Daily archives: February 9, 2011

Words count

I have a spreadsheet set up to track how much I’m writing. I’m a little obsessive like that, and it’s a way to procrastinate whilst pretending to be productive. It tracks the word count on my current projects- there’s room for three, but I’m currently concentrating on one in particular- and works out how many words I’ve written per day, the average for the last thirty days and the average for the year to date.

As of yesterday the thirty day average is 312.27 and the year average is 293.41.

These are not the numbers you are looking for.

I want to be hitting a higher average. 1000 is desirable, 500 would be acceptable. The average has been trending upwards recently, as I’ve spent more days writing, after a fortnight in January where my muse and mojo had both deserted me. And I am getting more words down than the contemporary average on most of the days that I do apply finger to keyboard.

But I have spent my whole life being my own worst enemy and mastering the art of creative procrastination (Exhibit A- I’m writing this post rather than any of my current works-in-progress). So I have to force myself to write. Which is what I shall go away and do now.

After I’ve bought myself an Earl Grey.

And checked my email.

And Facebook.


Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing 7

I haven’t written about the reactionary bigotsphere in a while. I only follow two, hand picked, reactionary bigots- following any more would be redundant as they all draw from the same uninformed prejudices and all express themselves in variations of the same self pitying whine. Neither of them has been all that busy lately and when they have they’ve just repeated the same boring nonsense as usual.

However, local reactionary bigot Richard Carvath- Salford’s one man lunatic fringe- did pop up last night to tell us what he has planned for the next few months. More of the same nonsense mostly, but also-

(4) An article to examine the underlying ethics and philosophy of my strategic and stylistic approach to political activism on the internet. Just why do I write [and generate other web content, e.g. lo-fi videos] in the way that I do? What are the motives behind the method? And what are the objectives? If I refer to ‘what I do that is distinctively me’ as ‘Carvathianism’ – what exactly is Carvathianism? Whilst most people quickly grasp what I stand for – for example, my pro-life stance – why do I manifest my agenda as I do? Carvathianism is essentially a socially conservative approach to engaging with a dumbed-down, pornographised, post-modern British society (and media, and so-called ‘intelligentsia’) by means of counter-intuitive techniques, humour and satire etc. There’s a sense in which what I do is a response to the challenge of communicating Christian socio-political themes to a largely ‘morally and spiritually illiterate’ mainstream audience through the maze of madness and irony that is our post-modern relativistic society. Why do I merge ‘traditional’ journalistic writing conventions with mind-bending (and moral-straightening) wit – with the occasional blunt instrument thrown in for good measure? What is the true depth of my academic engagement with the issues I address – and why present principles in an unorthodox, ‘middle-of-the-road-common-denominator’ manner? Why do I risk being dismissed as a dilettante or a fool because I often deliberately eschew arguing evidence of consequences with secular-humanists on their own terms; why do I sometimes refuse to play ball? Do I really believe that the fallacy of humanist first principles is so self-evident that the ‘evidence’ humanists hold dear on various issues is obviously non sequiter from the shine-through undeniable reality of absolute moral principles, and therefore logically it is unnecesary to engage in ‘reasoning the ridiculous’ with the Richard Dimkins crowd?………..i.e. do I really believe that the truths which underpin my stances are so self-evident and so unassailable that I can credibly stand my modus operandi largely upon the assertion of pure principle alone? When to use statistical and anecdotal evidence – and how? Why use sources sparingly (most of the time)?

Carvathianism? Can anyone pretend to have a grand philosophy just by sticking some suffixes onto their surname? I claim Pattinsonism. I’ll define it later. I’d go the whole, Carvathian, hog, but Pattinsonian used to be my user name on Hotmail.

It goes beyond being a word soup to become a word sludge which says nothing of any substance. There’s mention of humour and satire, but Carvath is only funny in the “we’re laughing at you, not with you” way and, unless he’s Chris Morris’ latest and most bizarre creation, I detect no satire.

I think Carvathianism, based upon the second half of the sludge, comes down to admitting that he can’t provide evidence to support any of his claims (because reality is on the side of “secular-humanists”) but he’s convinced that doesn’t matter because the version of God that exists only inside his head has told him what the “Truth” really is.

It’s all quite dumb, and reading it makes your head hurt. Under the right circumstances trying to follow the looping, folding and tearing illogic of it all might bring on some sort of transcendental experience. However, the bit which made me laugh most was later on, and much shorter.

Marriage is on my agenda.

I feel a little bad every time I mock Carvath. Not because he makes it all too easy, but because there’s obviously something wrong with him. He’s delusional, and the delusions are getting greater. If any of his family are reading this I’d ask them to intervene and get him some help before he becomes more of a risk to himself and others.