Tuesday, 2nd December 2008
A MASTER SPEAKS
First things first, apologies for seeming to neglect you all and leaving the previous blog up for so long. I was engaged in interminable discourses in Brussels, on matters which are of interest only to people interested in the subject being discussed (and certainly not to normal human beings) and in the intervals between hot air being expended and chunks of meat being ingested (Brussels seems to have an inordinate number of places where you can eat well) I took my ease
Remiss of me, I know, but such is life.
Another apology is called for – it seems my gentle teasing of Dr Owen Bonnici was taken a bit more seriously than was warranted by some (not including himself) and I was upbraided for picking on him and trying to give the impression that he was talking through his head-gear because he was a callow youth
That’s not the case – I would have poked a bit of harmless fun at him if he had been a doddering old fool. The fact that he’s a mere strip of a lad comes into the equation not at all, though fun is to be had by us grey-beards in baiting the young pups. Age and guile outsmart youthful enthusiasm any day.
While on the subject of apologies, which I’m not, really, but whatever, people who enjoy my passages of arms with the various interlocutors who write in below to gainsay me, sometimes with comment wrapped in insult and thinly-veiled dislike, are often disappointed that I don’t answer them or, sometimes, that my answers are bereft of the same level of insult as is chucked at me.
Well, folks, the thing is, I am as subject to the web-master’s blue mouse-stroke (like the blue pencil an editor wields, but electronic) as all of you, and for some reason, I am held to a higher level of accountability and censure (and censorship) than anyone else.
Thus, when someone writes in and calls me names, if I respond in kind, I’m virtually inked out (in the same way the censors used to daub black ink over the ladies’ interesting bits in Oggi when I was a kid)
There’s also the little problem that I’m studiously ignoring many of the Lil’Elves who write in and try to provoke me into arguing with them. Truth be told, I’m sometimes tempted to revoke the rule and demonstrate to these poor deluded souls that the worst thing to do is argue with a columnist who has thousands of words at his disposal (not to mention, in many cases, a slightly less haphazard grasp of grammar and syntax) but some of these guys are too malevolent to engage.
On the flight back from Brussels via Amsterdam (the only consolation is that it’s so good to be leaving Boring Europolis that even flying for an extra hour isn’t so bad) I leafed through the papers, to be rewarded with being able to look through an interview with Dr Stefan Zrinzo Azzopardi, President of the MLP (sorry, PL – mustn’t confuse it with PN)
It was a masterly performance by my young(er) friend, though if I were looking at it with the critical eye that must be adopted by examiners, I would have had to have scrawled “seems not to want to answer the question” in red in the margin, before giving him a scraped-through grade.
Let me give you a few fr’instances.
He was being asked about the changes afoot in the MLP to become PL and he responded, to the question put as to whether “The reform is clearly intended to make the party younger at its core... “ with “I think it's better to say that we're better represented across all ages.”
The follow-up was “Do you fear alienating the elderly in the process, which, let's face it, are the group that have stood by the party for years?”, to which the reply was “The party needs to better reflect the ages all across society.”
Moving along, there were other exchanges. Asked whether “If you carried out the reforms a year or two ago, do you believe you would have stood a better chance of winning the election?” the answer was “You can't make comparisons that way.”
What other ways are to make comparisons, pray?
The interview went on: “The report drawn up after the election defeat confirmed the internal problems weighing down the Labour Party. As President, were you aware of these cracks? Did you try to patch things up?” to which the answer was “The most important thing in a political party is to put forward the party's agenda and not the individual's. The success of a party depends on how united it is.”
Question: “What about the fact that a prominent MP like Michael Falzon says he cannot work with Jason Micallef?” Answer: Michael Falzon is making a strong contribution in the sector he's shadowing. The important thing is to extract the best qualities of the individual for the benefit of the party.
Let’s cut to the bottom line, so all the Lil’Elves can jump in and berate me for taking Stefan’s words out of context and leaving out the q&as which were not so evasive.
That’s as may be, but check this one out for a truly masterly piece of sticking to the script, oblivious to what the question is asking: Question: Is Dr Muscat more open to ideas [than his predecessor]?” Answer: “I think he expresses them better than Dr Sant.”
More than this I need not report.
RSS
Comments
"I was trying to pour a lake into a bucket".
Can you please explain what you mean by that?
"don’t you think that you had now exhausted your argument?"
That is why I resisted the temptation of replying again to Kenneth. I felt that our discussion was on the verge of degenerating into the voracious vortex of who's going to have the last word. Partly it was my fault, I was trying to pour a lake into a bucket. I should have known better.
Yes, I think you're right. In fact, I was not planning on taking it any further. I've made my point.
Both of you chaps usually make meaningful and intelligent contributions and I enjoy following your good arguments as I’m sure others do too, but while trying not to look so patronising, I ask you- don’t you think that you had now exhausted your argument? You are now splitting hairs, being too academic and bordering on pedantry.
This is none of my business naturally considering that even I fall in that pit sometimes. Whatever, do what you think that make you happy but it would be nice if you revert back to good debating.
Most of us had at one time received emails not intended for us due to transmission systems peculiarities. If the disclaimer clause has any legal recognition it would apply in these cases.
The PBO damning email was not erroneously routed to Jason Micallef but clearly addressed to him which makes him a legal recipient.
Even if it were received by way of illegitimate means the fact that the text contains material relevant to public interest the law may take exceptions like it did in the case of Lou Bondi when the Bondi Plus crew entered a highly sensitive restricted area to prove a serious case of lack of security.
No doubt the PN will now use all its best Legal advisors to get out of this sticky situation by way of a legal technicality and it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if, in the end, they get away with it. Xarabank had already given their contribution on our National TV tonight to minimise the seriousness of this scandal and the Mistragate affair is still too fresh in our memories.
Irrespective of the final outcome the public opinion is supreme and no technicality would derail or change it.
‘Il-Kumitati tal-Girien’ were Labour’s answer to your precious PN’s ‘Street Leaders’ of 150 years ago before political tollerance saw the light of the day. The terminologies were different but the mission was the same. To spy on other people. No more no less.
We must all be true to ourselves and admit that our political past was’nt all glorious,the PN had their fair share of glory as did Labour but therer were also sufferings and injusticies coming on both sides. I truly do not care if you or others do not admit this but it makes me feel so tranquil to admit my party’s past mistakes and it makes me ever so happy that those times are gone .
If you find the difference between calling people "normal" and calling them "common" irrelevant, that sure explains a lot.
"Because the quality of being human is NOT quantifiable. You can niether qualify nor quantify humanity".
Nobody is qualifying (or quantifying - whatever that means) humanity here. ABC is calling people normal. Its about personality, which IS qualifiable, eg. Normal people don't go out in the snow naked, but some might.
"If I say that there's a common or a normal human being, it automatically means that there's at least someone that is not a normal or common human being".
Take out common, (ABC did not use that). Yes, ABC is jokingly saying there are people who are not normal, and that he is one of them. That's having a sense of humour.
"This automatically implies that there's at least two categories of human beings, which isn't the case".
He was quite obviously joking about himself and his type.
"I instead would have said 'normal persons', because there are many different persons but NOT different human beings".
Of course there are different human beings. Some human beings listen to classical music, others listen to rock. They are different.
"My point is that there was nothing ambiguous and open to a different interpretation in ABC's sentence."
It might be because I am (allegedly) not so fluent in English, but I still think that the phrase:"and certainly not to normal human beings" is ambiguous because it is open to different interpretations.
"If you realise that he was being ironic about HIMSELF"
That is not the POINT.
"there is a difference between calling people "normal" and "common". "Normal" is neutral while "common" could be pejorative". I think that thence lies the reason behind your misunderstanding."
No. That is irrelevant. Because the quality of being human is NOT quantifiable. You can niether qualify nor quantify humanity. Each one of us is identical to each other in the quality that makes us human beings. If I say that there's a common or a normal human being, it automatically means that there's at least someone that is not a normal or common human being. This automatically implies that there's at least two categories of human beings, which isn't the case. I instead would have said 'normal persons', because there are many different persons but NOT different human beings.
at one Corner we have the representative of a political party that gave us the Data Protection Act;
and at the other corner we have the Leader of a political party who wanted to give us "il-Kumitati tal-Girien"
"There’s also the little problem that I’m studiously ignoring many of the Lil’Elves who write in and try to provoke me into arguing with them. Truth be told, I’m sometimes tempted to revoke the rule and demonstrate to these poor deluded souls that the worst thing to do is argue with a columnist ..."
Personally I find your self imposed 'omerta' is quite a double edged sword.
You can hide quite nicely behind it, thus neatly avoiding answering tough questions/engaging in mental intercourse/living in the present.
This is great when you need to simply get your thinly veiled one sided message over.... to those who can't see the real intention behind this blog (sic!).
But it also makes you look quite childish and downright immature.
"I'm not talking to you!"
Stuff that others left ehind when they graduated from kindergarten.
But at least admit(yes to yourself as you managed to shackle yourself quite nicely)that its a self-imposed censorship rather than anything the Times/anyone else is imposing onyou.
"Too malevolent to engage"?
Nope...just pointing out a different point of view to the one you try to portray.
Now THAT's pushing it for a Lil-Elve.We live dangerously, what can I say?
Not unless you apply the latest PNGovt gimmick... the whistleblower act (sic!).
Great (propaganda) idea but in TODAY'S circumstances, as useful as efa's Justice Tribunal/Ombudsman lark....
After all, if:
-injustices are proven by the Ombudsman
-recommendations are made to the PM (to be carried out with IMMEDITE effect)
-and the PM simply ignores those recommendations.....
what's the whole point of the excercise?
Would you (today) expose corruption/injustice knowing that :
A)99% nothing will be proven anyway.
(100's of tricks employed (even by lawyers who should know better) like:
-delaying tactics,
-excuses for not attending sessions (leading to prescriptions etc),
-technical(sic!) issues,
-etc.
B) if you do stick to your guns:
-know 'the game',
-can counteract/preempt ,
-perhaps wait decades
and finally be part of the 1%elite..... you can still be ignored by those who seempowerful enough to above the law !
Plenty of us who believe that we need mechanisms like the Whistle Blower act.
Plenty of us who also feel that without a total & SERIOUS rehaul of our courts...
all these gimmicks are as much use as a blue house fly on an elephant's posterior.
Funny how bubbles burst!
Now that the LP or PL has published the contents of the e-mail in question, I would ask Dr. Borg Olivier if the PN is in the habit of adding a disclaimer at the bottom of e-mails sent out explaining that in the event that the mail was erroneously received it should be destroyed immediately and the contents kept in confidence.
That being the case has the LP not breached the Privacy law itself?
Yet another ABC masterpiece! :-)
Perhaps Dr Azzopardi's "truly masterly piece of sticking to the script, oblivious to what the question is asking....." is due to Elf & Safety reasons.
"We all need to remember to look within in case the faults we are seeing also exist in us or the entities that we support" Exactly! No need to drive anything home.
Did I defend Dr. BO's actions? I hesitate to comment because I do not know the nature of the request, the intentions and the outcomes. I would rather comment after the whole exercise is completed rather than jump into conclusions.
The fact remains that the 'request' was immediately rescinded and no harm was done. In the cases I referred to and which you failed to acknowledge, the then MLP had elements (which are still there) which prevented a basic democratic right to be exercised. Instead of taking new steps to prevent the same things from happening in the future, the LP chose to sweep everything under the carpet.
We live in a world of uncontrolled communication. Have you ever received SPAM, Charles? Where do you think the information of your e-mail address was obtained? Did you authorize the originators of Spam to send you the garbage? Even with Spam filters, someone always finds ways of penetrating firewalls.
Nonetheless privacy is paramount and should be protected.
continuing purely on the humourous vein that you and Il-bocca imply use thereof...
I'm not so sure if il-bocca's admitting himself as a 'Master'... is such a good idea.
After all, I'm sure you'll agree that there are many types of 'masters'....
As you know I have in the past made reference to a certain English teacher of mine whose christian name (Margeret) & her chain-smoking habit led to us nicknaming her "Faggie Maggie".
I shudder to think, therefore, what we might have monikered il-bocca with, if he was our English 'Master' and his real name was Bates?
Think about it..
"I was being ironic to show you how easy it is to read between the lines and find some ambiguous phrase that one can use to attack someone. The moral of the story is that everyone say things, every now and then, that may be misinterpreted. So let us all take it easy, and be careful before we label people 'racist'".
My point is that there was nothing ambiguous and open to a different interpretation in ABC's sentence.
So yes, you can say that every now and then what we say might be misinterpreted by people who do are not so fluent in English (I hope this does not get deleted this time...I have tried to put it as gently as possible).
ABC's sentence was as much offensive as someone who is simply genuinely worried about the influx of immigrants is racist - that is, not at all.
I will of course be told that I have no sense of humour....blablabla:
those who know me know I have a bent for sardonic (British?) sense of humour.
I do after all read this blog(sic!) and the Beano for some of my entertainment.
This blogger(sic!)'s inability to:
-move from the past,
-to live today
-and the inability to camouflage the true intended message behind his blogging(sic!) certainly makes me giggle away to myself..!
So....
I'd like to suggest to the blogger(sic!) et playmates that a proper sense of humor is the ability to see and laugh at the incongruities of ones OWN life.
Very theraputic to one's ailments, I hear!
You might wish to harken to Og Mandino's advice:
"Laugh at YOURSELF and at life.
Not in the spirit of DERISION
or whining SELF-PITY,
but as a REMEDY,
a miracle drug,
that will ease YOUR pain,
cure your depression,
and help YOU to put in perspective that seemingly terrible defeat and worry
with laughter at YOUR predicaments,
thus freeing YOUR mind to
THINK CLEARLY
toward the SOLUTION
that is certain to come.
NEVER take YOURSELF too seriously."
...is that another "ZOOOM!" sound approaching....
Dear! Oh Dear!
:)
It simply astounds me how people try to 'justify' their (inapropriate?) actions by blaming others when their real action is exposed...
Here, we have il-Bocca and fellow soldiers of the (very) light brigade arguing that attacking someone personally is 'ok' if done with humour....
"I would have had to have scrawled “seems not to want to answer the question” in red in the margin, before giving him a scraped-through grade"
Disguised with 'humour' .. but we all get the REAL (and ALWAYS one-sided) message right?
Anyone seen any humour about Gonzi, EFA, Gatt...
RICHARD MUSCAT
etc by the 'Blogger'(sic!)?
Yet these gentle 'folk of the same ilk' take GREAT offence when the same sense of humour is reversed onto themselves/their own.
They become protective.
They close up..
and close rank.
Some even reverting to extremely childish "I'm putting you in coventry!" ploys.
So much for humour & maturity.
"I live to laugh and laugh to live" (Milton Berle)...
we all love a good laugh but repetative one sided attack is.... well just that!
It's actually VERY tedious to read the same thing week in week out.
And I certainly don't see much 'living' in the 'Today' department either...!
I do wonder about the privacy that we are supposed to be enjoying! Seems that some people believe they are above the law and do not care what The Data Security Act say or not say! They believe they are untouchable!
Ahna l-Ghawdxin nghidu : Dan mhu xejn ghax il-kbir ghadu gej! I really wonder!
“Funny how one perceives an incident as humorous while others feel otherwise” , a quote from Mr. Martinelli’s. Precisely my point.
Regrettably however my other point , “We all need to remember to look within in case the faults we are seeing also exist in us or the entities that we support” has’nt driven the message home yet.
Paul Borg-Oliver’s grossly sensitive and incriminating email is indeed damning and we will hear much more about it in the forthcoming weeks. An alleged directive to Ministries and heads of Government departments to contravene the Data Security Act is a criminal act punishable by imprisonment, fine or both. The humorous side of it is the stupid way the alleged culprit got caught red handed which provides hilarious humour for some of us.
"Your first post was definitely not humorous, sarcastic or ironic...well, perhaps only the last sentence"
Exactly Kenneth. Regarding my first post I was ironic ONLY in my last sentence: "Implying otherwise, whether seriously or ironically is not wise in a tense period like the one we are going through right now."
I didn't really mean to say that Mr ABC was implying that some human beings are less humans than others. I think that it was TOO obvious what Mr ABC meant. I was being ironic to show you how easy it is to read between the lines and find some ambiguous phrase that one can use to attack someone. The moral of the story is that everyone say things, every now and then, that may be misinterpreted. So let us all take it easy, and be careful before we label people 'racist'.
I find the anonymous e-mails allegedly sent within a certain party condemning candidates for the same party's leadership much more humourous than something sent in error.
Maybe, I am wrong and should not label the alleged anonymous e-mails as humourous, more likely pitiful!
Having to refer the matter to the Police Commissioner by the maligned party was serious enough.
How would I describe going on the Party's media indicating that the party had won the election, when in fact they had lost? Ridiculous or malicious?
Your first post was definitely not humorous, sarcastic or ironic...well, perhaps only the last sentence. Or maybe I missed the humour in people being equally human beings.
My replies must be taken in context, taking into account how the correspondence started.
What you still don't understand (or maybe you do) is that ABC was only being ironic/humorous about himself, and no one else.
If you realise that he was being ironic about HIMSELF, I can't see how anyone could "(find) some ambiguous or equivocal phrase so as he could cry: 'you have exposed yourself!'"
I would have spared you your last post had the moderator not somehow (and in my opinion unjustifiably - but hey...its not my blog or newspaper) found a part "offensive" and deleted it.
By the way, I still think that when you replied to "and certainly not to normal human beings", you mistook "normal" to "common". If this was not the case, the rest of your post would not make sense.
I WAS BEING HUMOUROUS AND IRONIC ALL THE TIME!! I was ironically implying that the guru of anti-racism is a racist!!
I knew he was being ironic/humourous. But I wanted to tease Mr ABC. I was being ironic about his irony because I, mischievously, wanted him to taste the feeling of having someone always trying to read between your lines with the hope of finding some ambiguous or equivocal phrase so as he could cry: "you have exposed yourself!"
I wanted to release the tension accumulated after long discussions about discrimination, muzzling bills etc by trying to be funny about the obsession of rigorously not spelling a word that might expose you as an evil racist! I thought that a good, healthy laugh would do the trick of breaking the tension.
We all need to remember to look within in case the faults we are seeing also exist in us or the entities that we support, but I've felt more and more that this problem isn't so shallow, that we need to find the deeper cause.
Imagine Jason Micallef, the not so admired PL official, sending a copy of a grossly sensitive and incriminating email to Paul Borg-Oliver his opposite number. Can you imagine the orgy of ridicule which that poppycock cock-up would have created even by political gurus overseas? Just imagine because you will never see it happening here. Some sense of humour some people have?
"If there is such thing as irony, there is also a thing which I call double-irony i.e. an irony above another irony, if you know what I mean"
Yes, I have written about that before. It's made of iron and is not brassy or tinny.
By the way...there is a difference between calling people "normal" and "common". "Normal" is neutral while "common" could be pejorative". I think that thence lies the reason behind your misunderstanding.
Since you included my name in your reply to ABC, I shall address each of your points as they apply to me or my previous comment.
"I do get humour or irony, and I was sure that this is your case. My point was that being (or pretending to be) an anti-discrimination Guru entails the moral responsibility of being careful in what you write so as to avoid misunderstandings".
It was not me who said you don't get humour or irony. What I wrote was that you must have misunderstood the sentence. Also, I do not pretend to be an anti-discrimination guru.
Regarding avoiding misunderstandings, I think that ABC was very clear in what he wrote. For this reason, I was actually surprised that you misunderstood what ABC was implying. It would never have occurred to me that telling someone he/she's normal could be construed as being offensive.
"you just don't get humour or irony, do you?"
That is not the case. I do get humour or irony, and I was sure that this is your case. My point was that being (or pretending to be) an anti-discrimination Guru entails the moral responsibility of being careful in what you write so as to avoid misunderstandings.
If there is such thing as irony, there is also a thing which I call double-irony i.e. an irony above another irony, if you know what I mean.
I think you might have misunderstood ABC. When he wrote that the subject being discussed would not appeal to normal human beings (since presumably the discussions would be boring), he was jokingly implying that it is he who is abnormal.
What I find really funny in most of your writings is the fact that all your ' stretched attributes' to the PL fits much better the PN! The reason behind such behaviour is obvoius to one and all.
I strongly believe that age is not a hindrance in having a 'progressive mind'.
Provocations come in different forms and so are the re-actions to such provocations.Hope my message is clear enough!
Finally, some time ago you mentioned 'my daily nest' at Xaghra Gozo. Since then 'an eathquake' took 'all way' and we ( you and I ) lost a lot.
Kif nghidu ahna : jew nejja jew mahruqa!Fhimt habib?
"and certainly not to normal human beings"
All human beings are different in one way or another to all others, but we are all the same in what makes us human beings. Being a genius -for example- makes you superior in intelligence but not in humanity.
Whether we are Einstein, Brad Pitt or an underpaid nanny, we are all EQUALLY human beings. There ain't no normal, or sub-normal human beings. Just human beings. Implying otherwise, whether seriously or ironically is not wise in a tense period like the one we are going through right now.
Can Dr. Zrinzo tell us what he can extract from Jason Micallef and Charlon Gouder (for the benefit of the Party, of course)?
If ABC is referring to Dr. Zrinzo's interview as titled in his blog "A Master Speaks" may I suggest that a better title would have been "His master's voice"?
On the other hand, if the 'Master' he refers to is himself (ABC), while admitting that he is a master at writing the most interesting blogs, it would be wise not to pat his own shoulder!