Thursday, 12 January 2012

Dear Ruth Limkin.

First, the article that I read - the first product of this mummer's farce that filled me with disdain:

My response (the comment may appear in the above link, if she chooses not to censor (read: moderate) it):

"I must make two comments here: First, Typo are irresponsible for conspicuously stocking such items alongside back to school promotions. You have hit that nail on the head squarely. Or would have, if not for the following that bent the potential efficacy of your hammer-stroke all out of whack:
Second: Ruth, I found your article to be a cheaply written ploy, in my opinion comparably cheesy to whoever it was in Typo’s marketing/management division that made the decisions that led to the situation you are attacking.
Ideological spin is most certainly a good way to get attention, but the only thing such an agenda can accomplish is to address very real (and often troubling) issues by mystifying them – that is, decoupling them from reality and corrupting them with emotional manipulation. Your articles may seem like good reading to most people who read your articles, but more discerning eyes (like, I humbly consider) my own, wish you would spend more of your effort on addressing actual issues rather than this depth-deprived ideological spin.
I apologise if my abrupt manner has caused any offense – this is just my way. I am attempting to be honest, and offer constructive commentary. Cheers."

Okay, to elaborate/clarify, all that she had to do is say something like:
'Typo stores have pornographically themed items on their shelves alongside their much publicised back to school sales...I worry that this might be devaluing to women, and that it is pornographic, inappropriate, and irresponsible - I saw a little eight year old girl looking at them, and thought to myself, "This is wrong!" I encourage you to look into this issue for yourself and combat it if you find that you agree with me."

But no, why would she do something so responsible and on the level, when she could spin some ideological bullshit about the eight year old girl she saw in the shop, who could have been thinking ANYTHING about the items in question - including nothing at all. What does she know? Is it a skill of good writing nowdays to be able to gush rhetoric polemic out of your arse? If so, I will never be as good a writer as Ruth Limkin. Ruth Limkin is a great entrepreneur/successful writer and a sterling champion of human rights who guilts others all day as to why they don't advocate for/love/save/bail out/clean up after, EVERYONE, when she doesn't do it herself. Instead she bitches about the most trivial and stupid detail about the Occupy Movement, while actually admitting to not knowing (or caring a damn for) any of the other and much bigger and more important issues at hand, while taking a cunningly brief moment to blow her own and fellow members of the Brisbane Soros club's horns, for 'helping the poor' (a thing which made me sick). She is pretentious enough to write an obscene ideological spin-letter to an eight year old child that she does not even know, and under her 'articles' tagged "religious freedom" bitches regularly about the oppression of Christians. She wears gold jewellery and a cheesy, crusty, overstretched smile in her profile photo. I would find this funny if it were not so sad. Ruth Limkin appears to be a text book example of why religion is quite deservedly being expunged from society and granted an awkward place on the dusty rim of obscurity. Very sadly the same is not happening in the case of the ideological spin that produced it. So do not take me for a religion hater - the first instance I find of a climate change crusader, or an occupier, or whoever else, pissing me off to this extent, engaging in this same flagrant bastardisation of my craft, will be ranted about as well.

In my opinion she should stop vocalising her decadent ignorance, bourgeois hypocrisy, and religious bigotry, as she is making other Christians and other writers look bad.

See what I did at the end there? My clever little polemical turns of phrase? Looks like Ruth Limkin is not the only one who can do it.

And this is the part where I insert - for the benefit of any ofRuth Limkin's demographic audience, a *trollface.* And hope that among the dozens I am sure to annoy, that this helps at least one writer or one reader take a more responsible attitude towards themselves, the people, and the world around them.

~Joel Ivory


  1. Caveat: Yes I know this is something of a rant...and each of the four or five pangs of uncertainty/guilt I've had since posting have compelled me to read another of her articles...I'm now onto number six and all I get is more and more annoyed (to put it politely).

  2. Nicely done, hopefully she doesn't moderate it out and opens discourse with you.

  3. Thank you. Although on second thought, my OWN writing here is overly woven with too much vehemence, which I am sure seemed to be valid to me at the time of writing. Hopefully anything I said prior to the anger gets through to her!