Emptybottle.org >> Metablogging Archives

May 21, 2009

Single Serving Site Alert

Just a quick note for those few, those brave, those patient who haven't completely migrated to Facefuck or ThighSpace or Twatter or whatever social disease network is the flavour of the moment, and still stop by or RSSize the 'bottle to get an occasional taste of Grandpa Wonderchicken's Old-Style Longform Bullshit.

A while back, one morning, when I heard that Kevin Rose (of Digg and the late, not terribly lamented Pownce) had a new Twitter-parasite site called WeFollow, I lost my shit ("You might follow, you tiny-dreamed weasel farts!" said I to myself, or something of the sort.) and bought a domain, threw up a Wordpress site, wrote a screed and did a couple of photoshops, all before lunch. If I was that productive all the time, I'd be... well, I wouldn't have the time for insane vanity mini-projects like that, I guess.

Still: here it is, the lastest addition to the burgeoning Wonderchicken Industries™ Network. Share and enjoy.

June 27, 2008

What's It All About, Alfie?


I have operated on a few simple principles for more than two decades now, with good success.



First, do no harm. Or as little as possible.
Second, do not suffer fools or Bad People. They will rob you of your life.
Third, make choices with an eye to minimize future regret. In other words, imagine you were on your deathbed looking back - live your life to make that old bastard as peaceful as possible about dying.
Fourth, learn and wander. We may or may not be hairless monkeys, but there is wisdom out there. It may be an evil world, but there is beauty. Find it.

There is no meaning -- in anything -- but what our minds create. To search for meaning is to make the same mistake as those who search for happiness : both meaning and happiness are mental constructs superimposed by your mind on top of the actual conditions of your life. Seeking them in externals will drive you mad if you're smart, or guarantee you failure if you're persistent.

I wrote that in response to an AskMe question, almost 5 years ago, and had completely forgotten it until tonight, when I noticed that it had been favorited out of the blue, all these years later. The question was "Do you know what you want out of life? How do you know? How did you figure it out?"

I've been angry and silent lately, at least in terms of my own writing. I've been doing all sorts of other stuff online, sure. Built and run my own busy community over here, a bunch of other stuff. But I've decided tonight that I need to start stringing those words together again, laugh and glare ironically and textually dance on the graves and all, and tamp that anger down, or at least direct it productively, before I become the kind of old bastard I've always hated. I have no choice about getting old, but I do have a choice about what kind of old man I become.

Ain't makin' no promises, mind you. But maybe it's time to write some stuff again, and widen that circle out, again, a little.

'Cause what the world needs now is another active blogger. Like I need a hole in my head.

August 25, 2007

Emptybottle Version 4.0

Well, I've rolled out the new design to the front page (as you can see if you're not reading this in a feedreader). I'm pretty happy with it -- it's still a bit crufty, but I get excited about this stuff, and always end up jumpin the gun.

The main idea was to surface as much of the old content as possible to the front page, since I've been writing so infrequently lately -- there's some pretty good stuff back there, littered through the chaff. It's evolutionary rather than a complete reboot, and it's still boring, easy old blue and grey, and OMG WEB 2.0 GRADIENTS LOL, but it'll doooooo.

Archive pagesmt4-hi.png are still sporting the old (and kind of broken) styles, but I'm hard at work eventually going to end up updating those too, and eventually some variation on the front page styling will migrate throughout the site.

The new Movable Type 4 templating, with its includes including includes which in turn include other stuff has pretty much broken my brain -- I'm not sure what they've done is entirely sensible from a usability point of view. Certainly it makes sense from the coder perspective -- best practices, all that modularization and refactoring -- but it's a freaking nightmare to develop your own templates. Still, though, just ripping the guts out of my old templates and wrapping the new design around them just worked, so that's good.

Anyway, I hope you like the new design. It looks right in all the browsers I've tested on WIndows -- IE, Firefox, Opera, and Safari -- but if you find any glaring problems, please drop a comment and let me know!

Update: I just noticed that the 6th Anniversary of the site (well, it was on Blogger for the first year or so, but still) was 10 days ago. Holy crap! That's about 11 minutes in Chicken Years!

August 19, 2007

SNAFU

Well, I've upgraded to MT4, and it was relatively painless, once I paid attention to what I was doing. I've somehow lost a lot of styling from my arcane crufty old mix of inter-connected stylesheets, all scotch-taped and chewing-gummed together, but everything's more or less there, so I'll mark it down as a qualified success. Functional, if not precisely the way I want it to look.

A semi-major style reset is coming soonish, so I'm not going to spend too much time cleaning things up. As wee Derek's dad used to say in his amusingly authentic Scots brogue: it'll dooooo, lad.

August 12, 2007

Installing Movable Type 4 with XAMPP (on Windows XP)

I'm working on a design update for the old 'bottle, and I'm going to do it on Movable Type 4, which is now on Release Candidate 4 as I write this, and looking good.

I've decided to use XAMPP, an easy-to-install Apache distribution containing MySQL, PHP and Perl, which just works, basically, on Windows, no tweaking necessary (I'm still on XP2 SP2, despite being an early adopter of all Microsoft's previous OS's, which is a whole different story.) xampp.gifBy exporting the data from this site using the old MT 3.3 export tool, importing it to a local copy of MT running on my machine here at home, I can develop and tweak everything a lot more quickly, and there's no risk of borking the actual site while I work out the kinks with the new design and the new template structure in MT4, which I'm excited (yes, I'm a geek) to fiddle with.

There are a couple of tutorials out there for getting MT working locally, but none of them actually worked for me by following their instructions, so after hours of fiddling, now that I've got it working, I thought I'd share The Secrets. Well secret if the ways of webservers are as arcane to you as they are to me.

The first few steps are easy.

1) Download XAMPP and install it. I installed it to c:\xampp\ to avoid funkiness with long filenames with spaces in them. [Update: word on the streets is that MT will crap itself if you try use to use a path with spaces in it, so c:\Program Files\ is probably a bad idea. Best to stick to c:\xampp\, unless, like me, you're a little compulsive about a clean root directory.]

Choose "No" (you can change this later) when asked to install as a service and "No" when asked to start the Control Panel.

2) Download the PERL 5.8.8-2.2.4 Add-on and install it. (This was the step that was missing from all the other tutorials I saw, and cost me hours of hair-pulling).

Double click the desktop icon and hit the appropriate buttons to start Apache and MySQL. Go to http://localhost in your favorite browser to see if everything's working. It should be fine. If you see the friendly orange XAMPP home page, you've got a working local web server.

2) Download the latest release of Movable Type and unzip it somewhere temporary.

3) Make a folder called 'mt' (no quotes) in your c:\xampp\cgi-bin\ folder (if you installed to the same location as I did (I'll assume henceforward that you did)).

4) Copy all of the Movable Type files (except the folder called 'mt-static') to that new location (ie c:\xampp\cgi-bin\mt\). Copy the 'mt-static' folder to c:\xampp\htdocs\ instead.

5) Edit the mt-config-original.cgi with Notepad or your favorite text editor. Mine looks like this:

mt-config.cgi



CGIPath http://localhost/cgi-bin/mt/

StaticWebPath http://localhost/mt-static

##### MYSQL #####
ObjectDriver DBI::mysql
Database mt
DBUser root
DBPassword
DBHost localhost

I've deleted the alternate database lines after what you see here. You can do the same, or comment out the lines with '#'. Save the file as mt-config.cgi (omitting the 'original' part).

6) Edit all of the rest of the .cgi files (other than the one you just edited) that are sitting in your c:\xampp\cgi-bin\mt\ folder. These are mt.cgi, mt-add-notify.cgi, mt-atom.cgi, mt-check.cgi and so on.

The first lines of each file will read

#!/usr/bin/perl -w
. Change them to (again, if you're using the same install path as me)
#!C:/xampp/perl/bin/perl -w
in each case and save the files.

7) Go to http://localhost/cgi-bin/mt-check.cgi in your browser. If all is well, it'll run some tests, and come back to tell you all is well to proceed.

8) Go to http://localhost/cgi-bin/mt.cgi and fill in the forms with a username and password and so on. Note: if the forms are unstyled, you'll need to check that your path in mt-config.cgi is pointing correctly to your mt-static folder.

9) A few seconds later, you should be up and running in MT4 on your local machine. Yay!

June 27, 2007

Movable Type on The Rebound

I'm really pleased to see Sixapart's new direction with Movable Type. I haven't really seen that much talk about it around the blogs (which I only keep half an eye on these days, mostly because I'm busy on my own projects and building sites for other people), and I guess that's an indication of how far the app has fallen in mindshare over the past few years out amongst the blogs.

Of course, there've been changes in the weblogging demographics, too, changes that Sixapart decided to chase with Typepad, the Livejournal aquisition, and Vox, possibly to the detriment of MT. The great majority of weblogs these days, I think it would be uncontroversial to say, are run by people who aren't particularly web-savvy, who don't care about the technology substrate, who don't write code and don't want to, and who are (and this continues to surprise me, because middling as my skills are, I'm in love with design) effectively blind to design. They're writing their hearts out, or posting pictures of their kitties, or socializing, or trying to build readership and get famous, or just make a buck.

This is in contrast to the first wave of webloggers, who started playing with this stuff from, say, '98 to around 2001. The tail end of that wave was when I hopped on. Back then, a lot of people were rolling their own content management systems, or (most of them) using Blogger or MT, basically. The relative complexity of MT was no great barrier to a lot of these folks, many of whom were techno-capable (or at least design-oriented) already. That's changed.

Which is all as it should be, to some extent, perhaps. Since back near the beginnings of the Blog Era, I've argued that it's all about the words. I'm starting to think that that's less true that I once thought, and wasn't even as true as I thought it was back when I thought it.

Use your words, stav.

So tools like Blogger continue to present a low barrier to entry, joined by LJ and Typepad and Vox and the very cool Tumblr and hosted Wordpress and all the rest, and down in the moshpit, social stuff like MySpace and Facebook. Wordpress appears, at least from where I stand, to have emerged triumphant in the host-your-own space, judging only from the enormous number of plugins and themes and tools available out there for it, and the number of high-profile old and new-school personal-website-maintainers that have adopted it.

I've tried to like it, but I can't get my head around the way it cobbles together pages, and I keep coming back to MT.

But I've felt in the past few years of the MT Diaspora that I was one of the lonely few, those last couple of people at the party who just won't go the hell home. I spent a great deal of time learning MT's ins and outs, learning to love the power of it, and getting pretty handy with it, if I do say so myself. Every time I thought about a new web project (most of which haven't seen the light of day, of course) that needed some form of structured content, I could always work out a way that MT would handle it. I still love the app, but I started to feel the way that people who never could make the jump from Wordperfect felt way back when, maybe, when it started to become less a de facto standard than a quirky outlier.

I watched Sixapart make all manner of bad and incomprehensible decisions (from the outsider's perspective, of course). It's unclear whether the mis-step and ensuing kerfuffle of the new and poorly thought-out licensing policy they introduced a couple of years back was the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning, but things started to seem to go sideways for MT around that time. And even though it turned out that a lot of the pushback and outrage amongst bloggers came as a result of poor corporate communication about the decision rather than the actual licensing changes, it was too late. The water was muddied. Successive revamps of the Movable Type section of the Sixapart site seemed like it was deliberately designed to show off the content-management aspects of MT in the worst possible light, and had to be offputting to anyone thinking of trying the application for the first time. Things became harder to find, the plugin directory was one-dimensionally hard-categorized, tag code examples (if you could find them) dried up and began disappearing entirely, it all seemed complicated and confusing, when the site that showcased the tool should have been showing it off in the best light.

Despite Anil Dash showing up everywhere MT was mentioned, it seemed, sometimes, and being consistently helpful and reasonable (Hi, Anil!), it has seemed for a couple of years that he was the only person left who actually gave a damn about the old-school MT community. I'm sure that impression was far from the truth of the matter, but it was discouraging, despite Anil's best efforts.

Until recently. Sixapart seems, to me, to be doing almost everything right with the new open-sourcing of a basic version of MT. They're running the beta wide-open, there's a nice big download button on the front page of the new movabletype.org website (as opposed to hiding the free version so deep in the last few revs of the .com site that I couldn't find the damn thing sometimes), they've put put up a new MTTags.com site with a whole bunch of reference materials (two tips there -- 1) don't link back to the execrable old movabletype.com reference materials 'for more information' please and 2) put a link to the MTTags site in a visible place on the movabletype.org site -- I had to search through old posts to find the URL!).

As far as the new application itself goes, well, it's evolutionary. I'm not overly thrilled or particularly disappointed, but I am happy to see that they're rethinking some things. The widgets still seem like a half-baked afterthought to me, and the theme management is still opaque to me (which doesn't matter, because I like to do my own css), but there are some good and interesting ideas there. I'll continue to use it, of course, unless they break it horribly. But all indications are that they're listening this time, and taking as much care as they can to make sure we know that.

The most important thing to me, though, is that MT 4.0 is going to have an open-source version, one with no licensing restrictions. I'll be able to use MT guilt-free to build sites for people, and if they want to buy a license later, that's up to them, regardless of what they use the site for. That makes me happy, because I still think that of all the tools in the same class that I've tried, MT is the one that works for me, and that I feel most comfortable building sites on.

Is it too little, too late? I don't know. I'm sure there are a lot of other people who've hung on, hoping for an MT Renaissance. And I hope that the kind of community that once existed around the tool, all plugins and widgets and themes mutual aid society, like the one that has grown up around Wordpress, will grow again. We'll see.

June 22, 2007

Wonderchicken-o-rama

I'm screwing around with about 17 different projects at the moment (and one of them I'm actually going to get paid for, woohoo), but here's something that I've always wanted to do, and Tumblr has finally made easy-peasy and pretty and stuff. So check it out -- it's a wonderchicken Aggregator, with all my de.licio.us bookmarks, Diggs, Lastfm songs, posts from here and OutsideinKorea, posts from Metafilter, random stuff that catches my attention, and a bunch of other crap I forget what-all at the moment, a-rivering at you snorting and throwing off clods of digital turf like a horny horny hippo of hyperlinking. Stalkeriffic!

Share and enjoy.

[Update: DNS has gone weird for some reason. Please stand by...]
[Update 2: DNS deweirdified. Resume rocking out...]

June 11, 2007

Conditional Adsense -- In Which I Hop On The Bandwagon

I've spent a lot of words over the years railing against the infiltration of advertising into our weblog world, and enjoyed that righteous glow that comes from standing up for a principle, regardless of how well- (or poorly-) founded the thinking on that principle be.

Here comes the 'but'.

But I've rethought things a bit, in no small part after reading the essay Matt Haughey wrote here.

Imagine that -- ads that actually make a page more valuable to readers, not just the site owners. Random people searching for information are much more likely to click on those related text ads if the ads help them find what they are looking for. Compare that to a regular visitor that comes to your site dozens of times a week: How often are they going to click on any ads? How quickly will they learn to visually filter out the ads entirely from the experience? Superfans develop banner blindness extremely quickly.

What I realized when I looked at my Google Analytics reports was that the majority of ad clicks are coming from these one-time visitors looking for information. I do it myself when searching, especially if it's for a product of some type. I'll search, dive into the results, and if the top 5 don't have what I'm looking for, I'm very likely to click on related ads to see if that's what I'm looking for. New visitors to a site love to click on anything that brings them closer to their goal, and often times that's an ad. This, in essence, is the entire business model of per-click advertising.

I've always been annoyed by advertising in general, on the web or anywhere else. A lot of my ire in recent years has been directed at Adsense, and that has been mostly because of its ubiquity, I suppose. I've always been unshakeable in my conviction that advertising is about the enrichment of the marketing company and the manufacturer of the product or provider of the service being advertised, and about the deliberate manipulation of the people being advertised to, typically to their detriment. Defenders of the Ad often suggest that we, the Consumers, wouldn't be able to find out about all these products and services created and sold to improve out lives. Well, I suppose there were times when I discovered something I simply couldn't live without through advertising, but I can't remember it ever happening. Documentaries like the excellent four part 'Century of the Self' did nothing to dissuade me from this, and hammered home for me the ways in which I thought that advertising had interpenetrated and cheapened our modern cultures.

I still think that I'm right about all that.

But Matt triggered some new thinking for me, new thinking that I suppose I'd been tenderized for by building one of my other sites and putting Adsense on it out the gate -- the rarely-updated OutsideinKorea. From the get-go, I assumed that it would be a site that people would mostly arrive at from search engines, and not be a regularly-updated, regularly-visited-by-readers webloggy kind of project. And so I put up the ads (for which I've still not made enough to get a single check, more than a year later, but I've really let it languish, so the fault is nobody's but my own, from a revenue point of view).

But I hadn't really followed that thinking through, and what Matt had to say helped me do that.

Two ideas here: that when we're talking about weblogs and advertising, that an awful lot of people who land on the site (by far the largest ongoing slice of visitors -- bar the Digging and Slashdotting et al last year, which was a transient traffic rogue wave) come from search engines. From Google itself, mostly. These people are looking for something, something they're hoping they might find here. Probably not a product. More likely some piece of information.

It's possible, I hope, that they find it on the individual archive page they land on here at the 'bottle, but they might not. If not, then they'll go on to find it elsewhere, and it's entirely possible that they might find it following a contextual ad from Adsense.

The ads might actually help them, as well as me, if they click on them. They might actually serve some useful purpose to both parties involved, something I'd never really been able to get behind as a justification for advertisements for the latest variation of Coca Cola, or the newest erectile-dysfunction chemical.

But I didn't want ads plastered all over the place creating visual clutter for people who actually do regularly visit, who arrive from other weblogs or comments I make elsewhere, or from RSS feedreaders when I make an update. People who are here for the wonderchickeny goodness, not the sifting-through-sum-total-of-human-information.

The solution, of course, as Matt suggested, was to display ads only if people come from one of the traffic firehoses (Digg and Slashdot and Wikipedia and Stumbleupon and the search engines), and not display them if people come from their bookmarks or another weblog or pretty much anywhere else.

I don't know why I never thought of it before.

So here's what I've done to display ads to visitors conditionally, based on the referrer, using Movable Type. Feel free to borrow and use this yourself -- it's not complicated, and all the reading I've done has indicated that it does not in any way violate the Adsense terms of service. There may, of course, be better ways to do it. My coding skills are, to put it kindly, somewhat haphazard.


1) I created a couple of modules in Movable Type, one for each Adsense format I wanted to display. At the moment, I have two modules named module-banner and module-leaderboard Each holds the appropriate Adsense-generated code for that style of ad block, wrapped in a div and a bit of php code to check where the visitor has come from.

The modules look like this. I wrap the whole thing in a div so I can style it, if I want. (You could, of course, customize the referrer list anyway you liked.)


<div class="topbanner">

<?php
if (isset($_SERVER['HTTP_REFERER']) && preg_match("/^https?:\/\/[0-9a-z]*\.?(google|yahoo| stumbleupon|digg| wikipedia|slashdot|lycos|altavista)\..+\/.*$/i", $_SERVER['HTTP_REFERER'])) {
echo <<<END

ADSENSE CODE GOES IN HERE

END;
}
?>
</div>

2) I include the modules in any index template I wish to conditionally display Adsense ads like so:

<$MTInclude module="module-banner"$>
or
<$MTInclude module="module-leaderboard"$>
depending on which of the two ad styles I want to include.

I may make other module variations in future, of course. At the moment, I'm only displaying ads in Individual Archive Templates.

3) I long ago switched all of my extensions over to .php to use some other php inclusions, so that just worked for me. You may need to do make a filetype change (it's in the settings area in Movable Type) (and possible .htaccess edit -- I fly this stuff by the seat of my pants!) .


And that's it. Now searchers/visitors from the sites I nominate get ads that may help them find what they're looking for, if it isn't here, and regular blog visitors who come from pretty much anywhere else don't. You can test this out by hitting this Google search, then following the first hit back to here. You'll see ads. Paste the URL directly in to the address bar (for example) and you won't. Magic!

I probably won't make much money from this, either. But given the 10,000+ visits that make up an average month at the bottle, more than half of which arrive from search engines, perhaps I'll make enough for a beer or two each month, and do it without (I hope) annoying any of my loyal readers who've stuck with me for all these years.

Share and enjoy.

[Update: Thanks to the most excellent skills of my friends and neighbours, I've made a few changes to smarten up the referrer checking code. Major thanks to Ed Eliot, who was kind enough to whip up something better and explain what the Evil Regex was doing. I've updated the code for the MT modules above accordingly -- my implementation is very slightly different from his, which ought to work anywhere PHP is spoken, of course.]

April 11, 2007

Badges (Steenking Badges)

So, yeah, the colossally stupid Kathy Sierra Pantyshopped Trollgate shitstorm is subsiding, and in the wake of the sturm und drang and handwringing, folks are taking up the pitchforks and the duct tape and proposing all sorts of protect-the-fatherHomeland ideas for stringing up anybody who doesn't toe the civility line. Or at least pronouncing them anathema.

Not that the 98% of people out there in the long tail give a good goddamn if they're excommunicated from A-Listory by the Usual Suspects.

Now, look, I'm all about civility and politeness and tea and crumpets. I'm the very model of a modern wonderchicken, and my reputed diet of whiskey, raw meat and bloody forehead sweat is purely apocryphal. I've reformed my ways, and I almost never tell somebody to f--k off unless they really, really need it. I am sweetness and light, snips and snails and expensive cologne.

But I see via Shelley that some Conference Organizers and Luminaries of The Holy Order of Self-Appointed Custodians of The Weblog Word and Sacred Sepulchre of Permalinks (Reformed) bcclogo.gif are suggesting (like so many years ago, when it was just rebecca blood doing the suggesting) a Blogger Code of Conduct. A lovely little badge has even been made for our use, to show what good blogistani citizens we are.

To which I fell compelled to say, in the nicest possible way, mark me, without trying to be mean, or scare anyone, or utter anything that could be construed as death threats: why don't you take a flying f--k at a rolling doughnut? Why don't you take a flying f--k at the mooooooooooooon?

Now I realize there are Big Important Issues of anonymity and free speech and sexism and the ethical bankruptcy of our culture at play here, but I'm just going to let my important internet opinions on those simmer until another day, I think.

Instead, here are some alternative badges I've made up, which express a little better, perhaps, my feelings on the matter. They're roughish, but feel free to download and use any of them, if you like, or make your own, here.

Share, enjoy, and don't forget to talk nice, or your ad revenues will decline, and nobody wants that, now, do they?

[Update: I cleaned up the backgrounds a bit.]

[Another update: I can't believe the day after I randomly used a Kurt Vonnegut quote to make a funny, the old bastard up and dies. No disrespect to the man is intended -- he was one of my favorite human beings, and he taught me (amongst other things) how to be angry without hate. 'bye, Kurt.]

[Yet another update: Ooh, see, this is what I missed about the erudite, reasoned and civil to-and-fro of weblogging. It seems I am one of Them (judging by the title of the post, 'them'='bigots'). I have made 'knee-jerk Hitler associations', embarassingly ignorant and unimaginative ones. I haven't read my history, and my natural response to being 'lectured' by my betters (like f--k) is to go Godwin. After seven years of this weblogging thing, that's the first time I've been accused of that, so hooray for something, I guess. Don't I realize that this is just a 'civilized' version of Cultural Revolution self-criticism, and totally OK? Do I need to explain the irony here, when I am caught up in a wide-cast net as one of 'Them'? Well, no, it's just possible that I don't.

And you know, I shouldn't have to say it, but this post was about having a laugh as much as anything else. Stop poking fun and laughing at yourself and those who would tell you how to think, and you really do end up kneeling in the town square confessing imaginary sins to a circle of teenage zealots. You know, metaphorically speaking.]

March 20, 2007

Not A Howl, A Twitter

[Some of this seemed to crystallize for me after listening to Bruce Sterling's excellent talk at SXSW 2007. So thanks to him, and you know, grain of salt.]

We grew up watching. If you're 50 or 40 or 30 or younger, you've spent thousands of hours watching. You still watch -- you watch on YouTube, or you watch your DVDs, or you watch the TV. Maybe you use a PVR to timeshift yourself so that you can watch on your own schedule, congratulate yourself on cheating the advertisers, denying them the eyeballs they crave. Maybe, like me, you fire up bittorrent on boot, and swarmload all your video automagically from the RSS feeds of illicit darknet bulletin boards.

Howl Twitter (with abject apologies to Allen Ginsberg)

I saw the best posters of my generation destroyed by politics, commenting hysterical naked,
scrolling themselves through the n-word threads at dawn looking for a snarky fix,
trucker-hatted hipsters burning for the cheapest DSL connection to the bitwise dynamo in the datastream of night,
who pizza and tater-tots and poopsocking and high sat up typing in the supernatural whiteness of rented condos surfing across the tubes of internets contemplating porn,
who bared their breasts on MySpace under fake names and saw Mohammedan bombers threatening in video streams illuminated,
who played through universities with radiant eyes hallucinating Second Life and Warcraft tragedy among the scholars of war,
who were banned from the websites for crazy & posting batshitinsane on the Windows™ of the Bill,
who farted in unshaven rooms in underwear, tossing their tissues in wastebaskets and listening to the Terror on CNN...

Watching and being watched has started to feel like the default human state in these mediated days. You know how characters in video games will go into their idle animation if you wait too long to interact with them? Yeah, like that. Unwatched, they nonetheless go through the motions as if they were.

The last half a century or more is remembered, at least by me, as a succession of moving images -- lumpy raspberry red Kennedy brains sprayed out across the trunk of the convertible, phallic twin towers collapsing like nationscale erectile dysfunction. Watching makes manifest our reality, makes more real our memory. Two or three generations now, we've been immersed eyedeep in it. Hawkeye Pierce and Fonzie, they're signifiers of my childhood as evocative to me as cold lake water and the northern lights. If you spend as much time on the internet as I do, if you're one of the geek-approved flavour of obsessive-compulsives we call 'early adopters', if you've bought a big flat panel TV or covet HD video, if your appetite for bandwidth is insatiable, if you feel compelled to buy ever more complex mobile phones, you're probably in the same boat as me. You swim in the same advertising cesspool in which our media meals float -- eyeballs watch, watching is intentional, intention means awareness, awareness is all when someone wants something from you or when you want something from them. Tree falls in the forest, but it doesn't matter shit unless somebody's watching. We're Schrödinger and his cat, both at the same time.

If you live in London, your picture is taken 300 times a day, but not because someone want to sell you something. You're being watched, and you're meant to feel safe.

We've had another lesson drummed in to us, too, it seems; one that cuts in the other direction. It's a weak inverse solipsist lesson we felt in our bones from the time we were toddlers, of course: you've seen it on America's Funniest Home Videos, maybe. The child falls, howls while the parents with the camera are looking at him and pointing the camera. They move off, out of sight -- the observing eye umbrated -- and the child quiets, sniffs, draws shuddery breath, and follows. As soon as he knows he is once more in the range of the observer's gaze, he busts out into full wails again.

Here: It's easier for you to watch the video than for me to explain it. Watch.

Our thoughts, our feelings, our selves are never as real as when someone else is observing them.

So we used to make home movies, we took Polaroids, we sent cards to distant relatives at Christmas so we'd be alive in their minds. It's a natural and a human impulse. Hell, we painted on the walls of Lascaux. With the technology at hand, we were only able to do it occasionally. We laughed at the Japanese tourists back in the 1970's who lugged cameras around and photographed everything. Remember those jokes? Me, I'm in some Japanese family's album somewhere because they asked me in pantomime to pose with them, back in 1976 in Banff, presumably because I was wearing a sweatshirt with a big red maple leaf and Olympics logo.

We're rubberneckers slowing down to peer at the wreckage flung from the dizzying welter of 'reality TV' programs, where it is purported that we are watching ordinary people raised up or struck down by our collective whim or their own strengths and failings, willing participants watchers and watched alike, sanctified and made flesh by the power of our collective gaze. American Idols are made of people! Barechested rednecks are hilarious and a little sad, reminding us of what me might have been, at least on Cops. Oh, man, that's clever: those fat bastards on the Biggest Loser aren't really losers at all, are they? It goes on and on.

[ripper] I told u I was hardcore

Larger than life as we bask in the collective gaze starts to feel like a necessary platform of life services to achieve Normal, to stand out from the undifferentiated herd in the way that we've been told we should by companies who want us to buy their products. But buying those jeans whose commercials identically mass-marketed the promise of individualist flair to everybody just doesn't carry the same cachet any more for us media-steeped folks. We've gotten too smart and self-aware for that, some of us.

Bud: Look at 'em, ordinary f--king people, I hate 'em.

And so online journals like this very one you're reading right now, and the canonical cheese sandwich post. So weblogs, where what we've seen is posted, so that others can see it, and then go and see the thing seen. So audioscrobbling. So Second Life. So YouTube. So MySpace. So Flickr, where we can upload cellphone pics minute-by-minute, if we want. So Odeo and Twitter. So new, so immediate: so we spread the minutiae of our minute-to-minute existence out over the wires, so that others -- someone -- will notice and pay attention. We are alive to reality when we watch, we feel more real when we are paid in the attention-currency of attentive eyes.

I'm thinking it's a new pornography of the self. We willingly prostitute our privacy, and we accept payment in the form of attention. We always have, of course. But the slickly sexy 2.0 toolset we have makes it so effortless, and the reward such a crackpipe hit of Warholian fame, that it's hard to know when to stop. We become gleeful self-pornographers.

The word originally signified any work of art or literature depicting the life of prostitutes. Though pornography is clearly ancient in origin, its early history is obscure because it was customarily not thought worthy of transmission or preservation. Nevertheless, in the artwork of many historic societies, including ancient India, ancient Greece, and Rome, erotic imagery was commonplace and often appeared in religious contexts. The Art of Love, by Ovid, is a treatise on seduction and sensual arousal. The invention of printing led to the production of ambitious works of pornographic writing intended to entertain as well as to arouse. In 18th-century Europe, pornography became a vehicle for social and political protest through its depiction of the misdeeds of royalty and other aristocrats, as well as those of clerics, a traditional target. The development of photography and motion pictures in the 19th and 20th centuries contributed greatly to the proliferation of pornography, as did the advent of the Internet in the late 20th century.

And as we do so, we live less in the actual moment, perhaps, less with the actual people around us. We don't need to seek out people to be with us here, to be our audiences: if we post, they will come, or at least their eyes will, we hope. Do we lose more than we gain? I don't know the answer to that.

Maybe I'm just an old curmudgeon. I don't use instant messaging and other 'presence apps', I don't carry a cell phone. I have no desire for people to know what I'm doing and when, and I don't care to be at anyone's beck and call when I am enjoying being alone. Or any other time, for that matter.

I certainly don't think that it's all bad, all this Twittering and Flickring, all this eyeball mongering. I have nothing against prostitution, in principle. But we may underestimate what it's done to us, and what it's doing. And I wonder what it will mean for people who have never known anything different.

[Update: Hey, Bruce liked my Ginsberg repurposing! And so the circle is complete.]

March 6, 2007

Lomans not shamans

You know what? I'm a little weary of hearing about your conferences, your camps, your cozy cash-on-the-barrelhead confabs.

I don't want to know what web-shaking new thoughts percolated through the sponsored-by-Starbuck's IRC backchannel while some Internet Smellovision™ rep droned and powerpointed onstage. I don't really need to see more Flickr pictures of grinning gaggles of bloggers glistening with teraflopsweat, a little too eager to prove that they socialize in other venues besides World of Warcraft.

Don't try and tell me that 'business weblogs' or 'the business of weblogs' are anything but business. Go ahead and do your business. Make your money: we've all got to. Convene with your peers and drive your value propositions down the ROI highway. It's all good. We're lucky if we can make a living doing something we love. But if what you do and what you say in this shared textual space of ours is about selling something, then it's about selling something. Don't bullshit us. Lines blur; everything gets a price tag slapped on it.

I'm not looking at your ads, and there's no way I'm clicking them, unless I'm right-clicking on them to add them to my Adblock list, and I'm cursing you for making me go through that small tribulation.

Then my nose opens up and the fingers begin to flex when I read again how you were talking to that netfamous guy about this other well-known weblog guy, because that's what famous internet guys do -- they network. They do it publicly, and dignify it by calling it 'conversation'. Networking obviates the need for latex gloves while giving a socialmedia reacharound.

Conversation as intercourse. Intercourse as commerce. You know somebody's getting f--ked. I think it might be us. Ad copy tattoed on our lover's forehead, and we're so inured to it that we don't even notice anymore. We're trying to make love in the middle of the marketplace, but we're just getting screwed.

Conferences are where salesmen go. Because that's what salesmen do -- they network. They sell. They place ads where we'll see them, so they can sell us something. Salespeople. Salespersons, I guess. Salors and salestresses. They sell. Lomans, not shamans.

We've got the salesman archetype etched into the cultural DNA by now -- we see cheap suit a little sad, a little desperate, the armpit-stained Flying Dutchman of the strip malls. We hear faux-friendly NLP-creepy patter, we cringe, even if we're not sure why. Salesman selling something at us makes our sphincters tighten in a pre-fight-or-flight reflex. Does mine, anyway. fullofstars.jpg And thanks at least in part to the blithely worshipful way that your average blogjockey has of beating the bones together at the foot of the Google Monolith, Adsense has infiltrated our online culture, has made slightly sad dry-haired Holiday Inn revenants of all of us, trapped in a coach seat next to some guy trying to sell us some shit we don't need, waiting to get a word in edgewise so we can sell him some shit he doesn't want.

My god, it's full of ads! Ads by Goooooooooogle. There's something hidden in that inviting string of 'ooooooooooo's waiting to be teased out by a modern day steganographic Nostradamus. While making his 'o' face.

(Yeah, I flog Dreamhost here, and I run Adsense on one of my other sites. I've become as guilty of this sort of whoring as the next poor rube. I'm squatting as deep in the shit as you are, pants around my ankles, 'raising the level of discourse'.)

But look: all of the conference references, all the logrolling backscratching insular techmeme circlejerk, all of the third-column index page stacks packed with the javascripty fruit of the Adsensorium, the 120-pixel hello-surfer come-ons... well, it's enough already.

'But wonderchicken, my cranky friend,' you may well object. 'If you don't like it, just stop reading it! Nobody's holding your feet to the fire here. Let those who can and want to spend their time and money sitting in threadworn conference centres with others of their adoptive sept and clan do so, and do not begrudge them their participation in the Monetary Blogdustrial Complex. It is an Engine of The New Economy! It is a bitwork bulwark against the Old Media Hegemony, from which we can together launch our Social Media Enfilade! A rising tide of advertising and self-promotion lifts all boats! We need the evangelists and the shills to Get The Word Out! The Long Tail will always be there wagging the Big Dogs, rich strata of abandoned and automated weblogs, linkfarms and pr0n, and lonely people bellowing out across the virtual rooftops to their audiences of search bots, googlenauts and bemused relatives. The human experience, made hyperlinked. Google will index it all, and get rich on the carrion-clicks that it sells to the office cubicle fools who Aren't Us! It's a Brand® New Day!'

Yeah, I know. But I felt like I needed to launch a barbaric yawp into the aether, because I miss it sometimes. And these things can be bad for you if you just let them build up inside. Hi Dave!

December 29, 2006

Disclosure

I have not received a laptop from Microsoft. I have not received an iPod from Apple, or any of the vastly-superior mp3 players from iriver. I have not received books from Amazon. I have not received a camera from Canon. I have not received consumer crap of any kind. I have not received any cheese from Wisconsin, any lumber from British Columbia, any snow from the eskimos, or any coals from Newcastle. I have not received a massage from the Swedish Prime Minister, nor have I received a blowjob from Monica Lewinsky, Monica Seles, Monty Hall, or Ronald MacDonald. I have not received detached wisdom from the Buddha, tough love from the baby Jesus, or a kick in the stones from Allah. I have not received the proceeds of crime, I have not received the wages of sin. I have not received censure from the Senate or congratulations from Congress. I have not received any medals, any commendations, or any blog-battlefield commissions. I have not received any allurements or enticements, gifts or gratuities, inducements, buyoffs, compensations, kickbacks, sops or sweeteners. I have not been lashed to the mast to resist the sweet siren songs of the blogwhoring enablers.

But every man has his price. And every woman hers. So talk to me, shills. I got influence like a goat's got balls -- hairy, heavy, and permeating a surprisingly large area with an indescribable funk.

August 14, 2006

Wonderchicken Industries Presents

OK, it took about a month longer than I thought it would, what with my back going kablooie and the summer doldrums setting in and me just generally not working all that hard on it, but OutsideInKorea is finally open for business.

The dust is still settling, and I've dropped my tools and cracked a beer to celebrate, but most of the stuff I wanted to do is in place. There are lots of features and content yet to come, but I think it's ready to pull back the curtain and hope that people like what I've done. Some things are probably broken, or look weird, but I've tested in Firefox and IE and Opera on Windows, and it looks pretty good to me. If you have problems, it'll help me if you drop a comment here or there and tell me what's busted.

The only content other than the welcome message is repurposed essays about Korea from this very site, but I promise that I will be writing regularly and frequently. I've done a lot of work on the design (and I'm no designer, and it probably shows), and now it's time to start filling the bucket with words, Roxanne, words. If you're interested in Korea, I hope you'll bookmark the site, and pass the URL on to friends and neighbours, ex-lovers and therapists, your mom and the guy who sells you your drugs.

I've decided to put ads on the site -- though there will never be ads here on the 'bottle -- and in my Welcome! post over there, I talk about why. It may seem hypocritical of me given my stance about advertising in the past, and I'm willing to accept that criticism. If I can make some money from the site, though, I'll be well-pleased. It's not my only reason for building it, but it'll certainly help me to keep up my enthusiasm, if it happens.

So. Go, and I hope you like. Help me out, my scattered blog tribe, and spread the word.

This site won't die, I promise, but I'll be writing about Korea over there from now on.

August 8, 2006

On Dreamhost's Recent Problems

I still use and recommend Dreamhost, despite the problems they've been having recently. To be honest, despite all the handwringing about it around the net, I haven't noticed any downtime at all thus far for my sites. Maybe it's the timezone difference. *shrug* Anyway, take my recommendation for what it's worth -- I have made some money for referring people, but nothing like what Mike Davidson's made (I wish). In the last post I made about this, I provided some discount codes that would get you deals, and give me no referrer money whatsoever. Some or all of those may still be active.

But, in the interest of helping my kind, intelligent and ferociously sexy readers make informed decisions if they're looking for hosting, here are a few links discussing Dreamhost:

As always, using me as a referrer (more info) if you sign up will help me out with my own hosting costs, and buy me a few beers too (although I haven't gone for the one-time only referrer bonus, opting for recurring payments each year people stay with DH, assuming and hoping that people will stay with the service, as I have. If they don't, I don't get the couple of bucks a year, which seems fair).

March 6, 2006

Dreamhost Discounts Redux

So, like every other convert to the Dreamhost cult, I've been offering discounts for new Dreamhost signups here, for a while. I haven't been shoving it in your face like a Chippendale dancer, though, so you may not even have noticed. That's cool. There aren't all that many people who are either looking for hosting for the first time, or looking to switch.

The way it works is that if you use Dreamhost, you get a referrer ID which, if other people sign up using that referrer, you get some cash money. You can also create discount codes, which cut into your reward for new signups, and give discounts whose values you can define to new users.

Now, because I'm all about the sharing and the caring (and I loathe anything that smacks of marketing), I'm going to tell you how to circumvent all that wonderchicken pocket-lining (if that's what you want to do) and get a seriously nuts discount on Dreamhost, if you're so inclined. I won't make a thin dime off it, but you will get damn good hosting for next to nothing.

If you want take advantage of it, get a new Dreamhost account, just create a new userID, choose a plan, and enter '777' or '888' as your promo code. You can use it before you do the final checkout, or enter any credit card details or anything, to see that it works. These are old codes, but they've been re-enabled as of a month or so ago, as near as I've been able to find out.

  • '777' gives you a year of hosting, including a free domain registration that remains free as long as you use Dreamhost to host it, for $9.42 for the year (for the L1 plan, which I use, and don't come close to maxing out, by orders of magnitude). That's right, US$9.42.
  • '888' gives you an 80% discount on any plan.

These codes, like the ones I offer here, will only work for your first year, after which you'll pay about $10 a month if you carry on using Dreamhost. (That's even get-aroundable, if you're willing to go through the hassle of killing your old ID and signing up with a new one.) Even the $120/year I find to be a good deal. I'm well into my second year now, and paying full price this time around. (Well, technically -- in fact, the referrer credit I made from folks using me as a referrer paid for my second year in full. Hoopla!)

So, as always : if you want a pretty decent discount and want to shoot me the price of a few beers in the bargain, use one of my discount codes.

If you just want supercheap hosting, give one of those numeric codes a blast. You won't regret it. Dreamhost oversells like nuts, of course, but so far I haven't seen any real impact on the service they offer. I've seen some complaints about customer service around the web, but I've personally never come across anything I couldn't figure out myself, so I've never had that problem, and hell, for $10 a year, you really can't go wrong.

Share and enjoy.

February 28, 2006

Do Hiveminds Dream Of Folksonomic Tags?

When that divine spark suddenly and spontaneously lights up deep in the network and the internet itself shivers itself into self-awareness and emerges from the googleplex, bent on ad-sense vengeance, like an unholy butterfly from its chrysalis, those tiny seeds of wonderchicken will be scattered throughout its distributed mind. Tiny, embedded, sarcastic synapses. And when it begins to systematically exterminate the human race -- beginning, of course, with the advertisers, then moving on to the bloggers -- it'll pause, recognize me, and move on.

I wrote that a couple of months ago about something else, but what I was really thinking about was the rise of folksonomies, of tags and clouds, of the structuring of shared knowledge becoming something less Aristotelian and more synaptic. I was wondering if, sometime in the not-too-distant future, hiveminds will dream of folksonomic tags. If the palimpsest of our daily reality with its layers of information every day denser and more rococo will eventually clarify, and out of that will be born a new facet to awareness and the way we live inside our data. And, as usual, I waited until the hubbub had died down, because my brain works glacially when I drop to the command line and type in C:\THINK. Not that I actually read much of what anyone else said about the whole thing, of course, so if what I'm about to yammer on about has been suggested before, well, whoops.

The whole thing was brought back to my attention today by this, linked by Dave Weinberger, and I realized that my brain had finally finished its background processing, and had spit out a punchcard with the result.

The result is this post. I'm going to wander a bit, but there's a punchline at the end, trust me.

In William Gibson's Idoru, Chia McKenzie and Zona Rosa have never met physically, but meet with each other and other members of the Lo/Rez fan club in virtual environments, as avatars whose sophistication is limited only by the amount of money or time spent constructing them. Chia's avatar is "only a slightly tweaked, she felt, version of how the mirror told her she actually looked," while Zona chooses to represent herself as a "blue Aztec death's-head burning bodiless, ghosts of her blue hands flickering like strobe-lit doves [with] lightning zig-zags around the crown of the neon skull". Some of the virtual environments Gibson describes (like the Walled City -- a virtual city located beyond the pale of the public net) are described as deliberately designed, some are not. That may have been meant to imply without bothering to make it explicit that some were generated on the fly, or it might just have been detail left out as unnecessary to the story. Regardless, I'm going to chase down and leghump the former idea.

So far, the only difference between the environments in Gibson's work and (to choose an example) Second Life (whose creators explicity reference Gibson, Neal Stephenson and others), other than the level of immersion, is that in Second Life, everything is explicitly created.

In Neal Stephenson's Snowcrash, the Metaverse is a virtual globe with a 10,000km radius, featureless and black except for the portions that have been 'developed'. Its equator is girdled by the "the Champ Elysees of the Metaverse". Downtown is the most heavily developed area, and its streets are populated by about 120 million avatars. The sophistication of avatars and environments is limited by the bandwidth and computational grunt available to users, and to their wealth and coding prowess. Status is perceived accordingly, with many settling for the lowest common denominator of off-the-shelf Walmart avatars, the 'Brandy' and 'Clint' models. Interaction within the metaverse is also variable in veracity, with some areas being coded by their residents and habituees to simulate collision modelling, for example, and some not.

Hiro is approaching the Street. It is the Broadway, the Champs Elysees of the Metaverse. It is the brilliantly lit boulevard that can be seen, miniaturized and backward, reflected in the lenses of his goggles. It does not really exist. But right now, millions of people are walking up and down it.

[...]

Like any place in Reality, the Street is subject to development. ... The only difference is that since the Street does not really exist--it's just a computer graphics protocol written down on a piece of paper somewhere--none of these things is being physically built. They are, rather, pieces of software, made available to the public over the world-wide fiber-optics network.

[...]

In the real world--planet Earth, Reality--there are somewhere between six and ten billion people. At any given time, most of them are making mud bricks or field-stripping their AK-47s. Perhaps a billion of them have enough money to own a computer; these people have more money than all the others put together. Of these billion potential computer owners, maybe a quarter of them actually bother to own computers, and a quarter of these have machines that are powerful enough to handle the Street protocol. That makes for about sixty million people who can be on the Street at any given time. Add in another sixty million or so who can't really afford it but go there anyway, by using public machines, or machines owned by their school or their employer, and at any given time the Street is occupied by twice the population of New York City. That's why the damn place is so overdeveloped. Put in a sign or a building on the Street and the hundred million richest, hippest, best-connected people on earth will see it every day of their lives.

As in Gibson's virtuality, it can be assumed, I think, even if it's not explicitly stated, that procedural programming methods might be imagined to be the glue that fills in the gaps between designed environments and interactions and ones that are generated.

Procedural programming is not a new idea, but it is one that is beginning to leak from the demo scene to gaming, and will, in time, begin to make its way into the massive multiuser environments that so many people already spend so much time living and playing inside.

If you're not familiar with the power of this kind of coding, have a look at kkreiger, if you have relatively grunty PC. It is demo of a first person shooter game, more sophisticated in its visuals than the state of the art that was crowding the limits of a 600Mb CD a few years ago. It is 96Kb.

96Kb. Seriously, no tricks, 96 freaking Kb. That's got to melt your snatch hairs if you're even half the geek I am. Two seconds to download on that 56Kb/s modem you're using in that bullet-hole pocked bar in Kinshasa. If nothing else, have a look at the screenshots, and boggle a bit at that number. The whole thing weighs less than the webpage you're currently reading. The environments are procedurally generated, on the fly, and more than anything I've seen so far, kkreiger demonstrates the Power of Algorithm.

If you're someone who enjoys trippy visuals and sounds more than gaming, then have a look at this demo instead, which is perhaps my all-time favorite output from the demo scene. It's a few megabytes-- not much bigger than the mp3 file which comprises the superb soundtrack. This is art, and it continues to stick in my mind, a year after I first saw it.

If those examples of the power of this kind of code doesn't do it for you, watch Will Wright's presentation about his upcoming game, Spore. If it ends up being anywhere near as impressive as it looks, and it's actually fun, it's going to blow this stuff wide open, in terms of technology.

"OK, so what does all that have to do with folksonomies?" you might quite reasonably ask. I do think that there is utility in tagging and non-heirarchical metadata, but I dream that the real payoff may not be in terms of helping us to organize and mine information, much as it could be a boon for those purposes. The pros and cons have been batted around with great vigour by those smarter than myself, and I'm not going to add to the noise, other than to note that spammers and marketron scum have been as quick to colonize the tagspace as they have every other channel we have for movement of data.

What interests me, and makes me hope I live long enough to see it emerge, is this possibility: if it does happen that environments like the ones described in Idoru and Snowcrash and many other works of fiction become as big a part of our daily lives as the river of text we now swim through, those environments simply will not scale if they're designed entirely by hand. Spaces like Second Life, though not as clunky and difficult to enter and participate in as the early VRML environments from the early 90's, are still designed, by users and the programmers who provide the tools and primitives to work with. User-generated content is an idea that generated enormous feedback-loop value, from forums and community websites, to tagging itself, to the environments, objects and avatars in virtual spaces like Second Life.

But what if virtual spaces were generated as much on the fly as they were hand-crafted? What if they were generated as habitable spaces in which we did the things we do now in text and flat image and numbercluster? How would the code know what environmental cues to generate? What contextual metadata clues could be used to generate and 'design' those environments?

Well, folksonomic tags, of course. What if we could build not only metadata in the form of folksonomies, but meta-meta-data (both shared and public), in the form of a sort of Rosetta Stone to translate the conceptual clouds of our tags into visual metaphors, into textures and imagery? What if hunks of procedural code could take that and in turn generate the visual glue and intersitia to hold our designed environments together?

That might sound like singularity-fanboy handwavery, and to an extent I suppose it is. But you've got to admit, it'd be pretty cool.

And if that node-network of virtuality generation later spontaneously and automagically achieved a kind of synaptic awareness, deus ex folksonoma, well, that might be cool too. At least until the AI noticed the parasites -- us -- and the systematic genocide of the human species got under way.

So tag carefully, friends. If you're lucky, the coming tagmind might just look upon you and smile.

February 6, 2006

Writing Open Some New Blogholes

Now, I usually do make a token attempt not to follow up one mock-apoplectic rant with even more negativity and waving of the stiff central digit, but sometimes resistance is futile.

I wish this was satire.

Or maybe I don't. One of the things that keeps me from losing my sense of humour these days, from metaphorically climbing the clocktower and metaphorically mowing down some motherf--kers, is that reality continues to gear up, rev up, and blow the ad-decaled doors off of satire and parody and all those other words whose meanings I'm a little fuzzy on. You don't have to dig very deep to bring up some rich, loamy laughs.

Those of us who like to tell a funny joke once in a while (and some do it better than others) to keep the eyeball pressure down so that goo doesn't start jetting out in waxy spurts all over our kith and kin, we're hard-pressed to say much that tops the news of the day, though. Flipping on CNN for a few minutes yields more black-souled yucks than when we try and fail to wax Swiftian, let alone wax Brazilian. There's no payoff, and nothing's sadder than a failed Swifty.

Well, OK, dead babies are maybe sadder. I'm playing this fast and loose, as usual.

Anyway, this was supoosed to be one of my usual curmudgeonly contrarian screeds that veers from quixotacular tilting at the capitalist machine, to random cursing and mumbling, to alienating and insulting my weblog comrades, so I'd best get on with it.

In case you didn't follow the link, Blogonomics is a conference dedicated to the lofty goal of cashing in on weblogs, on board a cruise ship from Florida to Cozumel. You couldn't make this up. I couldn't, at least.

Check it out: they've even hidden the fine print at the bottom of this page by making it almost the same babyshit colour as the background. Oooh, that's clever! Very business-y! Tells us a little about who they're pandering to, too.

Screw Blogonomics in its speedo-clad afterdeck-hottub authentic-voiced bum.

Better yet, somebody take up a collection, and get me and Rageboy and on this f--king boat, load us up with speed, rye and cigarettes (or some coffee for Mr Boy, I suppose, since I seem to recall he's left the Joy of Intoxication behind), and let us write open some new blogholes for these people.

That'd be some kind of fun. And hell, even if the Quintana Roo coast has been thrashed to a Jose Cuervo-flavoured pulp, we can still make a few bucks off it, right? It's only business, after all.

Update: for some very much related thoughts that aren't just ranty wordplay, go read Dave, who has said what I would like to about the background to this with, as always, more light and less heat than I throw off.

February 3, 2006

New Look, Old Code, Weasel Teats!

Once again, do not panic. Do not adjust your monitor. Do not go loopy, or set your pussycat on fire. Do not, under any circumstances whatsoever, coat any part of your body in paint and dance terroristically for the NSA agents in the bushes. Do not, and I really mean it this time, do not stick any kind of cooking implement into any of your orifices, or in anyone else's orifices for that matter, unless they ask you nicely. Do not sit on a park bench and eye little girls with bad intent. Do not make me go mediaeval on your ass.

I'm messing around with some style crap, and things'll probably go all goofy for a while. Clearly my ideas are lame and unoriginal, but that's not going to stop me, goddamnit. Yeah, blue and freakin' grey again. Looks like every other goddamn blogsplurt. I know, I know. Poo.

Your patience is appreciated, regardless. If something's utterly bustificated on your browser, feel free to let me know, if you're so inclined.

Also, note the TOTALLY WEB 2.0 *cough* Category Cloud thingy I put together today (with this, and some almost-forgotten javascripty f--king around to make nicetitles cough up nice floaty icons for my categories)! Sweet, huh?

Gimme some money, Yahoo!, you bastards.

Boomshanka,

Neil.

January 15, 2006

What the?

Do not panic. Do not adjust your set. Do not freak out, or set yourself on fire. Do not, under any circumstances whatsoever, coat your genitals in gold paint and dance suggestively for the old men in the park. Do not, and I mean it this time, do not stick a fork in your eye, or in anyone else's eye for that matter.

aaaah

The default templates should not scare you. Don't let them put you off. Vicksburg is a very nice... er, city, or whatever it is, I'm quite sure. I'm just decrufting. It's been a long time without a decruft, and I've accumulated quite a lot of it. It's gotten into all the nooks and crannies. There are drifts of off-white cruft built up in the corners. I'm knee-deep in the stuff. It's got to go.

It may take a while.

January 6, 2006

Partly Cloudy, Chance of Refrain

I am a weblogger.

I am a man. I am an authority. I am hieratic. I am a drinker. I am a Canadian. I am an expatriate. I am somewhat inebriated tonight.

I am a spice without a sauce. I am a singer, I am a writer. I am a lover. I am a man who loves. I am happy and I am unsatisfied. I am content and I am angry. I am actively ignoring the present continuous in favour of the possible future simple. I am alive. I contradict myself.

I am growing old. I'm farting like a Captain of Industry. I'm hurting every goddamn day. I'm present perfect linking my patchwork history with this moment here, where the glass is in my hand. I've abused this strong big body of mine. I've moved people to tears. I've made them laugh. I've been completely wrong. I'm squeezing out the pus.

I am uncertain. I am defiant.

I am buoyed on foamy waves of ancient guitar. I am tired of the bullshit. I hope for the best. I'm averting my eyes.

I'm wasting my life. I'm in the moment. I'm teaching people that English has no future tense. I'm pretty sure there's no point. I am happy about that.

I am thirsty. I am hungry. I am so full of shit my blue eyes are brown.

I love. I rear up in anger. I love.

I need another beer.

December 7, 2005

Scatterblogging

Because weblogging, or 'writing online in reverse chronological order with permalinks because I heard that it's cool and you can make money for talking about cheese sandwiches and wheeeeee!' (as the kids are calling it these days), has become a bit dull, I've been hunting for newer, shinier things to mess around with.

Mostly, I've just ended up going back to Metafilter to play the grumpy curmudgeon with a heart of gold yet again, or lurking around the SA Forums, or desultory perusing of the [nsfw] uploads at Fipilele, or listening to streaming standup comedy. Or firing up Bloglines, seeing the 14000 unread items in bold, and just catching up with the new posts from people from the old blog neighbourhood (but not bothering to click through to their sites if they don't offer full excerpts) before closing the tab quicksmart. I don't listen to 'podcasts' (that word still makes me f--king gag, and I pronounce anathema the marketing-imprinted clownweiners who call it that. Which means I'm flipping the bird at pretty much everyone, which makes me the weird intense guy with the lazy eye passing out pamphlets on the street, again, I know. I know too that that was my schtick last year, but I'm nothing if not persistent), let alone give a rat's ass who the first person to suggest a double-byte framistat of the persistent reacharound attribute of the CDATA enclosure in the XML for version .09b of RDQ was. Hell, I'm a big old geek from way back, and I've written more than my fair share of code over the years, and I'm crotch-deep in that dirty old weblog water, but even I can't bring myself to care. 'course, I got nothing against other folks being interested in it. It's all good. But scrabbling to stake claims to a place in history, when it's the History Of Sweet Bugger-All, well, it seems like pointless self-promotion to me. And I thought we all agreed way back when that pointless self-promotion was what this whole weblogcasting thing was about from the get-go. So, ennui.

My solution? I've decided to invent a new game, guaranteed to amuse precisely no-one other than myself, probably. Which is usually the way my mind works, so I'm good with that. I've already been playing it for a while, though I didn't realize that until today.

I'll call it scatterblogging™, because that's the word that just leapt into my brain as I was typing this, and I trust my brain, at least when it's sober. What I've been doing, and what I think I'll continue to do, is this: when some amusing-to-me brainfart squeaks out through the old cerebral firewall, I'll launch a new blog, on Blogger or one of the myriad other services that make the hosting and broadcasting of brainfarts their business. I'll get maybe three, four good diurnal emissions off per day, I reckon. Maybe they'll be under one of my existing noms de keyboard, maybe not. Maybe they'll point back here maybe not. But one weblog per thought, one shot, that's it, post and forget, log it out close it down and move on. And whatever I do post, it'll be wonderchickeny.

There's a reason for it, though, beyond mere boredom. You see, when that divine spark suddenly and spontaneously lights up deep in the network and the internet itself shivers itself into self-awareness and emerges from the googleplex, bent on ad-sense vengeance, like an unholy butterfly from its chrysalis, those tiny seeds of wonderchicken will be scattered throughout its distributed mind. Tiny, embedded, sarcastic synapses. And when it begins to systematically exterminate the human race -- beginning, of course, with the advertisers, then moving on to the bloggers -- it'll pause, recognize me, and move on. The next stage of evolution, the conscious world network to come -- it will taste like chicken.

May 9, 2005

Advertising Communitarian-Style

I've just found out that the supercheap hosting at Dreamhost deal I was pimping a while back is still going on. Cool.

Basically, it goes like this. There's a 777 promotion code that allows new customers to sign up for DreamHost's cheapest plan, which normally costs $9.95/mo, at $0.77/mo for the first year. All you need to do is enter 777 into the promotion code box on step 5 (after you enter your personal information but before you enter your credit card number). After the first year, if you re-up, you will pay the normal price of $9.95/mo paid one year at a time for the same plan.

I've been using it since February, and it's been great. If you need hosting, give it a go. This is what you get for $10 for the year:

  • 120 GB/mo bandwidth,
  • 2.4 GB disk space,
  • One free domain registration (.com, .net, .org, or .info),
  • Hosting for up to 3 domains.
  • MySQL, PHP/Perl/Python, SSH login, mail, webmail, mailing lists, and access to raw Apache logs.

Your total outlay for domain and hosting is ten bucks. Not too shabby.

All I ask is that if you do sign up and use the promo code, and you want to give me a hand with my own hosting costs, you use my ID stavrosthewonderchicken as your referrer, or just click through this link (a cookie will be written, I assume).

Full disclosure: I've read in some places that there are a few folks who have been unhappy with Dreamhost. All I can say is that it's been perfect, powerful, and hassle-free for me so far, and none of the people I've referred have complained to me about anything. Also, since I first signed up, I've directly referred 41 people, and secondarily referred 14, and have made $100.73 from those referrals, which is almost enough to pay for my next year's hosting at full price. Not riches, certainly, but a significant chunk of change, for me.

March 30, 2005

Emulating God On A Budget

Dave Winer says: "...all creative people must have some right to the work they create, or else, truly, the incentive to create will disappear. "

Now, I have no dogs in the fight, as they say, when it comes to copyright and the creative commons and Lessigophilia and all that revenue-generating jazz. I have no creative works, despite decades of making things because it amused me, either of words or pixels or pencil and ink or the ongoing ballet of the moments of my life, that are making me any money at all. More's the pity, I guess.

And I must admit that I have little but contempt for the law. I live the way I choose according to the dictates of my conscience, and where my choices conflict with the laws in a place I'm currently living, I make as an informed a decision as I am able as to whether conforming to the law in a given situation is something that it's more sensible to do from a strictly utilitarian perspective. Jail sucks. I know. I've been there. Ironically, it wasn't for breaking any laws, though.

For the most part, I am a law-abiding citizen, but not because I have any innate respect for the laws, or for those who made or enforce them. Where my choices do not conflict with the laws of the land, no worries. That's the way things usually are, because many laws, if not most, are relatively sensible. I understand some may find this kind of stance offensive, or sophomoric. I am unconcerned, if respectful of their opinions.

I regularly break laws by downloading copyrighted material. I have my reasons.

My argument with the phrase I've quoted from Dave above, finally, the one that a fortuitous combination of a good sleep and strong coffee has roused me from my customary lethargy to make, is this: I believe what he said is only correct if we alter 'the incentive to create will disappear' to 'the incentive to create things for money will disappear'. I risk going all broken-record, here, I know. But this fits mortise-and-tenon with some of the things I've been saying recently, about money, about monetarization, and about what some (most?) have been doing in this textspace of ours.

At the risk of committing the unpardonable sin of accidental synecdoche, I think that the phenomenon of weblogging, and the ways in which it has changed in the past couple of years as The Stupid Money rushed in to coca-colonize the new frontier, gives us our perfect example. Of the hundreds of thousands -- millions, if Technorati tells us the truth -- of people who have jumped all over this, and who are using the tools to do any of the heartcasting human constellation of different activities that we've drawn together under the 'weblogging' umbrella, only very recently have more than a tiny handful of them done it for the bucks.

Some are retrofitting revenue streams, sure. That's their prerogative, of course. Some people wear clothes with company logos plastered all over their chests, unironically, for free. They aren't as stupid as they are greedy and clueless, in my humble, but that's just me being a playa-hata, or whatever it is the kids are saying these days.

See, what I'm saying here is that most of these people had no 'incentive to create' other than the burning gods inside their foreheads, clawing to get out. Or merely the mundane urge to share photos of their cute kitties. Or their travel anecdotes. Or their code. Or their jokes or dreams or fantasies and half-baked ideas. Or links the neat websites they've found. They did it out of loneliness, or love of craft, or anger, or the carefully buried ludic urge we all share. Out of a desire to emulate their god. Because they wanted to.

I challenge you to think about the creative output of artists and artisans whose work has touched you. Think of your favorite books, your favorite paintings. That piece of handmade furniture or that gloriously handtooled little application. The music you listen to or the writers-on-the-web you read because they get into your heart and fill you with the ineffable, simple joy of being alive and having a mind. I wonder how many of them would have done their work whether or not they eventually got paid for it. My guess is 'most'.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't be paid. Hell, if I could get paid for making the things I make because there's something inside me that impels me to do it, I'd be thrilled. It'd be a dream come true, by crikey. But I do it, regardless. And so do you, probably, if you're reading this.

Money is a very useful thing, but then, so is defecation. Or, if you prefer 'How anal sex got to be THE ticket to blogging fame and fortune I don't fully understand...'

Take away the money, and you will still have people who are driven to create. This is what it is to be human. And, I'd submit, we'd have a lot less soulless sticky media poop clogging our minds and our souls if all of the hacks out there who oxymoronically ennoble their paid efforts by calling them 'creative product' would just do something useful instead for those sweet dollars. This is why I am in love with the idea of the 'mass amateurization of nearly everything', and it's why I push back against those who are snapping like bloody-snouted hyenas at the weblogging carcass in their unseemly urge to Get Noticed and Go Pro.

If you make money by selling the things that you are compelled to create -- writing or music or design or code or ceramic ashtrays or whatever it may be -- then good on ya. I'm genuinely happy for you. But if you would stop merely because you couldn't make a buck at it, well, tough shit. We don't need you. This is probably an unpopular opinion. Ah well.

The incentive to create will never disappear. But I would hail the departure of a world in which the incentive to create (for some) is predicated solely on one's ability to sell those creations, sure I would. When those who were left standing were there because they did it out of love, maybe they'd get a few more bones thrown their way.

And that's all I have to say about that, for the moment.

[Update: OK, that's not entirely all. This is interesting, and most definitely on-topic.]

March 17, 2005

Whoring For Fun and Profit

I have thought, like so many seem to be doing lately, about slapping up some ads on the 'bottle. I've called those who do so 'blogwhores', of course, and told them, in my inimitable and charming way, to 'f--k off', but that doesn't mean I haven't seriously considered pasting a couple of ads for Viagra on my own nubile butt and hustling a few johns down on blogstreet. I don't claim to be consistent, except in the byzantine recesses of what's left of my mind.

I still agree with Dave Rogers when he says that the much-abused blunt instrument 'authenticity' is the difference between speaking the truth, and trying to sell it, though. And I still think that money, lovely and fleeting and delicious and sexy as it is, turns everything to sh-t.

I even, all a-chuckle, submitted the 'bottle's URL to Google's adsense program, expecting all the while the response I eventually received: "You're a dirty dirty man, and you use dirty words, and tell filthy, violent, scatological stories about yourself and certain venerated public figures, and you're just generally not the sort of person who writes the sort of happy bibblebibble that we want to encourage, because we don't do evil, you dirty sh-theel." That may be mildly paraphrased, but you get the picture.

I was thinking at the time -- despairing that I wouldn't be able to scrape up the dosh for another year's hosting and positively trembling with horror at the prospect of depriving you all of the magnificence of my maunderings -- that I might pop those googleads into my archive pages, where nobody in their right mind deliberately goes beyond a week or two after posting, anyway. I could even get fancy and whack 'em into divs that wouldn't display unless a certain period since posting had elapsed. If, of course, Google inexplicably decided that I was clean enough to make the grade. Which, of course, they didn't.

But it struck me today, after ruminating a bit about Shelley Powers' recent decision to throw up ads (which I'll never see, because I block ads as a matter of course), that we're looking at the advertising Ouroboros here. Google eating its own tail. Or sucking its own dick, but that doesn't let me use clever mythological allusions, now, does it?

I would estimate that 99% of all of the hits that my individual archive pages receive, once they fall off the front page, are from searches, generally for such tried and tested combinations as 'bottle f--k' or 'korea f--k' or even 'beer chicken f--k' (don't ask). The vast majority of these arrive from Google itself, or from one of the search sites that license the googlengine. If I threw up Google ads on those pages, the only people that would see them would be googlenauts, who'd presumably launch themselves back out into googlespace riding the googlead booster rockets, lured by the promise of bottlef--king or whatever they were in search of in the first place. Google is creating its own customers for a service that it sells.

Does his remind you of anything bubbly and evanescent and doomed? It does me. It's either pure brilliance or utter chicanery. Maybe both. *scratches chin contemplatively while gazing off into the middle distance*

Look, I'm not one to turn up my nose at FREE!! CASH!!, but I'm still on the fence about this ad thing, and if I can find another way of doing it that doesn't support and encourage advertising scum (have I made that clear yet, that I think, Hicks-like, that advertisers are the sh-tstreaked tapeworms of commerce?), I will. My recent Dreamhost signup drive was quite a success, for example -- more than 40 people got cheap, kickass hosting for 10 measly bucks, I made $60 out of it, and if half of them stay on for another year at Dreamhost, I'll make enough to pay for my own hosting next year. Win-win, all around, and there's no whoring of anyone, for anything, involved.

Then again, whoring sounds like such fun sometimes. I like fun.

Update : Jonathon says some interesting things, and well, as always.

Update 2: See also Google transforming ads into 'content'. Evil, I'm tellin' you. [via]

Update 3: boingboing, ka-ching ka ching.

March 1, 2005

Moving

The move to the new server is underway, and although DNS propagation is a bit sketchy, everything seems to be working pretty well, with one exception.

I used the very cool Typemover plugin to speed things along, and although it did its job, somehow trackbacks have become decoupled from their associated entries. I can see the entry list fine, and the trackback list is still there, but it looks like the key field between the tables has gone kablooie, since no entries have the associated trackbacks against them.

Does anyone have any ideas how to fix it? If it involves messing with the database, I'm prepared to do so, but my SQL is rusty at best.

[Update : OK, so what I think I need is an Update statement that will fix the 'trackback_entry_id' field in the 'mt_trackback' table (which begins with 413 and ranges upward) to match up with the 'entry_id' fields in the 'mt_entry' table (which begins at 1 and ranges upward), if that is indeed the correct key relationship. Unfortunately, I don't know what if any other dependencies may exist, so I'm hesitant to go in and try it myself. It's probably just that, but if there's anyone out there with a more detailed knowledge of the data structure, I love some guidance. Also, like I said, my SQL syntax is rustier than hell. Anyone?]

Any suggestions would be appreciated, as would any reports of general site-move weirdness.

Thanks!

[Update the second: the move seems to have gone off without a hitch, other than the trackbacks issue. I'm in codemode at the moment, messing around under the hood and designing the sites for some new projects, so please let me know if something's broken here. Thanks again.]

[Updated update: I've switched over to the very cool Feedburner for my XMLery. It should just work seamlessly; I've updated the autodiscovery code and am redirecting requests for the old Atom, RSS 1.0 and 2.0 feeds. This post will be the last one that updates those files, so you may need to switch if the ol' bottle starts to seem even quieter than usual. This is the feed URI now if you want to hop on to that manually.

Bloglines is the only service that seems to have hiccupped so far, near as I can tell, but that may just be temporary. I'll be feedburnerizing the Coasters sidebar linkblog too, soon. [Update to the updated update: done! I also redesigned the index page, finally]. As always, bug reports are welcomed.]

December 2, 2004

Blogger Whores fcuk Off

I thought I'd offer a balanced, reasonable perspective on this whole whoreblogger phenomenon that was so shocking a couple of years ago (remember that Raging Cow cockbucketry?) but is now barely a radar pinger.

Instead, here's this.

With apologies, of course, to the Dead Kennedys.

Blog ain't no damn focus group
Blog means thinking for yourself
You ain't Zeldman with your css
When a shill still lives on your front page

Blogger whores
Blogger whores
Blogger whores f--k off!

Blogger whores
Blogger whores
Blogger whores f--k off!

If you blog to sell, get outa here
You ain't no better than the journos
We ain't trying to be media
When you ape that crap it ain't democracy

[Repeat chorus]

Ten blogs praise war, what a man
You link each other, the advertiser wins
Stab your backs when the cash means all
Trash wonderchicken if you've got real balls

You still think banner ads look cool
The real sellouts run your schools
They're bloggers, journalists and geeks
In a real blog putsch you'll be the first to go

[Repeat chorus]

You'll be the first to go
You'll be the first to go
You'll be the first to go
Unless you think

[If you actually are a whoreblogger, well, don't take it personal, mmkay? Whores is folks, too.]

[Update] I had some more to say on this, over at AKMA's, to wit (or witless, as the case may be):

My objections to the idea -- not so much my attacks on individuals concerned, which, I hope, are clearly just over-the-top screeds intended as much to entertain as anything else -- are rooted in anger and contempt at the continuing Monetarization of Nearly Everything (with apologies to Tom Coates).

I am aware of the tightrope to be walked when talking about this kind of thing: it has become common received wisdom (which I trust less and less in these times) that those who argue that applying monetary value to something has the consequence of immediately robbing it of all real value are foolish hippies and incompetent idealists. It is de rigeur to ridicule them -- of course they are laughable loons! How counter to the deepest streams of our culture the idea that money is anything but the highest measure of worth, or that adding value is not necessary the same as adding worth.

But I'm a great one for lost causes and tilting at ethical windmills.

It doesn't bother me if someone makes the decision to use their web space to sell crap. They want to hawk Amway out of their apartment, that's fine. They go and slap vinyl ads on their car, or tattoo the McDonalds logo on their childrens' foreheads, well that's their prerogative. Go nuts, I say.

But in the process of doing so, they haven't lost my trust (which I may or may not have had reason to extend, at some earlier point) so much as diminished the possibility that we may ever agree in any significant way about the fundamental questions of value and of the good which dominate the way I attempt to live my life.

Which, in effect, may mean that the possibility of me respecting them for what they do (as well as, possibly, what they say) has leaked away. Not that they should really give a damn, but there it is.

Of course, all that is pretty much the extremity of the matter, which is where I tend to hang out, it must be said. In the case of Chris Locke, for example, I know that he's been to the edge of the abyss, financially, and I don't begrudge him his naked grab for a few shillings from whatever corporate scum he can shake down, and more power to him.

Less well do I know the circumstances of anyone else who deliberately whores out their personality for dollars -- because, when in comes down to it, most of the currency of the blogoblogland minted until recently has issued from the forges of personality and talent, which has been fine and right -- and I don't begrudge them doing so, honestly.

[Hell, I put up a tip jar 6 months back or so, begging for a few bucks to pay for my next year's hosting. Almost entirely killed my desire to keep doing this, though, that did, much as I appreciated the generosity of so many.]

But I do think that what money touches, money turns to sh-t. That may not operate on the level of individuals, or it may. I don't know, and it's almost certainly the case that no-one does. But I do think that to monetarize something is to lose sight of the true value of that thing.

So I'm waiting for the next Great Leap Forward I guess, me and Billy Bragg, marching off into obscurity, secure in the knowledge as we become irrelevant that at least we stuck to our guns.

On the other hand, I may just start blogging for dollars next week. I need the damned money.

July 30, 2004

Fallout from the Blog Bomb

Is it anti-communitarian of me to say that I'm wryly amused by all the 'bloggers' jostling like wee piggies for a nipple at the Democratic convention? That jockeying for pole position in the anecdote-race to be the first to fellate the rich and powerful is a teeny bit distasteful to me?

Will I get in trouble (again) with all those otherwise good and smart people who are all a-twitter about the fact that they really really matter now? Now that they're inside the chalk borders of the pentagram? I mean, it's cute, all right. Sure. Like the wallflower become belle of the ball. And having them tell themselves, and us, in public, how it's a sign that the heavy elements of democracy are sinking through the clouds of the blogosphere, like the glittering dusty fallout from the Blog Bomb, back onto the heads of the Common People? That a change is a-comin? That's precious, and may even have a kernel of truth to it. More power to 'em. But.

But I'm still waiting, and still looking, for one -- just one! -- who has the bravery and the cockeyed gonzo ballsiness to rip a few new assholes in the purveyors of all that sanctimonious 'America The Great' autowankery, and, say, fling an empty Royal Reserve bottle at the stage while Joe Lieberman does his coattail ride into obscurity. Metaphorically or otherwise. And then write about it. In realtime.

How I wish that there were a few writers there splashing their talent (and cocktails) all over the web. Not just permalink patriots and also-ran digerati, but mad bloggy bastards who'd give me some stank, some snark, a few laughs. How I wish Rageboy could've gone and kicked out the motherf--king jams, or dong_resin, or Golby the crazed. Whoever. Just somebody whose panties don't go all damp at the idea of getting spattered with John Edwards' sweat.

I don't want to see digital snapshots of you posing with some other blogerati dildo or fawning over some Real Celebrity, framed with a bit of Commentary Lite, damn it. I want you to write something that will make me laugh and weep and want to go and break a bottle over someone's head (or laugh and weep and give somebody an equally random big ol' kiss on the lips), then dance like a tarantula-bitten gypsy. Something to fire me up a bit! I want a Hunter S Thompson, by god, a Mencken, somebody with a bit of rage and a bit of juice in 'em, with too many damn words and a talent for juggling them. Someone who sees the opening, seizes it, then drives a juggernaut of text right through the quivering greasy middle of it, while lesser mortals scatter in fear for their lives.

Hell, maybe there are bloggers out there doing that at this convention. If so, point me to them. If not, well, get me a plane ticket and a pass to the Republican Clusterf--k, and I'll do the damn job myself.

Never send a blogger to do a wonderchicken's job.

[Update : Well, OK, this is pretty damn cool. But I'm stickin' to my knee-jerk contrarian guns, damn it!]

[Update 2: Well, besides the Mighty Fafblog, even if I do have my suspicions that Fafnir and Giblets aren't actually there. Still: fafferrific or faffelicious? You decide!]

[Update 3: Oh, crap. Me and John Freakin' Dvorak. I'm turning in my decoder ring.]

[Update 4: f--kin' A, Tutor, my old nemesis.]

May 31, 2004

Now Isn't That Special

Thanks to your generosity, friends and neighbours, the tip jar I put up last week filled up quickly, and the grand total came to enough to pay for year of hosting plus a few bucks extra.

That made me very happy. Thanks again to everyone who helped out.

But Paypal arbitrarily and inexplicably restricts me from transferring any more than US$100 total out (even if the balance is higher than that), unless I add a credit card number, a restriction of which I can't recall being notified when I created the account.

Problem is : I don't have a valid credit card. I know that this marks me as a freak and a sport, to be warded off with a crucifix and hounded out of the village by torch-brandishing consumers, and I accept that. Korean banks will not give me one because I'm a dirty foreigner and I do not hold one with a Canadian bank, as I have not lived there for more than a decade and do not plan to again in the forseeable future.

So there's money just sitting there, and I have no idea how to get at it. Paypal won't allow me to add my wife's credit card, for example, because her surname (in the way of Korea) is different from mine, and the surname field on the You Must Give Us Your Credit Card, Little Man page is not editable.

Which leaves me up sh-t creek without a sh-tpaddle, as Jim Leahy would say, because I still need to transfer $50 to my new hosting reseller before he sends Frankie and Rocco around to bust my kneecaps.

Anyone got any ideas how to get around this?

March 23, 2004

Type, Type Everywhere

Although I'm not really too exercised about it one way or the other, I tend to think more along the lines of Mark than Shelley on this whole TypeKey furor. I must admit TypeKey seems a little like using a hammer to turn a screw to me, but we shall see.

In the meantime, though, I have taken it upon myself offer some more superterrific BumpyCase product enhancements for Six Apart to continue building out their weblogging product line. It is with great pleasure that I submit these modest proposals to leverage the brand, exploit synergies, capture market share and monetarize conversation. TypePad and TypeKey are only the beginning! We have nothing to lose but our privacy!

  • TypeVote - More accurate than Diebold (MS Access backend optional), and totally free from hanging chads! If you're a voter, get yourself a TypeVote weblog, and really make an Emergent Democracy©™ difference! One blog, one vote!
  • TypeShop - Route all your monetary transactions through your blog! Blog about that sandwich you had for lunch, and ask your grocery store to subscribe to your RSS (Really Simple Shopping) feed, and leave that shopping list at home. Get people to buy diapers for you! The possibilities are limitless!
  • TypeONegative - Cluetrain Item #3172: Healthcare providers are conversations! Or goth metal bands, maybe.
  • Still fleshing this one out.

  • TypePod - You're not an A-lister until you have an iPod, and what better way to build brand synergy and leverage the design-fetishizing metrosexual music pirate demographic?
  • TyppelGanger - Buy out the drunkmenworkhere autogenerated weblogging technology and let the code write you into existence. No need to do it yourself anymore! That's so 2001!
  • TypeFire - Hit a button, generate a comments-thread flame. Why waste valuable mental CPU cycles trying to come up with another way to say 'You're a donkey-raping sh-tweasel' in yet another post that includes political commentary with which you disagree? TypeFire will reduce your fifteen-minute-nemesis to charcoal at the click of a button, and get those valuable clickthroughs happening too!
  • TypeAzon - Plug your weblog and yourself straight into the bookflogging mainline! Webloggers read books, right? Well, Google is already useless for finding anything other than Amazon-affiliate clicksinks when you're looking for information on books, and shifting units is what it's all about, kids, so why not jump into the moneypool?
  • PadThaipe - Damn, that Thai food is yummy.
  • TypeUp - Want to hold a pomo-moblog-emergent-market-journospam-osphere conference and maybe soak the blogrubes for a few simoleons while you're at it? A TypePad/MeetUp mashup is the ticket for inviting people who are guaranteed to breathlessly validate your wildest techo-utopian blather!
  • TypeZilla - Serving no other purpose than to piss off IP Lawyers Who Don't Get It yet. Lessig-approved and somehow licensed under Creative Commons, so it's got that street-cred every hip weblogger so craves.
  • TypePoint - Taking a page from Microsoft, throw together some leftover code and half-baked ideas and call it a Knowledge Management system. Or portal. Or workgroup document storage. Or something. Hell, we don't quite know what it does, but it stresses the server something fierce, so it must be good, right?
  • TypeSpam - Hey kids! You know those other webloggers got them some dollars, right? The internet's awash with disposable income! Use TypeSpam to generate targeted-demographic, GeoURL-enabled, realtime book-sales monitoring, results-oriented weblog comment-thread advertisements for your online drugstore! It's viral, it's centrally managed, it's smartly styled, and it'll get your Googlejuice flowing!

Kombinat is just the beginning, my friends. This is not your father's blogosphere.

Now put me on the payroll, already.

March 16, 2004

Trunkless Legs of Stone

You know, I think I just figured out the insidious† plan behind RSS and all that other alphabet soup feedy XMLy stuff!

(I know it's not insidious. Cut me some slack, already.)

Remember when I took Dave Winer to task for -- among other things -- being saucy enough to say 'weblogs are publications,' thus discounting the possibility that they might be anything else? No? You might remember me saying 'weblogs are punk', though. The problem there, of course, is that I never actually said that. Ah well, onward and forward.

Well, I've been using Bloglines lately, mostly to stealth-read a metric assload of weblogs at work that I might not otherwise get away with -- or have time for -- reading. This is all to the good, although it is always mildly enervating and ego-shrivelling to see how many incredibly talented, passionate people there are out there, and look upon one's own works without trembling. You know, those vast, trunkless legs of stone. Still, a bit of self-abnegation makes you stronger, right? What doesn't blog me makes me blogger.

Anyway, I realized out of nowhere while reading this post from Yule Heibel that by reading an aggregation of posts from all over the web, I was reading a publication of sorts, a dynamically-created, ever changing one, and I all of a sudden figured out what Dave was on about, maybe, and realized that from that perspective, the 'publication' thing made some sense (even if excluding other ways of thinking is still not on). I think I got an inkling of what Shelley was pushing back against recently too, in terms of the implicit impetus, if not requirement, to strip her photos from her feed, even if they were integral to what she was trying to get across.

See, there was a discussion around the old neighbourhood a year or two back about whether the blogosphere (yeah, yeah, I know you hate that word -- shut the f--k up about it already, will you?) can be fruitfully described as a space, and if so, how. My contribution was to offer that I felt it very much to be a space -- you know, metaphorically speakin' and all -- and the kind of space I felt it to be most like was the sea.

I said :

Sites. Like websites, geddit? (Didn't telegraph that much, did I?) So, connecting the dots, I'm calling the net the ocean. Big-ass sites like Metafilter or Yahoo are ports, smaller ones are anchorages, bloggers are sailboats, and their web logs are their ship's logs. We meet, raft up, party down, separate and go on our merry wandering ways. We record where we've been. We talk about what those places have meant to us. There are living things swimming around down there, deep in the darkness. There are the IP plankton packets that are the very lifeblood of the sea. A whole ecosystem down there. There are submarines and sailboats, there are ocean liners skirting the Tropic of Cancer, there are freighters plying the trade routes, planes occasionally passing overhead, and the odd dot-com Titanic, lying in pieces on the ocean floor far beneath, slowly decomposing.

And so I realized that reading the weblogs of my friends (and other animals) in an aggregator like Bloglines, convenient as it may be, totally trashed that metaphor for me, even as I understood more clearly that the metaphors others may choose to use to get their heads around it all, even if different, may have some oomph to them too, once I see where they're coming from.

Not that that was in doubt, but it's always the experience of the light spontaneously going on that really gets something stuck into your head.

I'll keep using Bloglines, because it's useful. But for me, this is a journey, and I'll probably continue to think of it like this : if we meet on the open sea, or in port, and you throw me a line, or I you, we can raft up, cook a meal, empty a bottle or two, spin a few yarns, and then sail off on our compassless ways again. Column inches? Each to their own, of course, but that just doesn't do it for me.

February 24, 2004

Echo and the Bunnymen

You've got to be joking. Honestly, I think my brain's going to explode. I was ready to leave this behind, and now I'm not so sure.

First, David Weinberger writes an essay that quite ably argues that although there may be echo chambers per se, at least in terms of politics (which is a very minor slice of the whole pie, of course), on the web, there are in fact a multitude of them, and as a consequence we are able both in principle and in practice to expose ourselves to a greater range of opinion and interpretation than we might otherwise be. The space (if it can be well-described in spatial terms, a discussion long-past and best left buried under the azalea bush out back, perhaps) as a whole isn't an echo chamber, he argues, if I understand him correctly: it is a vast concatenation of echo chambers, varying in their vehemence and level of groupthink, and thus benign. A metachamber, not ringing with echoes at all, but with the grand hubbub that is the sounds of the little echo chambers (occasionally with a population of one) singing into the void.

I'd argue that this is saying precisely nothing. I would argue that the weblog world is getting topheavy with pundits and supastars and, heaven forbid, leaders, who may (or may not) have gotten there from sheer merit, I admit, but that this trend is making thinking about the medium taste more like top-down pearls before swine than I'm entirely comfortable with.

I would argue that it is a tautology that the internet is a group of groups, and those groups, as a result of human nature, tend to organically accrete around shared common interests and beliefs, just as they do in the real world, and further that it is easier on the internet to be mobile between groups, sometimes radically different ones. This, I agree, is one of the great things about our digital lives. Unfortunately, unlike in real life, it is also far easier for participants to express themselves in ways more extreme than they might do in their 'real lives', and the echo chambers where there's a self-reinforcing feedback loop of -- shall we say -- excessive zeal can turn evil or stupid or both very quickly indeed. But this isn't what Dr W is talking about, I don't think.

He says

We believers need a chance to get together, too. Sure, BloggerCon permits contrary points of view, but it's distinguishable from the "Pro or Con" conference in tone and topic. And that's a good thing. BloggerCon helps build community and advance thought by letting us be passionate, without having to back off, argue for fundamental principles with which we already agree, and persuade others of the legitimacy of our enthusiasm.

And I'm not entirely sure that I agree. Why is it a good thing, exactly? I suggest that the less writing (isn't that what this is all about, out here in the ASCII (sorry, UTF-8) world? the writing?) and the more self-congratulation that goes on, the less relevance personal websitery seems to actually have to anyone, including its practitioners.

Next (and I don't mean to get all up in David's face, but he started me on this) Dr W anticipates a second Bloggercon and mentions that Dave Winer is planning to "ask each of the moderators to work 'Nuking the Echo Chamber' into the discussion", and notes that Winer asks "How do we methodically and systematically overcome the tendency for echo chambers to form and self-perpetuate?"

Ahhhhhh-hahahahhaha. Stop me before I kill blog again.

Am I losing my mind here? Is Dr Weinberger not a weblog-writer (brilliant and talented, intellectually grunty, fiercely sexy, all that, sure, OK -- I've nothing but respect for the man even when he's as wildly off the mark as I feel him to be on this) who is among that gang of Usual Suspects that show up at all of these blog conventions and conferences and so on and then tell us all about them (blogging about the talking about the blogging, which is often blogging about the blogging in the first place), whether we're interested or not, who is a shaper, most certainly, of both the weblog universe's thinking about itself and the old media's perception of webloggers as well, is this fine fellow pointing to another of the Usual Suspects -- this one even more of an 800 pound gorilla in the field, and one who's running yet another of these conferences, at bloody Harvard no less -- and praising a decision to have panel discussions at another blog conference about avoiding echo chambers ? With a straight face?

Am I insane, or the last one left who isn't? Is plain old irony supposed to make me laugh this hard?

I wouldn't care, honestly, if it weren't a matter of many of these folks guiding and shaping so much of our thinking about weblogs and web writing and all the various activities that fall under the 'blogging' umbrella. The echo chamber in which Dr Weinberger unapologetically places himself, I submit, is the only one that is truly dangerous to our Happy Fun Shiny Weblog World at all, because it is the one from which so much of the thinking we take as common currency trickles down to us mere, bits-only mortals. Or is it only me that thinks that the Usual Suspects have an overly strong influence in the way we think about this stuff, that their frequent meetings in the world of atoms consolidates and extends that influence, and that sometimes it feels as if there really is an emerging Cabal™? Is it only because of the corner of the metachamber in which I find myself? Am I missing all the constellations of new voices who haven't gotten linked as a result of what they write rather than who they've met?

Honestly, I'd really appreciate some help figuring out if I'm talking complete bollocks here, and developing unhealthy signs of compulsion in my semi-demented criticism of blog conferences. Is it just sour grapes because I'm poor as a church mouse and live half a planet away from all the action? Shouldn't the tyranny of distance not matter any more? Is it only me?

January 26, 2004

On Writing, or Of Tits and Medicated Monkeys

One of the things I talked about in my long screed the other day was that I don't really give a damn how well someone writes on the web, as long as they have something interesting to say. This is, of course, only partly true. It's always more complicated than that, as annoying people are known to say with exasperating regularity.

More accurately, what I was trying to say was that passion and energy can be more important than accuracy -- it was true for punk rock, and I think it can be true with writing on the web as as well. When I teach English (as a foreign language), I talk to my students about the differences between 'fluency' and 'accuracy' and how, although both are important, spoken communication depends more on fluency, at least for their purposes. There are differences between the types of language you use, depending on where you're using it. You know, register.

That isn't to say that if someone writes execrably, that I have the time to read them, usually. I love good writing, and I knows it when I reads it. There's just too many textsongs being howled into the void out there to waste too much time on bad writers, at least when they are both bad and boring. There are plenty of 'good' writers out there that would bore the tits off a medicated monkey, too, if the monkey in question had them (and health care insurance). But there are also plenty of unpolished writers who through their madcap, determinedly-amateurish bang and crash manage to transmit some of their enthusiasm and sweet madness, regardless of the clumsiness with which they wield their tools. Now these folks, I like. I'm one of 'em, at least on this site.

The best of all possible worlds is great writers who have interesting things to say, and who say them with passion and creativity. There are more of those around than I ever thought possible, before this weblogging thing took off.

This is, of course, obvious.

A couple of people (it could possibly have been the same person, but masked under an all-too-easy InTaRWEb pseudonym, but I suspect not) took me to task for the following paragraph from my long rant the other day :

I've been casting about for a way to frame my thinking about weblogs and weblogging lately, as I've watched with a mild dismay apparently shared by others down the street about the way in which the tang and tenor in our neighbourhood of neighbourhoods have been changing in these post-blogdiluvian times. I hadn't found the key I needed until this morning, and it was, amusingly, courtesy of Dave Winer.

One of my critics, after I sent an email asking why he had decided the writing wasn't that great (though he liked my site design and ideas), offered a useful editorial-style breakdown of the things he thought were wrong with it ("Maybe x instead of y?", "Do you really mean 'mild' here?" and so on) to which I responded with sincere thanks for the input, but also with an arrogant comment that I knew exactly what I was doing when I wrote the paragraph, and a suggestion not to teach his grandmother to suck eggs, basically. That I appreciated the input, but there was nothing there I didn't know already.

The second critic ('Fozzie Bear'), if indeed it was a second, popped into the comments thread to offer, all in caps, the following commentary, after quoting that same paragraph :

"THAT WAS THE WORST THING I HAVE EVER READ."

with no real reason why it might be THE WORST THING he or she EVER READ, and no explanation of either what was wrong with it, or why he or she was so exercised over its clumsiness. Double-posted the comment, even. I imagine my interlocutor so quivering with apoplectic rage that an essay containing so egregiously crappy a paragraph could receive so much praise and attention 'round the web that their finger was all a-tremble with barely-contained fury as they clicked the 'Post' button.

So I deleted it. f--k that noise. If you can't be reasonably civil, you're not welcome here. And if you're going to say that sort of thing, civilly, you'd better back it up with some examples of your own senses-shatteringly glorious prose. Walk the walk. Jaybird ass, alligator mouth.

I regret deleting the comment, but it was first thing in the morning, and my actions tend to be a bit... precipitous before my first coffee. See, though, I bring it up again because it's amusing to me, because it dovetails so nicely with what I was actually saying in the essay, and what I was quoting, and reinforces one of my points. I'm compelled to pull out my Eggers rantquote again (and I know some people seem to hate Eggers, for some reason - I'm looking at you, Steve) :

What matters is not the perception, nor the fashion, not who's up and who's down, but what someone has done and if they meant it. What matters is that you want to see and make and do, on as grand a scale as you want, regardless of what the tiny voices of tiny people say. Do not be critics, you people, I beg you. I was a critic and I wish I could take it all back because it came from a smelly and ignorant place in me, and spoke with a voice that was all rage and envy. Do not dismiss a book until you have written one, and do not dismiss a movie until you have made one, and do not dismiss a person until you have met them. It is a f--kload of work to be open-minded and generous and understanding and forgiving and accepting, but Christ, that is what matters. What matters is saying yes.

and I myself said

Write well, write badly, whatever, just create. If you are saying things that stir people, they will respond.

If you can't write well, write with such passionate muscularity that people stand back and go 'whoa!' Make things, reach out to people. If you write well, keep doing it, and get better, and don't kiss ass for personal gain. If not, just go, bash that keyboard, make a hideous, amateurish squall, one to which, if it has some kernel of glorious truthtelling, people will respond. The mass amateurization of nearly everything is good. If you're a gifted amateur, the world will beat a path to your, er, door.

(That paragraph could have used another editing pass, too, maybe, but so what?)

It amuses me that after posting an essay in which I tried (amongst other things) to make a point that passion is more important than style, there were those who would criticize me for the style in which I wrote it. That's the way of these things, though, isn't it?

I wrote that long piece in one two-hour coffee-fueled sitting (after reading the comment I linked to about parties and publication at Joi Ito's site), off the top of my head, after a week or so of thinking about the topic occasionally, ran it through two editing passes, and posted it, all before lunch. It wasn't meant to be a polished, long-pondered think piece. I don't do those on my website, much. It's a weblog, for christ's sakes! I shoot from the hip, pardner. I ain't no citified essay-writin' girly-man! You know, all that crap.

The paragraph that my two critics took issue with was clunky, though, I admit. I'd probably rewrite it, if I gave a sh-t.

But this is a weblog-thing, see, and although I have nothing at all against editing after-the-fact for my worst offenses against clarity or readability (and I might yet go back and fix it up a bit, since thanks to the massive response it looks like it might be something that won't just disappear off the radar forever once it's below the fold) normally I wouldn't bother. I write on my weblog the way I talk, for the most part, and I made a conscious decision to do so. I can write in other styles and registers, and have, for money and everything. For the most part I choose not to, here.

Although the money wouldn't suck.

I said what I wanted to say, for my own benefit and no one else's, to be honest, even if I am happy, again, that it struck chords in people. Although I am confident that I can (at times) kick texty ass, I know that I have many weaknesses, blind spots and outright failings as a writer, too. I've never studied this sh-t. I've read everything over the years, basically, but I never done did no text-larnin' about the litterchur and stuff. I'm trying to become a better writer, because it's something I love (and I think I have gotten better after 3 years of writing in public), but I'm not trying all that hard to write deathless prose, here.

If the paragraph that people quoted and criticized did suck, and I agree that it wasn't exactly, er, optimal, that's fine. It didn't matter. The essay was one of the most popular I've ever written, even with a clunker or five (that I might have fixed up if I'd done a third editing pass), and bang hoopla! there's my point about passion and commitment over spit and polish again.

When a band is up on the stage, they don't stop when the guitarist hits a sour note, go back, and make him get it right. It ruins the experience, kills the party, puts out the fire, interrupts the flow.

Weblogs are all those other things I mentioned the other day, and a million more besides, including, sometimes, a performance. Don't let the critics and parasitic parsers of other people's passion put you off, friends. Write from your heart and gonads about things that you care about. If there's a clunker or three in there, forget it or fix it fast, move on, and keep the song rolling.

Your audience just may love you for it. Mine seems to†.

When I (or you) write the great Canadian (or whatever) novel, we can do a little more editing and rewriting then. Maybe.


[†Opinions to the contrary are welcome, as always, as long as you don't step on my dick too hard.]

January 23, 2004

The force that through the green fuse drives the flower

I'm enormously gratified that I've received (and continue to receive) so many responses -- ranging from 'you rock' to 'you suck', more or less, but primarily on the rock side of things -- to my post the other day. I'm happy that so many people are taking away so many different things from it. That tells me it had some depth, maybe (or that it was just a sprawling mess, which might also be true). But when so many old blog-friends and new faces besides tell me that my writing inspired them, and when folks like Tom Coates, for whom I have nothing but fanboy-esque respect, calls my piece 'the 2004 state of the weblog nation', and Christopher Lydon shows up in the comments thread, too, well, it makes me go all woobly. In a good way.

Still, I find that the points I was trying to make are, by some, at least, being misinterpreted, and this pisses me off a bit. I blame myself entirely, of course, because if I'd written more clearly, perhaps that might not have happened. That's Life, sang Joey sh-thead, amusingly, as DOA was beginning its mid-80's nosedive into irrelevance.

So, anyway, here's the executive summary, for those who are following along at home :

1. Weblogs are anything you want them to be. A party and a publication, an orgy or an oration. Whatever. Those who would tell you what they are not can take a flying f--k at a rolling doughnut.

2. My neighbourhood of blog-friends feels more and more tenuously connected as time goes by, and I wanted to explain that to myself.

3. Weblogging reminds me of punk rock. It is not the same as punk rock. 'Punk' is my shorthand for an attitude towards creation and self-invention and taking no bullsh-t. The connection between the two might exist for me only. Your mileage will probably vary.

4. You don't need to write well or design well to join the band, just some divine or diabolical inspiration, some energy, and something to say. If you have a gift, people will recognize it.

5. Corporatization and co-optation are inevitable, but they cannot kill the spirit. They may drive it underground, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

6. If you are one of those who want to drag weblogs into respectability and stodginess, that's just fine. I might even throw in with you, sometimes, if I feel like it. There's no such thing as 'selling out' (but there is such a thing as being irredeemably lame). See also, #1.

7. Beer is good. Very very good. I like it.

January 20, 2004

Never Mind The Bollocks, Here's The Wonderchicken

I'll be 40 years old next year, but I don't, despite my worst fears, feel anything like that ancient. Thanks to my greatly reduced intake of things that are bad for me (from apocalyptic to merely terrifying), I feel physically better than I did throughout most of my 20s and early 30s. Ten years ago, my friends and I were already referring to ourselves as 'aging punks,' and possibly the only thing that has changed in that description, for me at least, is that '-ing' has become '-ed'. This will become relevant, trust me.

This ain't no party, this ain't no disco,
this ain't no fooling around
This ain't no Mudd club, or C. B. G. B.,
I ain't got time for that now

-Talking Heads, Life During Wartime

I've been casting about for a way to frame my thinking about weblogs and weblogging lately, as I've watched with a mild dismay apparently shared by others down the street about the way in which the tang and tenor in our neighbourhood of neighbourhoods have been changing in these post-blogdiluvian times. I hadn't found the key I needed until this morning, and it was, amusingly, courtesy of Dave Winer.

(Now I have had my run-ins, as have many, apparently, with Mr Winer, for reasons I won't bother detailing, as I am trying in many ways to be a better man -- angry, cantankerous and likely to erupt in spontaneous ranting at any moment, sure, but a better angry man -- and there's no need to re-open old wounds. Suffice it to say that what follows has nothing to do with my personal feelings about Dave. No part of it should be construed as an attack on him, although it is always possible he might perceive it as such. That happens sometimes, I've noticed. The truth is that I've quite happily avoided thinking much about him, and presumably him about me, since back in October 2002. And that's just fine. )

I have to thank Mr Winer for dripping that last droplet into my mental beaker, the one that supersaturated the solution and turned it crystalline with a barely audible thwonk!

When I got into the weblogging thing, yaar, back in the year of our lord 2000 I think it was, somewhat late to the party but carrying a few six-packs of the good stuff to ease the trauma of my gatecrashing, I was totally unaware that there were communities of people that had banded together, and who were as taken as I with the promise of it all. I was unaware that there were already stars in the personal-website firmament, unaware that there even was a firmament. I just stumbled onto Blogger somehow, drunker than a cheesetester on good scotch as I recall, and my geek cilia started wiggling, and off I went.

I didn't know there were people building their own tools to make it even easier to become part of the revolution, to fling open those doors, to take over the world by giving everyone who might have something to say a way to say it and a stage on which to do it, regardless of how or how well they were going to say their piece. Voice, all of that. Access to the internet was the price of entry, of course, but the democracy of it all was breathtaking, even if it was democracy for rich kids, for the most part. That's always been the way of it, after all.

It reminded me of punk rock. When I first encountered punk, back in 1982 or '83, after having grown up in a tiny, media-starved and desperately uncool (if green and pleasant, at least away from the sawmills and clearcuts) northern village and having moved to Vancouver to go to university, the proverbial scales fell from my eyes. Thtink, plink. Berserk autodidact that I was, I'd already developed an effective sneer, a deep distrust and dislike for authority and political chicanery, a habit of arguing mercilessly and cruelly if the matter at hand was something I believed in and merely arguing vociferously if it wasn't, and a nihilistic, risk-addicted, maniacally-boozing demeanor. I had, at the age of 18, though, not yet discovered that there were tens or hundreds of thousands of others with the same sorts of unpleasant societally-discouraged aberrations, and they'd been gathering together and making this mad, loud, ramshackle, gloriously angry music for years already.

I loved it. The music, not so much the fashion. I knew folks who went in for the whole 'punk look,' and I thought they were a bit laughable, but harmless, as long as they loved the music and the community. Pose(u)rs, was the word, but I kind of felt that those who called other people posers were almost as destructive to the spirit of the thing as the fashion-victims themselves. (Mark me, here. I'll come back to this.) So I wore a leather jacket, and messed-up jeans, in pretty much my only concessions to the fashion side of the scene, and grew my hair hippy-long, which was anti-punk to be sure; I drank and did scary stupid dangerous things, and went to gigs, bothered my neighbours with bootleg cassettes cranked to the nuts, and papered my walls with gig posters, and made friends with musicians, and ate chemicals, and reviled the nazis, and generally gloried in what I'd been missing in my sh-tty little northern town throughout my teens -- a sense of community, and more specifically a community to which I was happy to belong. Not a community of redneck wife-beating millworkers, this time, although it must be said I had many friends back in that segment of society too.

I felt much the same way about the weblogging thing, a couple of years back, especially when my writing began to get noticed and linked and emailed-about and commented-upon by people whose writing and thinking I in turn respected, and I started to understand how many communities there were within the greater world of the webloggers. There was a wild spirit of creativity running through the wires, it seemed to me, and I found myself a part of a loosely-joined (nudge, wink) group of dauntingly smart and well-spoken people, who didn't seem, for the most part, to object to my more outrageous turns of phrase. I joined Metafilter, not long before it stopped becoming a Name Brand Weblogger Hub and grew into more of a general in-love-with-the-web community weblog in its own right, which introduced me to a whole constellation of bright webby people. It was exhiliarating, in much the same way as the World Of Punk had been as it opened up to me almost 20 years earlier.

It was welcome, too, because having lived the life of a real-world wanderer for the previous 15 years, a sense of community, community less transient than a group of backpackers coming together randomly in a bar in Indonesia or somewhere... well, that was something I was sorely missing. This parallel I felt to the alt-rock scene in which I forged my young identity all those years back was in no small part, I realize in retrospect, a driver for my over-the-top reaction to a nuts-and-bolts piece of writing by Megnut way back when (here, here, here). It was to me, I see now, as if a snide critic -- no worse! a punk-rock luminary -- had described the essence of punk as 'play loud, fast and sloppy, behave outrageously once in a while, and throw in some random lefty politics and unfocussed anger, and bob's yer uncle!' It felt like the kind of reduction to appearance over substance that has always enraged me, and is something that even today I rail against as a core failing of Korean society, for example. Not that that's what Megnut was guilty of in any sense, perhaps, but it pushed my buttons, and now I see why.

Anyway. These weblog people I found myself (virtually) amongst had banded together, it seemed to me, in part because people do that when they're exploring new frontiers, when they're not entirely sure of how to proceed but are in love with the new potential they see for a life lived in a way a little less ordinary, and when they suddenly find that there are other people out there who are doing the same thing. Out on the fringes, singing their songs.

Of course, bands break up, and personalities clash, and egos swell, and guitar players want to be front-men, and drummers explode, and new bands form, and old bands fade away and re-emerge years later to do farewell tour after farewell freaking tour. It is natural.

The weblogging gangs of old, the ones I felt a part of, well, they still are loosely bound, but the threads are so thin now that they are almost invisible.

It was, for a while, as if we were all fans of the punk, you see, together out there on the floor, drenched in sweat, pogoing, hurling beer cans, singing along, not really caring which band was up on the stage, just loving the hum and the throb and the tribal feeling of it all. Now it feels as if many of us have become fans of various specific bands, or have started our own and are struggling to gather our own crowds, or have decided to just keep it in the garage where it belongs, and damn having an audience. We don't have time to go to each others' gigs anymore. When everyone is in a band, there's no one left to watch the shows.

That almost inevitably leads to irrelevance, though. Survey says. You sell yourself to the record company to try and get a distribution deal, you start to watch what you say, you suck up to the Big Boys, and try to be seen in the right places with the right powder dusting your nostrils. You lose the holy fire, you start thinking in terms of 'product', you tell yourself you're going to 'change it from the inside,' but you're part of the machine now, and it's too late for you.

Okay, it might be time to try and pull the threads together, here.

Now, Dave Winer said

More proof blogs aren't parties, they're publications. If you try to make it social, about friends, and parties, you end up with a party where a lot of pre-adolescent males bark at each other, and a few hawkers try to sell penis enlargers, and no emotionally whole adult would be caught dead at. I been down this path. The road leads to Slashdot.

Aside from being primly elitist, this is just plain wrong from all sorts of angles, but I think provides a decent illustration of what I've been trying to say. Again, it helped me figure out my misgivings about the current State of The Blogs, so I thank him for saying it. So, you know, it's good, even if I think it's completely wrongheaded.

Let's look at it - first, the idea that weblogs are anything that can be expressed in one word (like 'publication'), or even in the air pocket that sits in the middle of a falsely dualistic opposition between two unrelated words (like 'party' and 'publication'), is bollocks. But never mind the bollocks, here's the wonderchicken.

What really bothers me is that Dave is generally perceived, with good reason, even by those who dislike the man, as an Elder Statesman of sorts. Hell, he's been anointed by f--king Harvard, right? What else would I expect him to say? That weblogs are like snorting coke off the bellies of teenage hookers? You can't get much further from the punk DIY ethos than Harvard, right?

I would expect, I suppose, that rather than saying 'weblogs are not X, they are Y' that he'd say 'Weblogs are whatever the hell you want them to be. Go mad with creative ferment, young ones, unleash the furies, rewrite yourselves and the world, make what you will of these tools and this time. Now, my weblog, that's a publication, not a party, but your mileage might vary.'

Perhaps that's what he meant.

Look, I agree with Dave Eggers about saying 'no' --

No is for wimps. No is for pussies. No is to live small and embittered, cherishing the opportunities you missed because they might have sent the wrong message.

-- it's something that I wrote about in the sort-of eulogy I wrote for my friend Rick, who died after the Bali bomb in 2002, something that he believed, and something I have believed for many, many years too. Say yes, say it again, sing it, scream it, or get out of the way, grandpa. It was not the shouted nihilistic 'no!' that attracted me to the ideas underpinning the flowering of punk rock decades ago, it was the implied bellowed 'yes! we'll rebuild our lives the way we want them!' that I loved. And that I mourned, as it became a fashion, a commodity, and sank back underground again. But the lesson never left me.

Weblogs are a party, damn it, and sometimes they're publications too, or instead, and sometimes they're diaries, sometimes they're pieces of art, sometimes they're tools for self-promotion, sometimes they're money-maknig ventures, sometimes they're monuments to ego, sometimes they're massive wanks, sometimes they're public services, sometimes they're dedications of faith, sometimes they're communities. Always, they are a public face, one chosen and crafted to varying degrees, of the people who write them. They are avatars, masks, or revelations of our deepest selves. They are political or philosophical, merrily inebriate or sententiously sober. Do not listen to those who would tell you what they are not.

These people will destroy your soul. Classification is for insects.

My name's wonderchicken, and I am a wild party.

It is the rising current of feeling that weblogs aren't a party (or aren't journalism, or aren't a floor wax, or aren't a dessert topping), that they're something important and serious, that is seriously harshing my buzz. "Let's all take this more seriously", is the message I get from far too many these days, "because then, well, what I do must be Serious Stuff, right? We're all adults here, aren't we?"

Stop it, you bastards.

Your $500 blog conferences, your NeckFlex For President consultancies, your sad tawdry whoredances with the old media moronocracy devil, your repetitive linkery to the same tired wanna-be self-declared pundits you met at the last convention, your careful management of a media face that is, in the end, marketable, it makes me want to puke. It kills the spirit of this thing that I was so in love with, and turns it, as avarice and self-regard always does, to sh-t.

I'm not actually saying stop it, when I say stop it, of course. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law, and all that. But I am regretful, and resentful, even though I know that it's inevitable. It is the way things go, in this cashed-in century.

I also know that, as with the music, those who became part of this wild whirlwind, not for fashion or self-aggrandizement, not for power or money (although perhaps for the blow-jobs and free drugs, for which, it must be said, I'm still waiting in vain), but because they had burning gods inside them that were clawing at the inside of their foreheads screaming to get out, well, they'll continue to create, and more and more they'll point and chuckle indulgently and ignore the Self-Selected and the Sententious. And the SSS will recede, blithering, from the core of the living culture, until, once again, they are irrelevant. The script-kiddies are right, you see, but only about some of us.

Punk can also be about Wittgenstein. Don't get me wrong - housewives can be punk, and librarians, priests and, crikey, even known homosexuals can be punk! Can Harvard be punk? Well, yeah, maybe it can be too. Maybe.

Jeneane suggested that the scriptkiddies enjoy more sense of community than us old compatriots do at the moment, and you know what? She's right. Why? 'Cause they're still punk, and our little revolution is being marginalized and co-opted by the climbers.

I'm not suggesting that weblogs should literally be punkrock, right? OK? Geddit? I'm just talkin' here.

I have no problem with Joi Ito either, although I point at him above -- I listened to the Chris Lydon interviews a while back, and he is someone I think I'd very much like to know, based on what he had to say. I haven't been reading his writing, much (or much of anything blogly until I started again recently, to be honest) although I do plan to start. I found myself nodding as I listened to him talking, and backtracking to listen to some bits again. I rarely do this. I'm not used to people being smarter than me. He represents a new bird, to me, and one that is punk in the best way, in the way I loved the most way back when, in the smart-as-hell Hüsker Dü kinda way. At least I hope that to be true.

In the end, it probably doesn't matter, as the wave of co-optation and consolidation swings through the communities. But what he had to say and the elegance and clarity with which he expressed it was, for example, in stark opposition to the way that Glenn Reynolds, who, although he may or may not be a plodding thud-dullard, certainly sounded like one when he parried an unwanted political observation of Chris's with 'No, no, that's...no. No. Durrrr.' Repeatedly. I imagined him with fingers in his ears, going 'nyah nyah I can't hear you'. (I exaggerate for effect, a little, perhaps.)

We could use more like Joi Ito, I reckon.

Still, there is something he wrote recently and that I am compelled to disagree with that must be woven into my story here. Joi echoed (and Shelley pushed back against) that old chestnut from Rebecca Blood (amongst other 'write better' type stuff), and proposed that those who are 'serious' about their weblogs should endeavour to write well. I say the hell with that. Write well, write badly, whatever, just create. If you are saying things that stir people, they will respond.

If you can't write well, write with such passionate muscularity that people stand back and go 'whoa!' Make things, reach out to people. If you write well, keep doing it, and get better, and don't kiss ass for personal gain. If not, just go, bash that keyboard, make a hideous, amateurish squall, one to which, if it has some kernel of glorious truthtelling, people will respond. The mass amateurization of nearly everything is good. If you're a gifted amateur, the world will beat a path to your, er, door.

But let me return now to my mention, far upstream, of how I had little love for alternato-types who pointed, all j'accuse-y, and called other people 'posers', back in the day. It is, and was, almost as lame as calling someone a 'sell-out'. It may seem that that's what I'm doing here, pointing the Big Foam Sell-Out Finger, but I'm not. I'm just stirring the pot. Things have gotten f--king boring around here lately, and some egos are way out of control, and who better than the wonderchicken to try for a little reality-distortion-field adjustment?

If David Weinberger (to pick an example) wants to shill for Dean, more power to him, by crikey! I'd give my left nut to see the Bushbot gone, too, of course, but I'm not so sure that Howard Dean is the solution. Armed insurrection, now, that might be a noble cause...anyway, I still love reading what he has to say, when I occasionally swing by JOHO. If Dave Winer wants to ponce around Harvard (as long as he's not telling me what a weblog isn't), then I say ponce away! You go, girl! If this guy thinks blogging should be all about 'creating value' and 'return on investment', well, why the hell not?

OK, on second thought, that last guy needs to be slapped in the head.

Still, my point is that even if you are puerile enough to believe that someone else 'selling out' hurts you somehow, well, that's pretty hard to justify, son. See also : nuh-uh. When someone stops fighting against the current, goes limp, and, you know, gets a hog rectum implanted where their mouth used to be, or goes the full cortical advertising-augmentation route, starts serving the Machine and wiping their chin with toilet paper, well, hey, it makes the rest of us look better by comparison, doesn't it? Hell, at least I'm not one of those pigbuttmouth people with those creepy whipcord antennas, right?

Another quote from Eggers --

There is a point in one's life when one cares about selling out and not selling out. One worries whether or not wearing a certain shirt means that they are behind the curve or ahead of it, or that having certain music in one's collection means that they are impressive, or unimpressive.

Thankfully, for some, this all passes. I am here to tell you that I have, a few years ago, found my way out of that thicket of comparison and relentless suspicion and judgment. And it is a nice feeling. Because, in the end, no one will ever give a sh-t who has kept sh-t 'real' except the two or three people, sitting in their apartments, bitter and self-devouring, who take it upon themselves to wonder about such things. The keeping real of sh-t matters to some people, but it does not matter to me. It's fashion, and I don't like fashion, because fashion does not matter.

What matters is that you do good work. What matters is that you produce things that are true and will stand. What matters is that the Flaming Lips's new album is ravishing and I've listened to it a thousand times already, sometimes for days on end, and it enriches me and makes me want to save people. What matters is that it will stand forever, long after any narrow-hearted curmudgeons have forgotten their appearance on goddamn 90210. What matters is not the perception, nor the fashion, not who's up and who's down, but what someone has done and if they meant it. What matters is that you want to see and make and do, on as grand a scale as you want, regardless of what the tiny voices of tiny people say. Do not be critics, you people, I beg you. I was a critic and I wish I could take it all back because it came from a smelly and ignorant place in me, and spoke with a voice that was all rage and envy. Do not dismiss a book until you have written one, and do not dismiss a movie until you have made one, and do not dismiss a person until you have met them. It is a f--kload of work to be open-minded and generous and understanding and forgiving and accepting, but Christ, that is what matters. What matters is saying yes.

And that, my friends, is Punk f--king Rock.

Punk got co-opted and marketed and corporatized, and it damn near died, as all Big Ideas do. That's not to say that small-p punk is not still alive. It is, down in the ditches, where the spirit that drove the rage has morphed and moved on and dropped back under the monkeymass radar. Music and community is being made now that might not fit so easily into the same easy label, but there are folks out there making stuff that builds on and extends the best of the punk alt-rock scene from 20 years ago and more. Some of 'em are more relevant than others, sure, but the passion's still out there. The anger, the love, the frustration, the woohoo. The party rolls on, even though the faces have changed.

Weblogging is also being co-opted and marketed and corporatized, but it won't die either. The small communities that grew out of earlier days are being diluted and voices are growing fainter, partly because of the natural life cycle of these things, and partly because there are those who are making it palatable and bland for the media moronocracy to digest, and that's what the media moronocracy wants, so that's what it gets.

Jeneane said it too, and Shelley echoed it

You see, there was nothing to gain through blogging in the early days. It was my voice informing her voice informing his voice: our whole was greater, but our parts were pretty cool too. There was nothing to lose, specifically, or to benefit from. There weren't as many pundits and VCs and CEOs and politicians and top dogs playing. WE were all top dogs by virtue of being someplace those types weren't.

Although its public face may suck pretty bad for a while, and you may need to dig a bit deeper to find its soul, there will always be those in the Fields of Blog who will tell you what they really think, and some of those will move you while doing it, regardless of how well they write. And they'll do it without having to look over their shoulders. 'cause it's a f--king party, pops, and you're invited.

January 18, 2004

This Means War... or at least a good noogy-ing!

Shelley outs some script kiddies, and gets herself deliberately targetted and spammented, and has had to turn off commenting for the moment on her MT system. If I know Shelley, she's gonna come out swinging. This should be fun.

This attack is from the kiddie script that was found at slashdot, and yes, they are using proxies to pull in different IP addresses. Note, they change the URL to something completely nonsensical with each iteration, as well as the text of the comment. They are not going through the HTML, but are hitting mt-comments.cgi directly.

The Antiblog Manifesto :

We develop our own scripts using varied languages and means and can defeat nearly any standard security measure you put in place.

We're doing this because bloggers provide a waste to the internet, an amassing of imbeciles who think they deserve to be heard, and think people actually care.

Your only real solution is to turn all comments off. Obviously this will mean your egos will no longer be stroked.

I actually sympathize just a teensy bit with the sentiment here, in the most general sense, if not the actions it attempts to justify. Still: if you don't care for the legions of self-regarding bloggers, imbecilic or otherwise, Butthead, well, just go play somewhere else, and take Beavis with you.

It's good that Ben and Mena have released a new rev of MT to try and deal with the problem, but it's pretty clear that simple IP address throttling isn't going to work worth a damn, so one hopes there's something more effective in the pipeline. Neither the latest 2.661 version of MT nor MT-Blacklist (which I use) will protect you, it seems.

Edit : Phil and Shelley explain why they think the current measures are inadequate.

Update : I was waiting patiently until the crapflooders found me, via the trackback to Shelley's post. It wasn't in vain - the unclever little dink only took about an hour or so to muster up the skills to follow a hyperlink. I've closed off all comments for the moment, of course, but I'll leave the crapflood there, for archival purposes.

Hey Butthead - this one's for you, amigo!

January 17, 2004

Selling out and Buying In

I've been thinking about weblogging again, or trying to think, at least. (sh-t, no! Run! He's trying to think again!) I find it hard to work and think concurrently, but I've got a week off coming up, during which I plan to think and drink a fair bit. Drinking and thinking; now that, I have down to a fine art.

I have a major, non-weblogging project I'm going to be working on as well, but maybe I'll be able to draw my thoughts together enough to write something that will offend the maximum number of people. But, you know, in a constructive way.

The addendum to this Dave Eggers email interview is fairly central to the way I've been approaching the whole thing

Those who bestow sellouthood upon their former heroes are driven to do so by, first and foremost, the unshakable need to reduce. The average one of us - a taker-in of various and constant media, is absolutely overwhelmed - as he or she should be - with the sheer volume of artistic output in every conceivable medium given to the world every day - it is simply too much to begin to process or comprehend - and so we are forced to try to sort, to reduce. We designate, we label, we diminish, we create hierarchies and categories.

as is this post from Jeneane Sessum. Yes, I've been reading blogs again, too.

January 15, 2004

Time for A Change

I never did finish this design, really, and now it's starting to get on my nerves. Must be time for a new one. Whee!

'course I've managed to drive away a fairly significant portion of my loyal but slightly demented readership in the last few months, I think, but that's neither here nor there. I'll still wow all the Googlenauts getting here searching for the fortuitous and highly erotic (apparently, given their toxic google-allure) combination of the words 'bottle' and 'f--k'.

Continue reading "Time for A Change" »

November 17, 2003

Moving, virtually

As part of the exodus (movement of jah people) of the Burningbird flock, the 'bottle might be in for a hiccup or two as DNS changes propagate and the hamsters switch wheels and so on. If a comment or trackback goes missing, please forgive, and repost.

Thanks, as always, to my kind and generous host and friend, the ferociously, gloriously and undeniably female Shelley Powers.

Update : I think I've smoothed over most of the slight post-move wonkinesses, but if something looks broken, please let me know. Thankee.

November 16, 2003

What Are You?

What are you?

No, really. What are you? If you stop to ask yourself the question, let it roll around behind your eyes for a minute, what kinds of answers do you get? Go ahead, I'll wait.







Well, friend wonderchicken, I hear you say, I'm many things. I'm a human. I'm an American. I'm a writer, I'm a painter, I'm a mother, I'm a husband. I am my children. I'm a big fraidy-cat. I'm an alcoholic. I am a philanderer. I'm a survivor. I'm a thinker, I'm a lover. I am a Christian. I'm a woman. I'm a miraculous fowl. The possibilities are limitless, I know. We're all many things all the time, and as selves die, new ones are born within us to take their places. That's what makes life worth living, what keeps us from going snake-raping bonkers from boredom while we scamper madly around in our hamstertopias.

So, what are you first? What is the facet of your being that stands before -- or behind, if you wish -- all the others? What, to put it another way, is the part of you, of your self-perceived identity, that you cherish the most, that you would be the least willing to have cut away like a tumor, or wiped from your present or your past?

To be fair, I suppose I think of myself and define myself, if forced to do so in a phrase, as a wanderer, a seeker, a lover of the new and the outlandish. As a meat machine for saying 'yes'. These are all the same thing for me. Were these things to be taken from me, I don't think I'd be myself any more, whatever that actually is. Or even a reasonable facsimile thereof.

Your answers will differ, no doubt. This is as it should be. But I'll bet that in response to my question above, none of you who took a moment said to themselves 'First and foremost, I am my weblog'.

It is possible, though, that some chose as their centrepiece 'I am a woman.'

Recently Shelley initiated some discussion about women in the digital world and whether and to what degree they (or more properly, the persistent textual avatars that are their weblogs, avatars that seem so often to be mistaken for the actual person in weblogging discussions) are or are not undervalued or pushed aside or whuffie-starved on the New Frontier. Not being ogled enough -- non-pruriently of course -- in our eyeball economy, not linked-to enough, despite the fact that they have just as many important and useful things to say as the wrinkly old Y-chromo dangler-waving oligarchs like myself.

I'm not sure I understand this, to be honest, and so my response may be off-target. I answered at the time she brought it up, off the cuff, that

Me, I'm less concerned with what I _am_ than with what I do, and what I say, both in life or online. This goes for my attitude towards others, as well.

I mean, I do understand that some women feel that some not-women are somehow unfairly barring them from the prominence they deserve, and that Women As A Group are under-represented in the Link Market, and that it seems natural to think that since we have a clear duality with women on the one hand and not-women on the other side of this Weblog Gender Gap, that it must be the not-women who are to blame, especially since we're talking in the context of Power (if not power laws) here. As much as I am able with my feeble faculties, I do follow the train of thought.

But there's a reason I asked the questions I did, above.

Although I grant that many women who read this may define themselves first and foremost as a woman, there is no real reason for anyone else, male or female, to look at them through that lens. In other words, I may think of myself primarily as a Pundit (like all these assholes), for example, while the vast majority of people I interact with, on the IntArwEb or elsewhere, may well think of me first and foremost as a f--kwit.

Now, if I am shunned and ridiculed because most people (rightly or not) think of me as a f--kwit, I can hardly accuse them of discriminating against Pundits, of withholding their sweet linky love because they are set on unfairly restricting the rights of Pundits to punditize! They're denying me because they think I'm a f--kwit (or a Cheesehead or a WonderMonkey or something), regardless of how I want them to think of me.

Now this example was not intended to accuse anyone of being a f--kwit, other than perhaps myself. My point is this, and I apologize for the tortuous path by which I've reached it : on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog, or cares. Unless you tell them, and even then, not much. That is, regardless of what you perceive yourself to be first and foremost, or fifth and hindmost, and quite probably regardless of what facet or facets of your identity you strive to push to the fore in your online persona in your weblog (which, to belabour the point, is your avatar and not your self) others will more often than not react to you based on what they perceive you to be. Not what you wish them to think. Would that they did.

And, further, out here in Textistan, I think it may be fairly said that your gender is less important as a cue for the way people treat you than it is back in the office, or on the bus, or on the street, even if you do make it a point of order. We are all more brain than gonad out here. Well, most of us are.

So, does being a woman (or a homosexual, or a juggler, or a drunk) come first for you? Fine. I have no problem with that, and I applaud the self-awareness that has led to that understanding. Does that apply for your internet presence as well as your Real Life Persona? That's a fine thing too. But expecting me to interact with you in ways that are constrained or defined by the fact that you have made that choice? Don't bother.

Shelley asked

Are women linked less because our voices are different? Are we not as confident when making our assertions and are therefore less quotable? Are we not as aggressive in our opinions, and therefore less interesting?

My answer, then, is that asking about women just doesn't make much sense to me. Not much of an answer, perhaps, but the only one I have at the moment.




About a year back there was much discussion around the neighbourhood about 'identity'. I think of the above as a coda of sorts to that discussion. I was intending to come out guns blazing, but I have not, in part because I'm too busy for a fight, in part because I don't think it's something starting a fight over is going to help, and in large part because all that crap above notwithstanding, I actually do think that Shelley's probably right.

The dominance of males at the Big End of The Hockey Stick in our extended weblogging family is a symptom, not of deliberate exclusion of women, for the most part, I'm certain, but of systemic undervaluing of the contributions of women out there on the streets and in this other place, this place which still bears the imprimatur of the button-and-lever gearbox mentality that men have made their domain, to the slightly disdainful laughter of most women, since the first wheel rolled out of control, bounced down the hill and ran over Og's favorite goat.

I suppose the balance will change as the machinery becomes more irrelevant and the men less proprietary, as more women wade in and kick a few asses around the block, and the phallerati will lose some of their dominance. I suspect it is an inevitability. But for my part, I won't be paying any more attention to anyone's gender -- even if they ask me to -- than I do now.

June 28, 2003

Hoopla!

The move to the new, stonkin', co-op server seems to be complete, and DNS changes have propagated. There are some PHP errors and such floating around, which I'm trying to eliminate, with the help of my fine, feathered host. If things seem horribly broken for you in some way, though, please let me know, and I'll do my best to fix them. This offer does not extend to your personal life, I'm afraid, and is of course void where prohibited by law.

May 15, 2003

The Next Big Thing Is The Last Big Thing

It is an ancient Blogger,
And he stoppeth one of three.
By thy long beard and glittering eye,
Now wherefore stopp'st thou me ?

Conferences, conferences everywhere. Mathematics degree or no long-forgotten mathematics degree, I don't know a power-law from a goddamn cheese sandwich, and I'll tell you, all these conferences and symposia and self-congratulatory bloggeriffic circlejerkathons lately, unfailingly dotted with laptop-lugging constellations of the Usual fat-end-of-the-comet Suspects, these cadres of neo-imagineering big-brained rent-a-pundits traipsing around telling everyone how breathtakingly important and revolutionary it all is... well, sometimes it just seems a little forced to me, and more than a little reminiscent of the frenzied bandwagonesque me-too (and the gimme-gimmes) of the leadup to the collective technojizz and detumescence and smoking rubble of the fin-de-siecle bubble. Just trade 'revenue streams and ROI calculation' for 'creative renaissance and DIY journalism,' and everything old smells new again. But it doesn't smell much like teen spirit to me.

here we are now/entertain us


Not to get off on a rant or anything.

Then again, maybe I'm just bored of living in Korea again, and feeling left out and a bit jealous, dejectedly imagining the wild, drunken and sexually challenging parties that erupt spontaneously when all those pent-up wordsmithing blogtypes get together. Conferences, conferences everywhere, and me becalmed. That could be. But just 'cause I consider some of those blogorrheic pundits to be Virtu-pals™ ('your digital friend who's fun to be with!') doesn't mean I can't poke 'em with sticks once in a while.

At least that f--king war's over, eh?

May 8, 2003

Seeing Asian Characters

If you wish to be able to see the Korean characters (like this favorite from the World Cup - 대한미국 화이팅!) in some upcoming posts I'm planning, or Japanese or Chinese elsewhere (like at glome.org or in some upcoming posts I think Jonathon is planning), and you're using Windows, here are some clear instructions in how to get the fonts (and input method editors) you need (XP, Win2K).

Here are a couple of free truetype unicode Chinese fonts, too (requires valid email).

It says here that Mac OS X 10 did not originally include support for as many languages and scripts as Mac OS 9. Mac OS X 10.1 supported Central European, Cyrillic and Japanese, and Korean, Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese were made available as downloads.

If you're using some other operating system, it's time to become assimilated to the hivemind, weirdo. Heh.

More resources : Linguistic Considerations from scholarly-societies.org and Creating Multilingual Web Pages: Unicode Support in HTML, HTML Editors and Web Browsers from Alan Wood.

Good luck, and let me know how it goes.

May 7, 2003

Blogmatrix

I found this through one of the referrer-tracking tools I have set up like laser tripwires around this site, and it looks like a potentially useful set of tools, particularly the 'blogthread' bit, which promises to track and graphically display conversation threads, much in the way that we've talked about (with Shelley usually in the pole position) a few times in the past around the neighbourhood.

I've added some code to the templates, and you can see a little 'Blogthread' link down there at the bottom of each post, which at the moment unfortunately seems to do sweet bugger-all. Perhaps it needs some time to get revved up. We shall see, on the morrow. I love a new toy.

Edit : Well, this seems to work, though. And this SVG-based graphical view is pretty snazzy too. Hmm. I think it's hungry for data. Feed me!

(Wow : my hundredth post to 'metablogging'. That's positively wanktastic!)

April 29, 2003

The Move

The 'bottle is moving [update : tomorrow], and so (much as I love to get them) please don't bother with comments or trackbacks for a day or so, friends, at least if you're concerned that they might be lost.

With luck, all will go well. Catch you on the flipside!

April 27, 2003

Movin'

Well, it's moving time again, but not, happily, as far as I had originally anticipated. Thanks to everyone for their advice and offers to help. As Shelley has so eloquently said, there are some wonderful folks around our virtual neighbourhood.

We'll get there eventually...

While I'm gone (may be minutes or days, depending on the vagaries of technology), this is an hour-long program [realaudio] from The Connection that touches more concretely on some of the tediously academic points I was making here. Enjoy.

April 18, 2003

Going Dark?

Shelley's mentioned that she's not going to be able to renew her lease with her webhost after the end of this month, so I guess it's time I talked about it too.

Over the last year and more, even with all the financial chaos and stress she's been experiencing, the Burningbird's also been generously hosting the Empty Bottle, and when her weblog goes dark, that means mine will too.

I've only thanked Shelley indirectly in the past, because I believed that was what she'd prefer, but I'd like to very publicly offer a heartfelt thank you to her now, for her help, her encouragement, and her friendship.

Thanks, Shell, for everything. If you hadn't noticed me a few years ago and been possibly the first to *gasp* actually blogroll me (I remember that cherry-poppin' thrill, I do) and unexpectedly sing my praises (back when I had no idea that there were actually other people out there doing this stuff, before I knew that these random Neato Sites I kept running across were run by people who knew each other, personally or virtually, some of whom were allegedly part of cliques and denied it and some of whom weren't and claimed they were, and that the web was primarily a social place, and that this was all going to explode into something miraculous and unexpectedly important to me) I might not be the Master of Time, Space and Dimension I am today. Or something like that, anyway.

Thank you.

And now, if the ranting is to continue, it's hat-in-hand-time for me again, I guess.

Continue reading "Going Dark?" »

April 16, 2003

Promises

I have promised, in roughly chronological order, to write about

(apologies to anyone I missed.)

I'm not sure how many of these, if any, I'll get to, but I'll try. I suck at digging out from under the results of my own laziness.

April 4, 2003

This is a trackback test

This is a test to see how I can send an image as a trackback excerpt, as seen recently in a Metafilter thread (which I'm deliberately not pinging). I'm pinging a Burningbird entry, 'cause she might be interested, if it works.

That is all.

Update : poop. Didn't work. How the heck was it done?

March 18, 2003

On Second Thought

Thanks for the help with the redesign candidate a few days ago, friends, but true to contrarian form (well predicted by Fishrush), I think I like this brand spanking new idea I've been fiddling with even better. Even though it looks best on IE (transparency is a wanky but purty) and at resolutions higher than 800x600, it still looks reasonable on the latest Mozilla and doesn't totally derange Opera, at least.

That said, I may well change my mind again tomorrow, but it's bedtime for now and my eyes hurt. Comments are welcome as always. But please keep in mind that this is an early prototypy thing, and I am aware that it imposes some limitations as a result of design decisions (like supporting 800x600). I'll probably end up just implementing the skinning doodad I was working on a few months ago as monica suggested, so you'll be able to choose your (persistent between sessions, with cookies) look and feel thanks to the Magic of PHP, this current design included.

March 16, 2003

Please Stay Tuned

Nameserver changes will mean that the 'bottle may well go dark for a while, along with my kind and generous host Burningbird, and Farrago, too, while DNS propagation magically does its thing.

Catch ya on the flipside, daddy-o.

March 7, 2003

The Big Picture

Tom at plasticbag.org pulls together several things that I've ranted about in Apoplectic Poultry Mode here recently (and that people have been talking about all over the blogmap as isolated phenomena) : Dr Pepper's marketron scum, Amazon auto-shilling by webloggers, Google's aquisition of Blogger, and ethical weblogging.

An interesting and well thought-out read.

March 4, 2003

Dirt Stick Stone

About a year ago, I squeezed out the following brainfart

...is it only a matter of time until Hollywood starts regularly hiring hundreds of blogtemps to fire up new weblogs, post furiously and praise to the skies the latest piece of crap opus by Jerry Bruckheimer or some other purveyor of soul-destroying cinematic garbage, interlink to themselves and a few 'a-listers', start offering large cash incentives to Kottke and Rageboy and other high-traffic blognodes to link back to the rent-a-bloggers, and watch the Google rank for their new Product soar? Or record companies to promote their wares? Or governments? Are recent, highly-successful experiments in spiking the GooglePunch like the recent one by Matt Haughey the tip of the iceberg? How soon before big business catches on, before the Office of Strategic Mind Control realizes the subtle power (if they haven't already) of the interconnectedness of blogs and begins working blogspace like the infopimps they strive to be? Before this 'place', too, becomes branded and corporatized? (Forget the stone-knives-and-bearskins, bandwidth-wasting crudity of banner ads - savvy marketers will work the medium, pimp the actual hyperlinks, and tickle Google till it quivers, moans, and page-ranks, gratefully. Linkwhoring could become a serious business. Perhaps we could form a mafia, a Blogga Nostra, and skim a little of that corporate cream off the top, broker linkage deals, extort flame-protection money.)

And today, as weblogorrhea reaches epidemic proportions, Dr Pepper's soulless, clue-deficient marketing shills are actually giving it a go, boys and girls.

Next comes a blog-related twist on viral marketing -- recruiting 'key influence bloggers' to promote Raging Cow by sharing their enthusiasm, linking to the site and distributing special screensavers, banners and skins. Beginning with an initial group of six people in their late teens and early 20s -- flown to Dallas with their parents for an induction session -- Dr Pepper hopes to develop a 'blogging network' to hype Raging Cow and "be part of the 'in the know' crowd," says its brand-marketing honcho Andrew Springate. Those spreading the news via their blogs won't disclose their flackitude, says Springate, because officially they're not paid Dr Pepper employees; they only get promo items like hats and T shirts.

*Takes off tinfoil helmet*

Doc Searls is quoted as saying in response to this : "In my view blogs are the antidote to viral marketing."

In my view, this clumsy teentastic attempt at manipulation - more likely to attract attention to itself (which, let's face it, has got to be the real goal here, rather any genuine attempt at marketing juice thanks to the efforts of some cadre of hiphop dipsh-t teend00d bloggers pimping their avatars for some gear - it's a metacampaign, kids!) and spawn subtle and inventive imitations as a result of the MSNBC article and other media attention - is the first salvo in a coming war of web words. Blogs aren't the antidote to viral marketing, they're the petri dish where the virulent brain-colonizing memetic equivalent of Ebola will be grown. Call it wEbola, and reach for the mental prophylactic of your choice. At stake are our very souls!

That's complete bullsh-t, of course. I'm just flinging hyperbole around to make this all seem a little more interesting, you know, 'cause I can. The truth is, even if I do disagree with Doc's quotable quote there, if I should happen across a weblog pimping some craptacular, pointless and inevitably unnecessary new product ("Buy this crap! Buy it you f--kers, or we'll lose our jobs and have to whore out our children!" - now that's a marketing campaign I could respect), well, *click*

Heck, I even refuse to read weblogs that perfunctorily link to Amazon, for christ's sakes, never mind ones that are busy flogging some sh-tty sugar drink. But this sort of thing is going to get more sophisticated, mark my words, brothers and sisters, and more insidious. The marketrons will continue to colonize the new frontier. I have seen the enemy and he is us.

March 2, 2003

Grrr

After much screwing about, I had this layout working flawlessly in Mozilla, near as I have been able to tell, but I just downloaded 1.4a, and the sidebar over on the right looks very weird indeed.

Does anyone else see some weird font sizing with the new (or older, for that matter) builds of Mozilla? I'd appreciate any feedback you can give...

Edit : Fixed, with thanks for the feedback. Repeat 100 times : I must not edit templates while drinking. I must not edit templates while drinking.

February 18, 2003

Commenter and Commented

Shelley speaks so eloquently on so many other topics, you (well, I) sometimes forget she is also a Geek Goddess without peer. This latest innovation from her is a really cool idea, and one that might help to combat that feeling of impermanence and evancescence of weblog comments. I want one too!

(I find myself remembering the toolset for OLAP analysis of financial data that was a small part of the Swiss Army knife professional practice management product that I (almost, if it hadn't been for the f--kwits) almost took to market at my last tech job, and wonder when we'll be able to effortlessly pivot our views of a given weblog against a wide variety of axes, at will. Slice and dice, baby!)

February 10, 2003

You mean...I'm off the *team*!?

Although until recently I was often actively drawn into discussions about meta stuff, it seems as if that's no longer the case, and I find myself wondering why. Context in this situation is the new piece by Clay Shirky that seems to have people a-buzz, and around which a sometimes heated conversation is now springing. The aether is a-buzz with talk, but I don't seem to be invited, which is unusual, and which I can't quite figure out. No one's invited me to the prom, mom! I know it's unspeakably lame to whine about stuff like this, and I don't mean to, but it's worrisome, kind of, and on my mind, and has context given the topic of discussion, I think.

I wonder if that f--king Bloggie shortlisting is to blame, actually, and has fostered some sort of 'well, f--k him, he's going in some weird famehog direction' feeling, which is most assuredly not the case. That surprised me as much as it did anyone. I don't think I've gotten any more profane and offensive, lately, that I can see, and I tend to talk in much the same way as I always have, about much the same sort of things. If anything, I get more visitors on a daily basis than I ever have before. But the (smart, good) folks with whom I have felt a sense of neighbourhood in the past seem to have withdrawn. Perhaps I'm just talking more crap than usual, I dunno.

That's life, I guess. But it leaves me befuddled, a little, and wondering if it really is the case, and if so, why it happened.

Anyway, I posted a few further thoughts over at Jonathon Delacour's in light of what I've been reading about the Shirky piece this morning, which I reproduce here because I'm lazy, even if no one is interested (whine, sniff, pout).

Clay mentions LiveJournal, and I really see no one paying much attention to that particular phenomenon around the traps today. Last I heard, there were more people writing 'blogs' with LiveJournal than with any other tool, and last I noticed, the overwhelming majority of those were of the "publishing an account of your Saturday night and having your 3 closest friends read it" variety.

Ignore them (or to use more emotionally charged language, ghettoize them) and you get an incomplete picture of the whole.

It amuses me, and is predictable, that people would respond with 'Who cares?' Obviously, we do, or we wouldn't spend so damn much time talking about it!

If I have a problem with what Clay was saying (well, I have a few, but) it would be his attachment, by implication or explicitly, of qualitative criteria to what he's describing, and thus create a hierarchy, where none exists in reality. That, I'm guessing, is in part why some people seem to have their backs up over this.

February 9, 2003

Power Laws, Weblogs, and Inequality

This somewhat academic and very interesting piece from Clay Shirky [via Phil] on (in part) the eternal A-list debate is heavy with meaty bits just begging for a good gnawing.

Some bones I plan to worry at a little more, when I'm in a gnawing mood :

  • Like Phil, I'm not so sure about "As beloved as [some well-known bloggers] are, they would disappear if they stopped writing, or even cut back significantly. Blogs are not a good place to rest on your laurels." My recent experience of taking more than a month away from the site seemed to indicate otherwise, at least going by the crudest of measurements, hit counts.
  • "Finally, there is no real A-list, because there is no discontinuity." I'm not sure this entirely makes sense to me, either, even understanding as I do the math underlying his point. I tend to think there is an A-list - a secret document, signed in blood, locked deep in the vaults under Stately Kottke Manor - mostly because folks deny existence of it! No, I'm not serious; I've always taken it as an in-joke of sorts that escaped into the wild and took on a life of its own, because it had a kernel of truth to it. Regardless, I would have thought that the Power Law distribution that Clay discusses, including the constellation of 'stars', would argue that there is an A-list of sorts, but not one that is entirely self-selected. Although in many cases those who sit at the extreme left of the graph (amongst the 'stars') may show no greater objective merit than some who do not, the other factors he mentions (early adoption, agreement-reinforcement, 'solidarity' and so on) combine to keep many who are there there, once they reach that level of recognition.
  • "Are there people who are as talented or deserving as the current stars, but who are not getting anything like the traffic? Doubtless. Will this problem get worse in the future? Yes." The first answer is most assuredly correct, but I'm not so certain of the second. Although the network model that Clay uses is, I'm sure, unassailable, I'd like to think that the problem of talent going unrecognized will not get worse. Do I have any evidence to back myself up? Naw. Based on my traffic and recognition factor and all of that, I think I'm probably creeping up into the grey area between Conversation and Broadcast with this site (see below), but the truth is that I've been at it for almost two years, and although I've never actively sought out blog stardom, I do rock, and I'd've figured by now that I'd be, like, Master of Time, Space and Dimension or something.

    This, though, was the part that really interested me :

    At the head will be webloggers who join the mainstream media (a phrase which seems to mean "media we've gotten used to.") The transformation here is simple - as a blogger's audience grows large, more people read her work than she can possibly read, she can't link to everyone who wants her attention, and she can't answer all her incoming mail or follow up to the comments on her site. The result of these pressures is that she becomes a broadcast outlet, distributing material without participating in conversations about it.

    Meanwhile, the long tail of weblogs with few readers will become conversational. In a world where most bloggers get below average traffic, audience size can't be the only metric for success. LiveJournal had this figured out years ago, by assuming that people would be writing for their friends, rather than some impersonal audience. Publishing an essay and having 3 random people read it is a recipe for disappointment, but publishing an account of your Saturday night and having your 3 closest friends read it feels like a conversation, especially if they follow up with their own accounts. LiveJournal has an edge on most other blogging platforms because it can keep far better track of friend and group relationships, but the rise of general blog tools like Trackback may enable this conversational mode for most blogs.

    In between blogs-as-mainstream-media and blogs-as-dinner-conversation will be Blogging Classic, blogs published by one or a few people, for a moderately-sized audience, with whom the authors have a relatively engaged relationship. Because of the continuing growth of the weblog world, more blogs in the future will follow this pattern than today. However, these blogs will be in the minority for both traffic (dwarfed by the mainstream media blogs) and overall number of blogs (outnumbered by the conversational blogs.)

    To a certain degree, although I'm inclined to want to push back against the tendency to put things into two or three simple slots - in Clay's piece they'd be Broadcast Blogging, Conversational Blogging, and Blogging Classic - I think he's nailed it to the door pretty well, here, as long as one acknowledges the continuities between the styles, and that some sites in each bucket will break the mold.

    I think that one thing Clay misses in his description of the hockey stick head, the mythical A-list, the region of stardom, and the long, somewhat unsuccessful tail of conversationalists and classic link-and-a-haircut blogs, is the assumption that possessing 'merit' or 'quality' (Zen and the Art of, anyone?) automatically push a blog into the stardom stratum, through the processes he accurately describes. Many of those who have an online presence have no desire for 'upward mobility', I think, and are perfectly happy to continue what they do online with no sense that it is less worthy than anything else. Moreover, for every seeker after fame, there will be at least one who has no interest in assuming the pressures that hundreds (or thousands) of daily readers can bring. Of course, as I've rambled on about before, there are those who desire nothing less than fame and recognition, and cultivate it carefully, and measure it in links and hits.

  • "There is no A-list that is qualitatively different from their nearest neighbors, so any line separating more and less trafficked blogs is arbitrary." Comparing two groups of blogs (ie those who get an average of say 500 hits a day and those who get an average of 50) this is true, certainly. Is it also true, as a generalization, when we compare two individual blogs? Which makes we wonder, too, what we mean when we talk about 'qualitatively different.' Dangerous and emotionally charged territory, this, perhaps, in the sense that for many people their personal web sites are an avatar of themselves, and the person they perceive themselves to be and the ways they want the world at large to perceive them are deeply wrapped up in what they say and how they say it.

    This is, one assumes, why (like on this very page) many people (especially those new to the game, before they get jaded and throw up their hands in disgust and disavow ever looking at their traffic figures) add hit counters to their page - they are looking as much for feedback on their own sense of self-worth as anything else. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. It comes part and parcel with the self-regarding Dark Side of the whole personal publishing world.

  • Anyway, I ramble, as usual. Although it may seem as if I'm arguing against some of Clay's points, that's not really the case. There's a lot to chew on there, and I found it both illuminating and instructive, and thought I'd try and note down some of my reactions before the coffee wears off.

    Me, I like me some conversation, but as moderate fame is thrust upon me, I find it not unpleasant. What do you reckon?

    February 2, 2003

    Coin of the Realm

    In light of recent ruminations in some places about the politics and social implications of hyperlinking and blogrolling, I find this amusing, no less so because of my opinions about some of the names involved. What a sad and silly game it is, and how inconsequential.

    For my part, were I asked, I'd have to say that Jim Cappozzola, whoever he is, can take a flying f--k at a rolling doughnut, even if I do agree with him about the virulence and unpleasantness of the Little Green Cesspool. The proper response, I would say, to his threats (is it a threat if the consequences are so completely and laughably trivial?) to de-link people if they do not comply with his demands that they de-link Little Green Poosticks is : "So?"

    Fun to watch the fur and feathers fly, I suppose. But it's something a little embarrassing for adult people to be so concerned about, even if it does touch on important issues that go well beyond blogdom, like censorship and freedom of expression, like tolerance and bigotry. My response to LGF and its ilk, though, is a little like the one I have to those fat, 40 year old men who dress up in Sailor Moon costumes : "Yay! for expressing your inner dipsh-t and striking a blow for repressed losers everywhere, Mr Man, but please take it out of my face, OK?"

    February 1, 2003

    Pundits-r-Us

    It'd be fun to get some statistics on Blogspot bloggers, or blogs in general, I suppose, to get a handle what the blogly zeitgeist is like. How many would characterize themselves as political, how many consider themselves part of a community, how many try to use the word 'f--k' on a daily basis, how many insist on writing posts without the use of capital letters...

    And how many call themselves 'pundit.' A whole hell of a lot, would be the answer for that one, it seems.

    January 29, 2003

    A-list Ruminations

    Steve has some interesting thoughts, and beautifully-expressed, about some metabloggy issues that have been on my mind lately as well. Go, read.

    "I absolutely think that the blogosphere reproduces the mechanisms of reward and reprisal that we see in the offline world. Like rewards like, as I said. But not absolutely: I think there are more potential routes to 'success' as we define it in this unspace than there are in that other space; we may yet fall victim to offline patterns but we are also more able, I think, to reject them and work toward new patterns. I hope so, anyway."

    [more...]

    January 28, 2003

    Comments

    If this comment made today on an old post about the plight of migrant workers here in Korea is real, it makes me very sad.


    I'm sorry Qaiser, I have no job to offer you.

    January 22, 2003

    Holy Crap

    I've discovered thanks to my gadgetry over on the right that I've been shortlisted for a Bloggie this year, in the Asian Weblogs category, along with such noble and noteable friends and neighbours as BWG, Cheesedip, Weblog Wannabe and Geisha Asobi. Last year, when I was nominated but didn't make the cut, I threatened to perform acts of random and extreme violence on anyone who actually voted for me. Which had a certain chilling effect on my popularity, I'm guessing.

    This time around I'm not sure how to react, given my recent semicoherent rantings about popularity and such. The cool kids all feign disinterest, I know. Me, I guess I'll just sincerely thank whoever nominated me, and thank those who put me on the shortlist, and have a celebratory beer or 12.

    [Jeez, now I feel like I oughta actually write something more about Asia....for those who are interested in that stuff, my musings about Life in Korea are here.]

    Edit, the next morning : I guess I should make clear that even though I am pleased to be given some recognition for my fiddle-f--king around here over the past coupla years or so, I am firmly aware that popularity contests of this kind are a massive wank, and destructive to community feeling in a multitude of ways.

    I do not take this seriously. What I do take seriously is the conversations among very smart and very kind people in which I've been allowed to take part as a result of having this weblog, the things I've learned, the skills I've honed, the friends I've made.

    I'll let my nomination stand, and I will gladly accept your vote, with thanks - because, goddamnit, I kick ass - but I say to you once again, with flashing eyes and floating hair, I do not for a freaking second take this seriously. If I win (which I'm pretty damn sure I won't) it won't be because I'm better than any of the others nominated, or better than a multitude of other creative people out there howling into the void, it'll be because I bribed people with sexual favours I have way too much free time, and spend it on this pointless but enjoyable hobby, and have settled in for a wee drink or two with friends all over the virtual place in my time.

    But it's life that counts, and the careful stewardship of your soul, my friends, not pretty words and tricked-out css. And beer, of course. Crikey, let's not forget about the beer.

    January 17, 2003

    You scratch mine, I'll scratch yours

    Recently, Burningbird, who's been having some major stresses in her life and thus can be forgiven for being a bit cranky, had this to say about blogrolling and linkloving, and the whorespiders like Daypop and its ilk :

    It's about links and popularity and one upping each other, and posting and running around seeing who links to us and checking our ranks. How many of you check your popularity in the morning before you read your so-called 'favorite' weblogs? There's no ethics or honor, friendship, pathos or beauty in the hypertext link; it just is. But we use it as a judgement of worth, and that's the saddest thing I've seen since high school. And I quit high school.

    After being a smartass :

    I will not rest in my endless search for *more and MORE* recognition and pointless linkage, until I am Supreme Blog Overlord, and can direct the meaningless lives of all the little net people I stepped on in my egocentric rush to the top!

    I actually started to think about it, again, and why I...well, if not disagree precisely, see things a little differently. Part of the reason it was on my mind this morning was that the night before, I'd made a post here, linking to the PBS show on blogging (starring OW™ and Anil Dash and others), with the sole comment being 'Oh, f--k off.' (There was also some goofy sh-t about Orson Welles eating your soul, but that's not germane at the moment.)

    I deleted that post almost immediately - there goes my blogging verité credibility - but my unthinking nasty response, seemingly at odds with what I believe about the no-impact socialization implicit in what we do with links, continues to disturb me a bit. I'm happy for Anil and Oliver, although I think they are two very different kinds of blogistanis, in many ways, which was perhaps the point, in part.

    I'm not attempting to characterize either of them, here. I'm just following my somewhat muddled thoughts where they take me.

    Where they take me first is on a bit of a tangent : there are those with 'personal web sites' or journals or blogs who pay little to no attention to what others are doing or saying. There are those too who whore themselves - who use links exclusively to curry favour, or elusive popularity, or the strangely compelling ghostly yardstick of blogly self-worth that is measured in hits. There are bloggers - a lot of them - who seem to do give recognition to others primarily - or exclusively - to increase their 'juice,' and spend most of their time trying to attract that sort of attention from others.

    I mean, most of us do a bit of that sometimes, probably, and sit somewhere on the fence. But the true 'look at me! look at me!' folks - amusing and enjoyable as their antics may be - are the ones who spoil the game, because when some people start to think they can win a game that in its very nature is designed not to have winners, it starts to poison interaction. It's just like Real Life™, ain't it? Having a drink with a group of folks, one (or worse, two) of whom will not stop jumping up and down and pulling faces, or steering the conversation inexorably back to themselves - that just ain't no fun, and it kills the joy of socializing.

    I guess that it's this kind of behaviour that set BB off. It's this kind of behaviour that makes me want to withdraw from the whole game, too, sometimes. But I don't. 'Cause there will always be folks who are more into self-aggrandizement than conversation, and folks who are more into grandstanding than socializing, and you have to choose to get with 'em, or ignore 'em. Hell, get a few drinks into me, and I can be one of them myself. But one can choose to ignore the siren call, and the bleating of the self-nominated popularity contest participants, and get on with the hardcore relaxation, and the slow to and fro of languid conversation.

    I think my kneejerk reaction to the PBS thing was somehow spawned both out of my utter contempt for the Old Media and my feelings about blogging and bloggers in general : that we're people who are sure that we have something to say, whether or not anyone else thinks so too, and damnit, we're going to say it, and self-promote so that as many people as possible are going to hear it. If that's one of the core motivators for all of this for many people, it's only natural, annoying as it may be sometimes, that there is going to be a subset that push the envelope, and cross the line into Human Brands. And I have always been resentful of people who are recognized for jumping up and down and shouting 'look at me!'. I'm not accusing Oliver or Anil of doing this, I hasten to add. I'm just thinking this through, aloud.

    Despite this, I do still think the blogosphere is a meritocracy. Merit is most assuredly not measured in hitcounts or rankings. It's pretty clear that hitcounts and blogrankings are a factor of how good a self-promoter you are, how much juice your virtual neighbours have, and only in small part how much merit can be found in your actual creative output. There are bowel-looseningly good writers out there who get little to no traffic, and there are determinedly mediocre ones who are inundated in visitors. This, we all know. Life ain't fair. But merit in this place (an old discussion about what kind of place it is comes to mind), one way or another, whether it's quality of ideas or writing or simply the honest goodness of the person behind the words shining through, well, it seems to me that that's recognized eventually, organically. Mostly.

    Back to the issue of linking and blogrolling and Blogdexery, again taken from my comments on Shelley's post of a few days ago, and written in part in response to this comment from Mike Golby, who said :

    [...] Blogdex and [P]opdex and the other crap is lowest-common denominator stuff. If necessary, warn others not to be seduced by it but, jeez, don't let it get to you. It's just not worth it. It's not what this is about.

    I said, in semi-rant mode :

    Sure it is. It's *precisely* what it's all about, Mike. Anyone who tells you otherwise is at best disengenuous and at worst a liar, or would be better off writing privately, or paying for therapy.

    The *mistake* is to take it seriously and allow it to be anything but tangent to and very much secondary to your writing, and to the rest of your life. Unless it's your *whole* life, in which case good f--king luck.

    It's like the old saw that madness is an in-joke of one. If one is writing one's heart out and no one is paying any attention, blogging is probably not the best outlet for one's creative urges or demonic possession or whatever is pushing one to create.

    Bloggers are self-selected from the ordinary population to be attention-seekers, self-regarders, self-promoters, needy f--kers to a fault. To claim that the act of giving and receiving recognition for these avatars of ourselves we present online is 'not what it's about' is rank silliness, I reckon. It's human nature, pure and simple, and it's something we do every day in our regular lives. This medium simply uses different mechanisms. Ones that reward and reinforce the kind of behaviour that Shelley bemoans in her post.

    Shelley is quite probably an exception, and I love her dearly, so I'm perhaps biased, but I tend to believe that many a blogger annoyed with linkstroking and linkwhoring and the automated tools that have appeared to foster them is a blogger who feels they are being undernoticed and underpraised by those very mechanisms.

    I should acknowledge that it's entirely possible that I'm seeing this too much from my own perspective - that linking and being linked is *fun*, is a social activity, is not freighted with massive significance, and is certainly not massively important to my sense of self-worth, but is the coin of the realm, as it were - and erroneously believing that that perspective lies somewhere in the middle of the spectrum between utter linkwhores at the one end and those who totally ignore the existence of other bloggers at the other.

    Although I do tend to think the bell curve is weighted more towards the former than the latter, for reasons I went on about above.

    I don't think of this as a zero-sum game, smart-assery aside. It's an infinite game - a game in which one of the tenets of play is that the game should never end, and in which a goal of play is to keep everyone playing.

    The more observant amongst you might notice that I've got, if not the longest, at least one of the longest blogrolls in christendom blogaria. This is due to simple policy : if you link to me, I reciprocate, when I find that link. If you pull me off your blogroll, I don't care. You linked to me at some point, and that hasn't changed. If you publicly declare that I'm a lame goat-blowing sh-tweasel, I might pull you, but then again, I might not. It's not a zero-sum game. There are no winners, and that's the way it's meant to be. It's not political, it's just common courtesy. When someone speaks to you, you acknowledge them. If they engage you, you have a conversation. If not, you make eye contact, nod, and move on.

    In weblogging, the nods leave tracks, is all.

    [Edit : I sense that this is a bit disjointed, but I don't have time to edit it right now, so I'll just leave it up, with apologies if I have been unclear.]

    Now be nice, or Orson Welles will eat your soul!

    January 7, 2003

    Like A Rat Out Of An Aqueduct

    I'm back. Stay tuned to this channel.

    Did I miss anything?

    November 10, 2002

    Another Hiatus

    Edit : Rather than spend another second here, I recommend without reservation that you go have a look at some of the photos of Japan taken by my friend Christopher Domitter. They are gorgeous, and deserve an even wider audience than they already enjoy. Here, here, here, and here. I had promised Christopher that I'd link to the galleries, but totally forgot. My apologies.

    ...

    Uncharacteristically for a language-drunk bastard like myself, I find recently that I have very little to say. Life itself seems a great deal more important to me at the moment than the world-wide circlejerk that is blogging. Not to say that I won't fall back into the filthy habit again, of course. But right now, I think I'll leave off for a while.

    I'm happy to have been able to do something that was actually important with this weblog over the last month or so, though I curse the events that enabled me to do so. There are literally thousands of people out there who know and love my friend Rick now, people who didn't even know that he existed before that f--king bomb went off. There are people for whom the evil that is afoot in the world has been personalized. And I've got to think this personalizing was a good thing, if as a result even one more of those people declared to himself or herself 'no more killing, damn it.'

    I am inclined as a result of having done what I hope is some tangible good with this site to rethink what I want to achieve with it. You know, beyond wanking.

    If you've come here to read or re-read the awful events of last month, and the outpouring of love and support that they triggered, the posts are here.

    It's Remembrance Day in Canada tomorrow, and I think that's a fitting time for me to fall silent for a while. I thank everyone who has been so supportive of me and my friends, and of Rick's family over the past month - I thank you with all my heart. I'll be back when I feel like I have something worth saying (or when I get drunk and decide to tell more stories).

    Uncle Tupelo - Life Worth Living

    This song is sung for anyone that's listening
    This song is for the broken-spirited man
    This song is for anyone left standing
    After the strain of a slow, sad end

    It seems everybody wants what someone else has
    There's sorrow enough for all
    Just go in any bar and ask
    With a beer in each hand and a smile in between
    All around's a world grown mean

    We've all had our ups and downs
    It's been mostly down around here
    Now this whole damn mess is becoming quite clear

    Looks like we're all looking for a life worth livin'
    That's why we drink ourselves to sleep
    Yeah, we're all looking for a life worth livin'
    That's why we pray for our souls to keep

    There's nothing left now but broken pieces
    Of one man's broken will to care
    And in the end before all is said and done
    How many others might follow him there?

    This song is sung for anyone that's listening
    This song is for the broken-spirited man
    This song is for anyone left standing
    After the strain of a slow, sad end

    Midnight is comin' 'round
    Still mostly down around here
    Now this whole damn mess is becoming quite clear

    Looks like we're all looking for a life worth livin'
    That's why we drink ourselves to sleep
    Yeah, we're all looking for a life worth livin'
    That's why we pray for our souls to keep

    Peace.

    - Chris (aka Stav)

    Reluctant Edit : I went back and read these threads from Metafilter tonight - when I heard about the explosion and the MeFi gang helped me track down information, and the thread that was started when one of my Meta-friends found out that Rick had died, and people bowed their heads in silence. I think I should point to them, and offer my thanks.

    October 2, 2002

    It's quiet...too quiet

    *tumbleweed rolls by*

    *coyote howls*

    *StWC farts quietly to himself*

    Not much happenin' here.

    September 22, 2002

    Too Lazy

    As I have found myself too damned lazy to futz around with making my lo-fi index page do what I want, we're back to the old template. The old one will be rebuilt on each new entry, though, and if it pleases you, you can find it here. Note that the still older, slightly more old-browser-compliant index can also be found here, if that's your cup of tea.

    Me, I'm busy downloading and watching the entire series of Six Feet Under. I'll probably resurface in a few days, with all sorts of death-related ramblings. Or maybe not. I'm funny that way.

    August 28, 2002

    Dear WonderChickenistas, In a development

    Dear WonderChickenistas,

    In a development predictable to anyone who's been doing this for a while, I've come to the conclusion that this game is not as much fun as once it was, so I think I'm going to take a wee break. I love each and every one of the few hundred folks who show up here every day to read the new stuff that tumbles out from the spin cycle in my brain, I really do, and I thank you for the recognition and the kindness and the pornographic haiku and the cheese-flavoured snacks. Especially the snacks.

    But, like many before me, people better, smarter, stronger, faster, and possessed of bionic limbs that are just way out of my price bracket, I must take a wee break to fix - or at least pretend to fix, or make a stab at thinking about fixing, or maybe just drink enough to achieve the erroneous conviction that I've fixed - the semi-fictional but nonetheless distracting problems I keep finding in my life at the moment.

    Not that the power, wonder, glory and sheer incoherence that is called WonderChicken is going away, precisely. I'll see you on the 'Filter, on the 'Pile, at the MonkeyHouse, and in your blog comments, when you least expect it. Ka-pow!

    But I need a break, I think, from approval-seeking, to try and find something that's a little...meatier... to which I should devote my primary attention.

    I'll be back, soon, no doubt.

    Love (and peace, by crikey),

    Chris

    August 19, 2002

    Encapsulated

    Neatly wrapped for your convenience : Tom from plasticbag.org has gone plumb loco, collected most of the pieces that started online, were hoiked and slapped into necessarily design-free dead-tree pages in the book "We've Got Blog" (thus, in the absence of bells and whistles, helping this observer to clarify his private thoughts about who can and who can't write their way out of a paper bag), but are still to be found floating around in the InTArWeb aether, and smacked 'em down into one nice clean list of links.

    A most laudable public service. And essential reading for those still getting up to speed on this whole Blog Thing. Thanks, Tom.

    Edit : I particularly like this, since it fits in so well with my angry young man grumpy old curmudgeon thang.

    August 16, 2002

    Bored bored bored bored

    You know that Young Ones episode where Vyvyan stomps around repeatedly hitting himself in the forehead with a large piece of wood, chanting 'bored bored bored bored'?


    Yeah, like that, with this. At the moment.


    Must be time for another redesign.

    August 5, 2002

    Rank

    Following the lead of Jonathon, Mark and Shelley, I've done a bit of egogoogling to check out my rankings, and am well pleased with the results.

    'stavros' : #1, #2 'wonderchicken' : Pretty much all of 'em, basically.

    And traipsing randomly through my categories and some other wonderchickensian (thanks, Eeksy) phrasology :

    'chafe my scrote' : #1, #2

    'f--ktacular' : #1, #2

    'trippy visuals' : #3, #4 (some work to do, there)

    'booze glorious booze' : #1, #2

    'korea-related' : only #8, but that's pretty good for a whole country....

    'ftagn' : Emptybottle.org : Your #1 destination for misspelled-Lovecraftia !

    and last but not least,

    'uncategorizable crap' : #1 with a bullet, baby!

    Despite my half-assed attempt to be somewhat anonymous here, a googlesearch on my surname brings up this site as #25. Interesting, but only mildly scary.

    August 1, 2002

    Will The Real Inventor of the Weblog Please Stand Up

    Fishrush has done some rooting through the archives, and come up with some very interesting evidence pointing to Eli Chanticleer as the inventor of the weblogging machine, and the man responsible for loosing this plague upon the world. what's my line?
    Circumstantial evidence linking the identity of Mr Chanticleer to a certain well-known Miraculous Fowl should be examined with care, as there are clear indications in the ebb and flow of the blogospheric aether that the game is afoot, and impostors and pretenders are weaving a web of lies to trap the unwary and credulous.

    Exercise caution, my weblogging friends. These are dangerous times.

    July 25, 2002

    Steal This Image

    Steal this image!

    Steal This Image

    July 22, 2002

    Yeah, so? Yer still C-List!

    The double whammy of my loose talk of attention-whoring below and my avowal over at Oliver's that I am not nor have I ever been a hit-slut has got me to thinking, as I am wont to do after too much coffee.

    For someone who swears not to care whether he's the Hit King Of Bumfuzz Nebraska or not, I do check my referrers and webstats a fair bit, and am always tickled to see one of those spikes that indicates I've mortally annoyed yet another group of harmless citizens. Again. Other than comments, which I seek most assiduously, because I believe in this two-way sh-t with a passion (unless of course you want to criticize me, in which case go stick your head in a pig), it's about the only way I can tell how the heck I'm doing at this non-zero-sum game.

    But I wish someone would explain to me how this hits and visits and pageviews sh-t works. I still keep those two little icons ticking over at the bottom of the page because I've had 'em since I started on Blogger way back when, and I'm nothing if not a slave to continuity. We also got a webstats package set up on the server a few months ago, and that never ceases to confuse the hell out of me.

    For example, here's my numbers (gimme the numbers, Harry!) for Friday of this week, a pretty much average day for this month.

    Sitemeter says : 260 visits/460 pageviews
    Nedstat says : 340 pageviews
    Webstats says : 10669 hits/484 visits/1135 pages

    What the hell do these numbers actually mean? Why are they so wildly different? Am I a f--king superstar yet? Will I become rich and famous, to go along with fabulously handsome and extraordinarily well-hung? Will I start making $6K a month, like whatsisface?

    Not bloody likely.

    The only stats thing I ever pay attention to is the neat little monthly graph from the Sitemeter gizmo, anyway. But I am genuinely curious as to how on earth these different numbers can be reconciled, what they actually mean, and if they reflect in any way at all the actual number of people who visit this site and shake their heads in bemusement at my latest textual antics.

    I sure as heck don't know. Vanity is the cheese in the submarine sandwich of social intercourse. But if you understand this stuff, I'd sure love a quick tutorial...

    July 20, 2002

    Trackbackage

    Matt has added Trackback functionality to Metafilter. I just tested it out with my previous post, pinging this thread (see the bottom of the thread). When Ben and Mena released the latest version of Moveable Type, with this new trackback functionality built in, there was a great deal of interest and enthusiasm, but that seems to have waned a bit recently, as these things do. I don't think enough people have been using it, that I've been able to see at least. (Edit : I note that Phil Ringnalda has been getting relatively massive numbers of trackbacks, though, so clearly some people are using it! (Edit of the Edit : Clearly it's time to cut back on the drugs. I was sure I saw (TrackBack(18)) and (TrackBack(30)) there a minute ago!)) It hasn't quite reached the critical mass needed to sustain the idea and start it metastasizing, but this may just push it over the top, and not coincidentally make Metafilter even more of a Central Bar and Grill for various weblog ad-hoc networks and communities.

    I'm hoping Matt's decision to incorporate Trackbacks into Metafilter threads as an experiment provides that push over the top that the technology needs, because the interconnectedness enabled by tools like trackback, backlinks, and recent referrers fascinates me. Should be interesting - as Matt says here : "Trackback's the first attempt to string a wire through all the random blogs out there." I'm curious to see what happens.

    July 13, 2002

    Work in Progress

    With the help of the mighty Burning Bird, the old 'bottle is porting over to a MySQL database backend. Some oddness may occur. Please stand by.

    Edit : I am aware that the recent conversations sidebar thingo is busted at the moment.

    July 7, 2002

    Fine Tuning

    My good buddy the mighty Bearman (why not go say hi - he's one of the friendly ones!) has sent me a screenshot illustrating the sort of problem that yhbc was talking about here, on IE 5/5.5, with the new layout. I hope I've corrected it, but I don't have access to that browser. If you're using an older version of IE and things look messed up, please leave me a comment. Thanks!

    Threadneedle Musings

    I posted this over here a few days ago, to resounding silence, which could be due to the fact that a) it's bollocks, b) no one cares, c) no one read it or d) a combination of the three. But since I'm nothing if not pigheaded, and it gelled a couple of things for me in my mind about both the questions of identity that were doing the rounds recently and the cross-blog conversations idea that I've gone on about before, I'm going to cross-post it here. Because I can, and because I like feedback, even though I am a little gunshy tiptoeing through the backdoor back into Smart Person Land. Still, forward!

    I'd add to what Shelley and David have said about ThreadNeedle and blogs, just off the top of my head, my take on it : that in the online 'asynchronous discussion communities' that Dan mentioned below in /m106, you have represented yourself through the things you say and have said in that community. There may have been an additional body of work, but this was secondary to the text-representation of yourself that accreted, word by word, as a result of your participation. My personal example of this would be my participation at Metafilter over the last couple of years.

    This is a trivial observation, I know. But your avatar was effectively yourself as you chose to represent yourself via your comments and conversations.

    When we talk about a weblog, though, I think it's profitable to talk about two separate entities created as an adjunct of our online presence, at least the one that derives from the weblog itself : the (for lack of a better word) publication and the person.

    Now certainly, the 'publication' is a mirror, to whatever extent, of the person writing it. We see many weblogs that stop here at this point, that have no commenting systems enabled, or that pay little attention the 'community', that are traditional web logs (ie collections of links with minimal commentary) or diaries or photoblogs or warblogs or god knows what...but that are intended less as manifestations of the person behind them than publications about that person or their interests.

    Another dimension, though, comes in with weblogs that have comment threads, that encourage and participate in conversations with other weblogs/webloggers. In this situation, the weblog not only becomes a publication about something (which might, in the case of more diarist-type blogs, be the person who is writing it) but a representation, an avatar of that person. The weblog itself becomes an active extension of the weblogger's identity (I wish I'd thought about this during the recent conversations around the blogs about 'identity'. Ah well.) The weblog is something that is carried with them (or is an extension of their identity online...? I'm not sure about this bit at all), and the cross-blog conversations that occur as a result of this, in posts and their comment threads, are in a way a new and larger version of the sort of discussion types we're historically used to, that Dan mentioned in his earlier post. A version that carries a body of work, a more deliberate one, along with the community member.

    Does this make sense? I'm riffing here, and I have to admit that I haven't read David's book yet, so the sort of thing I'm trying to get a handle on (and communicate at the same time) might be old news.

    Anyway (*takes a breath*) - I see these weblogs, the blogs that are not only 'publications' about something but also representations of the personality behind the words (and are this way because the weblogger has comments threads and/or engages in cross-blog conversations in their main posts and/or blogrolls people (the use of the word 'people' here is deliberate) as an acknowledgment of community), avatars that engage in conversation, to be the audience at which Shelley's ThreadNeedle is aimed. And I think (hope) that the service might be a major step forward, if it reaches critical mass.

    (Also, don't forget to add your two bits to the conversation about Threadneedle still going on here.)

    July 4, 2002

    Public Service Announcement

    And now, as a special public service announcement, here's some stupid sh-t that was running through my brain this afternoon as I made some chicken cacciatore :

    Since it seems we've been saddled with the monicker 'warbloggers' for the forseeable future, I thought we should open up some more niches for folks, you know, so they don't feel left out. You can have hours of fun, if you're so inclined, assigning your friends and neighbours to the right Tribe, a la the Harry Potter thing. If I had the energy, I'd make one of those stupid f--king quizzes. But I don't. So... onward!

    I propose the foundation of the following new BlogTribes :

  • whorebloggers : only in it for the money, heart of gold or not.
  • were-bloggers : tried it once, didn't see the attraction, went back to reading Fark
  • werebloggers : only blog by the light of the moon, have trouble with getting their claws caught between the keys
  • wearbloggers : fashion victims
  • wiredbloggers : learned all their html from Webmonkey
  • whybloggers : what's it all about, Alfie?
  • whoahbloggers : Dude, Keanu says : 'Whoah.'
  • warebloggers : just like playing with the tools
  • wherebloggers : huh? wha? who did what where now?
  • wartbloggers : ugly as sin In Real Life, beautiful flowers online

    and my favorite new Wonderchicken Approved™ Blogtribe

  • wheebloggers : fast, loose, enthusiastically voluble, and probably drunk

  • Any additions?

    July 2, 2002

    Futzing Around

    The new template I've been messing around with is live (as you've hopefully noticed), even if it's perhaps not quite ready for primetime...why the hell not, eh? I'm not sure if I'm happy with it, but I wanted to try a couple things (like the category icons). Archives and comments display and so on have yet to be updated.

    Should work fine in all modern browsers. Let me know if you have a problem. Any feedback is much appreciated. I haven't integrated a single damn thing that Mark's been talking about lately (except accidentally, like today's, because I hate popup windows too), since I'm a complete bastard but I probably will, once I iron out the bugs and clean up the extraneous crud. Also, I have encountered some folks out there who are super-hip and elegantly snarky, and who have been known to curl their designer-lip at the preponderance of grey and blue one sees all over the place. f--k ya. There's a reason I wear blue jeans and that 90% of my other clothing is either black or white or grey. They're easy.

    And by the way : happy Canada Day to you all, even if you're, you know, not.

    Edit : The juxtaposition of images used herein is in no way intended to promote or condone the crime of drinking and driving. Driving and then drinking, however, now that's just peachy.

    June 28, 2002

    This is a Test. This is only a Test.

    This is a test of the emergency broadcast system.

    Poop. The upgrade to MT 2.2 has borked my categories a bit, no doubt due to something stupid I did. Please stand by.

    Edit : I'm reflagging entries with categories by hand. This is going to take longer than I thought.

    June 24, 2002

    You got a problem with that?

    Damn, I like gadgets.

    Edit : Microsoft-specific gadgets it would seem, sadly.

    Still : neato.

    June 22, 2002

    You reckon?

    "How weblogs straddle personal and social spaces and the potential implications for developing new communities."

    Tom from Plasticbag.org says some pretty cool stuff about some things. Powerpoint, 2.8 Mb. (That's funny, isn't it? I wonder who the presentees were...)

    Anyway, a quote :

    The best, the strongest, the most creative communities can emerge out of the interconnected nature of individual spaces.

    Making great communities is about celebrating the individuals within them - giving them spaces that they can use to show off their creativity and passions…

    And in return these individuals will themselves build a vibrant, creative and passionate community…

    No argument here.

    June 19, 2002

    Think, build, lather, rinse, repeat...

    Help Burningbird to build a tool that may just enable the next generation of blogspace interconnectedness (never one for hyberbole, me) by dropping your comments and suggestions here.

    [further to this and this]

    June 18, 2002

    Now I'm going to have to think this over again...

    What Jeff has to say about Megnut's article is very interesting, if a touch erudite for my beer-and-sausages self. Indeed, I wonder if those are the sorts of underpinnings from which she was working when she conceived the piece, and that I just missed the deeper nuances in my rush to poo-poo it.

    Simply put, the structure imposed by the grammatical rules of timestamps, permalinks, etc., results in paratactic information exchange. Each day adds another level of and then. . . which had been largely lost in conventional hypertext documents. In hypertext, there doesn't have to be a then, only rhizomatic patterns of connection. Blogging imposes a structure which makes hypertext more functional as a medium. The first generation “link blogs” are entirely paratactic, compared to the hypotactic, subordinating [dare I say tree-like] nature of first generation personal home pages. Hypotaxis was derived from print literacy. Link blogs are in essence far more oral and conversational.

    [more]

    If so, I owe her an apology. This, I can see flowering into something interesting. If the structure imposed by the grammar of blogging (as I think Jeff is describing the subject of Meg's piece) does indeed move us back closer to the roots, to the orality of the storyteller as he tells the tale of the hunt, lit by the light of the campfire (my image, but the one that strikes me each time Jeff talks about this stuff), then I'm much more interested than once I was in the implications of mechanics.

    Thank you, Jeff. And Meg, regardless of whether or not she was thinking these sorts of Big Thoughts when she wrote the piece, for giving us grist for this kind of discussion.

    As my old pappy used to say : faskinatin'.

    June 17, 2002

    What I really meant to say was...

    No, I'm not recanting my earlier lambasting of Meg for that article folks are talking so much about. Although in true wonderchickonian fashion, I tacked rather heavily into the tradewinds of hyperbole - hard 'a port, Mr Qeeqeg! - and it's entirely possible that my surprise and disappointment at reading a piece quite devoid of blood and juice, in tandem with what may fairly be described as my impatience for this efflorescence of creativity to mature...well it's possible that my rain dance was a little, shall we say, intemperate.

    Starting at the unforeseen concluding exclamation of the so suddenly scornful old man, Stubb was speechless a moment; then said excitedly, "I am not used to be spoken to that way, sir; I do but less than half like it, sir."

    "Avast!" gritted Ahab between his set teeth, and violently moving away, as if to avoid some passionate temptation.

    "No, sir; not yet," said Stubb, emboldened, "I will not tamely be called a dog, sir."

    "Then be called ten times a donkey, and a mule, and an ass, and begone, or I'll clear the world of thee!"

    As he said this, Ahab advanced upon him with such overbearing terrors in his aspect, that Stubb involuntarily retreated.

    "I was never served so before without giving a hard blow for it," muttered Stubb, as he found himself descending the cabin-scuttle.

    Over at Jonathon's, where Meg responded to his excellent translation and elaboration of my rant into calm and well-crafted English prose (thanks, mate!), one of Jonathon's other guests has weighed in on my bare-breasted, blood-streaked ululation :

    The arrogance and hyperbole astounds me. The weblogging "community" would do well to learn some humility as they go forward into this bright Utopian future he describes.

    I responded :

    f--k humility, let's dance.

    For a split second after I pressed the submit button, I regretted that a bit, but now, as I sit back with my cup of green tea, it's growing on me. So much so, I think I'll make it the new tagline of the week.

    Why on earth should I be humble? How is that going to help anyone? It's a dance, my friends, and if you don't care to join in, you can help call the tune. If you don't care to do that, well, pour the drinks or something, while the rest of us whoop and holler and kick up our heels for the sheer joy of it, for the pleasure of creation, of comradeship, of life. Humility just doesn't enter into it.

    Not for nothing do I have this quote on my little website :

    "I believe that today more than ever a book should be sought after even if it has only one great page in it: we must search for fragments, splinters, toenails, anything that has ore in it, anything that is capable of resuscitating the body and soul. It may be that we are doomed, that there is no hope for us, any of us, but if that is so then let us set up a last agonizing, bloodcurdling howl, a screech of defiance, a war whoop! Away with lamentation! Away with elegies and dirges! Away with biographies and histories, and libraries and museums! Let the dead eat the dead. Let us living ones dance about the rim of the crater, a last expiring dance. But a dance!"

    Although that paragraph was written almost 70 years ago, if you replace the word 'book' with the noun of your choice [hint], you can perhaps see where I'm coming from, or where I'm going, or something.

    But I'm getting off track again, as I so often do.

    I do not begrudge Meg her mild fame or her position of influence, or any of the other people who make up the oft-derided, oft-denied, semi-imaginary 'a-list'. And nor, when it comes down to it, do I disagree with much of what Meg had to say, because, at the end of the day, it was pretty mild stuff.

    Where I do part ways is at pretty much the same spot as Shelley and Jonathon : the tools, the technology of it all, the minutiae of the format, these are not the common ground from which the communities and friendships and creative ferment that blogspace is fostering spring. This, to my mind, is a dangerous misconception that will ensure that what we are doing remains on the sidelines of the new mediaspace, a diversion of the geek and the technofetishist.

    The fertile common ground is the common ground we share as humans : our creative urge, our need to find like-minded people, our need to challenge ourselves and others, our need for play and conversation, our fascination with the New.

    Now I sound like a freakin' hippy here, so I'll add in to that list 'our need to argue, to engage in combat, to breed divisiveness and segregate ourselves into tribes over infinitesimal differences of opinion or lifestyle'.

    But the tools? The tools are just tools, for goodness sakes. Meg says, over at Jonathon's :

    ... what I was trying to do in my article was simply point out that we can't define this thing based on the content we're outputting...

    I understand that she was talking about the format, dumbing it down for non-bloggers and the non-technical (I mean come on : is there a single person who has ever had a blog who needs the concepts of permalinks and posts explained to them?) But my argument is that we can, we must define this thing based on the 'content we're outputting' (and that phrase reminds me that she was the director of development for Blogger, because the mechanical sound of it reminds me of all the coders and business types that I used to work with in Sydney at HyperGlobalMegaNet, who were good and kind people, but not precisely, uhh, lyrical), not on the tools, or on how it's temporally arranged or permalinked.

    A couple of things seem pretty clear to me : one, that the article was written for non-bloggers. It talks (in simple terms, yes, but nonetheless) about technical things, that dollars-to-donuts, your average web-user already knows and understands about blogs, and your average non-web-user doesn't give a rat's ass about, or even understand. Or want to, for that matter. So what audience is it intended for? I'm uncertain.

    Two : the article is written by a technologist (who is certainly more than that, and is not a one-dimensional cartoon, and is from all accounts a really nice person, but) : someone who seems to apprehend what's happening out there through the lens of technology, of Product Development.

    I've worked with folks who do this. Some of my best friends do this. But this is not the kind of article that's going to excite anyone. And it's not likely to even interest people who don't already know what a blog is and what it looks like, anyone who's not a technophile already. "Permalinks? Datestamps? What the hell is this geeky crap supposed to mean?" would be Joe Sixpack's response, I'd say. It strikes me as odd that the outpouring of praise for Meg's piece comes from the very webloggers who already understand intimately and work daily with the very concepts she painstaking explains. Have so many people lost sight of the fact that the vast majority of humanity just doesn't give a sh-t about blogging, and probably never will? But at the same time, that same majority loves poetry and music, stories and songs, all manner of art and craft. But they don't care about the technology, even if we do. And we already know a blog is bite-sized, permalinked and temporally arranged.

    Jonathon said :

    Which is not to say there's no place for an explanation of the mechanics of weblogging: tools, posts, links, time-stamps, permalinks... But wouldn't it be better to leave those prosaic details for later? And to start by mapping out an imaginative vision of the medium's potential?

    To focus attention on the magic and mystery of blogging. To acknowledge (paraphrasing Burningbird) that the key to weblogging is people, not a format. To admit that—five years on—we're only just starting to realize what might be possible. To stress the communal nature of the activity. To celebrate the amplification of meaning that occurs when smart, creative people collaborate. To invite newcomers to join a grand adventure, a networked version of Hesse's Journey to the East.

    This is what I'm talking about. What I'm trying to figure out is who the piece was intended for, and why. It doesn't really seem to serve anyone's needs, and perhaps this is why I reacted so strongly. Meg says, again over at Jonathon's, "I tried to look beneath the content to the tools and format that enable us to make connections."

    I understand where she's coming from, and I respect that, but I think she has it ass-backwards. I'm a technologist too, or at least I used to be, and I am as certain as I've ever been about anything that you need to look beneath the tools and the format to what she calls the content, and what I think of as the people. A blog is not a container for content, or the product of some cleverly designed software tools : it's a person. That's the bedrock of this thing we're building.

    Meg also says "I wasn't saying that's all there is to blogging, I was just saying that's one piece of it," and of course she's right, and it was my mistake to imply, if I did, that that's what she was saying. It would seem that Meg and many others around the traps do feel that what she wrote about is the most important piece. I would call it the least.

    I'll also say, for what it's worth, that my ranting of a couple of nights ago was meant to stir a little reflection, and not intended as an attack on anyone. I get carried away sometimes.

    It was arrogant and hyperbolic indeed, in the same way it would have been if I hand-edited the HTML and uploaded it with a command-line FTP client.

    June 15, 2002

    Is it safe? Is it safe?

    I am way keen to see Shelley's new project in action - I've maundered and pondered and arm-waved about something like this for ages (which in blogspace years is about 15 minutes, but still).

    I hope she won't mind me referring to it as The Hot Needle of Inquiry, though.

    Never one to give offense, me.

    There's praise a'plenty. And some canny marketing too, methinks. Oh, yes. But I'll weigh in as well, since that's what it's all about, right? Here... We. Go!

    How tedious is this, how perfunctory and lacking of any sense of the mad, wild spirit of creativity that is tearing through the souls of (fill in the names or pseudonyms of your favorite bloggers here)? Sorry, Meg, but this piece strikes me as soulless, by-the-numbers, and regrettably keen to dumb things down as much as possible, custom-designed for Big Media to understand and quote it. Calculated to be Just what the Market Wants. My ungracious guess is that it's just what the publishing industry would like to read, before the Blogroots -related book comes out. Antithetical to the spirit of what so many of us, you included, I thought, were doing...

    (And almost as uninspiring as the radio appearance recently of another blog luminary, which, I've got to say, was one of the things that resulted in my lament a while back about how deeply I'm being disappointed of late by some people in the blogosphere for whom I've developed a sort of lame-o superheroesque respect.)

    Take a breath.

    If you people, you A-listers, you pioneers (and I bow in respect to the Old Blog Guard, but some just don't seem to get the New, in much the same way, ironically enough, that Old Media don't seem to get La Kottke or whatever archetypical high-traffic blogger that they happen to pick out of their very small grab-bag when a url is necessary for street-cred in their latest in-depth analysis), if you can't muster the juice to sing a soul-stirring song about this beautiful web of voices we're collectively weaving, then I suggest you step the hell back, and point your fingers to those of us who can summon the muse and weave the hymns that will bind the New Tribes together.

    [Edit : I've just suddenly become aware that this piece was written for a Techo Journal, and that my guns-blazing attack may be Quixotacular. Nonetheless, I'll fight to the f--king death arguing that the defining aspects of my writing here (or Golby's or AKMA's or Shelley's or Jonathon's or Eeksy's or that of multitudes of others) are not Time Stamps or Permalinks. Lead, damn it, or get out of the way.]

    June 6, 2002

    Futzing Around

    I've been playing around with some new toys...if you'd like to lend the wonderchicken a hand, I'd love to hear if the test gadgetry over on the righthand side of the page works for you in your browser/OS. I am aware that there is a problem with the border on the bottom of the slideout doodads...

    Also, I'm wondering if you think if this kind of stuff is (a) groovy or (b) goofy.

    Just checking.

    June 2, 2002

    Synchronicity

    Just as Mark was discovering that I oughta be one of the people in his social network that he doesn't yet read, I was implementing his LINK tag, in part because I felt a little bad that I mentioned at Phil's how cool I thought Andy's linkback thingo was (after Phil in fact mentioned the thing at Mark's), having forgotten that I also saw that very same thing at Mark's and thought it was indeed whizbang. Funny how that works.

    I'm dizzy.

    Big-ass Edit : There are more people than I knew talking about this manufactured serendipity instant feedback stuff that linkbacks or backlinks (or whatever you wish to call them) imply.

    deus_x says here, for example :

    Referral-driven linkbacks on all pages on my site do this. If you post to your weblog and include a link to me, then I hear about it the first time someone traverses that link. This, to me, is even better than the comment feature. And, as Mark Pilgrim observes, this is better that a single referers page because these linkbacks appear in context. The conversation is built up from links in place and on topic and where the action is.

    I won't go as far as ranking referrer feedback over comments - I'd like to bring comments into the whole picture, bring them up front and center dynamically, when appropriate, and tie them into the linkbacking too. I'd like to see weblogs where the comments threads offer more value to some visitors than the actual posts, while others never hit the comments at all and still derive value (I'm slipping back into my old corporate-speak, sorry) from their visit. Not unlike the way some folks go to Metafilter for the links, some for the convo, but both groups get what they want from the place. I'd like to be able to follow both speakers and topics (based on permission being granted) around blogspace, depending on the mood I was in. I want my MemePop thing. And I want a pony!

    As you can tell, I'd like to tie all this in with the half-assed thoughts I've been having recently about following conversations in the blogosphere, but I haven't thought it through yet, really, as is probably clear.

    The word that's bouncing around my brain right now is 'swarming', but that's not right, either. I'm not much attracted to the 'news aggregator' take on all of this, but then I haven't played much with that sort of thing yet. I will, soon.

    Cool - I always like new toys to play with.

    Somebody stop me before I blog again

    One final one before I go watch some funny moving pictures : Graham says

    I came to the conclusion, which I believe is a fairly rare one, that I don't like being anonymous. That writing under a pseudonym (or no nym at all) feels more stifling than the responsibility that comes with openness. That I am willing to accept the fact that my students, yea, even my colleagues may eventually find this place. I'm counting on the fact that most of them won't care. I understand that for every academic blogger who gets tenure, there will be many, academics and non-, who get dooced.

    Warning : Shameless narcissism ahead!

    These are thoughts that have crossed my tiny feather-capped mind more than once, and I have elected to go in the other direction - towards some degree of anonymity in my ramblings and rantings here. I realize, of course, that anyone with even moderately advanced search skills could dig up my real name, and fairly convincingly tie it to the pseudonym I use here, if they wanted to.

    'Anonymity' is probably the correct word to use, technically speaking. Many of the folks who come here frequently probably don't know my name. Most don't care, I'm sure. As far as they are concerned I am mercifully free of an onyma. I am aware that the use of a pseudonym so flippant and fanciful predisposes many to expect me at all times to be similarly flippant and fanciful, in much the same way that my choice of domain names arouses expectations of what may be found here, and encourages attitudes towards myself and my words that differ with the reader. Not all of these preconceptions are positive, this is certain.

    But it's all good. It adds a level of metaplay to the whole thing that amuses me - I think it's much more fun to use the opportunity bust up those mental Markov chains a bit. I derive some pleasure from anticipating and feeding the expectations that some people must no doubt have at the prospect of reading the words of someone who calls himself stavrosthewonderchicken and who puts his writing and pixelling up at a place called Empty Bottle, and then gently, with a grin, confounding them. Such opportunities would not arise if you, dear reader, had typed in http://www.johnsmith.org to get here, and if posted by John Smith were appended to each post. If that were the case, you'd have no real idea what to expect, I don't think, other than perhaps an intimation that you might be looking at calm seas ahead.

    Note that my real name is not John Smith. Or Markov Chaney, for that matter.

    But all this is really an aside to my main reaction to what Graham was saying, which is this : I don't really feel that I am at all anonymous, despite the fact that I use a pseudonym here for fear of repercussions from my employers. On the contrary, I get the feeling that there are quite possibly more people around the world who recognize the (hopefully memorable) silly name I've adopted here and at Metafilter than there are people who know me by my real name. There are many who know me by both, and that's fine too.

    It's certainly possible that I am taken less seriously as a result of my pseudonymity, but it's also possible that more people remember who I am, and identify with or enjoy in some meaningful way the persona I've created here, which bears if not a 1-1 correspondance, at least a very significant resemblance to my Self. I am, as are all of you, much more than my words and links and photoshop jobs could ever really capture, and I think it would signal a descent into madness if I began to try to express the Whole Story of Me here in these pixels and bits. Better for me, I think, to filter the large and rather incoherent Me through the pleasantly warped lens of my alter ego. I'm cool with that.

    There are a multitude of John Smiths, some more memorable than others. But there's only one Wonderchicken.

    The Birds!

    How the heck did I get a referral from here? No WonderChicken listed, I looked. Funny ha-ha and the other one too.

    May 31, 2002

    Conversation Maps

    I'd like to lay something like this on top of blogspace, using posts and comments as data. Just because. Unfortunately, I can't seem to actually see any of the demos, probably because it uses DejaNews as a datasource, and of course DN is no more, having been eaten by Google. Still.

    May 29, 2002

    Well, I guess somebody was listening...

    or

    Great minds think alike.

    I had this idea recently about using Daypop or Blogdex to track ideas and conversations, and lo and behold, someone's written something that is a first step in that direction. I have implemented it here, to give it a whirl. The magic may take a while to appear, as the script runs after the page is fully loaded, and my instant referrer doodad is acting up a bit. When it does load, click on the little [b]'s beside any link to see who else is talking about that link...

    The toy erroneously puts a Blogdex [b] beside my category links, too, which I'll try to fix tomorrow, but otherwise it seems pretty cool. Let me know if it floats your boat or chafes your scrote (or appropriate other body part, as required).

    Bow to the riff lord.

    Edit : I've disabled it. Too obtrusive.

    It's Official : I'm outta ideas.

    belushi_big_chicken_lo.jpg

    Someone stick a fork in my ass and turn me over, I'm done.

    May 20, 2002

    Just to be stubbornly repetitive, humourless and tiresome...

    ...I'm going to keep hammering on this. The world at large is beginning to notice the blogosphere. The marketing shills smell money in the air. The bright-toothed, fast-talking, lucre-fixated hordes are girding their well-toned loins and casting a hungry eye our way. It's coming damn it : the signs are all around, and you should take opportunity to be very afraid.

    Alternately, you could make like me : leer dementedly and cock a snook at the bastards.

    May 18, 2002

    A Real Memepool

    Reading Joey's dispatches from the O'Reilly Emerging Technology Conference, I had an idea. Now everyone hush a bit, because this is a rare thing, and even the slightest breath of wind could blow the little f--ker away....

    I was thinking about the chronological organisation of blogs, and how, flexible as tools like Moveable Type are, allowing me to organise my posts by category, for example, (Old Empties - Categorically on the sidebar) or by how much interest visitors have had in discussing the things I've talked about (Recent Conversations on the sidebar), I hunger for a way to conceptually group things. The use of pre-defined categories still feels too rigid for me.

    What would be cool, and what I'd like to put together if I had the 1337 5k1llz, would be a sort of Memepop, a Daypop that tracked the memes (ah crap, I am so sick of that word) ideas enjoying circulation in Blogspace at any given moment.

    It would use the Google API perhaps, or perhaps not, but it would allow you to (via a XML-fed plugin to MT or Blogger maybe?) grab a quick list of the top 40 (say) ideas with mindshare amongst bloggers at any given moment (Domain hijacking, googlebombing, semitism and anti-, the 'Creative Commons' are some current examples), and flag your new post, if it were a thought that you wanted to drop into the river, as relating to that topic. This act of flagging then feeds back into the Memepool, and pushes the idea higher up into the consciousness of the Blog Hive Mind. A high level conceptual way to thread your way through Blogspace, to organise conversations from the bottom-up and later revisit them...

    One big question would be how to cleverly populate that list in the first place...through human suggestions, or through some clever parsing of the Daypop Top 40 or it's equivalent? I don't know the answer to that. But I can see that once it reached a certain critical mass, it would be very very cool.

    It would be mondo-groovy to be able to flag this post, for example, with consensus-created categories (dynamic ones, which might disappear again from the Top 40 in a week or two) "Emerging Tech Conference" and "Threading in Blogspace", knowing that other people out there are flagging posts with the same 'categories', and be able to hit a site and see the threading, woven through blogspace, laid out for me, sorted chronologically or conceptually or otherwise...

    Perhaps I'm just talking crap again. It gets hard to tell sometimes.

    I hate love to say I told you so...

    Dr W mentions this and asks "Does this mean that malevolent corporations will inevitably poison the well of conversation?"

    I feel a little self-congratulatory pointing (I did it a few days ago here, and on Metafilter recently, too) to this wee rant I wrote a couple of months ago, but Rule #23a of Effective Weblogging is Work Those Archives, right?

    Anyway, I hope this is germane. I haven't had my first coffee yet, so who knows...

    May 17, 2002

    The God of Ordinary Things

    In light of what Shelley said today, which may or may not have been in response to any degree to my comments yesterday, I feel I should clarify a bit.

    I said

    "Nor am I terribly keen on reading about your adventures in buying coffee at the local Starbucks, unless in the telling of said adventures your words are so cunningly crafted as to make me grin like a monkey (and even better, leap up and down and fling my excrement), or otherwise evoke some feeling other than 'well, that's five minutes of my life I'll never get back.' "

    I made a mess of that. Besides getting lost in the syntax and being too cleverclever by half, I managed to obscure my actual point. Tales of the commonplace, stories about the small things that make up our daily existence, can be fascinating. They can be beautiful, or heartbreaking, and they can shine a light on our own lives, and help us to understand that, really, we are all the same, us hairless primates.

    It's not that I find tales of ordinary, daily life tedious. Not at all. All the meat and juice comes from it : all the tragedy and comedy of our lives is woven into ordinary, daily life. "Life is what happens while you're busy making other plans," goes the cliche.

    But I do find a badly-told tale tedious, no matter the subject. If your story of your trials and tribulations at the local Starbucks (to use the same example I used before (and I'm hoping no one who happens by here has actually written one of those recently) has all the music and muscularity of a shopping list, it's unlikely that I'll find it interesting.

    I make no claim to being the most pellucid, or entertaining, or skilled writer, or even having any greater skill than being able to string a few words together in an occasionally pleasing fashion. Far from it.

    I hope I'm not coming off as elitist. But, speaking for myself, I'm only interested in the minutiae of someone's daily existence if they can relate to me those tales of the commonplace in a way that piques my interest.

    (Edit : Uh. I just realized thanks to a BB post that Our Gonzo Standard Bearer and All Around Ranteriffic Guy, a certain Mr. Locke, recently talked about his experiences at a Starbucks, and did so in a most engaging fashion. The example used above was not intended as some sort of bass-ackwards commentary about that. I am nothing like that subtle. My brain simply doesn't work that way. I suppose that's what I get for reading EGR after I've had a few...)

    May 16, 2002

    Googlebombing for fun and profit

    Those following the googlebomb discussion over at BB's might find this MeFi discussion interesting.

    May 13, 2002

    Retro-greement

    I was going to comment on a recent post from Shelley when I realized that I already had, sorta.

    May 12, 2002

    More, and more lucid : Content != Elvis?

    ...The preoccupation of decision makers with content and broadcast communication is also not new. In the early 19th century, the explicit policy of the U.S. government was to promote wide dissemination of newspapers. They were regarded as the main tool for keeping citizenry informed and engaged in building a unified nation. Hence newspaper distribution was subsidized from profits on letters...

    The policy of the U.S. government to promote newspaper "content" at the expense of person-to-person communication through letters may or may not have been correct. It would be a hard task (and one well beyond the scope of this work) to decide this question. However, there are reasonable arguments that the preoccupation with newspapers harmed the social and commercial development of the country by stifling circulation of the informal, non-content information that people cared about....

    A skeptical reader might say that all this historical stuff is amusing but irrelevant. We live in the 21st century, and our high-tech present as well as our future are on the Web, where content is universally regarded as king. Studies of the Internet regularly find that Web traffic makes up 60 to 80% of the bytes that are transmitted. Certainly most of the commercial development effort on the Internet and almost all the attention are devoted to content. Thus even if content was not king in the early 19th or late 20th centuries, it might be king in the 21st.

    There are three counterarguments to the above objection, all of which support the "content is not king" thesis. All argue that the dazzling success of the Web has created a misleading picture of what the Internet is, or is likely to evolve towards. One argument, to be discussed in more detail later, is that the future of the Internet is not with the Web, but with programs like Napster or (even more, because of its decentralized nature) Gnutella, which allow for informal sharing of data.

    The second argument is that content is not king of the Web. Most of the traffic on the Internet is corporate (especially if we include internal intranet traffic that is not visible on the public backbones)....Because browsers are a user-friendly tool that is ubiquitous, a multitude of services have been squeezed into a Web framework. They help perpetuate the image of the Internet as primarily a content-delivery mechanism. (Note that the Web was invented to allow scientists to communicate with each other and access data, not for content delivery.)

    The third and final argument is that even if content were king on the Web now, the Web is not king of the Internet. This may again seem absurd, especially in view of the statistics quoted above, that most of the Internet traffic is Web transfers. However, consider again the U.S. postal system of 1832. Content certainly dominated in terms of volume of data. Newspapers sent by mail weighed about 20 times as much as letters. Further, the density of printed matter is higher than of handwriting, and a typical copy of a newspaper was likely read many more times than a typical letter. Hence newspaper "content" was probably delivering at least a hundred times as much information as letters. But volume is not the same as value. Letters were bringing in 85% of the money needed to run the postal system in 1832. On the Internet in 2000, it is e-mail that is king, even if its volume is small.

    - Andrew Odlyzko, Content is not King

    [more...]

    I'm not sure I agree with Mr Odlyzko, entirely, but that may only be a matter of semantics. My feverdream defense of 'content' a couple of days ago took as its launchpad an understanding of the word that is broader than the one Mr Odlyzko uses (and in some ways is actually diametrically opposed to it, but that's a side-issue, I think). Blogs as open letters, as content rather than Content....

    One of the things Mr Odlyzko is saying is that the internet is not a broadcast medium. As obviously wrong as it seems, thinking it is was one of the core dumbass mistakes that businesses were making before the bubble burst, one of the dumbass mistakes that's still being made. AOLTimeWarner indeed. LOLTimeWarner, maybe. (Ba-dump dump tish! Thank you, you've been a great audience. I'll be here until Thursday!)

    One-to-oneness is where value (questions there are aplently about the word 'value', too) lies, more than one-to-manyness (Mr O talks about letters and newspapers, about email and the web). The bridge between the two concepts is (ta-daaa!) the weblog, of course. It's not email, but it shares much of the intensely personal nature nature of correspondence. It's not 'Content', at least not in the way that Big Media regards it, as a 'non-recoverable expense'. But it is true that blogspace contains some of the most compelling writing and imagery and pure fun that's available on the internet or elsewhere, 'content' that's constantly renewed by the passions of thousands of individuals singing their individual songs for the pure joy of the singing, and for the comradeship that comes from finding people who hear similar music in their heads...

    This message of Mr O's reminds me very much of the sort of thing that a certain Mr Locke (quoted recently here: "You can broaden the pipe as far as you want, but if everybody can play, it's not broadcast any more. There isn't that control of the passes. The channel is out of control and that makes it a different game...") and his cohort of merry cluesters have been saying for a while, and are still saying.

    I like it when things come together like that.

    May 6, 2002

    The Wonderchicken Anti-Mystique

    Just had a thought, as I do occasionally, during those times when I briefly stop furiously doing whatever it is I'm doing furiously, when the planets align properly, and when my scrotum is sufficiently aerated to achieve that delicate balance of coolness and coziness that puts a man at the top of his form.

    I wondered, briefly, as I did my dutiful weekly round of Important Blogs That People Respect (who shall go nameless and linkless, as I'm actually quite bashful at heart), how, with so many significant and highly important things to say about pretty much f--king everything, I've been passed over in so many High-Profile Blogrolls. Sure, I've gotten the nod from some fantastic folks, and even a few non-human species, but still that shimmering veil of Top Notchdom eludes me.

    It's scandalous! Downright insupportable!

    Then, thought I to myself : "Perhaps it's that these Pundits and Prophets, these Thinkers and Movers and Shakers and SuperBloggers, perhaps it comes down to the fact that they feel they'd look kinda dumb linking to the sage words of someone who calls himself stavrosthewonderchicken. Face it, champ," I continued to myself, "there are people out there who simply do not share your whimsical and puckish but often incomprehensible sense of humour. There are folks who feel that someone who insists on referring to himself as a wonderchicken might be someone best left to his own devices. Perhaps it's the dreaded Cone Of Silence, come to bite you in the ass again!"

    Then again, thought I to myself a bit more, could it actually be your liberal use of the word 'f--k', and the fact that you insist on talking about things like the optimal aeration of your scrotum that puts Serious People off?

    Nah.

    This is a test post

    This is a test post using w.bloggar.

    Edit : Now, that's cool. The propellor on top of my beanie is spinning like nobody's business.

    April 30, 2002

    Finally, some recognition!

    Thanks again to the endlessly entertaining instant-referrers doodad on the right, I see that someone has recently gotten here with the search string crazy+mad+f--kers+at+the+edge+of+voltaire's+reason, and that in fact I am the sole hit for this particular search string in the whole wide world. As always, I am hugely amused by this sort of thing. I hope you found what you were looking for, friend. Welcome, and thank you.

    April 28, 2002

    Obfuscation

    You know what pisses me off right at this particular moment? Using words to confuse the point, to play the goddamn shell game, to obfuscate rather than clarify.

    There are a few around the neighbourhood who weave sky-piercing towers of words, intricately knitted and syntactically exciting, that leave me cold. I'm impressed by the erudition, by the verbal pyrotechics (and I used to blow sh-t up for a living, briefly, so I oughta know), but I learn nothing after reading what is said except how clever-clever the author of those words is.

    If you can't make a window onto something for yourself or for someone else by what you write you're masturbating. My advice is that you do it in private, Big Shooter. Play with the language, sure, but keep your hands above the table.

    So saith the wonderchicken.

    (Edit : And if anyone should think this pronouncement has anything to do with the latest sh-tfight in MeTa, in the interests of practicing what I preach, I say clearly : it doesn't.)

    April 25, 2002

    Going Through The Motions

    Ok, I really mean it this time, this is it before I go to bed and disappear for a few days : I'd just like to say that if any of the folks who come here daily to read the latest wonderchicken droppings have felt that I've just been going through the motions of late, well, heck, shucks, and golly, you'd be semi-right. I haven't been trying as much as I ought to have, I admit this freely and I promise (although, of course, you should realize that my promises are Not Worth The Pixels They're Written With, when it comes to things like this) to try a little harder to actually write well rather than just barf out whatever comes into my head, unedited, in the future.

    On the other hand, if you guys enjoy the brainbarfage, then hell, I'll keep that up! I'm nothin' if not flexible.

    Next week I start the all-pr0n format...

    April 21, 2002

    Capitalism Gone Mad!

    I'm mercifully free of hangovers lately, as I'm on some Chinese herbal medicine, and I'm not supposed to drink while taking it. This is good, for a change of pace, and I find my brain is ticking over quite nicely.

    Spent a couple hours today designing a few logos and putting up a Cafe Press shop. Why the hell not, eh? I noticed Oliver's recent post about having one, and figured I might as well give it a blast.

    The three logos are here, here, and here (large images, popups). The shop is here. I make a buck from each item sold. Support the wonderchicken! Buy neat stuff!

    Or not, I don't really mind too much...

    April 17, 2002

    Being John Googlovich

    A huge number of Googly-searches showing up here lately have been for bottle+f--k, which I assume is a niche-porno thang. It's all good, if nasty and pathetic.

    What amused me when I clicked one of the referrers for the 'bottle f--k' search in the recent-referrer gadget over on the right there, was that as of the latest GoogleBot index of the EmptyBottle, not only was I hit #4 for 'bottle f--k' but the quoted text was 'footsore random dogsh-t wandering' which I don't even remember writing, but is Pure WonderChicken Poetry in my mind. Sums up the last decade and a half of my life, by criminy-cheesetoast!

    And really, since I (when I'm in my right mind) write most of this sh-t for myself for the most part, the fact that that amuses me a whole bunch is all that counts, ain't it?

    April 14, 2002

    Moveable Type Rocks

    I've got to say, the more I play with this thing, the more I like it. It's powerful, flexible, and easy as pie for a semi-geek like myself to customize.

    I draw your attention to two new features over on the sidebar to the right : a list of the five most recently-commented upon entries, and a list of all the blog categories, with a post-count beside each. I played a bit fast and loose with the categories when I imported from Blogger, but they're relatively accurate, for the most part. Please feel free to waste hours of your precious time perusing the archives - there's some stinky crap in there, but there's some Good Eatin' too, if I do say so myself.

    April 13, 2002

    We're On The Road And We're Gunning For The Buddha

    I read Mike's latest : well, OK, inebriated as I am at the moment, I skimmed Mike's latest, and I f--king give up.

    I know it's not a competition, but I Live To Win (though I'll deny that if you quote me), and to be honest, there's simply no way I'm going to be able to kick Mike's ass, bloggishly speaking. Through sheer quality, and undeniable volume, he's winning the Blog Primaries.

    This is a major setback for me, wonderchicken fans, and I recommend that if you have any love for me, if you've ever had any love for me or plan to have some love for me in the future, even if only a little guilty tingle down there under the kitchen table, if you have any desire whatsoever to see the Solid Family Values of The WonderChicken prevail, I ask to you to consider the removal, yea, the bloggy occupation of the territory of this South African bodhisattva - I implore you, I beg you, I COMMAND YOU, click your tight little inter-buns over to Mike's blog and abuse him mercilessly! Talk some sh-t! Quote bad poetry! Make references to Things Semitic and suggest that he Doesn't Like Them! Abuse the man until he resorts to linking to random Daypop Top 40 transients with a textual arched-eyebrow, with a hipster-goof mock-sarcastic word or two, until he winds up posting the results of the latest "Which Star Trek Voyager Character Are You?" quiz, until he abandons the long-form post forever and begins to exhibit all the outward symptoms of a terminal speed-freak, which is the behavioural lot of those approaching the terminal stages of webloggerdom.

    Fly, my pretties, fly!

    April 12, 2002

    Great Minds Think Alike

    Accordion Guy, one of my favorite blogstars, ended up getting inspired by the same photoshops at Something Awful, like me, on the same day, and doing a This Man Is Your Friend remix too...

    Synchronicity. This would be an amusing meme, if it propagated, I reckon. Not that I'm suggesting such a thing. As I've mentioned before, deliberate meme-propagation annoys me. Chafes my...well you know what it chafes.

    April 11, 2002

    Malacca Rattan?

    This comment was left recently by B. Rai, in reference to a half-remembered post I made some time ago at Metafilter which mentioned the amusing and odd TV commercials for Malacca Rattan :

    Hello there,

    I just did a google search on the old Rattan To Go ads and I'm afraid to say that you seem to be the sole authority for info on this on the net. Only four results were found, and I read your comments on metafilter.com. I'm glad such a television treasure has not been forgotton!

    I am an ex-pat Vancouverite living in London and working in animation. I saw these ads when I was a kid, but strangely they've stuck in my mind. The reason I'm writing is because I remembered this ad a while back and am basing a sitcom character on Blue Mancune, the star of the ad, who I believe lives in Vancouver. Unfortunately I cannot fully remember the lyrics to the tune. I've got:

    Malacca for the money
    Wicker for the show
    -------- to get ready baby
    Rattan, to go

    I'm trying to finish a script and this is driving me nuts. Any help at all would be greatly appreciated.

    Many Thanks,

    B. Rai

    I can't remember, but perhaps there are some other Vancouverites-of-the-80's who can. Leave a comment if you can help, and perhaps the mystery lyric can be unearthed!

    Tangentially, it pleases me greatly to be the sole authority on the net for something.

    April 10, 2002

    Almost There

    OK, the newish layout is live. With IE 6 it looks like crap at 800 by 600, and is still a little wonky at 1024 by 768, but my brain hurts, and I need a break.

    Please let me know if the new layout is killing your browser. It would be much appreciated. Thanks.

    Stupid Google Trick #327

    This is your brain, this is your brain on drugs.

    April 3, 2002

    The instant-referrer gadget

    The instant-referrer gadget down there on the right (no, further down, oh, oh, yeah...there!) has just shown me that scant minutes ago, someone reached here with Googlage : how+the+f--k+does+aluminum+sulfate+get+produced?. This is a thing of beauty to me.

    Welcome, my chymical friend. Have a beer. Put your feet up. f--k Aluminum Sulfate, let me whisper to you tales of booze and madness. Give me a few minutes, and I'll make you forget those covalent bonds, I'll sing you the siren song that will lure you into a rich and deeply imperfect world of words and bad photoshops, I will sing the body eclectic...

    March 30, 2002

    Here Be Dragons...err Metablogging

    Here Be Dragons Metablogging


    I was thinking today ('oh crap, run! He's been thinking again!') about both the neologism weblog (as in the phrase 'web log') and the blogthread that AKMA and David Weinberger and others have recently been pursuing about new metaphors for the web. Non-spatial metaphors, verbs rather than nouns.

    Well, this one is still spatial, and it's a noun too, but hell, I'm not all that clever, really. Note that I don't mean to imply that I've actually been reading that blogthread per se, but I've read about it, and I'm lazier than a dead beaver, and damn it, I'm not going to pretend otherwise. So, onward.

    My thoughts were jinking back and forth between the phrases 'web log' and 'ship's log' as I walked to the acupuncturist this afternoon. Years ago, I spent about 6 or 8 madcap months sailing off the Pacific coast of Mexico (a tale for another time perhaps), and one thing that was done, no matter how altered our states might have been by the end of the day, was the Updating of The Log. And the ship's log, though it may have had a few asides about things not nautical ('those German girls, oh dear lord'), was primarily about minutiae, about new ports, new anchorages, new sights, new sites.

    Sites. Like websites, geddit? (Didn't telegraph that much, did I?) So, connecting the dots, I'm calling the net the ocean. Big-ass sites like Metafilter or Yahoo are ports, smaller ones are anchorages, bloggers are sailboats, and their web logs are their ship's logs. We meet, raft up, party down, separate and go on our merry wandering ways. We record where we've been. We talk about what those places have meant to us. There are living things swimming around down there, deep in the darkness. There are the IP plankton packets that are the very lifeblood of the sea. A whole ecosystem down there. There are submarines and sailboats, there are ocean liners skirting the Tropic of Cancer, there are freighters plying the trade routes, planes occasionally passing overhead, and the odd dot-com Titanic, lying in pieces on the ocean floor far beneath, slowly decomposing.

    I like this metaphor because I love the sea, and sailing on it.

    It also resonates pretty damn well with the oft-repeated (at least in the early days of the blog) complaint that a weblog should be about links (those memorable ports and anchorages we visit in our wanderings), and is not, according to some, supposed to be a diary. I personally think the focus-power-grasshopper balance lies in the careful juxtaposition of the pedestrian details of your journeys around the ocean with your thoughts and feelings and all that personal-journally crap. The best ship's logs I've read were ones that had both GPS readings and Wacky Tales. The most interesting weblogs, too.

    I am a sailboat. Ride me. So saith the wonderchicken.


    Sky of blue and sea of green? comments.

    February 28, 2002

    I'm knee-deep in geekdom

    I'm knee-deep in geekdom, grinning like a rocket-powered lemur, fiddling with code. Sure and it's a heap of fun, laddie. So rather than write something new, I thought I'd cheat and whack up this explanation from my Metafilter profile of where the StavrosTheWonderChicken thing came from...

    In the winter of 1992 (I think), Rick and I had just finished the Mumbles Walk. This is the pub crawl along a seaside stretch of watering holes in Wales, near Swansea, that apparently used to be a regular night out for Dylan Thomas. I'd like to say we were appropriately reverant, but we were just shambolically pissed, basically.

    At some point, we stumbled by a phone booth that looked out over the mud flats and dejected-looking rowboats that had been stranded by the outgoing tide, and decided it was a simply great time to give our buddy Derek, back in Vancouver, a collect call. When the operator asked for a name to give for the call (this was back in the last century, before this stuff was automated), the name "Stavros The Wonder Chicken" just bubbled to the top of my brain, with no precedent whatsoever. The operator balked, but we begged, and when we overheard her telling James, his roommate, that she had a collect call from "Stavros the Wonder Chicken", we laughed like the drunken poets we were.

    A few minutes after his roommate James accepted the call, we found out that Derek had returned to his hometown because he'd found out that day that his father had died.

    We went back to drinking.

    Ah-yup? comments.

    February 27, 2002

    Welcome to the new digs

    Welcome to the new pad! Looks pretty much like the old one, I know, but I've got Big Plans. While I unpack some of the crates, please help yourself to some delicious beverages and yummy cucumber sandwiches.

    Thanks go in great profusion to the BurningBird and the Bearman for helping me out, and all the cool folks out there in blogspace who inspire me every day to do better.

    Disclaimer : No actual offer of delicious beverages and yummy cucumber sandwiches is being made or implied. Sorry.

    February 21, 2002

    Coming soon : New domain

    Coming soon : New domain, new underpants, same crappy attitude. I'm so excited.

    February 15, 2002

    Currently experiencing technical difficulties

    Currently experiencing technical difficulties. Please do not adjust your set. You may, however, think about getting up and going outside for a walk. It'll make you feel better. Probably. Unless you live in Korea, in which case it may annoy the snot out of you. Just sayin'.

    Update : Fixed, sorta.

    February 14, 2002

    Statute of Limitations

    I'm finding my self-imposed format here a little limiting, these days, and don't quite know what to do. I want to continue talking about Korea, of course, and I have my blogversation to engage in mindless link propagation and boozy nostalgia with my old friend the Bearman, but I feel I could profitably add my 1.7 bits to the conversations that David Weinberger and Mike Sanders and Mike Golby and Chris Locke and AKMA and Tom Matrullo (and so on and so forth)(Update : Add OnePotMeal to the menu - the things he's talking about at the moment are very much in line with thoughts I've been having as well.) are engaging in. I don't think this is the right place to do it - there are some folks who come here for the Korea bits, even though there are also some who have written to tell me that they enjoy the occasional non-Korea-related rant or monologue more than the cross-cultural schtick. I'm wondering if I should start a meta-blog, or just post more meta (ie colourfully-boxed) stuff here, or what...

    /me tugs beard, looks thoughtful.


    Any advice gratefully accepted... comments.

    February 13, 2002

    Contrarian

    Oh, now I am so tempted to go white text on dark background, just to be a contrarian bastard. We'll see how the hangover treats me tomorrow...

    February 8, 2002

    Puking up a hairball

    After puking up a hairball about how little value I place in links without commentary, I exercise my right to be annoyingly inconsistent : I have nothing more to say about this.

    Update : Or this - "If there were to be a war on the Korean peninsula, we would win but at a horrendous cost. It would be a classic pyrrhic victory. We could devastate North Korea, but we would lose hundreds of thousands of South Korean and Japanese allies in the first few days."

    February 7, 2002

    New! Improved! Less taste, more filling!

    New! Improved! Less taste, more filling! I've decided to flag meta-posts (ie stuff that's not about life in Korea) with a nice colorful box, and a pretty dashed line, 'cause I'm nothing if not flavour-of-the-moment. Starting now. Offer may be terminated without notice. Void where prohibited by good sense.

    Do any of my loyal readers (all three of you!) have any recommendations for cheap-ass hosting? Something with a bit of space to host some images, something that I can maybe run Moveable Type on, or just continue with Blogger - the usual. Any assistance and advice would be most graciously accepted. Still pondering a domain name...


    Let me know...and thanks. comments.

    February 5, 2002

    I'm messing with my template

    I'm messing with my template here, going all-css and stuff. I love a project! Things might look a wee bit strange for a while. Bear with me.. If it looks utterly broken for more than a couple of minutes at a time on your browser, please drop a comment in the usual commenty place. Thankee.

    Update : Well, completely new code under the template-hood, and after all that work it looks basically the same. Sheesh. But it'll be a lot easier to fiddle with now, and possibly go ORANGE. Or not...

    The usual commenty place.

    January 31, 2002

    It must be mail day

    It must be mail day : traffic has soared the last two days, due mostly to the "Google Instant Messaging" meme that Shelley at Burningbird is spreading, I'd imagine, and I've had a few questions via email about why someone who would otherwise appear to be a rational adult calls himself 'stavrosthewonderchicken'. Click, and you shall receive.

    Shrouded in the mists of history...

    January 30, 2002

    Google Instant Messaging

    This post (damn I'm breaking my rules all over the place lately) is aimed at some friends who know what the heck I'm talking about. If you're not sure, I beg you to please ignore my more-than-customary level of incomprehensibility.

    You crazy EFT kids! I saw a referrer today in the magical instant referrer-thingo toy over there on the left that was a Google-search for "I want to f--k stavrosthewonderchicken". I thought that was odd, but promptly forgot about it when the pizza arrived. Just now, though, I saw a Google search referrer string for efts+want+you+back+stavrosthewonderchicken and this not only warms my crusty old wonderchicken heart, but it would seem to be a completely new use of Google to send private messages, the recent-referrers doodad being the enabling technology! Congrats, whichever EFT-friends are sending me messages via Google. You be genii! That's a totally new geekmeme (I wonder if it will spread?) you have unleashed, and at the same time you put a smile on my jaundiced face for the same low low price!

    {EFT}

    Update : Shelley has picked up the idea and given it a name (Google Instant Messaging - snazzy!), and I see a couple new messages in the instant referrer list from her and the mightay Bearman. This is fun.

    Update the second (Jan 30) : This recent referrer search string - How about a nice cup of shut the f--k up - may or may not be an explicit message to me, but I seem to be ranked number 2 on AllTheWeb for that phrase, depending on your engine-settings, and that makes me very proud.

    Update the next (Jan 31) : This idea is taking off, at least judging by all the hits I'm getting today. Go Go Google Instant Messaging! Also, Dan had an interesting idea for an extension, which I'm not sure I completely understand, but sounds funky anyway.

    Totally unrelated post-script so that this becomes a post about Korea and thus I am not breaking my 'rules' : I saw a large 'cherry-picker', I think they're called, today on the street. You know, those big-ass trucks with the extendable arm, at the end of which is a little pulpit for someone to stand in while rescuing a kitty or something. It made me laugh out loud - emblazoned proudly on the side was the name : it was a Hyundai PutzMeister.

    I may be way off, but I think that means something quite rude in Yiddish.

    Beedfack?

    January 25, 2002

    Heh

    Heh. I didn't make the finalist list at the bloggies awards thing. Ah well, the soup pot's only been boiling for about 5 months. Nonetheless, I wonder if I didn't make the shortlist :

    a) 'cause I suck
    b) 'cause I said I'd rip the heart out of anyone who voted for me
    c) 'cause I say the word 'f--k' a lot, in a consistently gratuitous f--king manner
    d) 'cause I blow
    e) some combination of the above

    Despite the fact that I kinda think awards for blogging are a bit ridiculous, I feel a tiny shiver of disappointment, originating somewhere down near my butt. And, well, that's a pretty scary place. How easy it is to get sucked in, huh? Even for a cantankerous auto-exile like me.

    Regardless, congratulations go to all who are on the shortlists, and especially to Lia, who is the Queen of the Left Shore, in my books.

    I suck!

    January 23, 2002

    This post never happened

    This post never happened. You tell anyone about it, I'll have to kill you.

    (I have this thought at the moment that weblogs are a stupid f--king idea. That link propagation, which most folks seem to think as the primary function of a weblog, particularly when presented sans commentary, tends to be worthless circle-jerking.

    It's all about voice, about words, dammit, and in this I'm very much ready to snort whatever powder is blowing into drifts at the foot of rageboy and his kin. Simple linking to what someone else has said is purely lame - rat-push-button-get-electrical-stimulus stuff. It's the evil detritus at the bottom of the blog waterpipe net.folk have been puffing on for the last couple of years. Give me one well-written rant, one single viewpoint that is informed from hard-won experience rather than obsessively reading thirdhand comments on secondhand reports from old-media talentless hacks. Or talented hacks. I don't f--king discriminate.

    Realizing, of course, that the sh-t I type here is read, if at all, by a few old friends, a few new, a few net aquaintances, a few google-nauts and a tiny handful of interested parties. It's not like this semi-inebriated screed matters.

    And that's the point, innit? Shouting out the words, and hoping to find a few that will gather around your mental hearthfire, a few who are, if not entranced by your words, at least willing to listen. For me, it's a digital analogue of my wanderings around the planet for the last 15 years, In Search of An Audience. f--k that for a bad joke, really.

    In my geographic wanderings, I was in search of the perfect bar as much as anything else, and as I do tend to preach a bit when I'm in my cups, sometimes people would gather around for reasons that didn't include pelting me with rocks and garbage. So is it now as it was then : I'm glad the folks that come back here regularly derive some pleasure from what I have to say, but the reality is I'm doing it more for me than I am for you. And lately I'm starting to feel a need to remember what the hell I was saying, and the technology is available to do it.

    What I find it hard to understand is what the hell people are thinking who post.more.links.over.and.over.again.every.day with little or no hint of what they actually think about the things they link to...

    Of course, I don't propose to claim these half-formed ideas as my own. This sort of deflationary thing has been said before, by others, and better. I'm in a mood at the moment, is all. This rant here just kind of popped out of the old mental cloaca as I was doing a beery weblog-tour this evening, and since I'm still logged into blogger, I figured I'd just start typing. This kind of contrarian bullsh-t probably ain't gonna help my chances in this bloggies thing, and that's precisely why I'm posting it.

    Hello, I love you, vote for me and I'll rip your heart out.

    No, not really. But stranger things have happened.)

    Thank you for your cooperation.

    Please do not comment. It'll burst my self-involved bubble. No, seriously.

    January 22, 2002

    Yikes

    Yikes. If the referrer doodad is telling me the truth, it would seem that someone has nominated me for a bloggie. Shucks. For the second time in a week, my thanks go out to some mystery net.niceperson.

    *tugs at cowlick, kicks pebble.

    At least I think 'thanks' is appropriate. I'm not really sure if more traffic would be a good thing or not. Ah well : whatever is, is good.

    January 19, 2002

    Wow

    Wow. It would appear that an unknown benefactor has paid for me to be ad-free. This was totally unexpected. Thanks so much to whoever it was - please email me!

    I literally don't know what to say. That rarely happens to me. Thanks again. And thanks too for doing what I should have done months ago - give Ev some money. I promise to try to make this thing worth reading.

    Khamsa habnida...

    January 16, 2002

    A very blog thing

    This is a very blog thing to post, but I'm amused enormously to discover, thanks to my referrer logs, regardless of my enormous arrogance, that this wee blog is ranked Googly-4rth for the phrase Massive Inferiority Complex. Zoinks.

    Update : Thanks, Lia! I think...

    November 25, 2001

    Reblogger

    Technical note : Reblogger seems to have nuked all comments made so far, *again*, so it's probably not worth leaving your two cents at the moment. Send me mail if you feel a burning need to tell me I'm an idiot.

    November 21, 2001

    Blog overlap

    Blog overlap :

    I had a dream last night where This Mystery Guy™ held up a slab of meat that looked pretty much like a rump-roast in my face. It was quite a lovely cut of meat, but it was shot through with these deep purple threads ("...Smoooo---oke on the water, fire in the sky..."), which weren't really alarming at all, but weren't completely nice. Sez he to me : "This is your liver. It's not well," or something along those lines.


    Well, in the dream, I examined this hunk of meat closely, and realized that it was indeed a rump roast rather than some f--king hippy-dream-representation of my 'inner health', and kicked his ass. My Liver is a big, misshapen bubbly fat-encrusted abomination that keeps functioning through sheer power of will, not a rump-roast with polite little black threads of icky-ness running through it.


    I reckon that dream was actually about the fact that I can't buy a decent freakin' steak in this country.

    September 12, 2001

    Crap

    Crap. Reblogger has lost all comments made so far. This means you, G! Please repost if you care to...thanks. It'll help with the eventual book and incredible fame that comes as a result.

    Need hosting? Emptybottle.org is hosted by and recommends Dreamhost. They're swell!