Thursday, October 16, 2008

Everybody Hates Me

I am reeling from Susan's accusations that I am obnoxious, insensitive, name-dropping and astonishingly egocentric and from an email sent by one Bill Anderson - 'Why do you fall for every third rate huckster who comes along? Surely you can't believe all the tosh you write. Do your editors/owners expect it? You could make decent living writing sensible stuff. Why for instance do you hate science which you clearly don't understand?' Okay, Bill, I'll come clean - it's the chicks, they go weak at the knees for science-hating, huckster-loving tosh writers. Decent livings and sensible stuff just don't cut it, chickwise. All of which has left me unable to post on the big issues of the day - the onrushing depression, the presidential debate, an excellent piece by the saintly Frank Field and crazed Amy's rant at the devil. Oh and I could be pointing you in the direction of this. But I can't, I'm sulking.

17 comments:

  1. Lets see career politician and Social worker versus career politician and Mum. What a choice.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 'Obnoxious and insensitive'? We Englishmen may be many things but never that.

    Dumb Yank.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You're so right about the chicks...

    ReplyDelete
  4. I know, how many times have we spent hours beating them off with sticks, Nige?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't think you're obnoxious,Bryan. All the journalists I've ever met hold trenchant views on all sorts of subjects, many of which I disagree with, but on the whole they make extremely interesting fellow travellers and life would be much duller without them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Aargh. You sure took my criticism out of context, by leaving out the praise I added afterwards! What I did not say well enough was that your vices are your virtues -- your willingness to be offend is what makes your blog good and probably why so many people read it.

    I am a dumb Yank, but aren't we all? Sorry if I offended, though it did give you a topic for another post!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Susan:

    Unless told otherwise, assume irony. (That wasn't ironic)

    ReplyDelete
  8. I must have missed this flurry of abuse. Don't sulk Bryan, we love you, even the thin supercilious you that gives up on a meal after three mouthfuls having scoffed handfuls of nuts all day like a squirrel. And as for sensitive, my God,(that's enough of that- ed.)Get blogging again on the financial crisis!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yes, that's a good idea. Try blogging. After this a man has to dust himself down, put on his cowboy boots and Walk Tall. Maybe a trip to a favourite haunt where, after throwing out some card-sharping hedgefunders, you can push back your stetson, slap a silver dollar on the counter and say to the barman, "Gimme the bottle." Actually, considering this is the internet, it's remarkable how careful folks always are with one another on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Susan you have annoyed me since I first started reading this blog a year or two ago and you flew at me unjustifiably for something or another.
    I think you have too much to say for yourself based on little worth saying and are an astonishing combination of being thin-skinned yet impervious to being corrected.
    Maybe that's just your nature, or because you're American - it's hard to say.
    But I think you would be well-advised to try being less strident and reducing your inordinately high opinion of yourself - you might just learn something.

    ReplyDelete
  11. btw, I think you got a mention on the One Show. Richard Madeley was asked about any stalkers. He said, No, but ''some journalist'' told me he the other day he thought my blog was very good - but I don't have a blog! Someone out there is blogging in my name!
    you got to laugh...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hate you? Hate is such a pre-postmodern word. If you didn't exist Bryan, we would have to invent you. Or read somene else, I guess. That would work.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I enjoy Bryan's name-dropping, most likely because I have no interesting friends. As for Bill, he should read Bryan's book Undertanding the Present, which displays a broad knowledge of the history of science. As a practicing scientist, I disagreed with virtually all of the opinions Bryan expressed in the book (and nearly destroyed it through violent heavings -- ambiguity intended), but I have no doubt about his knowledge.

    Bryan's certainly right about one thing: science-hating, soulful-eyed writers always get the chicks.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous is right. Whatever else may be said of Bryan - and a hell of a lot has been said here (and elsewhere) - he cannot be accused of being ignorant of science. Nor is he hostile to science. He is hostile to the abuse of science. So there.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Bryan is still the man. The only thing I'm worried about is the slightly fey new picture in the Sunday Times. Is the inner Manc turning soggy in the olive oil groves of West London?

    ReplyDelete