Sunday, January 22, 2006

Judgement

I believe anon has reminded me why I had become stuck in a groove of batting off judgements of myself. By starting them off it probably began by bringing all my insecurities to then surface and having to look and see whether they were justified.
There is a rule that says on the day of judgement (22nd of January 2006 in this case) there is only one judge, yourself. And after months of deliberation I will say the verdict is

NOT GUILTY

Going beyond the legal requirement, I have two pretty comprehensive reasons. The first is the biggest for all, the rest is detail.

1) My heart is in the right place
2) I did my best under the circumstances. I know it’s possible to go beyond what is reasonable under pressure, but that’s going beyond the call of duty and not a requirement for adequacy.

As far as maturity and personal development goes, when I was about 3 I said how funny a woman’s face was while on the bus with my Mum. She told me it wasn’t nice to make personal remarks, and that was it. I have insulted people verbally since, but felt so guilty that didn’t last very long, and was probably provoked from what I vaguely remember. But in writing in public? That is a lot lower than whatever they criticised me for as it shows a level of development most kids pass by high school.
If my anonymous stalker really cares about reforming me, they need to read a quote at Funtrivia, you catch more bears with honey than vinegar. And what exactly needs reforming?

I can only imagine. I spent a few pages looking at whether enforced unemployment makes you inadequate, and presented the case that earning money and being a valuable person are not connected. Earning money and paying your bills are if that’s the only way you can pay them. Beyond that, fuck it. When I look back and see how my family were helped for years by me as I wasn’t working I can see what they’d have missed had I not been available (as the only child and grandchild). But even if I’d had a huge family to share the help (not that they all do in reality), not working wouldn’t automatically make me guilty (see reasons above to remind what is important). I may often be childlike in that I don't take life too seriously in many ways, and am very open (in a positive sense, but more associated with children as they are told not to be) but except for the poo jokes, rarely childish. I can see some of the reasons I get popped at but I don't think there's any useful way I need to grow up as I can see little of use that would change if I did.

If I ever want to become a guru, making me look at issues like this and try and teach both the person who raised the points, and anyone else I teach in passing may be the best way to push me into it. I rise to intellectual challenges, and lock the door to physical ones. The demons often break the door down though, but the challenges have often worn me out so much I feel if I take on physical challenges my body may wear out far too soon.

But, my problem based on experience is one of ‘cloth ears’. The sort of people who shoot the missiles aren’t able to change. They are right, and whatever you say is posted but returned to sender before consideration. I carry on as other people read this, and though the person who I originally began this post for will be guaranteed to dismiss 100% of what I write as that’s the formula.

I am sometimes tempted to do what I consider blowing my own trumpet when faced with unjust criticism, but I think if some of the points I want to raise are the same an employer would look at when deciding whether to take me on maybe it’s a time to break that rule and go ahead and blow a bit.

I think when you are trying to knock someone off their perch, try and imagine what you’ll get back when you insult someone’s intelligence. One person who tears me apart and I go back for more almost every week is Tommy Boyd. He isn’t an equal, as well as the fact had he been an equal I’d still go back for more as being objective gives anyone equal the edge to see your situation more clearly. He is a superior. He has shown he has the right to pull my life apart hair by hair, as he sees what I don’t. Anyway, apart from Tommy, where I set myself up for comment, if you’re going to punch, albeit intellectually, try and keep to your own weight. I may be physically weak as far as tasks are concerned, but when it comes to argument, bring it on. I spent bloody ages studying every possible subject designed to develop my own latent ability, meaning I don’t slip into many of the intellectual traps and cul-de-sacs many people do when arguing emotionally with little substance behind it. It can be fucking annoying to get nonetheless, but pretty easy to hit beyond the boundary (cricket term!!). Human dynamics always display everyone’s strengths and weaknesses. As the bible said (which I still don’t get) this then sorts out the sheep from the goats (I like them both though…). Those who exploit others’ weaknesses and go on about them are basically trying to hide their own as a result. Hide behind the faults of another and maybe they won’t see yours. Non-starter. It doesn’t even matter if they don’t (in fact most just don’t care either way, unlike you about theirs), because you are still aware of them, and that means only your judgement matters over them as I said at the beginning. To me, if anon or anyone else has personal issues, it’s none of my concern, unless they’re in my presence. Then I usually either gloss over them, or if that bad, get totally away from them. But as Buddhists teach, you never offer your opinion, you wait for it to be asked. Then it may be listened to. Otherwise you just become a spare grandmother, but my grandmother’s heart is in the right place so I laugh at her comments before I hit them over the boundary. If made from anger and/or malice, they are simply an unburdening of bad feelings which only your friends will possibly agree with and everyone else will feel sorry for you.

If you genuinely want to help you can’t do it like this. You appear not to care, have any compassion at all, and only seem interested in trying to bring me down to your level and hide from your own problems which must be pretty pressing if they make you behave in such a bitter and twisted way. Don’t just listen to me thinking -I’m biased- other people have mentioned it as well, you’ve become like the drunk in the street shouting at invisible people. You’ve become the Kingsbury blog’s laughing stock, not me.

If you want to gain that label (albeit anonymously, the revelation appeared to be a premature statement) fine, but unless all you want to achieve is a regular venting of hate, you’re wasting a lot of energy and words and achieving nothing beyond annoying lots of people. That’ll look good on your CV. Still, you gave me the equivalent of a mental workout in the gym. I really had to dig deep to answer your ridiculous points in a way hopefully at least all the neutrals will understand. I don’t think I got out of second gear but I don’t really believe I was dealing with the sort of opposition that could ever do more than that. Sorry, but you’ve had a lot of chances to show what you’re made of, and have never shown much of a standard beyond simple playground bullies.

8 comments:

Sharon said...

This doesn't sound like it is about you....it is all about her. She has a bad case of low self-esteem. People like that need to bring others down to where they are. I don't see you as the type of person who would allow yourself to be manipulated that way.She sounds like a closet bully and if you call her hand you may just scare her off. (but based on history I wouldn't count on it)
There is a saying..

Its none of my business what you think about me

So, whatever she feels about you is none of your business. It is her business.

You are only responsible for your thoughts, words, and actions.

Not those of anyone else.

Anonymous said...

Let me say this, I am not stalking you, as you say. The first time I made a comment on your blog was a few weeks ago, and I think I have been nice and not too much out of line. You do need to be told to grow up, and if that has offended you, I apologise.

You must have been extremely harassed to the point where someone can't even give you constuctive criticism.

That's too bad, because as the saying goes "That which does not kill you, makes you stronger", so it's quite obvious that no matter how much you profess that you are so intelligent, in reality you have a small closed mind, especially since you go on the defensive when you receive constructive criticism.

David said...

a) I assumed you were someone who had been after me a lot longer. If your style has imitated theirs so closely I merged the two I apologise as well. I was referring to comments they made as far as the heavy stuff was concerned, and if that wasn't you then it doesn't apply.

b)What about your unveiling? Wasn't it due on Friday?

David said...

Thank you Sharon, you made the point better than I did. If this person has a specific point to make, then make it. General blanket criticisms are just character attacks and if I'm supposed to change, then exactly what and how do I do it, and most importantly why? I never bother to trawl other people's blogs and psychonalyse them as it takes all sorts to make the world and none are made in our own images so it's very easy to see them as imperfect.
That is a problem in not accepting others, as you say.

Anonymous said...

I accept your apology.

In regards to revealing myself, I'll do that at another time. Maybe when you realise that I'm not the one attacking you in your blog.

Constructive criticism is different than an outright attack. I would have thought you would know the difference.

David said...

I agree about the constructive criticism, most of the attacks I referred to apparently belonged to a genuine troll whose material I clearly attributed to you. Most of what I wrote was about the issues she raised and my responses to them, but in your case if you offer constructive criticism it needs to be a bit more specific as 'grow up', as one example, is a bit hard to pin down as the recipient.
As for your identity you've made me try and work it out. My thought process is
1) Far more likely to be someone who knows me
2)Unlikely to be from the forums as I'd recognise the style, and the only similar person there has been eliminated by you
3) I had a favourite candidate from people who know me but as you said you only started reading a few weeks ago it ruled her out
4) I can't think of anyone else so maybe I don't know you...

I give up.

Anonymous said...

What forums are you talking about? The only forum I am a member of is the Fuselage.

I happened upon your blog because one of my friends from the Fuselage has a blog and I noticed that you can read other people's blogs by by clicking on the arrow. I simply kept clicking on the arrow, read the blogs as I came to them, and one day I came across your blog, found it interesting and decided to send you a comment.

I don't know you, but from what I read I thought you might be the man for me, although some of the things you have said were a little childish. That's why I told you to grow up. There's nothing sinister to it.

David said...

Blimey, the old playground 'be rude to the person you fancy' gambit. I don't think it works much past 13, but fascinating train of thought.
I said I worked out you weren't from the forums as I would have spotted the style, and if you found me by random means then revealing who you are would have had little meaning so not that vital.
Interested in me? Blimey! Are you local??