Genius! Acting! classic Joe, thanks. I believe I make out a dim outline of myself somewhere in there.

...the crowd goes wild!!!

I should not 'get this', the sad part is that I do and that says soooooooooooo much!

Very funny!

How is it possible that this guys knows more than I do. As a blogger that runs in direct contrast to what I know. That is that I know everything there is to know and subsequently more than this guy. I would be confused by this, but as a blogger, I don't get confused. I know more than you.

:-)

So, Joe wrote an entry that is more than a sentence long. Amazing! Too bad only a few folks at Blogcritics will see it, since no one reads his so-called blog. But then . . . there is nothing to read.

Cool, thanks for the link!

You're welcome, considering it is probably the only one your blog will get this month.

Crushing. Why the bitterness?

Why the harshing on Joe's mellow? Or did I miss some humorous satire because I am the dumbest blogger ever?

Issues, up close and personal...

Dawn, I discovered that some of the mouthiest people around here have practically non-existent blogs, including Joe and Chris Arabia. (See his stats here.) Poor, unread and bitter Joe wrote this nonsense as an attack on me. Suffice it to say those who can blog do and those who can't attack those who can.

The other nincompoop's stats are here. The above link is to his sorry excuse for a blog.

Seems to me that Blogcritics is in danger of becoming a dumping ground for people who don't really blog but want attention like Joe and Cross Chris.

Suffice it to say those who can blog do and those who can't attack those who can.

Oh, the irony!

Another member of Club Unread pipes up.

The best tactic to disprove someone's claims against you is, of course, to continue doing them.

You don't get it, do you Diva? This isn't a popularity contest for most of us. I think I'm like most of the people here - if you read my site, fine, if not, oh well. I'd love to know why it's so important to you, actually. You're really hung up on being popular, it seems. Too bad this isn't high school, where it might mean something for a short-while, anyway.

yesterday i discovered that mac had bungled typing her blog address so that the link over her BC comments doesnt work. today she tries--well, i dont know what she was trying to do--but she tried to link to some blog linking service and fumbled that and instead linked to my blog. that's 2.

she read this piece, about a blithering idiot of a blogger, and instantly claimed to be the subject. huzzah! a trifecta of stupidity!

i'm a nincompoop and that's ok,
i drool all night and i blog all day...

Well I figured there had to be some inside story as to the animosity.

Joe, now I ask you, why are you harshing Mac's mellow?

As for using stats to prove the validity of one's right to blog, I have a personal anecdote to that.

There was a time when I was enjoying all kinds of traffic and feeling rather smug about it. Some unknown (at least to me) wrote something nasty about me that I should have ignored, but didn't and it turned into a rather unpleasant exchange.

She wondered why I wasn't off scrubbing toilets - a job I was forced to do when my corporate job was liquidated and in turn, I wondered why she shouldn't fuck off into the obscurity from whence she came.

Of course I used her lowly stats as my excuse for being a bitch. (I don't know what her excuse was.)

Some of my regular readers privately and politely told me I was an asshole for mentioning someone's stats as a point of ridicule, and they were right.

I now dine on the proverbial humble pie, as my stats are, well in the toilet.

Mac Diva, why should you concern yourself with other bloggers' stats? Some people just like to write. That's like saying people shouldn't keep a diary because they're the only ones who will read it. It just seems a little petty that the only thing you can use against these people is that they don't have a lot of readers.

I don't give a wet fart who is more popular or who links to whom. All I care about is what someone has to say. There's a lot of infantile posturing going on around her, but I won't take sides.

I'll suggest only this: If you want to measure the readership of a blog, the only links that matter are ones to SiteMeter, Extreme, or some other similar service.

My SiteMeter and Extreme links are not password-protected, and I cannot think of any reason why any non-commercial site's would be. I'm open to hearing why such statistics should be kept private, though.

A wet fart huh Phil? I hope you don't mind if I add that to my acerbic lexicon?

I didn't start it, Dawn. One of the biggest egos (and most unread people) around here, Cap'n Ken, attacked Mac-a-ro-nies, claiming it is not worth reading. The rest of the BBBBs rushed to join in. I posted the data to show what kind of people were attacking a good blog -- those incapable of producing one themselves.

And, no, I don't think it is a mere coincidence a bunch of Right Wing white guys who can barely write a readable sentence collectively are always attacking a minority woman blogger who is smart and well-informed. These guys are bigots.

I can understand wanting to have readers - I have my own friggin' ad right over there on the left. I want readers. Readers are good - you know you have an audience, and it can help form your writing. I just don't care all that much if people don't find what they want there. It's my site. I write what I want, when I want. You don't like it, you go elsewhere. I don't have enough of an inferiority complex to obsess over my stats - and especially not to obsess over everyone else's.

But I liken blogs to music, as I do everything - it's not always the most popular things that are really the best.

so smart she can't type a web address. i was wondering when she'd resort to portraying herself as the victim.

-- nincompoopy pants

Oh, Joe, you forgot to include the racial issues. When backed into a corner, never forget that most disagreements on the internet are REALLY about race issues. Everyone that disagrees with you is most definitely a Right Wing neo-Confederate.

Dew, you are most welcome to use anything I say, of course. I'm glad you like that one. I've got a few others, but I don't tend to roll them out in public where they go on the record. ;-)

Dawn, your comments about mocking others' stats are excellent. Fortunately, I've struggled up from the bottom myself, never having an association with a high-profile site (before Blogcritics, of course, which has struggled up somewhat itself) to boost my stats, so the climb from 100 daily visitors when I started with BC to 400-450 daily now was a long one.

Also against me is the fact that I'm generally a uniter, not a divider, and gentle posts don't tend to draw nearly as much attention as divisive ones.

I used to read your blog quite regularly, but then you stopped posting quite regularly. I guess that should be a lesson to me - I hadn't posted in November before today. I need to get back on the stick, but I like to wait until I have something worth saying, and I just don't get as angry as some of y'all. ;-)

Mac,

I can barely write a coherent sentence, let alone read one and understand it so I am not the target audience of anyone smart.

I was just saying that stats aren't as important to me anymore. They make me depressed. I go days without looking because I am not allowed to take anti-depressants while pregnant.

Now, gentlemen, aren't we forgetting how to be nice to ladies? Let's kick Mike Larkin's ass instead. He makes me feel all crampy and annoyed. Which means I am going to be a bitch to Eric again - and do we want to see him get cranky - AGAIN?

Oh, cut it out, Dawn. You do fine and, most importantly, you maintain a viable blog. The people who have become constant harassers of the real contributors at Blogcritics don't do that. They are here to get attention, period. Remember the kids in school who clowned for attention, but were always having to repeat and probably never graduated? That's them. I don't know how one controls freeloaders at sites anyone can join, but the issue needs to be looked at.

I'd love to hear what the definition of a real contributor to this site is when "most of the people" on this list weren't worthy of this distinction (see comment #32).

My take on a "real contributor" to any website, not just this one, is exactly what the words say: anybody who really contributes something besides spam, whether it be comments, articles, reviews or any combination thereof ;)

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The people who have become constant harassers of the real contributors at Blogcritics don't do that.

Again: oh, the irony!

I think Maestro may have coined the term "blog viability". I'll have to check the archives.

Hmm, the guys who attack the nastiest person on this site are bigots, but the only one who ever mentions race is Mac.

Maybe the "attacks" have to do with something else. Is it race? No, I don't think so. It's usually after you respond with something acidic.

It is fucking tiring. I hope you find my home blog acceptable enough for me to be here. What a fucking joke.

It doesn't. (See here.) Reads like it is written by a not at all bright eighth-grade boy.

Diva please! You shouldn't be so crappy with all these other guys. I, Al Barger, am supposed to be the official White Devil of Blogcritics. It's a role I was born to play. Leave them other fellas alone, and come attack ME.

What's the matter, don't you hate me anymore?

Thanks Al, but I can stand up for myself. Come on Mac, can you call me a racist now? How about a bigot. I sooo wanted to hear you say that to me, and you say it to everyone else, so what makes me so special that I can't be included?

Maybe you didn't get the point of my comment about my home blog. I didn't mean that you should go there and critique it, although I certainly don't mind. The point is that it really doesn't matter. Do you get that yet? Nobody cares. If I get to see a fellow BlogCritics site and it is good, cool, but other than that, all that matters is what they post up here.

This all just makes me wonder who you think you are. Do you not put your pants on one leg at a time? Does your feces not fill the bathroom with the typical stench? Do you spend all day on a throne with people waiting on you hand and foot?

Or are you a miserable, sensitive person who thinks the world is out to get them? That's the way you act around here. It's true that Al was public enemy number one for you, but since "the incident" you treat everyone as if they were Al or in cahoots with Al. It's not fair to lump everyone together like that. Those kinds of generalizing habits, while not anywhere near as destructive as racism, are eerily similar to the bigotry claim you throw around here like it was a "hello." If you continue to cry wolf with the racism and bigotry claims it makes you sound racist against white males.

Finally, you may write more proficiently than I, but since when is that a contest worthy of discussion on this site?

I sure as hell don't want to pick a fight with Mac, as she can kick my ass down the street (although at this point that would be a full on aerobic exercise for her) I do want to say a couple of things that sort of make me feel bad.

Joe - of Shortstrangetrip (who by the way hardly ever comments on my blog anymore) has always been a really nice and humorous guy and I have never ONCE heard him say anything remotely creepy, racially biased or mean. That's not to say he is a wuss or anything, or that he isn't capable of being a jerk, I have just never witnessed it and he and I have been aware of each other for a long time.

Craig, a person I have spent time with in person and like very much is like the last person to waste a bigot or racist out Craig, a really nice and sweet guy who is the extremely judicious and tempered when handing out comments. This is the first time I have ever seen him get pissy with anyone.

Mac, I know you feel uncomfortable with some of these dudes. But I find that if you give a little you get a little. I have had the harshest words with people during blog fights and ultimately there is some truth to be found in most of their assessments of me.

We just can't take ourselves TOO seriously or we will be deeply unhappy.

You are an excellent writer and a great thinker. You have much to contribute, but with great power comes great responsibility. Nobless Oblige. Teach by example, or something like that.

Dawn - Joe has had his digs on Mac Diva before (calling her "Mac Denial" for instance). I'm pretty sure that Craig has had his as well, but from my point of view: what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Well I can't argue with that statement.

Also, the above comment should read "waste a bigot or racist comment on, Craig"

Duh!

Actually, TDavid, I don't think I have ever had any problems with Mac Diva before. I like to argue, and discuss things, but the shit-throwing around here has really started to wear thin on me. I know that I disagree and argue with a lot of you, but calling someone a bigot and/or calling someone on their personal weblog seems stupid to me. This should be about the topics moreso than the people who are representing the points of view. The points of view are what makes this site great. If we get into attacking each other CONSTANTLY, this site becomes a very closed community where nobody but us will give two shits about it. Last time I checked, the goal was for this to be more of an open community with discussion on a variety of topics. When the subject of the site becomes the site it is bad for everyone.

Craig - I'm admittedly just playing the devil's advocate here (yikes, am I ripping a book from Barger?). I hear ya and honestly don't recall you flaming her, but besides dishing it out, she has taken a lot of heat, was my point. And memories can run short sometimes depending on one's perspective.

She has called too many of us bigots for it to have any hope of being considered valid for reasonable thinking people.

Frankly, I think that the minute these topic leave critiquing the article, review, work, etc, then the discussion is in danger of becoming personal.

Hopefully we all can agree on that, even Mac Diva.

Okay, this has inspired me to come clean, so to speak. I'm not really a typing fool, I'm not really a monster raving loonie, I don't really wear a toque, I've never seen a dead skunk in the middle of the road, I've never told anybody to kiss my hairy yellow butt, I can't tug on Superman's cape, I don't know what the secret is in the Caramilk bar, I've never thought about only the lonely, I haven't sniffed your underpants, I don't eat yellow snow, I've never smelled that smell, I'll do anything, but I won't do that.

What I do know is that anybody who believes what they read online is a big-ass fool.

spoken like a true enigma wrapped in a riddle

I know that I disagree and argue with a lot of you

I really do think of this site as a sort of family. We argue all the time, but that doesn't stop me from being perfectly civil. Like a family, we all argue and then move on. If it were really just anger, we'd all write each other off and ignore everything. I think most of the flaming that goes on is honest, but I also belief a lot of it is topic-oriented. For example, there was an awful lot of anger going on in the smoking-ban thread, but I don't see any reason to be unpleasant to anyone in that thread outside of it. We disagreed there, it doesn't mean we won't agree elsewhere. We should all adopt that policy - I think some do, but I mean everyone, Diva included. I've seen comments and posts from Diva I'd love to comment on, in a positive way, but because I know she'll jump down my throat immediately I don't even bother. She's just too volatile. I'd like it if she would let bygones be bygones, so I could too. I think we'd all like to see that, wouldn't we?

This is definately worth a re-read. We all need to realize what are the best ways to Blog, and PC Maestro does it best. Always has.