F is for Wryday (63)

July 29, 2011

Just because I’m in a departure lounge getting ready to board a plane to Singapore, doesn’t mean I can miss Wryday!

The subject matter this time however is about as unfunny as you can get: The massacre in Norway.

But I’m always interested in the unwritten rules that determine how far we push the humour envelope. How long, for example, did it take to hear a 9-11 joke?

I was reading a blistering attack on Andrew Bolt in The Punch the other day which wasn’t trying to be funny … work with me here … but one of the comments had a link to a ‘Colbert Nation‘ video.

Colbert’s business is satire and humour and the subject matter was the massacre. I think it achieved a good balance between respecting the subject matter, attacking the ‘lizard brain’ element of the media and having a good laugh.

I blame myself

July 22, 2011

I should have known. It was not going to last.

For the record, the last post I responded to is contained within my (thwarted) response to ‘John’:

: For one who is always insisting on absolute
: accuracy, precision and attention to detail
: on the part of everyone else, your vagueness
: about what “ more democratic” means is a
: little hypocritical.

Not at all, John, I’m a democrat. I’d like the church to engage all it’s members in the process and I really don’t know what that would look like.

Maybe, by way of an example, it could start by extending the conclave form downwards from papal elections, to elections for cardinals. Candidates would need to meet certain criteria, but once the problems with that were ironed out, move down to bishops.

Ultimately though, it’s about the church saying that aspiring to be more democratic is a good thing and then working at ways of making it work for to the church. It’s very hard to have a ‘broad vision’ when the very idea is met with such hostility and resistance at the get-go.

: And why must we be more democratic, anyway?

Because it is a good thing. If you need to be convinced about that, then we really are on a whole different page.

: So that we will look better to the world?


: If you are ashamed of how the Church appears to
: the Godless, secular world, there is a very
: simple solution – leave us wallowing in our
: ignorance, and join one of the many churches
: that is in better standing with the world.
: God knows, there are enough of them.

Thanks for the offer.

: What? Did you say, “They are not worth
: joining”?

Are you hearing voices now? From re-framing the things I say, to quoting the words I don’t speak? You take the Straw Man to a new level!

: Neither will Catholicism be if
: those you defend ever get their way.

Emphatically stated, emphatically disagreed with.

Peace to you

But even I was suprised how quickly the dreaded axe fell. In the same string the Pewmeister said this: ‘I realise you are enjoying yourself and I am – believe it or not – pleased that you are posting again on the DB …’. That was a message of welcome that turned full circle in less than 4 hours.

Again, for the record, my penultimant post to the Pewmeister:

More irelevant tangents
Posted by Faz on 22/7/2011, 5:53 pm, in reply to “respect and dual/tri personalities”

: We are back to the same old problem of the
: three personalities you use on various DBs.
: I have noted you no longer post at Sentire
: which is a very balanced and fine quality
: blog.

Why is this a problem exactly?

: I would appreciate if you would extend the
: same personality and style that you display
: at Catholica to this DB as well.

I would appreciate discussing issues, not ‘personalities’ or motivations.

: My forum is not here for people to use for
: their personal amusement.

There you go again. You insist on knowing my motivation better than me. When I don’t agree with you, you simply come back and insist again.

: I expect a poster
: who posts on various DBs, which we all read,
: to be the same person and use the one and
: same personality on all DBs.

So? Is this a new guideline?

: Someone having a personality for this DB and
: another for say catholica, simply can’t be
: taken seriously. It is game playing and at
: our expense on my forum.

If you think I’m playing some sort of game that’s a threat to youg forum, you know what to do. If you expect me to agree with you that I’m playing the game you describe, I won’t do that.

: The main posters here generally make an
: effort to post their thoughts and opinions
: in an honest, orthodox and in depth manner
: which should be respected.


: Also all of our posters DO NOT waste their
: time posting blogs run by disenchanted and
: or ex Catholics regurgitating the same old
: liberal mantra of the last 40 years, not
: forgetting spreading gossip, outright lies
: and most insulting posts about the Pope and
: other fine orthodox bishops.

I have scrupulously complied with your guideline not to bring the business of other DBs here. If you want to modify that and say that posters here can’t be members of other DBs, that too is your prerogative.

: I have also requested that you post your
: opinions and not simply cut and dissect the
: opinions of others just for the sake of an
: argument.

And I have complied. I have an opinion about the church and democracy, for example.

: I want you to post something that we can
: really discuss in all seriousness so that on
: both sides of the discussion we can depart
: from the current way most of these strings
: end up.

I have.

: Thank you.

Peace to you

: PS Democracy in the Church. I would love to
: see an in depth post on how you actually
: think that could work and give us some
: detail.

Really? You’ve been at pains to show how much contempt you have for the idea and now you’re saying your interested?

Situation normal again, nothing to see here, go on about your business.

F is for Wryday (62)

July 22, 2011

Old Paddy McCafferty is walking unsteadily down a Dublin Street at about 1.00am in the morning (as 1.00am generaly is).

Officer Flaherty goes up to Paddy and asks, ‘Now where would ya be goin’ at this time of noyght, Paddy?’

‘Oh, hello dere Officer Mick. I’m just on me way to a lecture’.

‘A lecture?’, says Officer Flaherty unconvincingly.

‘To be sure’ (as he was wont to say), says Paddy , ‘It’s on the evils of the daymon drink, Sur!’

‘Ah, I see’, says Officer Flaherty, ‘And who’d be givin’ dat lecture, Paddy?’

‘Dat’d be Mrs McCafferty, sir’.


Weak as, I know, but in a short time we’ll be in Dublin, so I thought it appropriate. We fly out next Friday, so Wryday might be a bit of a challenge!

F is for Wryday (61)

July 14, 2011

Okay, so this is sponsored by a big car company and … well … it’s not laugh-out-loud funny, but it brought a smile to my face and I love it when people look at something very ordinary and say, ‘What if?’

F is for Wryday (60)

July 7, 2011

An email arrived the other day insisting that the following is an extraordinary YouTube short of none other than Little Richard playing — as child prodigies do — in a movie. Talk about suck you in!

A little research shows that it’s not Little Richard at all but ‘Sugar Chile’ Robinson playing a cameo in the 1946 movie ‘No Leave No Love’.

So much on the internet seems to be just plain wrong, but there’s also the in between stuff that’s half true. In the path that this email followed around cyber space, I wonder why someone along the line decided to add the reference to Little Richard? Sugar Chile’s story is interesting enough, see the Wiki entry for starters, so why change it?

Anyhow, I’m sure Sugar Chile will bring a smile:

The perils of online advertising

July 1, 2011

One of the not-so-well-known aspects of the Google empire is the way it has revolutionised on-line advertising. For the advertiser, it is relatively cheap and, by using the Google technology, very targetted.

So, if a page of text mentions key words, its accompanying Google ads pick that up and place an appropriate ad.

It’s not that discriminating or subtle though. I’m sure, for example, that Catholica readers would prefer not to see many of the ads that appear on its pages.

But this is a cracker from today’s on-line Sydney Morning Herald:

smh paper clipping

Note: Here is the original link. No doubt it will change during the day. Some human may even intervene and let Tiger know that they’re not get a lot of value for their advertising buck here!

F is for Wryday (59)

July 1, 2011

Firstly, apologies for breaking the tradition and being a day late. I’ve been laid up with a cold, a real doozy (I blame climate change of course!).

Sometimes I’m sooo tempted to rejoin the fray at my old stomping ground because so much of what is said is crying out for a different point of view. The recent series of posts about the Marriage Equality Bill passing in New York (starting here) had me sorely tempted! How would I respond though? From past experience, trying to hold to a rational, coherant argument is bleeping hard work that often ends in frustration (not just for me!). So, don’t go there.

But if I did, I couldn’t think of a better response than the one alluded to by OR last week: