I'm a real dick sometimes. Many folks* have been generous with their comments on this blog, and some of them have even been kind enough to link to my blog from theirs, yet what have I done for them?
Very little. Very little indeed.
It therefore incumbs upon me to use today's post to provide a list of everyone who has ever commented on this blog, with a link back to that person's blog. I will then create a thing to the right, with a link to this post, so that it's always "front-page news" as it should be! It goes without saying that without you, the readers, what I write here on this blog would not be being read by you, the readers - and the implications of that statement are obvious to anyone.
NOTE: in the process of compiling the aforementioned list, it has come to my keen attention that some of these folks don't have any blog. Perhaps they let it lapse. I will only link to those who actually have a blog.
ANTI-NOTE: actually, I'll just link to profiles instead of blogs. If they don't have a blog, why should that be MY problem?! Serious!
Note also that a few commenters were clearly spam entities. I'm going to leave those out - entirely at my own discretion. My rulings on this matter are FINAL, spam entities! I hope you rot in a digital hell of your own devising!! Wait - except, that you would have devised it thinking that your enemies would go there, not you! Then imagine your surprise! Ha, ha, ha.
Okay. Enough preambulating. The official list of my loyal readers, to be occasionally updated as future needs require, perhaps:
Sean Scully
Andrew
blue
Burning Daylight
Cassie
Chexxy
Domingoe
jul
Magna
Rebekka
wee lad
***1-Time Only Contest!***: Astute readers will notice that there's a certain underlying logic, or order - to the way those names are listed. First person to post a comment explaining what the organizing principle is gets their name put right to the top of the list!
FINAL NOTE: if you wish your name to be excised out from amongst this vaunted glory roll of honorable mentionables, please go to the "profile" or...whatever they call it...the "who am I" link and e-mail me via the "Contact" button, which works. I'll do it when I get to it, and very sorry for the inconvenience, whatever your damn problem is that you wouldn't want to be included in a list like that.
I make no judgments. You have reasons of your own, perhaps. Include racy photos of yourself in the removal request, for promptest response.
*Some may object that eleven is not "many." I should clarify that I mean "many" the way that statisticians use it. In this sense, "many" means "many, considered in terms of the proportion of readers who have commented on this blog who have left comments." In fact, "many" is probably an understatement in that case.
12 comments:
Hm. I have often wanted to meet a "Spam Entity." It sounds like some really excellent kind of Alien on Star Trek, like the Horta, the shambling mound of silicone, or that "pure energy" thing that found its way into the Information Society song in the 80s.
But I digress.
I have two theories on your so-called underlying order in this list. It is either a simple yet crafty alphabetical code, or it is a graphical design, involving defocusing your eyes and tilting your head sharply to the left to reveal the skyline of a certain city which I have not yet been able to divine.
The word "alphabetical" is an acceptable answer! Yes! The underlying scheme of my list is indeed based upon the age-old 'alphabetical order.'
My old nemesis.
Sean Scully, you move to the top of the class.
Ah, good. My powers of perception remained undimmed by time and beer. I was afraid it might have something to do with the occurrence of double letters, like the nonsensical voting machine glitch that was the key plot point in Man of the Year (I would say this was a spoiler if the movie were not already throughly spoiled on its own).
Ummm. . . that was weird! It said that to use this page, I had to log in to "www.seanibus.com" and give a username and password and all that! Is that some other honorary thing? I took a screenshot of it in case nobody believed me, because somehow even though they always do, I always think they won't.
Now, the real comment:
What a sweeto mosquito thing to do. But how could we expect less from you, dear writer? I also want to point out that this is not the first time since August 22nd that I've been to your blog, but it is the first time I've been without specific intent, so I've only just noticed the "front-page news" link to this post. I'm honored to be on your list of reader-commenters, even though I'm embarrassed that you signed up so you could make comments on my blog and now you have a much better one than I do. I'm not bitter or regretful about that at all. Nope. I don't feel like I used to when my sister would color in my coloring book and hers would be all perfect and shaded and have layered hues next to my slobby, went-outside-the-lines-a-few-times-in-my-fervor ones. I'm gleeful you've got such a rockin' blog.
What you were supposed to do, of course, was join, but be artfully minimal and understated. Like Magna. Now he's got a blog I can compete with.
It also took me about an hour to freakin' post this, because this stupid thing always makes me sign in with the Google Account now, and I can never remember it.
>Ummm. . . that was weird! It said that to use this page, I had to log in to "www.seanibus.com" and give a username and password and all that! Is that some other honorary thing?
That's extremely disturbing. I wonder if he accidentally hijacked my blog with an unintended flick of his intimidating computer skills?
VEIRD.
It worked OK for me.
Like, without having to log in to Seanibus.com.
How come you even HAVE a login to Seanibus.com, or more accurately, how come I don't rate?!
By the way, it isn't that I'm too ungrateful to acknowledge the sweet things you say about my blog, it's that I'm TOO BASHFUL.
>Sean Scully, you move to the top of the class.
The irony is, now that you have done this, his answer is now WRONG!
>Sean Scully, you move to the top of the class.
>The irony is, now that you have done this, his answer is now WRONG!
Not at all, as both question and answer clearly refer to the previous list (the original incarnation, which is no longer posted).
No question has been asked as to any organizing principle behind the current, reordered list! Nor would there be, as it was a ***1-Time Only Contest!***
Of course, you could certainly make the case that the sentence "Astute readers will notice that there's a certain underlying logic, or order - to the way those names are listed" is no longer accurate. No one would dispute you there.
Yeah, why WOULD you have to log onto Seanibus.com? It is free for all to visit and enjoy. Spend hours roaming the valleys and hills of my career!
Post a Comment