Looks like quite a scuffle has broken out within the conservative blogosphere. See Ace and also The Commissar regarding this post at Wizbang. Now apparently Paul says he's done blogging.
I had my issues with Wizbang long ago, you might see them referenced in some links. I've since exchanged a few emails with Kevin and I'm not looking to stir that up. My issue was more with Paul, than Wizbang.
Frankly, if I had to characterize arguing with Paul ... it's sort of like holding a bright colored rubber ball up over the head of a gimpy retard and laughing when he jumps and ends up on his ass.
Sure, it's fun ... but is it really the best application of one's time?
"Now apparently Paul says he's done blogging."
And yet somewhow the world goes on
Posted by: don surber | Friday, July 28, 2006 at 01:32 PM
Okay, so my unflattering description of the world of blogs, written yesterday, is semi-prescient.
http://dblyelloline.blogspot.com/2006/07/swimming-against-riptide.html
This subject is so much self-referential navel-lint.
Posted by: rwilymz | Friday, July 28, 2006 at 04:31 PM
"Okay, so my unflattering description of the world of blogs, written yesterday, is semi-prescient."
Yeah, man. And it's written on a BLOG! And I read that self-reverential navel-lint you wrote about blogs.
Holden Caulfield would have flicked you off his shoulder like so much lint. He had a knack for detecting a phony.
god....
Posted by: Phoenix | Friday, July 28, 2006 at 11:56 PM
Bring back Paw!
Posted by: John from WuzzaDem | Saturday, July 29, 2006 at 03:43 AM
"god...."
Yes?
Posted by: rwilymz | Saturday, July 29, 2006 at 08:31 AM
by the way, Holden Caulfield was the quintessential self-important phony. In a world so full of options that doing what you're good at can -- if marketed -- make you a living of some sort, he prefered to fester in his own bile because those around him, while making livings and giving him opportunities to prosper, had to accomodate others while doing so ... which is called "life".
He had a "knack for detecting a phony"? Inutterable swill: he rebelled against the world because he couldn't be dictator, and then called it phony.
Posted by: rwilymz | Saturday, July 29, 2006 at 08:39 AM
rwilymz - I couldn't do more than skim it, your own post was what you would refer to as "superficial twaddle". So instead I started clicking the oldest link in the sidebar, repeating several times. Have you ever received a comment on anything you have written - besides here, that is?
Posted by: rhodeymark | Saturday, July 29, 2006 at 09:21 AM
"Have you ever received a comment on anything you have written - besides here, that is?"
Yes.
Like I said: I'm an essayist. I write essays. These are long, boring, analysis pieces that people with short attention spans can't start reading before they wonder when the commercial break comes in.
I don't write the one or two line entries that link to five different places -- each of which is a paragraph of opinion or, at most, localized fact that gets extrapolated to the known universe.
Essays aren't for everyone. And they particularly aren't for most of the modern "computer literate". Essays are the documentaries of the written word; the standard blog is the entertainment network. You'll notice that E! has a greater viewership than the History Channel. And while there are many people who claim to watch THC, very few of them can tell you what they ever saw there.
...yet most can relate the latest in Paris Hilton's love life as if it were their own.
I'm not boring you, am I, Rhodey? I mean, this response is kinda long, and I'm just getting started.
I'm still wanting to axe you why it is that 2,500 words outlining a position and supporting it to arrive at a supported conclusion is -- to you -- "superficial twaddle" when few-line bumper-stickers aphorisms that dominate the rest of the blogiverse is presumably sagacity on high.
Did you read ANYthing during your "click on the oldest link; rinse; repeat" operation? Or was actual **reading** too time-intensive without the empty activity of clicking links and stimulating the visual cortex every twenty seconds?
Should I reconstruct my collection of essays to be the semi-paragraphs of demi-thoughtful "bullets" that appeal to those brought up on Sesame Street and ritalin?
Posted by: rwilymz | Saturday, July 29, 2006 at 10:20 AM
"I'm not boring you, am I, Rhodey?"
Asked and answered - yawn. It probably was starting to maybe begin getting kinda sorta good in the second half... the other 1,250 words, I mean. Btw - your posts don't require Ritalin, they require this: http://tinyurl.com/qurwq
Posted by: rhodeymark | Saturday, July 29, 2006 at 11:27 AM
rwilymz,
You write long, analysis pieces? Based on your 'analysis' of Holden Caulfield and your analysis- swill about blogs, you don't know what 'analysis' is. You're really a used-car salesman, right?
Maybe a little PSYCHO-analysis will help. Although, I'd hate to think of the shrink's meltdown after one visit from you.
Posted by: Phoenix | Saturday, July 29, 2006 at 01:19 PM
"Asked and answered - yawn."
Rhodey needs continual stimulation to avoid the sleepies.
"You write long, analysis pieces?"
Aye.
And disagreement with same doesn't constitute anything other than
1] analytic disagreement if said disagreement is supported; or
2] gainsaying if not.
You would seem to be a gainsaying.
"Nuh UH!"
Hence my criticism of the standard blog-fare.
I couldn't have choreographed a more supportive response to my criticism if I'd tried.
Posted by: rwilymz | Saturday, July 29, 2006 at 02:02 PM
Oh. Okay. Here:
"In a world so full of options that doing what you're good at can -- if marketed -- make you a living of some sort, he prefered to fester in his own bile because those around him, while making livings and giving him opportunities to prosper, had to accomodate others while doing so ... which is called "life"."
You copied that when you had to Google to find out who Holden Caulfield is. No doubt, of the ten-trillion Caulfield hits, you picked an obscure one deep into the hits and managed to come up with one written by a sophomoric IT student forced to do some required-reading summer school course for graduation.
Hey, you can always start out your comments with "Dear reader" and re-insert throughout your windbaggery. That *might* give you some credibility. ha ha ha..... Choreograph that into your plagiarism to fill up your empty dance card.
Posted by: Phoenix | Saturday, July 29, 2006 at 07:04 PM
Dayyyum! That left a welt...
Posted by: rhodeymark | Saturday, July 29, 2006 at 07:12 PM
"You copied that when you had to Google to find out who Holden Caulfield is"
???
"of the ten-trillion Caulfield hits, you picked an obscure one deep"
????
Holden Caulfield is the peevish, petulant self-obsessed main character of Salinger's Catcher in the Rye. How is that obscure?
That's the only "Holden Caulfield" I know of. Now, if you googled for others to try to pull a fast one, well, then, congrats.
But as for the analysis of the character, he's a peevish, petulant, self-obsessed teenager whose universe revolves around his immediate wants and his future consists lining up the next of his wants and huffing and pouting when he can't get them. He is the modern rendition of the fox of sour grapes fame being celebrated for his rationalizations rather than moralized against for being a rationalizer.
But this is exactly what I'm talking about when criticizing the current use of blogs. There's no thought you put into your whiny bitch at me. You invented something that felt good to invent, you gleefully typed it into your keyboard and it magically appears in the public for all to see. And aren't you now the star!
No, you're a sophomoric twit essentially saying "nuh UH!" and you've got your lap dog rhodey saying "yeah! me too!" You thinnk in bumper stickers, you write in bumper stickers, and when somebody actually says something of substance -- even if you disagree with it -- you either ignore it or you reflexively denounce it, in this case accusing someone who has an attention span slightly longer than that of a moth to be plagiarizing somebody deep inside google.
If you don't want to be the corroborating embodiment of my criticisms, then don't merely tell me that I *am* wrong, tell me *why*. Put some thought into it, collect facts, if you're going to accuse me of plagiarism then cite the original, use full sentences, form paragraphs, write a theme.
Until you can do that, my criticisms are valid.
.
Rhodey, down boy. goo-oo-ood lapdog.
Posted by: rwilymz | Sunday, July 30, 2006 at 09:04 AM
"in this case accusing someone who has an attention span slightly longer than that of a moth to be plagiarizing somebody deep inside google."
Since your attention span is so self-admittedly short, I guess that explains the incoherence of your "essays". You rant into the void, and even the void can't take it.
Posted by: rhodeymark | Sunday, July 30, 2006 at 09:46 AM
Ha. Ha. Ha.!
Jaysus...to be thrown out of the void..... oh man. BOW fuckin' WOW.......
Posted by: Phoenix | Sunday, July 30, 2006 at 10:50 AM
Today was a complete loss, but oh well. I don't care. So it goes. Nothing going on , but shrug. Not much on my mind these days. Such is life.
Posted by: leen | Thursday, October 04, 2007 at 08:18 PM