how is acceptable that someone who has been suspended for cheating would have the opportunity to ref again? the usa vs italy game was today. the ref was awful. he was not allowed to ref in the last world cup. hmmm.
why is the right thing so hard to do? why do emotions cloud things? how do you stop that from happening? i am reading cs lewis right now. he is talking about need love versus gift love. i guess need love gets in the way. we are only thinking about what we need in that moment and never about what we could give or what is being given to us.
why are families so dysfunctional? why is it so much easier to deal with your own family dysfunction? wouldn't life, and especially relationships, be easier if you never had to deal with anyone's family? that saying-when you marry the person, you marry the family-that sucks. and i think it is a lie. or at least everyone should work extra hard to make it false.
do you think that there is life in space? i watched this movie that said that life at the really scary black part of the ocean is probably how life on europa is. europa is a moon. who knew? i kind of hope it is not true since the "life" they showed us was billions, and i really mean billions, of really disgusting looking shrimp that could live in toxic ocean gas that was 750 degrees fahrenheit. yuck. that is more primal than roaches. no thanks.
20 comments:
i am just a passer by... i am new to these blogger's world and thought 'weekend ramblings' was my kind of blog title, so i gave it a whirl.
i wonder whether or not people actually find the things you write as insightful, or helpful... or whether or not they find them self righteous and flagrantly destructive.
you seem to have a good deal of hate in your life. maybe hate is too strong a word - hmmm... i wonder, maybe you have a good deal of bitterness. bitterness for what, i could not know. maybe for being born? maybe for becoming the unattainable reaches of humanity the rest of us cockroach feeders fail to comprehend?... yeah, i could see that as a lonely place to live. your husband must bask in your glory.
how does one read c.s. lewis' construct of gift love vs. need love, endorse its value (as though they understand the concept) and then continue to vomit need love ramblings over the misfortunes of 'needing' to 'love' those that love the one you choose to love. (you do realize they did not choose him, he IS them... you chose him/them).
i guess if you are the gift to love, then any weekend rambling is necessary... though we fail to understand.
you seem hypnotized by your own greatness. and i suppose a passerby wouldnt qualify for snapping his fingers. so i will leave off with one affirming word, i did learn something today... something i was unaware of until i read your blog. i did not realize i was living in a solar system with caprice as its gravatational force, its center. next time when i am swimming in my dark, gaseous chaos and need to find the light of the center... i will know which web blog to read.
i'm not sure i accused anyone of being self-satisfied. in fact, i am pretty sure that if i saw self satisfaction in the blog, no comment would have been made. And so, now i'm pretty sure you must not have read, nor understood my comment.
so maybe i shouldnt elaborate on my use of words and phrases like, 'might, maybe, and seems to." these words, in case you missed their use, insinuate and function as 'flexible' rhetoric. observations made with such words do not gavel a judgment, they may just speak to a particular picture painted by the original blog. they function to touch off potential dialogue as to what is seen as the reader, within the writer. does that make sense?
now here i go, trying to get you to understand. the hypnotized usually do get pissed when someone snaps their fingers, dont they? i'll stop snapping and you can go back to sleep. we 'like glowing white bird octupus' arent meant to try to communicate in such intellectual ways.
(or is that a ludacris irony? - ha)
wow ... I see why modern man kicked caveman's ass. I wasn't that he lacked seperate eyebrows, seduced women with a club, or even maintained a rudimentary grasp with fire. It was the extreme self regard pontificated by such luminaries as the comic book guy from the Simpsons.
Blogs are written for fun and some messages are written from the heart - not checked for grammar, catchy phrases or direct correlation to caveman's life. Caveman seem angry, caveman not find club last saturday night? maybe try club on self next time?
Love is hard because the rewards are so great. No "her husband doesn't bask in your glory" - maybe that is the point of the post. Please don't leave the thinking to me.
and yes ... the ref from USA/Italy is a cheat and scroundrel. But he is only human - or maybe some human/spidermonkey hybrid running on diesel.
Just as in marriages and frienships - or space exploration - all us humans make mistakes. The big question is what we do with the mistakes, try again the next time or stop risking anything.
Shrimp sounds very nice - esp the space shrimp.
Caveman know big words, but carry small stick. Anonymous have big dick that you should lick.
"I am just a passer by" + "your husband must bask in your glory" + "(you do realize they did not choose him, he IS them... you chose him/them)" = Liar.
"how does one read c.s. lewis' construct of gift love vs. need love, endorse its value (as though they understand the concept) and then continue to vomit need love ramblings over the misfortunes of 'needing' to 'love' those that love the one you choose to love?" -- because she's not perfect, maybe?? Maybe, she was lamenting that very fact.
"flagrantly destructive" -- HILARIOUS. If you find something on a blog to be flagrantly destructive, I'm willing to bet your hopelessly destroyed.
"i did not realize i was living in a solar system with caprice as its gravatational force, its center." -- someone memorized all their vocab words, but forgot to study their astronomy.
" next time when i am swimming in my dark, gaseous chaos and need to find the light of the center... i will know which web blog to read." -- you might be better served by some gas-x, bean-o, or, as a last resort, a gas mask.
Are you her husband's brother?
just to clarify, need love is a love that is needy or exacting. it is the idea that because of your own need you offer your emotion. Lewis says it is the the accurate reflection in consciouness of our actual nature. it has nothing to with needing to love those who love the one you chose to love. the space was to illustrate two separate ramblings.
i don't remember claiming to be a gift love, in fact people cannot be a love. but just to help you along, gift love is the act of loving, like the father who works for the betterment of his family to express to them the depth of his emotion and care.
wow.
it's my blog for a reason; i can write whatever i want. caveman, i really don't care if you like me or my blog. if you don't like it, read something else.
btw, your flexible rhetoric isn't flexible at all. take your bitterness, your judgements, and your quasi intellicualism to your own blog. I hope it is very succesful.
caveman's comments, is it really worth the time?
ref in usa/italy game was atrocious, there's been alot of crap ref's though
i think its easier to deal with your own family's dysfunction because its part of you, something you have to confront within yourself
beginning to have my doubts about the sustainability of human life on this planet so yes i hope there is other life out there
i am not related to anyone attached to the blog.
i am deeply grateful for the simple exegesis of the dense writings of Lewis. i was lost without it. to think i've read that thing 5 times and never had a clue! whoever said that thing couldnt be reduced to only a few lines obviously hasnt been to this site!
i think some here seem to think the 'cavemans' club (and apparently some have a fascination with what kind of club hangs between my legs?) is to be used on another, while others think the club should be used on himself/herself. i guess having a club means you must use it as a weapon? (republicans would be so proud.) i supposed it a noble thing to come to the defense of a friend or lover. so i can handle the defense. no defense was made however in response to what was actually said - yet only personal slammings dished out.
i can only assume many of you to be those that make up the intolerants of american culture. or better, do you all make up the rhetoric of toleration, yet, fail to exercise it in the face of dialogue/discourse?
caveman too simple minded to understand all the back and forth slippery slopes of logic being used here.
let me guess, you all would probably identify yourselves as those whom believe in the Christ? most of those dont seem to know where they stand either. thus, i guess, the hateful response to the snapping of fingers?
hmmmmm... sounds like many are pissed. --snap, snap, snap...
caveman,
please stop posting here. I don't care what you have to say. please say it on your own blog.
to the rest of you, thanks for not taking it all so seriously. till the next post...
"i can only assume many of you to be those that make up the intolerants of american culture. or better, do you all make up the rhetoric of toleration, yet, fail to exercise it in the face of dialogue/discourse?"
I can't even begin to imagine why you experience so much intolerance ...Dude, you're a trip ... you send verbal barb after verbarl barb and expect something other than a verbal barb.
Here are my responses to the "substance" (and believe me I use that term loosely here) of your initial post:
Paragraph 1: Thanks for stopping by. If you are really interested in knowing the effect this blog has on the its readership, may I suggest a poll. But, if you do ultimately find that the readers do not find it insightful or helpful, but instead self-righteous then there is a further question of whether that's even relevant. Do people care that it's self-righteous? Do they care that it does not carry the same weight as a blog written by Kierkagaard certainly would? My guess is probably not.
Paragraph 2: Why would anyone respond to a pscyhoanalysis based on one blog post made by a "passer by"??? How do you respond to that??? Let's suppose again though, that you are right. Suppose the author does have a lot of stored up hate and bitterness??? Then I guess we thank you for pointing it out on your way through???? But, before you leave, here is our own pscyhoanalysis of you: I'd guess you are a loser with very very deep feelings of inadequacy that come pouring forth with your uncontrollable urge to spew forth large vocabulary words, while taking great pains to demonstrate that you are well read ... to people that you don't even know. Ironically, those feelings of inadequacy are probably derived from a self-inflated opinion of yourself; the discrepancy between that opinion and of those around you forces you to "enlighten" at every opportunity.
Paragraph 3: I can only guess that you this is the real "substance" of your post. In your meticulousness, you overlooked that someone has already responded to that.
Paragraph 4: Again, you expect non-ad hominem repsonses to a post filled with ad hominem reasoning. My reply is -- I don't think caprice is anymore mesmerized with herself than anyone else. And, I am quite sure she views the solar system as heliocentric ... and a Sun she is not. Indeed, the only indication that anyone on this thread believes that he/she lies at the center of some solar system illuminating the rest of it was provided by you and your endless claim that you are charged with waking us from our hypnotic state.
The self-righteous despise the self-rigtheous.
all in all... if it is better for you all to identify in me what you choose not to, or fail to see in the blog/blogger itself - then i have made my point.
choice.
just know you are doing it... or know you arent doing it.
your choice.
and as for anonymous:
suggest a poll and then extinguish its use?
expecting responses on the level of Soren? i think not, afterall we were discussing Lewis!
beyond that - i certainly didnt ask, nor invite anyone to respond to my comment. you see i thought people responded to what they found in the blog itself.
your psycho-analysis is textbook - what page were you reading anyway?! though is 'loser' really one of the terms used in it??? and if you werent reading a textbook, then i could only come to think maybe you have analyzed the same within yourself, or perhaps the blogger caprice - in her blogging and in her handlings of the dysfunctional family and world?
as for me being the Sun of some solar system of waking people from their sleep... i like that! you see, i never claimed not to be self-righteous... but as far as despising? - nah - that's your judgment, not mine. i was just observing...
i dont despise the blog... i despise pricks that cant decipher the message from the messenger.... pricks like you and me anonymous.
Here's the problem Caveman: We've understood your "message" ... we just don't heed it because it is ignorant (necessarily) and, to be frank, not very lucid. About the only thing that you've said clearly and accurately is that I am a prick and that you are a prick.
in order to defend, there has to be a coherent, put together arguement. though not american, god fearing or intolerant, perhaps im just slow. so please help me. where's the self righteousness? dont see it, please give example. destructive? dont see it, please give example. hate-filled? no, again, ditto. bitter? maybe we're reading two different blogs? reality of love that you are not going to love all the friends/family of your loved one? i see that, and understand it. hypnotized by own greatness? well . . . no.
no personal slamming, simply fail to see how you came to your conclusions, do not see a connection between the two pieces of writing. except the lewis thing but that was also twisted, i didnt pick up on caprice calling herself a gift of love.
i promised myself i wouldnt, but irritated.
Wow, that was wild! Anyone got a cigarette?
mark!! where have you been?!!
Watching the World Cup. ALL of it. On TV, sadly. Today's the Big One: Brazil take on the mighty, er, Ghana...
Also, blogging under assumed names - "And I'm available. Rachel" was one of mine.
Post a Comment