9 - Awww....I'm never going to look at it the same way again.
(Whenever I type "Awww...", I usually end up hitting the wrong key and then having to correct it. Someday, I'm not going to notice and will post the original message, which says "Assss.....")
For a non-copyright-violating archive, I'd have advised trying the one I linked here, but all the strips have since been removed, even though they were only available then three at a time to any individual, and for a couple of days. But the full searchable index still works, with descriptions.
Kind of a "mind's eye" version of C&H. But, you know, people do find text works for many purposes.
"So whose going to post about 'Interns? No Bloggers Need Apply'?"
Heck, I managed that despite pain, infirmity, and illness. I do it out of pure nobility, for you, the home viewer.
I did, as might have been noted by my passing remark in my bunch-o-links post (more posts after that, breaking the illness gap of several days!), rather snort at the notion that lots of interns are going to be Making The Big Bux by getting fired from their intern jobs for blogging.
Yeah, that'll work as well as the average person starting a blog now and getting hundreds of thousands of readers in short order. Typical linear time/early adoption fallacy. It'll still happen for a handful of people, and similarly most high school kids on the bb court will wind up in the NBA.
Mmmm. There's something vaguely dishonest feeling about having waltzed into a blog with perceptible readership without building it up myself. I console myself by thinking that perceptible can still be insignificant.
It's not only early adopter, it's also some other bias or fallacy, the one where you think the sample of instances you've heard of is representative of the whole set. I refuse to look up what I'm talking about.
I think the idea that getting a lot of readers is as hard as getting into the NBA is a bit hyperbolic (and perhaps a bit self-congratulatory?). And it depends on what you mean by "short order." IME, picking a few fights with someone "important" will get you noticed, for better or for worse.
No, I'm not bitter that my meta-hate-blog gets more traffic than my personal blog with all my carefully thought-out posts--but I do realize that the meta-hate-group-blog has new content semi-regularly.
JM -- do you post much on your meta-hate blog? I haven't read it for a while but last time I looked over there it seemed like most of the posting was from Liberal Japonicus and DaveC, and maybe a third entity whom I am forgetting.
TMK, I do try to put the posts I'm proud of at the site I'm proud of, but I do cross-post there now-and-again, and I've a post up top right now. I tend to go off in comments.
"It's not only early adopter, it's also some other bias or fallacy, the one where you think the sample of instances you've heard of is representative of the whole set."
Selection bias, I'd think, also without bothering to look anything up. (Though if you google "fallacies" and go to the nizkor.org site, there's a good set there, last I looked.)
"I think the idea that getting a lot of readers is as hard as getting into the NBA is a bit hyperbolic"
I didn't say "a lot," I said "hundreds of thousands," though I didn't specify "per day," which is what I meant (apologies for lack of clarity). (Even "per week" would be damned unlikely, and not so many folks get to six figures per month in their first year, either, or are going to, I should think.)
" (and perhaps a bit self-congratulatory?)."
Jeepers, since the largest number I've ever hit was a few thousand in a day -- and I only do 4 figures per day on highly rare occasion, and all purely from a link from an actual very large site, hardly. I've had 9 whole hits in the last hour according to SiteMeter, and one was from me, and five were from Google searches. This is hardly unusual for my blog. So, I kinda don't think so much.
I try not to worry about it much these days, though sometimes (okay, too often) I let it get to me more than it should.
"IME, picking a few fights with someone 'important' will get you noticed, for better or for worse."
Yeah, I don't really care for that, myself, and the handful of times I've ever done it anyway, pretty much no one noticed, and I certainly didn't get links from those I criticized, whether left or right. Not that I'm criticizing anyone else; I just don't particularly enjoy fights, despite having too many in comment threads on other blogs.
I had far too many of those fights back not just in Usenet days in the Nineties, but in my younger days when I was having these same sorts of exchanges in "amateur press associations" (aka "apas") in print, whether every week, or month, or two months, or so, back in the Seventies (and slightly into the Eighties). Got bored with it by the end of the Seventies.
"And then, of course, you have to have the balls to keep blogging."
That I mostly manage, though with lots of breaks for illness, or just 'cause I need one.
Smarter'n Hegel, anyways.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 1:10 AM
Hegel wasn't actually alive during the 20th century, Michael.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 1:14 AM
I hope Bill Waterson wouldn't mind.
Posted by dave zacuto | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 1:18 AM
Are you saying Waterson has an unfair advantage?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 2:36 AM
My apple dictionary says that "delectation" is of chiefly humorous usage.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 2:40 AM
My apple dictionary says that "delectation" is of chiefly humorous usage.
I pwned B-Wo in his choice of words.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 6:06 AM
Maybe I'm a bad person for saying this, but I had forgotten how bad and preachy and artificial it had gotten toward the end.
Posted by NL | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 7:35 AM
can we open a pool on the over/under of how long it takes before this is shut down, like that one in the Netherlands? I say two months.
Posted by mike d | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 7:36 AM
I'm having trouble reading it as anything but Wolfson and Standpipe this morning.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 7:56 AM
My daughter claims to have known about this site for months, but that's the tone she always takes toward me.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 8:04 AM
I always like C&H, despite the appalling lack of raccoons in that strip.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 8:11 AM
9 - Awww....I'm never going to look at it the same way again.
(Whenever I type "Awww...", I usually end up hitting the wrong key and then having to correct it. Someday, I'm not going to notice and will post the original message, which says "Assss.....")
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 8:16 AM
So whose going to post about "Interns? No Bloggers Need Apply"?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/25/fashion/thursdaystyles/25intern.html?ex=1149220800&en=c386fc407dc1f749&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 8:20 AM
11: There was one where Calvin found an injured raccoon in the woods and took care of it over a week's worth of strips. But it died.
Posted by dagger aleph | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 8:22 AM
I clicked on that link hoping it was a picture of Wolfson's body.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 8:56 AM
It's "Watterson".
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:10 AM
Ditto 12.
Except for the "assss" part. Although I did initially type "ditty 12."
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:34 AM
So.... Standpipe is an independent manifestation of Wolfson's subconscious? That doesn't seem right to me.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:37 AM
You're all on crack.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:44 AM
Except slolernr.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 10:44 AM
11: There was one where Calvin found an injured raccoon in the woods and took care of it over a week's worth of strips. But it died.
So Calvin "took care of it", huh? That's an interesting euphemism.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 1:11 PM
For a non-copyright-violating archive, I'd have advised trying the one I linked here, but all the strips have since been removed, even though they were only available then three at a time to any individual, and for a couple of days. But the full searchable index still works, with descriptions.
Kind of a "mind's eye" version of C&H. But, you know, people do find text works for many purposes.
"So whose going to post about 'Interns? No Bloggers Need Apply'?"
Heck, I managed that despite pain, infirmity, and illness. I do it out of pure nobility, for you, the home viewer.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 3:32 PM
Yeah. I saw that article and flipped quickly past it. I'm still expecting to get fired doing this.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 3:42 PM
I'm with LB. I didn't blog it because that involves thinking about certain things I don't want to. Lalalalalalala....
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 4:01 PM
Ah, the virtues of being unemployed and semi-unemployable. Different worries, but at least not those worries.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 4:21 PM
I figured, I'm not an intern, I don't give a rat's ass.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 4:48 PM
I did, as might have been noted by my passing remark in my bunch-o-links post (more posts after that, breaking the illness gap of several days!), rather snort at the notion that lots of interns are going to be Making The Big Bux by getting fired from their intern jobs for blogging.
Yeah, that'll work as well as the average person starting a blog now and getting hundreds of thousands of readers in short order. Typical linear time/early adoption fallacy. It'll still happen for a handful of people, and similarly most high school kids on the bb court will wind up in the NBA.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 5:16 PM
Mmmm. There's something vaguely dishonest feeling about having waltzed into a blog with perceptible readership without building it up myself. I console myself by thinking that perceptible can still be insignificant.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 7:05 PM
It's not only early adopter, it's also some other bias or fallacy, the one where you think the sample of instances you've heard of is representative of the whole set. I refuse to look up what I'm talking about.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 7:07 PM
I think the idea that getting a lot of readers is as hard as getting into the NBA is a bit hyperbolic (and perhaps a bit self-congratulatory?). And it depends on what you mean by "short order." IME, picking a few fights with someone "important" will get you noticed, for better or for worse.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 7:08 PM
Picking a few fights which they deign to notice.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 7:30 PM
No, I'm not bitter that my meta-hate-blog gets more traffic than my personal blog with all my carefully thought-out posts--but I do realize that the meta-hate-group-blog has new content semi-regularly.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 7:37 PM
Right.
And then, of course, you have to have the balls to keep blogging.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 7:39 PM
I'm not bitter that my awesome new post at my plucky blog that could has attracted no comments whatsoever.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 7:40 PM
It's uncanny, isn't it.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 7:42 PM
Positively unheimlich.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 7:43 PM
JM -- do you post much on your meta-hate blog? I haven't read it for a while but last time I looked over there it seemed like most of the posting was from Liberal Japonicus and DaveC, and maybe a third entity whom I am forgetting.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 7:57 PM
TMK, I do try to put the posts I'm proud of at the site I'm proud of, but I do cross-post there now-and-again, and I've a post up top right now. I tend to go off in comments.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 8:38 PM
"It's not only early adopter, it's also some other bias or fallacy, the one where you think the sample of instances you've heard of is representative of the whole set."
Selection bias, I'd think, also without bothering to look anything up. (Though if you google "fallacies" and go to the nizkor.org site, there's a good set there, last I looked.)
"I think the idea that getting a lot of readers is as hard as getting into the NBA is a bit hyperbolic"
I didn't say "a lot," I said "hundreds of thousands," though I didn't specify "per day," which is what I meant (apologies for lack of clarity). (Even "per week" would be damned unlikely, and not so many folks get to six figures per month in their first year, either, or are going to, I should think.)
" (and perhaps a bit self-congratulatory?)."
Jeepers, since the largest number I've ever hit was a few thousand in a day -- and I only do 4 figures per day on highly rare occasion, and all purely from a link from an actual very large site, hardly. I've had 9 whole hits in the last hour according to SiteMeter, and one was from me, and five were from Google searches. This is hardly unusual for my blog. So, I kinda don't think so much.
I try not to worry about it much these days, though sometimes (okay, too often) I let it get to me more than it should.
"IME, picking a few fights with someone 'important' will get you noticed, for better or for worse."
Yeah, I don't really care for that, myself, and the handful of times I've ever done it anyway, pretty much no one noticed, and I certainly didn't get links from those I criticized, whether left or right. Not that I'm criticizing anyone else; I just don't particularly enjoy fights, despite having too many in comment threads on other blogs.
I had far too many of those fights back not just in Usenet days in the Nineties, but in my younger days when I was having these same sorts of exchanges in "amateur press associations" (aka "apas") in print, whether every week, or month, or two months, or so, back in the Seventies (and slightly into the Eighties). Got bored with it by the end of the Seventies.
"And then, of course, you have to have the balls to keep blogging."
That I mostly manage, though with lots of breaks for illness, or just 'cause I need one.
38: "I tend to go off in comments."
Possibly more ambiguous there than intended.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 05-25-06 9:25 PM
34 - I liked your post but I'm not clever enough to comment on your blog.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 05-26-06 8:33 AM
34 - I liked your post but I'm not clever enough to comment on your blog.
You left off an "over" before "clever".
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-26-06 11:56 AM
Nonsense, M/lls. It's impossible to overlike a post of mine.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-26-06 11:59 AM
Nonsense, M/lls. It's impossible to overlike a post of mine.
Hell, it's impossible to even like them, much less overlike them.
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-27-06 5:45 PM