Beyond the matrix
Posted by Christopher Sheil on Thursday, March 8, 2007
“Reality has barely had time to exist and already it is disappearing”, wrote the always entertaining, always stimulating, always lyrical, Jean Baudrillard, in The Intelligence of Evil or the Lucidity Pact (2005), one of his last books.
|
“Illusion, dreams, passion, madness and drugs, but also artifice and simulacrum – these are reality’s natural predators”, he wrote; yet, in a famous warning to cyberworld: “It is in the Virtual that we have the ultimate predator and plunderer of reality, secreted by reality itself as a kind of self-destructive viral agent”.
Sadly, Baudrillard died in Paris yesterday, aged 77. If you’re unfamiliar with his extraordinary thought, there is an excellent introduction and overview here.
He speculated to the death. Vale great philosopher.
This entry was posted on Thursday, March 8th, 2007 at 9:36 AM and filed under Philosophy.
Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed.
Post a comment or leave a trackback.
Surely not? Wouldn’t that entail making some important conceptual contribution to our understanding of the world, including each other, and our relation to it, including to each other?
Posted on 08-Mar-07 at 12:49 pm | PermalinkContinual using “matrix” really annoys me!
Posted on 08-Mar-07 at 2:27 pm | PermalinkJean Baudrillard was one of those philosophers that I have great trouble understanding. He seems to take pleasure in making seemingly intelligent, but undecipherable statements. Take the one above:
Posted on 08-Mar-07 at 5:03 pm | PermalinkHe was a waste of space like practically every other high profile French pontificator who has come up the pike in recent decades.
Chris, tell us in simple language what he had to say that is both original and credible.
If the sociology of knowlege was worth a pinch of the proverbial it would explain how these people manage to get their reputations on the basis of….what?
Posted on 08-Mar-07 at 5:40 pm | PermalinkHey, I have to speak up for Baudrillard here. I’m not familiar with his more recent works but 20 years ago he was philosophy’s aces and deuces. He was regarded as the only philosopher intellectually competent to do battle with Foucault. Unfortunately his Oublier Foucault (Forget Foucault) was one of his less persuasive works.
Posted on 08-Mar-07 at 5:57 pm | PermalinkTo make a distinction between ‘virtual reality’ and ‘normal reality’ is stupid.
Whether it’s electromagnetic radiation, photons, sound waves or electron flow allowing communication, it is always people who are doing the communicating. While nuance (and perhaps pheromones) may be lost in the virtual, that doesn’t make it a different beast altogether.
What’s more, altered mind states are not to be dismissed lightly! I like to think they provide a kind of ’3-dimensionality’ to one’s perspective – which can in turn prove very useful for understanding the ‘real world’ once you return to it :)
I think the guy was suffering from a severe case of ‘outoftouchitis’
Posted on 08-Mar-07 at 6:03 pm | PermalinkAlso, if our young people spend too much time on World or Warcraft, is that not more a comment on the kind of societies that our forbears have allowed to evolve?
I’m reading the biography of Nugget Coombs, and the ideas he had in the 1930′s are very, very similar to ‘progressive thought’ today. Equality between the sexes, towns as human not economic places, independent economic forecasting body to educate the public and politicians alike – all very sensible – but unfortunately it appears he was not listened to.
I think perhaps the fault for the behaviour of the current generation, repugnant as it may seem to some, does not lie with them.
Posted on 08-Mar-07 at 6:11 pm | PermalinkI want Chris Shiel to speak up for Baudrillard.
But in the meantime maybe Rob can tell us what he said 20 years ago that was helpful and enlightening.
Posted on 08-Mar-07 at 9:25 pm | Permalink20 years ago..hmm..that would be not so long after Foucault had celebrated the coming of a new era of enlightment, feting the revolution live, as it were.
Unfortunately for both parties’ reputations, it transpired that the Ayatollah Khomeinei was not as enlighted as he made out, or perhaps just that Foucault was actually much stupider than he made out.
And in general, Foucault made a lot of very interesting and perceptive observations – but despite that, he often seemed not to know this world at all, see eg:
Iranian revolution, pathetic apologist for;
Anti-capitalism, lame kneejerk proponent of.
So not sure that’s putting Baudrillard on much of a pedestal.
Posted on 09-Mar-07 at 4:38 am | PermalinkRafe, I posted this on your thread at Catallaxy:
Posted on 09-Mar-07 at 6:50 am | PermalinkIf you are making the point that there are no definitive answers, then the situation is the same in the hard sciences and the humanities but that does not subvert the search for better theories, better explanations, better narratives.
Of course I also appreciate that the criteria that we use to determine what counts as a better narrative are up for grabs as well, but that in turn does not stop us from developing better criteria.
I still want to know what these gurus are offering that is both true and new.
Posted on 09-Mar-07 at 8:37 am | PermalinkI keep running into people who insist that Baudrillard is terrific in parts, but unfortunately I never run into any of the parts. Instead I keep finding quotes like the one at the top of this page – “Reality has barely had time to exist and already it is disappearing” – frequently followed by someone’s attempt to explain what the bloke actually meant.
The attempt to explain the meaning frequently turns the impressive-sounding and sometimes even poetic language and wordplay into a rather prosaic and obvious point – the sort of thing that might make a good few paragraphs in a magazine article.
This effect is reminiscent of certain Italian operas: the initial effect knocks you out, but when you find out what the singers are saying, the whole thing suddenly sounds less worthwhile.
Alternately, you find out that his interpretation of the world is based on facts that just turn put to be wrong – a problem which, as Alan Sokal pointed out, he shares with many postmodernists.
I can see why Baudrillard might be stimulating. I can see why he might have drawn attention during one of philosophy’s dry periods. What I cannot yet see is why he should be regarded as a giant.
Posted on 09-Mar-07 at 9:20 am | PermalinkFor those who get Jean Baudrillard, he was an intellectual superstar whose frequent missives were eagerly received and always enjoyed; and if you happened to be working in the fields he touched on (principally the electronic media), he was a priceless line of critical theoretical supply. For these readers, thinkers and fans, our debts to the man are large and he will be very sadly missed.
For those who don’t get Baudrillard, he was just another incomprehensible frog philosopher, whose passing will be of no account. And so it goes.
Rafe, I have already spoken up for Jean in my post. His thought is so extraordinary that it is difficult enough to try to explain it to willing ears. It would be impossible to convey to the terminally impermeable. Happily, you may therefore feel totally secure from him.
For those who may be genuinely curious, my reading of Baudrillard broadly accords with the linked essay by William Merrin. The essay is critical, original and recent, and William is a leading international Baudrillard scholar (who follows and extends the interpretation by Mike Gane). Lest you think this a side-step, William wrote the linked essay at my invitation, our joint aim being to introduce Jean to new audiences. In general, I would recommend reading Baudrillard himself over most of his critics and interpreters, who have made a cottage industry from misunderstanding him. But for those who do find him difficult and might wish for an accessible introduction to the man and his works, I could not recommend William’s recent book highly enough. Beneath his essay, I have added an extensive bibliography of Jean’s work and links to many online sources. In most respects, if not every word, William’s views can be taken as mine. If genuine readers wish to raise any specific queries about Baudrillard from William’s essay, I will try to answer them, if they don’t require much work or many words.
I don’t know what Sacha’s problem is, although using “continual” in a context where “continuously” is more appropriate really annoys me!
Posted on 09-Mar-07 at 9:22 am | PermalinkGenuinely, the linked article is nonsense.
First, about 90% of it consists of citing titles and authors and theoretical theories – fantastic for the bored, but those of us with work to do would prefer some information.
Secondly, when we finally are told something about Baudrillard’s actual ideas, it is only to learn that:
One is mildly surprised to learn that reams of the most serious and acclaimed scholarship was on the wrong track as to the point of human civilisation’s historical trajectory.
Thirdly, consider as an example the following paragraph:
(my emphasis)
With regard to the emphasised parts, I think it was Baudrillard’s reality that barely had time to exist before he snuffed it out beneath the weight of his own delusions.
I stopped reading there – ball is in your court, CS: give me one reason why I ought to persist.
Posted on 09-Mar-07 at 9:53 am | PermalinkPhilosophy was never meant to be easy Patrick. I recommend that you desist in your struggle to comprehend Baudrillard immediately, and seek alternative pursuits.
Posted on 09-Mar-07 at 10:02 am | PermalinkPhilosophy should be comprehensible, though.
Posted on 09-Mar-07 at 11:06 am | PermalinkRocket science should also be comprehensible. It is.
Posted on 09-Mar-07 at 11:16 am | PermalinkI’m with cs on the broader issue. I don’t expect to be able to pick up a higher-order economics, or genetics, or theology, or geophysics etc text and comprehend it because I haven’t put in years of study at lower levels. I don’t see why philosophy should be any different. Comprehensibility largely depends on the extent of one’s education within the discipline.
Posted on 09-Mar-07 at 12:11 pm | PermalinkI have been reading philosophy for some decades, including a heavy engagement with the POMOS for a few years until I decided they were off the planet. I think cs is deluded unless he can come up with something better than the stuff that has been posted here.
Posted on 09-Mar-07 at 12:56 pm | PermalinkI can’t find a link to the specific passages online, but perhaps my favourite Baudrillard writing concerned Disneyland, particularly Main Street USA, from his book America.
I came across this when I was doing my thesis, and was fairly captivated. Using his ideas of “hyper-real” (a valuable Baudrillardian concpet – probably my favourite, so simple yet effective), he argued that Disneyland has become the “real” America, and that real America, with its prisons, black people, etc. etc. has in fact become a kind of Disneyland for most of the people who live there.
It was a fascinating piece. Beautifully written, and congently argued; there is a sense of excitement in reading it that I really responded to.
No, not everything Baudrillard wrote was gold – some of his last writings were freaking appalling, imho; exactly the kind of twaddle you seem opposed to Rafe.
However, to ignore the incredibly valuable critical theory contributions Baudrillard made because of mixed output would be a real mistake. When on form, he was a towering genius of critical theory, and gave us new ways of interpreting the world that were incisive, fascinating, and extremely valuable.
Posted on 09-Mar-07 at 1:05 pm | Permalinkincluding a heavy engagement with the POMOS
Baudrillard was not a postmodernist, Rafe, although this mistake is common amongst novices recycling views from elsewhere. He worked in the tradition of Durkheim. Beginning with a category error is an inauspicious mistake for a critic to make in any field, but fatal in philosophy. A threshold test for credible entry into discussion is to be able to show that you have at least identified the subject correctly. As for my substantive views, they are not “posted here” but in the linked article, or were you also unable to comprehend even that advice? For you Rafe, I recommend less “heavy engagement with POMOS” and more attention to basic reading skills.
Posted on 09-Mar-07 at 1:11 pm | PermalinkI did actually study some philosophy cs. Not much, sure, and I never did like Baudrillard, even in French. But I don’t think my problem is not understanding what he is saying – after all, once you strip out the vocabulary and repetition, and add the full stops we expect in English (in fairness, he reads better in French were the full stops are less necessary), you don’t have very much to go on.
My problem is that what I understand demonstrates a profound lack of insight or even basic common sense. See eg the excerpted passages in my previous post.
I dare you to try and come up with an intelligible and not-repugnant translation of the bolded passage. Until then, I have made a sincere effort at reading the source you recommended to us, and if the best you can do is dismiss as me as too stupid, well, I will simply assume you don’t actually understand the subject matter enough to try and address it.
That need not be an insult if you just admit that there is precious little worth understanding.
Posted on 09-Mar-07 at 1:22 pm | PermalinkYour lack of comprehension is not my problem Patrick. I am not aiming to teach you or anyone else here; and nor am I seeking Baudrillard converts. Good luck.
Posted on 09-Mar-07 at 1:25 pm | PermalinkAs I posted over at Catallaxy, Baudrillard himself provides the best summary of his legacy in his “Forget Baudrillard” interview:
Posted on 09-Mar-07 at 2:21 pm | PermalinkHmmm, gotta say Daniel, whilst I think Chris is being kinda condescending, what you’ve said doesn’t sound like you’ve really studied Baudrillard at all, let alone in enough detail to form a real judgement.
Certainly, what you’ve said is true about some of Baudrillard’s work, and he was nothing if not contradictory. However I would be surprised if anyone would refute the basic validity, but moreover, the usefulness of something like Hyper-reality, probably the concept he is best well known for.
Posted on 09-Mar-07 at 2:32 pm | PermalinkI’m pretty much with cs on this. When you are venturing into new realms of thought you have to draw your own map and use a different syntax to describe it. It isn’t easy, and at the end of the day it may not be all that important, at least in practical terms (is philosophy ever?). Of course it’s not easy to follow the pioneers, any more than it was to follow many of the great artists. To decry Baudrillard for the complexity of his language is as pointless as to say Picasso should have just taken photographs because they’re so much easier to understand.
Posted on 09-Mar-07 at 5:24 pm | PermalinkPeople who say that stuff is too complicated to explain generally don’t understand it well enough to do so.
At least, thats been my observation.
Posted on 09-Mar-07 at 6:53 pm | PermalinkHuh Invig? Please explain.
Posted on 09-Mar-07 at 7:03 pm | PermalinkWell, Curious, since you asked…
Most ideas revolve around cause and effect. This is the cause, this is the effect. There may be ‘fuzziness’ around the edges, but at it’s heart, most things be able to be expressed clearly and concisely.
A causes B if C, but if not C, then A causes D.
Even rocket science is essentially all about controlling (and maintaining) an explosion, and channeling the resulting expanding gases to enable thrust.
So, if the admirers of this French philosopher can’t give us some kind of interpretation of his ideas, then either
a) they are complex and/or inconsistent (so the central ideas are not coherent or are highly ‘interwoven’) so as to resist logical explanation through written language, perhaps also requiring a vast amount of background knowledge to understand what ‘A, B, C and D’ actually are.
or, b) the admirer doesn’t understand them himself, and so can’t express the ideas clearly.
Since philosophy is generally concerned with ‘lived experience’ (or more specifically in this case ‘electronic media) – which we all go through (consume) – then the precepts involved should be readily comprehensible to most people.
As there has been no attempt by the admirer to supply their own interpretation (rather than someone else’s words) then the natural assumption of b) flows.
——————-
As a general note, if people would like the blogosphere to become something more than a venue for ideological self-aggrandizing, then I think it encumbers us all to ensure we can effectively communicate whatever views we hold. If we succumb to the temptation for wankery that much of academia already has, we will (in effect) be signalling that we deserve a similar level of irrelevance.
In other words, if you want the power that comes with being listened to, take on the responsibility of explaining yourself clearly.
Posted on 09-Mar-07 at 7:46 pm | PermalinkA causes B if C, but if not C, then A causes D.
But what if it causes F? Is it the same if A is really B in disguise?
What would be “unlived experience”? Why do you want “power”? What do you mean by “irrelevance”? Can you define “most people” and how can you prove that? Don’t you think all this also applies to women? I wish you could explain yourself clearly.
Posted on 09-Mar-07 at 10:09 pm | Permalink[...] would say give JB’s views a kind of ’spooky’ prescience. Meanwhile Chris Shiel here at Troppo goes “beyond the matrix” and posts on JB calling him a superstar but not leaving many [...]
Posted on 10-Mar-07 at 12:29 am | PermalinkHmmmmm….yes, I see your point, Curious.
I must away to study some philosophy so I can make more sense!
Do you have any suggestions? Baudrillard perhaps?
Posted on 10-Mar-07 at 10:32 am | PermalinkI posted this comment on the Missing Link thread, because discussion about Baudrillard had spilled over there too, but I’ll say it here as well where it’s definitely on topic:
I don
Posted on 10-Mar-07 at 3:49 pm | PermalinkWikipedia and its links aren’t a bad place to start for an overview.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baudrillard
Posted on 10-Mar-07 at 3:54 pm | PermalinkActually, I think the wikipedia entry poor and misleading in many respects – a cut and paste potlatch of takes, incorporating as many misunderstandings as insights and often making his work more complex that Baudrillard himself was. If you are curious about the guy, don’t be turned off by wikipedia.
The best introduction and overview by far, I staunchly maintain, is my linked article, unless you read Merrin’s full book, or go back to Gane. The relationship of Buadrillard to Durkheim is, moreover, rather more than an important clue, for it supplies a conceptual framework through which his entire standpoint can be understood as fully integrated, and indeed profoundly conservative in some central respects. As for postmodernism, I cannot see how he can possibly be grouped in that camp at all, not by disinterested analysis and certainly not by his own testimony. Perhaps the only thing he has in common with postmodernists is that he can be difficult to follow, yet he has the wonderful compensation of never being less than amusing.
The funnist thing, however, is that tim blair has mistakenly reported the po-mo line, while complaining about an obituary that mistakenly refers to Bush’s famous turkey. A fake report complaining about a fake. Who’s the turkey?
Posted on 10-Mar-07 at 5:46 pm | PermalinkWell, as I said, wikipedia is helpful for the links. It also discusses Merrin’s take.
I was agreeing with you that he should not be thought of as being a postmodernist, if that wasn’t clear.
Posted on 10-Mar-07 at 6:02 pm | PermalinkIn defence of Tim Blair, it is easy to make a mistake about who is pomo and who is not because people of significant learning could disagree and he would not claim to be well versed in that kind of thing.
As for the turkey, anyone with sound eyes would have known the truth of that story but the fake verion of the story has been circulated over and over – to what purpose?
On the topic of Baudrillard I am intrigued to find that he is operating in the tradition of Durkheim because over the last year or so I have been re-reading Durkheim and some of his leading commentators.
If I have got hold of Durkheim
Posted on 10-Mar-07 at 7:27 pm | PermalinkActually, it is easy to make a mistake about whether a turkey is fake or not, because it is not only trivia, we cannot know for ourselves, for we merely have an image, and the suggestion that it was fake has been repeatedly published as such by countless sources all over the world. Very few know whether the turkey was fake or not, and virtually no one could care less. The point is meaningless, approximating, at best, the significance of a typo.
On the other hand, it is not easy to make a mistake about who is pomo and who is not on a thread that supplies a direct link with a recommendation to an article that explains that Baudrillard was not, with full scholarly references and a comprehensive bibliography, and which also includes an explanation of the late philosopher’s relationship to Durkheim. Anyone with sound eyes and even the slightest shred of intellectual integrity would have known the truth of that, unless they refused to go to the link and read – to what purpose?
It would help if your language was clearer, less pompous and supplied an argument with references instead of privileging vacuous idiosyncratic personal assertions, Rafe. Perhaps you would be advised to write in French or German, as blankly asserting that something makes no sense to you in the light of such readily available scholarship just looks plain silly in English.
Posted on 10-Mar-07 at 11:02 pm | PermalinkYou are the turkey because you are the one who introduced the topic and then dismissed the point as meaningless.
Posted on 11-Mar-07 at 12:17 am | PermalinkIt was a different point, dear Rafe. You obviously missed the original point, demonstrating your inimitably outstanding if unenviable talent. Now, be a good boy and lay off the personal abuse and address the issues, if you’re capable.
Posted on 11-Mar-07 at 12:25 am | PermalinkLets not talk turkey:)
Posted on 11-Mar-07 at 8:15 am | PermalinkAnd using thing twice in a sentence shows that the instantness of commenting on blogs isn’t conducive to communicative writing!
Posted on 11-Mar-07 at 10:51 am | PermalinkKen,
Allow me to explain a couple of things.
Firstly, I believe that ‘lack of understanding’ is fairly endemic in many areas, not least of which is human society and individual experience within it. By ‘lack of understanding’ I mean that fundamental ‘variables’ of the system have not been identified (but that is of course based upon my perspective – which is totally unrelated to the arts – and that is not a criticism btw). Trouble is, the less ‘fundamental’ an understanding, the more inherent contradictions it will contain and the more difficult it will be to express concisely.
I see much of philosophy as a ‘non-systematic’ attempt to understand how society, and by implication, our individual part in it, works. That it is not easily explained in one paragraph is not surprising since the philosophy itself generally does not approach ‘fundamental’. This is of course not surprising since the subject matter is so complex and the philosopher by necessity works largely alone. However, adherents to the philosophy do not help by preventing it being discussed (and hopefully evolved) openly.
It is only through repeated review and vetting of ideas through many minds that we collectively reach nearer to the point of ‘fundamentalness’. And the use of this invented word further illustrates the point. I believe we all have a duty to put our ego aside in the search for greater understanding, and spelling or grammatical mistakes similarly should take a back seat to communicating our best interpretation fearlessly.
On another point, if that interpretation must include historical or cultural context to explain the idea (rather than justify it’s flaws and limitations) then fine, but too often I read swathes of verbage analysing and discussing historical context. As someone interested in the pure mechanics of the idea, I find this to be an indulgent distraction (not to say the perspective of others is not valid, but recognising that differences exist avoids insult).
So my saying
Posted on 11-Mar-07 at 1:28 pm | PermalinkHmmm.
1. Anyone who has ever served in the US military can tell you that the military usually uses a regular cooked turkey, i.e. not fake, as a display turkey.
2. The New York Times explicitly stated in an article that the turkey was not fake.
3. The Washington Post explicitly stated in an article that the turkey was not fake.
4. Milbloggers, who were there at dining hall when President Bush walked around with the supposedly fake turkey, blogged that the turkey was not in fact fake.
So is it easy to be mistaken about a supposedly fake turkey?
Sure. But only if you’re such a wanker that you cannot even
Posted on 11-Mar-07 at 3:52 pm | PermalinkGoogle
the damn thing. Pity that this description covers a enormous number of people all over the world.
cs lectures on pompous language and personal insults. As they say in the Mastercard ads, priceless!
Posted on 11-Mar-07 at 4:14 pm | PermalinkIf it is such a trivial matter, why has a plethora of leftists the world over dwelt on it for years after the (non) event?
Could it be that it is because your views are like the non-fake turkey… uninformed, inaccurate and (in the final analysis) utterly trivial?
Posted on 11-Mar-07 at 4:27 pm | PermalinkDid CS just say that stating a ‘fact’ that is not true is similar to a typo?
Posted on 11-Mar-07 at 4:54 pm | PermalinkBehave Gareth. I am always civil to the civil.
I think CS should have done his best to explain the philosopher in question.
Invig, that is what the recommended link was for, for heaven’s sake (help me lord). On what authority do you invoke this standard in any event? Why do you imagine moreover that I have the slightest desire to explain him to anyone, let alone your good self, let alone that I “should”? Do you think blogging is or should be some sort of free personal tuition service on demand and in a form specified by the customer? Why are you commenting, come to think of it, if you don’t like the post? Of all the blog joints, in all the towns, in all the world, you had to walk into mine …
Sacha, if you had followed the recommended link (cs says, for what feels like the 200th time), you might have got the point of ‘matrix’. Baudrillard used the term as something of a synonym for simulacrum, which is his most famous concept. The term was also adopted by the Wachowski brothers for their popular film trilogy, which is Baudrillard’s most well-known appearance in popular culture. It is, hence, an entirely appropriate headline for this post on at least two scores. In a further subtlety, it is “matrix” with a small “m”, because Baudrillard himself rejected the films his work inspired, as also explained in the recommended link.
More generally, in blogging a brief personal appreciation on a little known French philosopher who happens to mean a good deal to me, I did not anticipate any interest whatsoever. I know, ‘no-one expects the Spanish Inquisition’ … But haven’t people got anything better to do than effectively complain that I did not actually cut and paste the linked article in this blog?
Posted on 11-Mar-07 at 5:09 pm | PermalinkOh, and I don’t give a stuff about turkeys, fake or otherwise, btw. Cope.
(PS The fake turkey science look pretty weak, btw:
1. Anyone who has ever served in the US military can tell you that the military usually uses a regular cooked turkey, i.e. not fake, as a display turkey.
The “usually” destroys this point. Dinner with the pres was scarcely “usual”.
2. The New York Times explicitly stated in an article that the turkey was not fake.
Hah. Nuff said.
3. The Washington Post explicitly stated in an article that the turkey was not fake.
How do you know they didn’t just copy the Times?
4. Milbloggers, who were there at dining hall when President Bush walked around with the supposedly fake turkey, blogged that the turkey was not in fact fake.
How do we know they didn’t lie? Is there any continuous undoctered film of the turkey, from being photographed to someone actually eating any of it? Was it all eaten? Could it have been half-fake?
So is it easy to be mistaken about a supposedly fake turkey?)
Posted on 11-Mar-07 at 5:13 pm | PermalinkI did look at the link – I just don’t like the way in which the word matrix has been used to mean a lot of different things, that’s all – and here’s another situation in which the word has been used.
Eg, I don’t like the use of matrix when array is the intended word. (I’ve noticed this in a number of places.) I suppose I just see it as sloppiness. But language changes, and who am I to say what people should or shouldn’t use? It’s just a personal thing.
Posted on 12-Mar-07 at 9:04 am | PermalinkA Response To Baudrillard
Posted on 12-Mar-07 at 9:55 am | Permalinkbtw i’m not expecting it now…the time is past…but i think you will find that is why people were so aggressive in attacking you.
Posted on 12-Mar-07 at 9:56 am | PermalinkAt risk of over-saucing the pudding, this is where I had a similar problem – anger caused by my inability to substantiate a position I was advancing.
It is wholly understandable response.
Posted on 12-Mar-07 at 10:41 am | Permalink‘Over-egging’ I meant.
I phoned mum to ask her what the saying was and got Dad instead and yeah, a lovely dad-son pointless argument was enjoyed by all, and in so doing I kinda forgot that i’d already decided that sauce wasn’t right.
True story.
Posted on 12-Mar-07 at 3:04 pm | PermalinkAhhhh, The Matrix!
My humble abode..
regardless of the naughty ramblings of Sacha Blumen!
A fine, and hearty day, to all of you nit-picker’s, contemplating your navels for dust-motes of fine-tuned wordings, designed to confuse an aleady confused world!
(Spanks to you all, for giving the Devil his due!)
Well. I’m off…..
..back to THE MATRIX!!
spank* and, double Spank* Sacha!!!!
Muawwwwh! ~~(^_^)~~~
xx,Dat Guy!
Posted on 27-Jun-07 at 1:47 am | Permalink