
That would make an Internet Weblog analogous to an AK-47. Excepting that they are available to the general public. For free.
I've never fired a fully automatic weapon, but I suppose you don't have to aim very much. Say there's a Hummer to the left of the guy you want to kill and an Escalade on his right. You just notice which SUV you're shooting and move your left arm accordingly.
Before this hijacked and strained analogy breaks down further, let me hot wire another one. You've heard many times the slogan Guns don't kill people, people kill people. There is truth in that, but the saying shouldn't be used carelessly. The availability of a weapon can obviously facilitate a disastrous event. An acquaintance of mine who had trouble holding down a job had been going through a difficult time in his life. He had an offer for a security guard position and he had the experience. But it would have required him to possess and carry a sidearm. In a discussion, he leveled with me, "I just can't have a gun in my house right now."

That's a manufactured example, to be sure, and maybe not the best. So here's another example. A blogger throws an temper tantrum in multiple blogposts about someone who disagreed with his friend, Dave, by saying something like, "Dave must have been having a severely blond moment not to have thought through the implications of his ridiculous idea." In the midst of the blogger's written fit, a theory is advanced by him or a third-party comboxer that goes something like this: "Wow, it's pretty clear that Dave really, really touched a nerve with this monkey-headed-ass-brain."
I would suggest that is clear that someones nerve has been really, really touched. Really. And it's fairly clear whose.
My conclusions? First: if you criticize a critic for criticizing you should prepare for some criticism. Second: at the very least, please develop a better sense of irony whether or not you have a decent sense of humor.
Yeah? If I'm a booooooger, what's that make you for pickin' at me??
ReplyDeleteNanny, nanny, boo boo!!
I'm still laughing at the Jackie Kim email. That one never fails to brighten my mood.
LOL!
ReplyDelete1) Pauli you suck
ReplyDelete2) There is good substance in this post, which resonates with me because: The end result of this entire contra crunchy exercise is that i'm suspicious of people who write blogs, full stop. they all seem to either have, or come dangerously close to having, a thoroughly narcissistic agenda. even despite their best (well, personal best) intentions. Many blogs, even with high-falutin names that imply the blog is going to be about something substantive (actually, especially those) sound like the self-absorbed meanderings of an adolescent. I don't think they are worth the time for blogger or reader both. And I think they are, more often than not, poisonous for blogger and reader both.
So besides being criticized for criticizing, which of course is total un-American BS, it really rankles me when people accuse ME of obsessing, when i post about once a month and briefly comment for a few minutes at a time during the day. That accusation coming from people who spend the entire freaking day behind a laptop is pure projection.
The only things blogs are good for is to tear stuff down, really. That's why Gawker remains worth visiting. It explains the appeal of contra crunchy. It's the nature of the internet beast, I'm afraid.