It's a gas, gas, gas!
Beep beep beep.
Ah don't gots a phone so this here blog makes no goldarn sense to me.
Hey! That's the sound I make when I back up!
Wow, it's quiet around here. I'm guessing everyone's afraid to accidentally beep and bring the wrath of IANO down on them.p.s.David'z is a narc, Spud's a lurker, and I'm up to no good! Pass it on!
I'm not up to no good?Oh cool, I thought I was.Thanks, David!
Cake:I'm confused.Who's Spud? Or... Maybe I meant that Spud am not a lurker?(Can't wait until my date arrives so we can open the infrastructure.)IANO: Calling us losers wasn't nice. I might cry if I hadn't had my tear ducts surgically removed.
IANO:On the subject of "Commenting on Old Posts," which you're against:What an interesting set of rules and contradictions we could come up with here.Obviously, in this usage, an "old" post would be any post previous to a blogger's current post. This is irregardless of how often a blogger posts. So if Blogger One does not write a new post for a week at a time, his post from last Tuesday is still considered a "new" post. But Blogger Two happens to post two separate posts today, making the first one, from early this morning, an "old" post once Blogger Two adds a new post this afternoon.In the case of someone posting two or more posts on the same day, it would be quite easy for any reader who has anything remotely resembling a life not to even see today's earlier post until after the second had already shown up. He would naturally want to read both.(Of course, the same thing happens to anyone whose timing is off on a certain day -- like, if you don't post until 2 p.m. on a day that I did my "blog-checking route" late that morning. Or if I just don't get to do said "blog-checking route" on a certain Monday, and that's when you wrote your blog. If you post on Tuesday, and I read that, the Monday post which I missed is automatically "old" by then.)So, I am assuming that your opinion is that reading old posts is okay -- otherwise the whole "archives" section should be deleted by court order -- but commenting on them is not, even if the "old post" in question is from that very day?But what if I don't get to see a blogger's two Thursday entries until late Thursday night? The "new" post is entitled "Wonderfully cute things my stupid pet did today" -- upon which I don't feel a need to comment -- but the first was a lengthy dissertation on "Why Hillary would be the best president ever." You're saying I just have to let that go, deal with it, forever hold my peace, get on with my life, and all that? Isn't that, like, unconstitutional or something?Sure, I could sneak into the comments section of that blogger's new post (like I'm doing now with yours, heh, heh, heh... ) and say, "That certainly is a cute pet! Now, about this Hillary nonsense... " but you simply said we shouldn't comment on old posts at all, so I can't even do that? Oh, the unfairness! This would lead to built-up frustration for far too many people. It would lead to looting, rioting, and chaos in general. Chaos! (Not KAOS.)And I don't know if I should even bring up this tangential subject, but Blogger does have that nifty "Follow-up comments will be sent to [your email address]" feature, so once I've commented on something, anybody else's follow-ups will be sent to me forever! Unless I unsubscribe to that feature.Hey, wait a second... There's a solution. You can take yourself out of the loop, so if I want to comment today on something Cake or Sparkle or whoever wrote all the way back in freakin' August, you'll never have to know! You'll be able to sleep at night.So, to sum up: "Oh, yeah?"But anyway, what I really wanted to know is, how many Indian restaurants are there near your store?!?![Portions of this blog comment have been entered into the Congressional Record (which is, I believe, a 33 1/3 rpm).]
Yup...Julia Roberts. Folks (guys) don't much like her.She's similar to a mylar balloon....women think men like them.
Did you say irregardless??
Did I say "irregardless?" Heck, I'll give you two answers for the price of one.1) Yes. But before you take me to task for the use of such a controversial word, spend some time reading about the word and its usage on Wikipedia, especially the section entitled "Appearance in reference books," and especially the phrase "an erroneous or humorous form of regardless." My use of the word was to lend mock seriousness to what was actually a frivolous -- albeit long -- comment, just as my references to rioting, looting, and the Congressional Record were.Or, if you prefer...2) No. I was misquoted.
Post a Comment