Monday, April 18, 2011

Gosh, they don't half take things seriously over there!

Well well, isn't this fun!.

I must say I enjoyed being referred to on a blog, with ponderous journalistic gravitas, as "White". I am asked to present "evidence," no doubt in triplicate with attached documentation, for my "charges". (But I do like "La Pirhana", which is almost as good as the insult I got from the Messa in Latine blog a while ago, "La Perfida Albione". I'm going to have to start a separate blog label just for the amusing nicknames I get called by other bloggers.)

I see that Mr. Sensible takes all this terribly, terribly seriously. In a previous post he writes, "The stakes are high of course."


Good grief!

No, they're not. Why?

Because the Catholic blogs aren't very important.

What is important?

Well, that babies are being murdered in every corner of the world, and it's legal. That old people are being dehydrated to death in nursing homes. That kids are graduating from highschool who can't write a coherent sentence in the English language. That my cousin in Cheshire was given the HPV vaccine at school and she was only 13. That millions of people believe all kinds of amazing crap about the Faith because the media is owned and operated by Stan.

Honestly, the whole point of my objections to all this is that guilds and Vatican conferences and meetings, complete with proposed treasurers, minutes-takers and subcommittees, is endowing the whole enterprise with entirely too much importance.

Guys, blogs really don't matter very much.

The internet's not real life.

Go pick some flowers, or feed the cat, or have a beer at the pub, woo a pretty girl, or weed the tomatoes, or, I don't know, read a book or something. Take something seriously that is of The Real.

And sign up for the fun blognic. Where there will be real beer, real food and actual live real people to talk to.



JohnB said...

For Pete's sake! why do some people keep referring to it as a "counter blognic"?! It's NOT in opposition to the Vatican one.
It's a different day, and it provides another opportunity for Catholic bloggers, their fans and associates to meet up again in the Eternal City in a different setting a day later in a less formal (and probably less stuffy)atmosphere. I think that's actually a really good idea.

Later this Spring I will be going across the country to attend a relative's wedding, at which time I will see many other relatives and friends I've not seen for a long time. I would only hope that the wedding reception will not be the only time I will get to see these people while we're all together those few days. But perhaps we shouldn't, lest others accuse us of setting up a "counter reception" on another day.

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

Hi John,

When are you coming home?

Dymphna said...

I read Sensible's blog and I didn't get what he's so mad about.

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...


Gregory said...

(Baby voice) He's silly.

Anonymous said...

Why can't we Catholics just all play nice together, now? I knew a couple of nuns back in the early 60's who would have dealt very severely with any bickering in class or on the playground :-)


Fr. T. said...

Ok, I give up, who's Stan?

Ches said...

Anyone who puts the quotation back in context will see it is ironic.

Anonymous said...

"Guys, blogs really don't matter very much.

The internet's not real life."

Somebody could base a whole academic or intellectual career profitably responding to, and analyzing, those two sentences.

Shifting topic, I question whether it is wise for soccons to oppose the HPV vaccines, either evangelically or politically. The same thing happened during the war: Some advocated not treating the soldiers' "VD" to discourage you know what. That opposition was dismissed out of hand too. The prevention and treatment of disease is an immediate and readily understood good, and opposing it makes us look variously stupid, cruel and, well, crazy. There are better, unambiguous battles to be fought.


Seraphic said...

Stan wrote "The Stanic Verses."

I disagree with statements that the Internet is not real. I argue that it is a unity-identity-whole, a vast library/postal service with the properties of crack.

(This morning I was wondering why I never do as much housework as I did ten years ago, and then I realized it was because I had no internet connection ten years ago.)

However, I tentatively agree that many of us should be spending less time on the internet and ought to be adopting cats, having beers, wooing and weeding.