thing.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It's his appalling vanity that annoys me most. Passive aggression is the norm on t'interweb, but Martin60 adds vanity to the mix.
Do I not have something to be vain about? Or rather about which to be vain? So as not to finish a sentence with a preposition of course.
[ 15. December 2016, 17:06: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
"incartionality", hmmm. That's the lo-sodium salt version. That doesn't help. Loses its savour. But nothing would except a terrifying moment of lucidity I s'pose? Na.
Martin60 is The Sunday Times cryptic crossword setter and I claim my £5.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Martin, here I can say it, so: Fuck off.
Stop flatly contradicting every bloody thing I say, without offering so much as a smidgen of evidence or logic to back you up.
Stop telling me what my own experience has been.
Stop making divine pronouncements on truth as if you had just come down from Mt. Sinai.
In short, stop being an asshole.
(and if you bloody compliment me in order to get out of the current hole you're digging, I'll be back to go ballistic on your ass.)
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
*opens popcorn*
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I suppose since my prediction is only a few posts up and this thread hasn't been mothballed, it might be too early to say "I told you so", but...
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Lordy lord, Marty, I would not want to be you right now
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
How about this one from Martin, on the Purg thread about bereavement:
Less is more. Less supernatural claims, less accompanying exclusion, literalism, damnationism creates space for more of the beatitudes, more incarnationality, more inclusive trajectory with confidence within and beyond this life.
Heaven can wait.
The trouble is we're so bad at doing the more that I doubt that the less would help. There seems to have to be a lot of the less for there to be any of the more.
Does that mean anything, or is it just Martin trying to look mysterious and mystic at the same time, disclosing some hidden truth?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Does that mean anything, or is it just Martin trying to look mysterious and mystic at the same time, disclosing some hidden truth?
And, perhaps more importantly, who cares?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Good point.
Posted by Goldfish Stew (# 5512) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
How about this one from Martin, on the Purg thread about bereavement:
Less is more. Less supernatural claims, less accompanying exclusion, literalism, damnationism creates space for more of the beatitudes, more incarnationality, more inclusive trajectory with confidence within and beyond this life.
Heaven can wait.
The trouble is we're so bad at doing the more that I doubt that the less would help. There seems to have to be a lot of the less for there to be any of the more.
Does that mean anything, or is it just Martin trying to look mysterious and mystic at the same time, disclosing some hidden truth?
How about starting with less wordiness and more content? Isn't that what people are asking the boy for?
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It's his appalling vanity that annoys me most. Passive aggression is the norm on t'interweb, but Martin60 adds vanity to the mix.
Do I not have something to be vain about? Or rather about which to be vain? So as not to finish a sentence with a preposition of course.
Pillock.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Your servant ma'am.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Martin, here I can say it, so: Fuck off.
Stop flatly contradicting every bloody thing I say, without offering so much as a smidgen of evidence or logic to back you up.
Stop telling me what my own experience has been.
Stop making divine pronouncements on truth as if you had just come down from Mt. Sinai.
In short, stop being an asshole.
(and if you bloody compliment me in order to get out of the current hole you're digging, I'll be back to go ballistic on your ass.)
God bless you Lamb Chopped. Your husband's story works for him and you as divine intervention based on New Testament precedent for you. I see no basis of comparison, no overlapping category whatsover. Our framing stories are implacably, invincibly other. Where do we go from here? How do we go forward together as part of the body of Christ to the world? I can't reach let alone touch you for incarnationality. I honour that story regardless. Your story of how you got there is irrelevant. Can't work for me. But you are there. The utter inadequacy of the story of how you got there does not detract from you being there. That should impress you. I don't doubt your incarnationality for a moment.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Fuck off, Martin. I told you not to compliment me. Stop that shit right now. "Honoring our incarnationality" is no substitute for treating me like any other poster on that thread.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
No other poster is making claims. And no other poster is as incarnational as you. So get your fucking ego out of the way and accept that. I don't believe a word of your framing story. I believe in you. Sorry.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
fuck you very much.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
You're welcome. Or would you prefer the regard of someone uncritical? Rather than the genuine regard of someone who doesn't, can't believe a word of your framing story? Because your actions, your life transcends those words, makes them irrelevant? Unlike the charismatic evangelical bullshit sermon I heard delivered by a self professed prophet, no less, tonight. Or would you rather I believe the framing story THAN your incarnationality? I'm the unpleasant, charmless enemy who persists in genuinely honouring you, in admiring you. Sorry.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I'm late to this love fest. What the hell is a "framing story"?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm late to this love fest. What the hell is a "framing story"?
Who knows what Martin means, but Frame Story.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm late to this love fest. What the hell is a "framing story"?
Who knows what Martin means, but Frame Story.
Thank you. I suppose to figure out wtf he's talking about I'd have to go look at where their tiff began. I think I'll accept blissful ignorance.
(ETA: It actually never occurred to me that this would be a real thing that one could google. Never even crossed my mind.)
[ 18. December 2016, 23:16: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Indeed. The -ing, is -ing superfluous as in much of my rambling. Frame stories don't have much matter compared with the stories within.
[ 18. December 2016, 23:20: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Lamb Chopped is the substantial story within her claims stories.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
It's the only way I know to stop Jamat in his tracks. I must learn a better way. At 62 it ain't going to be easy.
Fair dos Martin? It aint that hard!
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
(ETA: It actually never occurred to me that this would be a real thing that one could google. Never even crossed my mind.)
Helps that I already knew what one was. And since Martin is in a tangential to reality phase, I took a chance that it was close.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Lamb Chopped is the substantial story within her claims stories.
Martin, fuck off! If I'm the substantial story within my claims stories, that proves I'm a damn failure as a Christian who ought to be glorifying Christ. I've got the same damn vanity problem you do. You don't need to rub my nose in it.
Fuck. Off.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
I've watched the Martin-is-a-tosser threads for years, and on occasion have been known to spring to the defence of his right to be a complete knob. Lately however, the attraction has waned, possibly because he is such a complete knob. The sheer arrogance of his pseudo-Forrest Gump-channelling simplicity masked in his deliberately obfuscatory prose no longer entertains me.
I suspect I'm not alone in wishing he'd fuck off and set himself up as a prophet somewhere else. He doesn't appear to be attracting many acolytes around here. Perhaps there's some other wilderness he could wander, in search of redemption, or whatever-the-fuck it is that he seeks.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
meh. I went through the cycle with him. WTF?! - "oh isn't the eccentricity just so cuuute? - fuck off you opaque bastard! - meh.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
It's the only way I know to stop Jamat in his tracks. I must learn a better way. At 62 it ain't going to be easy.
Fair dos Martin? It aint that hard!
Hey mate, your graciousness helps more than you can know. I'm boring people here and wish to shed that skin. Too late I think.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
How about this one from Martin, on the Purg thread about bereavement:
Less is more. Less supernatural claims, less accompanying exclusion, literalism, damnationism creates space for more of the beatitudes, more incarnationality, more inclusive trajectory with confidence within and beyond this life.
Heaven can wait.
The trouble is we're so bad at doing the more that I doubt that the less would help. There seems to have to be a lot of the less for there to be any of the more.
Does that mean anything, or is it just Martin trying to look mysterious and mystic at the same time, disclosing some hidden truth?
Really? You can't understand that? He may come along and tell me I'm completely wrong, but it seems clear to me that Martin thinks some of the Hallmark movie stories of my dead grandma's quilt telling me which man to marry, and angel sightings by the sickbed, and remarks about how evil some people are and why they should be given the death penalty and burn in Hell -- don't do Christianity much good. He thinks we should have less of that and more talk about forgiveness and love and acts of charity.
He concludes by saying that we are so bad at the forgiveness and love part that cutting down on the tales of supernatural footprints probably wont help much.
---- Now. Maybe I misunderstood his whole post but when I read them I usually think I understand them so they don't annoy me at all. They are just not that opaque. Are people trying to misunderstand? Not for one second did I think, "Always so bloody gracious," was anything but a nice compliment.
And Passer it's not your call to decide who should go somewhere else. We have lost so many regulars from this board already. I'm sure there are hundreds of reasons, some as simple as, "Facebook," but I think others were just tired of being called to Hell and told they weren't liked. I miss them all and I dread the day the only people left are the lockstep thinkalikes.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Twilight. You're completely wrong BECAUSE you understand ☺
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
And Passer it's not your call to decide who should go somewhere else. We have lost so many regulars from this board already. I'm sure there are hundreds of reasons, some as simple as, "Facebook," but I think others were just tired of being called to Hell and told they weren't liked. I miss them all and I dread the day the only people left are the lockstep thinkalikes.
Hear, hear. I could not agree more.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
For the avoidance of doubt, I did not call Martin to Hell because I disagreed with him or simply because I failed to understand him.
I called him to Hell basically for being, as I saw it, deliberately obfuscatory.
Even I, Twilight, understood the post you rephrased and did so exactly as you did. But I don't know how you or anyone else can "understand" things like quote:
And no...yes
as anything but deliberate obfuscation.
Encouraging things like that might incite Martin to think he can carry on regardless (which is what his similarly obfuscatory response to you suggests to me), but it won't encourage anything constructive.
Obfuscation is not conducive to keeping on board people with differing views. Achieving the latter requires goodwill on all sides when people seek clarification, rephrase, and so on.
It was a distinct lack of that on Martin's part that originally led to this thread.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I admit to getting quite grumpy with this post which is pretty obfuscating. Unfortunately I got grumpy about it in purgatory rather than hell. That isn't the correct procedure on these boards but on the other hand we had quite a good discussion after that without a hell call. And I really wasn't grumpy enough about it to want a hell call.
[ 20. December 2016, 08:38: Message edited by: mdijon ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Was it on the Ship that we used to have AManFromMars? I remember his posts if ever I find Martin a bit obscure.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Some people apparently can't be anything but obscure.
I started this thread in the sure knowledge that Martin can refrain from being obscure should he so choose, and more particularly, if asked specifically in the interests of better communication.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Here is an example of a fantastic and lucid Martin60 post produced following a punitive disemvowelling from Doublethink, who was then a hell host.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Uh oh.
If any of you were Jesus ... which like my 86 year old going on 2 year old mother and my common sense personified and most particular, incredibly stubborn wife you're not ... oooh ... 'ang on a minute ... would I react as I do? Would I be insouciantly orthogonal with obscurity as a foil as I am?
I wouldn't dare would I? As in my relationship with my stepson. I never challenge him, always find a way, even 'though he's a Holocaust denier believe it or not and every other conspiracy theorist. Every. Kennedy. Apollo 11. The relationship is so precious to me after my being a bastard stepfather from this place and wondering if it's causal ... I wouldn't dream of agitating it.
I let the mask slip out loud once whilst watching some insane 911 'documentary' he wanted me to watch and had to back pedal. Not from reacting to him but to what I was hearing.
For his birthday a couple of years ago he wanted me to accompany him to a meeting with David Irving. It was jaw droppingly fascinating. And I was on my very best behaviour throughout. Luckily Interstellar on Imax followed.
So yes, I can do it.
But it's bloody hard sometimes ...
I Exoceted one of my church senior leadership team repeatedly on FaceBook when he started campaigning against aspartame and for Trump in 'he who has eyes to hear' terms because of the latter's 'repentance' on abortion at the age of 69 just in time for the presidential campaign.
He didn't post any more. Took it all down. Good.
Neither did the vicar - who must have had a word with him - and two other members when I challenged the bogus C.S.Lewis quote on politics he'd posted, being pedalled by desperate, 'lying for the truth' evangelicals.
One chap acknowledged I was right.
It's very hard indeed. Not to. Engage in ... combat ... vain disputations ... arguments one way or another. Futilely. Regrettably. Regretfully. Especially when Jesus is wrong.
Just now pushing back, no nonsense, with my mum on her need to clean her teeth despite not being in the mood and now being the only opportunity and with my wife challenging me parent-child (and her a head!) and leaving me nowhere to go for not listening to my mum read an interminable Christmas card missive out loud, not that she noticed. At least it wasn't the Daily Telegraph. She's allowed one in her room at a time. She filled her house with it. Hence the broken hip a year ago. I have to dispose of all the medication leaflets before she sees them. She still read the co-codomol box out loud.
Jesus pops up EVERYWHERE. And finds me wanting. Just as I find Him!
At least His teeth are clean now.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:It's very hard indeed. Not to. Engage in ... combat ... vain disputations ... arguments one way or another.
I can't see anybody complaining about you engaging. You make it sound as if we're resistant to debate here.
What I objected to was you being quote:
insouciantly orthogonal with obscurity as a foil
I somehow doubt that was the case for the CS Lewis quote or the aspartame Exocet. If the people involved backed down, I suspect you made yourself uneqivocally clear - just as you did in what mdijon quoted above.
For the nth time, it's not about finding your views intolerable, or so far above mine that my head hurts trying to think up to your level.
It's about you choosing deliberately to make them more incomprehensible (and sometimes slipping in the deniable insult as you go).
Yes you go through shit in lots of areas of your life. Newsflash: so do the rest of us. We just don't wield it as an excuse, and I don't see it as dispensing us from basic respect for our Shipmates.
If you choose to use the Ship as a playground in which you metaphorically kick the cat as R&R from your woes (and to let off steam from that horrible charis-evo church you insist on attending because it happens to be the only one giving you even a 0.01% chance of being "incarnational" as you see it, which is still apparently 0.01% better than anywhere else you can find no matter how much they are WRONG), expect the cat to bite back from time to time.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Bows head. Not hangs. I'd like to ask you personally to cut me some slack for walking naked here. But I won't. It's tough being me and tough on all I take and have taken it out on. No matter how I say it, it looks self piteous. The background looks like I'm claiming I have it rough. I DON'T. I am rough. I have it rough from myself. Pity me! Mercilessly please.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
For information: my response below to this.
Just reporting here, no criticism: I found this disproportionately discouraging. Falling down the elevator shaft discouraging. Along with the reasonable hostility I evoke from bored others above. I found my mood swinging from despair to unfeeling - not elation. The giving up the will to live remark was from on the way up from despair. I suspect that there's something low level clinically going on. The room next to mild bipolarity. There usually is one way or another! I was incandescently angry - very, very rare - one evening last week over nothing. Only I knew, believe it or not. The edge showed. I was cognitive and contrite about it with my wife.
I was going to jack SOF in last night, a very strong impulse. The strongest for years. I've taken long sojourns before. Years. But here I am, in the un-safest place and therefore the best in some ways to be cognitive.
You didn't find my remark about patronizing my wife's beliefs serious. It was. It was seriously ironic. I see all the layers of meaning in my interaction with her. She'll stop me in my tracks and I'll say "Good for you." positively. I modify my tone. I backpedal. I NEVER put her down, but in talking about what we talk about on SOF and in talking about what is preached at us I go off on one.
And it's clumsy to screech to a halt and try and backpedal and that must come across as patronizing. That's what I meant.
And failed to communicate.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Bows head. Not hangs. I'd like to ask you personally to cut me some slack for walking naked here. But I won't. It's tough being me and tough on all I take and have taken it out on. No matter how I say it, it looks self piteous. The background looks like I'm claiming I have it rough. I DON'T. I am rough. I have it rough from myself. Pity me! Mercilessly please.
I'd find all of that so much easier to do if I didn't have to wade through oxymorons and apophasis. Seriously.
[x-post]
[ 20. December 2016, 12:32: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Martin: This is a text-based medium. Back-pedaling here takes the form of deleting what you have written in a rage, or in a funk, or as a result of some unwise decision. It does NOT take the form of vomiting it all out on the screen and then expecting us to psychoanalyze you. Or somehow magically know that you aren't yanking our tails.
If you are in that level of need, you ought to find a real-life shrink to help.
As it is, you've done this so many times that I'm leaning toward the belief you are deliberately yanking our tails. Particularly when I ask you to stop harassing me with your compliments and you lay it on triple thick.
If you aren't a troll, get some help.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
For information: my response below to this.
See? You can do it!
As for me, I took exception to the "patronising" because in the context of previous posts, including one on the subject directed at me by hatless, it came across to me as you choosing to rejoice in your patronising rather than review it.
In which I was no doubt mistaken, but it would have been a lot less ambiguity if you'd left that word out.
quote:
And failed to communicate.
When two people have as much trouble as we seem to be having, the clearer we can make things the better. If we want the conversation/relationship to be able to continue, which I for my part obviously do otherwise I would have simply scrolled past.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
Hmmm. Just listening to this.
I am a poseur and I don't care
I like to make people stare.
I miss Poly Styrene.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I don't know if ironic or seriously ironic or any humour really work in print when you are attempting to be clear.
Why not drop the humour for a while Martin60 and see where that leads?
I love humour - people around me laugh a lot because I love to get them laughing. But with me it's all in the timing of the quips - doesn't work online at all.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Martin: This is a text-based medium. Back-pedaling here takes the form of deleting what you have written in a rage, or in a funk, or as a result of some unwise decision. It does NOT take the form of vomiting it all out on the screen and then expecting us to psychoanalyze you. Or somehow magically know that you aren't yanking our tails.
If you are in that level of need, you ought to find a real-life shrink to help.
As it is, you've done this so many times that I'm leaning toward the belief you are deliberately yanking our tails. Particularly when I ask you to stop harassing me with your compliments and you lay it on triple thick.
If you aren't a troll, get some help.
You are the only help I can afford Lamb Chopped. All points taken. Thank you.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Hostly furry hat on
A Public Service Announcement that the Ship is not, and has never been a source of, or substitute for, actual professional medical help. The H&As take the physical and mental health of Shipmates (as outlined here) very seriously.
If you need help, here is not the place to look.
Hostly furry hat off
DT
HH
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Doc Tor, if I may reassure you, I failed again to run ironically with the ball. I'm very familiar with the entire system, let us say, from all manner of perspectives. This isn't part of it! Even Waving Not Drowning for me. I do find Hell helpful, therapeutic in a sense, but not exactly clinically so!
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
Don't apologise no one can possibly fail here. Indisputably proved several years ago by Myrrh. Breast beating is peculiarly unattractive and very Catholic. Mea maxima culpa ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
There are Protestant equivalents of breast-beating of course.
Rome doesn't have the monopoly on that.
Meanwhile, head against the wall beating is a particular temptation here in Hell. Your reminding me of Myrrh makes me want to knock my forehead against the masonry ...
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Unhellishly, perhaps, I'm reluctant to give Martin60 too much of a thrashing as I can be as guilty as he is of some of the things brought against his charge ...
But hey, it's almost Christmas so I'll forgo some Advent restraint and breast-beating ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Martin60, I can cut you some slack only for so long. Generally your obscure posting style amuses me up to a point, but then it becomes wearing ...
Also, whilst I've also a tendency to hang around in circles that drive me potty, your persistence in knocking around a clearly bonkers charismatic church when you've moved on from all of that is frankly irritating. Either clear off and go somewhere else or stop whining about where you are - or worse - making yourself out to be some kind of martyr for doing so.
Get over yourself already.
Also, your mock-humility is excruciatingly boring and arse-numbingly irritating in the extreme. As is your tendency to try to absorb all criticism in some kind of pious, canting, self-righteous manner - thereby deflecting the impact and avoiding the responsibility of actually doing something about it.
We can only take so much.
It's bloody irritating.
Knock it on the head why don't you?
In plain language. Shut.the.fuck.up.
Then, when you do say something, be cogent, be direct, drop the masturbatory obscurantism and perhaps then we might listen to what you have to say. Underneath it all, you make actually have something to tell us that is worth listening to.
At the moment, no - no, you don't.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Ta.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Ta.
See! He can do clear and concise. But only when it suits his own purposes.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
He can, true. His purpose is coherency. Before he loses the capacity.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
You could have fooled me, Martin60. Coherency has never been one of your strong points.
Mind you, there is a discernible theme, as Boogie notes. I'll give you that.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It's a new purpose. I need to put away childish things.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Oh, FFS. Gamaliel, your inability to construct paragraphs and your long-windedness are by far more irritating to me than anything Martin60 does. You get into stupid spats again and again. Your posts are tedious, dull, boring. So how about you shut the fuck up already.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Fair do's.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I strongly disagree with Twilight's assessment that people are called to Hell and forced out because they have different views. It is how they express those views that results in Hell calls and aggravation in general. It is amusing that posters who's styles cause anger are here criticizing. And, yes, I very much include myself.
Martin is called here not because he is different, but because he is opaque. And he is viewed to use that to skirt the rules designed to facilitate communication.
Martin can, and has, communicated clearly and still kept his own unique style.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
I mostly agree with Twilight, but I would propose a small amendment
The people who are subject to intolerance - even hatred - are those who think differently, and therefore whose thoughts and thought processes are not well articulated in the kind of propositional, quasi-academic form which is the only tolerated form of expression on this freezer full of filleted haddock.
Mystic-heavy faith, like my own, is experienced as a series of paradoxes. To write propositionally, I have to try and describe my faith and my positions rather than express them. Martin60 takes the risk of trying to express his thoughts, and receives the associated hatred, and I salute him for his efforts.
This place is about as full of unrest, of appetite for the unknown and even vaguely edgy, as a fish and chip shop on Friday night. As is the whole church - the arrival of Christ as anything as bizarre and unsettling as a new-born baby would cause much pearl-clutching were it to recur.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I mostly agree with Twilight, but I would propose a small amendment
The people who are subject to intolerance - even hatred - are those who think differently, and therefore whose thoughts and thought processes are not well articulated in the kind of propositional, quasi-academic form which is the only tolerated form of expression on this freezer full of filleted haddock.
Mystic-heavy faith, like my own, is experienced as a series of paradoxes. To write propositionally, I have to try and describe my faith and my positions rather than express them. Martin60 takes the risk of trying to express his thoughts, and receives the associated hatred, and I salute him for his efforts.
This place is about as full of unrest, of appetite for the unknown and even vaguely edgy, as a fish and chip shop on Friday night. As is the whole church - the arrival of Christ as anything as bizarre and unsettling as a new-born baby would cause much pearl-clutching were it to recur.
oops, on rereading Twilight I find myself mostly to have repeated the thoughts expressed. Nevertheless, my thoughts as expressed above stand. True diversity is withering in the face of strident intolerance.
[ 22. December 2016, 15:52: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I mostly agree with Twilight, but I would propose a small amendment
The people who are subject to intolerance - even hatred - are those who think differently, and therefore whose thoughts and thought processes are not well articulated in the kind of propositional, quasi-academic form which is the only tolerated form of expression on this freezer full of filleted haddock.
What I have seen is that the people who are really different, if it becomes uncomfortable, are shrugged off. It's the people who are assholes about it that get called to Hell.
Consider A Feminine Force. Her beliefs are quite out of the mainstream here on the Ship. But she has never been called to Hell, and often gets questions posed to her (or did; is she still here?) as the representative of her particular worldview. Because she's not an asshole. People argue with her, and disagree with her, but nobody that I've ever seen treated her with intolerance or hatred.
Maybe I'm forgetting some incident and others can set me right.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
[x-post: to Thunderbunk]:
This is bullshit.
For the nth time, the original complaint (presently settled) was about deliberate obfuscation by someone who demonstrably can manage without obfuscating.
I defy you to find meaning, mystical or otherwise, in epigrams - offered as a response - such as And no...yes, or prove that the response mdijon links to a few posts below is of necessity obfuscatory due to the complex reasoning involved.
Apart from being a Christian, I am hardly in the majority on this site as regards many views, but I'm still here.
Claiming a right to diversity is legitimate, but to claim a right to divesity within a community requires a minimum of effort on the part of the claimant if they are to remain within, and interact with, the community.
Anyone expecting everyone around them to simply be obliged put the effort into ascending to their higher plane of piety while they make no concessions in their communication is arrogant to say the least.
[ 22. December 2016, 16:17: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
This place is about as full of unrest, of appetite for the unknown and even vaguely edgy, as a fish and chip shop on Friday night.
In my part of the world fish and chip shops can be pretty edgy.
Anyway, it always confuses me a bit when someone comes up with the old 'this place is not unrestful' kind of thing. If it didn't 'unrest' the complainer then why's s/he complaining?! If I don't find a thing provocative, I tend not to bother responding to it, because if I did, well the logical reason would be that that's because somehow it provoked me after all.
I think what happens is some folks (not necessarily Thunderbunk, I'm not that familiar with his/her posting history) just get uptight and frustrated when their views aren't universally applauded, or are called into question, even aggressively opposed. And rather then regarding the resulting feelings they experience as 'unrest' and take the challenge from there, just get all huffy and start - very paradoxically, imv - complaining about how the Ship and other posters doesn't work the way they think it should work.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
By the way, forgot to say, Martin's always been a bit of a favourite with me. Can't say why, because he's so esoteric at times! But to me - and it's just my personal opinion, of course - he represents something pretty special both about the journey of faith and this online community.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I wouldn't be trying so hard to understand him if I didn't think all of that was true.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
ETA: response to Thunderbunk
Where is the evidence of your claim? Who has been pushed out for being different?
Martin doesn't engender hatred, but annoyance. Martin can express himself in his own manner and still communicate. He just has to actually communicate occasionally. Not in every utterance, occasionally.
[ 22. December 2016, 17:18: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Martin's alright. I like reading his posts. They are better than mine.
I can understand why Eutychus got pissed off though. Martin can be clear when he wants to be.
I can do paragraphs too, and be concise.
But it takes effort. As does avoiding silly spats. I thought I had done so since being allowed back.
I will try to do better in the New Year.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Originally posted by mousethief quote:
What I have seen is that the people who are really different, if it becomes uncomfortable, are shrugged off.
When I first started posting here, it was crickets for a while. At least part of that was me, I needed to learn to communicate well enough to properly engage.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
<pauses, needing to look up "crickets" in the UrbanDictionary...>
(seriously: this communication thing can be hard...)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by mousethief quote:
What I have seen is that the people who are really different, if it becomes uncomfortable, are shrugged off.
When I first started posting here, it was crickets for a while. At least part of that was me, I needed to learn to communicate well enough to properly engage.
I can still get crickets if I say something about an Orthodox point of view in an Ecclesiantics thread. Indeed I remember a very long thread in perhaps Styx where people were pointing out that Ecclesiantics regulars weren't interested in discussing anything other than the vicissitudes of the Anglican Church and its former vassals. Of course you can't force people to discuss things they don't want to, and eventually most of us non-Anglicans just gave up on ever being engaged with there. <shrugs>
Posted by Goldfish Stew (# 5512) on
:
Perhaps next to our post count we need a Crickets quotient, where the software counts our percentage of posts that nobody actually responded to
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
ISTM that would be difficult to determine, as not all responses quote the post they're responding to.
Posted by Goldfish Stew (# 5512) on
:
mumble mumble ... big data... mumble something ... facebook algorithms ... mutter
Yeah it would be. We could add manually counting responses to hosts duties, because they would like that very much.
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Martin's alright. I like reading his posts. They are better than mine.
I will try to do better in the New Year.
Very true!
And please stop apologising.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Why? Is apologising too Catholic for you?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
GOD: Arthur! Arthur, King of the Britons! Oh, don't grovel! If there's one thing I can't stand, it's people groveling.
ARTHUR: Sorry--
GOD: And don't apologize. Every time I try to talk to someone it's "sorry this" and "forgive me that" and "I'm not worthy". What are you doing now!?
ARTHUR: I'm averting my eyes, oh Lord.
GOD: Well, don't. It's like those miserable Psalms -- they're so depressing. Now knock it off!
ARTHUR: Yes, Lord.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Sound effects ....
Serving hatch opening in the clouds, God's amplified voice showing irritation at Arthur. Clunk of doors sliding shut at the end of the encounter.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
I've watched the Martin-is-a-tosser threads for years, and on occasion have been known to spring to the defence of his right to be a complete knob. Lately however, the attraction has waned, possibly because he is such a complete knob. The sheer arrogance of his pseudo-Forrest Gump-channelling simplicity masked in his deliberately obfuscatory prose no longer entertains me.
I suspect I'm not alone in wishing he'd fuck off and set himself up as a prophet somewhere else. He doesn't appear to be attracting many acolytes around here. Perhaps there's some other wilderness he could wander, in search of redemption, or whatever-the-fuck it is that he seeks.
And passer, me old cock sparra, I don't want acolytes, I want to be an acolyte. Can we grab the hem of your robe that you may lead us to be incarnational? I seek to be incarnational, with you mate.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
That's got to be a two-way process.
It's one thing to grasp the hem of someone's robe, quite another to pull their pisser.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And passer, me old cock sparra, I don't want acolytes, I want to be an acolyte. Can we grab the hem of your robe that you may lead us to be incarnational? I seek to be incarnational, with you mate.
(sighs)
The voice returns like the insistent out-of-tune
Of a broken violin on an August afternoon:
“I am always sure that you understand
My feelings, always sure that you feel,
Sure that across the gulf you reach your hand.
You are invulnerable, you have no Achilles’ heel.
You will go on, and when you have prevailed
You can say: at this point many a one has failed.
But what have I, but what have I, my friend,
To give you, what can you receive from me?
...
I shall sit here, serving tea to friends.…”
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
To balance my earlier thought, if there were any particular feature of Martin's posts I would describe as infernal, it's his obsequiousness. It doesn't help anything or anyone, and simply makes the Ship feel like some kind of virtual tribute to Dickens.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And passer, me old cock sparra, I don't want acolytes, I want to be an acolyte. Can we grab the hem of your robe that you may lead us to be incarnational? I seek to be incarnational, with you mate.
(sighs)
The voice returns like the insistent out-of-tune
Of a broken violin on an August afternoon:
“I am always sure that you understand
My feelings, always sure that you feel,
Sure that across the gulf you reach your hand.
You are invulnerable, you have no Achilles’ heel.
You will go on, and when you have prevailed
You can say: at this point many a one has failed.
But what have I, but what have I, my friend,
To give you, what can you receive from me?
...
I shall sit here, serving tea to friends.…”
That is SO good. In every way. No surprise that its Thomas Stearns. You won't believe that's who came to mind.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
To his many sins, Martin adds an obsequiousness worthy of Uriah Heep.
Yes, that is a key ingredient.
Other than his obscurantism, passive-aggressiveness, obsequiousness and incoherence he's essentially an alright bloke ...
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Aggression. Bastard.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
You. What?
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To his many sins...
And why would you chip in at this point in the thread with that? There's been a pretty good exchange of views and what does this add now and what's the motivation?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
To say that despite his 'many didn't, Martin60 remains a 'good bloke.'
Did you not read the rest of my post?
FWIW I like Martin. I may wind him up here in Hell but elsewhere I find myself in broad agreement - when I can understand what he's saying.
If he dropped the obsequiousness and the obscurantism, he'd be ok.
There are things I need to stop doing too.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
And also things I need to start doing, such as previewing my posts. That should have read 'many sins' ... But dang that predictive text ...
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I may wind him up here in Hell...
That answers my question more credibly than your implication that the primary motive was to say what a good bloke he is. Winding people up is a shitty activity.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Yeah, but watch me go!
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I can't think what could go wrong.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Winding people up is a shitty activity.
As shitty activity goes it ranks a fair way down the list.
And indeed when it comes to someone winding up another on 'soc.' there is always the option of turning the fuck thing to OFF.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Winding people up is a shitty activity.
As shitty activity goes it ranks a fair way down the list.
So is knocking over rural mailboxes, but it's still shitty. And much less likely to happen online.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Nothing shitty gonna happen to you online if you're not online.
Not sure about rural mail boxes, we have had the craze of ramming road signs in this area for a while. Then post it online for extra tee-hee value, that is until you get traced and end up paying for the damage.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Being shitty to Martin60 and saying what a good bloke he is at the same time is consistent with my both/and not either/or mantra.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Nothing shitty gonna happen to you online if you're not online.
This is roughly equivalent to, if you don't like the way I beat up everybody on the playground, don't come on the playground. One can actually want the playground to be a nice place to be, and enjoy being there when it is. And people shitting on it needn't be tolerated.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Being shitty to Martin60 and saying what a good bloke he is at the same time is consistent with my both/and not either/or mantra.
Jesus Christ that is crazier than a moose on meth in purple flares.
Call that a mantra if you want I think it's just hopeless foolery.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Then you are a better man than I am mdijon.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Either that or you can't tell when someone is pulling your pisser, you po-faced prat.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Gamaliel, you say the most pathetic stuff that makes no sense at all, including admitting to winding people up, then think it's all OK if you pull this both/and schtick and say it was all a joke.
I don't see anyone laughing. And I really don't want the image of you pulling my pisser.
Fuck off and stop shitting on the playground.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
If you don't want your pisser pulled, put it away and stop wandering around with it hanging so obviously out if your trousers so that any passerby can take a potshot at it.
You ought to be grateful that someone has actually seen it.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Of course it's a joke. It may not be a funny one but Martin seems to have taken it in the way it was intended.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You. What?
"passive-aggressiveness", I mean, I ask you. Bastard.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If you don't want your pisser pulled
Best admission of being a troll I've seen here in a while.
At least the racists sexists and other=stuff-ists believe what they say. Unlike you. Gamaliel. Troll. Lowest of the low.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Goodness me, there seem to be so many Trolls wallowing the murky depths these days it makes you wonder who is left manning the decks.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If you don't want your pisser pulled, put it away and stop wandering around with it hanging so obviously out if your trousers so that any passerby can take a potshot at it.
Failed and baseless justification for trolling. Fuck off.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Fair enough Martin60. I understood that.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I will fur cough but wish you all a Happy New Year. Take care now.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Fair enough Martin60. I understood that.
Yeah. And you won't forget. You'll bide your time. Bastard.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Good. At least I seem to have cured you of your obsequiousness. So at least I've done that much, even if I have pissed other people off in the process.
I do wish you and yours a Happy and Incarnational New Year. Keep us on our toes.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
And to you - with a very short 'ay' - and yours Gamaliel.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0