[TAN] Hey, Chad
Aaron Bergman
other bloggers. What do you think?
Aaron
Chad R. Orzel
"Getting"?
I'm unsure of the etiquette of posting my own outgoing messages (I
know posting email somebody else sent me is Bad, without permission to
do so, but I'm pretty sure I can give myself permission to post stuff
that I wrote earlier...), but here's an earlier message regarding the
Tim Cavanaugh piece (http://ojr.usc.edu/content/story.cfm?request=683)
on the bloggers that got them all stirred up over the weekend. This
one didn't get excerpted on-line (and I'd quibble about the paragraph
he did choose to snip out of the other letter, but that doesn't matter
much):
----
Between the fur flying over Cavanaugh's piece on bloggers and Andrew
Sullivan's sudden pissy fascination with labels, it's been a banner
week for instant karma in the blogging community. Sullivan appear
hell-bent on emulating every labelling excess of the much-derided
hypersensitive "Politically Correct" academic set in his carping about
who gets called what when introduced on CNN, and the bloggeratti are
all in a tizzy over having Tim Cavanaugh do to them _exactly_ what the
frequent self-aggrandizing posts about the blogging "phenomenon" claim
they're doing to the mainstream media. Congratulations, Glenn, et.
al., you've been fact-checked.
Is the Cavanaugh piece a little hyperbolic? Sure. What's wrong with
that? If you're going to start slamming anyone who ever exaggerated a
viewpoint for the sake of a good turn of phrase, well, a lot of
journalistic glass houses are going to need new windows.
The thing is, Cavanaugh is basically right. The blogging community is
wholly dependent upon the much-derided "mainstream media" for their
information. Much as you mock them, when there's a news story to
report, you link to the Washington Post story, or the New York Times,
or the AP wire service. When you want a convincing argument
(convincing to someone who doesn't share your opinion already), you
link to someone with the credentials to be believed-- sometimes, that
may be a blogger, but more often it's an established "public
intellectual".
And Cavanaugh is dead-on about the back-slapping incestuousness of the
blogging community, particularly the Libertoonian arm of it inhabited
by InstaPundit et al. Reynolds cites Sullivan cites Layne cites Welch
cites Reynolds citing Layne and Sullivan and Welch, etc. Is this a
Reformation in journalism, or just another ideological echo chamber?
Bloggers as a group frequently puff themselves up as the pin poking
the ballooon of mainstream media pretension. Well, Cavanaugh's article
is a railroad spike driven into the Zeppelin of blogger
self-aggrandizement. (Oh, the humanity!)
Is the blogging phenomenon an interesting new twist on things? Sure it
is. I'll happily admit that it's changed a lot of the way I deal with
the Web (though list-of-links blogs like Arts & Letters Daily
(http://www.aldaily.com) and Boing Boing (http://boingboing.net/)
provide more signal and less noise). Is it a Revolution (or
Reformation) in Modern Journalism? No way.
The medium has potential, but it's not being realized in the present
form of a self-congratulatory inter-blogger mutual admiration society
(in which the members occasionally band together to stomp on the Susan
Sontags and Noam Chomskys of the world, and then congratulate each
other on how well they stomped). I'd be more impressed with blogging
in general if there were cross-linking to a wider range of opinion,
and some consistent attempt to address divergent points of view with a
little back-and-forth between blogs. As it is, the mostly-right-wing
bloggers link to other right-wing bloggers, with Josh Marshall thrown
in as the token left-of-Limbaugh link. Blogs become useful not for
their stimulating discussion, but for providing a daily jolt of
outrage, in the manner of a traditional op-ed column, updated fifteen
times daily.
----
I little hyperbolic myself, I suppose, but I was sort of irritated.
--
Chad Orzel
Book Log: http://home.earthlink.net/~orzelc/booklog.html
Reviews: http://home.earthlink.net/~orzelc/Reviews.html
Aaron Bergman
<orz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 05:25:58 GMT, Aaron Bergman
> <aber...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>
> >So, I think Reynolds is just getting a bit too incestuous with the
> >other bloggers. What do you think?
>
> "Getting"?
[snip]
Yeah, that's pretty much my opinion of it. Reynolds is pretty much the
only "blog" of that ilk that I read these days, but it gets tough.
Postrel links a bit, but mostly to Reynolds. Sullivan froths a lot (see
how long it took him to berak his Krugman promise) and is way too
infatuated with his own perceived iconoclasm, but atleast there's some
original stuff there. Marshall and Kaus almost never link which is
really their greatest attribute. Nobody wants to read a massive circle
jerk.
Aaron
Chad R. Orzel
<aber...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>Yeah, that's pretty much my opinion of it. Reynolds is pretty much the
>only "blog" of that ilk that I read these days, but it gets tough.
>Postrel links a bit, but mostly to Reynolds. Sullivan froths a lot (see
>how long it took him to berak his Krugman promise) and is way too
>infatuated with his own perceived iconoclasm, but atleast there's some
>original stuff there.
Sullivan has gotten markedly worse in the time I've been reading his
blog. He used to post fairly readable stuff, but the ratio of froth to
thought has increased significantly. I've jokingly referred to him as
"the thinking man's David Horowitz" on a few occasions, but sadly,
he's coming closer to the original.
His two current crusades (media labelling bias and Paul Krugman) just
baffle me.
Marshall and Kaus almost never link which is
>really their greatest attribute.
I wouldn't say "almost never."
Marshall and Sullivan have gone back and forth a few times, as have
Marshall and Kaus.
Kaus annoys me with his habit of HIGHLIGHTING OCCASIONAL WORDS in the
middle of his entries, which creates the impression that he's
INEXPLICABLY SHOUTING important phrases chosen from the MIDDLE of his
sentences. The fact that it's in bold face rather than ALL CAPS
doesn't really help with the McElwaine resonances...
(Yes, that's petty. Sue me.)
Nobody wants to read a massive circle
>jerk.
I wouldn't mind the cross-linking between bloggers, if it were more
than just back-slapping. There are few things less interesting to
watch than a whole bunch of people agreeing with one another. I
enjoyed the g*n c*ntr*l exchange between "Through the Looking Glass"
and "Libertarian Samizdata" linked off my links page
(http://home.earthlink.net/~orzelc/Blogs.html), for example, and some
of the Marshall-Sullivan tiffs have been fun to read.
I also think that, despite the frequent proclamations that the
revolution is at hand, it's no coincidence that three of the best
weblogs around (Kaus, Marshall, and Sullivan (despite his recent
goofiness)) are by real-and-for-true journalists who use the space to
post ideas that aren't quite fleshed out enough to be used as for-pay
columns.
If you just want pointers to the neat stuff out on the Web, though,
it's hard to beat Arts & Letters Daily (http://www.aldaily.com) or
Boing Boing (http://boingboing.net/).
Mike Kozlowski
Chad R. Orzel <orz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Man, I used to think I knew what was going on with the Web these days, but
I have only the faintest clue what you guys are talking about -- I read
Kaus on Slate, and I hear about Sullivan on occasion (usually in ways that
make him sound like a nutball), but I'm feeling like I've been left out of
some bizarre little subculture here.
>Kaus annoys me with his habit of HIGHLIGHTING OCCASIONAL WORDS in the
>middle of his entries, which creates the impression that he's
>INEXPLICABLY SHOUTING important phrases chosen from the MIDDLE of his
>sentences. The fact that it's in bold face rather than ALL CAPS
>doesn't really help with the McElwaine resonances...
Very Dvorakesque, I'd say.
>I wouldn't mind the cross-linking between bloggers, if it were more
>than just back-slapping. There are few things less interesting to
>watch than a whole bunch of people agreeing with one another.
I agree!
--
Mike Kozlowski
http://www.klio.org/mlk/
Michael Bruce
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 17:54:33 GMT, Aaron Bergman
><aber...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>>Yeah, that's pretty much my opinion of it. Reynolds is pretty much the
>>only "blog" of that ilk that I read these days, but it gets tough.
>>Postrel links a bit, but mostly to Reynolds. Sullivan froths a lot (see
>>how long it took him to berak his Krugman promise) and is way too
>>infatuated with his own perceived iconoclasm, but atleast there's some
>>original stuff there.
>
> Sullivan has gotten markedly worse in the time I've been reading his
> blog. He used to post fairly readable stuff, but the ratio of froth to
> thought has increased significantly. I've jokingly referred to him as
> "the thinking man's David Horowitz" on a few occasions, but sadly,
> he's coming closer to the original.
>
> His two current crusades (media labelling bias and Paul Krugman) just
> baffle me.
He is harping on the Krugman business excessively, but I can understand
where he's coming from with the medial labelling thing. It's something
I've noticed a lot personally. I don't think it's a dire indictment
of the nation's news outlets, but I do think it's an interesting thing
to examine.
[...]
> Nobody wants to read a massive circle
>>jerk.
>
> I wouldn't mind the cross-linking between bloggers, if it were more
> than just back-slapping. There are few things less interesting to
> watch than a whole bunch of people agreeing with one another. I
> enjoyed the g*n c*ntr*l exchange between "Through the Looking Glass"
> and "Libertarian Samizdata" linked off my links page
> (http://home.earthlink.net/~orzelc/Blogs.html), for example, and some
> of the Marshall-Sullivan tiffs have been fun to read.
>
> I also think that, despite the frequent proclamations that the
> revolution is at hand, it's no coincidence that three of the best
> weblogs around (Kaus, Marshall, and Sullivan (despite his recent
> goofiness)) are by real-and-for-true journalists who use the space to
> post ideas that aren't quite fleshed out enough to be used as for-pay
> columns.
I think the "blogs" make an excellent supplement to the news, and in
that function might be somewhat revolutionary, but I don't think
they will - or even should - put much of a dent in traditional
media.
I like them both for the pointers to interesting things going on, and
for quick personal takes on those interesting things. Probably more
for the personal slant, even.
--
Michael Bruce
br...@jhereg.net
Trent Goulding
>Man, I used to think I knew what was going on with the Web these days, but
>I have only the faintest clue what you guys are talking about -- I read
>Kaus on Slate, and I hear about Sullivan on occasion (usually in ways that
>make him sound like a nutball), but I'm feeling like I've been left out of
>some bizarre little subculture here.
You're not alone. On the other hand, acting on the principle (well,
sort of) that continuing education is a good thing, I googled on
'Reynolds', and was very shortly enlightened (probably more than I
wanted to be, actually). It really does seem to be its own little
community that all cross-links among itself.
I was amused to see a couple references to Eugene Volokh, who was my
1st Amendment professor, but who is probably far more famous (in
that particular community, at least) for his position and writing on
the 2nd Amendment.
--
Trent Goulding trent.g...@mho.com
Aaron Bergman
<orz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 17:54:33 GMT, Aaron Bergman
> <aber...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>
> >Yeah, that's pretty much my opinion of it. Reynolds is pretty much the
> >only "blog" of that ilk that I read these days, but it gets tough.
> >Postrel links a bit, but mostly to Reynolds. Sullivan froths a lot (see
> >how long it took him to berak his Krugman promise) and is way too
> >infatuated with his own perceived iconoclasm, but atleast there's some
> >original stuff there.
>
> Sullivan has gotten markedly worse in the time I've been reading his
> blog. He used to post fairly readable stuff, but the ratio of froth to
> thought has increased significantly.
Sullivan is weird. On some issues he's reasonably intelligent in
nuanced, but on others he just goes completely off the deep end. He's
incredibly obsessed with labelling and polarization of issues. Mostly,
though, he just has a tendency to froth.
> I've jokingly referred to him as
> "the thinking man's David Horowitz" on a few occasions, but sadly,
> he's coming closer to the original.
Horowitz is another story entirely. He's the political equivalent of an
ex-catholic.
> His two current crusades (media labelling bias and Paul Krugman) just
> baffle me.
The first I can sort of understand, although it's well beneath anything
I could make myself care about, but the Krugman "issue" is beyond
bizarre.
> Marshall and Kaus almost never link which is
> >really their greatest attribute.
>
> I wouldn't say "almost never."
> Marshall and Sullivan have gone back and forth a few times, as have
> Marshall and Kaus.
I don't mind it when bloggers have "tiffs"; it's the mutual admiration
societies ("xxx has something really interesting to say on yyy today")
that are really boring.
[...]
> >Nobody wants to read a massive circle
> >jerk.
>
> I wouldn't mind the cross-linking between bloggers, if it were more
> than just back-slapping. There are few things less interesting to
> watch than a whole bunch of people agreeing with one another. I
> enjoyed the g*n c*ntr*l exchange between "Through the Looking Glass"
> and "Libertarian Samizdata" linked off my links page
> (http://home.earthlink.net/~orzelc/Blogs.html),
Ack. You read more of these things than I do. BTW, if you're tired of
being enraged by right-wing idiocy, I give you
<http://www.zmag.org/weluser.html> for the true apotheosis of left-wing
idiocy. I mostly read it because I was holding long arguments until 5
AM with my Chomskyphile roommate, but it can be fun finding the blatant
factual errors in all the pieces. NRO also started a blog, too,
<http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.shtml>. I highly
recommend reading the item labelled "Bitchy TNR" for the sheer
self-delusional aspects.
[...]
> I also think that, despite the frequent proclamations that the
> revolution is at hand, it's no coincidence that three of the best
> weblogs around (Kaus, Marshall, and Sullivan (despite his recent
> goofiness)) are by real-and-for-true journalists who use the space to
> post ideas that aren't quite fleshed out enough to be used as for-pay
> columns.
Well, this is just the essential parasitic nature of most blogs. Real
reporting is hard to do, and when you get right down to it, so is good
opinion writing. What you end up with is the occasional insight and way
too much leechery.
> If you just want pointers to the neat stuff out on the Web, though,
> it's hard to beat Arts & Letters Daily (http://www.aldaily.com) or
> Boing Boing (http://boingboing.net/).
Never heard of that one. Have to add it to the bookmarks I guess.
I've sort of debated a blog or so mostly so that I have a vehicle to
vent my frustration with other blogs, or mabe to have a sort of hybrid
booklog [1], but I think I might be a bit too lazy. That or maybe I
just don't want to kiss my future political career behind.
Aaron
[1] _Ombria in Shadow_: I liked it, but I'm not sure what happened.
Much more personal than the somewhat distant _The Tower at Stony Wood_.
_Dark Light_: very disappointing for reasons I don't feel motivated
enough to make coherent.
_The Fool's Errand_: pretty good, actually. I liked how it was
structured.
Chad R. Orzel
Bruce) wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 23:43:01 GMT, Chad R. Orzel <orz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
{Andrew Sullivan}
>> His two current crusades (media labelling bias and Paul Krugman) just
>> baffle me.
>He is harping on the Krugman business excessively, but I can understand
>where he's coming from with the medial labelling thing. It's something
>I've noticed a lot personally. I don't think it's a dire indictment
>of the nation's news outlets, but I do think it's an interesting thing
>to examine.
He might have a ghost of a point, but he's chosen piss-poor examples
to illustrate it.
>> I also think that, despite the frequent proclamations that the
>> revolution is at hand, it's no coincidence that three of the best
>> weblogs around (Kaus, Marshall, and Sullivan (despite his recent
>> goofiness)) are by real-and-for-true journalists who use the space to
>> post ideas that aren't quite fleshed out enough to be used as for-pay
>> columns.
>I think the "blogs" make an excellent supplement to the news, and in
>that function might be somewhat revolutionary, but I don't think
>they will - or even should - put much of a dent in traditional
>media.
>I like them both for the pointers to interesting things going on, and
>for quick personal takes on those interesting things. Probably more
>for the personal slant, even.
The big problem with it is that very few of the people offering their
personal slant have anything all that worthwhile to say, or can write
worth a damn when saying it. Which is part of why I get annoyed at the
incestuousness of the whole thing-- half of the pieces that get
praised on one blog or another are so badly thought-out and poorly
written that I just cringe to read them. If I wanted to read that much
bad writing, I'd ask for longer lab reports...
Chad R. Orzel
<aber...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>In article <fs515uoo46b1s0e3i...@4ax.com>, Chad R. Orzel
><orz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Sullivan has gotten markedly worse in the time I've been reading his
>> blog. He used to post fairly readable stuff, but the ratio of froth to
>> thought has increased significantly.
>Sullivan is weird. On some issues he's reasonably intelligent in
>nuanced, but on others he just goes completely off the deep end. He's
>incredibly obsessed with labelling and polarization of issues.
I think that's my problem with him, right there.
It's the "****** Person" vs. "Person who happens to be *******" issue
again. I have a Geoff Miller rant about that saved somewhere.
Mostly,
>though, he just has a tendency to froth.
True.
>> His two current crusades (media labelling bias and Paul Krugman) just
>> baffle me.
>The first I can sort of understand, although it's well beneath anything
>I could make myself care about, but the Krugman "issue" is beyond
>bizarre.
To his credit, he did cite one labelling bias thing that went the
other way (Brit Hume referring to the "Liberal political journal The
Nation" while not identifying the slant of the Weekly Standard (or the
Wall Street Journal, for that matter)), but that just shows up the
silliness of the whole thing.
>> Marshall and Kaus almost never link which is
>> >really their greatest attribute.
>>
>> I wouldn't say "almost never."
>> Marshall and Sullivan have gone back and forth a few times, as have
>> Marshall and Kaus.
>
>I don't mind it when bloggers have "tiffs"; it's the mutual admiration
>societies ("xxx has something really interesting to say on yyy today")
>that are really boring.
Exactly.
Especially since about half of the "really interesting" links are
badly written and poorly thought out.
>> I wouldn't mind the cross-linking between bloggers, if it were more
>> than just back-slapping. There are few things less interesting to
>> watch than a whole bunch of people agreeing with one another. I
>> enjoyed the g*n c*ntr*l exchange between "Through the Looking Glass"
>> and "Libertarian Samizdata" linked off my links page
>> (http://home.earthlink.net/~orzelc/Blogs.html),
>Ack. You read more of these things than I do.
I list a bunch, but most of them update once a day, if that.
Sullivan and Reynolds are the only ones which take up a lot of time.
BTW, if you're tired of
>being enraged by right-wing idiocy, I give you
><http://www.zmag.org/weluser.html> for the true apotheosis of left-wing
>idiocy.
I'm a college professor.
If I want left-wing idiocy, I can be hip-deep in it in ten minutes.
>> If you just want pointers to the neat stuff out on the Web, though,
>> it's hard to beat Arts & Letters Daily (http://www.aldaily.com) or
>> Boing Boing (http://boingboing.net/).
>Never heard of that one. Have to add it to the bookmarks I guess.
It gets a little daunting, and shouldn't be read over a dial-up
connection, but they put up some good stuff.
>I've sort of debated a blog or so mostly so that I have a vehicle to
>vent my frustration with other blogs, or mabe to have a sort of hybrid
>booklog [1], but I think I might be a bit too lazy. That or maybe I
>just don't want to kiss my future political career behind.
I've been tempted to start something up, but I'd really like to get
tenure somewhere down the line (that "left-wing idiocy" crack is sure
to help me there...), and I'm pretty sure that if I started blogging,
it would eat my life.
Then again, if I'm going to keep sending these idiots email, maybe I
should start one... Do you think "KillAllPundits.com" is taken?
I do recommend the book log thing, though.
>_The Fool's Errand_: pretty good, actually. I liked how it was
>structured.
This is the new Hobb, right?
I'm torn about this one.
I really liked the first series, but I don't think I'm up for anything
as wrenching as that right now. And the character torture in the
Liveship books was just gratuitous-- I'm definitely not up for that.
Aaron Bergman
<orz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >Never heard of that one. Have to add it to the bookmarks I guess.
>
> It gets a little daunting, and shouldn't be read over a dial-up
> connection, but they put up some good stuff.
DSL is my friend.
>
> >I've sort of debated a blog or so mostly so that I have a vehicle to
> >vent my frustration with other blogs, or mabe to have a sort of hybrid
> >booklog [1], but I think I might be a bit too lazy. That or maybe I
> >just don't want to kiss my future political career behind.
>
> I've been tempted to start something up, but I'd really like to get
> tenure somewhere down the line (that "left-wing idiocy" crack is sure
> to help me there...), and I'm pretty sure that if I started blogging,
> it would eat my life.
>
> Then again, if I'm going to keep sending these idiots email, maybe I
> should start one... Do you think "KillAllPundits.com" is taken?
>
> I do recommend the book log thing, though.
I almost started one when I wrote that review of _The Merchants of
Souls_ for rasfw. The thing was that the other thing I had recently
read was a fairly inoffensive bit of fluff trilogy from Holly Lisle and
I just had nothing to say about it. It's a lot of work to say something
interesting about a work, i think.
> >_The Fool's Errand_: pretty good, actually. I liked how it was
> >structured.
>
> This is the new Hobb, right?
Ja.
> I'm torn about this one.
> I really liked the first series, but I don't think I'm up for anything
> as wrenching as that right now. And the character torture in the
> Liveship books was just gratuitous-- I'm definitely not up for that.
I can't speak of the books to come, but there's very little character
torture in this one.
Aaron
Jim Hill
>In article <fs515uoo46b1s0e3i...@4ax.com>, Chad R. Orzel
><orz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't mind the cross-linking between bloggers
>
This has nothing to do with content, but I feel it's worth mentioning
that in a just and righteous world I would be permitted -- nay,
encouraged -- to find the person who coined the term "blog" and beat him
in the mouth so motherfucking hard with a pipe that he'd be shitting
bloody tooth fragments for a month. Next to if not surpassing "Wiki",
it's the dumbest goddamn web-related term on the planet.
You may now resume your discussion of web-journalists and their wacky
foibles.
Jim
--
"This place blows." -- David Letterman
Trent Goulding
>This has nothing to do with content, but I feel it's worth mentioning
>that in a just and righteous world I would be permitted -- nay,
>encouraged -- to find the person who coined the term "blog" and beat him
>in the mouth so motherfucking hard with a pipe that he'd be shitting
>bloody tooth fragments for a month. Next to if not surpassing "Wiki",
>it's the dumbest goddamn web-related term on the planet.
I have just one question. Would I be allowed to hold your coat?
Well, okay then. Have at it.
--
Trent Goulding trent.g...@mho.com
Kate Nepveu
> In article <rvk15uotekullo97s...@4ax.com>, Chad R. Orzel
> <orz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I do recommend the book log thing, though.
> I almost started one when I wrote that review of _The Merchants of
> Souls_ for rasfw. The thing was that the other thing I had recently
> read was a fairly inoffensive bit of fluff trilogy from Holly Lisle and
> I just had nothing to say about it. It's a lot of work to say something
> interesting about a work, i think.
Is that _Diplomacy of Wolves_, _Vengeance of Dragons_, (and in a
big drop-off in the cool-sounding-title trend), _Courage of Falcons_?
Inoffensive is a good word for it, though I *was* impresed with what
she did halfway through the series.
(And me, I have no problem saying, "I don't really have anything
interesting to say about this," which keeps me going, really...)
Kate
--
http://www.steelypips.org/elsewhere.html -- kate....@yale.edu
Paired Reading Page; Book Reviews; Outside of a Dog: A Book Log
"I awoke this morning with devout thanksgiving for my friends."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
Aaron Bergman
<kate....@yale.edu> wrote:
> Aaron Bergman <aber...@princeton.edu> wrote:
> > In article <rvk15uotekullo97s...@4ax.com>, Chad R. Orzel
> > <orz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> I do recommend the book log thing, though.
>
> > I almost started one when I wrote that review of _The Merchants of
> > Souls_ for rasfw. The thing was that the other thing I had recently
> > read was a fairly inoffensive bit of fluff trilogy from Holly Lisle and
> > I just had nothing to say about it. It's a lot of work to say something
> > interesting about a work, i think.
>
> Is that _Diplomacy of Wolves_, _Vengeance of Dragons_, (and in a
> big drop-off in the cool-sounding-title trend), _Courage of Falcons_?
Yep.
> Inoffensive is a good word for it, though I *was* impresed with what
> she did halfway through the series.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
Aaron
Maggie
> Aaron Bergman wrote:
> >In article <fs515uoo46b1s0e3i...@4ax.com>, Chad R. Orzel
> ><orz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I wouldn't mind the cross-linking between bloggers
> >
> >Well, this is just the essential parasitic nature of most blogs.
>
> This has nothing to do with content, but I feel it's worth mentioning
> that in a just and righteous world I would be permitted -- nay,
> encouraged -- to find the person who coined the term "blog" and beat him
> in the mouth so motherfucking hard with a pipe that he'd be shitting
> bloody tooth fragments for a month. Next to if not surpassing "Wiki",
> it's the dumbest goddamn web-related term on the planet.
OK, I'll bite.
What the fuck's a "Wiki"?
(And yeah, "blog" is just moronic. What the hell was wrong with
"journal", "diary" or "Captain's Log"?
--
Maggie UIN 10248195 http://www.darkfriends.net
"Shadow found himself thinking about a garage in San Clemente with box
after box of rare, strange and beautiful books in it rotting away, all
of them browning and wilting and being eaten by mold and insects in the
darkness, waiting for someone who would never come to set them free."
- Neil Gaiman, cut from _American Gods_
Kate Nepveu
> Yep.
SPOIILERS.
She killed off the Destined Reborn Savior just as he was born.
I was impressed.
Michael Bruce
> Jim Hill <jim...@swcp.com> quietly murmured:
>> Aaron Bergman wrote:
>> >In article <fs515uoo46b1s0e3i...@4ax.com>, Chad R. Orzel
>> ><orz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I wouldn't mind the cross-linking between bloggers
>> >
>> >Well, this is just the essential parasitic nature of most blogs.
>>
>> This has nothing to do with content, but I feel it's worth mentioning
>> that in a just and righteous world I would be permitted -- nay,
>> encouraged -- to find the person who coined the term "blog" and beat him
>> in the mouth so motherfucking hard with a pipe that he'd be shitting
>> bloody tooth fragments for a month. Next to if not surpassing "Wiki",
>> it's the dumbest goddamn web-related term on the planet.
>
> OK, I'll bite.
>
> What the fuck's a "Wiki"?
It's a pretty neat idea, stuck with a mediocre name. Sure, it's Hawaiian,
but it still sounds goofy.
> (And yeah, "blog" is just moronic. What the hell was wrong with
> "journal", "diary" or "Captain's Log"?
Well, it's short for "web log". I don't have a problem with "web log",
but "blog" is a pretty unfortunate shortening.
--
Michael Bruce
br...@jhereg.net
Chad R. Orzel
<maggie...@darkfriends.net> wrote:
>(And yeah, "blog" is just moronic. What the hell was wrong with
>"journal", "diary" or "Captain's Log"?
The first two are fine, if inaccurate (they don't really carry any
sort of connotation of the cross-linking and "look at the nifty page I
found" that you have with a true web log), but the third is simply too
dorky for words.
"Blog" is hardly euphonious, but in a culture where "impact" is
regularly used as a verb, is it really worth complaining about?
Michael Hoye
>regularly used as a verb, is it really worth complaining about?
http://forums.iagora.com/posts.html%3A%3Amessage_id=91979
--
Mike Hoye
Jim Hill
>jim...@swcp.com (Jim Hill) wrote:
>
>>This has nothing to do with content, but I feel it's worth mentioning
>>that in a just and righteous world I would be permitted -- nay,
>
>I have just one question. Would I be allowed to hold your coat?
To hold my coat and eat it, too.
Jim Hill
>On Sat, 26 Jan 2002 01:42:21 GMT, Maggie <maggie...@darkfriends.net> wrote:
>> Jim Hill <jim...@swcp.com> quietly murmured:
>>> that in a just and righteous world I would be permitted -- nay,
>>> encouraged -- to find the person who coined the term "blog" and beat him
>>> in the mouth so motherfucking hard with a pipe that he'd be shitting
>>> bloody tooth fragments for a month.
>>
>> "journal", "diary" or "Captain's Log"?
>
>Well, it's short for "web log". I don't have a problem with "web log",
>but "blog" is a pretty unfortunate shortening.
I think that my rage at the term comes from knowing in my very soul the
way the devoutest of men know of the presence of the loving God that the
term was coined by some booger-eating video-gaming dorksnorkeler who
observed that "weblog" could be interpreted as "we blog", as in "I blog,
you blog, he/she/it blogs." Then he slammed a Jolt Cola, ate two
Twinkies, popped three zits, and modified his website to replace all
occurrences of "journal" with "blog" before getting back to watch the
big series finale of "Deep Space Nine" in a 2.5x1.4 inch window complete
with dropped frames and bad audio that he pulled down over the course of
a week from Malaysia so he could see it before the airdate and 0wn his
friends.
Why yes...I do have a lot of bottled up rage. Why do you ask?
John S. Novak, III
>>Well, it's short for "web log". I don't have a problem with "web log",
>>but "blog" is a pretty unfortunate shortening.
> I think that my rage at the term comes from knowing in my very soul the
> way the devoutest of men know of the presence of the loving God that the
> term was coined by some booger-eating video-gaming dorksnorkeler who
> observed that "weblog" could be interpreted as "we blog", as in "I blog,
> you blog, he/she/it blogs."
[...]
> Why yes...I do have a lot of bottled up rage. Why do you ask?
<Blink>
I found it remarkable that one could even come up with the idea of
deriving 'blog' through that sort of conjugational activitt.
You may be closer to the Dark Side than you expect, there.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
The Humblest Man on the Net
Pat O'Connell
Nevermind "blog" and other strange internet coinage.
There's a guy where I work that has so immersed himself in businessspeak
that he can go on for five minutes, spouting business school buzzwords,
without ever actually saying something that means anything. The awful
thing is that before he got his MBA, he was supposedly a decent
programmer/analyst.
--
Pat O'Connell
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...
Dave Hemming
wrote:
Having no idea what a "blog" is - but getting a vague idea from this
thread - it is with some trepidation that I enquire as to what in god's
name a "Wiki" is.
Dave
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
http://wavespace.waverider.co.uk/~surfbaud/index.html
ICQ: 14217710
Ken Gerrard
>[...]
Maybe Chad's divine inspiration for the term's etymology comes from being
well-read in blogs? It's mentioned in the definitive history "weblogs: a
history and perspective"
(<http://www.rebeccablood.net/essays/weblog_history.html>), among many
other places.
--
Ken Gerrard
umge...@cc.umanitoba.ca
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~umgerra0/
Jim Hill
>In article <a2vqlb$qq2$1...@iruka.swcp.com>, Jim Hill wrote:
>
>> I think that my rage at the term comes from knowing in my very soul the
>> way the devoutest of men know of the presence of the loving God that the
>> term was coined by some booger-eating video-gaming dorksnorkeler who
>> observed that "weblog" could be interpreted as "we blog", as in "I blog,
>> you blog, he/she/it blogs."
>
>deriving 'blog' through that sort of conjugational activitt.
>
>You may be closer to the Dark Side than you expect, there.
Comes from being a Cub Scout in my wilder days.
Ken Gerrard
Um, sorry about calling you Chad in that message. Maybe I should read the
attributions so conveniently left in for me?
Jim Hill
>Um, sorry about calling you Chad in that message.
Beats being called Chad during sex.
Jim, unless, of course, one's name really is Chad.
Jim Hill
>j...@concentric.net (John S. Novak, III) writes:
>
>>In article <a2vqlb$qq2$1...@iruka.swcp.com>, Jim Hill wrote:
>>> I think that my rage at the term comes from knowing in my very soul the
>>> way the devoutest of men know of the presence of the loving God that the
>>> term was coined by some booger-eating video-gaming dorksnorkeler who
>>> observed that "weblog" could be interpreted as "we blog", as in "I blog,
>>> you blog, he/she/it blogs."
>
>>deriving 'blog' through that sort of conjugational activitt.
>
>well-read in blogs?
It was my divine inspiration, not Chad's -- and as much as I'd like to
claim a rich weblog education, it comes from the fact that after many
many years of exposure to Usenet and email and the Web and Linux and so
forth, I've learned how these oily-haired little dickshines think.
Michael Hoye
>Ken Gerrard wrote:
>
>>Um, sorry about calling you Chad in that message.
>
>Beats being called Chad during sex.
Christ, not another hanging Chad debacle.
--
Mike Hoye