Go to Making Light's front page.
Forward to next post: Retreat Along the Wabash
Subscribe (via RSS) to this post's comment thread. (What does this mean? Here's a quick introduction.)
What the hell is wrong with the people in this thread? Boing Boing is a blog. Its authors occasionally use it to talk about projects they themselves are involved in. Like that’s unusual.
As Cory points out, out of the last 55 posts he contributed to Boing Boing, one was about his latest Guardian column, one was a link to a comic strip that referred to him in its punchline, and one was about a fan translation of one of his stories into Swedish. How this amounts to justifying the charge, levelled in the universally-recognizable, 100% phony-baloney voice of the concern troll, that “BoingBoing seems to have become for you mostly a PR vehicle for your stories”, passes all understanding. Cory’s response, far politer than its target deserved, evidently occasioned more and longer complaints about the inadequacy, injustice, and unfairness of the free ice cream. Holy crap.
Boing Boing is a compilation of links to stuff its authors find interesting. It’s been so successful that, for some people, it now feels like part of the Internet’s basic furniture. As a result, a certain kind of person feels entitled to try to guilt-trip the Boingers into not talking about their own projects and enthusiasms, as if Boing Boing’s eminence means its authors no longer get to indulge themselves the way EVERYONE ELSE ON THE INTERNET DOES EVERY DAY AND THREE TIMES ON WEEKENDS. This is the nastiest side of any sort of fame, even microcosmic fame: a certain number of people simply assume that if they start out with a forelock-tugging explanation that they’re “one of your biggest fans,” they can then go on to deal you a load of the most astonishing vileness, because as One Of Your Biggest Fans they obviously own you. In fact, of course, they don’t own you, and you should no more pay attention to what they think than you would to what a spammer thinks.
The real fact of the matter is that Cory Doctorow is, in basic temperament, an enthusiast. This makes him an excellent impresario of the interesting, but it also means that some people jump to false conclusions about him. (For instance, assuming that he’s an uncritical advocate of technological change, when in reality a great deal of his fiction is about tragic near-future consequences of exactly that.) It also means that there’s a certain kind of person who’s evidently compelled on an almost pre-conscious level to take Cory down a peg, because it’s just intolerable that anyone should be smart, widely admired, successful, and obviously having fun. Those people are poison, and whatever it is they tell themselves about what they’re doing, their effect on the rest of the world is evil.
Short version: Cory got trashed in a BB comment thread for occasionally talking about himself and his current projects.
Put on your mask and behave badly: Internet anonymity is an excuse to say vile things - op-ed in the London "Times" only two days ago.
I was "lucky" (FSVO) enough to have read the thread before the deletion and disemvowellings.
My reaction, somewhat less articulate than Patrick's, was basically "Entitlement much?" I complain less than that about things I do pay to read.
You're being a bit oversensitive, Patrick. I've seen plenty of Doctorow-hatin' blog trolls, and that comment ain't one of them. Your notion of "troll" is expanding to include "any comment that produces discussion I don't like".
Of course, now I see that the offending comment has been deleted --- not just disemvowelled, but removed entirely. That sort of sanitizing moderation is one of the things that makes a blog less interesting to visit. Alas.
[Reposted from OT 94, where I put it by accident.]
The BoingBoing comment threads are a bizarre place. The instant they started back up, there was a sizable minority of people on them who already had that peculiar sense of entitlement. Why four people so obviously decent and aw-shucks thrilled about a lot of the world around them should attract such a crowd of naysayers is beyond me.
The comment in question was deleted by someone else (not Cory) while Teresa was disemvowelling it--an internal screwup, mostly regrettable because it makes it harder to have an intelligent discussion about this particular flavor of assholery.
As for "oversensitive," sorry, no sale.
It seems to be me that you should at least note in your above rant that Teresa Nielsen Hayden works as the comments moderator for BoingBoing.
This seems to happen a lot when a blog becomes very popular due to carrying a large number of a particular kind of article: other kinds of article become unappreciated. I first noticed the phenomenon on Slashdot, which most people don't think of as a blog, but it is really. I suspect that's the same issue here: many people aren't thinking of BoingBoing as a blog. It's a news source, a collection of miscellaneous interesting things, and so they forget about it being a blog.
For what may one criticize Cory Doctorow, if not what he writes, publishes, blogs, enthuses about?
The internet is filled with people who have a remarkable ability to type with one hand.
Does anyone really need to know exactly who they are?
Up next: livejournal author criticized for using self-portrait as userpic.
Nobody's suggesting Cory should be exempt from criticism. This isn't about anyone being above criticism; it's about the way some people feel entitled to abuse celebrities, even niche microcelebrities, for behavior that's acceptable coming from everybody else.
Judith, #7: Teresa's work with Boing Boing has been extensively and openly discussed on Making Light. What I said about Boing Boing applies here. This is a blog, not the New York Times, and just as neither you nor I are responsible for what we do in other people's dreams, I'm also not going to take any crap for failing to live up to your imagination of what disclaimers I "should" post on my personal web site.
You get what you pay for.
The fact that there are so many people out there willing to give "free ice cream" does not, in any way, mean that they are required to do so. If I, as a reader, no longer like the flavor, I have no right to demand they change it. Besides, it's not as though there aren't plenty of other places giving out free ice cream.
Or cheeseburgers. :)
I thought it was blindingly obvious that a blog belongs to its writers, not its readers. The writers post what they want, and the readers go along for the ride.
I gather it's not quite that blindingly obvious to everyone. Well, tough. Welcome to the real Internet.
The actual comment history is a bit hard to follow with all the relevant posts deleted. The comments now start off with Cory apologizing to "squid" for feeling some particular way, which, I must say, didn't make any sense to me at all until a comment by Teresa further down mentioned that the post had been deleted.
As for whether or not Cory can be criticized for having 6% of his posts be about him: sure, anyone can criticize anyone they want, including me criticizing people who complain about free content on the web.
Isn't it relatively rare for blogs to comment about anything other than the bloggers' own lives? This is jaw-droppingly...nikulturno.
Over at firedoglake, when someone starts criticizing the hostesses for not posting about whatever the commenter's hobbyhorse-of-the-moment is, they get politely told to go start their own blog. Or, sometimes, impolitely told.
The original Boing Boing post that the referenced thread is about started out "My Nebula-award-nominated story...". That sounds self-congratulatory and is likely to attract adverse comment. It slightly raised my hackles and I thought "that has the potential to cause trouble" before any furore ensued. As it is I've met Cory and he isn't of a self-congratulatory mind set; after all he's Canadian and that's almost as self-effacing as being English.
I have to say, however, that I've noticed that a lot of his posts are about things that could be considered as 'promoted' by the post. Clearly I'm not the only one to have formed that opinion. My attitude has been, well it's his blog and if he wants to do that he can, but if it gets much more blatent then that may be one less blog I read.
Due to constant exposure to spin, I can't help but ask if the quoted 3 of his last 55 posts have been about 'himself' does that mean that 4 of his last 56 posts have been like that?
By the way, you need to do something about spam and this blog. The comment form requires an email address and posts it to the site thus forcing its exposure. It took under 24 hours for me to get the first spam to the (unique) email address I used for my first comment on here. Spam to that unique address now represents 5% of the spam I get (and I get a lot).
I think the most amusing and amazing anti-doctorow comment I ever saw was on Metafilter http://www.metafilter.com/60356/freedom-isnt-free#1656789
where in response to the question "WWCDD (what would cory doctorow do)" on an RIAA post the response was:
"Complain. Incessantly. Maybe throw in some indignant posturing. And then, gradually but with utter certainty, become distracted by knitted papercraft subway anagram cozies like a raccoon is distracted by something shiny. Then get a bad haircut and maybe another Apple tattoo, masturbate in a fit of gut-wrenching loneliness and call it a night."
somebody actually wrote that! ON METAFILTER!!!
'started out "My Nebula-award-nominated story..."'
should definitely have started: my incredibly crappy story of which I am deeply ashamed. This is how I announce anything of mine and it has been a real winner for me, I highly recommend it.
ian @ 18
Put something in as a URL; it will appear instead of the e-mail address.
Fruitcake-maps? Again?
s smn whs nnyms cmmnt crtczng Dctrw's frqnt pstng f slf-rfrntl rtcls ws mdrtd nd dnd pblctn, thnk th pnt f th crtcsm s mssd by hs dfndrs. s Bng Bng s " drctry f wndrfl thngs", thr s smthng lttl crss bt frqntly pstng bt nslf. f crs Dctrw hs sm wndrfl thngs, bt th rt f Cry t nn-Cry bts sms bt xcssv, spclly whn cmprd t thr BB dtrs. s Flyng Sqd pntd t n hs/hr rgnl cmmnt, Dctrw ds hv prsnl blg, whch mght b cnsdrd bttr frm fr n's wn ccmplshmnts nd cclds. Whl Dctrw sggsts tht th Swd's dlght n hvng hs wrk n thr ntv lngg s jstfs th pst's nclsn, srly tht s bt slf-srvng. nd whl ths wk nly cntnd 3 Cry strs, thr wks r lss knd. Srsly Dctrw, y hv ccss t yr wn dt, s wht s th rt f Cry t nn-Cry pstngs? Wht bt thr dtrs? ny bsrvtns frm thrs bt n mblnc n slf-prmtn mng BB dtrs?
I should note that I have never met Doctorow but have formed a negative opinion of him due to a post on Boing Boing about 4-5 years ago.
So not only are most of the Cory haters a bunch of wieners they are also an extremely parvenu bunch of wieners that cannot measure up to the level of fortitude exemplified by me in my own Cory hating.
Ok, a confession here - I am seriously thinking of quitting the whole hate Cory hobby because most of the people who do it are technically douchenozzles, by my reading of the douchenozzle spec. And I have read that spec, thoroughly.
I have already resolved not to hate on Xeni because it would be unchivalrous to do so. Maybe I can move to hating Mark.
'As Boing Boing is "a directory of wonderful things", there is something a little crass about frequently posting about oneself.'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN_oWSEizec
Ian...check some of the other addresses of posters here. Mine, for example, has a big NOSPAM in it; it's obvious to any human that that's supposed to be removed, but not to a spambot.
And, just to let you know, By the way, you need to do something about spam and this blog isn't really phrased in the most polite way. We are guests here. Try again.
CeCe 22: Are you a drive-by, or are you actually going to engage in conversation? I'm asking only because this is your first post on ML, at least under that email address, and if you're a drive-by I won't waste energy responding to your post, which I consider wrong in several important respects.
"has a big NOSPAM in it; it's obvious to any human that that's supposed to be removed, but not to a spambot."
actually if that strategy was worth it for Spambot writers to take into account breaking the strategy would be trivial. That spambot writers have no need to solve this problem does not mean that it is a surefire strategy.
CeCe@22: surely that is a bit self-serving.... what is the ratio of Cory to non-Cory postings?
Since the answer to that question is, literally, right in front of you, it would seem that you have no interest in the facts that would conflict with your opinions.
scroll up to the top. First sentence, second paragraph.
Cm pn ths thrd frm lnk t th rgnl BB stry. my nt cntn t ths blg, ths s my frst tm hr nd cn't sy f 'll b rnd lng. f tht dscrdts m smhw, s b t. s my cmmnt t BB ws cnsrd by nn-pblctn, thght mght cmmnt hr, whr m nt rqrd t sgn p fr nythng. Cnvrs wy, my r my nt rspnd, f tht mks dffrnc n yr dcsn t vc yr pnn.
Xopher @ #25 & bryan @ 27:
Yeah, it's hard to believe that NOSPAM actually works. It's a one-line perl script to remove it. (Of course, what isn't?)
I used to write my email address backwards (ude.yelekreb.htam@tja), but that turns out to be a bit too effective. Real people have trouble reversing things. These days, I just settle for some nonsense that googles well.
Wait, what's the game here? .... Oh! I get it. Here goes:
Patrick -- and all of you people -- as one of your biggest fans, I have to say you should stop using this space to push your own opinions, interests, and viewpoints. There is something more than a little ugly about defending someone you have some kind of (cough, cough) professional relationship with -- I mean, what's in it for you, huh? I'm here as your captive, worshipful audience, and now, I just don't know . . . I think you are leading me astray! Where will I go? What will I do? Who'll be my role model now that my role model is gone? I demand that you respond to my concerns with a full accounting of your online activity for the last year. Otherwise I will consider you guilty of self-expression outside the well-established boundaries of blogger ethics.
Did I get a BINGO???
Wait . . . the game was to replicate the stupidity of the Boing Boing thread on this thread, only with irony, right? Please tell me there was irony.
Recursive discourse is so confusing.
Wll thnks fr th src f lst wk's dt Grg. s md n rfrnc t spcfc tm frm, th qstn thn rfrs t th vrll rt. Hw ths mnts t dsdn fr fcts, m nt sr. Slly.
Hm. Not gonna go read the thread, I find that kind of thing pretty toxic, but regarding the post that set off the noise:
As soon as I realize a Boingboing post is about a CC work being translated into a language I don't read, I move on, so I don't have an opinion about whether Cory was being too immodest in this particular one. I see those, and I think it is Cory crowing about how well the Creative Commons idea is working. "Look, more people are doing more great stuff with the Creative Commons stuff I'm putting out there! Isn't Creative Commons great?" It doesn't read as self-congratulation to me, it reads as excitement that the idea is working. Does he post about other CC work getting translated occasionally? Less often, I'm sure, because no one keeps him informed about it, but hasn't it happened at least once or twice?
I think it will be a little bit uncouth to flame out on CeCe at this point, in case anyone is revving up for it, since he or she has done nothing to warrant it other than comment with an opinion that I for one find reasonable.
There has been no support of torture in this thread yet people, everybody remain calm.
CeCe @ 32
As Boing Boing is "a directory of wonderful things", there is something a little crass about frequently posting about oneself. Of course Doctorow has some wonderful things, but the ratio of Cory to non-Cory bits seems a bit excessive, especially when compared to other BB editors.
If you really meant 'in the last week', you really should have said so at the time, instead of complaining later that we misunderstood what you said. Your best defense is to put in those qualifiers, rather than make absolute statements.
And in case anyone is going to take me to task for agreeing with CeCe I didn't, I said I found the opinion reasonable which is not exactly the same as agreeing with it.
Speaking as a Swede, I think it's positive and newsworthy that relevant new science fiction like "Ownzored" is translated into my native language -- the Swedish SF scene has always been small and needs constant nurturing by international talents.
(And yes, "I'm Your Biggest Fan" are the creepiest words in the English language.)
ddn't wrt r mn '"n th lst wk'", r sggst tht mnt tht. s 'v sd, th lck f sttd tm frm lvs nly rfrnc t n vrll rt. thnk ths s th dffrnc btwn msndrstd nd msrd. nd thnk my "cmplnng" s rthr mld crrctn f n bvs msrdng f wht wrt.
actually I'm your biggest fan-dancer is creepier.
CeCe@32: As I made no reference to a specific time frame, the question then refers to the overall ratio.
I highly doubt that anyone who runs a blog tags their entries with "Stuff that some yay-hoo might get bent out of shape about" so as to be able to run some script and spit out a number of how many posts they made that some yay-hoo might get bent out of shape about.
Do you?
And if you take issue with the lack of data, then again that's simply more of the "flaming Cory for doing what any other blogger does". No one keeps those kinds of statistics on their own blog, because it's stupid statistics to try and divine what may get some yay-hoo bent out of shape.
That's the problem with yay-hoos: you never know what's gonna make them bend.
You want to know how many posts are about Cory versus non-Cory, and you'll toss a fit if the ratio doesn't meet your satisfaction. Some other yay-hoo might get bent due to an underrepresentation of posts about bagpipes, cause, you know, there just isn't enough talk about bagpipes out there.
What's the saying, make something foolproof and the world builds a better fool.
Lila @11: You starting? ;)
Is it me, or does Boingboing attract an equal number of wonderful things and Internet nutjobs? I'm glad to see comments back there, but (without wanting to get all brown mustachey) they're nothing like as interesting or informative as ML's.
Oh, I dunno, what about "I know where you live"?
ctlly Cry ddn't gt "trshd", t lst nt by th dltd cmmnt. hd tm t rd t nd t ws rlly jst n hnst crtq.
thnk th bttm ln s "d nt prvd nythng thr thn pstv fdbck r thy'll dlt/dsmvwl/bn y."
Yp. My cmmnt gt dsmvwlld s wll.
ts rlly sd tht sch plt, tm, blncd crtcsm ws trtd s hrshly.
It's amazing, at least to me, how much the complaints about the way bloggers at Boing Boing or Making Light (or any other site of note) choose to manage comment threads in their own weblogs sound like the complaints you get in Harry Potter fandom (or any other fandom of note) when the author chooses to involve the hero or heroine in a relationship with some character other than the complainant's favorite.
Fannish entitlement. It's an amazing thing.
Wanker wind, when wilt thou blow
The shit rain down can rain?
Christ, if my vowels were in my post,
And I in my thread again.
Hy Grg. cn ndrstnd why my crrctn f yr msrdng nnyd y. t cn't b plsnt t b cght bng crlss. nd, btw, cmplng tht dt s ctlly qt sy. f crs thr s n bjctv ln tht msrs t mch, t lttl, r ccptbl slf-rfrntl pstng, bt cmprtv dt bt BB dtrs mght b lttl tllng. t crtnly hlps t hv sm sch msrs whn mkng lrgly sbjctv rgmnts. ws ctlly hpng t hv sm dscrs bt whthr Dctrw nggs n t mch slf-prmtn. Bt f ncrrctly rdng my wrtng nd schwng mthdlgy ppls t y mr, kp t p, y'r dng fblsly. Rsn mch? njy yr rghts ndgntn. T.
CeCe 29: Good, and I for one expect no more. Comments here are moderated after the fact, never held for moderation (unless they contain lots of links, which is a spam-blocking feature).
I think most of what I was going to say to you has now been said, but I will add that "a directory of wonderful things" is just BB's self-description. If Cory thinks it's wonderful that one of his stories has been translated into Swedish, he has every right to post about it. If you don't think that qualifies as "wonderful," then you can skip that post or go elsewhere...or you can whine about it in comments, but IMO that's pretty gauche.
If I'm getting free ice cream, and they give me butter pecan (my favorite) frequently, but occasionally serve peppermint (I cannot STAND peppermint ANYTHING), it's unseemly of me to complain that peppermint is being served too often, or to suggest that they serve peppermint somewhere else. "Beggars can't be choosers," as my mom taught me.
I think you're thinking of yourself as a customer of BB, and I think that's wrong. You're a guest in their space, and if they don't like what you say they don't have to put it up on their wall (by publishing your comment). Ordinarily they are quite moderate about these things, but there are lines you can't cross.
If you visited my house, you could play with the letters on my refrigerator door. If you arrange them so they spell "Christopher is a duh-head," I won't object, but if you arrange them so they say "there's too much lemon pickle in this refrigerator; please get rid of it" I will not only not let that stand, I probably won't let you come back to my house, because you've just been extremely rude. I didn't ask you to EAT the lemon pickle, after all; you just saw it in the refrigerator while you were looking for the mayo (or whatever).
I respectfully submit that readers and commenters on a blog are much more like guests in someone's home than customers in a store, or readers of a magazine. Also, I can subtitle my blog "Discussions exclusively of marmota monax and its ability, or lack of same, to propel large pieces of cellulose through the air, along with hypothetical questions of degree" and then write about nothing but food, and anyone who complained about the lack of papers on marmota monax could really just go to hell.
BuffySquirrel 42: Yeah, or the classic "I know who you are and I saw what you did," which really will scare just about anyone. Doesn't matter if "what you did" was Swiffering your living room.
NoneSuch 43: It's possible for a critique to be rude by its content. Cory has a right to blog whatever he wants. People who read a blog are his (usually welcome) guests. If they don't like what they read, they're entitled to complain—within the limits of courtesy.
It's discourteous to complain that someone's blog posts are too much about hir own life. Not to mention ridiculous. I did not see the post that was deleted, but Cory's response to it was quite measured, though his annoyance showed through. Flying Squid, for hir part, was gracious in the posts of hirs that remain.
CeCe Whining:
The Internet, I find, is not so big
that I cannot poison the parish pump,
upon my kind hosts' best intentions jump
and on their bare heads dance a merry jig.
Here I can come clad both in mask and wig
and drop my anger in a single lump,
in the most public space just take a dump
and then complain when I am called a pig.
It seems the way to exorcise our ghosts
is just to shout that life is never fair
to those of us who lack honour and shame.
You feel much better annoying your hosts,
letting your flatulence pollute the air,
and that way others will think of your name.
The whole thing's nothing but a childish game
of shouts and shadows, loud and anxious boasts,
but nothing matters since my anger's bare.
I'm not the guilty one. I'll take no blame
for what I've written in my silly posts.
You cannot shut me up. You would not dare.
And so one boring life is given worth,
while others wonder at the monstrous birth.
'v bn rdr f BB fr fw yrs nw nd th rctn by thm t wht thght ws n hnst crtcsm ws bt jrrng.
Ys t's thr blg, bt fl ppl shldn't b cnsrd, prvdd th cmmnts rn't ffnsv.
ls, d fnd t bt hypcrtcl tht BB hs pstd svrl ntrs n cnsrshp rltng t Ggl r Ytb, bt whn Bng Bng ds t, w'r tld tht thy cn d whtvr thy wsh, nd chw t ths wth n ppsng pnn fr hvng sns f nttlmnt.
ls fl tht th "dsmvwlng" t b smwht mmtr, s sw ths blg s cllctn f prfssnls wh wldn't wst tm dng sch thng.
Booch 50: I also feel that the "disemvoweling" to be somewhat immature, as I saw this blog as a collection of professionals who wouldn't waste time doing such a thing.
Booch, they don't waste their time doing it. They hired someone to do it for them. Someone, by the way, who is your Hostess here.
Shocked, shocked I am to find that a owners of a blog would comment about the lives, interests and careers of the blog owners. It's such a revolutionary concept.
Somewhere Kurt Colbane is saying, "I told ya so." (here we are, now entertain us).
Pnt tkn Xphr. Bt crtqng dtrl chcs nd cntnt sn't rlly dscrts, t's n ppl t thrtcl cnsdrtns bt th ntr nd frm f pblshng. Mny ppl crtcz dtrl cntnt f mny dffrnt frms f md. Th dtrs f BB dn't hv t mv pn my pnn, bt thnk th ct tslf s dfnsbl. f crs m fr t gnr Dctrw's pstng nd slly d, bt ftr bsrvng ths pttrn fr rthr lng tm, chs t mk frly plt cmmnt bt th frqncy f hs slf-rfrntl psts. Whch ws mdrtd wy. Whch h ws bsltly nttld t d. nd s chs t wrt t hr, whn th tpc cm p gn.
Fr thrs, prhps nfmlr wth trm d hmnm:
n d hmnm rgmnt, ls knwn s rgmntm d hmnm (Ltn: "rgmnt t th prsn", "rgmnt gnst th mn") cnssts f rplyng t n rgmnt r fctl clm by ttckng r pplng t chrctrstc r blf f th prsn mkng th rgmnt r clm, rthr thn by ddrssng th sbstnc f th rgmnt r prdcng vdnc gnst th clm. Th prcss f prvng r dsprvng th clms s thrby sbvrtd, nd th rgmntm d hmnm wrks t chng th sbjct. (Wkpd)
ll fr xprssng n pnn bt n dtr. Fr shm y lkly lbrls. gn, rsn mch?
Xopher @ 48
'Marmota monax' ... oh, my aching ribs, that had me nearly on the floor. Do you ... never mind, yes, you did have to.
(BTW, save the peppermint icecream for me.)
I've noticed that there is a phase change for celebrities. Up to a certain point, they are viewed as regular people, and their opinions are accepted as their *opinions*. But past a certain point of popularity, they are seen as having the power to steer agendas and make or break newcomers in a field. At that point, the public forces them to assume a new responsibility as gatekeeper of the public agenda. And the public gets upset if they feel the gatekeeper -- who is only doing what they had always done -- uses their celebrity power for personal gain or for the gain of their friends.
I wish I knew when and how this phase change happens. But Cory's long overdue for it. He's not just some guy with a blog, anymore. I know he wishes that he still was.
CeCe @ 53
About those last two paragraphs of yours ...
(1) We know quite well what ad hominem arguments are. Just about every troll or wannabe troll uses them.
(2) Are you always this rude to your fellow guests?
Just asking, before Our Hostess decides to bring out the disemvoweller.
CeCe@47: Hey Greg. I can understand why my correction of your misreading annoyed you. It can't be pleasant to be caught being careless.
Oh, hogwash. You're whining about BoingBoing. I called you on your whining. You want to make it an argument about some linguistic technicality because you don't want to make it about the fact that you're whining.
Waaah! Cory talks to much about himself! We need hard data to prove Cory talks to much about himself! Why doesn't Cory have hard data to prove that he talks too much about himself!
#22: what is the ratio of Cory to non-Cory postings?
#32: the question then refers to the overall ratio.
#47: And, btw, compiling that data is actually quite easy.
Then shut up and do it rather than whining that no one did it for you.
CeCe (22), which comment in that thread was yours? Neither your name nor your e-mail address nor your IP address matches any of the comments there.
I don't understand why the disemvowelling comes across as an immature practise. Particularly if one has been warned that it is the consequence for rudeness.
Booch says he views it as A) censorship and B) not worthy of a professional's time. Except that A) the comment is still there to be pieced together if'n you really care about that sort of thing, and B) that is how the professional in question has chosen to deal with all outbursts of that nature. They (in this case, Teresa) have to deal with it in some way...and this way has proven effective in other venues (namely here). It doesn't ignore a problem, nor does it give extra oxygen to a troll's flame. It merely makes it difficult for a troll to propagate their message.
In this case, the folks in question may or may not be trolls, but seriously, how many times does the internet need to bang this lesson into people's heads? People's blogs are their home turf and dictating somebody's behaviour on their home turf is rude. I don't think Boing Boing has misrepresented itself as being anything other than a collection of links to things some people might find interesting.
Also, famously, you can catch more flies with honey, or something like that anyway. There are certainly more positive, less rude ways to get content you like up on Boing Boing, one of which is to compliment the stories you do like. (Although all things in moderation. I bet even John Scalzi, just to pull out a random example, gets tired of hearing that Bacon Cat was the best thing EVAR.)
Before people gripe about how many more posts Cory does about things that Cory is doing, I'd like to point out that, at least from an informal survey of boingboing, I'd like to point out that on the front page at 8:32 EST 11/03/07 Cory had 14 posts, David had 5, Xeni had 1, John had 0, and Joel had 1. It may just appear that Cory has a less favoriable ratio of posts about himself to posts total, because he posts so much more to the site. (I don't recall people jiving Xeni crap about posting about her work.)
As someone whose anonymous comment criticizing Doctorow's frequent posting of self-referential articles was moderated and denied publication, I think the point of the criticism is missed by his defenders. As Boing Boing is "a directory of wonderful things", there is something a little crass about frequently posting about oneself.
I don't know anything about your comments. I do think it's a little precious to surf over to a blog which is about things that Cory Doctorow thinks are wonderful and get bent that occasionally some of them are his own.
Fragano Ledgister #49:
I was thinking of making a comment to the effect that coming in here to defecate on the carpet because one is not allowed to do so on BoingBoing is really classy (not), but you've said it so much better than I ever could. Cheers!
Why can't Cory be more like Neil Gaiman or John Scalzi, say? They hardly ever promote Cory's stuff on their own blogs.
When did it become gauche to promote yourself on your own damn blog, anyway? I seriously, seriously don't understand all the whining at BB. I love the comments there, it makes me feel like the in crowd to post there -- but my God there are so many jerks.
I figure Remus @55 is right, though. +4 Insightful.
Xopher@48, that was the funniest thing I've read in a long time. I don't actually normally laugh out loud when reading things online, and very rarely have to take off my glasses to wipe the tears out of my eyes. Good one.
Does the name "BoingBoing" derive from the defunct BoingBoing Magazine? (If so, is the name supposed to signify something?)
:-S
mcz #62: I do my best. Thanks.
Alex Cohen #63: YOMANK!
P.J. n d hmnm ttck mmdtly ftr sttng h knws wht d hmnm mns. Hlrs.
Grg, yr nm cllng dsn't mnt t mch f n rgmnt. nd ys, yr rrr n rdng frmd th bss nd sbsqnt fr fr yr flm. Dfnsv prd? Rnt wy, bt myb y wnt t ctlly ddrss th pnt. Smply dsmssng m s whnng dsn't qt ct t.
Trs, th cmmnt md ws fr dffrnt pst nd smply nvr md t t pblctn, yt sm f my pnts wr ddrssd n Dctrw's rspns t Sqd.
Hv fn wth th tpc ll. Ths s gttng tds. T.
Having only met Cory only about a month ago, I have to appreciate his mentions of his outside work, they've been allowing me to fill myself in on his previously published short stories.
I have noticed that there are a lot of comments from him that promote his other work, but that's probably just because a lot is happening in his life currently. Sometimes things run in trends (political blogs and elections, sports around the Olympics and World Cup), and it doesn't surprise me that once in a while a lot of things happen in a short amount of time.
Now, if he only promoted his other work, then that might be a problem, but if you're going to offer criticism, try to make it constructive criticism. He's a writer, I'm sure he can take a critique of his work.
What's all this mealymouthedness about honest and mild-mannered criticism? There was a string of extraordinarily offensive comments, and I disemvowelled them. Of the people who posted them, only one -- Flying Squid -- is an established commenter at Boing Boing. Nutkin was posting on Boing Boing for the first time, and Yeago had only made his first comment there the day before. The anonymous comments were on average worse.
Now we have CeCe here, being condescending (though not very well) about the fine points of language, and explaining that Cory talks about himself too much. This is nonsense. Cory spends most of his time talking about other things. So do the other boingers. In fact, the frequency with which they talk about themselves is unusually low for nonpolitical bloggers.
Besides, CeCe talks about himself/herself a lot oftener than the boingers do.
Upshot: I'm not buying it.
Bryan (23) and Fragano (49), thank you for your reassertion of civilized values.
CeCe (29), are you familiar with the word "bingo"? Also, in re (32) and (38): Greg, he's yours if you want him.
Folk on LJ (41): I'm working on it. The commenters are slowly getting the idea of reading and responding to each other.
Booch (50), reconsider the part about "provided the comments aren't offensive."
CeCe (53): "I chose to make a fairly polite comment about the frequency of his self-referential posts." You did nothing of the sort. How far this statement depart from truth depends on which one of the disemvowelled posters you were -- assuming you were one at all.
Seems to me that there's an awful lot of free floating hostility in this thread...
CeCe, I think your point -- the ratio of Cory to non-Cory bits seems a bit excessive -- has been heard. Most people so far have disagreed with it. It's your opinion, you have a right to it, but your implication that you are being reasonable and other people are attacking you unfairly is unsupported by any evidence. The ratio of Cory to non-Cory posts at BoingBoing proves nothing; if the ratio were 10 to 1, it would still not prove that Cory is posting about his own achievements too much, because what is "excess" is a subjective judgment.
As is the judgment by P. J. that you were rude. It was not an ad hominem argument, because you did not make an argument, you simply expressed an opinion. You have been disagreed with and told that you are perceived as rude.
The music stops, and one of you is now without a chair.
Since you said goodbye, I'm probably wasting time here. Oh well...
So Xopher: how much cellulose would a Marmota monax propel if a Marmota monax could propel cellulose?
Lizzy L @ 70: The music stops, and one of you is now without a chair.
Our thoughts are parallel; I found myself wishing Susanne was about so I could ask her what the music was like for the ancient dance called the Troll Flounce.
CeCe (67), you don't sound like you think PJE's comment was hilarious. Also, Greg was right about your language. And then there's this bit:
"Teresa, the comment I made was for a different post and simply never made it to publication, yet some of my points were addressed in Doctorow's response to Squid."Sorry, but that's patently implausible on two counts. First, if your comments made elsewhere never saw light of day, how could Cory have addressed them in his response to Squid? For that matter, why would he have addressed them there?
Second, your initial claim regarding your status, made in a comment thread on Making Light that was discussing a specific Boing Boing entry and the comment thread pertinent thereto, was:
"As someone whose anonymous comment criticizing Doctorow's frequent posting of self-referential articles was moderated and denied publication, I think the point of the criticism is missed by his defenders."It's not always easy to identify the default meaning of some construction, but in this case it's not a problem. Unless otherwise specified, your statement would be taken to refer to the BB comment thread under discussion. If you failed to do so, early on, you were the one in the wrong. If you failed to do so until this latest exchange, you're trying to squirm out from under your earlier representations.
Do feel free to go away. Arguing with a liar is a waste of time.
Finally:
"Have fun with the topic all. This is getting tedious. Ta."Bingo!
Also, Debra is right. People get emotionally invested in things. I certainly get emotionally invested in the books that I read and the shows that I watch. In those situations, I'm invited to be emotionally invested in them, so that isn't so surprising.
In this day and age I think that people are used to becoming emotionally invested in things that are not tangible. I myself am coming off a long term commitment to a web community. I understand that people can form deep emotional bonds with the things that they interact with.
Is it an amazing thing? Perhaps, but I don't think it is that odd. In the publishing industry, Debra is on one side of a very clear division. With online communities (and BoingBoing is a community by virtue of their setup and their solicitation of leads) the line is a little less distinct. I don't find fannish entitlement in any situation all that surprising, least of all in these online communities.
Xopher @ 48: re: marmota momax
*helpless laughter*
CeCe@67: maybe you want to actually address the point
You wanted to know how many posts Cory made about himself, ever. You then said at #47 that it would be easy to figure out. So I told you to shut up and start counting.
Your point has been addressed. Let me know when you have a number.
Continued blather from your end means that either you lied at #47 and it really is a difficult task or it's an easy thing to do, but you'd rather hear yourself talk than actually do the thing you think is so important.
If you actually shut up until you report back with a number of Cory's total posts, ever, compared to his total self-referencing posts, ever, then I will submit a public apology to you on this thread.
Any post by you prior to you reporting that number forfeits my offer.
I swear, some people are like slinkies. Absolutely useless. But fun to push down stairs.
Oh dear. Now I get it. Yes, this pig can whistle.
Anyone who tells someone, directly or by implication, what that person ought to be writing on their own weblog is an asshole.
Teresa and Patrick: I think you need to...
[a dreadful way to express "Please would you consider..."]
... take personal responsibility for the sense of entitlement that has readers telling blog-owners what to write about.
After all, as is well known, here readers can demand a sonnet or sestina or some-such-verse on any odd topic, and it will be obligingly written within the day.
That sort of thing raises expectations, and when other blogs can't raise their game to the same level, there's bound to be disappointment.
Now what I think you really should write, just to make up for that, are the first five chapters about an immortal from Atlantis, suitable to kick off a five-book series. Preferably something original, mind you. Not necessarily something good. Perhaps along the lines of this:
Ayup, I remember back in the days of good old Atlantis, the floating island that would lean east in the morning and lean west in the evening, floating from pole to pole over the course of six months and then back again, how I would have to trudge to school and back again every day through six feet of snow, uphill both ways....
Yeago @44 -- (yes, sorry T, I know you already disemvowelled him) you write that your "polite criticism" of Cory was sadly treated with such disdain. I'm not very good at reading disemvowelled text, so I didn't get all the way through yours, but ... your entire point was that Cory promotes himself on his blog because he's not as good a writer as a bunch of other people you like better.
This you call polite?
Incidentally, I'd never read 0wnz0red before, and had thought I had. So if all this furor hadn't kicked up, I wouldn't have -- and I find I really like it. So really, Yeago, I guess I have to reluctantly thank you.
Ta!
well for mine when i read the latest post by cory i thought : wow another post by cory about himself that's slightly boring - but would i climb on my high horse and attack him? nah. time is short. more interesting things to do : like write on my own blog about myself
:P
Actually, Teresa, I think it's double bingo:
CeCe at #47: Reason much? Enjoy your righteous indignation. Ta.
Yes, ladies and gents, there's the flounce. Righteous indignation indeed!
But wait, at #53, s/he's back! The re-flounce! Fine form, for a first-timer - we've obvioulsy got a potential champion in the making here!
And at #67, the re-re-flounce! Such ambition in one so young! Is it nature or nurture? Sheer talent or hard-won application?
This has been Vian, reporting on the inaugural Making Light Make a Pillock Of Yourself Competition, where we've seen the debut of a doughty young contender for the title ...
P J 54: Thanks, of course I did, and OK, I will.
Michael 64: Thanks. You mean the marmota monax thing, I suppose?
CeCe 67: Asking you if you're habitually rude is not an argumentum ad hominem. Answering your criticism of Cory by saying "Yeah, well you're a [religious or ethnic group], so who cares what you think" would be such an argument. You misunderstand the term if you think P J was employing one.
Lila 71: That's exactly what I said, but in academic language.
glinda 75: *fiendish chortle*
The censored comments may indeed have been 'extraordinarily offensive', but with the disemvowelling in place it would take a lot of effort to reconstruct them and make that judgement for myself. What is left is the impression that all comments criticising Cory were censored, and those defending him were left un-touched.
Sometimes it's as important to maintain the appearance of fairness as it is to be fair, especially when people are already looking for something to be annoyed about.
In light of Doctorow's oft-expressed belief that the answer to bad speech is not censorship but more speech, perhaps this could have been avoided by leaving both the complaint and Cory's response untouched, then refusing to approve anything further on the topic from either side.
Of course, everything looks clearer with the benefit of hindsight.
Patrick,
Thank you for writing this. I had been bothered by the fandom entitlement radiation on those posts for a while, and truly troubled by the bizarre, hostile, & self righteous attitude of some of the posters.
I haven't seen anyone mention it yet, but Eric Burns wrote an excellent (if discursive) essay a while back on Entitlement and the Modern Fandom, just substitute "Cory Doctrow" for "Brad Anderson" and "BoingBoing" for "Marmaduke" and you're all set:
Almost all fandom members feel a certain sense of entitlement. This is normal. This is healthy. This is even slightly legitimate. The overall feeling is "I have invested something of myself into Marmaduke. I evangalize Marmaduke. I spend a portion of my day on Marmadukish things. I affirm Brad Anderson. I deserve some recognition for this." And yeah, they do deserve some recognition. They certainly deserve Brad Anderson saying "guys, thank you so much for supporting Marmaduke. It means a lot to me that you like the strip."
And... well, that's about it. They're already getting Marmaduke for free (or for the cost of their newspaper). They don't get part-ownership of Marmaduke by virtue of liking to read it. And if they offer Brad Anderson sex and he takes it, that just means that Brad Anderson got some. It doesn't mean they get to dictate what Marmaduke would or wouldn't do. The majority of Fandom members get that.
There is a minority, however, that dives into Entitlement, butt naked and way over their heads.
Charles@84: Sometimes it's as important to maintain the appearance of fairness
The thing is that I don't think anyone reasonable thinks anything horribly unfair took place. Some trolls jumped out from under the bridge to feed on small children, and they were cut down in their tracks.
The only ones I know of who are crying "no fair" are the trolls who were denied their supper. And a troll will never call anything fair unless it involves them eating small children.
CeCe, #22, you're not actually required to read the blog, you know.
P J Evans, #54, particularly if it has bits of peppermint candy in it!
Scraps #78: Would I be an asshole if I told you to write more on your blog? I don't care what about, just more.
(Somewhere in that is a "just kidding.")
Ed G. at 46: Hilarious.
I am your biggest fan . . . .
Charles @84, one of the points of disemvowelment is that anyone who so chooses can reconstruct the comment and see what was said. Deletion leaves room to wonder. If you're concerned that disemvowelment may give the appearance that comments which were merely dissenting with the opinion of the host, rather than rude, were being altered you're quite free to reconstruct the comments and see for yourself. Unless your command of the English language is limited (which is the one exception to my "anyone") laziness is the most charitable interpretation of saying "oh, that's too hard, so I'll assume the hosts were lying". You're not going to win too many converts by placing yourself in situation where being perceived as lazy is your best-case scenario.
(Or by using "censor" to refer to actions that have nothing to do with a governmental agency, but that's another issue.)
Thy rlly nd t hr mdrtr wth sm mtrty. f y srch hr nm, y'll fnd tht mjrty f hr psts r mr trllsh nd pnly nsltng thn nythng thy ctlly cnsr.
nd thy cnsr nythng tht dsn't gr wth thm.
Criticism is good and healthy. Both for content creators and those that consume the content. But there is, or at least should be, a proper time and place ('context') in which to present the criticism. I also came in late and wasn't able to read the offending comments before they disappeared, but what I've deduced is this:
Cory: This cool thing happened with one of my stories and it proves that CC works. This kicks ass! I'm excited!
Commenter: You talk about yourself too much and that's lame.
Whoa, hold on. Wrong context, my friend.
It reminds of a thread here on ML. Patrick posted an entry about Teresa getting a job with Federated Media. Most of us responded in the most appropriate way (i.e. "Congratulations"), but after a 100 posts or so, someone posts a comment to the effect of "FM is like a pay per post scheme or something, and that's bad."
Again, not appropriate.
As has been referenced many times in this thread, people's blogs are like their homes. Nobody likes to take shit from a guest in their home. It's amazing that Cory and the Nielsen-Hayden's let some much crap go on before putting their foot down.
There are plenty of good places to express your views and opinions on anything you choose. So exercise some discretion. Find a relevant post (i.e. a post titled 'How much self pimping is too much?'), find an open thread, or, better yet, start a thread in your own blog (no, you won't have the readership BoingBoing or ML or The Whatever have. Deal with it.) Don't crap on someone's carpet, you may find that you've worn out your welcome.
This is obviously different than expressing a contrary opinion than the one expressed by the blog author.
Good form:
Host: I think the Ford Taurus is the best car ever.
Guest: The Toyota Camry is better.
Bad form:
Host: I just bought a 2007 Ford Taurus. I've been wanting one for long time.
Guest: Ford's are lame, they break down all the time and guzzle gas. Toyota Camry's are better.
Please, use some judgement when posting comments.
Cnsr:
"2. T kp frm bng pblshd r trnsmttd: bn, blck t, hsh (p), stfl, spprss. dms: kp/pt ld n. S shw/hd."
t's cnsrshp whthr th gvrnmnt ds t r nt.
f y'r gng t cwr bhnd dctry, t lst gt yr dfntns rght.
@92,
Th thr f th dltd cmmnt bnt vr bckwrds t stt hs pnn n vry plt mnnr.
t smply bls dwn t BB'rs bng cmpltly gnst ny typ f crtcsm.
Whch bgs th qstn, "Why d thy llw cmmnts t bgn wth?"
Dn't sk fr npt f y dn't wnt npt.
Scraps @ 78:
"Anyone who tells someone, directly or by implication, what that person ought to be writing on their own weblog is an asshole."
Gee, Scraps, that's what I've always called "an _argumentum ad hominem_" and also "argument by assertion", so you've lost the Debate on two counts.
Of course, your statement is also Perfectly Accurate and identifies & settles the crux of the discussion. This seems now to be a Thread that can be of value only for its potential tangents & digressions.
Now I think I'll go and fix some food for the two kittens that the neighborhood semi-feral cat has left in my back yard, and maybe nibble on a bit of 78% cacao dark chocolate for my own delictation.
Does AFK stand for A Fucking Kook?
AFK
It's not about polite or impolite. It's about appropriate and inappropriate. And it's never appropriate for a reader to tell a content creator that he shouldn't talk about the things he feels like talking about. Or to dictate, in any manner, what sorts of content he should create. The comments are intended for discussions of the story in question, they are not intended to be a platform for criticizing the author. If you want do dis, snark, or otherwise criticize Cory Doctorow, there are many other, much more appropiate, places to do it than in his own blog on a story that he posted.
Isn't quoting the dictionary one of the squares on flamer bingo?
I don't imagine misusing "to beg the question" is a square, but it sure is something.
lorax @ 90: it would be easier to recreate the original text with some degree of certainty if it had been ROT13'd rather than disemvowelled.
"lrx s brd nd hck f nc gy" is terribly ambiguous: were the words "bored", "hack" or "hick", and "gay" -- or was I saying "lorax is a bard and a heck of a nice guy"?
Harry Potter wankery is funny. This is just....
Well, at least no one shot President Reagan in order to impress Cory.
Yet.
AFK@91: They really need to hire a moderator with some maturity.
And calling someone immature is... what, exactly?
If you search her name,
Just to clarify, what is her name?
you'll find that a majority of her posts are more trollish and openly insulting than anything they actually censor.
Did you seriously bumble your way into this blog and not even know whose house you're insulting? Seriously. Look around you. Go outside and check the name on the mailbox.
And they censor anything that doesn't agree with them.
I like you. You're silly. You make me smile.
AFK, CeCe, et al.: I must confess to a certain amount of puzzlement. If you are so incensed by Teresa's style of comment moderation (which style clearly must suit the Boing Boing bloggers, since they retain her to do it on their behalf), then why on earth have you put yourselves to all the extra trouble of following TNH home to her own native weblog in order to become yet further incensed at the style of comment moderation here?
It's a big internet. Surely there are other places in it where you could choose to be.
Translation of #102: Don't let the door hit you in the ass.
AFK@94: Don't ask for input if you don't want input.
Just because there's a box marked "Suggestions", doesn't mean you can drop your drawers, take a dump in it, and call it "input".
The CoB (Coefficient of Bozohood) is pretty damn high in here right now.
Freedom of the press belongs to the guy who owns the press. Or, in the Internet era, pays the hosting fees.
Don't like it? Buy your own press. Be as insightful, caustic, or funny as your personal talents allow (or can hire). With any luck, you'll attract your own audience of people who will think they're entitled to tell you how to run *your* press.
Amusingly enough, the top Google Ad link in the right-hand column here now reads:
Cory
Huge selection, great deals on Cory items.
shopping.yahoo.com
And that leads to a page that starts out:
# Cory at Amazon.com - Buy books at Amazon.com. Low prices and easy shopping. Search the full text of books.
Amazon.com/books# Cory Areaguide - Your Cory Areaguide for Cory.
crossvillagemi.areaguides.net# Find A Cory, $9.95 - Get phone number, address & more on A Cory. Instant results.
www.peoplesearch.public-records-now.com# Cory - Over 11 million pieces of china, crystal & silver - old & new.
www.replacements.com# Mortgage Troubles? - Mortgage Help Available in Cory. Fast & Free.
Well, I thought it was funny....
Jim,
If Cory will pay my mortgage, he's welcome to come post about himself on my blog!
"Your Cory Areaguide for Cory" sounds dirty.
cm hr bcs sh lnkd t. ddn't rlz t ws ls mdrtd by hr.
f smthng s mmtr, "mrkd by r sggstng lck f mtrty", 'm frd thr's n ncr wy t sy t.
Hwvr, ntc my cmmnt hs bn rpld t t @96 wth nm cllng, @101 wth dsngns, snrky cmmnts nd @104 wth rdcls hyprbl.
'v ntcd tht ths blg hs lt f cnvrstn, bt n dbt. Myb tht's fn fr hr bt 'd ht t s t sprd t Bng Bng, whr frdm t spk, ncldng frdm t crtcz, s lwys ndrsd by th dtrs.
r t sd t b.
And once the clock hits 0200 it'll be 0100 again, and we get and extra hour of wankery. Thank you, Daylight Savings Time!
AFK 109: Feel free to go elsewhere. Really. Any time now would be OK.
James D. Macdonald @ 100:
Well, at least no one shot President Reagan in order to impress Cory.And it's a bit late now.
Yet.
Unless and until another Reagan (Ron? Michael?) takes office.
Umm, are people in this thread actually disemvoweling their own posts to make it appear that they're being unfairly moderated? If so, that's a bit more clever that the usual drive-by trolls ML tends to attract from time to time.
#109 I've noticed that this blog has a lot of conversation, but no debate.
Lots of debate, friend, but no trolls.
Please don't miss the difference.
BTW, Teresa isn't the only moderator here. She's undoubtedly gone to sleep by now, but I haven't.
AFK @109:
I came here because she linked it. I didn't realize it was also moderated by her.
It's not just moderated by Teresa; it's her personal blog. (One that she shares with others, but still.)
I've noticed that this blog has a lot of conversation, but no debate.
Are you making this call based on this thread alone?
AFK #109
If you didn't notice that the BB moderator's name was Teresa Nielson Hayden and that this blog is hosted on nielsonhayden.com, I can't put much stock in whatever else you haven't noticed, i.e. conversation v. debate.
That's fine, however. Conversation is good, not everything is a debate.
I have noticed that both you and CeCe refer to the editors of BoingBoing. Just so we're on the same page, they are not editors. BoingBoing is not a newspaper or magazine. It is a blog. They are content creators/authors, even posters is a better term. Yes, they may edit their posts or the comments, but they are not editors in that editing is not their primary function.
If you want a debate, here's my argument: Content creators have the right create, post, edit, or delete anything they so choose on their blogs, including comments. If a reader disagrees or dislikes the content of the blog or how it is managed, they are welcome to say so. If the blog owner, or his agent, tolerate it, one can even post his opinion on the blog itself, otherwise, they may post elsewhere.
Rebuttal?
AFK@109: I didn't realize it was also moderated by her.
And what does that say about you?
I've noticed that this blog has a lot of conversation, but no debate.
Since you just confessed this is your first time here (and your "view all by" reflects that as well), how, exactly, can you make any sweeping generalization about what goes on in this blog?
You didn't even realize who moderated this blog until we told you. So how exactly are we supposed to take your sweeping negative generalizations about this blog as being something based on your keen powers of observation when you have clearly demonstrated said powers are lacking?
And if your sweeping negative generalizations are NOT based on observation, aren't you, for all practical purposes, indistinguishable from a troll?
CosmicDog @ 117:
If you didn't notice that the BB moderator's name was Teresa Nielson HaydenMispeling is a miniscule embarasment, not wierd at all; its ocurence is so frequen
Comments on Blow, blow, thou wanker wind: