« crooked | Main | topiary nightmares: another story from my wasted youth »

bully for you

One of the most basic rules of my life is, you don't pick on Baz.

It's not so much that this bitter, shriveled up dick named Tim Hall broke that rule, it's that he wrote a scathing article on blogging - which would be fine in and of itself - but this so-called writer resorted to name calling and personal attacks in his story.

It is my understanding that people who don't get blogs and blogging and who feel the need to deride the owners of weblogs in ugly articles probably hate themselves, hate their lives, their careers and their flab, and they know that anything they could come up with for a weblog would be boring, trite and an ode to masochistic self-loathing and masturbation stories.

Words/phrases used in this article:

chickenshit world of tattletale bloggers
online monsters
sneering, horse-faced (his description of one blogger)
[note to editor: no links to any of these fuckwads' sites, please; they deserve scorn and derision, not promotion]
journarcissists
hateful Bazima
the typical blogger's self-absorption
You have to be a really, really stupid fuck to think there's a single redeeming quality or scrap of originality or freshness to any of this crap

And then he calls another blogger a bloghole and the C-word. In a fit of what I can only describe as jealousy, he says nasty, nasty things about Gawker's Elizabeth Spiers (This testosterone-fueled rag he writes for is not nearly as witty, astute or interesting as Gawker. In fact, they resort to "I fucked your mom" idiocy).

One can draw several conclusions from Tim Hall's article:

He was rejected by a blogger.
He was rejected by the New York Times.
He was rejected by Baz.
He was rejected by every girl he ever hit on in his entire life.
He started a blog and nobody came.
He has the hots for Spiers and he knows that he will never get within ten feet of her.
He is jealous of Gawker.
He is a misogyinst of the highest order.
He sits home at night wanking off to photoblogs. He gets off on the pet pictures.

What was the point to this story besides Tim's obvious hidden message of "I hate people who get more attention than I do?" Oh yes, the point was, Tim wrote an article on blogging and so did the New York Times, and they had the same basic story to them. Except people read the NYT's article and no one read Tim's.

Poor Tim Hall. Poor, lonely Tim Hall.

Don't miss Tim's other articles, like his hate-filled ode to Andrew Sullivan.

Comments

Yeah, that first article was nasty. But I didn't think his piece on Sullivan was so bad. Not "hate-filled," at least.

If I ever get in the vicinity, remind me not to get on your bad side...

That was one pathetic article. Someone got turned down by a girl, didn't he?

Yeah! Fuck that shit!

His article was scathing indeed, though he was right about the fact that many blogs are hopelessly cliched. The fact that he gave specific examples (and not the best examples, either) is unforgiveable. Someone needs to dig a little into Tim's world and see what similarly embarassing elements of his existence could be held up to public ridicule. Any ex-girlfriends of Tim Hall read this blog and wish to kiss and tell?

Oh no. My life has no meaning. I blog, therefore I suck. Going off to shoot myself now, because Monty Hall said so.

I'm thinking of two words. You know the ones.

I get the feeling Mr. Hall is having a "bad hair life."

As a rule, those who blather in Hall's particular fashion are stunted souls, consumed by envy and obsessed with the imagined misdeeds and shortcomings of others. They have no lives. Their envy does not permit them even to "hitch a ride" on other people's lives. They must denigrate and destroy.

There are two more or less equally effective ways of dealing with this sort:

1. Ignore them.
2. Laugh at them.

But under no circumstances should we take them seriously, or respond to them, even with a barrage of counter-invective. Strange as it seems to the reasonably well adjusted, that gives them what they want. It will encourage them.

Far better to chuckle at the inanity of it and pass on.

Alex:

We have several items in this very piece. For example, deriding the cliches found on many blogs, while living the "anti" cliche that has been around since the early 80s. Also, calling bloggers chicken shit while not allowing comments on his own piece (you can mail a comment, but it will likely not be posted and will definitely not be posted along with the piece itself). Francis pegged him, just read his rant about AA. So very "anti".

This is slightly off topic, but I can't resist. In the bathroom behind the stage at Athens, GA's 40Watt Club, someone wrote on the wall, "I fucked your mother."

Under that, someone else wrote, "Go home, Dad. You're drunk."

Couldn't resist.

D

I wasn't willing to read the whole thing, but as I was skimming, the description of Gawker as "cutesy, at Times painfully naive" caught my eye. "At Times," get it? Like the New York Times?

Can't be all bad...

I liked the term 'journarcissist'. You've gotta admit that its got a certain ring to it.

You've got to admit that, as in any form of art, when blogging becomes a cult of personality, it gets intolerably irritating, by attracting armies of worshippers incapable, or unwilling, of differentiating between sincere intellectual consensus and sycophancy.

But, like many things, it's really a case of take it or leave it. I'm all for letting fly at aspects of the medium and its afficionados, but isn't direct attack and name calling a little like breaking into your neighbours kids clubhouse and insulting them and all their friends? And, worse still, won't it create the necessary indignation and bring attention to the author in such a way as to make this 'cult of personality' even more pronounced?

I'm just brainstorming here...

An unfortunate omission there...

I meant to say...

I'm all for letting fly at aspects of the medium and its afficionados when you find fault in their arguments and wish to counteract with your own. That's healthy debate, after all.

And so on (and on, and on, and on)

I've never read a criticism of blogging whose description matched any blog I've ever read. This guy is a jerk-off.

Ron, do you have a link to the article you referenced?

Slamming blogs is so 1999. Haven't a lot of bloggers at some point or another, decried the lack of quality in blogging (with or without that sac-nuzzler's viciousness)? I know I have. So what. There's a sad irony about writing and bitching about other people's writing. It's the whole pot/kettle thing and it really waste of time.

The author needs to be laid down and have some good sex. You can hear tje thousand little voices of his unused sperms crying for attention in every word he writes.

The article is such a load, I would rather not post a link, but it is the top entry in his "Angst" category (which should be the category for his entire enterprise, IMO). On second thought, fuck it: http://www.bullymag.com/6.1.03/aa-060103.asp

Equal time for actual facts: http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/press/1996/match.htm and http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/10report/chap08b.pdf

I agree with everything. Except the "rejected by Baz" thing, She's not that picky.