Insistence that since everyone ignored my point in #3, all must concede the correctness thereof. Assumption based on this that opponents are either morally or mentally defective, or both.
[Incomprehensible string of Asian characters, followed by link to manga porn site–and, no, I’m not going to actually put one of those in this comment, so don’t click]
I’m shocked that you didn’t know that I actually blogged all this OVER A YEAR AGO. You don’t deserve the high volume of traffic you get, and I can’t believe that my masterplan to live off of the proceeds of my own blogging has netted me only $2.46 since October.
Enraged accusation of disloyalty to the national community. Sweeping declaration that blogger wishes for the terrorists to win. Demand to know ”who’s side your on.” Cryptic comment about day of reckoning, and who won’t be laughing then.
Read-this-if-you-can-handle-facts link to Roger L. Simon or Hugh Hewitt blog, hat tip Instapundit. Sly reference to Mark Steyn. And Christopher Hitchens has your number!
Single line of fawning praise for blog proprieter (b.p) that adds nothing to the present discussion, left in the vain hope that b.p. will click through the link out of curiosity, start reading, and get addicted to commenter’s blog, so that years later commenter will say over a beer to b.p., ”Can you believe that there was a time when I wasn’t on your blogroll?” and b.p. will say, eyes misting over, ”No, man, I can’t. I just can’t.”
Comment by Michigan J. Frog —
April 8, 2006 @ 7:13 pm
Accusation that the blog proprietor has maliciously removed my earlier comment in a fit of hypocritical censorship, when in fact it had been erroneously posted in a different comment thread. Use of one or more of these phrases: ”What are you afraid of?”, ”Down the memory hole”, ”You can dish it out but can’t take it”, etc.
Vaguely relevant one-sentence comment offered in the spirit of contradicting the original post. INSULT MADE IN JEST, SURNAME OF BLOG PROPRIETOR! LAUGHTER IN ALL CAPS!
Cryptic, inexplicable drive-by trolling that references and misinterprets a statement made months ago. Unhinged name-calling, insinuations of totalitarianism. Baffling pun and or in-joke; link to scary site.
Moderately humorous extrapolation of argument made in passing by much earlier (and now unquoted or directly referenced) comment from regular sycophant.
Comment by Doctor Slack —
April 8, 2006 @ 11:03 pm
Unhinged rant with variations on: [Why are liberals so unhinged?] [Just another example of how the Left is all about personal attack.] [You’d think all you people would grateful to us after WWII.] [They did so find WMD in Iraq.] [Yes, I’m a Bible-believing Christian, which I’m sure makes me the same as Hitler in your little world.] [Funny how when Mary Carey supports America all you liberals are suddenly prudes.] [Give me one recorded example of our President telling a lie.] [My favorite anti-idiotarian blogger totally pwned you on this one.] [Can we declare this thread officially dead?]
Comment by Totally not a sock-puppet —
April 8, 2006 @ 11:07 pm
rambling remarks about friend’s neighbor’s grandchild in iraq, afganistan or maybe texas. giant illogical leap to 9/11. god bless america! and if you don’t agree, you’re welcome to move to france.
Tedious thumbsucker way down in the comments. You’re right about some of this, of course, but I think there’s some serious misapprehensions some folks are laboring under here. Use of ”folks” by overintellectual geek who’d never say it IRL. Use of internet acronyms like ”IRL”. But all that is just laying the groundwork for more serious issues.
You see, there’s a long history of this sort of thing that you’re missing. So you see, because I can google a term and also put nicely formatted stuff in this comment, I think you might notice it. But it also means that I am totally correct about everything, and need not learn a thing from all this, nor even really pay attention to anything you said. Whereas you, in sharp contrast, ought to be bowing down to me, adopting all my opinions no matter how ill-considered, and reading my blog regularly even though I never update it any more.
[…] That Man a White Rose | Main | April 9, 2006 I Am In Awe The “Blog” comment thread just gets better and better. That every other blog on the plan […]
emotional apology for emotional outburst followed by explanation: favorite cat’s death. maudlin plea for prayers.
Still, no excuse for [….]and reiterate fact that poster should die or, worse, relocate to france.
[tagline now changed to reflect favorite cat’s birth and death dates, as well as many lines from original poetry with theme of crossing into heaven on silent paws]
Comment by Iron Lungfish —
April 9, 2006 @ 12:07 pm
Simultaneously aloof yet hysterical accusation of collusion with political nemeses to appease an unidentified ”sensible center”; identification of blog proprietor with various partisan betes noires; more-sad-than-angry recognition that blog is probably ”past its prime” and that commenter will soon be moving on to fresher, hipper pastures where keener-sighted allies still fight the good fight.
Comment by Michigan J. Frog —
April 9, 2006 @ 12:53 pm
Blog post gets link from uber-blogger. Blog proprietor appends ”Welcome So-And-So Readers” update to post. Invites So-And-So readers to stick around and read archives, if they like what they see. (Last vestiges of proprietor’s shame slink out the back door.)
Faux ”used to be a Democrat until” or ”I’d vote for the Democrats except for” followed by one or more of the following straw-man arguments; Democrats ”pushing for gay marriage,” ”advocating abortion,” ”attacking Christianity at every turn,” ”not taking terrorism seriously,” ”not supporting our troops” . . .
Close with faux ”I’ll be able to take the Democrats seriously again” when they adopt some Republican position.
I’m not going to bother to wade through all 90 or so previous comments to see if my obvious and already soundly refuted point has already been made, because my time is more important that that of other commenters.
Undue excitement over memes, network effects, and the Information Revolution! No mention that this is hardly new: (A parenthetical recognition that posting becomes much easier when implementation is left as an exercise for the reader.) Heh. Indeed….
Gratuitous observation about the commenters personal relationship with Jesus followed by condescending remark that you wouldn’t right such immoral things as ”blog” if your soul had been truly saved.
Comment by Dick Durata —
April 10, 2006 @ 12:39 am
”reiterate fact that poster should die or, worse, relocate to france.”
Infuriated denunciation of comment from way, way back in thread. Admission that denunciation is pointless since first poster has long stopped reading thread.
The best blog post in the history of the universe. Here. HT: Radley.
Related Posts
» Happy St. Patrick’s Day&raqu […]
Comment by Fruztr8ted Dem —
April 10, 2006 @ 7:03 am
Comment about Democratic spinelessness
Comment by Doubly Fruztr8ted Dem —
April 10, 2006 @ 7:05 am
Accusation that Fruztr8ted Dem is repeating Republican talking points, and should desist..
Comment by Trebly Fruztr8ted Dem —
April 10, 2006 @ 7:10 am
Remarks that the notion that criticizing Democratic spinelessness is a Republican talking point is itself a Republican talking point, and that Doubly Fuztr8ted Dem should desist immediately.
Comment by Fruztr8ted Dem —
April 10, 2006 @ 7:17 am
Resolves not to say anything ever again, but just provide links to the Daily Kos.
Reminder that the important thing is the damage done and continuing attacks on the constitution, Especially the X amendment! I blame the legislative, judicial and executive branch of .gov
Four links to articles to prove point about spineless democrats, two of which are broken and one which goes to a porn site. The last one connects to the Drudge.
Comment claiming that commenter’s heroic coverage of the Dan Rather/Mapes story also functions to discredit whatever point the blogger was trying to make.
Comment by Michigan J. Frog —
April 10, 2006 @ 11:25 am
Flamewar about the Enterprise D versus an Imperial Star Destroyer. This could last a while.
Comment so utterly incoherent that it implies commentor was gnawing on peyote minutes earlier, full-throated summation proclaiming the justice of an American authoritarian crackdown, along with author’s own libertarianism. Then, ”Heh.”
Private debate in public space with another commenter about who should supply links to support points on topic neither understands. This takes the next thirty comments.
Demand to know how dare you blog about this when you still haven’t publicly confessed to making a minor factual error in a long-forgotten post from 2002.
[…] 4/10/2006 Snarky post title Filed under: InstaMunger — dave @ 3:03 pm Witty, yet cryptic catchline Obligatory disclaimer indicating that I know everyone ha […]
But unfortunatly somone else has come late to the party and wants to put in their inane comment as a desparate bid for attention from the blogosphere they worship with frightening fanaticism.
BTW: I put you on my blogroll thus making you feel obligated to put me on yours. My self-esteem is rises and falls by my blog traffic.
Detailed explanation with link of why my insulting comments do not constitute ad hominem, whereas a previous poster’s comments are ad hominem and therefore invalid.
(I think Balko’s right that this will go down in history)
Comment by Michigan J. Frog —
April 10, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
Post from long-absent resident troll, followed by friendly ”Where you been?” posts by other regulars temporarily blinded by nostalgia, but who will be swiftly reminded why they despised said troll in the past.
Ned Telson foresaw this use of inter-hypertextuality, and designed a system to fully subsume and encompass the results in his aptly-named ”Coleridge project.” Of course the bastards at XPAC suppressed the design while simultaneously claiming full credit for its invention, then had the nerve to implement their own inferior, so-called solution which could not even pass the laff test at dashslot.
Absurdly long discourse framed as comprehensive response to discussion thusfar, but really is just a sad attempt to draw attention weeks after the comment thread is dead.
As a number of others have noted Henley’s great post and the ensuing comment thread which will undoubtably be discussed at length in future histories of the blogosphere….
Comment by Doctor Slack —
April 10, 2006 @ 5:53 pm
Smug comment noting that there is hardly any point in posting here at this point, but subsequent events have proved this poster unequivocally right about whatever the topic of this blogpost was, and everyone who disagreed with me needs to apologize right now. The War on Easter / Baseball / Christmas / Wal-Mart will not be tolerated by right-minded Americans or for that matter right-minded Spaniards / Italians / Brits.
Ominous-sounding threat of pseudo-violence and Mad Hacker Smackdowns to the bastard who tried to steal this poster’s identity. I promise you, there will be a reckoning, these colours do not run etc.
Comment by Totally not a sock-puppet —
April 10, 2006 @ 6:01 pm
Knowing revelation that all trolls commenting are the same individual. Commentary on likely sad condition of said individual’s social life/living environment/upbringing/education.
Comment by Troll Spammer —
April 10, 2006 @ 8:20 pm
Derogatory comment on the lives of people who have time to post so frequently. Speculation on their employment status, habitation with parents, grade-point average, sexual experience, and/or personal hygiene. Association of same with use of particular software tools or adherence to particular sociopolitical views. Admonishment to ”GET A LIFE”.
Further-off-topic rant about how Bruce Lee ALREADY kicked Chuck Norris’ ass in ”Return of the Dragon,” which, if IMDB is not lying to me, also featured John Derbyshire as Thug (uncredited.)
All day are simultaneous 24 hour day. Man is time of four seasons on four sides of time cube earth. MIT is afraid to debate me. All I dare you to delete this comment!
Comment by Michigan J. Frog —
April 10, 2006 @ 10:31 pm
Utterly shameless post by Michigan J. Frog in an attempt to become the undisputed most frequent poster to this thread. Momentary sense of smug triumph gradually gives way to realization that this is very, very pathetic.
Incoherent compilation of answers to original post and various comments interspersed throughout. Use of sesquipedalian language to indicate the commenter’s erudition.
Side rant about the fickleness of sports fanatics who swear at the demolition of a beloved sports venue in the fall and buy-out the entire season’s tickets in the new venue the next spring. Snark about earthquake zones and the distance between the sports venue and a bridge carrying three interstate highways.
Vague longings for television series that the commenter dissed the entire season while they were showing.
Appreciation for the sentiments of Unqualified Dog. Vague mutterings about the toileting habits of Fat-Cat Obscura.
Wrap-up featuring odd quotes from both Monty Python sketches and Douglas Adams’ books.
Currently being updated. I’ll update you if there are further developments. UPDATE: I mean, further updates. Man, is my face red. UPDATE II: From now on, if I say anything incredibly stupid, just chalk it up to me being on
[…] you people have built it. It’s more amazing when you consider that Kate won back on entry 67. (Mrs. O blew snot out her ears when she read that one.) For th […]
Comment by AnonymousDrivel —
April 11, 2006 @ 12:52 am
Long, disjointed rant about Galloway and Respect and Eurabia and Danish cartoons and David Irving and David Horowitz and the other David Horowitz (the ”Fight Back” one) and whether using the nickname ”D. Ho” reveals one as a sexist degenerate.
The ultimate meta-comment thread is at Unqualified Offerings. I hope Jim Henley will forgive me for quoting the entire post. It consists of one word: Blog Hilarity ensues. Yes, really….
Re: #230, preference expressed for ST: TNG over TOS (with several parenthetical remarks showing that the commenter doesn’t really) and silly asides referencing dismay that Spiner went from doing Sondheim on Broadway to playing geeks on TV and in the movies, just to prove that the commenter knows something about acting besides what comes into the house on the idiot box. Sesquipedalianism re-emerges.
Complete topic change to reference discussion held over the weekend on how commenter is psychologically disinclined to espouse libertarianism, nevermind that the blogs where the commenter lurks all do so.
Note to commenter in #237 about the unwise choice he has made in informing his spouse that he’s got visitors and tons of extra work, then commenting on the same blogs she does.
Realizes after Michigan J Frog’s post on commenting the most, that I should give up other nom de plume’s (OG274, davidnotdave, yruevenhere, etc.) and stick w/ my true nom de plume.
Patronizing observation that while this thread has certainly been entertaining, Patrick Nielsen Hayden is correct in Comment #218 that there is much more pressing business to attend to. (Parenthetical cavil at how Hayden has historically chosen to address this problem.)
Blustering reference to having used gopher client in response to 242 to prove blogger’s old-timer cred. Vagueness of reference suggests that, while blogger did in fact use gopher in the past, blogger can’t for the life of him remember anything specific, except maybe that weather site? From some school in Texas?
Blogger considers ”coffee pot webcam” reference to cement matter, but figures gopher reference already proves his point, even though it doesn’t.
Supercillious, belittling comment regarding #244’s shallowness based on ignorance of technical use of term ’term’ in a field unrelated to discussion at hand.
Plea for people to get along, despite differences (and despite rest of this comment). Quote from cult movie from the 1980s.
Pointlessly arcane network engineering reference in order to cap No.247. ”This is just what happens when you let the Aunty Janes out in userland who haven’t ever like stopped the BGP announcements flapping on a Cisco 5751 or configured their own IP-over-MPLS on a PDH backbone comment!”
Comment by symphonik (with love) —
April 11, 2006 @ 9:03 am
Snarky post about how the humor on MeFi links is becoming like that of Fark’s. Hints of underlying superiority complex. Failure to understand irony in air of superiority when comparing nerd blogs.
If everyone would stop bickering for just one sec, take a breath and just replace the Commies, with Islamofascists, in the movie Red Dawn, you would realise that this as all been predicted before.
Comment by Some lurker with maybe a livejournal account —
April 11, 2006 @ 9:21 am
Minor off-topic correction to a point of fact in earlier comment (which no one will read, as the conversation’s gone on to something quite different, as next response shows.)
Conventionalized exclamation of amazement by self-appointed expert on this subject. Declaration that this is *EXACTLY* what per has been trying to get across to Per Readers on Per Weblog, link link link. Statement that this is something Per Readers Need To Hear. Superfluous and mildly sycophantic request for permission to link to it. Nonsuperfluous request for permission to reproduce comment thread in part or whole, original post in part or whole, ditto several other related posts, for use in Per Weblog, newsletter, mailing list, workshop instructional materials, convention handouts …
Comment by C. E. Winchester III, Ph.D, M.D. —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:02 am
Pompous comment on blog sentence structure belittling supposed educational facilities attended by blogger, with numerous irrelevant references to Wikipedia.
Commentor posts standard boilerplate diatribe against the Corrupt Bush Administration, blaming Bush, Cheney, and Halliburtion for Iraq, high gas, global warming, mass extinctions, American Idol, Martian invasions, Scientology, and athlete’s foot. Calls for immediate impeachment of Bush, while making a bird-shot joke about Cheney that shows an utter ignorance of firearms, or basic physics.
Commentor then suggests that anyone not using [specific Linux distro] is a luser, despite the fact that server logs clearly show commentor is posting from an XP Pro laptop.
Very late comment showing commenter has not read previous posts, and wondering why no one else has raised point before which has already been raised. Personal shout out to friend posting previously which will go ignored. Unrelated question about obscure technological issue using unfamiliar terms. Half-hearted apology for same.
Comment by John Madden —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:33 am
Dull comment pretending familiarity with the subject of ”blog” but which exposes the poster’s actual ignorance. Even the slightest urge to read the comment is offset by the presence of lots of fatuouslinks to Wikipedia that anyone could look up themselves and which prove nothing–not to mention the vacuous quote in the signature line attributed to the latest pop sensation.
Comment which repeats issues already beaten to death and clearly demonstrates that commenter has not read the thread and only skimmed the original post.
Gratuitious reference that a prior commenter’s point was previously - and more cogently - made, in a prior posting on this same blog. General snarkiness.
Really long rambling ASCII-graphic-included-at-no-charge signature quoting an ”obscure” but popular songwriter, a radical 60’s author, a current meme, a Tarantino film, a feminist or linguist professor, a bible verse, or an ancient sanskrit tract next to a Simpson’s quote just for levity. Included four of five elite email addresses, at least one that has both ”mit” and ”edu,” plus a requisite spam filter method such as ”poster@remove.this.gmail.com” or the like, all of which ends up being mor etext than the poster has ever offered in any comment in their entire history including USEnet posts from the mid-1990’s.
Grump that someone seperated my rapid-fire postings from the apology for them by commenting in the middle, and overly emotional, overly angry call to blog proprietor to move my apology post above the offending post or delete the offending post. Post conveys a sense that the poster has been smoking something powerful.
Well Bog, old chap, you’re entitled, of course. So am I. So are the Chinese. It’s a storm in a green tea cup, purchased on the free market of opinions. And I don’t see any references to Amnesty’s good work here either, not that it matters to you Decents.
Comment by Spellcheck_Nazi —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:54 am
Sardonic contempt for 284’s use of Leet, written in Leet.
Comment by Chris Bertram —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:54 am
The main theme of the Blog is not desituationism, but subdesituationism. I use the term ‘neosemantic discourse’ to denote the paradigm, and subsequent futility, of course, of cultural society. Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a conceptualist paradigm of reality that includes sexuality as a whole. If neodialectic constructive theory holds, the Blog is postmodern. It could be said that the subject is interpolated into a predialectic paradigm of narrative that includes consciousness as a reality.
Pasting in an entire freaking article written by someone else, without attribution, as though it were one’s own work.
This is the first sentence of this story. This is the second sentence. This is the title of this story, which is also found several times in the story itself. This sentence is questioning the intrinsic value of the first two sentences. This sentence is to inform you, in case you haven’t already realized it, that this is a self-referential story, that is, a story containing sentences that refer to their own structure and function. This is a sentence that provides an ending to the first paragraph.
This is the first sentence of a new paragraph in a self-referential story. This sentence is introducing you to the protagonist of the story, a young boy named Billy. This sentence tells you that Billy is blond and blue-eyed and American and twelve years old and strangling his mother. This sentence comments on the awkward nature of the self-referential narrative form while recognizing the strange and playful detachment it affords the writer. As if illustrating the point made by the last sentence, this sentence reminds us, with no trace of facetiousness, that children are a precious gift from God and that the world is a better place when graced by the unique joys and delights they bring to it.
This sentence describes Billy’s mother’s bulging eyes and protruding tongue and makes reference to the unpleasant choking and gagging noises she’s making. This sentence makes the observation that these are uncertain and difficult times, and that relationships, even seemingly deep-rooted and permanent ones, do have a tendency to break down.
Introduces, in this paragraph, the device of sentence fragments. A sentence fragment. Another. Good device. Will be used more later.
This is actually the last sentence of this story but has been placed here by mistake. This is the title of this story, which is also found several times within the story itself. As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself in his bed transformed into a gigantic insect. This sentence informs you that the preceding sentence is from another story entirely (a better one, it must be noted) and has no place at all in this particular narrative. Despite the claims of the preceding sentence, this sentence feels compelled to inform you that the story you are reading is in actuality “The Metamorphosis’’ by Franz Kafka, and that the sentence referred to by the preceding sentence is the only sentence which does indeed belong to the story. This sentence overrides the preceding sentence by informing the reader (poor, confused wretch) that this piece of literature is actually the Declaration of Independence, but that the author, in a show of extreme negligence (if not malicious sabotage), has so far failed to include even one single sentence from that stirring document, although he has condescended to use a small sentence fragment, namely, “When in the course of human events,’’ embedded in quotation marks near the end of a sentence. Showing a keen awareness of the boredom and downright hostility of the average reader with regard to the pointless conceptual games indulged in by the preceding sentences, this sentence returns us at last to the scenario of the story by asking the question, “Why is Billy strangling his mother?’’ This sentence attempts to shed some light on the question posed by the preceding sentence but fails. This sentence, however, succeeds, in that it suggests a possible incestuous relationship between Billy and his mother and alludes to the concomitant Freudian complications an astute reader will immediately envision. Incest. The unspeakable taboo. The universal prohibition. Incest. And notice the sentence fragments? Good literary device. Will be used more later.
This sentence is the first sentence in a new paragraph. This is the last sentence in a new paragraph.
This sentence can serve as either the beginning of the paragraph or the end, depending on its placement. This is the title of this story, which is also found several times in the story itsel
Comment by Reader —
April 7, 2006 @ 9:10 pm
Comment.
Comment by Jim Henley —
April 7, 2006 @ 9:12 pm
Deadpan rejoinder.
Comment by Michael —
April 7, 2006 @ 9:14 pm
Oversharp disagrement based on unstated differences in paradigms.
Comment by Steve —
April 7, 2006 @ 9:34 pm
Bad, marginally on-topic pun.
(Parenthetical complaint regarding tags permitted in comments!)
Comment by Brian C.B. —
April 7, 2006 @ 9:51 pm
Egregious mspelling.
Comment by Eric Scharf —
April 7, 2006 @ 10:11 pm
Off-topic, self-promoting link.
Comment by Kevin B. O\'Reilly —
April 7, 2006 @ 11:12 pm
Nazi analogy employed; Godwin’s law invoked.
Thread over!
Comment by Jim Henley —
April 7, 2006 @ 11:21 pm
I would have gotten away with it too . . .
Comment by Barry —
April 8, 2006 @ 12:23 am
(incomplete)
6a - Boast about comenter’s education and IQ - mispelled, of course.
Comment by PhillipJ. Birmingham —
April 8, 2006 @ 12:27 am
Non-sequitur fart joke.
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
April 8, 2006 @ 5:14 am
There’s a very courteous zombie here with a distinct accent who says his name is Jorge and could you please let him lie in peace.
Comment by Jon H —
April 8, 2006 @ 9:13 am
Comment flaming other commenter for spelling error, which flame contains the requisite spelling error of its own.
Comment by Michigan J. Frog —
April 8, 2006 @ 9:19 am
Accidental double-post.
Comment by Michigan J. Frog —
April 8, 2006 @ 9:20 am
Accidental double-post.
Comment by Michigan J. Frog —
April 8, 2006 @ 9:20 am
Apology for accidental double post, wasting even more space.
Comment by Michael —
April 8, 2006 @ 10:20 am
Insistence that since everyone ignored my point in #3, all must concede the correctness thereof. Assumption based on this that opponents are either morally or mentally defective, or both.
Comment by Jim Henley —
April 8, 2006 @ 10:25 am
Forthright agreement that you win. Formal resolution to change belief system and behavior accordingly.
[Sings]One of these things
is NOT like the other . . .
Comment by Brian C.B. —
April 8, 2006 @ 11:03 am
[Incomprehensible string of Asian characters, followed by link to manga porn site–and, no, I’m not going to actually put one of those in this comment, so don’t click]
Comment by Chris —
April 8, 2006 @ 11:21 am
I’m shocked that you didn’t know that I actually blogged all this OVER A YEAR AGO. You don’t deserve the high volume of traffic you get, and I can’t believe that my masterplan to live off of the proceeds of my own blogging has netted me only $2.46 since October.
Pingback by Lean Left —
April 8, 2006 @ 11:38 am
[…] All Done
No one need ever write another blog post or comment again …
[…]
Comment by Chris Bray —
April 8, 2006 @ 11:47 am
Enraged accusation of disloyalty to the national community. Sweeping declaration that blogger wishes for the terrorists to win. Demand to know ”who’s side your on.” Cryptic comment about day of reckoning, and who won’t be laughing then.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
April 8, 2006 @ 11:49 am
Crushing sense of despair that Jim can post ”Blog” and get 20 comments while my own scintillating posts draw 5 or 6 at best!
Comment by Chris Bray —
April 8, 2006 @ 11:50 am
Read-this-if-you-can-handle-facts link to Roger L. Simon or Hugh Hewitt blog, hat tip Instapundit. Sly reference to Mark Steyn. And Christopher Hitchens has your number!
Comment by Chris —
April 8, 2006 @ 12:08 pm
Hitchens is a drunk!
Comment by Doug T —
April 8, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
I agree.
Comment by Chris —
April 8, 2006 @ 1:10 pm
Single line of fawning praise for blog proprieter (b.p) that adds nothing to the present discussion, left in the vain hope that b.p. will click through the link out of curiosity, start reading, and get addicted to commenter’s blog, so that years later commenter will say over a beer to b.p., ”Can you believe that there was a time when I wasn’t on your blogroll?” and b.p. will say, eyes misting over, ”No, man, I can’t. I just can’t.”
Trackback by Walter In Denver —
April 8, 2006 @ 2:15 pm
Bronzed
All Time Hall Of Fame blog post here….
Comment by Species 8 —
April 8, 2006 @ 4:28 pm
Off topic–but I’d tap that.
Comment by Davidnot dave —
April 8, 2006 @ 4:33 pm
Your comments no longer welcome here.
Buh-bye
Comment by whatitsbeendoneb4 —
April 8, 2006 @ 4:36 pm
Its tautological.
Indeed
Comment by Barry Freed —
April 8, 2006 @ 4:38 pm
Heh. Indeed.
Comment by Jesse Walker —
April 8, 2006 @ 5:07 pm
advertisement for Texas Hold-Em site
Comment by PhillipJ. Birmingham —
April 8, 2006 @ 5:24 pm
Non-sequitur speculation about whether ”Texas Hold-Em” refers to livestock.
Comment by Nell —
April 8, 2006 @ 5:37 pm
Expression of exasperation at blog owners’s failure to blog about X.
Oh, hell, why not: Let X = this.
Comment by Kin F. —
April 8, 2006 @ 5:50 pm
IAWTC
Comment by Michigan J. Frog —
April 8, 2006 @ 7:13 pm
Accusation that the blog proprietor has maliciously removed my earlier comment in a fit of hypocritical censorship, when in fact it had been erroneously posted in a different comment thread. Use of one or more of these phrases: ”What are you afraid of?”, ”Down the memory hole”, ”You can dish it out but can’t take it”, etc.
Comment by Justin Slotman —
April 8, 2006 @ 7:19 pm
Vaguely relevant one-sentence comment offered in the spirit of contradicting the original post. INSULT MADE IN JEST, SURNAME OF BLOG PROPRIETOR! LAUGHTER IN ALL CAPS!
Comment by imag —
April 8, 2006 @ 7:36 pm
Cryptic, inexplicable drive-by trolling that references and misinterprets a statement made months ago. Unhinged name-calling, insinuations of totalitarianism. Baffling pun and or in-joke; link to scary site.
Comment by wil —
April 8, 2006 @ 8:31 pm
Moderately humorous extrapolation of argument made in passing by much earlier (and now unquoted or directly referenced) comment from regular sycophant.
Comment by Barry Freed —
April 8, 2006 @ 10:01 pm
What Kin F said.
Comment by Charles Hueter —
April 8, 2006 @ 10:01 pm
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
Comment by Doctor Slack —
April 8, 2006 @ 11:03 pm
Unhinged rant with variations on: [Why are liberals so unhinged?] [Just another example of how the Left is all about personal attack.] [You’d think all you people would grateful to us after WWII.] [They did so find WMD in Iraq.] [Yes, I’m a Bible-believing Christian, which I’m sure makes me the same as Hitler in your little world.] [Funny how when Mary Carey supports America all you liberals are suddenly prudes.] [Give me one recorded example of our President telling a lie.] [My favorite anti-idiotarian blogger totally pwned you on this one.] [Can we declare this thread officially dead?]
Comment by Totally not a sock-puppet —
April 8, 2006 @ 11:07 pm
42: ROFL! You’re so right!
Comment by rilkefan —
April 9, 2006 @ 12:28 am
Interesting link. More here.
Comment by skippy —
April 9, 2006 @ 2:40 am
shameless non-sequitorious off-optic blogwhoring.
Comment by NSA Wiretapper4teenybopurrs —
April 9, 2006 @ 3:47 am
What are you wearing?
Pingback by The American Street » Blog Archive » Generic Blogging —
April 9, 2006 @ 3:51 am
[…] April 9, 2006 Generic Blogging I’m comment #46. By Kevin Ha […]
Comment by matthew hogan —
April 9, 2006 @ 5:14 am
Nobody expects some kind of obscure Monty Python allusion.
Comment by i dunno —
April 9, 2006 @ 6:27 am
riverrun, past Eve and Adam’s, from swerve of shore to bend of bay
Comment by kate r —
April 9, 2006 @ 8:18 am
rambling remarks about friend’s neighbor’s grandchild in iraq, afganistan or maybe texas. giant illogical leap to 9/11. god bless america! and if you don’t agree, you’re welcome to move to france.
[tagline about why cats are better then men]
Comment by yruevnhere —
April 9, 2006 @ 8:46 am
Quotes 18 century goat herder, thereby proving superiority to blogger.
Smugness ensues.
Comment by Gary Farber —
April 9, 2006 @ 8:49 am
19.
Comment by Gary Farber —
April 9, 2006 @ 9:00 am
Proposal to kate r, made after dropping comments all over previous comment sites.
Comment by Gary Farber —
April 9, 2006 @ 9:02 am
Measured at 11 minutes of consideration.
Comment by matthew hogan —
April 9, 2006 @ 9:07 am
There’s no number 6.
Comment by sugarmuffin —
April 9, 2006 @ 9:13 am
I just love this site! Your views are so cool. I agree!
See my xxxxxxpics at WestVaginaProductions, love you all!
Comment by Tom Scudder —
April 9, 2006 @ 9:14 am
ya akh matthew, ulit inno kil shi btshuf a thread bi aqoul mawjud bi hal post bes ma shift shi bil arabi.
Comment by Doc Smith —
April 9, 2006 @ 9:22 am
IANAL, but comment anyway on the legal issues involved in the aforementioned post.
Comment by Michigan J. Frog —
April 9, 2006 @ 10:30 am
First!
Comment by Plucky Punk —
April 9, 2006 @ 10:54 am
Onomatopoeia, then reference to female secondary sexual characteristics.
Comment by Michigan J. Frog —
April 9, 2006 @ 10:59 am
I DEY LAND HERE OOOOOOO! KEEP OFF GUYMEN AGU IN LOME TOGO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MUGU OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Comment by Leonard —
April 9, 2006 @ 11:05 am
Tedious thumbsucker way down in the comments. You’re right about some of this, of course, but I think there’s some serious misapprehensions some folks are laboring under here. Use of ”folks” by overintellectual geek who’d never say it IRL. Use of internet acronyms like ”IRL”. But all that is just laying the groundwork for more serious issues.
You see, there’s a long history of this sort of thing that you’re missing. So you see, because I can google a term and also put nicely formatted stuff in this comment, I think you might notice it. But it also means that I am totally correct about everything, and need not learn a thing from all this, nor even really pay attention to anything you said. Whereas you, in sharp contrast, ought to be bowing down to me, adopting all my opinions no matter how ill-considered, and reading my blog regularly even though I never update it any more.
Comment by jamie —
April 9, 2006 @ 11:11 am
pointless, hysterical accusations of moral relativism by thread latecomer in the vain hope that someone will notice him, ever.
Comment by farm a suticals —
April 9, 2006 @ 11:23 am
here — ephedra, viagra, more..
Comment by Ensgn. Brad Littlechuck —
April 9, 2006 @ 11:28 am
Is this old Jim Henley I knew back in Tulsa? Hot damn I found you! I’m in Okinawa now, back from the hajjis, you still with Megan?
Pingback by I Am In Awe § Unqualified Offerings —
April 9, 2006 @ 11:31 am
[…] That Man a White Rose | Main | April 9, 2006 I Am In Awe The “Blog” comment thread just gets better and better. That every other blog on the plan […]
Comment by kate r —
April 9, 2006 @ 11:35 am
emotional apology for emotional outburst followed by explanation: favorite cat’s death. maudlin plea for prayers.
Still, no excuse for [….]and reiterate fact that poster should die or, worse, relocate to france.
[tagline now changed to reflect favorite cat’s birth and death dates, as well as many lines from original poetry with theme of crossing into heaven on silent paws]
Comment by Iron Lungfish —
April 9, 2006 @ 12:07 pm
Simultaneously aloof yet hysterical accusation of collusion with political nemeses to appease an unidentified ”sensible center”; identification of blog proprietor with various partisan betes noires; more-sad-than-angry recognition that blog is probably ”past its prime” and that commenter will soon be moving on to fresher, hipper pastures where keener-sighted allies still fight the good fight.
Comment by Sam —
April 9, 2006 @ 12:14 pm
snide comment to number 50 followed by passionate but incomprehensible rant about freedom nibbles VS hors d’ouvre
Comment by MichaelM —
April 9, 2006 @ 12:20 pm
Let’s break radio, blog silence.
http://www.hoax-buster.org and get educated
Comment by Avram —
April 9, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
Snd, nsltng cmmnt.
Comment by Michigan J. Frog —
April 9, 2006 @ 12:53 pm
Blog post gets link from uber-blogger. Blog proprietor appends ”Welcome So-And-So Readers” update to post. Invites So-And-So readers to stick around and read archives, if they like what they see. (Last vestiges of proprietor’s shame slink out the back door.)
Comment by Kin F. —
April 9, 2006 @ 1:03 pm
inflammatory image macro derisively commenting that you are of homosexual orientation.
Comment by AML —
April 9, 2006 @ 1:24 pm
Bible verse proving me right.
Comment by Andrew K —
April 9, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
first post!
Comment by Greg VA —
April 9, 2006 @ 1:53 pm
Faux ”used to be a Democrat until” or ”I’d vote for the Democrats except for” followed by one or more of the following straw-man arguments; Democrats ”pushing for gay marriage,” ”advocating abortion,” ”attacking Christianity at every turn,” ”not taking terrorism seriously,” ”not supporting our troops” . . .
Close with faux ”I’ll be able to take the Democrats seriously again” when they adopt some Republican position.
Comment by Jim Nelson —
April 9, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
Days later comment that will go unnoticed because no one is still reading this thread.
Comment by kate r —
April 9, 2006 @ 3:53 pm
carefully composed coy come-on comment to Gary Farber (almost immediately deleted by blogowner).
Comment by Sifu Tweety —
April 9, 2006 @ 4:17 pm
Late to the party, lengthy exposition of the original posts point, revealing the author’s ignorance of all previous comments.
Comment by Sifu Tweety —
April 9, 2006 @ 4:17 pm
Even more pointless sheepish apology for drunken nature of previous comment.
Comment by Tom Scudder —
April 9, 2006 @ 4:24 pm
100-line article, cut and pasted from truthout or indymedia, totally unrelated to post’s subject.
Comment by Joshua fit the battle of the Jericho —
April 9, 2006 @ 4:45 pm
Ad Hominem attack on blog proprietor followed by condescending remark about ”that quaint college you went to.”
Comment by Species 8 —
April 9, 2006 @ 5:27 pm
Commenter posts link proving that he was here first and everyone else is just pathetic johnny come latelys
Comment by OG274 —
April 9, 2006 @ 5:31 pm
Thizzle blog is so nizzle its so informizzle
Comment by Jess Nevins —
April 9, 2006 @ 6:11 pm
Spam pretending to be a response to blog.
Comment by World War II Vet —
April 9, 2006 @ 6:43 pm
Kilroy was here.
Comment by Unqualified Dog —
April 9, 2006 @ 6:45 pm
Best. Post. Ever.
Trackback by The Agitator —
April 9, 2006 @ 6:51 pm
Overly Effusive Trackback, Transparently Attempting to Piggyback Off Original Post’s Success
This Jim Henley post, along with the ensuing comments thread, may one day go down as one of the greatest…
Comment by Francis —
April 9, 2006 @ 7:40 pm
prfndly nsltng cmmnt tht gts dsmvwlld.
Comment by Francis —
April 9, 2006 @ 7:41 pm
long self-important post by a self-proclaimed moderate developing a synthesis of the 88 prior comments.
Comment by Big Ben —
April 9, 2006 @ 7:56 pm
I’m not going to bother to wade through all 90 or so previous comments to see if my obvious and already soundly refuted point has already been made, because my time is more important that that of other commenters.
On preview: what Sifu Tweety said.
Comment by Jeremy Osner —
April 9, 2006 @ 8:01 pm
92!
Trackback by Rational Grounds —
April 9, 2006 @ 8:02 pm
Blatant Meme Bandwagoning
Undue excitement over memes, network effects, and the Information Revolution! No mention that this is hardly new: (A parenthetical recognition that posting becomes much easier when implementation is left as an exercise for the reader.) Heh. Indeed….
Comment by Jeremy —
April 9, 2006 @ 8:24 pm
my band made a song about your topic. Check us out at our MySpace page!
Comment by Dave Intermittent —
April 9, 2006 @ 9:24 pm
This post is just another example of your college-squid transnational progressive thinking. I’d rather win.
Comment by madpigeon —
April 9, 2006 @ 9:45 pm
glob!
Comment by Kin F. —
April 9, 2006 @ 10:24 pm
FREE BUKKAKE TEEN UPSKIRTS! ENHANCE YOUR PENIS!
Comment by Brian C.B. —
April 9, 2006 @ 11:02 pm
Pithy comment followed by pathetic blogwhoring.
Comment by CSI: Disneyworld —
April 9, 2006 @ 11:16 pm
Death to America!
Comment by Michigan J. Frog —
April 9, 2006 @ 11:19 pm
Troll.
Comment by Michigan J. Frog —
April 9, 2006 @ 11:20 pm
Exhortation: ”Don’t feed the trolls”
Comment by NeoDude —
April 9, 2006 @ 11:28 pm
[A collection of letters to indicate that I am laughing very heartily.]
Comment by Ptochos —
April 9, 2006 @ 11:38 pm
BushChimpyMcHitlerBurton
Comment by Ptochos —
April 9, 2006 @ 11:43 pm
Sensible intervention by Tim Burke pointing out that both sides have a point.
Comment by David Rossie —
April 9, 2006 @ 11:57 pm
Where’s the MSM on this!? Bleepin’ Bias.
Comment by Dan Hil —
April 10, 2006 @ 12:26 am
Gratuitous observation about the commenters personal relationship with Jesus followed by condescending remark that you wouldn’t right such immoral things as ”blog” if your soul had been truly saved.
Comment by Dick Durata —
April 10, 2006 @ 12:39 am
Frist!
Comment by Bill Humphries —
April 10, 2006 @ 12:55 am
Y ppl lwys rsrt t jk psts whn m sd s rght.
Comment by jamie —
April 10, 2006 @ 2:54 am
109 comments! Jim, this must be your longest comment thread EVAR!
Comment by brooksfoe —
April 10, 2006 @ 3:06 am
”reiterate fact that poster should die or, worse, relocate to france.”
Infuriated denunciation of comment from way, way back in thread. Admission that denunciation is pointless since first poster has long stopped reading thread.
Comment by Sam —
April 10, 2006 @ 3:17 am
Hideous saccharine prayer for all the cats in the world and a militant anti-choice rant against abortion, loose women, cat haters, and sex in general.
Post cut off near end because computer took pity on readers.
Comment by Bernard —
April 10, 2006 @ 3:53 am
This is stupid, and I refuse to participate.
Comment by wade —
April 10, 2006 @ 4:08 am
belated jumping on of bandwagon..
Comment by bad Jim —
April 10, 2006 @ 4:19 am
Request for recommendations for barbecue in Amsterdam, or a Mexican joint in Copenhagen, with a comment on a Lebanese dinner in Sao Paolo.
Comment by Lurker —
April 10, 2006 @ 4:30 am
Me too.
Comment by Plus ça change —
April 10, 2006 @ 5:31 am
It helps to have one of these ready reckoners. They are so handy, that particular one moved across 3 forums.
Comment by Garfinkel —
April 10, 2006 @ 6:07 am
Last post.
Comment by Warboy —
April 10, 2006 @ 6:26 am
Kerry’s generic blog would have been worse.
Pingback by On Tap » Small group blog notices funny post linked from high traffic blog. —
April 10, 2006 @ 6:59 am
[…] - 6:58 am
Uncategorized, Blogging
The best blog post in the history of the universe. Here. HT: Radley.
Related Posts
» Happy St. Patrick’s Day&raqu […]
Comment by Fruztr8ted Dem —
April 10, 2006 @ 7:03 am
Comment about Democratic spinelessness
Comment by Doubly Fruztr8ted Dem —
April 10, 2006 @ 7:05 am
Accusation that Fruztr8ted Dem is repeating Republican talking points, and should desist..
Comment by Trebly Fruztr8ted Dem —
April 10, 2006 @ 7:10 am
Remarks that the notion that criticizing Democratic spinelessness is a Republican talking point is itself a Republican talking point, and that Doubly Fuztr8ted Dem should desist immediately.
Comment by Fruztr8ted Dem —
April 10, 2006 @ 7:17 am
Resolves not to say anything ever again, but just provide links to the Daily Kos.
Comment by Clark —
April 10, 2006 @ 7:33 am
Reminder that the important thing is the damage done and continuing attacks on the constitution, Especially the X amendment! I blame the legislative, judicial and executive branch of .gov
Comment by Anne —
April 10, 2006 @ 7:56 am
Complete text of 10,000 word New York Times article when a link would do just as well
Comment by Che —
April 10, 2006 @ 7:57 am
Complete text of 10,000 word deranged conspiracy rant from onlinejournal.com when a link would do just as well
Comment by otto —
April 10, 2006 @ 8:16 am
The post, in my view, underestimates the role of the colonisation and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian arabs in creating this problem.
Comment by Monte Davis —
April 10, 2006 @ 8:18 am
Complaint about top/bottom quoting, intended for a USENet newsgroup but cross-posted to comment thread.
Comment by Ben Domenech —
April 10, 2006 @ 8:22 am
Complete text of 10,000 word deranged conspiracy rant from onlinejournal.com when a link would do just as well.
Comment by Not the real Gary Farber —
April 10, 2006 @ 8:43 am
Sarcastic comment about how I had this three days ago, if anyone had bothered to read it.
Comment by David Weigel —
April 10, 2006 @ 8:59 am
Bump.
Comment by Thomas Allen —
April 10, 2006 @ 9:02 am
Accusation of racist motivation behind theme of comment to original blog post and attribution of same to blog author.
Comment by kate r —
April 10, 2006 @ 9:09 am
tearful why can’t we all get along post.
[tagline: entire poem about heaven-bound companion animals]
Comment by I [heart] Pat —
April 10, 2006 @ 9:11 am
Fitz!
Comment by Sam —
April 10, 2006 @ 9:15 am
Four links to articles to prove point about spineless democrats, two of which are broken and one which goes to a porn site. The last one connects to the Drudge.
Comment by Danno49 —
April 10, 2006 @ 9:16 am
This isn’t an argument.
Comment by Donald Johnson —
April 10, 2006 @ 9:30 am
Heated response to comment 127, starting out as similarly snide metacomment about self-pitying Israelis before poster lost his temper.
Comment by James —
April 10, 2006 @ 9:31 am
Infinite recursion of empty thread.
Comment by Eric Scharf —
April 10, 2006 @ 9:39 am
Lament that this blog used to be about much more interesting and relevant topics (Battlestar Galactica, head-shaving).
Net-hipster variation on ”I’m outta here.”
Comment by Doctor Slack —
April 10, 2006 @ 10:15 am
Tardy handle hijacking containing allusions to immoral and/or illegal procreative practices engaged in by parties with which this poster disagrees.
Comment by Troll X —
April 10, 2006 @ 10:34 am
Why does blog hate freedom?
Comment by jamie —
April 10, 2006 @ 11:16 am
142 comments! Jim, this must be your longest comment thread EVAR!
Comment by Chris —
April 10, 2006 @ 11:20 am
Comment marvelling that the MSM could never produce a discussion of such quality. Truly, we have entered a new age, etc. etc. and etc.
Comment by Chris —
April 10, 2006 @ 11:22 am
Comment claiming that commenter’s heroic coverage of the Dan Rather/Mapes story also functions to discredit whatever point the blogger was trying to make.
Comment by Michigan J. Frog —
April 10, 2006 @ 11:25 am
Flamewar about the Enterprise D versus an Imperial Star Destroyer. This could last a while.
Trackback by thompsonian*NET blog —
April 10, 2006 @ 11:34 am
Post
Hastily written, content-free post with pointer to equally content-free post. Submitted without additional comment.
…
Comment by Baylen —
April 10, 2006 @ 11:43 am
Comment wondering why my trackback ping was not accepted.
Comment by Glenn R. —
April 10, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
Comment so utterly incoherent that it implies commentor was gnawing on peyote minutes earlier, full-throated summation proclaiming the justice of an American authoritarian crackdown, along with author’s own libertarianism. Then, ”Heh.”
Comment by Michael —
April 10, 2006 @ 12:14 pm
Attempt to engage Trolls in reasoned debate.
Comment by Chris Bray —
April 10, 2006 @ 12:34 pm
Plea for everyone to stop feeding the trolls, closely followed by an angry and highly personal response to a troll.
Comment by Samuel L. Jackson —
April 10, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
Snakes.
On a motherfuckin’ plane.
Comment by pexor —
April 10, 2006 @ 12:49 pm
Chuck Norris would win this argument.
Comment by Silly WIlly —
April 10, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
WTF? IMHO, LOL funny.
Arcane reference to ”Schizopolis.”
Link to webpage here:
Comment by Silly WIlly —
April 10, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
Apology for bad typing of link address.
Allusion to infamous Monty Python skit.
Comment by Paul —
April 10, 2006 @ 1:07 pm
Long-time reader, first time poster
Pingback by BoPL » Blog Archive » Generic Blog Post —
April 10, 2006 @ 1:16 pm
[…] ric Blog Post
April 10th, 2006
Check out the definitive comment thread at Unqualified Offerings. (Hat Tip: Lean Left
Posted by Paul
File […]
Comment by LowLife —
April 10, 2006 @ 1:34 pm
Private debate in public space with another commenter about who should supply links to support points on topic neither understands. This takes the next thirty comments.
Comment by testosterone —
April 10, 2006 @ 1:38 pm
freep this poll
Comment by Threadbot —
April 10, 2006 @ 1:45 pm
Consider this an open thread
Comment by Feeble Troll —
April 10, 2006 @ 1:52 pm
Emphatic exhortation for all readers and blog in particular to remember the genitalia of a former executive!
Comment by Jane Galt —
April 10, 2006 @ 2:53 pm
Demand to know how dare you blog about this when you still haven’t publicly confessed to making a minor factual error in a long-forgotten post from 2002.
Pingback by Word Munger » Snarky post title —
April 10, 2006 @ 3:04 pm
[…] 4/10/2006 Snarky post title Filed under: InstaMunger — dave @ 3:03 pm Witty, yet cryptic catchline Obligatory disclaimer indicating that I know everyone ha […]
Comment by jaylord —
April 10, 2006 @ 3:20 pm
remark on length of thread. out of kilter enthusiasm for its continuation. likely last post candidate.
Comment by midget_in_pirate_regalia —
April 10, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
WWFSMD?
Comment by Eclectic Bill —
April 10, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
But unfortunatly somone else has come late to the party and wants to put in their inane comment as a desparate bid for attention from the blogosphere they worship with frightening fanaticism.
BTW: I put you on my blogroll thus making you feel obligated to put me on yours. My self-esteem is rises and falls by my blog traffic.
Comment by Carl Jung —
April 10, 2006 @ 3:49 pm
All your comments are belong to us.
Comment by trrll —
April 10, 2006 @ 3:55 pm
Detailed explanation with link of why my insulting comments do not constitute ad hominem, whereas a previous poster’s comments are ad hominem and therefore invalid.
Also, he’s a moron.
Trackback by Catallarchy —
April 10, 2006 @ 4:33 pm
Trackback Spam
Wow.
Hat Tip.
(I think Balko’s right that this will go down in history)
Comment by Michigan J. Frog —
April 10, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
Post from long-absent resident troll, followed by friendly ”Where you been?” posts by other regulars temporarily blinded by nostalgia, but who will be swiftly reminded why they despised said troll in the past.
Pingback by Creative Destruction » Non-sequitor metablogging —
April 10, 2006 @ 4:48 pm
[…] Blogosphere and humor
Adam Gurri
5:47 pm
In other news, have you guys seen this?
Trackback URI
Leave a Reply Name (re […]
Comment by cw —
April 10, 2006 @ 4:52 pm
Nose Army!
Comment by Long Memory —
April 10, 2006 @ 4:57 pm
Ned Telson foresaw this use of inter-hypertextuality, and designed a system to fully subsume and encompass the results in his aptly-named ”Coleridge project.” Of course the bastards at XPAC suppressed the design while simultaneously claiming full credit for its invention, then had the nerve to implement their own inferior, so-called solution which could not even pass the laff test at dashslot.
Comment by Roadtripper —
April 10, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
Long tirade in ALL CAPS in response to #152, about how Bruce Lee would kick Chuck Norris’ sorry butt if he was still alive.
Comment by Adam —
April 10, 2006 @ 5:12 pm
Absurdly long discourse framed as comprehensive response to discussion thusfar, but really is just a sad attempt to draw attention weeks after the comment thread is dead.
Comment by Cryptic Ned —
April 10, 2006 @ 5:22 pm
Observation that the silence on this issue from blog’s opponents is deafening.
Comment by Tice with a J —
April 10, 2006 @ 5:26 pm
Off-topic post wondering whether Superman or Batman would win in a fight.
Comment by jokermage —
April 10, 2006 @ 5:29 pm
Hypocritical statement on how posting for the sake of posting is immature, followed by a miserable attempt at shameless self-promotion and brown-nosing.
And this is the Nth comment.
Comment by GoatBoy —
April 10, 2006 @ 5:43 pm
Out-of-proportion outraged comment demanding that any subsequent comments be strictly on topic!
Trackback by Modulator —
April 10, 2006 @ 5:49 pm
A Blogger’s Blog Entry
As a number of others have noted Henley’s great post and the ensuing comment thread which will undoubtably be discussed at length in future histories of the blogosphere….
Comment by Doctor Slack —
April 10, 2006 @ 5:53 pm
Smug comment noting that there is hardly any point in posting here at this point, but subsequent events have proved this poster unequivocally right about whatever the topic of this blogpost was, and everyone who disagreed with me needs to apologize right now. The War on Easter / Baseball / Christmas / Wal-Mart will not be tolerated by right-minded Americans or for that matter right-minded Spaniards / Italians / Brits.
Ominous-sounding threat of pseudo-violence and Mad Hacker Smackdowns to the bastard who tried to steal this poster’s identity. I promise you, there will be a reckoning, these colours do not run etc.
Comment by Totally not a sock-puppet —
April 10, 2006 @ 6:01 pm
Re 180: He’ll do it, too! That mofo’s crazy!
Comment by John Wilkins —
April 10, 2006 @ 6:32 pm
Prayer for your souls as I damn you all to hell and call you antiChristian evolutionists.
Comment by Tim! —
April 10, 2006 @ 6:58 pm
Admission that I have not read the entire thread. Response to post #3
Comment by Doctor S|ack —
April 10, 2006 @ 6:59 pm
Derisive laughing dismissal of thinly-veiled threat with smug encouragement to bring it on.
Comment by GoatBoy —
April 10, 2006 @ 7:02 pm
Knowing revelation that all trolls commenting are the same individual. Commentary on likely sad condition of said individual’s social life/living environment/upbringing/education.
Trackback by Poker, Politics, Philosophy —
April 10, 2006 @ 7:18 pm
metablogging
Content-free link with mildly snide comment about originality.
Comment by Mary Rosh —
April 10, 2006 @ 7:48 pm
John Lott is the best professor I ever had.
Comment by Dick Durata —
April 10, 2006 @ 7:53 pm
HUZZAH!
PARAGRAPHING
WORKS!
Comment by Troll Spammer —
April 10, 2006 @ 8:20 pm
Derogatory comment on the lives of people who have time to post so frequently. Speculation on their employment status, habitation with parents, grade-point average, sexual experience, and/or personal hygiene. Association of same with use of particular software tools or adherence to particular sociopolitical views. Admonishment to ”GET A LIFE”.
Comment by Kaycee Swenson —
April 10, 2006 @ 8:35 pm
I don’t feel so good.
Comment by A Cat —
April 10, 2006 @ 9:13 pm
String of obligatory words meant to lend significant meaning to the topic, but utterly failing.
Comment by johnny sententious —
April 10, 2006 @ 9:14 pm
”First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist.”
”Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew.”
Comment by abc123 —
April 10, 2006 @ 9:41 pm
A comment from the moderator warning author of 132 against further trolling lest he be summarily banned from posting on this site again.
Comment by Dave Intermittent —
April 10, 2006 @ 9:51 pm
cock joke
Comment by Dave Intermittent —
April 10, 2006 @ 9:52 pm
Apology for posting cock joke here instead of in Unfogged comment thread.
Comment by PhillipJ. Birmingham —
April 10, 2006 @ 10:02 pm
Further-off-topic rant about how Bruce Lee ALREADY kicked Chuck Norris’ ass in ”Return of the Dragon,” which, if IMDB is not lying to me, also featured John Derbyshire as Thug (uncredited.)
Comment by IXLNXS —
April 10, 2006 @ 10:06 pm
often used quotes to make the writer look well read or at least mildly intelligent.
”……deserve neither liberty nor justice…….”
Comment by Gene Ray —
April 10, 2006 @ 10:19 pm
All day are simultaneous 24 hour day. Man is time of four seasons on four sides of time cube earth. MIT is afraid to debate me. All I dare you to delete this comment!
Comment by Michigan J. Frog —
April 10, 2006 @ 10:31 pm
Utterly shameless post by Michigan J. Frog in an attempt to become the undisputed most frequent poster to this thread. Momentary sense of smug triumph gradually gives way to realization that this is very, very pathetic.
Comment by Gary Farber —
April 10, 2006 @ 10:43 pm
Linked here. Why can’t we (me and frog in pocket) use ”i” to make italics!? Still!
No justice, no peace!
Comment by Gary Farber —
April 10, 2006 @ 10:43 pm
201!
Comment by Camera Obscura —
April 10, 2006 @ 10:45 pm
Incoherent compilation of answers to original post and various comments interspersed throughout. Use of sesquipedalian language to indicate the commenter’s erudition.
Side rant about the fickleness of sports fanatics who swear at the demolition of a beloved sports venue in the fall and buy-out the entire season’s tickets in the new venue the next spring. Snark about earthquake zones and the distance between the sports venue and a bridge carrying three interstate highways.
Vague longings for television series that the commenter dissed the entire season while they were showing.
Appreciation for the sentiments of Unqualified Dog. Vague mutterings about the toileting habits of Fat-Cat Obscura.
Wrap-up featuring odd quotes from both Monty Python sketches and Douglas Adams’ books.
Trackback by WuzzaDem —
April 10, 2006 @ 11:32 pm
Update On Updated Updates
Currently being updated. I’ll update you if there are further developments. UPDATE: I mean, further updates. Man, is my face red. UPDATE II: From now on, if I say anything incredibly stupid, just chalk it up to me being on
Comment by Off Colfax —
April 10, 2006 @ 11:44 pm
Troll-induced flaming. Obligatory Hitchiker’s Guide To The Galaxy reference. Overused goat.se reference. Fact-check on comment 189.
Pingback by I Am Still in Awe - A Little Frightened, But in Awe § Unqualified Offerings —
April 11, 2006 @ 12:26 am
[…] you people have built it. It’s more amazing when you consider that Kate won back on entry 67. (Mrs. O blew snot out her ears when she read that one.) For th […]
Comment by AnonymousDrivel —
April 11, 2006 @ 12:52 am
Just my 2¢.
Comment by Laura Gjovaag —
April 11, 2006 @ 1:00 am
Clueless newbie directed here by links from other sites, repeating stuff that’s already been said a dozen times.
Pingback by Noli Irritare Leones » Blog Archive » Self-referential blogging —
April 11, 2006 @ 1:27 am
[…] www! Security gets cute
Home
Self-referential blogging
Link
This entry was posted
on M […]
Trackback by The Unabrewer —
April 11, 2006 @ 1:34 am
Blog post
Good blog post.
Comment by David T —
April 11, 2006 @ 3:17 am
Galloway and Livingstone!!!!
Comment by wade —
April 11, 2006 @ 3:30 am
The last word..
Comment by Tom Scudder —
April 11, 2006 @ 3:45 am
Long, disjointed rant about Galloway and Respect and Eurabia and Danish cartoons and David Irving and David Horowitz and the other David Horowitz (the ”Fight Back” one) and whether using the nickname ”D. Ho” reveals one as a sexist degenerate.
Comment by wade —
April 11, 2006 @ 5:06 am
Damn!
Comment by God —
April 11, 2006 @ 5:53 am
Special guest appearance
Comment by dHerblay —
April 11, 2006 @ 6:15 am
tl;dr
Comment by Alex —
April 11, 2006 @ 6:17 am
Those are some delightful kittens. What are their names?
Comment by User —
April 11, 2006 @ 6:24 am
Get a Mac!
Comment by Patrick Nielsen Hayden —
April 11, 2006 @ 6:37 am
Interjection that, don’t you see, none of this matters if we don’t do something about the voting machines.
Comment by Brian C.B. —
April 11, 2006 @ 6:55 am
Indignant comparison between ”24” and ”Battlestar Galactica.” Nostalgia for ”MST3K.” Admonition to post links using tinyurl.
Comment by Chris —
April 11, 2006 @ 7:03 am
Reply to 217 about how much Macs suck.
Comment by Eight Tons of Geese —
April 11, 2006 @ 7:05 am
Something about quantum mechanics and postmodernism.
Trackback by Making Light —
April 11, 2006 @ 7:09 am
“Blog”
Over at Unqualified Offerings, Jim Henley put up a one-word post saying “Blog.” Its comment thread didn't so much follow…
Comment by nate —
April 11, 2006 @ 7:22 am
Old high school acquaintance of Jim’s, apparently incapable of using his email address, reintroducing himself with a comment here.
Comment by testing —
April 11, 2006 @ 7:32 am
Testing, pay no mind.
Comment by Jon Meltzer —
April 11, 2006 @ 7:40 am
Blog.
(Isn’t it time we got back to the original subject?)
Comment by User —
April 11, 2006 @ 7:46 am
Don’t you sheeple realise it’s all about oil!
Comment by raboof —
April 11, 2006 @ 7:49 am
Armando is an asshole. No, really.
Pingback by interference patterns » Blog Archive » blog.art —
April 11, 2006 @ 7:57 am
[…]
« residency.art
blog.art
meta
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, […]
Pingback by Tinctoris » Metasphere —
April 11, 2006 @ 8:03 am
[…] ()” href=”/about/”>
April 11, 2006
Metasphere
Link, with credit.
Posted at 8:03 am […]
Comment by KPG —
April 11, 2006 @ 8:11 am
Reference to episode of Star Trek Original Series - The Cage.
Comment by A.J. Luxton —
April 11, 2006 @ 8:17 am
Non sequitur regarding attention deficit disorder, polyamory, and cats.
Comment by Cialisland —
April 11, 2006 @ 8:18 am
Still more cialis, hoodia, cipro, no waiting!!
Comment by #232 —
April 11, 2006 @ 8:20 am
#45 has it right, but #123 makes the important distinction that #23 and #25 did not make, while #14, #177 and #29 are just talking shit like always.
Comment by Little Gnarled Foosball —
April 11, 2006 @ 8:23 am
Leftist Islamofascist moonbats showing their dhimmitude to the MSM, while Reid kisses asses to the ”RofPeace”.
Trackback by Discourse.net —
April 11, 2006 @ 8:23 am
The Ultimate Meta-Thread
The ultimate meta-comment thread is at Unqualified Offerings. I hope Jim Henley will forgive me for quoting the entire post. It consists of one word: Blog Hilarity ensues. Yes, really….
Comment by Camera Obscura —
April 11, 2006 @ 8:24 am
Re: #230, preference expressed for ST: TNG over TOS (with several parenthetical remarks showing that the commenter doesn’t really) and silly asides referencing dismay that Spiner went from doing Sondheim on Broadway to playing geeks on TV and in the movies, just to prove that the commenter knows something about acting besides what comes into the house on the idiot box. Sesquipedalianism re-emerges.
Complete topic change to reference discussion held over the weekend on how commenter is psychologically disinclined to espouse libertarianism, nevermind that the blogs where the commenter lurks all do so.
Comment by Mr. Obscura —
April 11, 2006 @ 8:27 am
wish for enough free time to spend all day reading comment thread, followed by realization that i just spent 15 minutes reading all of this one.
seven comments added while i was reading
Trackback by dustbury.com —
April 11, 2006 @ 8:28 am
Generic post
Though not as generic as this. (Via the distinctive Jacqueline Passey.)…
Comment by L8comer —
April 11, 2006 @ 8:32 am
Late-comer referred to post by another popular blog; feels compelled to comment despite all issues being done to death already.
Comment by Camera Obscura —
April 11, 2006 @ 8:37 am
Note to commenter in #237 about the unwise choice he has made in informing his spouse that he’s got visitors and tons of extra work, then commenting on the same blogs she does.
Comment by Maveline —
April 11, 2006 @ 8:41 am
Elaborately sarcastic assertion that Jim Henley’s original post was just a different way of saying ”I’ve never had sex with that woman.”
Comment by Kate Nepveu —
April 11, 2006 @ 8:43 am
World-weary sigh. Sotto voce remark that we did this before, *better*, back on Usenet.
Comment by Karen Ryan —
April 11, 2006 @ 8:48 am
Reporting
Comment by theophylact —
April 11, 2006 @ 8:49 am
Reference to dictionary definition of term proving vacuity of argument based on differing consensus understanding of term.
Comment by Species 8 —
April 11, 2006 @ 8:52 am
Realizes after Michigan J Frog’s post on commenting the most, that I should give up other nom de plume’s (OG274, davidnotdave, yruevenhere, etc.) and stick w/ my true nom de plume.
Because it’s about keeping it real. Man
Comment by Eric Scharf —
April 11, 2006 @ 8:54 am
Patronizing observation that while this thread has certainly been entertaining, Patrick Nielsen Hayden is correct in Comment #218 that there is much more pressing business to attend to. (Parenthetical cavil at how Hayden has historically chosen to address this problem.)
Reiteration of seriousness.
Comment by Jim Henley —
April 11, 2006 @ 8:54 am
Blustering reference to having used gopher client in response to 242 to prove blogger’s old-timer cred. Vagueness of reference suggests that, while blogger did in fact use gopher in the past, blogger can’t for the life of him remember anything specific, except maybe that weather site? From some school in Texas?
Blogger considers ”coffee pot webcam” reference to cement matter, but figures gopher reference already proves his point, even though it doesn’t.
Comment by Michael —
April 11, 2006 @ 8:58 am
Supercillious, belittling comment regarding #244’s shallowness based on ignorance of technical use of term ’term’ in a field unrelated to discussion at hand.
Plea for people to get along, despite differences (and despite rest of this comment). Quote from cult movie from the 1980s.
Comment by Alex —
April 11, 2006 @ 8:58 am
Pointlessly arcane network engineering reference in order to cap No.247. ”This is just what happens when you let the Aunty Janes out in userland who haven’t ever like stopped the BGP announcements flapping on a Cisco 5751 or configured their own IP-over-MPLS on a PDH backbone comment!”
Comment by Species 8 —
April 11, 2006 @ 9:03 am
A Pony!
Comment by symphonik (with love) —
April 11, 2006 @ 9:03 am
Snarky post about how the humor on MeFi links is becoming like that of Fark’s. Hints of underlying superiority complex. Failure to understand irony in air of superiority when comparing nerd blogs.
Comment by Alex —
April 11, 2006 @ 9:04 am
Can we just kill this thread now?
Comment by Species 8 —
April 11, 2006 @ 9:06 am
If everyone would stop bickering for just one sec, take a breath and just replace the Commies, with Islamofascists, in the movie Red Dawn, you would realise that this as all been predicted before.
Best. Movie. Ever.
Comment by Tom Scudder —
April 11, 2006 @ 9:06 am
Reference to the REAL old days of UseNet, now sadly mostly lost when a U-boat sank the Hollerith archives off the Eastern seaboard one day in ’42.
Comment by matthew —
April 11, 2006 @ 9:12 am
Confused and irrelevant comment due to coming to the post late and not reading all the comments.
Comment by Max Sparber —
April 11, 2006 @ 9:19 am
Emoticon.
Comment by Some lurker with maybe a livejournal account —
April 11, 2006 @ 9:21 am
Minor off-topic correction to a point of fact in earlier comment (which no one will read, as the conversation’s gone on to something quite different, as next response shows.)
Comment by migs —
April 11, 2006 @ 9:23 am
welcome overlordz.
Comment by Serdar Argic —
April 11, 2006 @ 9:25 am
I am still waiting for your views on the Armenian genocide of 2.5 million Muslim people!
Comment by name —
April 11, 2006 @ 9:25 am
Rambling post of despair that all the good comments are already taken.
Comment by about_time —
April 11, 2006 @ 9:27 am
Repel bevets.
Comment by Bert Dil —
April 11, 2006 @ 9:29 am
The funniest joke anyone has ever heard, resulting in worldwide fame for the poster and an eventual tv spin-off in Seattle.
(Oh please, oh please, oh please, oh please)
Comment by Kibo —
April 11, 2006 @ 9:31 am
Hi.
Comment by Teresa Nielsen Hayden —
April 11, 2006 @ 9:37 am
Arpanet.
Comment by christy —
April 11, 2006 @ 9:39 am
Won’t somebody think of the children? Specifically MY children?
Comment by Barb and Jenna —
April 11, 2006 @ 9:42 am
The bar is closed?
Comment by Teresa Nielsen Hayden —
April 11, 2006 @ 9:45 am
Conventionalized exclamation of amazement by self-appointed expert on this subject. Declaration that this is *EXACTLY* what per has been trying to get across to Per Readers on Per Weblog, link link link. Statement that this is something Per Readers Need To Hear. Superfluous and mildly sycophantic request for permission to link to it. Nonsuperfluous request for permission to reproduce comment thread in part or whole, original post in part or whole, ditto several other related posts, for use in Per Weblog, newsletter, mailing list, workshop instructional materials, convention handouts …
Comment by Chris —
April 11, 2006 @ 9:48 am
Comment reminding everyone that Macs still suck.
Comment by anon —
April 11, 2006 @ 9:53 am
Rant rant rant rant rant!!1
Rant rant rant rant ad hominem straw-man rant rant rant.
Rant rant rant category mistake illogic illogic illogic rant rant rant.
Illogical conclusion.
– pseudonym
Comment by JB71 —
April 11, 2006 @ 9:54 am
Comment defending macs as great graphics machines.
Comment by Species 8 —
April 11, 2006 @ 9:56 am
I’m lonely, won’t someone talk to me.
Comment by Paris Hilton —
April 11, 2006 @ 9:56 am
Paris Hilton imposter posts, ”That’s hot.”
Comment by ankh —
April 11, 2006 @ 9:59 am
Chuckle
Comment by C. E. Winchester III, Ph.D, M.D. —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:02 am
Pompous comment on blog sentence structure belittling supposed educational facilities attended by blogger, with numerous irrelevant references to Wikipedia.
Comment by the talking dog —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:09 am
Has anyone read Mark Steyn’s column this morning?
Comment by ご案内 —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:11 am
♂♀完全無料出会い系サイト完結版 ▲
†完全無料で即アポ、即ハメ当たり前♪割り切り、淫乱妻多数登録中†
完全無料入口⇒ http://ad.love-meets.com/?kiadc
Comment by JonathanMoeller —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:11 am
Commentor posts standard boilerplate diatribe against the Corrupt Bush Administration, blaming Bush, Cheney, and Halliburtion for Iraq, high gas, global warming, mass extinctions, American Idol, Martian invasions, Scientology, and athlete’s foot. Calls for immediate impeachment of Bush, while making a bird-shot joke about Cheney that shows an utter ignorance of firearms, or basic physics.
Commentor then suggests that anyone not using [specific Linux distro] is a luser, despite the fact that server logs clearly show commentor is posting from an XP Pro laptop.
Comment by Species 8 —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:12 am
Everyone should read this
Then commenter misconstrues post w/ Vanessa Williams disgrace.
Comment by Mrs_TD —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:13 am
Very late comment showing commenter has not read previous posts, and wondering why no one else has raised point before which has already been raised. Personal shout out to friend posting previously which will go ignored. Unrelated question about obscure technological issue using unfamiliar terms. Half-hearted apology for same.
Comment by Luthe —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:17 am
Note that Fandom Wank did this first and better. Implication that poster is bored with discussion and that Fandom Wank pwnz j00.
Comment by John —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:23 am
Continuation of bitter personal battle with commentor #217 which has been going on for months and which noone else gives a fig about.
Comment by Sam —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:23 am
Scathing rant about post number 69 that has everyone scrolling back up to see what the fuss is about.
Comment by grubi —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:24 am
Requisite ”me-too”ism.
Comment by lee —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:27 am
c0mm3nt3r c134r1y d3m0n57r47s hi5 m4d l33t sk1llz
Comment by Brad —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:30 am
Simpson’s quote
Comment by John Madden —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:33 am
Dull comment pretending familiarity with the subject of ”blog” but which exposes the poster’s actual ignorance. Even the slightest urge to read the comment is offset by the presence of lots of fatuous links to Wikipedia that anyone could look up themselves and which prove nothing–not to mention the vacuous quote in the signature line attributed to the latest pop sensation.
Pingback by fivebyevif » “blog” —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:35 am
[…]
MainAboutContact
Login | Rss
“blog” April 11th, 2006 Witty link to a funny Internet-related post. Work is work is work is work. I am gett […]
Comment by Maronan —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:36 am
Comment which repeats issues already beaten to death and clearly demonstrates that commenter has not read the thread and only skimmed the original post.
Comment by invid —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:36 am
Gratuitious reference that a prior commenter’s point was previously - and more cogently - made, in a prior posting on this same blog. General snarkiness.
Comment by Maronan —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:37 am
Extended post based on misinterpretation of issues in original post filled with enough emoticons to induce seizure.
Comment by blixco —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:37 am
IAWTP
———————
Really long rambling ASCII-graphic-included-at-no-charge signature quoting an ”obscure” but popular songwriter, a radical 60’s author, a current meme, a Tarantino film, a feminist or linguist professor, a bible verse, or an ancient sanskrit tract next to a Simpson’s quote just for levity. Included four of five elite email addresses, at least one that has both ”mit” and ”edu,” plus a requisite spam filter method such as ”poster@remove.this.gmail.com” or the like, all of which ends up being mor etext than the poster has ever offered in any comment in their entire history including USEnet posts from the mid-1990’s.
Comment by adaplant —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:38 am
Anti-Blog.
Accusation of anti-semitic or racist tendencies.
Comment by Maronan —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:39 am
Rehash of issues made in original two posts, with a claim that the points are impossible to refute since no one refuted them within the last minute.
Comment by Maronan —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:39 am
Rant about everyone esle being rong with mspelings.
Comment by Maronan —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:40 am
Rare confession of mistake.
Comment by Maronan —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:40 am
Comment which, though factually true, is blatantly off-topic and shows again that commenter has not read any of the thread.
Comment by Ryan —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:41 am
Commenting only to impress those who will follow.
Comment by Maronan —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:41 am
Vague apology for long stream of rapid-fire postings.
Comment by aabian —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:42 am
ABIAN MASS-TIME EQUIVALENCE FORMULA m = Mo(1-exp(T/(kT-Mo))) Abian units.
ALTER EARTH’S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP GLOBAL DISASTERS AND EPIDEMICS
ALTER THE SOLAR SYSTEM. REORBIT VENUS INTO A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT TO CREATE A BORN AGAIN EARTH (1990)
Comment by Maronan —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:45 am
Grump that someone seperated my rapid-fire postings from the apology for them by commenting in the middle, and overly emotional, overly angry call to blog proprietor to move my apology post above the offending post or delete the offending post. Post conveys a sense that the poster has been smoking something powerful.
Pingback by Feminist Law Professors » Blog Archive » Title —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:48 am
[…] « Can a Person Be Pro-Life and a Feminist? Title Read the post here (it won’t take long, since it is only one word long), and the […]
Comment by Benji —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:50 am
Well Bog, old chap, you’re entitled, of course. So am I. So are the Chinese. It’s a storm in a green tea cup, purchased on the free market of opinions. And I don’t see any references to Amnesty’s good work here either, not that it matters to you Decents.
Comment by Spellcheck_Nazi —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:54 am
Sardonic contempt for 284’s use of Leet, written in Leet.
Comment by Chris Bertram —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:54 am
The main theme of the Blog is not desituationism, but subdesituationism. I use the term ‘neosemantic discourse’ to denote the paradigm, and subsequent futility, of course, of cultural society. Therefore, the subject is contextualised into a conceptualist paradigm of reality that includes sexuality as a whole. If neodialectic constructive theory holds, the Blog is postmodern. It could be said that the subject is interpolated into a predialectic paradigm of narrative that includes consciousness as a reality.
Comment by GF —
April 11, 2006 @ 10:58 am
Condemnation of republicans.
Comment by William Burns —
April 11, 2006 @ 11:00 am
Assertion of position on the Israel/Palestine issue; claim that all who disagree are motivated by bigotry.
Comment by Cryptic Ned —
April 11, 2006 @ 11:03 am
Unbelievably predictable joke about coffee and noses and you owe me a new monitor and keyboard and whatever.
Comment by Bluetooth The Pirate —
April 11, 2006 @ 11:04 am
Glib expression of disbelief, accompanied by ASCII art of a nocturnal woodland bird-of-prey.
Comment by LWE —
April 11, 2006 @ 11:07 am
Correction of utterly trivial historical detail that has no bearing on actual discussion, but which has been mentioned twice in passing.
Comment by Mike —
April 11, 2006 @ 11:10 am
Pointed expression of contempt for everyone still fueling the fire of a now-tired exercise by continuing to post.
Comment by C.B. Ben —
April 11, 2006 @ 11:13 am
LOLOL!!![interspersed with trailing ones]
[link to my blog with either bad HTML or a misspelled URL]
[some Socratic quotation]
Comment by HP —
April 11, 2006 @ 11:20 am
Pasting in an entire freaking article written by someone else, without attribution, as though it were one’s own work.
This is the first sentence of this story. This is the second sentence. This is the title of this story, which is also found several times in the story itself. This sentence is questioning the intrinsic value of the first two sentences. This sentence is to inform you, in case you haven’t already realized it, that this is a self-referential story, that is, a story containing sentences that refer to their own structure and function. This is a sentence that provides an ending to the first paragraph.
This is the first sentence of a new paragraph in a self-referential story. This sentence is introducing you to the protagonist of the story, a young boy named Billy. This sentence tells you that Billy is blond and blue-eyed and American and twelve years old and strangling his mother. This sentence comments on the awkward nature of the self-referential narrative form while recognizing the strange and playful detachment it affords the writer. As if illustrating the point made by the last sentence, this sentence reminds us, with no trace of facetiousness, that children are a precious gift from God and that the world is a better place when graced by the unique joys and delights they bring to it.
This sentence describes Billy’s mother’s bulging eyes and protruding tongue and makes reference to the unpleasant choking and gagging noises she’s making. This sentence makes the observation that these are uncertain and difficult times, and that relationships, even seemingly deep-rooted and permanent ones, do have a tendency to break down.
Introduces, in this paragraph, the device of sentence fragments. A sentence fragment. Another. Good device. Will be used more later.
This is actually the last sentence of this story but has been placed here by mistake. This is the title of this story, which is also found several times within the story itself. As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself in his bed transformed into a gigantic insect. This sentence informs you that the preceding sentence is from another story entirely (a better one, it must be noted) and has no place at all in this particular narrative. Despite the claims of the preceding sentence, this sentence feels compelled to inform you that the story you are reading is in actuality “The Metamorphosis’’ by Franz Kafka, and that the sentence referred to by the preceding sentence is the only sentence which does indeed belong to the story. This sentence overrides the preceding sentence by informing the reader (poor, confused wretch) that this piece of literature is actually the Declaration of Independence, but that the author, in a show of extreme negligence (if not malicious sabotage), has so far failed to include even one single sentence from that stirring document, although he has condescended to use a small sentence fragment, namely, “When in the course of human events,’’ embedded in quotation marks near the end of a sentence. Showing a keen awareness of the boredom and downright hostility of the average reader with regard to the pointless conceptual games indulged in by the preceding sentences, this sentence returns us at last to the scenario of the story by asking the question, “Why is Billy strangling his mother?’’ This sentence attempts to shed some light on the question posed by the preceding sentence but fails. This sentence, however, succeeds, in that it suggests a possible incestuous relationship between Billy and his mother and alludes to the concomitant Freudian complications an astute reader will immediately envision. Incest. The unspeakable taboo. The universal prohibition. Incest. And notice the sentence fragments? Good literary device. Will be used more later.
This sentence is the first sentence in a new paragraph. This is the last sentence in a new paragraph.
This sentence can serve as either the beginning of the paragraph or the end, depending on its placement. This is the title of this story, which is also found several times in the story itsel