As if we're not here
If you're reading this electronically, you can leave comments about what I've written and respond to other comments. The fun I get when I see responses in writing in the letters page is turned into almost instant gratification when I see the comments left, which aren't actually instantaneous but PDQ anyway.
I don't have any control over what's actually let through the editorial net, as I've had occasion to mention before, though if it were up to me, the comments would go up in real time. I don't have to answer for the libels and lapses in good taste, however, so I understand perfectly why a modicum of control is required.
The funny thing about the comments section (this applies to the same section under my blog) is that it has brought out into stark relief the modern trend of spouting off about everything and anything under the sun, working on the basis that "I can, therefore I will". Everyone seems to believe that because they can tap the keys on their 'board, and operate their access point to the virtual world, they can broadcast that which they have which is exactly the same as everyone else's: an opinion.
It's not the content of the opinion that is the same as everyone else's, of course, it is the fact that everybody has one, something in the same way that everyone has the same basic anatomical attributes.
The less funny thing about all this is that simply being able to write moderately coherent sentences doesn't make one able to do so in an entertaining, or even moderately competent, fashion.
Just as the mobile phone has made everyone into a photo-journalist, the comments sections have turned everyone into a columnist. Oh well, the wheat will distinguish itself from the chaff, as always - just compare this stuff to what comes below.
What do you mean, you prefer the lower stuff? Do you think there'd be the lower stuff if there wasn't this higher stuff?
Anyway, another trait you can identify is that whatever the subject of the main piece, people are going to spout off about whatever they want and to heck with being irrelevant or off the point.
It's as if these people sit down at their computer and say to themselves: "I've got something to say and I'm going to say it, whether or not anyone is or even can be remotely interested in it. And whether or not I'm going to say it in a language that remotely resembles a language educated folk employ".
In the vernacular, it's put thus: "Ħeqq, opinjoni, hux?" which loosely translates into "Um, er, I think, ay, innit?".
Not unconnected
Not unconnected to the thoughts that bubbled their way to the surface above, while I was sat sitting there, waiting for the match to start, is my reaction to a slightly peculiar letter to my esteemed Ed from one Mark Mifsud Bonnici.
The gentleman concerned seems to have taken to thinking that the debate that was going on about spring hunting is the be-all and end-all of civilised discourse in this country.
The idea seems to be that the pro-hunting lobby should be given blogging space from which to expound their ideas, such as they are, counteracting the anti-hunting bias this paper has.
Not accepting for a moment that this paper is particularly anti-hunting (I'd prefer the position to be defined as pro-civilised living) I for one would be all for giving the pro-hunting lobby (that's twice I've eschewed the temptation to call them the pro bird-killing lobby) free and unfettered access to the quality media.
Then everyone would be able to enjoy the ad hominem nature of their sentiments and the way they have absolutely no compunction to hit out at anyone who irritates them by daring to oppose their views.
Three for you
Last week, you were given a résumé of our experience at a less than impressive eating place up North: you probably found yourself not exactly beating a path to their door.
This week, you're getting a three out of three, three to try out, that is.
First off, Ping Dining on the road to Xlendi serves up a buffet on Friday evenings that is excellent value for money and then some.
A good meal on Saturday night was had at Salvina in Għarb (good meals on Saturday night are always to be recommended) and, on Sunday, we stoked up in preparation for the week ahead at the Rexy Diner on the Mġarr Road in Għajnseielem, which has the vibe of the excellent type of diner you get on the road in the States.
9 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Andrew Borg-Cardona
May 26th 2008, 08:38
@Joe Gatt - res ipsa loquitur. Ego te absolvo.
Joe Gatt
May 25th 2008, 15:13
@Andrew Borg Cardona - What presumption for a mere mortal like me to poke fun at a paid columnist with fifteen years of experience, who is convinced that he has the credentials to inflict his opinions on the great unwashed.
Have I bruised your tender sensibilities O Great One? If so, I humbly beg your pardon!
Andrew Borg-Cardona
May 24th 2008, 23:10
@Joe Gatt - I'm a columnist, it's what I am paid to do - and what I've been doing for more than fifteen years. I think I have the credentials.
@the rest of you - read my blog for references to the match!
Jacques René Zammit
May 24th 2008, 20:16
It's what I call "Maltese Relativism". The right to have an opinion counts much more than the content thereof.
You might have missed the J'accuse Theory of Relativity. Don't know if links to the competition are kosher so I'll give you this one instead: http://jaccuse.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/jaccuses-theory-of-relativity/
M. Cardona
May 24th 2008, 18:43
The fun I get is when I hear the pot calling the kettle black!
J Abela
May 24th 2008, 17:52
No word about Chelsea's exploits mid-week, I see....
BTW I do not support Man Utd, just in case you were wondering!
Joe Gatt
May 24th 2008, 16:00
Look who's talking about spouting off about everything and anything under the sun!
Charles DeMicoli
May 24th 2008, 15:49
Something's wrong here. A whole, entire, complete article and not one mention of the red party or its supporters. Something's definetly wrong here. Somethings's totally askew. I think it's a red penalty.......
Kyle Pullicino
May 24th 2008, 11:54
Nice! I liked the article.
I'm against hunting but I'd like to make a comment on why exactly you say that the anti-hunting lobby is pro-civilized:
How did you decide that being anti-hunting is pro-civilized? Isn't that the "Um, er, I think, ay, innit?" which you rightfully condemn?