Yeah, see, yet again: their whole entertainment value in doing this is that they rip your blog to shreds (or they don't, I mean, Betsy's review of your blog wasn't even that cruel or snarky, really), and then they expect you to come in and whine about how they're not being fair or they don't get it or this was something else, and then they can justifiably pounce on you because, you know, you asked for it.Y'know, forget what I may have said at Janiece's site about how at least their victims volunteer. What they do, actually, is this passive-aggressive thuggery. They get you to grovel and beg to be creamed so that they can gather around and kick you when you whine about being creamed, and if you don't, they whine that you're no fun.Fuck. Them.At least the folks at Something Awful have the 'nads to just jump on something and mug it without engaging in this "set up the victim so we can blame him/her later" chicanery.And is every reviewer at their site a faux goth? Depeche Mode? Shit. Newsflash, Betsey: DM's sucked since... hang on while I look this up... December 6, 1983, when they demonstrated that they were so completely and totally out of ideas they might as well release a CD with live versions of the exact same tracklisting that appeared on their previous album. Okay, I'll confess--I actually own a copy of Exciter; I bought it for $1.99 from a record club and subsequently only kept it because mailing it back would have cost me $2.99. That album doesn't even rise to the level of crap. But hey, I guess it makes sense: paying money to watch a bunch of wan, decrepit dudes wobble through the attempted resuscitation of their dead-and-buried career fits with the apparent zombie fetish, eh? You can call it Playing The Living Dead: The Old Men With Synthesizers Tour '09, maybe.
EDIT: Sorry, that year should have been '93, not '83.Depeche was still cool in '83. Hence the slip, prolly.
PSAnd Ask And Ye Shall Receive still sucks.
Eric - I was actually pretty fair to Nathan. He can really do with some editing. That's all. And I'm not goth, faux or otherwise. Looks like you have the balls today. Nothing I said was unfair. Truly.
Eric, what Something Awful does is a lot more thuggish, if you think about it.
I was actually pretty fair to Nathan. He can really do with some editing. That's all. Fine, fine--Nathan agrees with you, so fine.Depeche Mode has still sucked since 1993, though. :-)
Once again, meh on this whole "Ask and Ye Shall Receive" meme. It was boring both times I've been exposed to it. If I wanted an entertaining flame war, I'd head over to Whateveresque and bait some of the yahoos there.Betsy, I'll agree with you on the long-winded jibe (that's our Nathan!), but ultimately your site's not that entertaining either, so the meh is lobbed back attcha.
I actually preferred your old template, whatever Booms said. But I have to agree with the rest. You have some good material there, if you take out about 60% of the words. I'm not even being hyperbolic here.
The problem, Anne, is that love us or hate us, NATHAN (and not you or your homeboy Eric of the psychobabble) submitted his blog to receive our opinions. So, frankly, we don't give a shit what your opinion of our blog is. Hope that helps.
Why did you do that to yourself again?I mean seriously, why?There are several of us who could have given you pointers on blog design if you wanted. As far as content, we're writing for ourselves. If we were writing (or trying to write) professionally, that'd be one thing, but we're not, we're writing for fun. Well, I am anyway.If you just wanted abuse I coulda hit you in the head with the toaster. :)
You guys are taking this a whole lot harder than I am. Based on which posts they actually read, I expected them to be much rougher on me.I think I'll sleep OK tonight. And I'll post too many words again tomorrow.
I'm afraid I'm on the "meh" bandwagon for the entertainment value of these so-called reviews. As Anne has already noted elsewhere (and Eric reiterated), the point of most of the reviews is to drive traffic by flaming other people's internet homes. The twist is the fact that it's at their own request. So if you respond to their flaming with grace (as I did), then the authors will attempt to bait until they get their desired reaction. Which they didn't, at least in my case.And LB, You don't have very good manners. Anne's comments were not made over at Ask and You Shall Receive, but here, in the blog of a friend, where other friends do indeed care about her opinions. But you apparently feel fully justified in bringing your personal attack style to someone else's home, and applying it to someone who didn't ask for your opinion. Classy.I'm over the whole thing. Good luck, folks.
Yeah, Janiece, they were made over here. Was someone saying something about passive/aggressive behavior earlier? I can't remember. Also, it's probably not entertaining to a blogger that gets torn a new one, but someone somewhere enjoys it or the site wouldn't exist. My memory is absolutely horrible this week. Did you get a positive review? I think Nathan is handling himself a lot better than his commenters. Bitching about an AAYSR review is like going to a free clinic, testing positive for an STD and blaming the doctor for you having gonorrhea.
So does that mean I can hit you with the toaster?
I find some irony in the fact that Anne, Janiece and I have seemingly touched more of a nerve here than the A&YSR crowd managed to generate from their attempt to goad Nathan into "defending himself" (in quotes, since I assume what they want when they ask him to "grow a pair" is to goad him into whining and flailing).I also have to enjoy the irony that I've seen more productive criticisms directed at Nathan in this comment thread than I did in the "review" at A&YSR. Apparently to get the kinds of comments that actually live up to the A&YSR mission statement, you have to poke the sensibilities of the A&YSRers by pointing out their blog kinda sucks. Do that, and you can actually squeeze something constructive out of them--perhaps because comments here aren't actually driving their traffic the way their reviews supposedly are.Ah well, whatever.Now, as for where I choose to comment: my comments are for Nathan and people who read his post, presumably including regular readers of Nathan's blog. If I were interested in commenting about this at A&YSR, I would. But thank you for the completely gratuitous invitation to post comments on your open comments thread. Gracias. Xie xie.Of course, I'm not real sure why you want me over there--you don't give a shit what I think about your blog. You even bothered to tell me so! I'm in awe of this nadir of shit-giving, tell you the truth: I've given a shit to the point of not bothering to respond to a comment that I thought was an utter waste of my time, but to care so little I had to tell everyone I didn't care... wow. That's some serious apathy there. Or vacuous apathy. I'm not sure. Whichever is the best way to describe quite a lot of nothing.See, thing is, while I don't much care for A&YSR, I do care about ol' Nathan here. And while I can't begin to fathom why he bothered to submit his blog to A&YSR and subsequently begged for a review, I am going to stick up for my pal when it seems meet to do so. So I comment here, to say I think A&YSR kinda sucks, an issue which was brought to my attention by a kinda sucky review there. Not totally sucks--I totally dig the dead guy in the corner--but palpable suckage, nonetheless.
Wow. I get it. You're even more long-winded than Nathan. Birds of a feather. Gotcha.
Yep. I am. And you're onto something: I noticed the flocking at A&YSR. There are worse things than verbosity.
Oh, Eric, please go on. What, in your eyes, is worse than verbosity?
Worse things? Mean-spiritedness as a form of entertainment -- schadenfreude as reason for being. Really, it's more vampirish than zombie-tastic.And my blog sucks, don't bother, I haven't been writing much this year.
Jeri, we don't bother, typically it's you or them that do. Vampirish? Is that a word? Maybe it is. Verbosity is by far one of the most self-fulfilling abuses of the english language. Why can't you say what you mean, in thirty words or less? Oh, it must have something to do with your superior grey glob.
You can't hug your children with nuclear arms.
Hmmm.Think I'll come back when there isn't a flame war going on with a bunch of people I've never heard of.
Ghost, that was weak.Responding to a criticism with an ad hominem attack is a common Internet response.I'm not diverted, nor am I taking the bait.Again, in very short words: A&YSR has made being mean-spirited a form of entertainment.That's definitely worse than verbosity. Mean people suck.
Change your style because of this so-called review - and you might lose me as a reader, Nathan. Just saying.To be honest, I don't for the life of me understand the point of this exercise. What Michelle said.
HEY! Put the toaster down Ilya!
I will second Jeri. Mean people suck. Being mean for the sakes of being mean provides very little entertainment. BTW, there's nothing wrong with being long-winded.Terry Pratchett is long-winded. Neil Stephenson is long-winded.
Oh, please, y'all, Nathan knew who we were before he submitted. And, if we'd loved him or Janiece, you'd all be high-fiving them and telling them how awesome it all is.Sometimes people want a non-biased and objective review. I don't know if Nathan did it for the traffic, or if he did it for fun, or what his reasons were, but that doesn't mean that BB's review of his blog doesn't have merit.Even if all we do is write for fun, there is a craft to writing. If you want someone else to read, you have to make it readable and worth reading. Nathan has some good material to work with here, but he buries it in unnecessary verbosity.He COULD take that critique to heart, and get better, or he could pull an Janiece and pout.It's really his choice. However, every single person who comments on As has been reviewed, including me. Twice, in fact.The first time I was reviewed, it was italk2much.com (a now defunct site that was far less helpful and far more heartless than we ever thought of being). I took their words not very gracefully, but they inspired me to GET BETTER at blogging.After all, anything worth doing is worth doing well. Nathan's words are a representation of him, and as such, even if he is doing it for fun, are worth taking an extra 20 minutes to craft a post of which he can rightfully be proud.It's great that y'all have this mutual masturbation and admiration society where you stroke each other's egos, but the fact remains that both Nathan AND Janiece have the potential to become better bloggers.They do.Or, they can continue to be mediocre.It really is a choice. But, if you're going to put yourself out there for the world, isn't it worth doing well?
(tiptoes in )(picks up toaster)(tiptoes out)(slight smell of burning from next room)(tiptoes back in with the toaster, now warm)(crunching and eating sounds ensue)
And for the record, we PREFER to find solid blogs where people write in interesting ways. Last week, while Janiece got a flaming finger, two other bloggers got 4 stars and an "I fucking love you," respectively.We often go back to blogs we've reviewed and REVISE our reviews when we see that someone is making progress. We like good writing.Of course, I can't deny the schadenfreudian pleasure of encountering an Eric or a Janiece, though.So, you can point your fingers at the big bad meanies, or you can wonder if you've alienated dozens of other people who MIGHT HAVE BECOME YOUR READERS if you'd done things differently.It's your choice, really. But, I do agree that it's easier to pretend we're just evil villains than to actually contemplate that we might be right.So, as you were.
While I understand the point of constructive criticism, and the desire to improve one's skills, I just don't see that as an outcome of reviews from AAYSR. Most of the reviews, in my opinion, don't seem to be helpful or constructive. And I thought that the ones I read were mean (for the sake of being mean?) and somewhat predictable, rather than than interesting and snarky. I just don't see the point of being reviewed by AAYSR, but then again, I don't even have a blog. :-)
Ms. Love Bites.I will wholeheartedly agree with you on the point of getting better.But you seem to pass judgement too quickly. I believe you have made a mistake that most reviewers/ critics do.They do not consider two things:1. Intended audience2. Subject matterWhile being short and to the point is admirable, it's good only for writing emails, memoes, and technical manuals. Who said that you have to use seven words if your vocabulary allows you to use thirty.One thing they teach in writing classes is that personal style is a personal style. You can't use the same measuring stick for that.You seem to have your own set of admirers who like to bash anybody they don't like, without being constructive. It's your space and you are free to indulge in their support as much as you want to. (don't tell me you don't enjoy it when people agree with you)Let us have our indulgence.Maybe you can use this comments thread as a guide to BETTER your revewing skills :)
Jeri: I still don't see where I attacked anyone. Konstantin: like everything else in life, just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.
Also, I like Nathan. I just don't care for his blog. You, the commenters, are taking this rather personal.
I've been silent on this but I have to respond to Jim's comment about all the commenters at Ask being assholes. That's a huge generalization to make about a lot of people and it's just not true. I don't hate Nathan's blog. He is wordy and could use some editing. Same for me and my blog. I read and comment over at Ask. I enjoy the reviews. But I'm not an asshole. There are a lot of amazing writers over on that site. As for Nathan, he seems to have taken his review in stride and understands what he signed up for . It doesn't make sense to me to sign up for a review and then say basically, "Who cares what you think anyway?" Nathan didn't do that, and I respect him for that.
Konstantin - Isn't it true that when we ask for someone to review us that that reviewer is then our intended audience? Nathan asked for a review from Ask And Ye Shall Receive. He wanted their opinion. They gave it. What is the issue?
Why am I doing this, when I have crapload of work to do? Gluttony for punishment maybe. Ghost: who's the judge on what you should or shouldn't do :)
I'm glad I can provide such pleasure to ghost and Love Bites. I have no idea why Nathan subjected himself to being reviewed by a blog with the url "iwillfuckingtearyouapart" that features reviews in which reviewers like ghost bitch about people's "About Me" pages, for fuck's sake, and then get into a snit when you call them out for being mean-spirited, thuggish assholes who hide behind their "he/she asked for it bit." Okay, so somebody asked for it--you're still an asshole. They begged for it--doesn't change the fact you're an asshole.Y'know, one of the funny things about blaming a victim is that sometimes, frequently, even, the victim really did have it coming. The victim really shouldn't have been in a bad neighborhood after dark. Or the victim really shouldn't have invited the jerk over. But none of that really absolves the asshole perp; okay, so Bob went to a bad neighborhood and he got robbed--maybe Bob was dumb but the mugger is still a dick.Now, some random stranger wants to call me an asshole on the internet, I think I can get over it. Hell, I've been accused of being a part of some kind of government conspiracy to destroy the world, and I laughed my ass off (not really: my ass is still huge). I'm not obligated to go and whine about how I'm not the asshole, these other people are assholes, etc., ad nauseum.What I'm getting out of this is that at least some--hell, maybe all--of the reviewers at A&YSR are the kinds of people who love to dish it out but they can't take it. Oh, they'll eventually say, "Oh, I was reviewed too, I got over it," but that really isn't the point, is it? The point is they didn't laugh it off and go away, they went in feeling entitled to join the asshole convention. "And then it was my turn to be a dick! Hooray!"And now they're over here, not even confining the assholery to their own comments thread, whining about how they're not really assholes. Wah. I'm not even hearing a tiny violin in the background, I think that's a miniature Casio buzzing out "The Sad Ballad Of The Wounded A&YSR Reviewer."The pricks bleed, apparently.
P.S.Just to clarify: I'm an enormous asshole. You want to call me that, go right ahead. I'm actually an asshole for money.But I don't whine when you call me one. Unlike these A&YSR folks.
Oh, Eric, talk dirty to me. Yes, the 'About Me' section of a blog is rather important if you, as a blogger aren't going to give me any insight into who you actually are through your writing. A 'snit'? I would consider that more along the lines of 'creative differences'. Eric, I'm an asshole for free, because that's who I am. I was doing guest reviews long before I, myself was reviewed at Ask. Boy, you sure are touchy, aren't you?
Good point, LB. As the Head Ambassador of the Asshole Convention, I would like to go on record and clarify something:Wonderful People of Polybloggovia:There are but two actual 'pricks' that hold court over at AAYSR: myself and the honorable Nut Jobber. While I can't speak for my Canadian counterpart, I can assure you, that my 'prick' has yet to bleed. But if it pleases the good people here, I will look into finding something that will cause it to bleed. Please feel free to leave suggestions.Ghost of Keywork
Ask et al, couple of things here:1) There seems to be little consistency in your reviews - you took Janiece at Hot Chicks to task primarily over her blog template. You didn't like the design (This coming from a bunch of folks with the migraine inducing, eye stabbing, flaming red background on their own blog). You didn't like her writing either, though her style is far more succinct and less verbose than Nathan's. Nathan's blog layout was nearly identical to Janiece's, yet you express no beef with that, instead you decided that he talks too much. He should aim for 30 words or less when talking about a particular subject, I believe one of you said - perhaps you should be reviewing twitter feeds instead of blogs. Just saying.2) one of you said (and I forget which one because I'm too lazy to go back and look) Nathan took your review, such as it was, in stride. Then you proceeded to criticize the commenters for lashing out at your lazy and superficial review. You're missing something, which is this: the very fact that Pollyblogimous has a fanatical following willing to come to Nathan's defense says that what he's doing, how he writes, and what he says strikes a chord with a small but growing group of readers. Somehow you seem to have missed that.3) I've read a number of reviews on your site, you seem to have a universal goal - inducing a flamewar for your own entertainment. You and your commenters mention it numerous times, in numerous threads - and express disappointment when a flamewar doesn't break out. I'm not criticizing, it's important to have objectives - but this hardly forms a basis for an "impartial" review. You have an agenda that remains me of the old Monty Python "Argument" skit. But, here's the thing, pretending to be impartial when you know you're really not, and then claiming that the victim asked for it - well, that's called hypocrisy and that, Gwen, makes you an asshole.And, please, don't bother to call me an asshole in return. I am. I know it, thanks you very much. In fact there is an entire website dedicated to my assholiness, jimwrightisanasshole.com. You'd like it, it's not verbose at all.
I know this is going to just cause more trouble, but I've decided I have to review my review. It probably won't cause happy dances either here or over at A&YSR. Whatever.P.S. I'm gonna try to only review the review and not bother so much with the comments on either site...they're both complete trainwrecks.
And I like "People of Polybloggovia". It makes me feel all royal and shit.
Fuck, paragraph 3) in the previous comment should have been "an agenda the REMINDS me of" not "remains." clicked the wrong selection in the spell checker. It's too early here, and I haven't had enough coffee yet.
Hi, I love ribs, I only eat ribs, ribs are all I want. Blogger, you know this, why do you bring me cole slaw?
People of Polybloggovia should be the title of the review of the review post :)
Lacking consistency is but one of our many amazing attributes; others include slogging through terrible, terrible blogs just so we know, in our heart of hearts, for free, that we've at least read the fucking thing, and dealing with fuckwitted douchebags who like to complain but lack the finesse to do so in an entertaining way.I haven't read this blog, nor do I care one way or another about its defenders, though I'm slightly impressed that Nathan took the soft punch in the nuts like he should have - with an "enh, whatever".I only here to say, for the record, that my prick did bleed once, but that was a sex thing, like, years ago.This revelation may or may not have metaphorical ties to this hilarious cyber-psycho-drama, but you're welcome nonetheless.
I think I'd be really interested in looking at a bleeding cock...
Gawd! I really hope this isn't the one day every couple of months my sister visits.
Nathan:What, your sister isn't a fan of diplomacy?
Y'know Nathan, I can still hit you in the head with the toaster if you want.It'll be even better now that Natalie got it nice and hot!
Michelle, If you're going to offer to hit me with stuff, can't it be stuff you didn't steal from me in the first place?
Jim:Did you bother to read my review of Janiece? Really? Because there were at least 3 paragraphs and at least 400 words devoted to eviscerating Janiece's bitchy and pretentious persona on her blog. Let me link it. I'm quite sure you didn't read it. And if you did, perhaps you can get a fifth grader somewhere to explain it to you, sans profanity.Here. Let me repost the relevant section. You might have missed it.2) The author apparently knows everything. About everything. And I mean, EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING. There is nothing human or real about this blog. It's all very mechanical. Where it isn't mechanical, it's pretentious, sneery, and condescending to the rest of us lower life forms who aren't as supercilious as the author. Her personality is as warm as a fucking meat locker. Unfortunately, that sneeriness comes through in everything she writes, tainting it with an unpleasant, bitter taste. Apparently, Janiece thinks that she is better than every other human being on the planet, except for those working with refugees in Darfur. When she's not lecturing us about the appropriate scientific/ethical/moral/political perspective that we should all accept as dogma falling from the very lips of god (her), she's sharing her scintillating schedule. Or posting pictures of her new cell phone, or telling us about the speed of her internet connection. Or, whining about the new cell tower going up by her house. The worst part is, she's an unrepentant asshole. And, she knows it. And apparently, is proud of it. What has happened to this planet that people think being an asshole is a GOOD THING?You know, we mock the shit out of blogs here, that's our shtick, and people who don't know better probably think that the reviewers here are heartless bitches (plus a bastard or two). But we aren't. We actually CARE about this stuff. We try to be funny, we throw in a joke or two, and we kind of adore our commenters (awww, shmoopsies).But this woman is a complete and utter bitch with no redeeming qualities that I can spy, whatsoever. Who then, ironically, throws in post after post about pop culture that she supposedly doesn't care about. Ever hear of irony, oh godlike one? If this is who you are in real life, I can't imagine that other human beings can bear more than 20 seconds in your company, and I mean that with all sincerity. You are "that woman," the one that people see coming, in the hallway, and immediately turn around and flee. And, if that description isn't you, you need to seriously consider your content on your blog and revamp it. Hope that helps with the sad mischaracterization you provided here of the review of Janiece's blog. Here's the entire review.The largest critique of Janiece's blog was of her really not very engaging writing style. Really not very engaging being a code word for "writes like she's a heinious bitch in person." Also, the templates are totally different. As far as inconsistency, I don't think that there is a single Ask reviewer who would have liked 90% of Nathan's content. He can write, but he is a very lazy writer who doesn't self-edit.That was Betsy's critique, and she was absolutely correct.
TRAIN WRECK! TRAIN WRECK!How about if we keep the evisceration to me? Janiece already had her turn.
Well, Nathan, you take it too well. She's the one that wanted to pull her bandaid off in your comments section. And then Mr. Wright decided to help lick the wound. It's all rather, um, vampiric. Vampirish. Vampire-like.
I'll try to be more contentious in my review. It's up to 75,000 words and I'm trying to trim that a bit.(Actually haven't started it yet, but I'll get around to it.)
Ohhhh, condescend to me, LoveBites, that'll work. And for self-appointed brevity police, you, uh, sure go on for a bit, don't you?And just for what it's worth, as I said to Janiece, I'd take "heinious [sic] bitch" as a compliment. And speaking of heinous bitches in real life, I guess you'd be the expert there, eh? I mean, if your comments here and your reviews on Ask are any indicator.Also, the templates are totally different. Yeah, now. But, really, good observation, cupcake.
Nathan, have you forgotten that I got you that toaster in the first place?!So I'm just reappropriating is all.
Hmmm. Michelle, how about a nice coffemaker (or vacuum cleaner)? Either one of those'll do, if Nathan runs off with the toaster again...
The toaster and I go *way* back.He'll never be able to hide the toaster from ME!
Say what you like about flame wars but it can be hugely entertaining when both sides are going for it.Nathan's indication that his review of the review is close to 75,000 words did make me laugh out loud. Sorry to bring everything down (or would that be up) with an ill-judged LOL.
She's the one that wanted to pull her bandaid off in your comments section.No she didn't, ghostie. I commented about how awful y'all are, and then y'all came in and started stinking up the place with your petulant selves.I mean, you folks could've stopped asking for it any time ago. But here you are, going on and on about how you're not awful, or you're only awful when the person asks for it, or you're only awful when people don't understand you, or whatever your most recent excuse is. I've honestly lost track at this point.Well you folks really are just awful, and that has nothing to do with Nathan or Janiece, their blogs are just the vehicles your awfulness drove up in when it came to my attention.I mean, I've popped over to your stupid blog a few times and noticed my name has come up, and you don't see me over there whining about how I'm maltreated and misunderstood. Because I don't really care what you folks think of me--after all, as far as I can tell you're a bunch of assholes--as you folks clearly care what I think of you. The clear importance I've established in your wormy, corpse-burrowing imaginations really is almost an honor. Sort of. I guess. Okay, not really.
Okay, Eric, stop asking: you can have my autograph.
Eric, I think we both know why you won't comment over at Ask. And obviously, she's still bitter about her review, or she wouldn't have brought it up. But yeah, you're both so 'over it'.
For someone that doesn't care, you sure are making it a point to let us know how much you don't care. So do you care that we know that you don't care what we think. You probably could have just said that once.
Put your glasses on, Jim Wright. The two templates were ALWAYS different.The one Janiece was using is called "Minima." The one that Ethan is using is an adapted version of "Mr. Moto."Goddamn you're stupid. It would be funny if you weren't so sad.
(comes back with different toaster)(spends time fiddling with toaster and some plasticine substance and wires)(changes setting to DARK)(depresses the plunger)(runs away)
waitasecond.... is someone claiming that stock blogger templates actually look different from each other?That's.... amusing.Now pardon me, but things are cooking, gotta run!
Did you ever look at the templates of the two blogs? One was a revised blogger template with a cute header image with a clever little quip in it. The other had a stock blogger template with a paragraph-long description of the blog in the header bar. Jesus Christ, are you people sipping LSD with your hippy tea?
Christ, are you people sipping LSD with your hippy tea?Why yes, and it's very delicious, thank you! I especially like the swirly colors that make all blogger templates look like unique snowflakes by simply changing the colors and the headers!Wheeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(runs off into a field of laughing daisies)
No, Michelle! That's the old LSD the unicorn brought! NOOOOOOO!
NO! The LSD in the *tea* is different from the butt flavored unicorn LSD.The LSD in the tea came in special. Jim was dripping wet when he brought it in, and mentioned something about the Boston Harbor.
Jim was also muttering something about, "Da mihi libertatem aut mortem."
I'm happy to see that our comment threads aren't the only ones that spiral out of control into random minutiae.
I drink this salty hallucinogenic tea of patriotism with all my love of country. The old Hank Williams Sr. stuff, not the new stuff, unless maybe it's Willie Nelson or Emmylou Harris.::places hand on heart, imbibes::
Is Boston Harbor an estuary? Or all salt water.Because if it's the former, the tea might not be all that salty.
I stir my salty, hallucinogenic tea with the horn of Eric's Unicorn. Then it's salty and butt flavored.And then I march into battle to the cadences of Ted Nugent.::salute::
It's a salty estuary! And it's Jim's unicorn--it was only trespassing.
You guys have completely lost me on my own damn blog. Fine work People of Polybloggovia.(Damn, I like that. Thanks Ghost!)
Eric, "trespassing" is a very polite word for what that unicorn was doing. I'd normally demand the unicorn buy me dinner and drinks first, is all I'm saying.Pass me some of that patriotic tea! I'll go put a little Charlie Daniels on the old Victrola!(Had another comment stewing in my noggin, but this is ever so much nicer.)
Hey Nathan,You might want to do something about that other toaster before you sit down on the metaphorical couch with us and have some tea.(raises shields)
(dons shield and asbestos-laced gloves)(scurries in)(sidles over to the new toaster)(puts small flat rectagular object inside)(leaves paper crown on the couch)(runs like hell)
Spiral out of control?Random minutiae?To what (or whom), pray tell, are you referring? The progression makes perfect sense to me, sirrah! Or is it Madam? ::hic::
The Toaster is a Lie.
The toaster is NOT a lie!No, if I may be brutally honest, is it a metaphor.So there!ppffftttt!
The toaster is brave, but it is also sad because its maker is dead.
Sad Toaster is Sad.
Holy Crap.I spend one whole day concentrating on getting this damn degree and you guys go all comment nuts! (even more than normal for us UCFer's)I had never heard of these guys before Janiece mentioned them, and now..well frankly don't really care either way.UNLESS they are near the cookies on the metaphorical couch. THAT is a whole other ball game.
You're the one with the enormous asshole, right? All the sailors I ever met were well, boring as fuck. No fun to be around. In poor physical condition. So, yeah, for the most part you guys remind me of sailors I have met. Also, I can't fathom why anyone would pay to be a member of Mensa. Blowjobs are so much cheaper and fulfilling to the ego.
I can't fathom why anyone would pay to be a member of Mensa. Blowjobs are so much cheaper and fulfilling to the ego.Goddamn, dude, where were you with that line a week ago? That was beautiful. And you're hanging out with the wrong sailors, just saying.
Ghost, I'll give you the Mensa poke. Also, we're organized bullies, y'all.I'm so proud.
Well, Jim, I spent last week conjuring up a review for a 'stupid' review blog, trying to maintain my 'stupid' personal blog and totally avoiding my other 'stupid' blog. In between that, I commented on some blogs, continued mentoring my four year old son, remembered to take all my free meds (thank you, VA), fed my 'stupid' manx, worked my 'stupid' forty hour work week, drank my 'stupid' beers and talked to my 'stupid' fiancee. But thanks, had I seen that post, I totally would have left that comment. Oh, and thought of new, more sarcastic ways to use 'stupid' and '' marks in a rather long run-on sentence to leave at the blog of my choice. I do weddings, mitsvahs, and the occasional birthday party.
but thank god he isn't enlistedAh, yes, the trashy bitch girl friend, all smug and superior because she's dating a nugget JO. Let me guess, you're a stripper right? And he's a pilot, right? Some COD backseater maybe? No, a helo pilot. Or some some fucking SWO JO. Lady, really, you don't want to go down this road, trust me.
but thank god he isn't enlistedHey Love Bites, do me a big favor would you? Just for fun, tell your boyfriend that you said that exact line to a special operations Chief Warrant Officer. Oh, and hey, take a picture of his expression, because I'd really love to see his face when you tell him.
Oh, man, I hope you aren't bullshitting Jim. Because that is going to be one funny fucking picture.
Well, yeah, because we work for a living. Also, we know how to use a map.
Jim,my boyfriend is an 04, and I'm a professional woman who has worked in a very demanding and dangerous field for the last 20 years.So, really. You just need to stop. You didn't read Janiece's review, you aren't as smart as you think you are, and you're trying way too hard here. If you believe that Nathan is a good writer, you're deluded.I've noticed this a lot with the enlisted folks, some of whom clearly still have a chip on their shoulder and a lot to prove.That's okay, sweet britches. I'm sure you were awesome back in the day. Pat on the head for you and all.Now, toodles. I'm sure you have some weapons to clean and some glory days to relive.
Ghost, it's absolutely true. And interestingly enough, none of LB's ad hominem attacks offend me the way her obvious disrespect for the enlisted members of the military does. I was willing to give the A&YSR as a group the benefit of the doubt until she unleashed that little gem.Ah, to be the center of the universe, where other people's sacrifices mean nothing in the face of your own towering self-importance. It must be such fun.And with that, I really am out of here, not to be tempted back with Michelle's tales of LSD and Unicorn tea. Such incredible disrespect for a cadre of men and women who serve certainly does not deserve my attention or response.
I'm outta here, too. Once you start that stuff (disrespecting people who are willing to make sacrifices that you obviously are not), LB, it becomes glaringly obvious that literally nothing that you say could interest, sway, impress, or entertain me in any way. Whatever. I will stop feeding you now.
Lady, and I use that term very loosely, you are what we call a wardroom mattress. And you really, really, have no idea what you're talking about. You are, in point of fact, the perfect O-4 girlfriend - all mouth. Really, do what I suggested - tell your boyfriend exactly what you said and to who. Then have him look me up, it should be easy for a LCDR, I'm fairly well known within the special operations community.Oh, and by the way, a Chief Warrant Officer is a commissioned officer, the kind that makes fuzzy headed O-4's piss in their pants.And with that, folks, I'm done here. The internet is full of trolls, baiting them is only amusing for so long, after that it's just cruel, sort of like taunting a retard.
Post a Comment