really the things you find out there! so for some reason i manage to get on to TIME magazine”s top 50 “coolest sites of 2005″ . And what do you find under the top 50 blogs? well you find one site…” go fug yourself” - and you think - eh? ” fugly” is supposed to be “frightfully ugly” - and you guessed it - its a variation of “oh lets slag the celebrities off for wearing x y or z”
goodness i realized that “ordinary” people have to get their kicks somehow and somewhere, but who even finds such silly petty bitchiness funny, or amusing? its not even witty, its just petty.
really women are their own enemies. people always say things about women wanting to look a certain way for the approval of “men” . pah - ha ha! as far as i”ve been able to see tis the women out there “regulating” each other. ( and the natural extension of this is of course the woman”s magazine. Ah! just in case you hadn”t been inculcated by your “friends”..) oh shock horror! if you try not to participate in this regulation - you turn into a proper outcast. in this context - single-sex schools can be singled out for exacerbating this problem: they ought to be abolished! - the no. of women you meet who went to one who are filled with dreadful stories of how they were made to feel terrible for looking/wearing x, y, z. ( and of course, later on in life they like to pass the buck along - so lovely of them..must share the goodwill around and all that sort of thing) Talk about conformity - you are always reading about “fashion faux pas” - what the hell is that? you wear what you wear what you want to wear. if people don”t like it - tough that”s their problem! why do they presume to think that because they go around “dressing for approval” the rest of us are as well? and why presume that they”re doing us a favour by pointing out such “mistakes” ? its presumptuous because its assuming that everyone else is “buying in” to your “belief system” - which frankly as far as i can see is the problem people have with “religious people”. Hah - as you can see its more a function of conventionality and conformity than just a feature of “relgious people”. of course some say fashion is a kind of religion so there you go. if you dare to break the “code” then of course you must be made to be aware of it and perform penance ( read: social ostracization)
sisterhood my foot. spitehood more like. funnily enough these fug people don”t allow comments on their blog..ooh i wonder why> perhaps in the interests of equality they ought to show us what they”re wearing everyday/what they look like??
When you are done with treating everyone who disagrees with you like a squished caterpillar in your posts, do have a look to what has been the fate of your favorite ideologue. Read Indian Capitalist’s latest enlightenment:
http://anoopverma.blogspot.com/2005/10/lenin-rots-in-pieces.html
Does it annoy you when people post on your blog only because they’ve spotted it’s quite popular and want to advertise their own (http://samjordison.blogspot.com); and worse, the stuff for sale on there (buy my book! please!) Especially when they can’t even remember what the post they’re commenting on is about (something about fugly?)?
If not, “Hi!”
OK, your fuggy piece made little sense. I guess you were only attempting to be funny.
But the comment you left on my blog- you did that without reading my expose on Lenin’s anatomy scattered here and there. Can you get your contacts in the communist world to investigate where the different parts of Lenin’s body are being stored.
hey sam - no actually i don’t mind at all. traffic is a public good we can all share -
ha ha well i daresay people who dont really understand social dynamics wouldn’t really get the ‘fugly’ piece. that’s fine, i quite understand.
squished caterpillars - eugh! gross - perhaps you ought to know im also ( amongst other ‘despicable’ things) a champion of animal rights..
re: IC’s post up there - had a look at his blog - a very bizarre recount of some strange happenings. whilst im sure he’d get good marks at a creative writing class for the awful metaphors evoking dead rotting flesh -im not sure what his point is. ( well it aint like thats clear generally!) me personally i think its funny people attach so much importance to ‘material’ remains which are - obviously once the person’s dead - just that- remains! a bit of carbon - y’know?
such a lot of fuss…
“Does it annoy you when people post on your blog only because they’ve spotted it’s quite popular and want to advertise their own (http://samjordison.blogspot.com);”
———————-
No, I visit this blog once in a while, and only because I enjoy reading juvenile stuff…
was that question directed at you?!