Some people have too much time on their hands
Some people want your head on a pike
It seems that blogger Ron Bynaert has both a lot of time on his hands and desperately needs attention. So he shall get some.
You can read his post at the link
Steve Gilliard is the World's Greatest Blogger
Well, Ron, first, this was a clever way to get my attention. I usually like flowers, but this has worked.
You know, I don't care what other people do on their blogs. I don't have time to worry. When I disagree in public, I place a comment and go on my way. When I have problems with their site, I send an e-mail.
What I don't do is waste my time denouncing them in print. Except when they start first.
Because I don't give a shit. If I cared, I could complain about a bunch of sites. I don't care. I have a site to run and a life to lead.
Now, let's be honest, no one cares what you write and we both know it, even with that Koufax Award nomination. We aren't talking Pulitzers here, are we? No one cares about your opinions about fair use, like they don't care about my opinions of fair use. You accuse me of stealing from Salon and that the stolen article doesn't matter anyway, but you're kind enough to link to me.
First, fair use is a vague standard and some sites republish whole articles. You call Smirking Chimp thieves? Truthout? Robert-Fisk.org. No? Then we both know what is going on is that you really have too much time on your hands. Instead of finding colors which don't hurt the eyes like green and orange, you're worried about how many words I use.
Please stop linking to me, since I obviously don't meet your standards for good blogging. You ever consider handing out awards to sites which meet your standards?
Second, since we're doing site critques, here's a friendly suggestion: you write too long. Ron, brevity is a good thing. I know, because I tend to write long. But you know, people lose interest.
They have to follow your thinking, and in your case, Ron, that's a bit hard. Because you really don't make your point quickly or interestingly. Despite the nomination.
But what do I know? I cut and paste and you were nominated for a Koufax Award for your writing. This site was nominated for best blog, but hey, some people take that far more seriously than I do.
I hope this meets your standard for fair use.
New York Times: Who's your daddy?
That would be us. The liberals. The ones who pay your bills. The ones who make you relevant. The ones who buy your paper and read you over the Internet.
This is a debatable idea. Since conservatives also use the Times to make their points
Speaking of the Internet, I got an e-mail today from email@example.com
(we go way back...what a character) that had a list of which articles "piqued" our interest last year: "the 10 Most Viewed NYTImes.com articles from 2004."
The Internet can speak? Oh, really? A tired cliche, but one uses what one must.
How many stories written by Judith Miller made the top 10? How many columns by best-selling non-fictioner Iraq War supporter Thomas Friedman or conservative icon William Safire or conservative rising star and consumate smirker David Brooks? Let me count again. The answer is none.
You know, you can assume your audience knows who these people are. Adding in the descriptions is gilding the lily, to use another cliche. Non-fictioner? Gotta watch those typos. I take a lot of shit for them.
Okay. So a story about sex trafficking did come in at number one. We're not taking credit for that one. Not as a whole, at least. I'm certain of one thing, though. The picture (tied to the story) that made the front page of The New York Times Magazine has probably gotten far more hits, but most of those hits were on Websites that you have to tap in "yes I agree" and your credit card numbers before you can view them. Or so they say...I, myself, have no knowledge of any of this...I just read about it in a Pete Townshend interview.
Uh, what are you talking about? A story on sex trafficking? I know you're trying to be clever, but ir's not working. Instead of saying exactly what you mean, you're trying to write cute and digging yourself into a hole. Because you're using too many words to say porn site and it took me a minute to figure it out. Why not just stop at the pay site reference? Oh yeah, are you joking about a teenage girl in sexual slavery? Boy, if you wrote clearer, people might really be offended. You have to use twice the number of words you need. And of course, obscuring the point you wanted to make. Which was that the woman used in the Times photo was exceptionally attractive. You might have actually said that, but why not use five words when one would do. And linking to the picture might actually have illustrated your point, but why do that when we have your words.
But in second place was Ron Suskind's "Without A Doubt" about Bush's Messianic ideas, which scared the hell out of us (too bad it didn't scare the whatever-the-heck-is-in-him out of him). Now just this story, alone, New York Times, being number two proves that we're your daddy, because we're the only ones running around worried that our President has traded in the Constitution for the Left Behind series.
Me. Use me. You really don't know how other people reacted. Many evangelicals might have liked that article. You're making an unfounded assumption, you know.You really are saying that only liberals care about Bush's use of religion and that isn't true.
(As Casey would say) Clocking in at number three is a front page story covering the Swift Boat Veterans. Not just any old story, but the one that contained "a series of interviews and a review of documents [that] show a web of connections to the Bush family, high-profile Texas political figures and President Bush's chief political aide, Karl Rove." Too bad no commercials were made about that story, then just us liberals wouldn't know the truth about the "for truth" crew. By the way, that story, written by Kate Zernike and Jim Ruenberg, is a must read (go google it...I'll tell you why I don't link directly to our misbehaving brat at the end of this post).
Tired writing is tired writing. Clocking in? Now really. How come you can't tighten this up. And you expect your readers to google one of the most important stories to your point? I know you rather link to me, whom you apparently hold in disdain, than the Times, even though a link would help your readers understand your point. Oh, Casey is Casey Kasem. Now I get it.
Ron, you seem to have good ideas, but you simply can't express them in a concise or clear manner. You kill your ideas in a sea of words. Just murder them. The object is not to show how clever you are, but to express ideas so other people understand them.
Instead of worrying about my use of articles, you might want to clean up your wordy writing and start clearing away the verbiage to make your points
Now it was nice that you were nominated for a Koufax award, but personally, I think they're useless. I know some people take awards seriously, but they nominated your writing, and you felt the need to announce this. Well, people like different things, and God knows I could use an editor, but really, they nomiated your writing and not Rude Pundit?
Now let's talk about Rude Pundit for a second.
Now, he writes long, all original, one article a day. But despite the language, he's quite a compelling writer because he actually gets to the point. Something, despite your Koufax Award nominated writing, you might want to try.
Oh, and that gets me to the point of using other people's words:
In that Malkin article, you quote from a report and I can't tell where your words, your sea of words, end and the quoted material begins. Which makes it hard to follow your Koufax Award nominated thoughts. I mean, maybe if you had quoted the article from the beginning of the piece and then went on to comment on it, people might have been able to follow your thinking. Maybe I'm just confused, but it seems a muddled mess to me.
See, Ron, I don't believe in writing words twice. If an article can make a point, why should I repeat it in my own words? Why should I waste the time? And if the article makes a point I can't add on to, why try? After all, these are professional writers and if their ideas are clear, my words won't be any better and may well be worse.
Because, quite frankly, while my methods may have flaws, yours leaves the reader confused and overwhemled by the sea of words for which you were Koufax Award nominated for.
Maybe if you did some cutting and pasting, people mught understand you point and be impressed with your ideas and the number of words you use.
You know, this site was nominated for those awards and if I could have, I would have withdrawn those nominations. Because I think awards are useless and a distraction. But some people need the boost, apparently.
Oh well, I think this should attract people to your blog, which really was the goal here, right.
posted by Steve @ 8:06:00 AM