Z a c c a r d e l l i ... knew
I l l e d r a c c a z ... didn't know then, that I'd know it later
Z a c - d e l l i - c a r ... now I know, that I didn't know when I knew, now that I know what I knew when I didn't know, but thought I did ...
Resignation
Coming
Most
Probably
Snerd
UPDATE:
Apparently Zaccardelli showed up for work this afternoon after resigning this morning. He claimed he did not know this afternoon, that he'd resigned this morning, but said he remembered it tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
That was quite the show the other day. I have little sympathy with weasels in the RCMP.
R – Really
C – Crappy
M – Motherfucking
P – Pricks
You know...I look at your sidebar and find myself grouped with two others of whom I'm proud to be grouped with. Then I look at the blogroll you have grouped yourself with and notice that you seem peoud to stand with losers.
Not that there is anything new in this revelation.
Losers are losers.
First of all Da Dark, thanks for the dropping by.
Your post states something like, 'there's nothing new here, just same old "Them and Us" divided world.
The content of you post aside for the moment, I note that you are able to post here, the reciprocal courtesy is not extended by you. Furthermore your post will not be deleted. As a further courtesy and show of respect, I will respond to your ideas, as I understand them.
I note that difference as qualitatively significant. Apparently you don't. As I have tried to describe, how we deal with our differences is a defining human act, I believe.
Your intolerance, or your inability to tolerate difference, could be described as emanating from a social or cultural context. For example, it is the 'devil dodging' so prevalent in the (R)eligious (R)ight in the USA., coming out of a learned imperative to avoid 'evil', which 'appears' in the form of difference, a view both provided by and reinforced within that Fundamentalist 'culture'.
However, I feel that one's psychological disposition plays a very large part here and is the determinant within any given context.
We are all exposed to particular worldviews. Some stick more than others, primarily due to one's psychological resonance with it, I believe.
One question one might ask of you is, 'Why is your world so rudimentary and as starkly black and white?' For me though, it is more revealing to ask, 'What would your world be like without such 'remedial' constructs?'
Clearly, it would be a world where you were not as absolutely certain you were right. Consequently, it would be a world of some conceptual uncertainty and more importantly, greater feelings of discomfort. It is this discomfort which the 'world' of Absolutism avoids.
Absolutism therefore, is the inability to take responsibility for one's own unpleasant feeling.
However much this conceptual and emotional avoidance of difference finds support in the religiousity within which you barricade yourself, the cost it extracts is services to a Gawd of Fear, NOT Love, NOT Hope.
Because you Fear is greater than your Hope and Love, I imagine, little of this will breach your defenses - an all too human response AND one that as humans, makes you an I more similar than different, in spite of our differences here. For that reason, I will continue to welcome your posts here, with a Hope that you might be willing to address or examine this existential problem of difference.
If it occurred, I think we would both win ...!
Snerd
"you seem peoud to stand with losers."
lol! good one, rent-a-cop!
ten to one, your badge is sewed on....
KEvron
KEv, you 'brake' me up, man!
Snerd
If I wasn not so completel;y right, Snerdy...you would be.
Un-freaking-acceptable!
BTW, as you are well aware, I won't tolerate those who try to use my blog to continue a discussion from another blog because the other blog has decided to not engage you.
I have engaged you each time you've stopped by. Maybe you need to examine your own abrasiveness.
You know...when you link up with shmucks like the Namblaman, Kevwad, your credibility disintegrates.
Da Da(R)k: If I wasn not so completel;y right, Snerdy...you would be. Un-freaking-acceptable!
SG: First of all, welcome, again.
Secondly, when it comes to me, you seem to be going through a bad 'spell'
Thirdly, I appreciate the 'opportunity' for dialogue your 'dialectics' opens up
Da Da(R)k: BTW, as you are well aware, I won't tolerate those who try to use my blog to continue a discussion from another blog because the other blog has decided to not engage you. I have engaged you each time you've stopped by.
SG: Yes! I totally agree with that contradiction.
You only employed your "f(R)ee speech zone" when you and I were in the middle of a discussion and because of that discussion, not for any other '(R)evisionist', after the fact '(R)edacted', faux reason.
Da Da(R)k: Maybe you need to examine your own abrasiveness.
SG: 400 TRUE Grit ... and that's grit you aint got
Da Da(R)k: You know...when you link up with shmucks like the Namblaman, Kevwad, your credibility disintegrates.
SG: When you ban people because you're loosing the (D)-bate, then lie about it ... well, then I don't think credibility is something you have any standing with, let alone any command over ...
That said, I appreciate y'all dropping by, having take advantage of the opportunity (un-reciprocated) which I've extended to you ... where there is no restricted 'zone of free speech' ... speaking of grit and credibility and all ...
Snerd
Post a Comment