And congrats on being noticed by one of Sullivan's nameless & faceless flunkies, & reaping the rewards thereof.I suppose we learned the hard way that the blogosphere of 2011 isn’t anything at all like the blogosphere of 2003 or 2004. There is no place for advancement without institutional backing. Getting links from other blogs just doesn’t happen, because the voices are all entrenched, and they all just link to one another all the time. Scott Lemieux said this about that, sez John Cole, and I’m all like, “No shit, I read that blog, too.” And while it’s fun to stay current, I pretty frequently feel like I’m stuck in an echo chamber.
(But then, hell, the most obscure blog I read is M. Bouffant’s, and he’s bigger than we are.* I’m a victim of the fallacy I seek to correct, too, buddy. I get it. I’m complaining here, not absolving myself of guilt.)
*A) How is "bigger" defined here?
B) And if so, let's not get personal, gym-goer.
7 comments:
That this entry is not about a buttplug makes me unspeakably angry.
"Buttish & Short Plug", read vs.
~
Bigger as in, we don't have the keys to Thers' spot. Also, you have more subscriptions to your RSS feed than we do.
Our wangs are bigger, though. You know, FOR THE RECORD.
"Buttish & Short Plug", read vs.
My mind sees what it wants to see.
Now tell me more about the big wangs.
He just said "bigger" VS. Not big. Small but maybe vital difference
Wind-Whipped Editor:
Bigger as in, we don't have the keys to Thers' spot.
That is apparently directly relatable to our willingness to type "fuck" any old time, & Thers' old skool graciousness.
Our wangs are bigger, though.
This, we again presume, is both personal & an entirely unfair three-or-more-to-one comparison.
VS needs to follow the link chain to the excellent Old Guys Blow-Drying Their Pubic Hair thread.
Post a Comment