Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Quote of the Day

"angrysoba was never banned, but he is a pain in the ass. I really wouldn't mind if he dropped dead. Feel free to go over to his blog and denounce North Korea with him."
FGFM



97 comments:

L said...

Is FGFM really a ginger? Really? REALLY?

Please let it be true. It is not only diagnostically felicitous, but has great, unimpeachable ridicule potential.

Anyway, quite nice site, old bean. I'll try to comment on more than just residual resentment in the future (but he is an incomparable shit).

angrysoba said...

Is FGFM really a ginger? Really? REALLY?

Please let it be true.


I have compelling evidence that it is, indeed, true. And, of course, it all makes perfect sense. Those afflicted with the marks of "unimpeachable ridicule potential" probably make up a fair number of social shutins.

Anyway, quite nice site, old bean.

Well, thanks although I am in the process of trying to give up. I had notions of blogging about the latest paranoid delusions but it was a little bit like lifting the floorboards on a delapidated house and finding layers and layers of crawling, festering murk.

he is an incomparable shit

You'll get no argument from me.

FGFM said...

Fight the good fight.

angrysoba said...

Fight the good fight.

Indeed.

FGFM said...

La lucha continua.

L said...

That personality, delivered in that voice, coming from a ginger-topped fat-middle aged man filming himself at home, jeez Louise, do you have webbed feet too? Did fucking anything go right with you?

FGFM said...

Did fucking anything go right with you?

I went to uni!

L said...

No you didn't. You went to community college, and, as you told it, struggled miserably and angrily and toiled away in solitude for the first few years in order to reach their very high standards indeed.

You blamed, of course, your teachers.

An angry ginger frustrated and seething with resentment cause he just can't quite understand what is going on, what seems so straightforward to everyone else. How times change, eh? Look at the butterfly you've now become, and to think, some people thought you were just a slug and not a catterpillar.

Are you going a bit bald too? Cause that would be fucking bittersweet, I imagine.

FGFM said...

No you didn't. You went to community college, and, as you told it, struggled miserably and angrily and toiled away in solitude for the first few years in order to reach their very high standards indeed.

Funny how I did all that in a year.

An angry ginger frustrated and seething with resentment cause he just can't quite understand what is going on, what seems so straightforward to everyone else. How times change, eh? Look at the butterfly you've now become, and to think, some people thought you were just a slug and not a catterpillar. [sic]

Whatever you say, Bugsy.

Are you going a bit bald too? Cause that would be fucking bittersweet, I imagine.

Stalker attempts to get more information.

L said...

Is it funny? Rather sad, I think. Deflating. You seem rather proud of it, though. You surged from a background of behind-the-curve ignorance to blinding medium-rare mediocrity through honest toil and hard work. Good for you!

That "bittersweet" joke is excellent. It just is.

FGFM said...

Is it funny? Rather sad, I think. Deflating. You seem rather proud of it, though. You surged from a background of behind-the-curve ignorance to blinding medium-rare mediocrity through honest toil and hard work. Good for you!

You obviously don't understand the US education system, Frenchie.

L said...

Another FGFM meltdown is afoot, methinks. He's becoming threatening, his paranoia has jumped a few levels, and, always my favourite, the triumverate of self-justification, self-pity, and, always curious this, biographically revealing. He likes to inject some of his real-world self when things start to implode. Nut-job. Hilarious fellow, all in all. A seething ginger. Also, as a Frenchie, I must say, my English is rather better than yours. You must have really, really been behind that curve.

FGFM said...

Another FGFM meltdown is afoot, methinks.

Whatever you say, John Falstaff.

I must say, my English is rather better than yours.

Aside from the fact that I know the difference between "there" and "their." Also, a native speaker would tend to say "much better."

L said...

Do you now? Well done. It is rather a doozy! What about MO? Do you know what that means?

I quite like "rather better". It stinks less of the demotic, of the proles, of hateful lower-middle class resentment that you seem to have made your own.

Tell me more about your time in college, you do so love telling these little tales of yours. It calms you do, I think. Centres yourself. Reminds you who you are. The real FGFM behind all the catchphrases, the real fat-ginge with the sausage fingers mindlessly mashing ctrl-c and ctrl-v endlessnesslessly.

FGFM said...

I quite like "rather better". It stinks less of the demotic, of the proles, of hateful lower-middle class resentment that you seem to have made your own.

Suit yourself, it helps people to identify you as an asshole.

Tell me more about your time in college

No thanks, stalker. The whole Truman College thing is something I mention to wind up people like you.

L said...

"The whole Truman College thing is something I mention to wind up people like you."

That's ironic then, isn't, that it has you in such a tizzy?

Do you want me to provide a link defining "irony", or do you think you can Google it yourself? Trust me, not only have you hiterto been misusing the word, the actual meaning, the concept, is going to a veritable whirlwind of novelty for you.

Also, I can see you've taken a few breaths, went for a stroll in the corridor or something, as you've stopped mewling and imploring and self-pityingly pleading your case with those moments before you were calling cunts. Tigers have more pride, and they're solitary, don't you know.

Peter said...

"Aside from the fact that I know the difference between "there" and "their."

Says the guy who doesn't know the difference between "have" and "of" ("I might not of expressed myself clearly at the time")!


"Also, a native speaker would tend to say "much better."

Everyone is a native speaker.

FGFM said...

That's ironic then, isn't, that it has you in such a tizzy?

How exactly am I in a tizzy?

Also, I can see you've taken a few breaths, went for a stroll in the corridor or something, as you've stopped mewling and imploring and self-pityingly pleading your case with those moments before you were calling cunts.

Been sitting at my desk listening to Zappa. Not going to post anymore at Daily Hitchens then?

FGFM said...

Everyone is a native speaker.

Aside from mutes.

L said...

"Been sitting at my desk listening to Zappa. Not going to post anymore at Daily Hitchens then?"

Oh, I'll post there alright. But I think we need not bother them with our interminable folie-à-deux. They took a pleasing and pleasingly instant dislike to you though; a much more sane bunch than the old guard at HW, I find. Generally less craziness and motes of antisemitism clogging up the atmosphere. A nice bunch. I'm rather dissapointed in myself for trashing their living-room while I slapped your autistic, witless, and sociopathic ass about the place. But, heck, we had fun.

FGFM said...

Oh, I'll post there alright. But I think we need not bother them with our interminable folie-à-deux.

Mission accomplished.

L said...

You are astonishingly literal. I mean, your semantic engine must consist of a couple of rubber-bands compared to the doughty diesel-standard. Talking to you is like writing code, one has to get the formulation exactly, idiosycratically spot on, otherwise, it literally won't compute. I'm searching for a better explanation here. Let me think...

Oh yes: you're fucking autistic.

Peter said...

"Been sitting at my desk listening to Zappa."

"Muffin Man" could indeed have been written about you. Or maybe I should say 'could indeed of'. The man went to Uni ya hear!

FGFM said...

Oh yes: you're fucking autistic.

Colon alert!

FGFM said...

"Muffin Man" could indeed have been written about you. Or maybe I should say 'could indeed of'. The man went to Uni ya hear!

I actually wasn't listening to Zappa, but I figured that you clowns would attack me for it if I said so.

L said...

"I actually wasn't listening to Zappa, but I figured that you clowns would attack me for it if I said so."

Check out Sun Tzu! What a fucking wizard.

FGFM said...

Check out Sun Tzu! What a fucking wizard.

Just like how I demonstrated what a stalker you are by posting those pictures from my cell phone to my Twitter feed while I was out on a bike ride. And it must be gratifying to see all the people from Daily Hitchens coming over here to flame me. They must really like you.

Peter said...

"I actually wasn't listening to Zappa, but I figured that you clowns would attack me for it if I said so."

I didn't attack you. "Muffin Man" could still have been written about you. Could still of, sorry.

FGFM said...

I didn't attack you. "Muffin Man" could still have been written about you. Could still of, sorry.

Don't worry, I'll be moving to Montana soon.

Peter said...

"all the people from Daily Hitchens coming over here to flame me"

Oh, poor FGFM, he's not doing any flaming, not posting any IP numbers or anything, pretending he's being 'stalked', not bombarding comments boxes with bile about other commenters, no siree! He would have been conducting himself in exemplary fashion had it not been for these mean people 'flaming' him all the time. Would of, sorry.

FGFM said...

Oh, poor FGFM, he's not doing any flaming, not posting any IP numbers or anything, pretending he's being 'stalked', not bombarding comments boxes with bile about other commenters, no siree! He would have been conducting himself in exemplary fashion had it not been for these mean people 'flaming' him all the time. Would of, sorry.

Still butthurt about being exposed as a liar? Excellent.

L said...

"Just like how I demonstrated what a stalker you are by posting those pictures from my cell phone to my Twitter feed while I was out on a bike ride."

Yes, you started a Twitter page, posted a link to it online, and then in a pique of paranoia think you are being stalked when someone laughs at it in one of your more self-parodically autistic, Kanzi-lite moments? How deranged are you, exactly?

FGFM, you're all over the fucking Internet - you're a rabid, compulsive Internet user; you continuously post links in threads about things you've been getting up to in other threads, which themselves are cross-pollinated with your other assorted shenanigans; you're a chronic self-publicist. You made YouTube movies about me. And then posted links to them for me.

You are genuinely mind-blind. Zero self-awareness. Can you even recognise yourself in a mirror?

Also, I think at least a dozen souls, including some old-timers, called you a prick on that site, so, not conclusive, obviously, but suggestive, certainly suggestive.

Quite wonderfully, they seemed not to be bothered by me so much. Funny that.

Peter said...

"Still butthurt about being exposed as a liar? Excellent."

About what?

angrysoba said...

Some nice flaming going on, gentlemen. It's almost as exciting as the World Cup.

Speaking of which Japan beat Denmark 3-1 last night so they're into the next round! Hooray!

Also, on the World Cup theme there is a good article about the fears for North Korea's players when they return home, <a href="http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-q/2010/06/should-we-worry-for-the-safety-of-the-north-korean-soccer-team.html> here</a>.

Please have a read and then return so that we can graze on the low-hanging fruit of DPRK-denunciation.

angrysoba said...

Doh! It's here.

L said...

As a Frenchman, I can but look but askance at this tournament. We truly were a disgrace.

The Guardian were carrying last week some rather chortling articles about whether the NK team would survice their fate:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/jun/14/north-korea-world-cup-2010

Though she is a rather good writer, possibly the only entertaining Guardian writer, in fact.

angrysoba said...

As a Frenchman, I can but look but askance at this tournament. We truly were a disgrace.


As a (half-) Irishman I can but laugh my head off at France's very own melt-down both on and off the field. And to be fair, they were a disgrace before they even got to the finals (I'm looking at you Thierry!)

Of course, I seem to remember that you are also Irish - are you not? - so you must be in two minds about them being knocked out by Bhutan or whoever it was.

angrysoba said...

so you must be in two minds about them being knocked out by Bhutan or whoever it was.


"them" being France, of course.

L said...

Well, yes, I am Irish, sort of, and French, sort of, and while the Irish were plucky, courageous, heartless but ultimately ineffectual, and the French dastardly cheats, I would have thought there could have been some cultural synergy.

But, alas, just like in the French bars, our styles don't seem to blend quite so smoothly. I'm not so Irish as to wish ill on the French, and not so French as to be put quite so out by the failure.

Although it is rather getting political here: all those blacks and immigrants playing for the French team, who are they, these sporting, immigrant elites who fail our nation? That sort of nonsense. Very drearily Le Pen-ish. Passing, though, always passing. Nothing like a sporting tournament to concentrate the very worst in the popular mind.

http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000966.php

Anonymous said...

Is "L" the same man that once went by "Seamus Quinn" at HW, back when Sonic was posting most of the drivel there?

-th

angrysoba said...

Is "L" the same man that once went by "Seamus Quinn" at HW, back when Sonic was posting most of the drivel there?


Now, I believe that a commenter there went by the name of "Seamus" but I didn't know that one of them went by the name "Seamus Quinn".

However, I did note that Hitchens invited a friend of his called Capt. Seamus Quinn to his US citizenship ceremony and asked over at HW whether or not it was the same person.

Do you remember Seamus? Was his name Seamus Quinn? Captain Seamus Quinn of the US Marine Corps? He gets a mention in Hitchens' book on page 258.


To which Greywolf replied:

Seamus said he was in the Navy. So it could be the same chap. However, our Seamus was originally quite a well-mannered and intelligent young man. Over time he evolved into the commenter from Hell. In particular, after I did a post on the 40th anniversary of the sinking of the USS Liberty, he turned into something that made Captain Queeg look sane by comparison. One hopes he has got himself a good psychoanalyst and straightened himself out, as the Empire is in dire need of cool heads.


Now, I did remember that there had been some posts on the USS Liberty so I decided to investigate further.

As it happens, Seamus did comment on those posts but didn't seem particularly perturbed about the possibility that the US Navy was complicit in an Israeli false-flag operation to be as evil as possible but instead made references to the sinking of the USS Maine (which as every schoolgirl knows was the pretext for the Spanish-American War and the subject of many a conspiracy theory).

The poster who went by the name of Seamus remarked (ironically, I think it is safe to say):

"The US g'vt is quite good a "covering up" maritime outrages. It all happens at sea, you see."

To which Greywolf replied:

Lt. Quinn, you're not telling me you seriously suspect that the Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag op? Or that the truth about the Lusitania is still being kept from the public?

Hmmmm... Captain Queeg and Lt. Quinn.

Was Captain Seamus Quinn of the US Marine Corps a poster at Hitchens Watch?

angrysoba said...

Although it is rather getting political here: all those blacks and immigrants playing for the French team, who are they, these sporting, immigrant elites who fail our nation? That sort of nonsense. Very drearily Le Pen-ish.

Sounds rather dismal to hear that such ideas have hit the mainstream. I remember that the captain of the French team who won the World Cup once noted it was depressing to know that one in every five people he would meet on the street wanted him out of the country.

Le Pen seems to have fallen in with an even more exotically lunatic crowd in recent times.

Not only Dieudonne but also Thierry Meyssan and, of course, Robert Faurisson.

Anonymous said...

He did go just by Seamus, but used to have a link (in his HW comments) to a website of his, where he posted book reviews. Really formidable stuff, especially for just appearing on a blog. (Could never quite get why someone of his intellect would spend so much time in the HW comments, but the results were usually worth a read.)

He went by Seamus Quinn on that site (blogspot I believe but it was all taken down).

Not Angrysoba said...

He did go just by Seamus, but used to have a link (in his HW comments) to a website of his, where he posted book reviews. Really formidable stuff, especially for just appearing on a blog.

Ahh! Thanks for that. And are you... I mean him... the Seamus of Hitch 22?

Not Angrysoba either said...

By the way, I think the guy who runs this blog is amazing.

angrysoba said...

By the way, someone linked to this over at Hitchens Watch and I think it is a pretty good review of Hitchens' book.

L said...

I am not Seamus, no.

I believe Seamus and The Sage's relationship morphed into the wonderfully entertaining one it is, consisting of mockery from on high by the former and ill-managed temper and deceit by the latter, due to some ill-chosen words about, as ever, Mesopotomian tribes by the latter, and ridicule and dissent by the former. At least, that is how Seamus once described it, and, going by how The Sage quite clearly is a liar, or at the very least (or most?) senile, when it comes to the actuality of the past (for example, his incidental version of that USS liberty argument, and also, though less amusedly, his Holocaust revisionism) I am more inclined to believe Seamus.

Seamus is to brevity and wit what The Sage is to windbaggery and didactism. Entertaining fellow, that Seamus.

That Ian Buruma review struck me as unusually angry for him, though not excessively so, and he did land some really choice blows; no longer can we expect a "diffident cough" from him, as Paul Berman nicely put it. He (Buruma) has taken an almighty beating recently (as has Hitchens, in truth), so I suppose he was expected to come out swinging at some stage.

Berman, Hitchens, Ali, and James, versus Garton-Ash and Buruma; it's a bloody entertaining fight, I'll give it that much.

Peter said...

Almost 24 hours of a FGFM-free zone now - perhaps we should worry about his health too?

Never mind France, how about Italy!

angrysoba said...

Never mind France, how about Italy!

Absolutely! Good riddance to them too.

I don't think I can think of a team or a league that brings the game more into disrepute than the Italians with their running to the teacher (i.e referee) antics, trying to get players booked, rolling around on the ground like they've just been shot in the foot. Although it has spread like a contagion to other teams I'm sure they invented that kind of behaviour and it is the most offputting aspect of the game.

Compared to that, England's dour and dreary style of play almost looks noble.

L said...

I would like to imagine that we got to him, but the sad truth is that he probably busy unfurling his watermelon-wit elsewhere.

Not YouTube, of course. He doesn't like the new comment system, apparently. What a saddening confession that was.

angrysoba said...

Seamus is to brevity and wit what The Sage is to windbaggery and didactism.

Well, I happen to know Greywolf and I can attest that he is charming and generous in person which is what makes some of his theories so disturbing and inexplicable. But I think my various disputes with him need not be rehashed here. Or yours, for that matter.

(Although I have been keeping my eye on this graph from time to time since April this year and its grim viewing for both Climate Change Deniers and everybody else)

angrysoba said...

That Ian Buruma review struck me as unusually angry for him, though not excessively so, and he did land some really choice blows; no longer can we expect a "diffident cough" from him, as Paul Berman nicely put it.

That spat came rather out-of-the-blue. I thought the reaction to Buruma's article on Tariq Ramadan was completely over-the-top. Someone linked to Berman's article for me to read a while back (I think it was exhibit x) but I found it so long-winded and rambling and carelessly structured that I couldn't finish it and I hoped that Berman would get round to writing a far more concise analysis of Buruma and Garton-Ash's problem. Sadly, he went the wrong way and expanded it into a whole book which has no chance of making it on to my reading list (not that I expect that to keep Berman awake at night).

Buruma's main points of agreement with Hitchens is that an intellectual's job is sometimes to clarify issues and not to mistake obfuscation for complexity. I agree with that too and that's why they found themselves on the same side over Bosnia (There's a genocide happening NOW and must be stopped NOW!) whereas he identifies well the main point about Hitchens on Iraq in that he offered a diffuse array of arguments which he would pick up and discard according to his convenience. Buruma himself says that an argument could certainly have been made for Saddam Hussein's violent overthrow and suggests he would have supported it had it been made. But Hitchens resorted to vituperative attacks on those who even had the audacity to question the wisdom of a half-baked attack in which there was no clear reason or end goal.

That touches upon a point that Theodore Dalrymple made in his review which (I think) you posted here before in which Dalrymple points out Hitchens' double standards in always demanding his own views be assessed charitably and with nuance whereas his opponents should be mercilessly savaged and no quarter ever shown no matter how small the disagreement.

angrysoba said...

I agree with that too and that's why they found themselves on the same side over Bosnia

What I meant there was clearly different to what I wrote.

L said...

I must say that I do find Paul Berman's case against Buruma, Garton-Ash, and Ramadan utterly convincing, and The Flight of the Intellectuals is very well-written, and has a sort of thrilling, old-fashioned, rampaging polemical charm (as had Terror & Liberalism). But if, indeed, you found Exhibit X, as you put it, long-winded then perhaps you could give it a skip.

Rosenbaum in Slate and Clive James in...Standpoint maybe? I'm not sure...had rather good ruminative reviews, or summaries, of the fight, particularly the latter.

Berman was certainly much more straightforward than Hitchens about the case for the Iraq-war at the time, but Hitchens chapter on it in Hitch-22 is very, very good too. However, it's a touch retrospective and disingenuous because, as you say, Hitchens was very scatter-shot and vituperative at the time.

And, yes, that Dalrymple review, together with some sections of the Buruma review, were the better, and more psychologically insightful of the Hitch-22 reviews I have seen. It really was an ill-judged memoir, I think, despite some very fine, but not quite redeeming, sections.

Part of Hitchens' charm - and repulsion, of course - is that when one is in agreement with him he is a virtuoso, near peerless polemicist to have ringing in ones ears, and his contradictions and double-standards tend not to bother one as much. It's a thin-line he walks, with that style: you bet a whole lot, the house really, on getting it right.

Peter said...

"Compared to that, England's dour and dreary style of play almost looks noble."

well, at least the English team players don't wear gold shoes. Still, I've always been curious about the fact that England are allowed to play in the world cup, Scotland too, as there are no such countries.

There's a Hitchens Ramadan debate scheduled for this fall at the 92nd Y in NYC:

http://www.92y.org/shop/event_detail.asp?productid=T-BL5CH01&ev_ads=tumblr_hitchens

angrysoba said...

I must say that I do find Paul Berman's case against Buruma, Garton-Ash, and Ramadan utterly convincing, and The Flight of the Intellectuals is very well-written, and has a sort of thrilling, old-fashioned, rampaging polemical charm (as had Terror & Liberalism).

The debate already feels old regarding Tariq Ramadan. As I recall, Buruma wrote an article in which he was assessing the idea that Tariq Ramadan was some kind of bridge between Western and Islamic values and how they may be reconciled where they meet in Europe. Buruma concluded that, "Hey! Who knows? Maybe he is but there's plenty of room for skepticism and he's distinctly slippery." and the whole of his article involved him refusing to take anything from Ramadan on...er...faith and also to disapprove of Ramadan's post-moderny approach to Islamism within a Western framework. in other words, no fan at all.

But Berman then launched into a very loud and voluminous polemic in which he seemed to be accusing Buruma of not realizing just how slippery Ramadan was.

Buruma's response was a shrug as there really didn't seem much point of expending any more energy than that.

But it's odd to think that Berman has been spending the last three years expanding that article. I hope he's been doing other things with his time as well.

But if, indeed, you found Exhibit X, as you put it, long-winded then perhaps you could give it a skip.


Exhibit was the name of the commenter. He was a bit of a regular on Hitchens Watch for a while. Berman's article was Who's Afraid of Tariq Ramadan.

Peter said...

" It really was an ill-judged memoir, I think, despite some very fine, but not quite redeeming, sections. "

Agreed. Sometimes you need to say 'no' to the publishers and their unimaginative ideas. Not much new was revealed either. The 9/11/Iraq chapter could have had more bite to it as well. Bottom line: the work not the artist, unless it is a spectacular story; Hitch's life isn't that, but what he writes sometimes is. And I think he wasted precious time in front of the typewriter writing this when he could have written about more interesting stuff. (FGFM: that should be 'could of', right? Semi-colon alert!)

angrysoba said...

I've always been curious about the fact that England are allowed to play in the world cup, Scotland too, as there are no such countries.


Well, the Asian qualifying rounds consisted of a number of teams that aren't usually considered countries: Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong, Macau, Palestine and Guam so it's not that unusual.

Thanks for this link. Not sure how useful the question "Is Islam a Religion of Peace?" really is but it should be entertaining if Ramadan doesn't pull out again.

Peter said...

"Well, the Asian qualifying rounds consisted of a number of teams that aren't usually considered countries: Chinese Taipei, Hong Kong, Macau, Palestine and Guam so it's not that unusual."

That doesn't make it anymore right though. And "England" has been playing in the world cup off and on since 1950.

That Spain goal was lucky - go Chile!

L said...

There is a bit more to the Buruma-Berman (and Bruckner) bash than just Buruma's too lax for Berman's taste take on Ramadan. Buruma expended considerable energy denigrating, condesending, and genereally being dismissive of Hirsi-Ali (who certainly isn't above criticism, but Buruma was a few steps of shy of saying "well, you know, she kinda asked for it") while at the same time giving Ramadan a free pass.

Ramadan does come from a very sordid, sinister, and suspicious family heritage, but I personally don't think he is quite as sordid and sinister as Berman claims - but, still, it is very curious, and symptomatic that Buruma would choose to single-out Hirsi-Ali, while excusing Ramadam. It is taken as the occasion for Berman to sort of chart how the left, or liberalism, has lost its way, which sounds, I admit, like a well-trodden path at this stage, but he's a good guide, and there's some well-researched background on the Muslim Brotherhood's overtly fascitic, indeed quite literally Nazi, philosophical origins, and he pulls the thread on a lot of Ramadan's rhetoric and traces it back convincingly (indeed, I think Berman is more aware of it than Ramadan - I don't think Ramadan is all that aware of it in himself; he's certainly not a fascist, nothing of the sort, just sort of confused, if anything).

As fights go, this certainly isn't over. Buruma and Berman are both very clever and very well-read, so it is always interesting.

Another quite well-judge Hitch-22 review:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n12/david-runciman/its-been-a-lot-of-fun

Hitchens has really been slapped about of late.

Peter said...

The LRB review was really awful I thought, but hey it was exactly the predictable review one would have expected from the LRB. Would of, sorry.

L said...

Oh, I don't know, Peter. I think Runciman had a few good points, and a few bad ones, and there were a few interesting jibes thrown about.

The last time the LRB had a broad-side against Hitchens, the Stefan Collini review, I believe, there was a resulting extended discussion in the letters about the distinction between "horseshit" and "bullshit" and how they apply to Hitchens. I do love a good pedantic scuffle.

2-0. Spain are looking good for this tournament. Getting beaten was good for them, I think.

Peter said...

It was a step up from reading Eagleton on Hitchens, I'll give you that.

Up to this game Chile has played much better football than Spain has. The "beautiful game", "Spain is good for the world cup" fawning crap is nauseating. Nice job of the ref to ruin the match tho.

Peter said...

" I believe, there was a resulting extended discussion in the letters about the distinction between "horseshit" and "bullshit" and how they apply to Hitchens. I do love a good pedantic scuffle. "

And the LRB is miles behind the TLS on the pedant front too.

angrysoba said...

There is a bit more to the Buruma-Berman (and Bruckner) bash than just Buruma's too lax for Berman's taste take on Ramadan. Buruma expended considerable energy denigrating, condesending, and genereally being dismissive of Hirsi-Ali (who certainly isn't above criticism, but Buruma was a few steps of shy of saying "well, you know, she kinda asked for it") while at the same time giving Ramadan a free pass.

I know this is true of Garton-Ash, who Berman also takes aim at, but I hadn't found Buruma going that far on Hirsi-Ali. Certainly she features quite prominently in Murder in Amsterdam but I don't remember Buruma criticizing her so strongly (it's been a while since I read the book so I may have forgotten). One criticism Buruma does have of her is that she does have a tendency to lump all Muslims into the extreme camp (or else she takes the Sam Harris/Dawkins view that mild religion acts as cover for extreme religion). He relates a story in which she went to a women's refuge in which she told the battered Muslim women there that the problem in their lives was Islam and cut them off when they protested that their problem was their husbands and that their religion was a source of comfort for them.

Buruma seemed to find her one-size-fits-all way of looking at the world to be unhelpful. I have Infidel on my shelf but haven't got round to reading it yet so I don't know if Buruma gives an accurate exposition of her world view. It seems fair, of course, to say that her own experiences need to be taken into account before her views themselves can be similarly dismissed.

And yes, it's clearly wrong to see Ramadan as some kind of fascist even if it can be said of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Grand Mufti et al. Is Berman saying that essentially there is no difference between Ramadan and Hasan al-Banna?

angrysoba said...

That doesn't make it anymore right though. And "England" has been playing in the world cup off and on since 1950.


I don't know what the rules are about which teams are allowed to play in the World Cup. England, Scotland, Wales - yes. Cornwall, Isle of Wight, Pimlico - no. Maybe no rules have ever been formally made on the subject but like the Planets used to be, there is simply a vague understanding of which teams can play.

And it isn't just football. There is no country called the West Indies but they still have a cricket team.

Peter said...

Don't know what the cricket rules are but they are undoubtedly flavored by imperialism of the past... the world cup is supposed to be about nation states. may be one of the reasons England refused to participate early on, who knows.

L said...

It's not so much a defense of Hirsi-Ali's worldview, or that one should embrace it, I think Berman, and indeed Hitchens, would acknowledged that it is perhaps too restrictive and does tend to lump all Muslims together, it was more the sort of callous or indifferent view they took of her plight, instead of rallying, as they should.

It is true in this argument both sides do tend to be saying "what Berman really means by this is..." or "Buruma is effectively saying that..." with lots of allusion to sort of portentous historical similarities, but, again, I think that is the fault of Buruma and Garton-Ash, as they do tend to hum-and-haw and equivocate in that rather elaborate academic fashion of theirs. Obfuscatory, in a word. They basically accuse Hirsi-Ali of being a bimbo and a bigot, and not worthy of support. In turn, Berman sort of implicitly calls them cowards, snobs, and racists. There is a lot seething under the surface.

Actually, Buruma's latest book is a short tour and history of world religion that is incredibly bland, broad, and, in that incredibly diffident style of his, thoroughly unpertubed.

It is rather comical that she is now stepping out with Niall Ferguson, though. One couldn't make it up.

angrysoba said...

the world cup is supposed to be about nation states. may be one of the reasons England refused to participate early on, who knows.


Fortunately we have the Google Machine at our disposal. I looked it up and discovered this Slate article which gives a good explanation:

http://www.slate.com/id/2257065

Essentially, as I said, there is no concrete definition across all of the football associations so admittance is not restricted to nation states.

But, because Britain invented international football and the inaugural international match was between England and Scotland those teams plus Wales and Northern Ireland still play.

According to the Slate article there is a World Cup for Jilted Nations.

Actually, there is also an unofficial World Championship that almost no one pays any attention to which takes as its starting point the first ever international. The winner of that was deemed world champion and held the title until defeated by another opponent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unofficial_Football_World_Championships

L said...

"Is Berman saying that essentially there is no difference between Ramadan and Hasan al-Banna?"

No, what he is saying is that his first loyalties lies with the peculiar brand of Islamic philosophy which is his familial heritage and that Ramadan only ever engages in theological manipulation of those tenets, and never rejects them. Which is true, nut not quite as dramatic as Berman would like it to be, I think.

If Ramadan can effectively jerry-rig a fascist ideology so that it is comfortably non-fascist, without ever rejecting it, that, to me, makes him a non-fascist first and foremost. He's also wrong, clearly a coward etc. etc. But, no, not a fascist.

angrysoba said...

It is true in this argument both sides do tend to be saying "what Berman really means by this is..." or "Buruma is effectively saying that..." with lots of allusion to sort of portentous historical similarities, but, again, I think that is the fault of Buruma and Garton-Ash, as they do tend to hum-and-haw and equivocate in that rather elaborate academic fashion of theirs. Obfuscatory, in a word.

Yes, I think this is true to some extent. Buruma did pad out his book on Theo van Gogh's murder by pointing out that a lot of Christians once sent death threat letters to a TV studio after some TV show mocked Jesus. There are a few other examples like that.

I remember thinking that it's not quite the same thing as being stabbed through the heart.

He's usually a good read though but I doubt I'll be reading his book on religion.

Peter said...

Thanks for the Slate article, doesn't make one much wiser unfortunately. Politics is the answer obviously, especially when you read about Catalonia and the Olympics at the end, espec the upcoming one...

L said...

Sporting teams, like offense these days, need only their own conviction to justify their existence, I think.

We're a team because we think we are. Wittgenstein gave them all the idea, I think.

Anonymous said...

"Ahh! Thanks for that. And are you... I mean him... the Seamus of Hitch 22?"

Your question confuses me slightly. I don't know Hitch personally, but it is possible that the Seamus of HW comments is the one in Hitch22. I am neither.

angrysoba said...

Your question confuses me slightly. I don't know Hitch personally, but it is possible that the Seamus of HW comments is the one in Hitch22. I am neither.

Well thanks for dropping by.

Were you a regular over at the other place?

Anonymous said...

Nope, just got into a few spats there about 5 years ago, gave up when I discovered that the site was pretty much solely for pissing matches, to the extent that constructive discussion was not even remotely possible.
I was ...let's say impressed, more than surprised, to see FGFM doing the same exact compulsive content-free posting all these years later. I suspected then, and still do, that he's actually a bit of software that someone wrote in the first month of a programming101 course.
Followed a link to your site from DailyHitchens. Nice place you got here :)

angrysoba said...

Another quite well-judge Hitch-22 review:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n12/david-runciman/its-been-a-lot-of-fun

Hitchens has really been slapped about of late.


Any writer who publishes their memoirs can and should expect ad hominem attacks and it's an occasion when ad homs are justified.

I think the author is correct in saying that Hitchens is a political romantic and I agree with the idea that Hitchens needed some kind of world-historical moment – his own Spanish Civil War. In fact, I think there's a lot of evidence for saying he's been living in Orwell's shadow for a long time and that he had hoped to emulate Orwell's own clarifying moment. Orwell wrote that 1936 in Spain changed everything for him and that from then on everything he had written had been for Democratic Socialism and against Totalitarianism. This is an almost identical formulation to Hitchens’ declaration that the fatwa on Rushdie clarified the “terrain of struggle” (is this a Trotskyist phrase?) for him as being between everything he loved and everything he hated. And indeed, in Hitch 22 he even writes that his own writings are all in the service of anti-totalitarianism. Orwell also said that the two political ideas he most cherished were those of liberty and equality but notes that these two ideas often find themselves in conflict with each other – the struggle to reconcile contradictory ideas is a motif of Hitch 22. Another element reminiscent of Orwell is the idea of having seen a future political crisis early on. I can’t remember if Hitchens relates Orwell’s homecoming vignette from Homage to Catalonia in his book, but his description of looking at the countryside of Southern England from his train window and ominously suggesting that it would be shaken out of its complacency by Nazi bombs is similar to that of Hitchens’ insistence that not enough people have woken up to the threat of militant (don’t say “radical”) Islam.

In the Lion and the Unicorn, Orwell excoriates both the Blimps and the Bloomsbury set. I think it is fair to say that until the nineties Hitchens’ main enemy was the Blimps – the militaristic, flag-waving nationalist types as exemplified by his Dad while Hitchens fit right in with the Bloomsbury set. But, in my humble opinion, Hitchens can’t forget the fact that, like his hero Orwell, his Dad had genuinely gone out and fought fascism. Real fascism. The actual Nazis themselves, no less. Maybe this is why he talks about being exhilarated about the September 11th attacks as it somehow confirms what he thought at the time of the Rushdie fatwa and now he gets to duel with the Bloomsbury set and what Orwell called their “mechanical sneers” as well as what he perceives as the new Nazis.

angrysoba said...

Nice place you got here :)

Thank you.

With any luck some constructive discussion will be possible here. FGFM has always done his best to disrupt discussion. Hitchens Watch was quite an enjoyable venue when FGFM wasn't present (very seldom) and before the Hitchens Watching involved formulating the most tendentious arguments against almost anything he said (things such as "Hitchens denounces child rape when allegedly committed by Catholics or Muslims despite a) not understanding perfectly acceptable differences in cultural practices making him a racist and b) not denouncing secular institutions that encourage child prostitution making him a defender of such institutions if not a proponent or perhaps a practioner of such disgraceful practices."

That said, some of the hero worshipping on Daily Hitchens is a little over the top for my tastes and just as unlikely an ingredient for genuine interesting discussion.

Anyway, you're more than welcome to hang around and drop in whenever you feel like but would you mind giving yourself a handle as it becomes easier to keep track of who said what.

Cheers

L said...

I think Hitchens has gone on record detailing his slight exasperation with the Bloomsbury set, Strachey in particular he has a low opinion of, and I think in general he finds them rather uninteresting, self-centred, and politically-blind - I think perhaps he mentions this on his extended essay (and really, possibly his very best piece of writing, I think) on Wilde in Unacknowledged Legislation, but I haven't read it in a few years, and don't have a copy to hand, so I can't confirm. He was a little more interested in Forster, but one can make the argument, because I suppose it is true, that Forster was a related species rather than a fully blossomed Bloom itself.

This is somewhat related and quite interesting:

http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Revisiting--2626

Dalrymple (under the name Anthony Daniels) wrote an excellent piece on Homage to Catalonia a few years ago, to which Hitchens took exception, and I think you convincingly have said why he would, and there was a resulting spat between them in the letters.

I might as well point it out over here, since it will be instantly deleted at HW, but Stabler, upon reading Ian Buruma's review (whom, incidentally, he seems to be unfamiliar with, calling him "the writer" and generally giving every evidence to not being quite aware who this rather big wig is) seems to think it "echos [sic]" (in his defense, I think he meant "repeats" and, not being all that attuned, just grabbed the wrong bloody word) his own series of running reviews in which he blogged, at length, and at varying coherency, everytime he read a little of the memoirs (did he ever finish it? It was, at least, a hilariously contemporary way of attempting to read a book.) that Hitchens showed "moral idiocy" over Iraq. Now, that is not even remotely close to what Buruma said. Indeed, fairly close to the exact opposite. And Stabler, quite grandly for a midget, "sympathizes" with Buruma. He seems to have not quite understood Buruma's point at all, nor managed to see Buruma's several rather excellent and well-deserved smacks against Hitchens. I'm quite certain that few, if any, of them have actually read, or read-around, Hitchens at any great length, and it is predominately a reaction to his personality as seen on YouTube. As Seamus pointed out some time ago, they're clickers, not flippers. When it comes to Hitchens, they don't have the full picture, just the clips.

Strange old bunch, the HWers. Their active hatred for Hitchens really has them in all sorts of muddles. He's a compelling and interesting guy, for sure, but not THAT compelling, is he? Some restraint and decorum is in dire need; it's all rather undignified. But, as you well pointed out angrysoba, the cloying near-sycophancy of several at Daily Hitchens is a bit embarrassing too.

FGFM, to modify the Wildean remark slightly, is witless, and the source of witlessness in others.

L said...

"I suspected then, and still do, that he's actually a bit of software that someone wrote in the first month of a programming101 course."

That's rather good. Quite possibly true, too.

angrysoba said...

I think Hitchens has gone on record detailing his slight exasperation with the Bloomsbury set...

I'm not really sure about his ins and outs with them but perhaps I am misusing the term by applying it to what I think is the contemporary equivalent. In this case, Hitchens groaned that it wasn't long after 9/11 until he heard from the Chomsky-Finkelstein-Zinn group who would want to pin the blame for 9/11 on the US (not in a literal sense, although that wasn't long coming either, but in the well-we-should-admit-we-deserve-it sense). This view was also prevalent in the UK among those that could otherwise be considered heirs of sorts to the political thinking of the Bloomsbury set. Thoroughly English but embarrassed of being so, while also being condescending and sneering towards the US. He could have referred to Mary Beard who wrote about how the US had it coming in the LRB or even the BBC audience who reduced a former American ambassador to tears with their jeering. I think on this point Hitchens is absolutely right that there is something very sordid indeed in sitting around making smug arguments about how what looks like a really horrific and indefensible act of murder can actually not only be defended but can be spun in such a way that the victims themselves should have blame heaped upon them.

As for Dalrymple, I haven't seen that article before so thanks for pointing me towards it. Alas, I am unable to read it as I don't subscribe to the New Criterion.

http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/Orwell-s--Catalonia--revisited-2599

Interestingly enough, Orwell's essay, "Why I Write" was also one that I was thinking of when I wrote my Hitchens-wants-to-be-Orwell comment as I was trying to determine whether or not Orwell himself was a "romantic" in the sense that Runciman accuses Hitchens. I thought no. As much as Hitchens disparages "celebrity culture" he does court it himself (he writes for Vanity Fair FFS!) but Orwell is not someone I could see wanting to be famous for fame's sake. And yet, that piece in which he said it is every writer's desire to leave a legacy and be remembered long after their death suggests it is true for Orwell if no one else.

Perhaps you would be good enough to email me a précis of the article and Hitchens's response.

:D

L said...

Yes, I agree with you with regard to the "we deserved it" and "it's not their fault they murdered innocents" brigade; they were, and still are, morally repugnant. Hitchens is certainly at his rabble-rousing best when pointing it out.

I'm not sure why that article is no longer available (I guess The New Criterion is tweaking its business model; the conservative coin must not be flowing quite so freely these days), but this snippet is as good a precis as any:

"...But by far the worst aspect of Homage to Catalonia is its strong advocacy of totalitarianism. It is the literary equivalent of an urban myth that the book argues against the Stalinist deformation of socialism, when the very opposite is much nearer the truth. Of course, Orwell does indeed object to the Stalinist resort to lying on an industrial scale, but that is only a minor part of his objection to Stalin’s policy in Spain. His real objection is that Stalin did not want the radical revolution—as exemplified by the destruction of the church, the collectivization of the land, the nationalization of all major industry, the elimination of the bourgeoisie, the prohibition of prostitution and the legal profession, and the complete equalization of wages—to proceed, because he thought that a popular front, in which liberal democrats would be taken into temporary partnership, would be more effective in stopping Franco.

Orwell objected to Stalin’s policy because Stalin maintained that “we can’t afford to alienate the peasants [in Spain] by forcing collectivization upon them,” whereas Orwell thought that the war was lost unless it was turned into a true revolutionary war, which included such forced collectivization."

Hitchens reacted badly to that, dearly wishing as he does to have had the opportunity to fight in his own Spanish Civil War, and came in fists flailing in the letters and actually made somewhat a fool of himself, and certainly didn't rebut anything.

In my youth I took the obligatory tour of Orwell's works but haven't really revisited them since, besides the odd essay. There is a cult of Orwell that has become distanced from the reality.

It is a clever and paradoxically humble confession of Orwell's that egotism is a large motive force behind why he writes. His characteristic clarity. "Why Orwell Matters" by Hitchens was a largely lame effort, I thought. That's not to say Orwell doesn't matter, of course.

angrysoba said...

Well, that is an interesting thing to say and I'm not surprised that Hitchens hated Dalrymple's piece. In fact, Orwell also would have been hugely put out as he later wrote in (I think) the Lion and the Unicorn:

The Spanish war and other events in 1936-7 turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work I have ever written since 1936 has been written directly or indirectly, against totalitaianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it.

Maybe I would have to re-read Homage to Catalonia to see if what Dalrymple alleges is true. Hitchens quite often gets bent out of shape when one of his heroes is impugned. Rakhmetov pointed out that Hitchens once angrily stormed out of a radio show in which he had nominated Trotsky as a great man. Matthew Parris hosting it and Robert Service collaborated in laughing him out of the room.

http://www.newstatesman.com/200608140043

And Dalrymple also found his continued half-hearted allegiance to Trotsky too much to stomach in his review of Hitch 22.

In fact, something that may have made Hitch 22 more interesting, given that the book is billed as a chronicle of the battle of ideas and the attempt to live with contradictions, would be an explanation of what he found so compelling and believable about Trotskyism (I don't seem to remember him saying) and what convinced him it was wrong. Instead we seem to served up a battle between different poses and personalities which is emphatically not the same thing.

(I also think it is interesting that two writers who most certainly disagree with Orwell's politics are two of the best exponents of Orwell's writing style - Dalrymple and, I think, Peter Hitchens. They both write clearly and unfussily and certainly don't drop names everywhere to show off about who they know.)

L said...

As Dalrymple put it:

"I made four fundamental points about Orwell as revealed in Homage to Catalonia, for which I believe I provided abundant textual evidence. First: he approved of a society that to all appearances was totalitarian. Second: his anticlericalism was vicious and intolerant. Third: he approved, or at least did not disapprove, except on narrowly practical grounds, of the employment of child soldiers. Fourth: his objection to Stalin's policy in Spain was that it was not revolutionary and would not lead to the establishment of the totalitarian society to which he had previously raised such hosannahs."

I do think he puts it a little too strongly, and their is a lot that hinges on what one means by "totalitarian" because as Orwell stated in the quote from The Lion and the Unicorn you mentioned, it was always something that Orwell quite clearly was (or honestly thought he was) against.

Dalrymple is a very interesting character and, yes, he has that Orwellian humility and a deflationary equanimity and measuredness. I'm somewhat constitutionally incapable of embracing his conservative ideals (political orientations are often as much dispositional as rational) but I do read him often and eagerly as he only makes a formidable case and has some excellent insights. He has a very interesting biography too; to say that he has seen and done a lot would be to put it mildly; his writings are worthwhile just for the sheer abundance of anecdote. Also, he is a wonderful writer. A great sentence crafter, and a real master or irony; actually, he's a very good test of the tin-earred: a lot of people don't "get" him for this very reason, this intelligent, under-stated, calmly ironic voice. Like Orwell, he writes for the reasonable, and thus gives off an air of almost antique respectfulness. (I did have the good fortune to talk to him about seven years back after a debate in London, and he was an almost absurdly pleasant guy, a real gentleman).

His mother was a German Jew who fled to Britain during The Great Unpleasant, as one might put it, yet he never trumpets, or even self-identifies, as Jewish. It's an interesting contrast with Hitchens's and Amis's fetishisation of semitism, which is quite off-putting, I must say. It is better than the opposite, of course, but it is a bit, well, juvenile.

I never much read Peter Hitchens. He doesn't seem to ever have anything of much value to say. Also, I think his prose is fairly bland. All in all, not a good mix. The only thing he has going for him is Christopher.

I did see a clip some time back of Robert Service and Hitchens debating Trotsky. Service rather trounced him, as I remember. It is very true, as you say, that Trotsky is Hitchens central contradiction. He's never quite had the courage to address it straight on, either. And, yes, quite right: the contradictions of poses and personalities are emphatically not the same thing.

angrysoba said...

I'm not sure what Dalrymple identifies in Orwell is totalitarianism but Orwell certainly believed in planned economies. He describes his ideal system as one in which the state calculates its needs and then will "do its best to meet them". He didn't elaborate on this too much which would almost certainly see him flailing around (How does the state calculate how many socks will be needed? What about that which is not necessary? Is there a market for that too?)

However, I think that it is unfortunate that the term "Orwellian language" has come to mean deliberately obscurantist political language instead of the way in which Orwell himself wrote and advocated which was to be as clear as possible and to make reasoned appeals to common sense. Dalrymple does the same. His arguments don't appear strained in the way he deplores certain intellectuals who expend vast amounts of energy trying to construct ludicrous counter-intuitive worldviews(I enjoy his takedowns of people such as Foucault, William Buroughs, assorted post-modernists and the it's-wrong-to-judge crowd). Yes, he is a bit of a curmudegeonly old reactionary but his arguments aren't usually dogmatic and his writing style is humourous rather than haranguing. He writes as if he is confiding in the reader rather than lecturing them.

[Dalrymple]'s mother was a German Jew who fled to Britain during The Great Unpleasant, as one might put it, yet he never trumpets, or even self-identifies, as Jewish. It's an interesting contrast with Hitchens's and Amis's fetishisation of semitism, which is quite off-putting, I must say.

Yes, and it is a little hypocritical of him given his loudly proclaimed distaste for identity politics in Hitch 22 and elsewhere. Buruma also found it off-putting that Hitchens should congratulate himself on exhibiting "Jewish qualities" and Amis' remark "I feel I am a little envious of you Hitch".

It's a little like the plot of Steve Martin's film The Jerk in which he plays a white guy living with a black family unable to understand why he can't dance with any rhythm but one day hears some Glenn Miller (?) on the radio or some other kind of "white" music and discovers his identity. I somehow don't think Hitchens would revel in that comparison though.

angrysoba said...

Hitchens and Robert Service debate Trotsky here. I think it is fair to say that Service disagrees with plenty that Hitchens says on Trotsky but isn't interested in getting into any ratings-busting flare-ups.

Rakhmetov said...

Rakhmetov pointed out that Hitchens once angrily stormed out of a radio show in which he had nominated Trotsky as a great man.

Hitchens didn't literally run away, but there was a moment where it looked like he was about to pick up his ball and go home crying. After Service had been wiping the floor with him on point after point, CH started whimpering something about why he had been invited if they were going to be mean and disagree with him. It was pretty funny. He was the one who picked Trotsky as the topic for the "Great Lives" program. The next time Hitchens appeared w/ Service, on Uncommon Knowledge that you linked to, Hitchens didn't really engage him much, nor defend Trotsky at all. Quite a change. I guess because of the humiliating beating that Service gave Hitch for lamely attempting to defend Trotsky in 2006 (I think it was) on the BBC.

Maybe I would have to re-read Homage to Catalonia to see if what Dalrymple alleges is true.

I'd recommend rereading Homage to Catalonia, but not to verify Dalrymple's ridiculous, crackpot ravings on the Spanish Revolution. It's true that Hitchens doesn't really bite into the nutmeat of Dalrymple's absurd claims, but he was right to sneer at him. Orwell was against Franco and Stalin in Spain, so he was for totalitarianism? Risible, of course. To the contrary, the directly democratic workers councils and syndicates than made up the CNT, and much of the UGT, were the diametrical opposite of totalitarianism, convincing Orwell that a democratic, libertarian socialism was possible, as he writes in the book. The myth about forced collectivization of agriculture was just that, and the Anarchists had a right to defend themselves from the Fascists, who were largely made up of the Catholic Right. And yes, while Dalrymple frames it in a highly ideological and twisted way, it is true that Orwell was against Stalin's counterrevolutionary strategy, because it alienated the workers and the population amongst other reasons, ultimately losing the war. Chomsky makes a compelling case that it did just that in the second part of Objectivity and Liberal Scholarship.

Anonymous said...

This guy has been ruining the upstart Lakeview Patch with his OCD, autistic style of posting but it's very unmoderated over there, they would do well to ban him lest he drive away traffic.

Clover said...

This is really a great read for me. Thank you for publishing articles having a great insight stimulates me to check more often for new write ups. Keep posting!

Clover
www.n8fan.net

Aissa said...

Nice post.Thank you for taking the time to publish this information very informative! So happy to be given a privilege to post a comment here.

aissa
www.joeydavila.net

sarah lee said...

I really enjoyed reading your article. I found this as an informative and interesting post, so i think it is very useful and knowledgeable. I would like to thank you for the effort you have made in writing this article.


edupdf.org

Leslie Lim said...

I really like your ideas. I truly appreciate your effort in publishing this article. Keep it up and God bless.

Bless
www.imarksweb.org

Dangerously Unstable Individual said...

FGFM's trolling strategy:

1. Occupy message board with sockpuppets
2. Harass people over anything and everything
3. ????????
4. Profit?

Barbie Chiu said...


Thanks for sharing your article and for giving us the chance to read it. It is very helpful and encouraging. Visit my site too.

triciajoy.com

www.triciajoy.com

lee woo said...

Love it! Very interesting topics, I hope the incoming comments and suggestion are equally positive. Thank you for sharing this information that is actually helpful.


ufgop.org
ufgop.org

Anonymous said...

As pathetic as FGFM aka Brian was during his days trolling here, he's hit all time lows. He typically now gets banned within the hour on the only widely read blog, Everyblock. He has unimaginative users names that are always doctor something or bro. It seems like he's posting from his android phone only now, with short autistic catchphrases and quick snide comments. His twitter is nothing but random creeper pics and pictures of filthy public bathrooms. Whatever mental illness he had it's at its peak now. I think we may be on the verge of him doing something to get himself arrested and his true identity publicly disseminated, as well as sheer embarassment for any living relatives.
He's been doing insane shit on the internet for a decade now and he may very well be one of the biggest losers to ever post on the internet.

Leslie Lim said...

I'm so happy that I found your blog. You had a really wonderful site. Thank you for sharing this steps and information to us. It is really a big help.

www.gofastek.com