Flog the Blog: A Call to Arms for the Greatest Blogging Generation

By last count, we were roughly 25 votes out of first place in the ABA competition. Twenty-five votes stand between us and ever-lasting glory. Who among us can now claim that we have done enough when we are mocked from across the Internet?

It is clear that there are pockets of untapped votes that are waiting to be harvested. There are cousins once removed and step nieces. They are not really proxies but people yearning to establish this special tie with you. To assist you, I have enclosed a family map:

The ABA competition is also a good time to renew relationships with former boyfriends and girlfriends, so long as the breakup was amicable and would not offer another opportunity to degrade you. Then there are your family doctors, newspaper delivery kids, and baristas. Have you taken every opportunity to solicit votes? It is a small matter during that proctology exam to mention between coughs that there is an interesting competition going on over at the ABA site.

Last week, Buddha is Laughing’s selection of Henry V was selected to inspire the troops. This week I had to go with Vince’s selection of Bluto. Just as we didn’t quit when the “Germans bombed Pearl Harbor,” we cannot afford to quit now — not unless you want your kids growing up speaking Satyricon:

114 thoughts on “Flog the Blog: A Call to Arms for the Greatest Blogging Generation”

  1. But every male is a sexist to some regardless if they ever open their mouth’s. Just like some people are bigots through action rather than words. Some women don’t like men and some men don’t like women and nothing you can say or do will ever change their minds. Some arguments are worth continuing some will never end.

    As far as patty c is concerned when she made up her mind about anything she was exceedingly rude and would hijack a thread in doing so. She had some rather unkind things to say about almost any regular on here that came to this site after she anointed herself empress non gratis. She eventually was asked by the professor not to post for a while like 30 days. Well it was really more like banned for 30 days. She was attacking Buddha and myself unmercifully on or about September 11 and 12, 2009.

  2. Mike,

    I stand by everything I said. As to Patty, that info was to Elaine, for her question. I have defended you and you have defended me on several occasions. I will stop now as I feel further discussion will be harmful. You have stated your position and I have stated mine.

  3. Jill,
    In your posting the link below also included in that thread are two comments clearly defending you against Patty C, who you know I was more in line with politically and with whom I had a good cyber relationship.


    Now Buddha and I are cyber friends and in truth Buddha is closer to you politically Jill, than he is to me, so your statement:

    “I believe you see nothing wrong with this in Buddha’s case because you like him”

    Is demonstrably incorrect by your own citation. I call it as I see it and I think that while you and Buddha may have disagreed on an issue, his disagreement with you was not sexist. One could make a case, knowing how Buddha is by his own admission be over the top in argument, that by treating you as he would anyone else, his actions were the opposite of sexism.

  4. Jill,
    Your reply to me gives absolutely no examples of me being sexist, except to tell me i’m sexist because I don’t see Buddha’s
    “menacing” you in his posts. This amounts to you saying I am sexist because I disagree with you. It is a blanket statement and one I take umbrage with. If you are calling me a sexist then I feel I have the right to at least have clear examples of my sexism given, without them being muddled by my supposedly not understanding what you see as Buddha’s sexism. As far as you lecturing me on sexism and its’ manifestations I may not be female, but my antennae work very well when it comes to bigotry.
    Your tactics in this discussion are not only hyperbolic but you have admitted same.

    “You are correct to point out that I should have qualified my statement to most as it is not true of all men, by any means.”

    If you will notice in my statements I have not attacked you in any way, except to take exception to your characterization of me. I point this out so that if this discussion continues you and others will clearly understand who is doing the attacking in this exchange and why I think you are wrong in doing so.

Comments are closed.