Every once in a while, as a perspicacious reader, one encounters a classic penned by a true, thoroughgoing asshat. Someone shows up and just starts spouting, assuming that anything that drops from any of their personal orifices is automatically infused with Great Meaning and Importance--not just for them, but for anyone lucky enough to be downwind. Someone who is apparently so used to people jumping when they make a condescending intimation in the direction of "frog" that they've lost all touch with inconvenient realities. Someone who assumes, with an incorrectness so vast that it develops its own weather patterns, that their aggressively ill-informed, patriarchal judgments are not just wanted, but NEEDED. Someone who cloaks their foam-flecked rage in poorly crafted "civil" dialogue, the better to snarl about "unfair attacks" should a non-worshipful reply be forthcoming. Someone who dresses their snot-nosed little Hidden Agendas up as mink-stoled Saddening Suspicions, then sends the lipsticked piglets wobbling off into the world to be adored. Someone who only needs the smallest fragment of information to go haring off in all kinds of irrelevant yet revealing prognosticatory directions, who can spin yards and yards of whole cloth from the wee-est scrap of bellybutton lint.
Without any further ado, we give you . . . the hilariously smug stylings of Robert L. Woods, Jr., with Slightly Snarky Commentary™ by yours truly.
>>I'm writing directly to you as I have the impression it's your website
although I'm also sure <mailto:bitchsupreme@heartlessbitches.com>
bitchsupreme@heartlessbitches.com goes directly to you as well.<<
Hmm. I was tempted to give
this boy a wee bit of credit for figuring stuff out (like, you know, that whole
“your website” = “bitchsupreme” equation that seems to flummox so many),
despite his evident issues with, say, punctuation; then I got to the
end of this somewhat convoluted run-on and realized that such an impulse
was, at best, premature.
>>I enjoyed much of what I read<<
I have to
say—having already read once through this bolus of high-handed nonsense, I
wonder what it was that he DID read. I don’t think it could possibly have
been any content that's actually on this site.
>>and perhaps you saw my earlier e-mail.<<
And perhaps you
sprayed it with Lysol. Or better yet, with Raid.
Or-r-r-r . . . perhaps his "earlier e-mail" exists only in the
airless confines of his fevered imagination?
>>This e-mail is not a 'rant'.<<
I suppose, technically, this MIGHT be considered correct, depending on how one defines one's terms. Of course, he did put "rant" in quotes (or sort of, at any rate, since actual quotes require double-strokes, at least in this country), so I'm sure he was planning on slip-slidin' around, depending on how inconvenient things got. (Read: Depending on how much of the wall he ended up getting nailed to. Hint: As much of it as we can stretch your flaky hide to fit, Gomer.)
Actually, I suspect this nimnal was hoping like heck to get an irate enough response--or even better, the radio silence that we will shortly learn will tell him Everything He Needs to Know About Our Moral Cowardice--to feel justified in clinging to his already-formed ideas (and I use the term advisedly) about what our shortcomings are. Bonehead Alert: That ping you hear is NOT, in fact, the ring of truth; it is merely the sound of insoluble nuggets of fact rebounding off an empty, impermeable skull.
>>The "Malebag" section of your Website indicates that
it has not been updated since January 23, 2003.<<
::golftournamentvoice.bat
on:: Everyone watch closely. He’s about to take a truly hilarious leap deep
into Unfounded Assumption territory. This is not a move for the squeamish. But
have no fear! As we’ll soon discover, he’s no novice at this leaping
thing. Please hold your applause. ::golftournamentvoice.bat off::
>>Until that time, I submit,<
I’ll just bet you do,
bucko.
>> you and your fellow 'HBs' were maintaining a balance of thought
and opinion.<<
And there he GOES, ladies
and germs!!
I’m going to leave aside the no-doubt-unintentional hilarity of “you and your
FELLOW ‘HBs’,” which IMHO is really quite big of me, and move on to the
real meat of the matter: that swan-dive into Unfounded Assumptionville. “A
balance of thought and opinion”? Really? And what, I wonder, would possibly
lead him to think such a thing? Did he actually READ what was in the Malebag?
Even more important, did he actually read the HOMEPAGE, or anything ELSE on the
site? Did he even take note of the mofoin' URL?? Where does it say A SINGLE WORD that even VAGUELY implies the presence of “a balance of thought and opinion”? For that matter,
a balance between what and what? Between males speaking and females
speaking? Interesting that he’s pulling that ghetto thang; maybe he didn’t
notice that the Malebag actually has sections of its own.
Oh, and here's another funny thing he didn't seem to notice: The newest item in Unclassified Comments is ALSO dated January 2003. Where's the outrage for the unwashed masses, dude??
>>It's now the
end of October 2005, two years and 10 months since that section has been
updated and apparently even been considered. I submit,<<
AGAIN
wit da fingah. If he’s LOOKING to be dominated THAT way, he’s at the wrooong
site.
>>by ignoring
any opposing view points,<<
Wow,
this is like the Hop, Skip, AND Jump into Unfounded Assumptionville. Why would
he assume that the only reason that the Malebag section hasn’t been updated is
because we’re IGNORING “any opposing view points [sic]”? Unless, of course, he
arrived here with some kind of, I dunno, AGENDA.
WE must be censoring? It couldn’t be, say, that the boys have been lying down
on the job? Or even that the e-mails arriving from males have ended up
elsewhere? Or even that we figgered there might be more INTERESTING and
IMPORTANT things to spend time and bandwidth posting than the opinions of the
readership at large?
Sorry, but WE can't help it if the quality submissions from random boys are down and the fawning solicitations for castration and stillettoed ball-stomping are way, WAY up. (And we only WISH we were kidding.) Not to mention the fact that all those OH-so-astute "you all must be fat, hairy lesbians/just need to suck the right dick/probably haven't been laid in years/need to stop whining and get in the kitchen and get me a beer" witticisms get a bit OLD after awhile. By the time we jettison all that whiffy crap and dump the whinging from nimrods who think they have their political agendas So Cleverly Disguised--well, there's just not much left. Except, you know, for stuff from the guys who frickin' GET IT--and THEIR contributions (or even their SUBMISSIONS--oo!) reside elsewhere.
>>your
Website has become unbalanced<<
I’m
still trying to decide which way to run with this one. "Unbalanced"
in reference/comparison to WHAT? Could this be . . . projection on his part?
>>and no
better for example, than <http://www.moveon., the left wing oriented ACLU,
CNN (many times referred to as the "Clinton News Network"),<<
Ahh, HERE we go. Anyone wondering if perhaps we might be dealing with some foaming wackmobile under insufficient cover need wonder no more. I mean, PLEASE. "MANY TIMES referred to"? On what planet? It's not enough that virtually every news organization in the U.S. apparently VOLUNTEERED to have all spines on the premises surgically removed, the better to pander to the crayon-scrawl party lines of the pResident and his cabal?
I bet Our Esteemed Author was so PROUD of himself, too, using such polite language and everything while jumping to freak-ass conclusions like an over-caffeinated kangaroo wearing a bowtie and suspenders. Listen, bub--it takes more than a wafer-thin pretense at civility (however shriekingly necessary civility may actually BE in real-life discourse) to cover the serious stench of patriarchal patronizing.
>>CBS
Television network or any organization funded by George Soros.<<
Yeah, right. Because God forbid that anybody not so far right they're off the fucking PLANET should actually use MONEY to help get their viewpoint out there. You know, like ol' Rupert Fuckin' MURDOCH has been doing for decades. (He tucks his antennae in for photos, I swear.)
>>Not only do
all of these examples have being far left Democratic in common,<<
Exsqueeze me? CNN is far left? Help us, Lord. He clearly pays as much attention to their actual broadcasts as he does to the actual content of HBI. CNN has been scrambling rightward and downward with everyone else since Fox News started making money and collecting viewers hand over fist. Edward R. Murrow must be tired of rotisserieing in his grave by now. (Just last week, I saw poor Walter Cronkite getting fitted for high-tech gears to make his own upcoming grave-spinning a smoother experience. Nothing like planning ahead.)
>>but they all share a single minded purpose of bashing President
Bush.<<
Leaving
aside the fact that even hyphens are too embarrassed to appear in his
sentences, I have to point out that this assertion is one of the
brainless classics of the We're Always Right. The fact--FACT, that dirty
F word--that DUHbya and his administration have spent the past five
years perpetrating all manner of fraud on the citizens of this country
and the world at large does NOT mean that those who dare to point out
such inconvenient facts are merely "bashing" the pResident. That's
one of those pejoratives that all sides have taken to using, which is
highly unfortunate. IMHO, it takes the very valid and vital criticisms
leveled against DUHbya & Co. and reduces them to mere carping. Reminds
me of folks who damn well should know better referring to FGM as
"female circumcision," or pro-choice people collaborating in calling
anti-choicers "pro-life," in each case perpetuating a lie. Um, no.
>>I'm not
implying your Site, overtly bashes men,<<
Not YET.
Of course, he's about to totally contradict this transparent attempt at
back-handed "fairness."
>>is of a
Democratic affiliation or slant, but I'm saying you're no longer entertaining
opposing opinions,<<
But see, "no
longer" implies that something was actually happening, and stopped. Beg
pardon, but when was HBI going around pretending to be "The McLaughlin
Group"? What inflection of "Heartless Bitches International" screams
"equal opportunity forum"? Have I been missing something all these
years? Or did Our Esteemed Author take a hot minute to notice ONE actual
thing--the update date in the "Malebag" section--and proceed to
extrapolate out from there like a mathematician on a cocaine jag?
>>maintaining
a balance of thought and purpose<<
Because,
of course, ol’ Swami Rabbitima here knows all and tells all.
>>and so
you've strayed from your initial apparent purpose of
<http://www.heartlessbitches.com.<<
Initially
apparent to whom, exactly? One is moved to wonder. (One is also moved to
feel compassion for the punctuation marks of conscience that are so
mortified by these hysterical and increasingly un-grammatical assertions
that they've taken to diving into any available space between words,
anyplace they don't belong, in the hope of escaping notice.) I'm sure he
probably threw "apparent" in as a qualifier here, but that's like
throwing a twig into an onrushing river current and expecting it to dam
the flow.
>>Dan Rather
hated President Bush so much his whole career has the epitaph of "Memo Gate",
by refusing to consider the credibility of those memos that he believe served
his purpose---to throw mud into the eyes of President Bush.<<
I don’t
think I could find a native Neanderthal anywhere who’d consent to guide me
through that supposed sentence, not for all the cheese on the moon.
>>I
submit,<<
*Siiigh.*
Will SOMEbody get this boy some cuffs and a ball-gag so we can call it a
night?!?
>>that since
you are no longer entertaining opposing or balancing thoughts,<<
Okay,
once more for the folks in the back: WHEN the hell were we EVER doing that?
It’s GOTTA get tiring, imposing one’s fever-dreams on others like this. Plus
there’s all the pseudo-civilized language one has to use in order to lull one’s
victim into complacency.
>>you're
Website has degenerated into just what you claimed it wasn't which is a
gathering of man-hating disillusioned, snooty and mean women.<<
Okay.
First thing, let me just pull a quote from above, just for giggles: "I'm
not implying your Site, overtly bashes men."
Hoo. All right. Now. We eagerly await any evidence of this latest Unfounded
Assertion.
Anyone . . . ? Anyone . . . ? Bueller?
So. Since 2003, HBI has morphed into something else. Everyone, write that down.
Where we once had entertained opposing or balancing thoughts, we now have
disillusionment, meanness, man-hating, and snoot.
>>If I get no
reply from you, then I will believe I am correct.<<
Oh yes. Another
classic. "I have already decided which answers are available to you.
This is my way of attempting to control the discourse, because I am so
ragingly insecure that any possibility of your deviating from the
wet-brained script I've already written causes me to wee my short pants
in panic."
>>If I'm
wrong then I expect you to reply and start updating that section,
"Malebag",<<
Oh, YES Daddy.
We're SO gonna hop to because of Your Mighty Expectations! Not only do
you "expect" a reply, you also "expect" us to scurry in fevered
obedience to update the "Malebag" section. (Again I ask, where's the
love for the Unwashed Masses??) We just LOVE it when random asshats show
up with one agenda tied behind their backs to start barking all kinds of
igmo demands and waving their dangly bits around.
>>and get back
on track of Being In Total Control, Honey,<<
Sorry,
dude, but we never LEFT that track.
>>and not
supporting a coven<<
HAR! So we've become WITCHES since '03! Does that mean we'll leave clouds of hairpins in our wake when we run your ass down in the driveway?
>>of
man-hating, man-bashing, mal-content, mean and vicious women<<
Wait--what
happened to "disillusioned" and "snooty"? How did we manage such an
upgrade in venom while our backs were turned?
>>who would
like nothing more<<
“I would like? I would like a trip to Europe!” –Daffy Duck
>>than to destroy any man's ego.<<
Because, lest we
forget, Daddy Knows Everything--and Daddy Knows that all Bad Girls are
out to destroy him, since any effort expended has GOT to be about HIM
('cause after all, who else is WORTH it?), and any attempt to question
or challenge him is, of course, nothing but cloaked patricide. Our
Esteemed Author left behind that Father Reprimanding an Errant and
Tantrum-Throwing Daughter tone that we all love so VERY much, and moved
into straight-up raging victimhood.
*Siiiiigh.* The idea of this assumption-twisting dickweed stumbling in here, latching onto ONE stat, and suddenly Knowing What Our Purpose Really Is--not to mention Being So Sad to See Us Straying From It--is just . . . so . . . fucking . . . COMICAL. But still. Amusing as they may occasionally be, paranoiacs and their "unbiased" bloviations make me tired.
-Instgatrix
