Blogiquette
I was procrastinating as usual and reading the comments posted on some (unintentionally) hilarious blogs, when I noticed a matter of etiquette that I was previously oblivious to. I've posted before that its my impression that many bloggers cannot cope with any response to their staggering works of heartbreaking genius that is less than laudatory. Some bloggers' comments sections are essentially circle jerks, and the stray critical or - god forbid! - negative comment inspires a disproportionately vicious 'defence'. Woe betide the non-jerking commentor if he/she has his/her own blog, as a phalanx of fellow bloggers will rain blood and hellfire upon the poor soul. Often, the blitzkreig involves impugning the sexuality/attractiveness/bloodline of the recalcitrant blogger, in the manner of Year 5 children excluding someone different.
I'm all for loyalty and protecting one's mates from harm and slander, but I find this propensity among bloggers really creepy. Admittedly, my sample is small and possibly not representative of bloggers in all of their wondrous variety, but still... Would these bloggers get their panties so wadded IRL? Scary thought, but I digress. The modern more I am curious about today is whether one should, or even has to, have blog before one can comment on the blogging of others.
Is this true? If so, why?
Then, of course, there is this.
I'm all for loyalty and protecting one's mates from harm and slander, but I find this propensity among bloggers really creepy. Admittedly, my sample is small and possibly not representative of bloggers in all of their wondrous variety, but still... Would these bloggers get their panties so wadded IRL? Scary thought, but I digress. The modern more I am curious about today is whether one should, or even has to, have blog before one can comment on the blogging of others.
Is this true? If so, why?
Then, of course, there is this.
posted by Anonymous at 11:19 am
11 Comments:
you trying to say something countess?
Whoever wrote this is a perverse, ugly vampire.
Twas not me m'dear Countess, but touché indeed anonymous :P
Can you describe 'this'? My Yokal G's content keeper decided I am too short to see.
'tis pages and pages of blog hating vitriol ms yokel g employee
That's a very important acute accent you left out there, Countess.
but countess, you provided your own with this posting
Countess;
Omitting the accent changes the meaning of what you meant to write.
Instead of the past participle,touché meaning "touched," (a term that has its origin in acknowledging a successful thrust in fencing,) touche is merely the singular imperative "touch!" which I am reluctant to do on so slender an acquaintance.
Countess;
Yes, it does.
Of course I understood what you meant. It's the fact that it's not actually what you said that is amusing. Context is, in this case, irrelevant.
Further, I don't think there's a context that can render "You are just jealous because I cultivating my blog nemesis, Tchick!" correct.
Actually surprised you haven't recognised me yet, Countess! Must be
a matter of context. Maybe I should think up a name for myself.
Well, if I were going to Wagnerian, I suppose it would have to be Hagen (rather than Fafner or Fasolt) though Alberich is more interesting, just not my Fach. Still, Wagner was such a tosser, why get all Wagnerian?
As for being who you think I am, I'll try and concentrate on being who *I* think I am. I imagine it will all work out from there.
Post a Comment
<< Home