FEEDBACK

We all need a pat on the back sometimes or even an honest review of how we are doing.

This is even more pronounced in the modern 'snowflake' age where (younger) people are forever seeking approval for what they do. I'm getting tired of the follow up questionnaires from service providers seeking endorsements for basically just doing their job. I've written of this before. Here's one previous post: FIGJAM

"If you can't beat 'em, than join 'em" I thought and asked ChatGPT if The Curmudgeon blog is any good. This is what it told me:

"My take is that yes, The Curmudgeon is a good blog for readers who enjoy irreverent humour, strong opinions and everyday observations — but it won't appeal to everyone.

I looked at grumpyoldmanreturnsnz.blogspot.com , and the blog has a distinctive personality. It's not a conventional news site or a carefully neutral commentary platform. It's a personal blog with a satirical, often combative voice, covering life in New Zealand, religion, politics, popular culture and interactions with other bloggers.

What it does well

A recognisable voice. The author writes in a direct, grumpy, tongue-in-cheek style. You can generally tell what sort of writing you're getting.

Regular content. The archive shows years of posts, including material dating back to at least 2017.

Humour and personality. Everyday experiences — shopping, walking around Wellington, films and minor annoyances — become material for jokes and commentary.

A sense of community. The author engages with other bloggers and readers, sometimes turning their exchanges into part of the entertainment.

 

Where it falls short

It can be abrasive. The author frequently mocks people he disagrees with, including other bloggers. Some readers will find this funny; others may find it mean-spirited.

It is openly opinionated. Religion and politics are recurring targets, and the writing often favours satire over balanced discussion.

It isn't a reliable news source. The author explicitly describes the blog's material as “approximated news” and says its accuracy, fairness and lack of bias are not guaranteed.

Worth reading for entertainment

Especially if you enjoy sardonic humour, Wellington observations and irreverent social commentary.

Mixed as serious commentary

The author has a clear voice, but strong opinions and personal rivalries can get in the way of fair analysis.

Not suitable as a standalone factual source

Verify factual claims independently, particularly on politics, religion and current affairs.

My verdict: It's a distinctive, prolific personal blog with genuine personality. Its strongest feature is its author's voice; its biggest weakness is that the combative style can sometimes overshadow the substance.

One important distinction: a blog can be entertaining without being fair, and it can be provocative without being particularly insightful. Whether The Curmudgeon crosses that line depends on the individual post."

OK, that's a bit repetitive but generally captures the 'spirit' of the blog. Old Chat is a bit unfair though when saying that I'm abrasive and mean spirited. What part of 'curmudgeon' doesn't it understand?

 

I TRY (INTERVIEW # 42)

Robert's been gone for a long time but, like a bad penny we know that he'll turn up.

Richard has done his usual thing by deleting the link to Robert's (now redundant) blog. It's kind of like getting cashiered from a gentlemen's club or branded in the US Cavalry.

Will he be missed?

It is a bit lonely when the bloggers are down to two and without Robert's crazed witterings on the arcane practices of the Catholic Church for Richard and me to jeer at we kind of run out of ideas to blog on.

Did Robert contribute to the world of essaying? Well, he was a trier (a little grammatical joke there for you).

Will Richard fill the gap and make more of an effort at essaying? It's yet to be proven although, given that he doesn't know how to turn on his new computer yet I wouldn't hold my breath waiting.

To answer these questions and more I decided to contact one of the world's greatest essayists - in fact, the creator of the concept of essaying - Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592)  a French philosopher who coined the word essai (meaning "to attempt") to describe his personal, introspective writings and who is said to be the father of the modern essay.

"Bonjour"

Michel Eyquem, Seigneur de Montaigne[a] (28 February 1533 – 13 September 1592),[4] commonly known as just Michel de Montaigne, was one of the most significant writers of the French Renaissance. He is known for popularising the essay as a literary genre. His work is noted for its merging of casual anecdotes[5] and autobiography with intellectual insight. Montaigne had a direct influence on numerous writers of Western literature; his Essais contain some of the most influential essays ever written.

          - Wikipedia

The Curmudgeon: Welcome Michel Eyquem, Seigneur de Montaigne to The Curmudgeon's interview series. It's nice to have you here.

Michel Eyquem, Seigneur de Montaigne: Thank you Monsieur Le Curmudgeon. I try to be of assistance in times of literary crisis which brings a decline in reading comprehension and literacy .

The Curmudgeon: Ha ha Michel Eyquem, Seigneur de Montaigne, I see what you did there - um, can I call you Michel de Montaigne?

Michel Eyquem, Seigneur de Montaigne: Sure, fill your booties Monsieur Le Curmudgeon but maybe to save us both doing a lot of typing you call me Michel and I'll call you TC?

TC: OK, that's good let's crack on. Michel I note in your bio that during your lifetime you were admired as a statesman more than as an author. It's said that there was a tendency in your essays to digress into anecdotes and personal ruminations which was seen as detrimental to proper style, rather than as an innovation; moreover, your declaration that "I am myself the matter of my book" was viewed by your contemporaries as self-indulgent.

Michel: Google TC?

TC: Um, yes - rumbled. That's what Google told me. "I quote others only in order the better to express myself".

Michel: Ha ha - that's my quote you stole there TC. Be careful of AI and Google-type searching. It can be as bad as forgetting to switch on your computer like some old guy I heard about - ha ha ha ha ha ...

TC: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

Michel: ... yes they said that but eventually came around to recognising me as embodying the spirit of critical thought and open inquiry. I was best known for my sceptical remark, "What do I know?" ("Que sçay-je?" in Middle French; "Que sais-je?" in modern French).

TC: Mmm I see - but as you know I was in 3P. I doubt that the 3Gers would understand that.

Michel: The world is but a school of enquiry TC. To know much is often the cause of doubting more.

TC: What? I meant ...

Michel: ... On the highest throne in the world, we still sit only on our own bottom.

TC: Hey! That's the sort of aphorism that Richard would say ... except that he'd put it more crudely and think that an aphorism was some sort of insect. Did you know that he once confused a daddy long legs with a mosquito?

Michel: There is no conversation more boring than the one where everybody agrees TC. Maybe this Richard fellow's eyes are bigger than his stomach, and that he has more curiosity than understanding. We grasp at everything, but catch nothing except wind.

TC: Er , that sounds like him alright, especially that bit about the wind.

Michel: He sounds (see what I did there?) like an interesting character TC.

TC: Yes, 'interesting' like that Chinese saying "May you live in interesting times".

Michel: Ha ha - hey it's been interesting talking to you TC. We got a bit stuck on sayings there and didn't discuss my essays. Can I interest you in my theories of humanism as I expressed in my Essais (published in 1580), a large collection of short, subjective essays on various topics? These essays were inspired by my studies in the classics, especially the works of Plutarch and Lucretius.

TC: Um ... gosh! Look at the time. I have to nip out to the shops. Look Michel. I'm sure Richard would like to hear about those especially as he has nothing to do now that he can't start up his computer. Here's his address ...

ONLY IN AMERICA

 Before I forget here are some extra exclamation marks for Richard. !!! He likes these.

OK, let's start.

I heard an expression used on a TV programme last night which was "put a cap in his ass (sic)". This is American jargon for 'shoot him'.

It reminded me of years ago when I was attending a conference in USA, on a break day, we were playing golf. In the four was a warehouse manager from Chicago who was a bit of a character very much like those characters seen in American crime dramas except that he was for real.

I noticed that when he was climbing into a golf buggy he seemed to be in a bit of discomfort so I asked him if he was OK.

"I'm fine" he said "a few years ago someone put a cap in my ass (sic)".

He wasn't joking as, in Chicago someone had indeed shot him in the arse.

The thing was though that he stated it matter of factly as if it, and being Chicago probably was, just the normal risks of daily life like getting cut off in traffic, bumping into someone on a footpath or dropping an icecream cone. What a weird country.

"IT'S IN THE GAME"

 I unpacked and hooked up the PlayStation 3 console yesterday and set up Tiger Woods PGA Tour 2005 golf game.

This is the best of the series of games produced and, while 21 years old still has good graphics and features. You will remember that I've mentioned this before:

HERE

HERE

It's just the thing for rainy days like yesterday and while I'm still resting my foot (which is getting better).

Perhaps the other old bloggers, on a rainy day, could come around for an indoors golf challenge.

I could arrange to have a special 'Most Golf' prize for Richard unless he manages to cheat.

"THE SHOW IS ABOUT TO BEGIN!"

 

Yep, you guessed it! Robert is banging on about faith, god and Jesus again:

"If AI decided God exists there would really be little point in it telling us. It would even be anti God because what would that knowledge do for it without a soul or any hope of an afterlife! Could AI interact with God? The same applies to many things that maybe it decides not to share. How would we know if it is not telling us everything. I think we could finish up getting very paranoid and pulling the plug for reasons that possibly aren't valid concerns."

          - Rob of Walk me with Jesus 

"But what if we don’t really need a proof? What if we only need pointers that suggest a belief in the supernatural makes more sense than a rejection of the supernatural? What if you can’t prove Jesus really said the things the New Testament claims He said, but the archaeological, historical, and manuscript evidence points far more in the direction of acceptance than dismissal?"

          - Rob of Walk me with Jesus 

"What if we only need pointers that suggest a belief in the supernatural" he says not recognising the fact that the very people that he's talking about - Christians - must be pretty bloody dim in the first place to believe in all that Catholic-type nonsense. They need some pretty strong pointers not unlike the 1950s movie advertisements of the 'Believe It Or Not' variety.

I can envision large banners outside churches challenging people to believe the unbelievable like:

14 YEAR OLD VIRGIN PREGNANT!

PEOPLE EATING FLESH AND DRINKING BLOOD IN CHURCH!

DEAD MAN WALKING!

MAN FLIES UP INTO THE HEAVENS!

MAN HAULS HIS MOTHER UP INTO THE SKY!

SPIRIT BIRD IMPREGNATES TEENAGER!

That should pull them in. 

CATHOLICS LOOK AWAY NOW - From Uncylopedia

Dogma

This article contains unquestionable divine truths.

Dogma is one of the best kept secrets of the Catholic Church. In order to get to Catholic Heaven (which beats Hindu Heaven hands down, but loses by a smidgin' to Mormon Heaven, and according to The Simpson is way funnier, less judgmental, and more drunker than Protestant Heaven) you must believe in dogma.

Here, in a nutshell, is the essence of Catholic dogma:

1. You must worship the cross.
2. Sex is bad and should make you feel guilty. Except when it's with kids, of course.
3. Money is bad and should make you feel guilty.
4. Altar boys are bad even though they make you feel good.

These two dogmas are the entire essence of the Catholic Church's teachings, and explains their position on everything from sex (it costs money) and abortion (it's from sex), and why you should put money in those little baskets they throw at you during Mass.

From this dogma, the Catholic Church has the Catholic Catechism:

• Pleasure is bad and should make you feel guilty.
• Food is bad and should make you feel guilty.
• Being born is bad (called original sin) and should make you feel guilty.
• Eating meat on Friday is bad and should make you feel guilty.
• Sleeping in, especially on Sundays when you don't have to go to work, is very bad and should MUST make you feel guilty.
• The Catholic Church is good and should make you feel happy.
• The Pope is very good and should MUST make you feel happy.

Modern theologians are in full agreement that if St. Paul had gotten laid, even by that Mary Magdalene chick, the Church today would be very different. And a lot more fun.

Karma

Catholics don't believe in karma. They believe, instead, that someone is watching to see if they are good or bad, making a list, and checking it twice. O.K., call it "instant karma", instead. Every December.

Wilma

Catholics are afraid of Wilma Flintstone: To them she is the Red-headed Whorebeast of the Apocalypse who shall slay all those who don't partake of her chewable vitamins. Some of her symbols (weird hair, stupid consort, pearl necklace) can be traced to the modern-day wiccan, Marge Simpson.

Mortal sins

Catholics believe that if you die with a "mortal sin" on your soul, you go straight to Hell.

• Playing with your food
• Playing with your self
• Feeding yourself
• Playing with the person next to you
• Feeding the person next to yourself in a playful manner
• Just playing in general
• Not cleansing yourself after you do the "Bad Touch"
• Wearing a condom, especially in Africa
• Failure to donate your money to the church, you selfish asshole
• Making sex
• Making sex for money
• Kitten Huffing^{[citation needed]}
• Adoption
• Getting a divorce from your obese, violent, faithless, lazy waste of a spouse without a fucking permission slip signed by the Pope
• Getting a divorce with a permission slip signed by the Pope^{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]}
• Eating pizza and drinking milk at the same time
• Smoking weed on the Sabbath
• Not smoking weed on the Sabbath
• Listening to a woman in church
• Using your driver in the middle of the Fairway
• Using your wood in the middle of a whore
• Putting your elbows on the table
• Tossing the Holy Hand Grenade on a count other than three
• Reading this article
• Denying that any of these is a mortal sin

The Catholic Church's position on sex is very firm. To sum it up in a quick easy-to-remember sentence: you will get sent to Hell if you have oral sex, anal sex, penis sex, vagina sex, phallis sex, vageena sex, premarital sex, sex with the steps in front of an altar, gay sex, finger sex, underwater sex, upside down sex, loud sex, sex with the lights on, sex on a pool table, protected sex, unprotected sex, semi-protected sex, or (AND MOST UNFORGIVABLY!) NAKED SEX. It's quite obvious that God prefers us never to have sex with anyone. Obviously, if he wanted us to procreate, he would just slap up some mudpies and make himself some more humans. Or, if he REALLY wanted children to be born, he would impregnate all the women himself, and thus, by this concise logic, it should be apparent that NO ONE should have sex EVER. Don't even try it.

There is only one unforgivable sin that, when you die, will send you straight to Hell – being a dick on Uncyclopedia. Burn, baby, burn!

Fortunately, private investors such as eDulgences are interested enough in your sins to absolve them for you!

Finally, remember, too much Catholicism can make you go blind.