I read once something that compared this kind of over-the-top, arrogant anti-religious expression to a college freshman newly discovering atheism. Thought it was an interesting remark.
3 reminds me of Ishmael, for some reason (by, I think, Daniel Quinn). Anyone here have any strong opinions about that book? I couldn't decide what I thought about it; I was both compelled by it and hated it at the same time.
I thought Ishmael was interesting, but I have a prejudice against anything too new-agey/hippified like that. It seemed sort of simplistic, not much more thought out than "The Lorax". I have some friends who really love it, though.
That's roughly accurate though I would put it more at about 1/3 crackpotty, 2/3 non-. The first 2/3 of the book is really, really interesting and will keep your mind occupied for a while. Last third is eminently skippable. (Which is to say, not only is it crackpotty, it's not very interesting either.)
In all seriousness, utopian statism was pretty horrible. I like the idea that the US Constitution was founded upon the assumption that people are total scoundrels.
20: Well, some people would argue that the Constitution was only designed to prevent the federal government from being scoundrels, and not anyone else.
I sometimes think this position has weight, but I refuse to admit it.
I read that book. In high school. And now have completely forgotten the contents. I also once had an X-men comic where beast was reading it and said that it was "interesting". Pretty non-commital for scientific genius turned superhero.
It does seem pretty crackpot from what Wikipedia has to to say about it. I am liking that the Gilgamesh Epic counts as counter-evidence. Gilgamesh roxxors.
I've seen that bait before and I'm pretty sure there is a big nasty hook in there somewhere. So I'm not biting. Not this time. Not if I can't see you to guage your reaction.
The notion that the hegemonic nation-state should be the standard against which all state societies be judged, or the designated hitter. One of the two.
No, no, I just don't want to elevate the US's internal problems to the level of "worst idea in history". Historically, the US slave trade was a mostly domestic issue.
But also, what a poor comeback: "But religion has also been responsible for investing countless lives with meaning and inner richness."
Y'know, the declarations of war in 1914 filled countless lives with meaning and richness, too. And they were pretty bad ideas. Also communism and (if you like) patriarchy. Sheesh.
Is "self-esteem" as bad or worse than "self-awareness"?
Pshaw. Patriarchy is far less offensive than replacing David Lee Roth with Sammy Hagar. Get some perspective, woman. I mean, seriously: "Why Can't This Be Love?" Eek.
Self-esteem is a very bad thing. There are more people with too much self-esteem than with too little. Furthermore, people with low self-esteem sometimes overcompensate by becoming better people, and they can often be easily convinced to run errands for you, have sex with you, etc.
People with too much self-esteem, by contrast, are heartless and abusive.
The theoretical possibility of having exactly the right amount of self-esteem does exist, in the same way that there is a theoretical possibility that entropy might reverse itself so that time moves backward.
You can listen online, it's from 6 to 9 pm PST, playlist will be here (updated, theoretically, in real time), and, though I can't tell you what I'll be playing, I can say that I'll be forced to play 12 cuts from this list.
Tripp, is that progression characteristic of a particular style of music, or do you just not like it?
I once claimed, in one of those late-night college debates which is frequently an object of fun, that the answer is nationalism. I now think this showed a shocking misunderstanding of history.
At the very least I'll be backannouncing what I played.
One has to do 2 PSAs and 1 station promo per hour, and one legal station ID at the top of the hour +/- 5 minutes, but there are recordings of those (nevertheless I'll probably be reading a fair number aloud as I don't like many of the recorded ones).
75 -- how is that a "failed plan"? My understanding was that the watching together was still slated to happen, this coming day-after-tomorrow. Are you making a prediction of failure? Or is my understanding way off? I'm certainly planning to watch Sunday and I was feeling all warm and comforted in the knowledge that you and bitchphd would be in the same situation at the same time.
You have a good time slot. Probably lots of requests, too, but mostly for chintzy stuff, I'd guess.
It's not really a time slot (not a regular one, anyway)—since it's finals week/the winter break, no shows are regularly scheduled and people are just signing up to make sure the day's covered.
3 reminds me of Ishmael, for some reason (by, I think, Daniel Quinn). Anyone here have any strong opinions about that book?
My strong opinion about this book is that it is UTTERLY UNREADABLE. I loathe essays disguised as fiction. If you have an interesting argument, just spit it out. Don't waste my time with your stupid sock-puppets.
People keep wanting me to read this book, but they can't make me!
Also, why limit ourselves to ethical monotheism? Why isn't theism in general is a bad idea?
Actually probably not -- the only person I remember actually saying they would was Bitch, Ph. D., and she is probably not going to anymore now that Mr. B/Pink is not coming home on time. So I will probably have to watch it by myself -- how traumatic!
(If any of you folks reading along are planning to watch Sunday, this would be a good place to jump in and reassure me -- I was really lookin forward to the Unfogged discussion group after the film.)
Also -- is the goal of this thread to discover "the worst idea in history" or "the worst idea evar" (in the charming misspelling of our host) or "the worst human attribute" or ...? I think we could benefit from some refinement of the term "idea" and the span of "history" -- "ethical monotheism" is certainly an idea that we can place within history, I'm not sure if "theism" fits the definition (and I'm not sure what the definition is) and I'm pretty sure it precedes any reasonable beginning of "history".
Yeah. Maybe I will watch Brokeback Mountain on Sunday. Tomorrow I'll be watching the movie I rented, and making an elaborate gift (I hope - assuming I don't fuck it up) for a present exchange at a Christmas party.
Also, I bought a book that I plan to have read by Monday. I love vacation.
Ben, I think I am listening to your show right now. Guess I will find out for sure when you do your station ID and shout out to all your unfogged listeners. I was a bit confused by the multiplicity of streams at the KSZU page, but they all seem to contain the same information which I will assume is your show. Right now you are playing 'Charming Hostess', correct?
Hey wait -- in that patter did you just identify it as 'Charming Hostess' by Szerelem? Now I'm really confused as to which is the song, which the singer. A-and, no shoutout?
No, it's "Szerelem" by Charming Hostess, though I may have misspoken.
It would be bad form for me to complain about the state of the air studio, I think, but shit, couldn't at lest *one* of the cd players remote start correctly?
Am too watching Brokeback Mountain on Sunday. First, b/c they delayed the transit strike and the weather in NYC this morning wasn't so bad, Mr. B. is supposed to be home tonight. Second, if he crashes and burns and never arrives, I'm hiring a babysitter. B/c I can't imagine anything more comforting to a widow than a pair of gay cowboys.
Ok, now I have to hunt up the headphones so I can listen to Ben's show (PK is watching Bug's Life, and I don't think I can handle listening to both at the same time).
See, I read the post, and thought of commenting about how Deborah Solomon was far more annoying than anyone I'd ever met, but the whole "comments (108)" just killed the idleness. Why bother, when there are 108 comments before?
Youse guys are busy whilst I'm just idle. I'm not even able to work up the thought of reading 108 comments, let around reading before commenting.
C'est nes pa blog, but rather a snapshot of a group IM session. Worse, it's IRC! I call shennanigans. (The thing is, it's not as if 108 comments were, you know, substantial; I'm just sort of a sucker for the substance thing; not that, of course, 108 substantial comments here wouldn't be either odd or unnerving.)
But, really, this blog doesn't have "comments." It has a moving IRC session. Neat, but it would be interesting if there were also an option for commenting on the posts. Although that might require a blog that focused on the posts as important. Hard to say. (Yeah, yeah, I'm too cranky. As always.)
The interesting thing about the lack of substance in this thread is, well there's a couple of interesting things. Many of the comments deal directly with the subject of the post, is thing one. These may be more or less substantial but they are certainly comments pertaining to the post itself. Then there are other comments which take up issues raised in the first class of comments and spin off to e.g. reference previous threads or make in-jokes. These are arguably less substantial but still I think germane. Then there is the stuff that has to do with Ben's radio show, which I imagine is primarily here because Ben's blog host is not working and he wanted to post about it. I was glad to see the posting (and in this sense it was substantial AFAIAC) although it had little to do with the post topic. And then there was a bit of pure fluff and cock jokes which contributed in a small way, I should think, to building a blog community.
So -- no need to read it all, or even to skim it, if that is not your desire. What was the comment you wanted to post that was on topic?
'Deed I think close to 3/4 of the comments on this thread are of the first two classes, either direct responses to the original post, or responses to responses. And the rest is mostly to do with Ben's radio show. Very little mere fluff.
I don't think ben's are working either. Reading over Gary's comment, I think what he's suggesting is that we construct some sort of unfogged chat room, and leave the blog free for well-formed ideas. Why doesn't ogged create one of those?
I listened to part of Wolfson's show but then realized I wasn't cool enough to fully appreciate the screechy French woman and went off to watch Me and You.... The movie made me appreciate the comparative non-awkwardness of Tuesday's meetup.
-- SPOILERISH --
(Although it would have been really funny if we had all shown up and discovered Ogged was six years old.)
Probably that no one I'd want to have sex with me, who writes here, is having sex with me. I should be clear. Sorry. (Actually, I'm pretty much only thinking about others in that regard; but since I was asked; also, "Nova Scotia" isn't lox, and it's not a bagel if it isn't steam-boiled; as it happens, I could have a lot of objections here, though the court might not allow all of them; or any of them.)
Since when did one need an objection beyond general crankiness, anyway? It's not as if you started commenting here before I did (it finally occurred to me to work that inl my theory is that no one will notice it's a non-sequitur).
Reading over Gary's comment, I think what he's suggesting is that we construct some sort of unfogged chat room,
Perhaps.
and leave the blog free for well-formed ideas.
So...first you're talking about a blog, which is supposed to be spontaneous and instantaneous and otherwise aneous, and then you're talking about comments to a specific blog post which as a subset of a blog post are going to throughly ephemeral, transient, and via inheritence aneous, too, and that therefore there should be a chat room to ensure that
the aneous is not too too aneous. Of course, a chat room will also be too aneous, so presumably, at some point, the whole thing will devolve to discussing Hegel (and Marx) via cell phone, thus maximizing the transience of any group of er, 'well-formed' ideas.
I can't decide if that's diminishing returns (which returns?) or gilding the communication lily.
Why doesn't ogged create one of those?
He did.
I think what he's suggesting is that we construct some sort of unfogged chat room,
Let's see!
(The thing is, it's not as if 108 comments were, you know, substantial; I'm just sort of a sucker for the substance thing; not that, of course, 108 substantial comments here wouldn't be either odd or unnerving.)
So, 108 posts is bad EITHER WAY.
But, really, this blog doesn't have "comments." It has a moving IRC session. Neat, but it would be interesting if there were also an option for commenting on the posts. Although that might require a blog that focused on the posts as important. Hard to say. (Yeah, yeah, I'm too cranky. As always.)
I think what he's saying is that he's squeezed out by the volume of posts and can't be heard above the din. This makes facilitating rotator cuff tears by patting yourself on the back difficult unless you optimize for crankiness.
I knew that ogged created a chat-room, hence the attempted funny. I'd have linked to one of his admonishments to use the chat-room, but I don't link because I'm lazy.
"I think what he's saying is that he's squeezed out by the volume of posts and can't be heard above the din."
It's something closer to not having enough attention span to sort through the din; I rarely have much of interest to say here, myself. (Even in my own self-centeredness, it has never occurred to me to think that, somehow, Unfogged, and the fine commenters there/here, don't/doesn't pay enough attention to me. I'll have to start on that thought, though maybe not. Definitely maybe not.)
Why can't we all just get along, anyway? Where's the love? I want to see the love. It's Christmas, you fucking bitches. (If I have the tone wrong, my apologies.)
Note: I asked to see the wuv before i read 151. I am very happy to be swell. I am truly easily pleased. By love. And being swell. (Also, I have a blog! You likely haven't heard.)
"history has proven that the chat-room was not a success."
Well, yeah, because it would duplicate comments. Duh. (And an hour later, you'd all still be hungry, but there would still be no sesame noodles left for me; that's pretty much my gripe; I'm always too late to the party, but, as Fafnir claims as well, we always have snazzy bowties (I lie furiously; although it's true that Faf is my Best Buddy Ever, I have never worn a bowtie since that embarassing picture in third grade, and if you ever saw that, you're no friend of mine in saying so). (I need to close another parentheses there, perhaps, but you're all against me in that, as well! Closing in! Or not closing in! Whatever. Here we go:)
Okay, my attention span is now up. That's pretty much the basic gripe, probably.
Although I did just get through lecturing John Cole in his comments about his obsession with Pajamas Media, speaking of obsessively focusing on blogs that are not mine (I have a blog! You surely have not heard!).
Unfogged comments: more like a tv show than a set of comments on blog posts. Or somewhere in that neighborhood. Tune in, it's always going on! Eastern daylight hours, anyway. Better soaps, to be sure. It would be more fun if this place were like Alias, though. More wigs, though maybe not either. Work with me, if you like.
I actually would have sworn you'd never heard of me before now, even with no gun at my head. Really. I mean, you're the famous B, Ph.d. No one ever looks cross-eyed at a phud. (I will not go further about my intellectual insecurity here. I will not.)
I kinda get that Wolfson is offering closing, but he really ought not to end our relationship that way, I think. Although I may feel the whole closing in thing too much. Much too much.
Wait, I said I was leaving. I no longer trust myself.
Can we stop with the Unfogged whining? I know we all do that well but I have to wonder...Ogged goes on hiatus and then comes back and suddenly decides to meet everyone. Sounds a little like those suicide warning signs where they say people go around saying goodbyes before they off themselves. A small part of me has to wonder if it's a last hurrah before he pulls the plug on the site. Pure speculation, of course, but I say we don't give him a reason right now by being ungrateful.
Gary, we got into it over the question of whether or not some proposed law in some great lakes state could or could not validly be said to be banning rape counselling on college campuses, remember?
Plus I DID used to comment here kind of a lot, once upon a time.
"Gary, we got into it over the question of whether or not some proposed law in some great lakes state could or could not validly be said to be banning rape counselling on college campuses, remember?"
Well, yes. Quite. Michigan, Wisconsin, and their fine college papers. I seem to think I'm forgettable, though. Frankly, although I'm highly aware of you, I can certainly almost think of other bloggers I've had interchanges with that I've almost forgot of. Sort of. Nearly.
Help! (Have there been no forgettable bloggers you've exchanged words with? I can think of a couple I'd like to have forgotten about, except that I have, of course, forgotten about them.)
I did learn a long time ago that we tend to make greater impressions on other than we realize, but then I forgot that. (And, besides, if i actually believed I was not forgettable, I might choke; hoping people will forget is one of the few ways I can let myself type. Really, more or less; if any of you other folks are different, congrats.)
Unlike you philosophy guys, I'd likely not know what you meant if not for that whole Motorcycle book back in 1975. Possibly true, even.
""Gary, we got into it over the question of whether or not some proposed law in some great lakes state could or could not validly be said to be banning rape counselling on college campuses, remember?""
Taking this far more seriously than I should, my examination of my inner head suggests that since neither I blogged that, and you did not on your site, as well, but it just took place in comments, that apparently some part of my head thinks that means it's not recorded/memorable/noticed. Shit.
That won't play anywhere. Damn. And, also, shit. And yet more expletives. (Much longer comment reduced to: weird head crap. Weird.)
Becks, I think you're making too much out of a series of coincidinces. Hiati have happened and un-happened previously, as have (smaller-scale) meet-ups. So a hiatus unhappening followed by meet-ups in new cities because ogged happens to be travelling and that's as good an excuse as any; it's all just a cigar. Like text's. At The Mineshaft.
Sorry, w/d and all, my last comment was pretty shrill. That thought was a twinge, not an actual prediction. Meant more as a plea for civility than a legitimate theory.
Aw shit, come on, 175 comments? How am I supposed to read through/pay attention to all that? It's like Unfogged was just an IRC channel! Rather than a Blog.
Well, I'm late here, but I'd like to say that if Unfogged stops being frivolous and shallow, I'll stop coming. Not a threat, just the truth. I need my TV.
If Ogged does commit suicide, who gets his electronics stuff? I doubt that his mom will want it. Does he have brothers or sisters?
It seems to me that it should be someone from the community that honors, reveres, and abuses him.
Unfogged! Come for the substance, stay for the rapid-fire banter!
(Actually, if the focus of the blog were to be adjusted in the direction of my preferences, there'd probably be more news/politics/social issues related posts -- that was what I originally came here for, and the volume's dropped off a bit lately. But I could just start up my own blog if I wanted this one to be different, now, couldn't I, rather than expecting someone else to do all the work.)
LB, perhaps you should check out my other blog, Talking Points Memo. I think the reason we don't do so many posts on real live current issues is that (a) it's just demoralizing and (b) lots of other people do it better. We're finding our sense of identity-- the blog is almost three, after all.
See, I read the post, and thought of commenting about how Deborah Solomon was far more annoying than anyone I'd ever met, but the whole "comments (108)" just killed the idleness. Why bother, when there are 108 comments before?
For what little it's worth Gary, I know exaclty how you feel. Not that this is a criticism of the flourishing unfogged community! But it does make it harder to jump in. Also, like LB, I came here for the coverage of religious pharmacist issues.
Not that this is a criticism of the flourishing unfogged community! But it does make it harder to jump in.
I suppose (and this is idle musing rather than criticism) that if the management wanted to make it easier for people who haven't been awarded one of the fellowships to comment, they could do the ObWi thing of putting up an open thread every so often (to be firmly distinguished from the Eschaton thing of putting up open threads constantly, and basically giving up on blogging as such) and ask folks to keep the chatter in the open threads. On the other hand, they could just keep things as they are.
Has this ever actually happened? Everyone keeps talking about Bitch, Ph. D. having been banned but I don't know whether it's a real thing or a joke. Anyone besides her?
I couldn't tell I was on break if I didn't engage in some ridiculous Unfogged-related project, so, banning frequency according to Google (that is, if the phrase "is banned" appears more than once in the thread, only one is likely to show up):
Cala: x
Matt F: x
Emerson: x
Joe Drymala: xxx
Standpipe Bridgeplate: xxxxxx
Fontana Labs: x
Tom: x
Caitlin Flanagan: x
Idealist: x
Love: x (in Chopper's person, IIRC)
LizardBreath: xxxx
washerdreyer: x
Michael: x
ac: x
Chopper: x
eb: x
Rodney King: x
Hindrocket: x
apostropher: x
Tripp: x
Ogged: xxxxx
Yglesias: x
The author: x
Everybody: x
Standpipe is the banning monarch, I think due to niceness and also the occasional auto-ban when going on hiatus. Ogged is Ogged, of course, and LizardBreath's bronze-medal I think is our grown-up equivalent of dipping her ponytail in the inkwell.
203: My method was Teh Suck, though--not only did I miss duplicate versions of "is banned" on one thread, I missed these. I thought I was banned sometime--maybe it's in there.
Nope. dsquared, Michael twice, SCMT, Tia, Wolfson (how has he been banned but once?), Gary, L., and Bridgeplate twice more.
Going through and checking that crossed my personal pointless-waste-of-time threshold, which is really quite high. I will perhaps go finish Tomorrow in the Battle Think On Me and listen to some high-class mewzick now.
here there's nothing that makes the audience laugh.
Speak for yourself dude. Or is your point that commenters are not "audience"? I personally have got more high-quality laughter out of the last month of reading Unfogged than out of any randomly selected previous year of blog reading.
I think that we should absolutely insist that Unfogged does whatever it feels like doing, whether that be remaining the same or changing drastically. However, if it stops being shallow and frivolous, I'm outta here.
Jackmormon-- Shouldn't it be "Ce n'est pas de blog."
Apo et al. I think it would be a cross between Seinfeld and Friends. It's not nearly as sappy as Friends but not completely nihilistic either--and Seinfeld is.
I don't have any real gripes about the way the site is managed, however, I would like to nominate LizardBreath for one of those posting fellowships.
i was pretty excited about this thread, and the chance to contribute "just the tip." the exam-taking lurker misses the moment again.
still relevant to say that seinfeld doesn't hold a candle to arrested development, yet 7 generations from now, seinfelds and davids will be drinking champagne from silver spoons, while AD will be lucky to get showtime sloppy seconds. tv: not fair.
(Bitch, Ph. D., LizardBreath and JackMormon are respectively Janet, the first Chrissy and the second Chrissy. John Emerson is Mr. Furley. This last, not so much a casting decision as a statement of equivalence.)
Re. Seinfeld, is it the show we loathe or the broader cultural "meaning" of the show, including the fact that we're all expected to like it, what with being sophisticated, educated urbanites? B/c, for all I loathe the latter and just hate it when people drag Seinfeld references into conversation, I do have to shamefacedly admit that the show, as show, was often pretty funny.
shamefacedly admit that the show, as show, was often pretty funny
I'm not ashamed; I laugh at funny things. I do recognize, though, that something can be so expected to be universally-adored because of its appeal to urban sophisticates that it becomes sophisticated to loathe it as proletarian drivel.
Also:
- wolfson and ogged are clearly Mr. and Mrs. Roper, respectively.
Seinfeld is the second best sitcom to have appeared on network TV. Pretending otherwise is ever-so-much-more irritatingly sophisticated than liking the show. Ogged doesn't like it because he's an ignorant immigrant who doesn't understand American humor. If no part of you loved the "Second Spitter" episode, I hope GWB is listening to your phone calls.
Is this where I can post my random shuffle 10 songs? Art Bears rolled around, and Dweller on the Threshold, even if it is not the group, but the Van Morrison song, but maybe I can fool somebody.
I think SCMT means part two of the two part episode with Keith Hernandez; it features a parody of JFK and the second shooter on the grassy knoll. Drat, I forgot the spoiler warning for that grassy knoll part.
I read once something that compared this kind of over-the-top, arrogant anti-religious expression to a college freshman newly discovering atheism. Thought it was an interesting remark.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 12:51 PM
There are no worst ideas, just worst idealists.
(Alternatively: worst ideologues.)
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 12:54 PM
Without a doubt, cultivation of crops. Followed closely by domestication of livestock.
(BTW, any of you guys read "Evolution Man" by Roy Lewis?)
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 12:55 PM
Ha! It was Ezra, apparently. Figures.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 12:55 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 12:58 PM
I think 'self awareness' has been pretty devastating. Does that qualify as an idea?
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 12:58 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 12:59 PM
3 reminds me of Ishmael, for some reason (by, I think, Daniel Quinn). Anyone here have any strong opinions about that book? I couldn't decide what I thought about it; I was both compelled by it and hated it at the same time.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 1:00 PM
Tripp -- I think it's more of a "conditioned reflex".
(btw, any of you guys read "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes?)
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 1:00 PM
Oh, and: "the internets" has got to rank up there fairly high on the list.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 1:01 PM
If one is good and two is better, three will be the best.
Or - I was buying boots and the 9's were tight, the 10's felt good so I bought the 11's.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 1:05 PM
So what is the worst idea evar?
Van Hagar.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 1:06 PM
Hey, this is fun. How about:
"Wait until the girls see this!!"
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 1:06 PM
I thought Ishmael was interesting, but I have a prejudice against anything too new-agey/hippified like that. It seemed sort of simplistic, not much more thought out than "The Lorax". I have some friends who really love it, though.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 1:07 PM
I really think it was the invention of writing.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 1:26 PM
15: Did you read the book I was asking about in 9? Because Dr. Jaynes thinks you are saying the same thing as Tripp in 6.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 1:34 PM
I haven't read that book, but I've read about it; I, too, think I'm saying something similar to Tripp in 6 (though not quite the same).
My understanding is that half of the book is kinda crackpotty and half of it is not? It would be interesting if that were true, given its title.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 1:39 PM
So no one has suggested "Having Deborah Solomon do those interviews."
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 1:42 PM
half of the book is kinda crackpotty
That's roughly accurate though I would put it more at about 1/3 crackpotty, 2/3 non-. The first 2/3 of the book is really, really interesting and will keep your mind occupied for a while. Last third is eminently skippable. (Which is to say, not only is it crackpotty, it's not very interesting either.)
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 1:43 PM
In all seriousness, utopian statism was pretty horrible. I like the idea that the US Constitution was founded upon the assumption that people are total scoundrels.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 1:48 PM
Other than that, any article of clothing associated with M.C. Hammer.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 1:49 PM
Joe, what happened to your site?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 1:52 PM
20: Well, some people would argue that the Constitution was only designed to prevent the federal government from being scoundrels, and not anyone else.
I sometimes think this position has weight, but I refuse to admit it.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 1:52 PM
Joe, what happened to your site?
Ugh. I don't want to talk about it.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 1:55 PM
20 and 23 are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 1:59 PM
My mis-scanning of 23 makes me want to write something about the feral government. Prolly already been done.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 2:01 PM
"If men were angels, there would be no need for government" seems to imply pretty much everyone. Well, at least half of everyone.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 2:03 PM
18: Except for the damn title of the post! Well, I've already said I don't read the posts.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 2:03 PM
18: Except for the damn title of the post! Well, I've already said I don't read the posts.
p(a
we
in
er
fa
ll
s)
wn
l
iness
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 2:10 PM
joe? I think you misspelled your name there.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 2:11 PM
Joe Joe Drymmings
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 2:13 PM
Worst idea ever? Patriarchy, obviously.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 2:23 PM
I read that book. In high school. And now have completely forgotten the contents. I also once had an X-men comic where beast was reading it and said that it was "interesting". Pretty non-commital for scientific genius turned superhero.
It does seem pretty crackpot from what Wikipedia has to to say about it. I am liking that the Gilgamesh Epic counts as counter-evidence. Gilgamesh roxxors.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 2:28 PM
Worst idea ever? Patriarchy, obviously.
hee hee.
I've seen that bait before and I'm pretty sure there is a big nasty hook in there somewhere. So I'm not biting. Not this time. Not if I can't see you to guage your reaction.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 2:29 PM
The worst idea ever:
The notion that the hegemonic nation-state should be the standard against which all state societies be judged, or the designated hitter. One of the two.
Posted by JDC | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 2:45 PM
The blood libel isn't great.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 2:52 PM
I definitely agree that the hegemonic nation-state should not be the designated hitter. That would make no sense at all.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 2:52 PM
putting it in the third hole in the wall, when the farmer said not to.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 2:53 PM
Yeah, the hegemonic nation-state should control the field as well, not just run the bases.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 2:58 PM
Lite beer.
Posted by Lex | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 3:00 PM
I think that for my mock-misreading of 35 to actually work properly, the period in 35 would need to be replaced with an em dash.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 3:00 PM
another bad idea is eating the buttered corn-on-the-cob, ejected from the farmer's window.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 3:00 PM
"American" cheese.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 3:02 PM
Come to think of it, that Rabbi should probably never have gone into that bar with that Priest and that Mafioso...
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 3:02 PM
Race.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 3:03 PM
For the U.S., probably slavery.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 3:05 PM
It was a good idea for everyone else involved though?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 3:07 PM
No, no, I just don't want to elevate the US's internal problems to the level of "worst idea in history". Historically, the US slave trade was a mostly domestic issue.
I should have qualified it more, I guess.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 3:12 PM
But also, what a poor comeback: "But religion has also been responsible for investing countless lives with meaning and inner richness."
Y'know, the declarations of war in 1914 filled countless lives with meaning and richness, too. And they were pretty bad ideas. Also communism and (if you like) patriarchy. Sheesh.
Is "self-esteem" as bad or worse than "self-awareness"?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 3:13 PM
Is typepad.com fucking up? Yglesias's posts rolledback to Dec. 10 and Delong is back to Dec.11.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 3:13 PM
Joe O, yes it is, which pisses me off because I had just made a post announcing my upcoming radio! broadcast! and now it is gone. :(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 3:16 PM
I think self-awareness isn't as bad as a lack of self-awareness.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 3:16 PM
Oh, yeah, and then there's these.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 3:17 PM
if you read the emoticons from right to left, they make a tower of happiness.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 3:18 PM
Worst idea ever? Patriarchy, obviously.
Pshaw. Patriarchy is far less offensive than replacing David Lee Roth with Sammy Hagar. Get some perspective, woman. I mean, seriously: "Why Can't This Be Love?" Eek.
Also in the running: cell phones.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 3:20 PM
I think self-awareness isn't as bad as a lack of self-awareness.
ITYM "The only thing worse than being self-aware is not being self-aware".
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 3:21 PM
Yes -- is that from something?
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 3:22 PM
Oscar Wilde, except instead of "self-aware" it's "talked about".
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 3:24 PM
Oscar Wilde once said "the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about".
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 3:24 PM
Joe,
I think self-awareness isn't as bad as a lack of self-awareness.
I dunno. Maybe simply existing is better than knowing. Remember the Garden of Eden . . .
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 3:25 PM
They were self-aware. They just weren't Satan-aware.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 3:26 PM
Right, right, I know the OW quote. Just thought the above was possibly from a film or a Tom Stoppard play or something.
Ben, when's your broadcast? Is it online also?
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 3:27 PM
Self-esteem is a very bad thing. There are more people with too much self-esteem than with too little. Furthermore, people with low self-esteem sometimes overcompensate by becoming better people, and they can often be easily convinced to run errands for you, have sex with you, etc.
People with too much self-esteem, by contrast, are heartless and abusive.
The theoretical possibility of having exactly the right amount of self-esteem does exist, in the same way that there is a theoretical possibility that entropy might reverse itself so that time moves backward.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 3:29 PM
I IV V I ii7 V7 . . .
Either that or the gross-out stunt on Fear Factor.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 3:29 PM
You can listen online, it's from 6 to 9 pm PST, playlist will be here (updated, theoretically, in real time), and, though I can't tell you what I'll be playing, I can say that I'll be forced to play 12 cuts from this list.
Tripp, is that progression characteristic of a particular style of music, or do you just not like it?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 3:30 PM
ben,
Not only do I love it, I grok it, but it doesn't finish. And I don't like the idea that things finish.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 3:34 PM
I once claimed, in one of those late-night college debates which is frequently an object of fun, that the answer is nationalism. I now think this showed a shocking misunderstanding of history.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 3:36 PM
#37 & 41: Actually, Steve Balboni and Dave Kingman were nation-states, although I don't think either achieved hegemony.
Posted by JDC | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 3:42 PM
Ethical monotheism does kick unicorns ass in the "superstitions that have affected world history" category.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 4:01 PM
Television.
And reality television.
and "I'll really be ready to write this as soon as I read a little more about this arguably related side-issue..."
Posted by Andrew | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 4:10 PM
Wolfson, are you going to be doing any speaking during this broadcast?
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 4:45 PM
At the very least I'll be backannouncing what I played.
One has to do 2 PSAs and 1 station promo per hour, and one legal station ID at the top of the hour +/- 5 minutes, but there are recordings of those (nevertheless I'll probably be reading a fair number aloud as I don't like many of the recorded ones).
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 4:48 PM
Awesome. I've been going through yr old playlists for new music. Listening live will be more efficient entertaining by orders of magnitude.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 4:58 PM
^ and
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 5:00 PM
It'll be kind of like that failed plan to watch Brokeback Mountain ensemble.
I plan to listen, and I'll likely being having people over later, so they'll be listening too, I suppose.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 5:02 PM
be.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 5:03 PM
You have a good time slot. Probably lots of requests, too, but mostly for chintzy stuff, I'd guess.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 5:05 PM
75 -- how is that a "failed plan"? My understanding was that the watching together was still slated to happen, this coming day-after-tomorrow. Are you making a prediction of failure? Or is my understanding way off? I'm certainly planning to watch Sunday and I was feeling all warm and comforted in the knowledge that you and bitchphd would be in the same situation at the same time.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 5:07 PM
Oh. I thought the time to watch it was like last weekend, and had already passed. I can't keep up.
Did I say I was going to watch it? I should. I just came from the video store -- I rented "Me and You and Everyone We Know."
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 5:09 PM
You have a good time slot. Probably lots of requests, too, but mostly for chintzy stuff, I'd guess.
It's not really a time slot (not a regular one, anyway)—since it's finals week/the winter break, no shows are regularly scheduled and people are just signing up to make sure the day's covered.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 5:11 PM
3 reminds me of Ishmael, for some reason (by, I think, Daniel Quinn). Anyone here have any strong opinions about that book?
My strong opinion about this book is that it is UTTERLY UNREADABLE. I loathe essays disguised as fiction. If you have an interesting argument, just spit it out. Don't waste my time with your stupid sock-puppets.
People keep wanting me to read this book, but they can't make me!
Also, why limit ourselves to ethical monotheism? Why isn't theism in general is a bad idea?
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 5:16 PM
Did I say I was going to watch it?
Actually probably not -- the only person I remember actually saying they would was Bitch, Ph. D., and she is probably not going to anymore now that Mr. B/Pink is not coming home on time. So I will probably have to watch it by myself -- how traumatic!
(If any of you folks reading along are planning to watch Sunday, this would be a good place to jump in and reassure me -- I was really lookin forward to the Unfogged discussion group after the film.)
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 5:18 PM
Also -- is the goal of this thread to discover "the worst idea in history" or "the worst idea evar" (in the charming misspelling of our host) or "the worst human attribute" or ...? I think we could benefit from some refinement of the term "idea" and the span of "history" -- "ethical monotheism" is certainly an idea that we can place within history, I'm not sure if "theism" fits the definition (and I'm not sure what the definition is) and I'm pretty sure it precedes any reasonable beginning of "history".
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 5:22 PM
worst idea evar = allegory.
Posted by mcmc | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 5:25 PM
I rented "Me and You and Everyone We Know."
Me too! And I was hoping to catch Brokeback Mountain sometime this weekend, if I can fit it in around museuming.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 5:46 PM
Yeah. Maybe I will watch Brokeback Mountain on Sunday. Tomorrow I'll be watching the movie I rented, and making an elaborate gift (I hope - assuming I don't fuck it up) for a present exchange at a Christmas party.
Also, I bought a book that I plan to have read by Monday. I love vacation.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 5:50 PM
Hey, there's a computer in here.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 7:36 PM
Ben, I think I am listening to your show right now. Guess I will find out for sure when you do your station ID and shout out to all your unfogged listeners. I was a bit confused by the multiplicity of streams at the KSZU page, but they all seem to contain the same information which I will assume is your show. Right now you are playing 'Charming Hostess', correct?
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 7:44 PM
Here, too.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 7:45 PM
Or perhaps you are playing 'Szerelem', by Charming Hostess. That would probably be more feasible.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 7:46 PM
Hey wait -- in that patter did you just identify it as 'Charming Hostess' by Szerelem? Now I'm really confused as to which is the song, which the singer. A-and, no shoutout?
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 7:52 PM
No, it's "Szerelem" by Charming Hostess, though I may have misspoken.
It would be bad form for me to complain about the state of the air studio, I think, but shit, couldn't at lest *one* of the cd players remote start correctly?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 7:56 PM
confused by the multiplicity of streams at the KSZU page
Me too. The proper one is KSZU-1, though I don't think it much matters at the moment.
Ben, your voice is different than I expected, although I guess I'm not sure what I expected, if anything.
And I am being entertained by the music.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 8:01 PM
yes, we demand shout outs.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 8:02 PM
I don't see shoutouts in our future.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 8:03 PM
yayyyyyyy
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 8:08 PM
Woo!
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 8:09 PM
Ye of little faith.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 8:10 PM
Wolfson's voice is very familiar. Am I making things up or do other people think this?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 8:10 PM
At some point, I'm going to have to decide between listening to Wolfson DJ and going to Tom and Cat's party.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 8:12 PM
I apologize for omitting SB.
I was all overcome with emotion at the thought of uttering the syllables aloud.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 8:12 PM
So I missed the shout out?
(I caught the PSA about the suicide hotline, but had to run out for a moment.)
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 8:16 PM
This one is...unusual...kinda yokoish?
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 8:19 PM
It's Meredith Monk.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 8:20 PM
She has an awful lot of awards.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 8:29 PM
Every idea anyone ever had after I was 20 years old is the worst idea ever.
Your favorite idea sucks. Also your favorite idea's earlier albums were better.
Posted by Matt McIrvin | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 8:44 PM
Am too watching Brokeback Mountain on Sunday. First, b/c they delayed the transit strike and the weather in NYC this morning wasn't so bad, Mr. B. is supposed to be home tonight. Second, if he crashes and burns and never arrives, I'm hiring a babysitter. B/c I can't imagine anything more comforting to a widow than a pair of gay cowboys.
Ok, now I have to hunt up the headphones so I can listen to Ben's show (PK is watching Bug's Life, and I don't think I can handle listening to both at the same time).
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 8:52 PM
Groovy. Now we just need to get one of the Mineshaft crew to create a thread for it, where we can have our discussion come Sunday evening.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 9:01 PM
Wasn't one of them going to see it also?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 9:13 PM
See, I read the post, and thought of commenting about how Deborah Solomon was far more annoying than anyone I'd ever met, but the whole "comments (108)" just killed the idleness. Why bother, when there are 108 comments before?
Youse guys are busy whilst I'm just idle. I'm not even able to work up the thought of reading 108 comments, let around reading before commenting.
C'est nes pa blog, but rather a snapshot of a group IM session. Worse, it's IRC! I call shennanigans. (The thing is, it's not as if 108 comments were, you know, substantial; I'm just sort of a sucker for the substance thing; not that, of course, 108 substantial comments here wouldn't be either odd or unnerving.)
But, really, this blog doesn't have "comments." It has a moving IRC session. Neat, but it would be interesting if there were also an option for commenting on the posts. Although that might require a blog that focused on the posts as important. Hard to say. (Yeah, yeah, I'm too cranky. As always.)
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 9:27 PM
Not that I know of, but if not I'll do it over at my place.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 9:28 PM
Neat, lemurs!
Gary, just weave it all in.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 9:28 PM
Gary, what precisely is your objection here?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 9:30 PM
I just realized that I know another Charming Hostess, Marika H.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 9:38 PM
I knew she played with Julie sometimes, didn't realize she was in the band.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 9:40 PM
The interesting thing about the lack of substance in this thread is, well there's a couple of interesting things. Many of the comments deal directly with the subject of the post, is thing one. These may be more or less substantial but they are certainly comments pertaining to the post itself. Then there are other comments which take up issues raised in the first class of comments and spin off to e.g. reference previous threads or make in-jokes. These are arguably less substantial but still I think germane. Then there is the stuff that has to do with Ben's radio show, which I imagine is primarily here because Ben's blog host is not working and he wanted to post about it. I was glad to see the posting (and in this sense it was substantial AFAIAC) although it had little to do with the post topic. And then there was a bit of pure fluff and cock jokes which contributed in a small way, I should think, to building a blog community.
So -- no need to read it all, or even to skim it, if that is not your desire. What was the comment you wanted to post that was on topic?
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 9:42 PM
Or was it simply that "Deborah Solomon [is] far more annoying than anyone I'[ve] ever met"?
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 9:43 PM
She wasn't until recently, I think; the band's been through a number of lineup changes.
She's also a member of 2 Foot Yard.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 9:46 PM
I was wondering. Hadn't thought she was.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 9:51 PM
'Deed I think close to 3/4 of the comments on this thread are of the first two classes, either direct responses to the original post, or responses to responses. And the rest is mostly to do with Ben's radio show. Very little mere fluff.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 9:52 PM
Ce n'EST paS blog, Gary.
I only comment on-topic.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 9:53 PM
I missed the radio show. Read Pinter's Betrayal, and smoked a fine cigar.
I'll catch the next one though.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 9:55 PM
the cigar is bitter at the end, but I must keep at it till it burns my fingers.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 9:56 PM
Pinter's Betrayal is not the worst idea ever.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 9:57 PM
I just caught the end of it.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 10:01 PM
betrayal, ben's radio show, or my cigar?
does the show persist?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 10:04 PM
Ce n'est pas un blog, to be really fucking pedantic.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 10:04 PM
really fucking pedantic is the way we roll.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 10:06 PM
I take it you'll be at the Fargo congress with Joe and me, then, text.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 10:08 PM
You should be able to see that I'm nowhere near your cigar. That leaves two options.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 10:09 PM
Une blague, peut-etre?
I'm too lazy to do accents.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 10:09 PM
I'll make it to Fargo. ac is, in fact, nowhere near my cigar, which is, after all, only a cigar.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 10:14 PM
did I need all of those commas? no. but I didn't not need them.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 10:15 PM
I needed them. Thanks.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 10:19 PM
anytime, ben, since you, afterall, are a swell fellow, in my estimation, at least.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 10:21 PM
Hey, my blog exists again.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 10:24 PM
after all ought to be one word.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 10:24 PM
hey: your blog says you've got a radio show tonight, ben. sweet.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 10:27 PM
But can you see the comments? I haven't been able to read them on any of the typepad blogs.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 10:28 PM
I don't think ben's are working either. Reading over Gary's comment, I think what he's suggesting is that we construct some sort of unfogged chat room, and leave the blog free for well-formed ideas. Why doesn't ogged create one of those?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 10:32 PM
I listened to part of Wolfson's show but then realized I wasn't cool enough to fully appreciate the screechy French woman and went off to watch Me and You.... The movie made me appreciate the comparative non-awkwardness of Tuesday's meetup.
-- SPOILERISH --
(Although it would have been really funny if we had all shown up and discovered Ogged was six years old.)
-- END SPOILER --
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 10:33 PM
I can see the comments.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 10:34 PM
I was disappointed to see that Unfogged doesn't qualify as a community under the Koufax award definition.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 10:34 PM
the screechy French woman
But she was one of the best parts!
Also, that might be one of the most approachable tracks on that album.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 10:35 PM
I can see comments to the first two posts but not the third.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 10:35 PM
But she was one of the best parts!
I'm sure it would have been, was I cool enough to appreciate it. My maximum screech threshold is Corin Tucker. Sorry.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 10:36 PM
Hm. Interesting.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 10:36 PM
"Gary, what precisely is your objection here?"
Probably that no one I'd want to have sex with me, who writes here, is having sex with me. I should be clear. Sorry. (Actually, I'm pretty much only thinking about others in that regard; but since I was asked; also, "Nova Scotia" isn't lox, and it's not a bagel if it isn't steam-boiled; as it happens, I could have a lot of objections here, though the court might not allow all of them; or any of them.)
Since when did one need an objection beyond general crankiness, anyway? It's not as if you started commenting here before I did (it finally occurred to me to work that inl my theory is that no one will notice it's a non-sequitur).
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 10:49 PM
Reading over Gary's comment, I think what he's suggesting is that we construct some sort of unfogged chat room,
Perhaps.
and leave the blog free for well-formed ideas.
So...first you're talking about a blog, which is supposed to be spontaneous and instantaneous and otherwise aneous, and then you're talking about comments to a specific blog post which as a subset of a blog post are going to throughly ephemeral, transient, and via inheritence aneous, too, and that therefore there should be a chat room to ensure that
the aneous is not too too aneous. Of course, a chat room will also be too aneous, so presumably, at some point, the whole thing will devolve to discussing Hegel (and Marx) via cell phone, thus maximizing the transience of any group of er, 'well-formed' ideas.
I can't decide if that's diminishing returns (which returns?) or gilding the communication lily.
Why doesn't ogged create one of those?
He did.
I think what he's suggesting is that we construct some sort of unfogged chat room,
Let's see!
(The thing is, it's not as if 108 comments were, you know, substantial; I'm just sort of a sucker for the substance thing; not that, of course, 108 substantial comments here wouldn't be either odd or unnerving.)
So, 108 posts is bad EITHER WAY.
But, really, this blog doesn't have "comments." It has a moving IRC session. Neat, but it would be interesting if there were also an option for commenting on the posts. Although that might require a blog that focused on the posts as important. Hard to say. (Yeah, yeah, I'm too cranky. As always.)
I think what he's saying is that he's squeezed out by the volume of posts and can't be heard above the din. This makes facilitating rotator cuff tears by patting yourself on the back difficult unless you optimize for crankiness.
ash
['!']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 10:53 PM
Gary, it's not that hard to read through 345 comments.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 10:56 PM
Gary, you are swell. And you were commenting here before I could sit up on my office chair to lurk, so there's that.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 10:57 PM
I knew that ogged created a chat-room, hence the attempted funny. I'd have linked to one of his admonishments to use the chat-room, but I don't link because I'm lazy.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 10:59 PM
"I think what he's saying is that he's squeezed out by the volume of posts and can't be heard above the din."
It's something closer to not having enough attention span to sort through the din; I rarely have much of interest to say here, myself. (Even in my own self-centeredness, it has never occurred to me to think that, somehow, Unfogged, and the fine commenters there/here, don't/doesn't pay enough attention to me. I'll have to start on that thought, though maybe not. Definitely maybe not.)
Why can't we all just get along, anyway? Where's the love? I want to see the love. It's Christmas, you fucking bitches. (If I have the tone wrong, my apologies.)
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 11:01 PM
history has proven that the chat-room was not a success.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 11:02 PM
Note: I asked to see the wuv before i read 151. I am very happy to be swell. I am truly easily pleased. By love. And being swell. (Also, I have a blog! You likely haven't heard.)
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 11:11 PM
A blog? I don't believe it.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 11:17 PM
"history has proven that the chat-room was not a success."
Well, yeah, because it would duplicate comments. Duh. (And an hour later, you'd all still be hungry, but there would still be no sesame noodles left for me; that's pretty much my gripe; I'm always too late to the party, but, as Fafnir claims as well, we always have snazzy bowties (I lie furiously; although it's true that Faf is my Best Buddy Ever, I have never worn a bowtie since that embarassing picture in third grade, and if you ever saw that, you're no friend of mine in saying so). (I need to close another parentheses there, perhaps, but you're all against me in that, as well! Closing in! Or not closing in! Whatever. Here we go:)
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 11:18 PM
Aw, c'mon guys, Gary needs some love.
We love you, Gary.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 11:22 PM
((((((((((Gary)))))))))))
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 11:23 PM
Okay, my attention span is now up. That's pretty much the basic gripe, probably.
Although I did just get through lecturing John Cole in his comments about his obsession with Pajamas Media, speaking of obsessively focusing on blogs that are not mine (I have a blog! You surely have not heard!).
Unfogged comments: more like a tv show than a set of comments on blog posts. Or somewhere in that neighborhood. Tune in, it's always going on! Eastern daylight hours, anyway. Better soaps, to be sure. It would be more fun if this place were like Alias, though. More wigs, though maybe not either. Work with me, if you like.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 11:26 PM
I love you Gary. In the Phaedrus way.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 11:27 PM
also, I'm wearing a wig right now, if you like.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 11:28 PM
also, I'm wearing a wig right now, if you like.
Merkins don't count.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 11:31 PM
"We love you, Gary."
I actually would have sworn you'd never heard of me before now, even with no gun at my head. Really. I mean, you're the famous B, Ph.d. No one ever looks cross-eyed at a phud. (I will not go further about my intellectual insecurity here. I will not.)
I kinda get that Wolfson is offering closing, but he really ought not to end our relationship that way, I think. Although I may feel the whole closing in thing too much. Much too much.
Wait, I said I was leaving. I no longer trust myself.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 11:31 PM
well they're wigs, aren't they? mine's got human hair.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 11:32 PM
Can we stop with the Unfogged whining? I know we all do that well but I have to wonder...Ogged goes on hiatus and then comes back and suddenly decides to meet everyone. Sounds a little like those suicide warning signs where they say people go around saying goodbyes before they off themselves. A small part of me has to wonder if it's a last hurrah before he pulls the plug on the site. Pure speculation, of course, but I say we don't give him a reason right now by being ungrateful.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 11:33 PM
Gary, we got into it over the question of whether or not some proposed law in some great lakes state could or could not validly be said to be banning rape counselling on college campuses, remember?
Plus I DID used to comment here kind of a lot, once upon a time.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 11:33 PM
"Merkins don't count."
They won two elections, and invaded Iraq, so don't knock what you don't wear.
Although I can't say they are pretty. I prefer the grrls.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 11:34 PM
"Gary, we got into it over the question of whether or not some proposed law in some great lakes state could or could not validly be said to be banning rape counselling on college campuses, remember?"
Well, yes. Quite. Michigan, Wisconsin, and their fine college papers. I seem to think I'm forgettable, though. Frankly, although I'm highly aware of you, I can certainly almost think of other bloggers I've had interchanges with that I've almost forgot of. Sort of. Nearly.
Help! (Have there been no forgettable bloggers you've exchanged words with? I can think of a couple I'd like to have forgotten about, except that I have, of course, forgotten about them.)
I did learn a long time ago that we tend to make greater impressions on other than we realize, but then I forgot that. (And, besides, if i actually believed I was not forgettable, I might choke; hoping people will forget is one of the few ways I can let myself type. Really, more or less; if any of you other folks are different, congrats.)
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 11:40 PM
Becks is right. We are sinners in the hands of an angry ogged. But he promised he would never again, with the rainbow.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 11:40 PM
Becks, your comment troubles me.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 11:41 PM
"In the Phaedrus way."
Unlike you philosophy guys, I'd likely not know what you meant if not for that whole Motorcycle book back in 1975. Possibly true, even.
""Gary, we got into it over the question of whether or not some proposed law in some great lakes state could or could not validly be said to be banning rape counselling on college campuses, remember?""
Taking this far more seriously than I should, my examination of my inner head suggests that since neither I blogged that, and you did not on your site, as well, but it just took place in comments, that apparently some part of my head thinks that means it's not recorded/memorable/noticed. Shit.
That won't play anywhere. Damn. And, also, shit. And yet more expletives. (Much longer comment reduced to: weird head crap. Weird.)
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 12-16-05 11:58 PM
Becks, I think you're making too much out of a series of coincidinces. Hiati have happened and un-happened previously, as have (smaller-scale) meet-ups. So a hiatus unhappening followed by meet-ups in new cities because ogged happens to be travelling and that's as good an excuse as any; it's all just a cigar. Like text's. At The Mineshaft.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 12:03 AM
Sorry, w/d and all, my last comment was pretty shrill. That thought was a twinge, not an actual prediction. Meant more as a plea for civility than a legitimate theory.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 12:27 AM
Who let Gary have all that booze?
Anyway, Armsmasher does one hell of a karoke rendition of "I believe in a thing called love," let me tell you.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 2:33 AM
Aw shit, come on, 175 comments? How am I supposed to read through/pay attention to all that? It's like Unfogged was just an IRC channel! Rather than a Blog.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 6:00 AM
Well, I'm late here, but I'd like to say that if Unfogged stops being frivolous and shallow, I'll stop coming. Not a threat, just the truth. I need my TV.
If Ogged does commit suicide, who gets his electronics stuff? I doubt that his mom will want it. Does he have brothers or sisters?
It seems to me that it should be someone from the community that honors, reveres, and abuses him.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 7:44 AM
Unfogged! Come for the substance, stay for the rapid-fire banter!
(Actually, if the focus of the blog were to be adjusted in the direction of my preferences, there'd probably be more news/politics/social issues related posts -- that was what I originally came here for, and the volume's dropped off a bit lately. But I could just start up my own blog if I wanted this one to be different, now, couldn't I, rather than expecting someone else to do all the work.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 8:34 AM
LB, perhaps you should check out my other blog, Talking Points Memo. I think the reason we don't do so many posts on real live current issues is that (a) it's just demoralizing and (b) lots of other people do it better. We're finding our sense of identity-- the blog is almost three, after all.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 9:34 AM
We're missing the bigger question here: if Unfogged was a TV show, what TV show would it be?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 10:15 AM
See, I read the post, and thought of commenting about how Deborah Solomon was far more annoying than anyone I'd ever met, but the whole "comments (108)" just killed the idleness. Why bother, when there are 108 comments before?
For what little it's worth Gary, I know exaclty how you feel. Not that this is a criticism of the flourishing unfogged community! But it does make it harder to jump in. Also, like LB, I came here for the coverage of religious pharmacist issues.
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 10:20 AM
Mr. Marshall, this is an honor. I had no idea.
You've got a point about it being just demoralizing. I'm not sure that there's anything happening that I actually want to talk about.
what TV show would it be?
An endless version of the potsmoking scenes from That 70s Show?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 10:22 AM
Life is a glorious cycle of song
A medley of extemporania!
Posted by baa | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 10:25 AM
Armsmasher does one hell of a karoke rendition of "I believe in a thing called love," let me tell you.
Did you listen to the rhythm of his heart?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 10:26 AM
My secret identity -- revealed!
Posted by Marie | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 10:26 AM
Not that this is a criticism of the flourishing unfogged community! But it does make it harder to jump in.
I suppose (and this is idle musing rather than criticism) that if the management wanted to make it easier for people who haven't been awarded one of the fellowships to comment, they could do the ObWi thing of putting up an open thread every so often (to be firmly distinguished from the Eschaton thing of putting up open threads constantly, and basically giving up on blogging as such) and ask folks to keep the chatter in the open threads. On the other hand, they could just keep things as they are.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 10:30 AM
(to be firmly distinguished from the Eschaton thing of putting up open threads constantly, and basically giving up on blogging as such)
Fuckin' A radical. This is one of the funniest parenthetical comments I can remember reading.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 10:57 AM
Thing is the chatter spins off the on-topic discussion as often as not.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 11:10 AM
It's fine the way it is. Including the whining about the way it is.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 11:17 AM
Maybe Unfogged could reverse the ObWi thing, and put up an occasional thread for on-topic discussion of that week's posts?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 11:26 AM
Or the malcontents could set up a mirror site, with its own comment threads, kept rigorously on-topic.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 11:27 AM
The malcontents you will always have with you.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 11:29 AM
All this talk of "what unfogged should do" has got to stop. Stop! It's unbecoming.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 11:55 AM
Also, Gary's complaint is primarily nominative, and not usefully so.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 11:59 AM
Unfogged should get some Viagra and whisky and go bang other blogs.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 1:12 PM
Unbecoming and unseemly.
The present policy of banning people who are too far off-topic or on-topic should be continued. Moderation is key.
Unfogged should continue to do what it's been doing all along. When I say that, am I telling Unfogged what to do?
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 1:37 PM
The present policy of banning people
Has this ever actually happened? Everyone keeps talking about Bitch, Ph. D. having been banned but I don't know whether it's a real thing or a joke. Anyone besides her?
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 1:49 PM
abc123 was asked to no longer comment.
Posted by MMGood | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 1:55 PM
Bitch, PhD was indeed banned for a time. Ben Wolfson claims to know something else. The rest of the banning talk is a running joke.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 2:20 PM
200!
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 2:23 PM
I couldn't tell I was on break if I didn't engage in some ridiculous Unfogged-related project, so, banning frequency according to Google (that is, if the phrase "is banned" appears more than once in the thread, only one is likely to show up):
Cala: x
Matt F: x
Emerson: x
Joe Drymala: xxx
Standpipe Bridgeplate: xxxxxx
Fontana Labs: x
Tom: x
Caitlin Flanagan: x
Idealist: x
Love: x (in Chopper's person, IIRC)
LizardBreath: xxxx
washerdreyer: x
Michael: x
ac: x
Chopper: x
eb: x
Rodney King: x
Hindrocket: x
apostropher: x
Tripp: x
Ogged: xxxxx
Yglesias: x
The author: x
Everybody: x
Standpipe is the banning monarch, I think due to niceness and also the occasional auto-ban when going on hiatus. Ogged is Ogged, of course, and LizardBreath's bronze-medal I think is our grown-up equivalent of dipping her ponytail in the inkwell.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 2:42 PM
Also.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 2:46 PM
Matt W's statistical precision is welcome. Far too often the snark here is purely anecdotal, and thus lackis all validity.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 3:22 PM
Thanks, Michael in 175. I was greatly impressed by your ability to draw from the air Harry Potter citations to support your argument.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 3:22 PM
Is the consensus of this thread that Unfogged comment threads are the worst idea in history?
How meta.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 3:27 PM
Oh man. I've never been banned! I did ban Caitlin Flanagan, though.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 3:29 PM
I've never met a unfogged thread that didn't become self-referential.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 3:32 PM
I'm banned!
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 3:33 PM
203: My method was Teh Suck, though--not only did I miss duplicate versions of "is banned" on one thread, I missed these. I thought I was banned sometime--maybe it's in there.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 3:42 PM
I banned a spambot only yesterday.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 3:53 PM
Nope. dsquared, Michael twice, SCMT, Tia, Wolfson (how has he been banned but once?), Gary, L., and Bridgeplate twice more.
Going through and checking that crossed my personal pointless-waste-of-time threshold, which is really quite high. I will perhaps go finish Tomorrow in the Battle Think On Me and listen to some high-class mewzick now.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 3:54 PM
pointless-waste-of-time threshold
I understand those words, but not in that order. Weiner, you're banned.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 4:13 PM
You should check out Sufjan Stevens, he's really great.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 4:13 PM
Or, be ordered to clean out some of my old crap and correspondence from a dresser drawer in my old room.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 4:13 PM
Aw, silvana, you shouldn't have.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 4:15 PM
Hm. Perhaps I should claim to be involved in a study determining the threshold at which one maxes out one's pointless-waste-of-time tolerance.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 4:46 PM
I'm going to see Brokeback tonight.
I say, let Unfogged be Unfogged.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 4:59 PM
We're missing the bigger question here: if Unfogged was a TV show, what TV show would it be?
Seinfeld, because the characters only talk about trivialities, except that here there's nothing that makes the audience laugh.
Posted by Frederick | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 5:10 PM
here there's nothing that makes the audience laugh.
Speak for yourself dude. Or is your point that commenters are not "audience"? I personally have got more high-quality laughter out of the last month of reading Unfogged than out of any randomly selected previous year of blog reading.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 5:15 PM
I think that we should absolutely insist that Unfogged does whatever it feels like doing, whether that be remaining the same or changing drastically. However, if it stops being shallow and frivolous, I'm outta here.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 5:19 PM
I demand that unfogged be autonomous.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 5:26 PM
We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
What's ban-worthy?
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 6:02 PM
Jackmormon-- Shouldn't it be "Ce n'est pas de blog."
Apo et al. I think it would be a cross between Seinfeld and Friends. It's not nearly as sappy as Friends but not completely nihilistic either--and Seinfeld is.
I don't have any real gripes about the way the site is managed, however, I would like to nominate LizardBreath for one of those posting fellowships.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 6:06 PM
Seinfeld sux.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 6:07 PM
223 - what about "Ceci n'est pas un blog?"
Good for a t-shirt.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 6:08 PM
A shirt really isn't a blog, though.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 6:10 PM
I thought it was official Unfogged policy to loathe Seinfeld.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 6:12 PM
Viz.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 6:18 PM
i was pretty excited about this thread, and the chance to contribute "just the tip." the exam-taking lurker misses the moment again.
still relevant to say that seinfeld doesn't hold a candle to arrested development, yet 7 generations from now, seinfelds and davids will be drinking champagne from silver spoons, while AD will be lucky to get showtime sloppy seconds. tv: not fair.
Posted by matty | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 6:26 PM
I've been militating for "blague" as the French word for blog. It has another meaning, but the other meaning fits OK.
If unfogged fails to remain strictly autonomous, it may be necessary to take steps to impose and enforce autonomy.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 6:26 PM
I thought it was official Unfogged policy to loathe Seinfeld.
Viz.
And.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 6:45 PM
Wouldn't it really be much more like Three's Company? I'm seeing Ogged as Jack, Fontana Labs as Larry. Or maybe Diff'rent Strokes...
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 6:58 PM
[insert joke about "strokes" here].
And, I could get behind a popular movement to make LizardBreath a front-page poster.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 7:01 PM
(Bitch, Ph. D., LizardBreath and JackMormon are respectively Janet, the first Chrissy and the second Chrissy. John Emerson is Mr. Furley. This last, not so much a casting decision as a statement of equivalence.)
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 7:08 PM
Laski Erotyka and My Meds can be Mrs. and Mr. Roper.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 7:11 PM
We've been over this previously.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 7:36 PM
Pwned. Though I prefer my casting choices.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 7:39 PM
Is there an ogged search software? Or do you just Google? Or have some of you memorized every episode?
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 8:18 PM
I thought it was official Unfogged policy to loathe Seinfeld.
Ogged's Seinfeld-loathing has been duly pnwed.
Posted by Isle of Toads | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 8:41 PM
I'm Janet?
Re. Seinfeld, is it the show we loathe or the broader cultural "meaning" of the show, including the fact that we're all expected to like it, what with being sophisticated, educated urbanites? B/c, for all I loathe the latter and just hate it when people drag Seinfeld references into conversation, I do have to shamefacedly admit that the show, as show, was often pretty funny.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 8:42 PM
shamefacedly admit that the show, as show, was often pretty funny
I'm not ashamed; I laugh at funny things. I do recognize, though, that something can be so expected to be universally-adored because of its appeal to urban sophisticates that it becomes sophisticated to loathe it as proletarian drivel.
Also:
- wolfson and ogged are clearly Mr. and Mrs. Roper, respectively.
- the worst idea in history was this.
Posted by Isle of Toads | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 8:52 PM
Crap, I just looked at movie times around here and goddamn Brokeback Mountain isn't even PLAYING in this godforsaken burg yet.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 9:02 PM
Brokeback Mountain isn't in wide release yet. (Something I just saw said it was opening in maybe 20 cities this weekend?)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 9:11 PM
Seinfeld is the second best sitcom to have appeared on network TV. Pretending otherwise is ever-so-much-more irritatingly sophisticated than liking the show. Ogged doesn't like it because he's an ignorant immigrant who doesn't understand American humor. If no part of you loved the "Second Spitter" episode, I hope GWB is listening to your phone calls.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 9:17 PM
Bloc notes is French for blog, isn't it? Anyway, absolutely no more talk about what to do with Unfogged.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 9:19 PM
Is this where I can post my random shuffle 10 songs? Art Bears rolled around, and Dweller on the Threshold, even if it is not the group, but the Van Morrison song, but maybe I can fool somebody.
Actually I just like killing threads.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 9:31 PM
Did you know that the "Bears" in "Art Bears" is a verb? I would never have guessed that.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 9:34 PM
no, bob. we call it winning threads now.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 9:37 PM
243 - And in New York, at least, Brokeback is selling out like crazy. I saw it tonight, but it was our third choice of showtime. Madness!
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 9:47 PM
Chrissy? Good heavens.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 9:54 PM
Which is the "second spitter" episode?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 10:00 PM
I think SCMT means part two of the two part episode with Keith Hernandez; it features a parody of JFK and the second shooter on the grassy knoll. Drat, I forgot the spoiler warning for that grassy knoll part.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 12-17-05 11:48 PM
I think SCMT means