Hegel wasn't actually alive during the 20th century, Michael.
I hope Bill Waterson wouldn't mind.
Are you saying Waterson has an unfair advantage?
My apple dictionary says that "delectation" is of chiefly humorous usage.
My apple dictionary says that "delectation" is of chiefly humorous usage.
I pwned B-Wo in his choice of words.
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.
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.
I'm having trouble reading it as anything but w-lfs-n and Standpipe this morning.
My daughter claims to have known about this site for months, but that's the tone she always takes toward me.
I always like C&H, despite the appalling lack of raccoons in that strip.
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.....")
So whose going to post about "Interns? No Bloggers Need Apply"?
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.
I clicked on that link hoping it was a picture of w-lfs-n's body.
Ditto 12.
Except for the "assss" part. Although I did initially type "ditty 12."
So.... Standpipe is an independent manifestation of w-lfs-n's subconscious? That doesn't seem right to me.
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.
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.
Yeah. I saw that article and flipped quickly past it. I'm still expecting to get fired doing this.
I'm with LB. I didn't blog it because that involves thinking about certain things I don't want to. Lalalalalalala....
Ah, the virtues of being unemployed and semi-unemployable. Different worries, but at least not those worries.
I figured, I'm not an intern, I don't give a rat's ass.
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.
Picking a few fights which they deign to notice.
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.
Right.
And then, of course, you have to have the balls to keep blogging.
I'm not bitter that my awesome new post at my plucky blog that could has attracted no comments whatsoever.
It's uncanny, isn't it.
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.
38: "I tend to go off in comments."
Possibly more ambiguous there than intended.
34 - I liked your post but I'm not clever enough to comment on your blog.
34 - I liked your post but I'm not clever enough to comment on your blog.
You left off an "over" before "clever".
Nonsense, M/lls. It's impossible to overlike a post of mine.
Nonsense, M/lls. It's impossible to overlike a post of mine.
Hell, it's impossible to even like them, much less overlike them.