Irrelevant Confessions

RightGoths.com ^ | August 23, 2004 | Ivan Groznii

[MadIvan]

For much of my life I have grappled with my identity, who I am. As a young child, I wasn’t at all ambivalent about myself, and this lack of ambivalence left me confused.

Thinking that I was doing the right thing, I have not spoken about this subject. I imposed the politically correct reality unto myself, a reality which is layered with all the “good things” and “right things”, including not saying down at the pub that you fancy a gorgeous woman seated across the room and question the law of gravity in reference to her bodacious tatas. These include not overtly admiring the view when a young lady in a miniskirt passes by, and by not responding with even a peep of a wolf whistle. But at a point in every person's life, one has to look deeply into the mirror of one's soul and decide one's unique truth in the world, not as we may want to see it or hope to see it, but as it is.

And my truth is that I am a straight Goth. I am here today because I confess that I love, admire and adore women and I wear lots of black. I know according to the norms of political correctness this is bad and wrong. According to their norms, I should be hanging outside of public restrooms waiting for George Michael and listening to Dixie Chicks albums. But instead I have been listening to Switchblade Symphony and finding my pulse quickens whenever an attractive woman walks into the room.

[MadIvan]

I have a question - you've made a lot of presumptions of authority on how one should write, how one should post and so on...even who is the most effective debator. To use a New York phrase, "Who died and made you God?" Your arrogance is breathtaking: you're not a mod, you're not a writer, you're certainly not a diplomat, nor even a persuasive debater, yet you presume the authority to look down on everyone else. If I didn't know better by the fact that you're allowed to remain on this board, with that attitude, I'd dare say you're a liberal.

Ivan

[searchandrecovery]

Most people would have presumed from the phrase "bodacious tatas" that this was not supposed to be taken entirely seriously.
Ok, let the healing begin. Here's your complete sentence:

I imposed the politically correct reality unto myself, a reality which is layered with all the “good things” and “right things”, including not saying down at the pub that you fancy a gorgeous woman seated across the room and question the law of gravity in reference to her bodacious tatas.
Lost me at "pub" - not American, not McG. What part of the McG confessional are your riffing off of here?

Also, b-t's - not that unexpected anymore. I heard the term in the mid '80's. It doesn't shock in America. Not quite a part of standard speech, but not a big jolt of humor either.

Quick take - let's talk about parody. McG unleashed a huge unexpected bombshell (boy be gay, most people unaware cause he has wife, kids, and all). Very tough to top by saying you like chicks. I could be missing the point of gothness (are goth's are gay? doubtful from what I've seen), but I don't think so. To parody McG would be to refute all that you (seemingly) stand for. Like - you secretly enjoy polka music instead of goth, for example.

Your sentence is too long (prolix?) with no real punchline. Twist, contrast, complete opposites of what one would expect.

[KangarooJacqui]

All my points were valid

Yeah, in your own delusional mind perhaps.

Hello, Bellvue? We got a live one for ya... ship over a truckload of Haldol, this searchandrecovery's gonna need it ALL!

[MadIvan]

Lost me at "pub" - not American, not McG. What part of the McG confessional are your riffing off of here?

You are really very silly. There is a certain limit to extrapolation if I am going to confess something about myself. It's a balance between McGreevey's exact phraseology and inserting my own content. You're labouring the point to excess that you didn't like the particular balance achieved.

Also, b-t's - not that unexpected anymore. I heard the term in the mid '80's. It doesn't shock in America. Not quite a part of standard speech, but not a big jolt of humor either.

It's not intended to bring about a huge belly laugh. It is intended to make one realise it's not to be taken entirely seriously. Did you miss that?

Quick take - let's talk about parody. McG unleashed a huge unexpected bombshell (boy be gay, most people unaware cause he has wife, kids, and all). Very tough to top by saying you like chicks. I could be missing the point of gothness (are goth's are gay? doubtful from what I've seen), but I don't think so. To parody McG would be to refute all that you (seemingly) stand for. Like - you secretly enjoy polka music instead of goth, for example.

You really missed the point. McGreevey was obviously a "gay American"; this has been asserted by a number of sources. Similarly, I am obviously a "straight Goth". There was nothing particularly shocking about McGreevey saying he was gay. There was nothing particularly shocking about me saying I'm a straight Goth.

Your sentence is too long (prolix?) with no real punchline. Twist, contrast, complete opposites of what one would expect.

I am not willing to accept the criticisms of someone who is having trouble comprehending the logic involved and doesn't want to hear otherwise.

Secondly, you've done nothing to show that you are a writer, an English teacher, or anyone else whose criticisms I would take seriously. So far as i'm concerned, you're some fellow with a keyboard, an opinion, and way too much arrogance.

Ivan

[searchandrecovery]

All personal attack, no argument. You lose (again).

[searchandrecovery]

MadIvan: There was nothing particularly shocking about McGreevey saying he was gay.

With this we end our conversation.

[KangarooJacqui]

Uh-uh. You're the loser, if all you can do is completely miss the point of articles, and trash other people's threads.

[MadIvan]

With this we end our conversation.

Fine. But if you take a look at the sources on the subject, and indeed listen to the Hannity programme, it was an open secret that McGreevey was gay. This was not a shock, whether you like it or not.

But don't let facts get in the way of you deciding you have the upper hand. You've presumed virtually everything else.

Ivan

[SuziQ]

I showed my daughter that site and she got a real kick out of it. She's a homeschooler, but is a member of the local public school's Anime Club. A few of the members of the club like to call themselves 'Goths'. She's amused.

[MadIvan]

I'm glad she likes it. :) Look on the bright side, we're definitely not hippies! ;)

Best Regards, Ivan

[texasflower]

S&R, I read through this entire thread long after everyone else was gone.

I am stunned at how much of an a** you were. The article was well written, funny, and indeed making a point.

In contrast you were like the fat bully kid that doesn't know how to accomplish anything without aggression, insults, taunts, jeers.

Your remarks were off point and juvenile., although you clearly imagined yourself as a big boy. I read some of your posts and I see that your primary idea of humor is giggly sex jokes about homosexuals.

****IVAN, maybe you SHOULD give it up. After all, do you think you can compete with these posts of great wisdom and entertainment from our friend searchandrecovery?

Oh, so many, many issues here. The consenting ho (perhaps a single mom, working to support her kid(s)). And the State, which doesn't tax this stuff (because that would imply moral approval). Methinks the State(s) will cave soon and approve prostitution as long as it is regulated and taxed. Morality is for the Christians, whom we despise.

He did have to explain to someone that this was sarcasm. ( Hmmm, maybe you don't have the writing skills you think you have S&R.) Just a thought.

Here is another example of S&R's writing skills.......

I hope this unwinds slowly - let the fairies and thier lawyers fight it out in a public puppet theatre. My big red flag, from the confessional yesterday, was the word "consensual". Hey Jimmy Mc(Geeeee I'm a Homo)Greevey, maybe you're not tellin' the hole truth. Maybe you just dang raped another man (squeal like a pig, Golan)! I think his wife's a lezbo, as well. Evil little world he had goin' there.

This........

McGreevey: Hey Cipel, is that Golan's Heights in your pocket or are you just glad to see me? Oh yea, there's a Homeland Security meeting at your apartment tonight around midnight - you bring the cheese this time and I'll be packing fudge.

Better keep at it S&R, you have a long way to go. Although Jacqui is well able to take care of herself, I think your bullying of her was no different than the way Chris Matthews treated Michelle Malkin. You really should be ashamed. Hopefully you are sleeping off your nastiness. BTW, I am a woman too. If you wake up and you are still so mean and nasty, I have three words for you.... Bring it on.

[searchandrecovery]

1. You think the article was good parody - I don't. In fact, that whole "making fun of the mcg speech" part was so lacking, and the article so poorly written, that I thought it was the ramblings of an adolescent. Even after learning what was being parodied, and re-reading it, it wasn't funny to me - although I do appreciate the efforts of the author, and actually offered specific criticism in good faith.

2. As far as your own critiques of my posts - go for it, I certainly don't care and am not offended. I stand by what I wrote, take responsibility for my words, and am adult enough to handle critics (it's part of growing up). Kind of flattered, actually, that some one would take the time to do the research.

3. There's a difference between posting an article and posting a comment. Contemplate what that is.

[KangarooJacqui]

Yo, TF... I've been awake for well over thirty-six hours, but if searchandwhatever decides to rejoin the fray, the Coalition of the Willing are THERE! (I think I can speak for Ivan as well as myself when I say this.)

By the way, you'd like my state of Australia. We even have a town named for the state of Texas...

Cheers always,
KaJac

[MadIvan]

You think the article was good parody - I don't. In fact, that whole "making fun of the mcg speech" part was so lacking, and the article so poorly written, that I thought it was the ramblings of an adolescent.

You said that before obviously reading the entire thing, as your first post shows.

Even after learning what was being parodied, and re-reading it, it wasn't funny to me

So you went out of your way to ruin it for everyone else. It's clear not everyone shares your opinion: I could two direct positive comments to your one negative in fact. But this does not deter you from spreading your excremental comments all over the thread. Nice going.

- although I do appreciate the efforts of the author, and actually offered specific criticism in good faith.

Your "good faith" was disproved by your juvenile insult in your first post. Considering the writing quality that texasflower has cited, I'm thoroughly uninterested in what you have to say about my writing skills. Again, you're not a journalist, writer, English teacher - you're some mouthy jackass with a keyboard, who thinks he'a an authority on things with which you're only marginally acquainted.

There's a difference between posting an article and posting a comment. Contemplate what that is.

Texasflower's point was to show that your thinking and writing is less coherent than you think it is; considering you've shown us no articles of your own to prove that you have any writing skills whatsoever, it's the best evidence we have to go on.

Ivan

[MadIvan]

By the way, by not having the sense to quit when you had the opportunity, you're merely proving to others what a jackass you are. Again, nice going. If the thread can't accomplish it's original purpose, at least it shows your arrogance, your smug attitude and your bitter and mendacious character.

Ivan

[searchandrecovery]

So you went out of your way to ruin it for everyone else.

Post it again - I'll stay away (I may read it but will not comment). Seriously, trust me, I had my fun and will step aside.

[KangarooJacqui]

There's a difference between posting an article and posting a comment. Contemplate what that is.

There's also a difference between being a FReeper, and being an @$$hole. Guess which side most people on this thread think you're on - AND GO AWAY!

[searchandrecovery]

KangarooJacqui (http://www.RightGoths.com - Gothic. Freaky. Conservative. Got a problem with that?)

MadIvan (Gothic. Freaky. Conservative. - http://www.rightgoths.com/)

LOL! Just got that. So, are you one person with two logins? Or business partners? Friends? How exactly am I being tag-teamed here? That's too funny. Coincidence? I think not. (See, if you're one person with a male and a female login, that's just a new twist).

[MadIvan]

LOL! Just got that. So, are you one person with two logins? Or business partners? Friends? How exactly am I being tag-teamed here? That's too funny. Coincidence? I think not. (See, if you're one person with a male and a female login, that's just a new twist).

You're extremely dim. She happens to be my lady.

However, the fact that it took you this long to figure it out, and that you could possibly think we're the same person, marks you out as a total dunce.

Ivan

[texasflower]

although I do appreciate the efforts of the author, and actually offered specific criticism in good faith.

"Good faith" is the last thing you had in mind and you know it. You just wanted to be a jerk.

Kind of flattered, actually, that some one would take the time to do the research.

Trust me, if it had taken me more than 2 clicks to get to it, I wouldn't have bothered with it. Luckily for me, I was able to find three silly posts on the VERY FIRST PAGE of your comments.

About the article......You don't seem to understand it.

As I read it, it has very little to do with trying to be an entertaining parody and much more to do with making a distinct point. In my opinion, the point was well made and is quite reflective of the nature of politics and of the disturbing unwillingness of some to accept responsibility for their own thoughts and actions.

But you didn't get that did you?

Let me help by giving you just these two sentences from the article.

....the fact that I’ve confessed that I’m a Goth and straight, makes up for none of my faults, none of my sins, none of my failings.

It is a word to the wise, when you see a Democrat confess to one thing, he is likely hiding another. And what is being hidden is more than likely to be the heart of the matter.

Does that help you any at all? You see the "parody" was merely a way to draw the reader in and guide them through to the real issue.

It is actually quite thought provoking.

As far as your objection to clicking through to the blog, the article is quite long and wouldn't fit well here, besides there is much more to see and read on the blog. It is well worth the time.

It is my hope that you go back and read the entire article. After all, you seem to be blaming Ivan for your own inability to comprehend the point of the article.

That seems a bit similar to his entire point doesn't it?