Ben Myers, the UK-based writer who has confused his own slothful researching inclinations with a larger issue with the Internet, has found this site and decided to try his hand at snarking here.To which I say: Oh, excellent. You all know I love me the snark, and Myers being a Brit -- home of the world's finest snark -- means that we could be in for quite a treat. So let's see how he does, shall we?
I've just been directed to this site form a comment posted on the The Guardian blog you refer to, and which I wrote.
I have to say - wow - I've never seen so much hate directed to me, especially for what I consider a fairly innocuous article.
I have no idea what this website is about - it seems to concern some typically low IQ angry Californian guy - but I am staggered (but not suprised) by the amount of obese little whingers who have taken offence at the fact that I have no money to take off travelling around Europe to research a story I one day hope to write.
The tone and misuse of the English languiage suggests to me that you're largely just another bunch of reactionary, misguided Anmericans blinded by your own bloated idiocy, and love of cake.
It's the 21st century, you live in America and this all you have to rant about? Amazing. No wonder your empire is crumbling.
One more thing: threatening violence against with me ("with a pipe, ha!) when you know I live thousands of miles away is eaily the most pathetic thing I have read this year, you ball-less sac of scrotums.
Get back to your IT programming jobs and web cam wanking sessions, you hideous arse candles.
All my very best - Ben Myers
PS - I've just realised that, collectively, you're 'sci-fi' people. I need say no more.
All right, the high points: Well, I like the phrase "hideous arse candles" quite a bit; that's a new one on me, and it's got its own certain and pungent charm. A quick Google search reveals no other uses of that phrase, so I think we can safely say "hideous arse candles" is a Ben Myers original. Well done on Ben! I have no doubt that as the years pass it will be recognized as some of his finest work.
As for the rest: Eh. It's kind of... well, disappointing, isn't it? Snark's not meant to be that cringingly defensive. Oh, sure, Myers does yeoman work lardering his note with monkey-society posturing and unearned cultural one-upmanship; I appreciate the effort. But it just doesn't hang together. His insult tropes, particularly the buffet of "You're just dumb Americans" bits, don't satisfy. I mean, yes, yes: We're all cornfed American idiots. Haven't heard that before. If an insult bores you, it's not doing its job. Myers' nerd take-downs are even more lame, if that's possible. And of course, let's note a fanboy who makes his bones writing sycophantic trash about his favorite bands (even if they are bands like Muse, who is totally excellent) has no business trying to claim a higher spot on the nerd hierarchy than a SF/F author or reader; Neil Gaiman isn't exactly known these days for his book on Duran Duran, now, is he.
Myers also exhibits the sort of authorial sloth that was the root of his asinine Guardian article, which is amusing. Even the most cursory research on his subject (me!) would have helped him avoid several errors of fact, among them my current location (Ohio, not California) and my dessert preferences (which, of course, tends toward pie rather substantially). Honestly, it's not that hard to find any of this -- I point to a bio on Whatever's front page, after all. Then again, his clear ineptitude at online research explains why he's under the impression Wikipedia is the acme of 21st century informational gleaning.
What makes it all extra special is that Myers goes out of his way to proclaim his obvious ignorance -- "I have no idea what this website is about" -- and tries to roll with it into first class snark. Amateur. Rank, piddling amateur. Any true snarker knows that knowing your enemy is the key to excellent snark, because then you know how and where to hit him to leave a psychic bruise, and to score points and win the admiration of his peers. Now, I realizes it's possible that Myers was doing the "I don't know what this Web site is about" as a rhetorical flourish, to heighten the impact of his snark, but for that to work, he would have to know something about the site, wouldn't he? And he clearly doesn't.
Which is why, in sum, Myers' exercise in snark is so disappointing. Rather than spend a minimum amount of time to make his snark sizzle, he's apparently just slap-dashed it together and shoved it out the door. It's no wonder that his slings and arrows fall short of the mark. Calling me or my readers overfed stupid American nerds? Bitch, please. My eight year old daughter can do better the first thing in the morning. In fact, I just asked her to do so, and this is what she came up with: "You're a hideous four-eyed freak who crams his brain with fairy fiction using his two extra eyes." That took her 10 seconds. It's a bad day when a published novelist is schooled in snark by an eight-year-old who isn't even trying.
Last and least: When bewailing others' tone and use of the English language, it helps not to make two stupid spelling errors in the sentence in which you do so. Because it does jam the irony meter into the red.
Final Grade for Ben Myers' snark: C-. Frankly, it should be a straight "D," but I like "hideous arse candles" enough to give him the half-grade bump, and I'm feeling generous today. But let's be clear that Mr. Myers has totally let down the British tradition of snark, let down his tens of fans with this sub-par performance, and most of all, let me down. Here I was, all excited by the prospect of grade A snark, only to have that excitement collapse, as Eddie Izzard might put it, like a flan in a cupboard.
Sad to say, Myers' most effective insult in all of this was in not entertaining me. Having now read two samples of Myers work, however, I can see how "not entertaining people" would be something Myers knows a lot about.
Comments (157)
It's love of PIE you "whinging" little bitch!
Posted by john | July 3, 2007 10:09 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 10:09
It's truly sad if this is what how low the glorious tradition of BritSnark has fallen.
While I'm sure that dozens or readers may have their feelings slightly dented by his rant, I would have hoped that he would stretch his humour and outrage a little further than he did.
Posted by CJ | July 3, 2007 10:14 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 10:14
I almost snorted when I read "tens of fans!" I was warmed by thoughts of the tens of fans my own blog enjoys.
You can't blame the Brits for being cynical, we did beat them off our soil, not once, but twice.
Posted by Jason | July 3, 2007 10:15 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 10:15
It appears Mr. Myers' needs to have his internal Mr. Sulu raise the Pretentious Twaddle Shield to maximum and then brace for impact.
I would agree with Scalzi's comment surrounding Myers' use of the tired "uncultured American" argument.
*yawn*
Posted by Janiece | July 3, 2007 10:18 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 10:18
Only because they decided we were not worth the trouble and were busy elsewhere. Which showed good strategic sense on our part.
Posted by Jim Franks | July 3, 2007 10:18 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 10:18
You can't let him have arse candle - you can thank Chris Morris and the near-legendary Brass Eye for that. Grade him a 'D', John!
Christian
Posted by Christian | July 3, 2007 10:19 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 10:19
"ball-less sac of scrotums"?
I liked the arse candle, but I can't figure this one out.
1) Ok, I have sac - that I understand. Check.
2) The sac that I possess, appears to be "ball-less". Ok, check.
3) The sac (though ball-less), DOES contain some scrotums. Check.
This would lead me to believe that the sac - must have contained tennis, basket, golf, and baseballs (or other balls of my choosing), which I have now removed and replaced with scrotums. Still, this puzzles me. I'm planning to think this over.
Posted by Christian | July 3, 2007 10:19 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 10:19
I'm still having a good chuckle over the "hideous arse candles" euphemism. In some ways I'm curious to know what an arse candle is, but the majority of me thinks I'd rather not know.
I'll just throw on a jumper, hop in my lorry and flag down a bobbie to find out...
Posted by Jason | July 3, 2007 10:22 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 10:22
/delurk
Going back to the original article brings up this question:
If he admittedly knows very little about Romania, what is leading him to want to set a novel there?
/relurk
Posted by Daniel H. Alvarez | July 3, 2007 10:26 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 10:26
Sad to say, this is kind of typical for the standards of the British broadsheet columnist: one replied to criticism of his constant whinging about his ex-wife by addressing his critic thus "I wish I was gay so I could wank over your man-tits".
Yes, it's not the arrogance that rankles, it's the fact that it's in no way earnt. I mean, the original article boils down to "I wanted to write a story set in Romania, but couldn't be arsed to research it by going to Romania or even finding a Romanian. Or someone who'd been to Romania. So I used Wikipedia, which is a bit shit, but it's the only resource I've heard from, so we're doomed".
And for this he gets PAID? I'm in the wrong business.
BTW, your kid rules. She should get her own column in the Guardian. She'd totally pwn them.
Posted by Peter Darby | July 3, 2007 10:27 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 10:27
But according to your wiki you DO live in California and pie IS your favorite desert! :P
Posted by Glen | July 3, 2007 10:28 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 10:28
What an excellent resnark. If Myers' is to re-resnark, he defintitely has to hold the pocket rockets of Ace of snarks and Ace of flames. Which he clearly doesn't. It was such an obvious bluff.
Or could he be check-snarking???? naaaaah.
Ah well, I just dropped in on the comment thingie, because I wanted to inform you that on the RSS feed, your paragraph breaks works fine in the Myers part you quote, but are still utterly not there in your own part of the post.
It must be you, personally. The software is out to get you.
Posted by Peter B. Juul | July 3, 2007 10:28 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 10:28
As Dave Barry would say, "Hideous Arse Candles" would be a good name for a rock band.
Posted by hugh57 | July 3, 2007 10:32 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 10:32
Two word summary: OOH BURN.
Oh Great Britain, how far you have fallen from your glory days.
Posted by Katsu | July 3, 2007 10:32 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 10:32
I thought Mapplethorpe invented the "arse candle."
So, when it comes to his grade, John, I think a C- is too generous for a lazy man who chokes on arse candles and cake.
Posted by Dan | July 3, 2007 10:33 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 10:33
You give him entirely too much credit. I wouldn't even qualify that with the title "Snark". More like the 'net equivalent of a particularly slow-thinking third-grader responding, "Oh yeah?! well... well... So are you!" after you've insulted his ego by pointing out that his shoe is untied.
Posted by Tanes | July 3, 2007 10:39 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 10:39
For those of you who aren't following along, Ben has shown back up in the original entry. Currently on display: "how can we say goodbye if you won't leave?"
Posted by Stephen Granade | July 3, 2007 10:40 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 10:40
I'm telling you . . . in a war of words I want Athena on *my* side.
Gina
(apparently an obese little whinger but--I take umbrage--absolutely not a ball-less sac of scrotums)
Posted by Gina Black | July 3, 2007 10:41 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 10:41
I love how you try to pretend that your original post was anything other than an attempt to start a flamewar and generate some traffic. Not getting enough attention lately?
Posted by Feakhelek | July 3, 2007 10:42 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 10:42
Though you rated it 'last and least', it tickles me that he misspelled languiage [sic].
Posted by Camron | July 3, 2007 10:44 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 10:44
Does "arse candle" have anything to do with that "goatse" thing I 've been hearing so much about lately?
Posted by zakur | July 3, 2007 10:48 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 10:48
Ben certainly seems to have a bizarre predilection to a person's undercarriage. He must either spend a great deal of time on his knees, or he's simply a very short man.
Posted by Dan | July 3, 2007 10:53 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 10:53
Oh, Ben. You disappoint me so! I'm such a fan of British snark, and this...
Please tell us you just phoned it in. Surely it can't be your best work! Oh, the shame!
Posted by Katherine | July 3, 2007 10:55 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 10:55
oh now...to be fair, Athena had probably been saving that one up for ages.
Posted by Mary Dell | July 3, 2007 10:58 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 10:58
"You're a hideous four-eyed freak who crams his brain with fairy fiction using his two extra eyes."
Uh, yeah. Athena wins.
And really, dude. Come on. You shouldn't call someone's readership and writing credentials into question when they exceed your own. Just sayin'.
Between that and the lame-assed attempt at a fat joke, I'd have gone with a D-. In fact I'd probably have failed him because of the misspellings. But I hang out with fanficcers, so it takes a higher calibre of hate mail to impress me.
Posted by Annalee Flower Horne | July 3, 2007 11:03 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 11:03
Feakhelek:
"I love how you try to pretend that your original post was anything other than an attempt to start a flamewar and generate some traffic. Not getting enough attention lately?"
Well, the site gets about 30,000 visitors a day, so I get enough attention, thanks. And this particular piece was about middlin' average in terms of its appeal as a draw. If I really want to bring people in, I post a picture of my cat.
Posted by John Scalzi | July 3, 2007 11:11 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 11:11
He shouldn't even get points for 'arse candles'. We made some of these after many years of using the phrase as a general purpose expression of disappointment.
They were hideous. It was many years ago.
Posted by itsjustanalias | July 3, 2007 11:16 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 11:16
Why was 'sci-fi' put into semi-quotation in his post script?
Posted by Subspace | July 3, 2007 11:16 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 11:16
Subspace:
Because he wishes to imply that science fiction writers are below him on the writing ladder. It's cute.
Posted by John Scalzi | July 3, 2007 11:18 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 11:18
Re Athena: damn, there are legions of eight-year-old boys in Ohio who have no idea what they're in for in five or six years.
Posted by Jeff Porten | July 3, 2007 11:24 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 11:24
Here, truly, would be someone that would honk his car horn to pick up a date in the middle of on-base housing.
And the attempted "sci-fi" cut? Just pathetic. I expect more from my snark. He should spend more time in the real world than with his head in his wiki.
Posted by Steve Buchheit | July 3, 2007 11:26 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 11:26
Because he wishes to imply that science fiction writers are below him on the writing ladder.
I didn't realize there was a "writing ladder" that was genre related. I thought you are either a good writer, or not. Just like you are either an asstard, or not.
I guess being an uncultured American means I can't see the subtle shades of grey that are apparent to our English betters.
Posted by Janiece | July 3, 2007 11:29 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 11:29
Dear Mr. Myers:
As someone who's spent roughly $15K of my own money in the past five years traveling to various libraries around the world, all so I can do proper research on my books, I have this to say: you don't want it bad enough.
Really. If doing the research *really* mattered to you--if it was important to you, vital to your research--then you'd find a way to pay for the trip. See, there are these things called "saving" and "budgeting" and "scrimping"--admittedly old-fashioned approaches, but, surprisingly, they work. I'm a university librarian. I don't have a lot of money to spend on research trips. And yet I can afford them--because the research matters to me, and I because I find a way to pay for the trip.
And that's the difference between someone like you and professional writers. You aren't willing to make the sacrifice. The rest of us are.
No love,
Jess Nevins
Posted by Jess Nevins | July 3, 2007 11:31 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 11:31
You know, I really take umbrage at the fact that everyone assumes that as an American, I like cake. I'm with you, pie all the way.
What were we talking about?
Posted by marnie | July 3, 2007 11:34 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 11:34
I'm convinced that he was "just been directed to this site" because he googles for his own name every day.
Which just makes the whole thing that much funnier, given his obvious hatred of nerds. Self-hatred is always the funniest kind.
Posted by Terry Austin | July 3, 2007 11:35 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 11:35
It really annoys me when people dismiss science fiction/fantasy fans and authors like that.
That man is obviously a complete asshat
Posted by Chris Hamilton | July 3, 2007 11:35 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 11:35
He DARES to insult my love of cake!? The nerve.
What passes for first-rate British snark these days makes Alexander Pope weep bitter tears.
Posted by JonathanMoeller | July 3, 2007 11:37 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 11:37
Terry Austin:
Nah, apparently there's a link at the Guardian site, which seems to be useful for him, given apparent level of technical competence. And being a master Googler myself, I certainly wouldn't blame him for the ego surfing.
Jonathan Moeller:
I don't think anyone is suggesting this qualifies as first-rate snark.
Posted by John Scalzi | July 3, 2007 11:37 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 11:37
And I guess all of our hate mail will be graded. :)
Whatcha know about that.
Posted by Steve Buchheit | July 3, 2007 11:38 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 11:38
Ah, John, you suck the joy out of everything. It's almost like you're a woman. If you weren't such a damn fine writer, I'd be disappointed.
Posted by Terry Austin | July 3, 2007 11:44 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 11:44
"Nah, apparently there's a link at the Guardian site... And being a master Googler myself"
So I suppose the "apparently" is meant to immply that you, the "master Googler" haven't been to the Guardian site? I would guess rather that you chose to fight in your home stadium with your own fans present.
I'm still curious as to the purpose of the original blog entry. I suppose you were worried that Mr. Myers would mislead a generation of upcoming writers and felt the need to enlighten them with your own wisdom? That is much more plausible than picking a fight to stroke your own ego.
I do thank you for putting on a great show however. Honestly, it has been entertaining and didn't cost a nickle.
Posted by Feakhelek | July 3, 2007 11:47 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 11:47
"But I hang out with fanficcers, so it takes a higher calibre of hate mail to impress me."
Annalee...AMEN! Fanfiction online is the original cesspool of wank and hate. (Probably why I don't submit to ff.net and other crap...I'm one of those rare ones that writes for herself and anyone else's enjoyment is strictly incidental and a lovely surprise.)
I have given my tuppence to Mr. Myers in the other entry. I think I shall call up one or two of my Brit ex-boyfriends and get reassurance that not everyone over there is a bloody twit.
Posted by Julia | July 3, 2007 11:52 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 11:52
Comparatively speaking, the odds are that it probably did cost a least a nickel when you add together electricity, internet access costs, food, housing, etc etc.
All worth it in my opinion!
Heck, I'd say it was worth at least six pence.
Posted by Jason | July 3, 2007 11:53 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 11:53
I thought Rayyy wrote a far better, snarkier response to John than Ben did.
Posted by Cassie | July 3, 2007 11:55 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 11:55
Ain't no snark like a Scalzi snark cuz a Scalzi snark don't stop!
John, did you like a good rousing discussion or argument before getting your philosophy degree or after? Because you do it very well.
Posted by Chang, for rizzle. | July 3, 2007 11:57 AM
Posted on July 3, 2007 11:57
Feakhelek...or should I say Mr. Myers?...give it up, lol.
I continue to be amazed at people who think the coin's name is spelt "nickle". I do believe that's the element itself. ...Hang on, let me Wiki!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickle
Oh. Nope. Even the element is nickel. Nickle is a computer programming language and a woodpecker, apparently. Golly, I learn something new from Wikipedia every day!
Posted by Julia | July 3, 2007 12:02 PM
Posted on July 3, 2007 12:02
Feakhealk:
"So I suppose the 'apparently' is meant to immply that you, the 'master Googler' haven't been to the Guardian site?"
Inasmuch as I link directly to the article in question in my original post, and quote from it directly elsewhere, thus suggesting rather strongly that I've been to the site, no, not really. I said "apparently" because I haven't been there since the alleged link back here showed up, but I assume Myers is being accurate in saying that it's there. As for "fighting in my home stadium," well, if you want to think of it that way, that's fine. If the Guardian site is larder with Myers partisans champing at the bit to have at me, they can come here.
As for the reason I posted it, well, it's pretty much in the original entry, isn't it? I found Myers choice to rationalize his own personal laziness by suggesting its indicative of a structural flaw in the Internet insipid, and I felt free to write about it because why wouldn't I. You're clearly new around here, so you may be under the impression that this entry exists in isolation; it doesn't. I write about writers saying idiotic things all the time.
If Myers doesn't want people pointing out when he writes damn foolish things, he shouldn't write damn foolish things in public, where people can point to them and laugh. If you want to think this is all about ego, I won't stop you. From this end, however, it was just something I found irritating enough to note.
I am pleased you are entertained. We aim to please around here.
Posted by John Scalzi | July 3, 2007 12:03 PM
Posted on July 3, 2007 12:03
Man, I've read better snark on Usenet. This guy just sounds like a low-level Usenet troll.
OTOH, as a teacher I'm comforted--Mr. Myers is apparently even *more* geographically confused than the middle school students I work with. Either that or he's using the New York version of the map of the USA.
So much for that vaunted British eddication! Hah! I fling arse-candle leftovers in your general direction!
Posted by Joyce Reynolds-Ward | July 3, 2007 12:06 PM
Posted on July 3, 2007 12:06
Um, isn't "ball-less sac of scrotums" a redundant oxymoron? Plural even....
And EVERYBODY knows pie is America's favorite dessert - we even have it in a song: Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet." Not only did he neglect to reasearch his specific target, he neglected to research the general targets, too.
Posted by Jason | July 3, 2007 12:13 PM
Posted on July 3, 2007 12:13
Jason:
It's not redundant. If you consider the scrotum to be that which holds the testicles, you could take a number of testicle-free scrotums and put them in a sac (or even a "sack"). Unless said sack was unusually large, however, you would have to remove the scrotums from their previous owners.
Posted by John Scalzi | July 3, 2007 12:18 PM
Posted on July 3, 2007 12:18
Hey, you want genuine vintage British snark?
Try this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxdMFRwztl4
Aaaah, the good old days :)
Posted by rayyy | July 3, 2007 12:30 PM
Posted on July 3, 2007 12:30
A typically low IQ angry Californian hideous arse candle. Sounds like a British insult to me!
Posted by Pete | July 3, 2007 12:32 PM
Posted on July 3, 2007 12:32
Mr. Myers seems to have had a long relationship with Wikipedia.
On Wikipedia, Mr. Myers wrote his own entry. It was up for deletion in April 2006, right after he created it and the most cogent quote for retaining it was:
This is from the first (badly formatted) version that Mr. Myers posted:
Posted by S Andrew Swann | July 3, 2007 12:33 PM
Posted on July 3, 2007 12:33
I can't help but wonder if an "arse candle" is like those ear candles I see at the natural foods store, the ones for drawing out all the icky stuff. Perhaps Mr Myers problem is a need to make use of said candle, hideous though they may be? A problem contributed to by his rank laziness, I'm sure.
Posted by xaaronx | July 3, 2007 12:33 PM
Posted on July 3, 2007 12:33
Thank y'all for a fine bit of morning snark. Made me go dig up my old copy of Unix Haters for Dennis Ritchie's classic Anti-Forward. Would that all internet flaming were so literate. It's a bit off-topic, but while doing lit-crit of snark, I thought it'd be fun to compare to one of the old masters.
Posted by Ron | July 3, 2007 12:39 PM
Posted on July 3, 2007 12:39
Hmm, I forgot an apostrophe even after previewing. Sorry.
Posted by xaaronx | July 3, 2007 12:41 PM
Posted on July 3, 2007 12:41
Cake, pie, it's all good.
"you ball-less sac of scrotums"
Isn't "scrota" a more accepted plural form?
Posted by Tatiana | July 3, 2007 12:41 PM
Posted on July 3, 2007 12:41
Tatiana:
I think it would actually be "scroti."
Posted by John Scalzi | July 3, 2007 12:45 PM
Posted on July 3, 2007 12:45
Well, at least the guardian could be cited as a valid source to prove a SF author's death.
Posted by Patrick M. | July 3, 2007 12:49 PM
Posted on July 3, 2007 12:49
Looks like young Ben took a knife to a gunfight.
Posted by Adam Ziegler | July 3, 2007 12:56 PM
Posted on July 3, 2007 12:56
"Neil Gaiman isn't exactly known these days for his book on Duran Duran, now, is he."
That made me cackle so loud my secretary came in looking worried.
Posted by Ex-Fed | July 3, 2007 12:57 PM
Posted on July 3, 2007 12:57
LOL, I suppose that's true, though calling people a "sac" of sacks has a certain repetetive ring to it. Biologically speaking, it probably would have been more correct to say "a sac of ball-less scrotums" than to use his order, so he loses points there as well. BTW, I still find that to be oxymoronic, though I can see how it might not be.
Philosophically, if the "sac" contains no testes, is it still a scrotum?
It's so ironic to see that an English-speaking, English writer has so much difficulty with the English language.
Posted by Jason | July 3, 2007 1:01 PM
Posted on July 3, 2007 13:01
According to dictionary.com, scrota and scrotums are both acceptable plural forms. Is that a reliable source?
Posted by Jason | July 3, 2007 1:06 PM
Posted on July 3, 2007 13:06
The worst of it is, he didn't address the criticism, immediately resorting to Python-esque rhetoric sans Python's wit. ("Hideous arse candles" is good, but not in a class with waving one's private parts at your auntie, or making castanets of the testicles of a samll-brained wiper of other peoples' bottoms.)
No one suggested the indignant wanker should go into hock to do his research. I believe the gist of the posts was that looking at more than one web site might be order. He had time to write this weak attempt at snark to certify his ignorance; maybe had that time been spent actually looking something up, he might have been spared the original indignity.
Posted by Dana King | July 3, 2007 1:18 PM
Posted on July 3, 2007 13:18
I really needed the chuckle this morning. However, I must now retire to immersing myself in Jerry Springer activities to 'keep up the dumb.'
Bullocks Ben. Bullocks to you and your broken spell and grammatical checker.
Incidentally - I'm a woman. Considering the actual anatomical of my person, the insult of 'ball-less sac of scrotums' really has no effect.
I'm now shaking my head wondering if this writer knows the difference between male and female genitalia, considering he just whined like a little girl. Perhaps a research lesson in science would do some good. I suggest wikipedia.
Posted by Kate Baker (aka Katercakes) | July 3, 2007 1:23 PM
Posted on July 3, 2007 13:23
Never ceases to amaze me that Brits think "You Yanks are dumb and fat" is such a huge and triumphant put-down.
"No wonder your empire is crumbling." -- still jealous so many years after you got your own well-deserved comeuppance great power-wise? Tsk, tsk.
Posted by Lugo | July 3, 2007 1:24 PM
Posted on July 3, 2007 13:24
Oh, please tell me it's not too late to include this entry in Your Hate Mail Will Be Graded. Pretty please.
Posted by Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little | July 3, 2007 1:27 PM
Posted on July 3, 2007 13:27
I guess I don't really understand why you spent the time and bytes to even respond. You can't parse drivel. And while I suspect (ha!) that you are possessed of a resaonbly sized ego, you could not possibly have been interested in his opinions or concerned by them. I agree that "hideous arse candle" is an interesting image. Personally my best was having an opposing party in a child custody case come running out into the hallway outside the courtroom to call me a "festering butt pimple".
OJ
Posted by Old Jarhead | July 3, 2007 1:34 PM
Posted on July 3, 2007 13:34
Old Jarhead:
"I guess I don't really understand why you spent the time and bytes to even respond."
Because it amused me to do so, of course. This shit is fun. <