301!

Thank you, BHW.

Now, if there were only about 699 more of you... :-/

I know I've done 7*2 votes so far (2 computers, 7 days - more more ! what about you readers - help us out here

Me, I've voted about 6 times.

It appears we ae picking up the slack of others...

It's about time they joined in the fun...

RJ, this is probably the only thread you'd say that on, isn't it?

And I have also voted 10 times (5 times 2 computers). So who's not voting?

I've voted once a day. There seems to be very few people in the political section since the election. The music section, the 100 guitarists thread and the Michael Phelps thread seem to get all the comments. Perhaps if someone went to those threads and left a comment and then said 'oh, btw, vote for this site to keep this thread going and if it wins, maybe Michael will show up and take off his shirt for you!'

Wow. With the confessions of multiple voting by BCers, it now appears the actual number of votes by different individuals might be up to something like six or seven.

PS: RJ, is 'winning' this "poll" part of your fantasy that someday -- writing for this site will be a vital component of your resume?

~ahahah

319 as of this writing. Several of them are mine, but I couldn't vote from work at all yesterday -- the site kept telling me I'd already voted, in spite of the fact that I hadn't.

I have voted twice - and will try to do so from home with a different IP - the problem is (and it always is with these types of things) that Blogcritics is made up of what I like to consider REAL WRITERS, WITH REAL LIVES, AND REAL PRIORITIES, unlike many of the readers (and writers) of the other so-called "A-List" bloggers. Also, the people who come to Blogcritics who are also a "blogcritic" aren't a bunch of thumb-sucking, navel-gazing, nose-picking, ass-grabbing, hand-screwing, auto fellators - they are people looking for interesting content about culture - rather than one over-inflated, bloated ego, meglomanical asslicker's personal opinion on any stupid thought that comes dribbling out of their pea-sized brain.

You know what, while I am on the subject I have a few things to get off my chest about the blogosphere in general.

This may be hurtful to some of you, so feel free to either a.) avert your eyes or b.) assume it doesn't apply to you.

The blogosphere, while being totally cool and neato and loads of fun isn't REAL LIFE - it's just a community of people who are either looking for ways to wile away the hours on their bosses dime, seek validation for their meager and oft-times pathetic existence, glom onto someone whom they deem as their leader or just plain blow off steam - but it isn't and I REPEAT isn't - a replacement or a substitute for a real life.

Just because you get 5000 hits a day on your blog, doesn't mean your boss, spouse, friends, children, the guy you cut off this morning or the average joe walking down the street thinks that your poo poo doesn't stink, or that you don't have bad breath, dandruff or whatever ails you. You are still just a person, no better than the rest of us.

While I am sure this harsh screed only applies to a very, very small portion of actual Blogcritic members, it does apply in abundance to a the vast majority of bloggers.

I quit my blog because it became a tedious grind, I was tired of the trolling and unwilling to accept the occasional praise, but most of all I realised that it robbed me of something very precious - MY FUCKING REAL LIFE.

I am all for blogging, mind you, I think it's a great medium for the novice to the expert writer, but this whole culture that has developed around it (which was inevitable because we are as a species are rather simple and predictable) is annoying and absurd. Junior high was more interesting and enlightening.

I mean for crissakes, some of these bloggers think they are demi-gods in their teenie, tiny sphere. That is a bile-inducing, nauseating thing to watch.

THAT alone is why Blogcritics is so unique and well-done - no one is the "primadonna blogger" and it only exists as a result of the cooperation of the whole and the force and will of someone who doesn't try to be some kind of egohead.

So, by not winning, in a way, that means we are winning - in the words of someone famous "any club that would have me is a club I wouldn't wish to belong to" or something like that.

Sorry RJ for my lengthy spew - but it needed to be said.

Also, the people who come to Blogcritics who are also a "blogcritic" aren't a bunch of thumb-sucking, navel-gazing, nose-picking, ass-grabbing, hand-screwing, auto fellators - they are people looking for interesting content about culture - rather than one over-inflated, bloated ego, meglomanical asslicker's personal opinion on any stupid thought that comes dribbling out of their pea-sized brain.

Hey, speak for yourself, sweetie.

;-)

ok, i voted again today. that'd be the 5th time (i think).

man, some of those other nominated blogs are borrrrrrrrring!

seriously.

Well, I did preface it with "this may not apply to you" :)

How about vote swapping. Vote for Polstate here and I'll vote for Blogcritics.

Oh wait, I already did - but only three times.

VOTE FOR POLSTATE :)

If you need some sort of certificate about how you're the "bestest", there are numerous clip-art templates available.

Is there money in this? How much? And what do I get?

Otherwise just piss off with this waste of time. What is this mania in the States with awards and justification for being useless?

You do things because they are worth doing, not because you expect to be recognized. If you are doing what you do mainly for recognition, you must have some sort of decaying inner life. And no, they don't make an ointment for that.

So, unless you are going to pay me, I won't be participating in this horrid sham.

Good points all,Jim. Very Buddhist like,
philosophically speaking that is.

Most of my teachings about the Buddha come from Lobsang Rampa, who teaches us about the path by making it all up.

And the Tibetian Book of the Dead is your best defence against evangelical hicks (chases them away real fast, I tell you what). That, and Tiger-Crane Style King-Fu and the five point palm-exploding heart technique.

Jim, I know that neither Eric nor I give a flaming cat's tail about the contest, except that nobody likes coming in last place. That's all we ask, is that we not be in last place.

Heck, with as many contributors as we have, it shouldn't be an issue, but whatever.

Now Jim, while I agree with you about the whole "rotting inner life" thought about all the other bloggers who think their virtual poo poo doesn't stink - I agree with Phillip - there isn't one good reason we can't make a reasonable showing - you know, enough that says "we aren't a bunch of losers" but not to the point where it says "WE ARE DESPERATE FOR VALIDATION, PLEASE LOVE ME, GOD PLEASE SOMEONE LOVE ME FOR CRYING OUT LOUD" like some other so-called "culture blogs".

All I am saying, is give peace a chance.

I don't think winning is about validation (unless you are Joe Scarborough or Ann Coulter ranting about the Passion of the Christ and the Oscars)

Winning though, would increase traffic, wouldn't it?

Like I said before though, it seems the political left isn't blogging anymore, but the political right is, and that might be why all the high scorers are right wing sites. When I go to atrios or someplace like that, atrios is still putting up news but the comment section now reads like high school gossip. It's not even about the threads anymore.

It might be late in the game now, but I still think that bc's support needs to come from the music/video people. They seem to dominate the topics now.

Perhaps if they were reminded that increased traffic to this site (by winning) would increase traffic to their own sites..??
I go to two other group blogs (both gay related, neither nominated) and the level of conversation I'm coming across, all over the blogosphere is pretty much in line with what Dawn is saying and with what Mac Diva said before she left (she lamented that there wasn't enough intellectualism EVERYWHERE in the blogosphere). Damn, I was a commenter forever, when I got my own blog it seems like everybody else bailed out. Now it's nothing but gossip, chit chat and time wasting. Is there some trend here that's bigger than this site in general? It seems so.

What I want to know is why are we competing in a worthless contest which is a useless metric? Advertisers don't give a rat's ass about awards or votes, because they are meaningless, which is why so many advertisers create awards and contests. They are good for gathering mostly meaningless data, but useless for actually doing promotion or setting rates. They don't generate traffic, nor do they validate it,

From a marketing point of view, such contests denigrate the value of a site's content, and they don't build a unique selling proposition, because the brand basis is so diluted.

But if you want to be Homer Simpson winning the best Nuclear Power Plant Model contest for children, go ahead. I won't go all Grimey on you.

When you put it that way Jim, I can't say as I disagree with you - this contest doesn't really MEAN anything, whether we were to win or lose, but if you are nominated for something because you are recognized for having done a good job, I guess it's human nature to want to at least do well.

What I am growing to loathe about the blogosphere is that it is less about an exchange of ideas than a gossip session or a therapy session between the blogger and their adoring fans.

example:

Blogger: "I think the sky is red"

commentors: "Oh yes, it is the most lovely hue of maroon."

"You are the most observant human being who has ever spoken in the history of alltime forever and always.

blogger: "Yes, I know, tell me more."

Commentors: "WE LOVE YOU MORE THAN LIFE ITSELF."

Blogger: "You don't really mean that do you."

Commentors: "Oh yes, we do."

Voice of dissent: "Um the sky is actually made of particulate matter refracting off the earth's atmosphere and that gives it the appearance of a blue through the wavelengths the human eye can see"

Blogger: "You trollish asshole, how dare you question me. Sick 'em adoring masses."

Commentors: "Burn the witch, Burn the witch how dare you question our beloved master, you will now die ARRRGGGGGHHHHHH!"

And then the four horses of the apocolypse appear and the world implodes in on itself.

Or something like that.

Actually Dawn, Ed McMahon and Publisher's Clearing Whorehouse discovers blogs and tells you that you are a winner over and over and over ...

Since it has been established for several years that traffic for web sites obeys a power-law distribution (based on Christaller's geographic models from the 50s) any number of sweep-stakes are more than pointless.

Now if somebody could give me winner of the past two years in this category, and the change in their traffic in the next six weeks of the award, and how much differential there is from their median traffic for the year. Well, that might be something.

Hello? Anybody?

Yah, I thought so, just bullshit all the way down.

well, in regards to the example in comment 22, I've actually never encountered anything so pathetic (until yesterday on another group blog).

Jim, you say that awards don't increase traffic, if they truly don't, then they are pretty meaningless, like the gold watch your corporation may give you on retirement (along with a notice that your benefits will expire soon). To me, they would be about increased traffic rather than a pat on the back.

I think the fact that there are enough of us who continually come to the site and post/comment regularly would be the biggest pat of all. But not like in a pathetic way like Dawn describes, because we certainly don't all pander to each other here. More like a family/community way because we all enjoy the content.

Steve, the point isn't about what I claim, but what the awards folks claim. If your award increases traffic (or if you may pay real money, in which case, yes, just give'er) then give evidence. Otherwise, you are just bullshit.

But it seems the dexter tendency seems to think the entire point of existence is to just participate in contests without any expectation of performance, consequences or results. Because you aren't supposed to pay attention to actual metrics. Just the pageant.

Ohh, look shiny!

I think, you know, a little bit of fun? That's still allowed?

Though that ecosystem crap seems demeaning in the extreme ("wriggly fish?" "Great mammal?", "ectoplasmic splooge?")

To answer a question above, with, I think, the correct answer - The Weblog awards are hosted by a right-wing - to use the term above - site and Wizbang's readers did most of the nominating, I'm guessing. So the voting and the nominations don't lean but fall, predominately that way.

Just the way it is. Still doesn't mean much. Does everything have to? And isn't that Buddhist thought, too?

I mean, you go down that path of "It doesn't matter so why bother?" and you quickly paint yourself into a corner. Really, I'm not too sure why I responded to you Jim, I know it doesn't really matter.

Nevertheless, I did. Boy, I must be a l-o-s-e-r

L

(Man, wish I'd saved some of these "profound" thoughts for a post that mattered)

Temple: recycling. Just take the characters you used in the above post, and rearrange them into something meaningful and useful. Just don't ask us to vote for it. Because voting is pointless unless it is tied to a consequence.

Use your letters to review a king-fu movie.

Of course "king-fu" is a sub-set of "gong-fo" which deals with shrubbery (y'know the part in "Crouching Tiger ..." where they go about in the trees?

as stated above, the meaningful element is not coming in last, which we aren't, but our tally is still pathetic

There's no good reason why we shouldn't be wiping the floor with all these other punks. Screw monetary awards or traffic or prizes, do you want to be beat by these nobodies?

Where's your competitive spirit? Let's kill them all, I say, and let Allah sort 'em out.

And screw a bunch of pinko babble about "red" skies and stuff when you should be VOTING. Can't you leftwingers give it a rest just once in a while long enough to root for the home team?

Go, Team Blogcritics! We RULE!!!

Can't you leftwingers give it a rest just once in a while long enough to root for the home team?

Al, except for Jim, we've all said we've been voting, and have given ample praise to this site. Can you rightwingers not apply blanket transference for once?

I have put in about 5 votes, and am going to drop another one right now. We need to get this link back to the top of the page. I had already forgotten about it.

Maybe even Eric could put up a 'splash screen' java type thing when peopled entered the site.

I believe Buddha once said:

"Blogging...

...is graffitti pissed on the walls of some back-alley far off the information highway;

...has the shelf life of mouldy bread dipped in warm buttermilk in July;

...is talking to oneself under the delusion that someone actually gives a shit as to what one says;

...amounts to a word gleaner regurgitating the regurgitated;

...is a deluded sacred cow endlessly chewing digital cud;

...is like an amateur magician showing an imaginary dog an imaginary card trick -- and receiving imaginary applause from an imaginary audience."

I heard him, Shark :)

That's it. My navel awaits.

Steve S- I was mostly thinking about Carruthers. If the shoe don't fit. Also, that was kind of a joke, not really a serious political argument.

Remember, vote early and vote often.

Al, what in the friggin' hell are you talking about "red skies" and pinko babble shit?

Are you losing your mind?

Al, a major signifier of sham systems (corporations, fraternal orders of friends of ours, republics, bridge clubs, high school glee clubs, marxist-leninist collectives and so on) is the relentless focus on process and procedure to the detriment of all else, especially outcome and consequences.

You, sir, are nothing more than a Bolshevist. And if you send somebody after me with an ice-pick, I will not be in Mexico City.

An ice pick, Carruthers? Would that you should simply face assassination. No, I think not. You will first learn to LOVE Blogcritics, truly to love Blogcritics.

You needn't try to fake it, hoping for the sweet release of death, for we will know, and it will be the worse for you.

Blogcritics are watching you.

Al, you and Jim are both registered BlogCritics. You are implying that you speak for 'the team'. While I wanted us to win, and I did vote, I'm a lefty but not a pinko, I don't believe in such rubbish as 'let's kill them all and let Allah sort them out', and just about 99.99% of the other silliness that you type.

What I'm taking issue with here is your insinuation that it's you AND BlogCritics 'keeping an eye on Jim'. Why don't you neo-cons realize that the rest of the world has their eye on you?

I happen to think that when Jim isn't speaking vitrol, he happens to have some great reality based fact. And I don't dismiss his vitrol as nonsense like you and other conservatives/libertarians on this site do. If he was alone in his sentiment, I might, but he happens to be speaking what probably 4 or 5 hundred million other citizens of this planet ALSO tell us. Perhaps someday a lot of us will take our head out of the sand long enough to really listen. Until then I only think the sentiment that creates terrorists will increase. God knows the hatred will.

Hey! Hey! Taking care while using the generalizations applies to you too, Steve. *This* libertarian is *not* a neo-con!

"ask not what your blog can do for you ..."

Perhaps I should have worded it differently. The term "neo-con", when used above was meant to apply to a smaller group of people than the next paragraph, mentioning "conservatives/libertarians" was meant to apply to.

Sorry I missed this, I was on vacation all last week. Away from a computer and a cell phone...man was it great!

Get drunk and party !!!

Steve, are you perhaps just a WEE BIT humor impaired? How seriously do you think it's meant when someone wants to "kill 'em all" when talking about an internet poll?

Also, I hate to have to be QUITE so obvious, but this stuff here with Carruthers is kind a a male bonding thing. Somehow I doubt that me busting chops on Jim will generate more terrorists. And if it does, we've got plenty of bullets.

In short Steve, don't be such a humorless WUSSY.

Sorry Al, I guess a visit to your website, reading the things you have written in the past (not the website you link to here, but your Culpepper log), where you rant against Jews, African Americans, etc. was still fresh in my mind. Yes, I suppose Fred Phelps or David Duke has a sense of humor too, but I'm unlikely to be able to see it. Bias I guess.

Really, Steve, your shitty accusations of racism and comparisons to infamous bigots are not only completely unfounded, but particularly out of place in the light context of this article.

It is particularly dishonest to accuse me of "ranting against African Americans." That's a particularly disingenuous tactic where anyone who takes issue with ANY black person, are then called a racist. Very clever "logic."

Accusing ME of all people of ranting against Jews, however, is just plain nuts. If anything, I'm more pro-Jewish or at least more pro-Israeli than most Jews.

Now, I'm sure I have my blind spots, and I'm certainly not above criticism. Really though, I'd prefer if the criticism were undertaken with a little more spirit of openess and fair mindedness. Thanks.

Al, your search engine is not working, and the link to your writings as a college student seems to be missing. You did make a reference in those writings to how Christians should not be assisting/acknowledging Jews in any way, shape or form, do you remember your reasoning why and do you know to what I am referring? Could you point out that article to me here, since it seems to have disappeared?

Your tribute to racist Randy Weaver, and your listing of the NAACP under 'Scoundrels and Damned Fools', in your sidebar are just two of the most immediate ones that come to mind in terms of what I am talking about. I haven't the time to go back and point out more.

Yes, this thread has taken a turn into a direction neither of us cares to go, what I wanted to take issue with was your lumping in of 'pinkos' with all left wingers, your implication that BlogCritics is allied with your ideology, etc.

If you are 'male bonding' with Carruthers, is he aware of that? If so, forgive me, I have never seen such an unusual male bonding before, and I thought I had seen the whole gamut, from heterosexual machismo to master/slave, but to each his own.

We both do agree with the original sentiment of 'yea! BlogCritics' though.

I'd always thought Al sounded like Eric Cartman, and then I saw his video, and he looks like Eric Cartman. Now, he's behind a campaign to have us vote for either a Turd Sandwich or a Big Giant Douche, just like Eric Cartman on South Park.

And so far, fat-ass has stayed on-message as Eric Cartman. So give him as much attention as you would any other card-board cartoon character.


And for those taking notes, my reference to him being a Bolshevist was a reference to the assassination of Leon Trotsky in Mexico City by agents of Stalin, notice, he didn't deny his totalitarian tendencies. Next thing you know, he'll be doing surveillance of Iraq with his camera phone in the bath.

Steve, around this household, we refer to it as "Pissed and Vinegar".

I happen to think that when Jim isn't speaking vitrol

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Steve, I apologize for the poor working of the internal search engine at morethings. Alternately, use Google. Just add morethings plus whatever terms you're searching for.

I can see where you're getting the Jew thing, though. I might gently suggest, however, that this reflects not paying attention to the context. Here's the main page for my BSU college God and Country columns. Note that, as is clearly explained on the front page, the column was written in character as a fundamentalist Christian.

You're looking for column #7, on Christians and Jews. They're all still right there, and not going anywhere.

The rest of your criticisms, however, are really ill founded, particularly regarding Randy Weaver. I do not care that Randy Weaver has distasteful or bigtoted attitudes. He was not violent, and went away quietly from the people he didn't like.

My simple and obvious point is that it was totally WRONG and unacceptable for federal agents to set him up for a petty and unconstitutional gun charge, and then murder half his family- regardless of any distasteful personal opinions.

Indeed, I have been repeatedly criticized for saying anything in Weaver's defense on exactly these same grounds. How can you defend a racist? It's a perfect example of left wing fascism to see how some think that mere bad attitudes justify such a massacre.

Criticizing the NAACP does not constitute saying anything about black people as a race. This specific organization has shown me nothing but demagoguery and cheap Democrat Party partisanship for some years now. I do not apologize for criticizing this corrupt organization.

Also, I would bet that Carruthers does not take my Blogcritics-as-Big-Brother comments as an attempt at intimidation. Yes, Jim is a pinko peace-puke Canuck with beady little eyes and a head so full of lies, but we like him anyway and trust him to get a joke. After all, Canada IS the home of Terence and Philip.

Really, it doesn't take some involved homosexual slave/master nonsense to understand this. Haven't you ever busted chops on your buddies, or played the dozens or anything?

Really, it doesn't take some involved S&M nonsense to understand this

of course not. That is not what I said. I said I've seen all kinds of weird male bonding, thought I had seen it all, but you have shown me a new kind of weirdness.

Terrance and Philip went Hollywood, there's only so many times you can pull that finger. These days we're all about Ricky, Julian and Bubbles. Mostly because they know the real Xmas spirits.

Of course, Jim, I enjoy and encourage the Cartman comparisons.

Indeed, one of the proudest moments of my senate campaign was seeing my commercial during exactly this douche vs turd episode of South Park, which aired the week before the election during the last game of the World Series. On Indianapolis cable, it cut directly from my copyright ad to Cartman in his suit and tie, going door to door urging the citizens to support the Turd Sandwich. I was highly pleased by this.

Further, since the election I have corresponded with one supporter from Indianapolis who first heard of me specifically from seeing this specific airing of my ad. He was impressed enough to hunt down a videotape to record the repeat with my ad a couple of hours later.

He was impressed enough to hunt down a videotape to record the repeat with my ad a couple of hours later.

That's a little creepy.

Yeah, but a lot of fun!

Al, that article you point to about the "Jewish" problem reads like a steaming pile of horsecrap.

Yes, those dirty Jews learned their lesson during the Holocaust didn't they?

What a fucking nutjob thing to write.

You are a sick, twisted person. Also, the JEWS didn't kill Christ - so quit spouting that shit already. Rejecting Jesus as their messiah fell in line with their own religious beliefs - it's creeps like you who perpetuate anti-Semitism.

Sorry Dawn, I missed that last comment at the time.

And you seem to have missed the point of the column, and the whole God and Country thing. Again, it is written in character as a fundamentalist Christian- as is very clearly stated.

But the point of it is NOT what I think about Jews, but rather what the Bible says. Read the column again, and leave ME out of it. The Bible itself seems to pretty strongly indicate that Jews who do not accept Jesus are wicked.

According to the New Testament - not Al Barger or Mel Gibson in or out of character - it was the Jews who demanded Jesus' death.

You can get pissy with ME, but that's just shooting the messenger.

Seems like someone really read their bible or better still took the movie Passion of the Christ to heart.

May I recommend Passion of Jew made by the South Park guys?

Oh yes, the Passion of the Jew rocks most righteously. Casting Gibson as a crazy masochistic version of Daffy Duck was inspired.

Note that even in their unsympathetic portrayal of Gibson, he was not in fact promoting anti-Semitism. Cartman was determinedly inserting it himself, and had legions of Christians following him only because they didn't get his true intentions.