Blogging The Weblog Awards 2005

Getty Images - Clockwise Top Left 'Yellow Dog' dubbed 'The Scream', The 'Show Me Some Love and Mean It' gorgeous 'Atlas Shrugs', WuzzaDem dubbed WuzzaDVD, All Things Beautiful dubbed 'The Explosion'

 

And this is how the results have faired  thus far in The Best New Blog Category @ The Weblog Awards.

The competition has been fierce and continues to be. Everyone would love to win, I mean that is the point isn't it? Well not quite. The 'Yellow Dog', dubbed 'The Scream' makes it perfectly clear that he is not interested in winning. The title of his post says it all: "Want To Do Something Important? Hint: It’s Not The Weblog Awards":

"I want to make something clear on the subject of these Weblog Awards that people seem to be getting so caught up with: I do not care if I win in the Best New Blog category." Now you are being  told the category the Yellow Dog is in just in case you did not know, with the url,  'cos how will you vote otherwise, huh?

"I thank all of you who have supported me and, as of this moment, who have me in the lead over a field overwhelmed with conservative finalists. Right-wing blog, WizBang, sponsors these awards and you can see it in the finalists selected. How the hell I slipped under that fence, I’ll never know." So now it's a kind of a going away speech, but just as you thought you were safe he comes back:

"But here’s the deal: I’ve seen some of you coming to my defense on the right-wing blogs where the Yellow Dog Blog is being attacked and, while I am touched and appreciative, I would rather you not waste your time doing this. For people like us, winning a war of words with a conservative is a hollow victory, similar to me walking into an old-folks home and winning the 80-and-up, arm-wrestling championship. Yes, I won, but what does it mean? Don’t waste your time with these people."

Ah O.K. well that was important, and now onto the bigger picture the "Want to do something important part", what could it be, well it must be really important, ummh, nothing to do with the Awards of course 'cos this is not about the Awards, and 'Yellow Dog' does not care about winning, so:

"Want to really piss them off and have an impact? Go to one of these sites and find a way to help take back the House and the Senate in 2006!"

O.K. so now Yellow Dog is channeling Howard Dean, and really thinks that the votes for the Weblog Awards are going to win the Dems back The House. Really? Well no of course not, he is simply drumming up the hype to get the votes. But no he can't be, 'cos he made it perfectly clear right at the beginning, this is nothing to do with the Awards, no nothing to do with the Awards, it's about something bigger. Bigger? Well yes bigger it's about winning back The House.

Ah, well that clears it up, if you vote for 'Yellow Dog', nicknamed 'The Scream', you stand a chance of winning back The House. Oohhh, well, that' s good then isn't it? Not much is asked of the readers. Voting for 'Yellow Dog' gets you in The House. Sounds right.

DON'T MISS READING ON AS WELL AS THE UPDATES.....

And now onto that really important matter to be discussed which has nothing to do with The Weblog Awards. Ummh, well, no:

"As to these particular awards, vote for me if you like, don’t vote for me – whatever. These awards are so flawed in how the finalists are chosen and, when you look at some of the sites nominated, it’s hardly a compliment to be in their company. There isn’t a conservative nominated for Best New Blog who can carry the metaphorical jock of Moxiegrrrl, Taylor Marsh or Pensito Review and you don’t see them in the running." Ahem well yes you are right thanks for the compliment Yellow Dog, I feel particularly honored to be in your company, your blog is ahem worthy of not being included, you are absolutely right.

And now onto the really important matter to discuss which has nothing to do with the Weblog Awards, ugh no, not yet, ah O.K. I am now anxiously starting to look at my watch:

"Finally, these “Awards” will be won by whomever spends the most time and effort pleading with people to go vote for them – and some of the lobbying by my competitors is downright pathetic – so what would a victory really mean?"

Ahem, yes you are right, and it works, which is why you are talking about it  ad nauseam, diligently  turning it into a partisan Dem vs, Con fight. But no, you are not lobbying to win the Award you are lobbying  to win back The House. Well, that's worth a little click each day isn't it? Subtle 'Yellow Dog', very subtle.

And now we move swiftly onto the more important issues at hand, ahem no, we don't:

"Hey, at least I have the comfort of knowing that there’s no way I’ll be nominated next year. And, unless a compelling reason to do otherwise comes up, I've said all I have to say about this pointless contest."

Ey? But what about talking about that ahem, you know really important matter, I mean the urgent pressing help needed to get the Democrats into office and remove the GOP – "that’s getting something done" isn't it. No? That's not it? 

Ah O.K. then so if we vote for YOU, we'll get the House back. Well all right then, lets do it for the Dems, for this great Nation of ours, for the land of the free and the home of the brave....ummhh. Vote 'Yellow Dog' into The House! Not that anyone would notice, Howard Dean will just not bark the same old way again.

So there we have our gracious leader of the contest, who does not want to compete, but cannot stop talking about it, is offended by Kevin Aylward's political leanings, and inherently his efforts in attempting to have bipartisanship within the contest. I for one, after this fiasco don't know why Kevin should bother to invite people who are simply going to be bitching about it the entire time, whilst they are winning something they loathe to participate in.

Next year simply seperate the Awards Kevin, and don't bother taking the trouble to invite people who don't appreciate it. I cannot bear to see Michelle Malkin lose to Daily Kos. It's painful to watch a good journalist who gives all to her fellow bloggers, in helping them to find their way, writes brilliant articles and likely loses to Daily 'Copy Paste My Every Title Reads Wanker Of The Day' Kos. (well it did last time I looked).

I for one, feel privileged to have been nominated, and to have made finalist. I have had a wonderful experience so far, meeting bloggers all around the Blogosphere, new readers who appreciate my blog, being encouraged by my Blogfather, and others who have acknowledged what I do, and I am chuffed to bits for being recognized within an industry that I am proud to be a part of.

I would love to win, and will do my best to try, and if I don't, I will have had the best time doing it.
I bow to my fellow bloggers in The Best New Blog Category, and may the best Man ahem Woman win, 'cos we all deserve to be here, and all have great blogs.

And so here are the results thus far. I shan’t put the numbers here, because they are changing by the minute, but the positions are and have been for a while the same. With the exception of ‘WuzzaDem’ overtaking The Yellow Dog for a short while, who has now regained his lead by some 400 points (now 1300 more than Wuzzadem, as of Monday Dec 12th):

Yellow Dog Blog

Wuzzadem

Atlas Shrugs

All Things Beautiful

Soldiers' Angel Holly Aho

Respectful Insolence

Glenn Greenwald

Decision '08

Basil's blog

The Countess

Riding Sun

Blogebrity

Common Sense Runs Wild

Merri Musings

Performancing

Paul @ Wizbang weighs in (Paul is not involved in the Weblog Awards):

Since everyone else is giving Kevin advice about the Weblog Awards, I figured I'd chime in. I propose a new rule... one that could be enacted effective immediately.

When an idiot finalist urges his readers to NOT vote for him but then links the voting to make sure they know EXACTLY where to go do it.... Kevin should call their bluff and they should be deleted from the poll.

If they really don't want any votes, we can have that arranged.... Likewise, if the award means that little to the idiot finalist in question, then certainly the idiot finalist won't mind being removed from the poll.

The hypocrisy is is tiresome...

"The Weblog Awards are a waste of time because they are done by a conservative blog.. So don't vote for me AT THIS LINK RIGHT HERE."

Kevin won't do it... He's nicer than me.

But I've played a little poker in my day and I'd pay 5 bucks if Kevin would just call their bluff. "

UPDATE: A blogger defends the 'Yellow Dog' and  attacks me writing a whole, ahem, black post, accusing me of being consumed by vanity, and blinded by wanting to win.

One of my readers Jessie responds below:

"It is very unbecoming to be nominated for an award and to respond by belittling the value of the award and making demeaning and insulting remarks about other nominees. Can you see how old Yellow Dogs behavior might wound the spirit of the awards which are meant to be uplifting and celebratory: meant to be fun. Has Yellow Dog considered the fact that the awards are a labor of love for those working hard to bring the project to fruition ? Yellow Dogs entire response is ungrateful and ungracious and unbecoming : It is also divisive and arrogant."

SUNDAY DEC. 11TH UPDATE

And all is well that ends well, Scribe from Subjective Scribe writes a very nice post with a more than gracious apology, and is immediately back on my Christmas card list, especially as he said he will vote for me. LOL. So in the words of a CBS News journalist who commented on one of my posts "I went to the Blogosphere to see a fight and civility broke out" :

"In the process of goading, I made some unfair, unreasonable and, in some cases, unfounded accusations against Alexandra and her blog All Things Beautiful. For that, I sincerely apologize. While I may not agree with Alexandra on many things, she does indeed have a decent blog and the artwork she displays on the blog is truly enjoyable to look at. I wish her and her blog well in this contest. Vote for All Things Beautiful, not based on partisan ideology but based on quality of content."

What Scribe did today by writing his post is pretty much unheard of. He made something happen which will stand the test of time, and is a credit to him and his ideology. If ever it caught on, it would make this world an infinitely better place.

I applaud him and wish him a very happy Third Advent.

FURTHER UPDATE: Unfortunately I spoke too soon, a declared 'friend' of Yellow Dog has come to the comments section below, to blatantly call me a liar. This you understand, is NOT Yellow Dog himself it is a 'friend' of Yellow Dog's.

I have politely told him what the rules of engagement were, and the ball is now in his court.

He responds with some more ad hominem accusations, the main one being that I am a liar. He looses his commenting privileges as I catch him calling me "a lying little bitch" on Jesus General, where he went to complain about me, at the same time as he was commenting here.

Damn revealing things those IP addresses....Bye Bob.

LATEST MONDAY DEC 12TH UPDATE ON THE ABOVE: Even though I had decided not to print the private emal from Bob Geiger which I had received a few days ago, and replied to, as I understood that if he wished me to make it public he would have commented publically; I do think that my readers should read the email I received from his relative Colt today, featured above:

"You are really an amazingly terrible person and not nearly as technically clever as you think you are.

You got one thing right (kinda). I'm not a "friend" of Bob's I'm a relative and I'm a good 1,500 miles away from him. Since you're so technically savvy I'm sure you know what a firewall proxy is don't you?  I sometimes do an SSH tunnel through Bob's network so that my traffic is encrypted and my employer can't see that I'm wasting time writing to people like you.

So, even though I can no longer comment there (since Bob won't bother with your lying butt any more) you have now lied about him AND blamed him for something he didn't do.  Your a real class act.  But I don't expect better from a Bush person. Keep digging deeper!

Don't worry, Im done with you too.

Colt"   

I thought it only fair, the terrible person that I am, to let you see Colt's parting letter.

Not a word about being discovered caling me "a lying little bitch" on the Jesus General thread, but then one cannot deny something written in black and white.

Bye Colt (via Bob's network....)

My reply to Colt's email:

"Are you — read: Bob and/or Colton — for real? Has your anger and frustration consumed you to such a degree, that you don’t even realize, that your renewed accusation of my having lied is so obviously misconstrued and utterly disingenuous in view of your very own detailed ‘explanation’ stated just one sentence earlier?  That your very ‘explanation’ makes it all too clear, that I could only have reasonably concluded, that Bob must have been the writer.

Do you really expect me in the given circumstance to have forgone the only rational and reasonable conclusion imaginable, and instead have divined, that the writer could not have been Bob but must have been “a relative” who is “a good 1,500 miles away from him”; that I should have divined that this relative of Bob’s sometimes uses “an SSH tunnel through Bob's network so that [his] traffic is encrypted and [his] employer can't see...”

I mean really, Colton, putting all anger and emotional distress aside for a moment, you’ve got to see that you are wrong here. What is this obsession of yours — Bob and/or Colton — about anyway, to discredit my every word as lies lies lies, no matter how far fetched or outlandish the foundation? I am coming to the conclusion, that I must have inadvertently touched your — both Bob and/or Colton — very Achilles heel. Your pain is coming over far to loud and clear. Know this, I do not like your — Bob and/or Colton — modus operandi. But I don’t hate you. So, Bob and/or Colton keep it real and relax and don’t feel threatened if you come across people who like yourself (yes) have brains. In fact, I would have expected a retort from you more along the lines of “It takes one to name one ;-)”. This is way too heavy and thus far too revealing. Think about that."

It seems to be important all round that Bob Geiger (Yellow Dog) remains at arms length, looking sparklingly clean to the outside world and that any sullying must be done by someone other than him (via SHH tunnel through Bob's network of course).

It's very comforting to know that Bob has someone close by in these times, who is very computer savvy. And by the way Colt don't think that I would waste a single precious moment of my time to "dig deeper" as you put it. Life is too short for that, and if you really are so paranoid for your relative, keep looking on the Weblog Awards site not mine.

UPDATES FROM THE REST OF THE CATEGORIES:

MacStansbury for the low down on what's up in the Top 501-1000

A North American Patriot  Who's counting these votes, anyway?! 

Portia Rediscovered  While we wait for Portia to return

Janette @ Common Sense Runs Wild  Don't Forget To Vote, who writes a suggestion @ Wizbang:

"At first I thought the hypocrisy was tiresome but now as they just go on and on about how they don't care...it's getting to be kind of funny.

I suggest a new category: The Blogger Most Likely To Nail Himself To Cross To Generate More Votes -  or - The Best Martyr Blogger. Guess who the first nominee will be? But remember he won't campaign for it, he'll just post often reminding you not to vote for him. Well unless you really want to. [Just click here. RIGHT HERE. Now dammit!]"

Linked to Wizbang Carnival

LATEST UPDATE MONDAY DEC.19TH : More venom from the gracious winner of The Weblog Best New Blog Award (who pignantly waited for the announcement) Bob Geiger aka The Yellow Dog HERE AND HERE. And my response I am Famous In The Liberal Blogosphere

RELATED POSTS:  A Democrat Lies This Republican Doesn't Die,  The Weblog Awards 2005

Comments

[Alexandra]

I just received a goodbye email from the ever polite Colt and my reply thereto, which is published in my UPDATE in the main text.

There seems to be a family obsession about 'goodbyes'; Bob's private email received some days ago had the heading "The last email you will ever receive from me"

My heart is broken, now twice....

[jeff stiles]

I record all the interviews I conduct every week for newspaper articles I wrote, and every time I interview a liberal I tell them the Patriot Act requires me to send recordings of all my interviews to John Ashcroft for review. :)

[spiritofecstasy]

DARRELL,

That is sooooo funny! What you just said about the Patr.Act. LOL

[jess1dering]

Scribe: First of all I'd like to thank you for your being YOU, in other words for being human in the best sense. Of course I accept your apology but have completely forgotten what it was that you apologized for.....:)....... I am sorry, too, for these words;"Did you notice that, just like Yellow, this one got his commercial in ? It's so transparent that it's laughable, don't you think ?" That comment was based soley on your having mentioned the weblog awards. It was a stupid assumption and a judgement and disrespectful and that's not fair. Will you forgive me? I share Alexandra's hope that you will join in the sharing here. It's nice getting to know you. :)

[Alexandra]

Darrell,
Hahahahahahahaha. Now that's a comment for the other thread as well. Let them know over there. Cool.

[Darrell]

I wish now that I had spread a rumor at the start of this contest that we would use the voting as a means of getting accesss to personal and private information in accordance with The Patriot Act, in full co-operation with the Justice Dept...

Think there would be 10,000 fewer votes?

[Alexandra]

Brilliant NxN! Ditto that.

You just saved me wasting more time on talking to myself...

Why don't I just say "Liar" to 'Yellow Dog' above and repeat it several times. It seems to work better than spending all this time composing an answer to simply get "Liar", as a response.

In any case you lost all your commenting privileges when you called me " a lying little bitch" on the Jesus General thread just now. Went to complain about me did you Bob?

Damn revealing these IP addresses aren't they Bob?

[spiritofecstasy]

MENTAL HEALTH UPDATE at ATB ...or... If it looks like an anchor and talks like an anchor then it probably is an anchor and will always go DOWN.

If we were discussing Art then canvas and stone would be the "ideas present." (And Photoshop, wink wink) Discussing food we would talk, and think, of sweets and other treats.

To speak of warfare we may discuss the lineage of the AK-47 as an object (same AK, different day. USSR/ARAB-Islam respectively.) If we entertained the parallels and differences within ideologies then the IDEAS PRESENT in our minds and souls would be such and would be just those "we spoke of."

The myth of debate is that it has intrinsic value. You would have to define debate, then define value and by that point you/we have already been subdued by those ideas. IDEAS are physical things because the manifest in what people do "and the way people feel" and hence their physical and mental health. The Ideas that fly out from people represent their destiny.

Ideas pass like smoke between people sitting in a crowded cafe. Chain reactions, avalanches, consequences. The collective unconcious.

I.E. -I do not talk to people about marijuana. I could not care less about it, it is a sucker bet. I think fools worship it. unconciously. Because they want to identify themselves as rebellious. Maybe, in their minds, they identify themselves as some kind of justice seekers or freedom lovers. Anything that produces "an identity" for people will be followed by public movements and/or public fronts. But that doesn't mean that the subject is worth it's salt. So when people see my hand rolled cigarettes many of them make the millioneth (and one) reference to pot. If they knew what I thought of them, when they do that, then would shut up fast and faster.

So when we could be speaking of anything under any sun we are discussing what? The issues raised by the same demoralizing malcontents who keep glittering at me when they see a freakin' hand rolled cigarette.

I may throw a jab but I walk away. from them. Then I seek more refined Ideas and I know I am Right!

Ideas possess all of Us. So to attempt to control the ambiance of one's life one should be wary of Ideas and people that depress.

There are other things. besides the same old bitter rice from the same tired souls. blah.

[Stefan]

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer I see.

[North by Northwest]

Colt,

First, get a grip on using the noun 'liar' with all conjugations and derivates thereof.

Albeit reluctantly, I do however grant you the benefit of the doubt, that the mindless, yet ever-present "lies, lies, lies; he lied, he lied, he lied; they lied, they lied they lied, lies lies lies" campaign of your party most likely completely subdued your sensibility in this regard, thus belying your otherwise hopefully decent upbringing.

Now, in response to your question: For starters, how about the heading you (a) hypocrite - this applies if you did in fact get it but placed partisanship ahead of the truth or (b) simpleton - this applies if you truly didn't and still don't see the spin, and I am loathe to add, sucker.

Oh well, in the event of (a) -- stop reading if (b) applies; no need to delay, as your fingers are doubtlessly already trembling with fury itching to bang away on that keyboard of yours, hell-bent on sprouting out yet another "lies lies lies" tirade -- so, in the event of (a) I shall outline incontrovertible reasoning as to why you are a hypocrite: Re-read Dog's post from which you quote with these questions in mind: "what went through the Dog's mind when he conjured up this post; what was his intent at the time when formulating this title; what did he hope to achieve; why did he chose to combine these wholly unrelated subjects; why did he chose to go out of his way in stressing his 'under-dog' status, his 'I don't belong here' and 'I am in the minority here', what did he hope to achieve by this; why did he chose to elaborately shore up partisan hype; again, what reaction did he anticipate from his readers; why did he insert a hyperlink directly leading to the award's voting page in the position where he did, and, like in most other hyperlinks of perceived importance in his posts, why did he chose not only to insert a plain hyperlink, but to add in fact hypertext tags to further highlight the link in Italic; what motivation could he have had, other than the desire to make certain, that his readers won't overlook the link and dilligently vote; what intent could the Dog have had when placing the link in the very sentence in which he expresses: "I do not care if I win in the Best New Blog category".

In court I'd continue with further and more detailed submissions, addressing sentence for sentence and word for word of the Dog's post, showing in each and everyone the Dog's blatantly obvious and unambiguous intent, but for you, Colt, this will suffice to unmask your brazen hypocrisy.

Oh, wait, I failed to mention the most important reason: Motive! Dog, true to his style, lashed out at everyone at the beginning of the awards, got his dog butt whipped, squalled and couldn't let it go. What better way of getting back at them all, then by winning; just the very thing they didn't want to happen. And what better way of achieveing this then by turning the Weblog Awards into a partisan pit fight.

[Colton Ross]

You answered my question and my time to hang out is up.

You lied, you know you lied, so you try to change the subject.

He didn't say what you claimed he said, you KNOW he didn't and you've been nailed.

Later loser.

[Alexandra]

OK Colton

Since you won't let it go, I tell you what I'll do.

You will answer on behalf of the Yellow Dog justifying the truth in all his scurrilous comments first, as he was the FIRST to make them, and you seem to be keen to be his mouthpiece.

I don't see why I should bow to your rules, and answer you first, you are on my blog, and I make the rules, and clearly Yellow Dog attacked FIRST with his derogatory comments directed at us, the competitors and the organizers.

You don't want to play, fine we don't play and you leave. I am not channeling Kevin @ The Weblog Awards who is far too kind and takes all the abuse by the likes of your friend and still keeps contestants in the competition, that clearly do not wish to be a part of it. I would have had him thrown out long ago, which according to him would be his wish.

Furthermore, I have zero tolerance for people like you and him (privately) that call me a liar.

So now let's see, working backwards:

Wednesday December 7th, Yellow Dog wrote in relation to the Awards:

"For people like us, winning a war of words with a conservative is a hollow victory, similar to me walking into an old-folks home and winning the 80-and-up, arm-wrestling championship. Yes, I won, but what does it mean? Don’t waste your time with these people.
These awards are so flawed in how the finalists are chosen and, when you look at some of the sites nominated, it’s hardly a compliment to be in their company. There isn’t a conservative nominated for Best New Blog who can carry the metaphorical jock of Moxiegrrrl, Taylor Marsh or Pensito Review and you don’t see them in the running.
Besides, how do you follow-up on intellectually destroying a conservative? Beat up a five-year-old? Steal a blind man’s cane? There’s just no point.
Finally, these “awards” will be won by whomever spends the most time and effort pleading with people to go vote for them – and some of the lobbying by my competitors is downright pathetic – so what would a victory really mean?

I've said all I have to say about this pointless contest."

The day before, Tuesday December 6th he wrote again in relation to the Awards, and again a whole post:

"A fellow blogger, rife with sarcasm, asked me an interesting question earlier today: "Given how hard they're driving to the hoop against you now, imagine how these little conservative pukes would come after you if they knew you're a decorated Veteran."

That's true. I mean, if these love-it-or-leave-it frauds go after John Murtha, Max Cleland and John Kerry the way they do – and each of those men has more medals/ribbons than me – imagine how they'll try to smear my service and trash my loyalty to country with this information.

I can hear the swift boat engines revving already... Of course, I can imagine it because I've actually been on a swift boat before – unlike the majority of this chickenhawk lot. And, as we know from watching the actions of the Bush administration, the gulf between their bogus words of affection for Vets and their actions and policies is very wide indeed.

Yes, I know, I'm sending traffic their way simply by linking to them here – but let's not play the withholding-link game with these cretins. It's important that you see what kind of people we're dealing with so you never question why we don't reach across the aisle any longer.

Finally, if it tells you anything about the worth of winning a Weblog Award, basil's blog and WuzzaDem are among the 15 finalists for Best New Blog – enough said. "

Tuesday December 6th, the same day but another whole post dedicated:

"Hey, whatever happened to the "compassionate conservatism" we've all heard so much about? I no sooner write a post in which I express my disgust at the editorial content of most conservative sites – gee, there's a surprise -- and one of my opponents for Best New Blog in the Weblog Awards, comes after me with every bit of vitriol his limited vocabulary can muster.

While I'm sure this guy will finish ahead of me – given that I don't care about this award, he's putting forth an embarrassing display of begging for votes and this is a conservative-sponsored contest – it must irk him that, even at this early stage of the game, I'm the leader.

As Chris Matthews might say, "Ha!"

Blogspot, which The Yellow Dog Blog uses, has been down for hours tonight (FuzzyWuzzyDem uses something else) so I'm hopeful this has given him the chance to level the playing field in true Republican style and catch up."

Monday December 5th, the day before, and the first day of the Awards, again he writes a long post exclusively on the subject:

OK, while I did indeed ask you guys to go out and suggest me as a nominee for the 2005 Weblog Awards, I didn't think I would actually become a finalist. According to the sponsors, they get hundreds of nominees in each category and then whittle it down to 15 finalists – and the Yellow Dog Blog is one of those in the Best New Blog category.

Now, believe me, having such a new site and already being considered for an award of any kind has me more excited than Dick Cheney at a torture convention. But there's something that seems kind of funny about this....

Maybe it's that the awards are sponsored by conservative blog, WizBang. Maybe it's that the finalists for political blogs appear to be tilted toward the conservative side. Or maybe it's that, of the 15 finalists for Best New Blog, the only ones to the left of Grover Norquist are my buddy Trish Wilson, me and, perhaps, Performancing, a site devoted to weblog design.

Also, as I go to some of the conservative sites that have been nominated – across all categories – I get disgusted just looking at their content and there's something about the friendly-competition aspect of this that smells too much like "playing nice" for my tastes. I don't play with the other side at all, much less nice.

Finally, AMERICAblog and Crooks and Liars were not even nominated for Best Blog and, as of this moment, that no-talent seahag Michelle Malkin leads both Atrios and Talking Points Memo in that category by a five-to-one margin – enough said, on all counts.

So my take on this is to not take it very seriously... Go there and vote for me, unless you have something more important to do, like sort your sock drawer or watch Cabin Boy for the third time.

Meanwhile, here's my Weblog Awards predictions:

* Most of my African-American readers will be asked to authenticate at the awards site four times and, after that, will wait hours for the voting screen to be rendered.

* My conservative opponents will attempt to distract voters by invoking "defense of marriage" as the primary issue in this race.

* The Yellow Dog Blog will edge out Wuzzadem by one vote. It will then be decided that many of my votes should not count and I will be dropped to fourteenth or fifteenth place.

* The eventual right-wing winner will accuse the Yellow Dog Blog of wanting to recount and recount "until they get the results that they want."

* A spokesman for the Weblog Awards will refuse to comment on any of this, citing "an ongoing investigation."

Not every day? Yeah, ok he missed two, I am sure he'll catch up.

Anyway when you have authenticated the scurrilous remarks in these posts as true, and given reasons why they are true, I shall answer your question.

YOUR call, and MY game, MY rules and MY blog. Yellow Dog threw the first, second third through to 150th punch, YOU explain to me why all his accusations about bloggers he does not even know, and the organizers he knows even less, are true, and as I say, I will answer YOU.

The ball is in your court.

[Colton Ross]

The best way to avoid being called a liar is to not be one.

You can shut me up and end this discussion by pointing out the exact quote from his blog where he tells readers that voting for him in these awards will help Democrats win back the House.

"Ah, well that clears it up, if you vote for 'Yellow Dog', nicknamed 'The Scream', you stand a chance of winning back The House. Oohhh, well, that' s good then isn't it? Not much is asked of the readers. Voting for 'Yellow Dog' gets you in The House. Sounds right."

That's what you said he said. He didn't. Therefore you did indeed lie.

That's even easy enough for an ethically challenged Republican to understand.

Colt

[Alexandra]

Colton,

You are quoting out of context, and partially. In case you had not noticed, I gave the link to the very post on Yellow Dog's Blog I was referring to, so everyone had read the original for themselves. I don't quite understand why you are quoting only an insert, or for that matter quoting at all, the readers read his post in it's entirety and made up their own minds.

"She lied period"

I lied about what?

I gave the link to the original and gave my opinion. What is this obsession about lying anyway. You have just given me a carbon copy of a personal email I received from the Yellow Dog which I decided not to publish including my reply.

If ever anything could be called a lie it would be the insults he dished out to his fellow participants. It's shameful, and so is your weak attempt to defend for partisan reasons.
Why does your friend not withdraw if he thinks this competition is beneath him, instead of bitching about people he knows nothing about.

The word "pissing" is used on Daily Kos, I think you lost your way pal. And don't call me a liar, simply because my opinion differs from yours. Where I come from that is a very big accusation.

[Colton Ross]

Yes, I'm a Democrat and yes I'm a fan of the Yellow Dog Blog and here's the truth: The author of All Things Beautiful is a total liar. She claims that the yellow dog tells his readers that voting for him in the Weblog awards will help take back the House. Here's what he actually wrote.

Want to really piss them off and have an impact? Go to one of these sites and find a way to help take back the House and the Senate in 2006:

* Democratic National Committee
* Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
* Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

She lied. Period.

She also claims he keeps talking about the awards. Except that he has posted nothing since ealy last week and has never asked anyone to vote for him.

She is just pissed that he's winning. If he actually campaigned, he would be up by 5,000 votes. You may not like him but at least he doesn't have to lie to make points.

Signed,

A fan of the YDB.

[North by Northwest]

Scribe,

YES I WAS WRONG and never have been happier for it!!!

Hat off to you. That was a mighty gracious thing to do. Thanks.

[spiritofecstasy]

All Scribe, All the time,

(but, I guess, it is from another website/blog so it isn't jm /and or his reindeer friends back again. with newer different names)

Scribble,

"This is not a transparent attempt at getting in a commercial, but rather for informational purposes only for those interested:"

INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES: Self declared "intellectuals." THEY ARE DOING US, and the world, A FAVOR BY DISTRACTING FROM THE SEASON AND THE AWARDS so to inform us of "things." Inform us with the antiWar syndrome, the anti-Authority White House syndrome and ENDLESS CIRCULAR VERBOSITY.

Always the same tripe and "only for those interested....." They believe that they possess knowledge that all others do not. So they dress up in halloween costumes, carry signs, march and ...wait for it... inform the un-informed "Rest of the World."

-0-

This comment is another perspective on the necessity and unavoidable nature of battles and partisan battles. And the joy of the game.

This comment is not about THE 2005 WEBLOG AWARDS and "MY DAILY VOTE for ALLTHINGSBEAUTIFUL."

TWENTY YEARS ago there was a fascinating moment in the now storied history of PBS. A Carolina film professor produced the most extraordinary and dramatically spellbinding documentary on film that anyone could "ever" imagine. "The Cinematic Eye." (If you can find and view this series much the better your soul.)

There were also short films running, at that time, on PBS.

A personal favorite short film was titled; "A Time Out of War."

(Life is war, I am not antiwar, ever. And furthermore, if you were having drinks with myself and others last evening, including a young professional boxer, you would have heard stories from "all" of us. Stories of primal physical fights. street fights. Shocking stories of beatings, cops, biting, fighting for your life, broken bones. No guns, just fists. and teeth (ouch! s.o.b.!) I am not antiwar on any level. history and present are my witness. /qualifier.)

THE PLOT of "A Time Out of War" is set in the US Civil War. A stream seperates the North from the South. or the South from the North.

Neighbors, who are friends, are seperated by the stream. Yet they must fulfill their obligations to their unchosen allegiances. Their wear the uniforms. Confederate and Yankee.

Everyday they wake up, put on the uniform and head to the front. The stream. They hide in the woods. A voice comes from one side: "Thomas, the creek looks low today." The reply: "Clem, dry spell."

They know exactly where in the woods sit the enemy. They fire a daily shot or two into the enemy "territory" in strict adherence to their allegiance and the rules of war. They always fire after their morning declarations and never before.

A body of a soldier in uniform comes floating down in the water. They quickly discuss the necessity to call a truce and bury the uniformed warrior. Yankee and Confederate meet on one side of the creek to dig and eulogize. Done. A proper burial.

"Goodbye, see you tomorrow Clem. See you tomorrow Thomas." They return to opposite sides of the stream.

DID I REMIND EVERYONE TO VOTE IN THE 2005 WEBLOG AWARDS for *BEST NEW BLOG*!?! -CLICK HERE

[Alexandra]

Scribe,
Are you serious? Did you really get nasty comments on your blog? I am very sorry to hear that, I never assumed anyone would retaliate in this way. I did not look myself as you came over and we discussed it here. I was lucky to have simply had the comment from you, I kind of expected to get a lot more abuse.

I am happy a) hear back from you and b) that you do indeed fall into the explanation category of a simple gut reaction which we all have often.

My whole post was a result of such a gut reaction and some sort of fierce loyalty toward my fellow bloggers some of which admittedly I never knew before, but all of which now I feel some sort of emotional attachment to. I am a sentimental fool I know...I did however regret it immediately and had that nasty morning after feeling. Simply because I fell into the familiar trap.

Thank you for coming back and explaining, and most of all for having the gracious spirit to apologize, which many are too proud to do.

The fact that you like my blog immediately puts you straight back on my Christmas card list, and I hope you will come and join in some of the discussions we have here, you will be most welcome.

CBS News picked up on a story I wrote a little while ago which attempted to join the blogosphere in a civil discussion, at least between the two sides. Not the greatest of successes in so far as all bloggers commented on it but none were enthusiastic to carry on the dialogue beyond the day's end!.
CBS had the heading "I went to the blogosphere to pick a fight and civility broke out" Hahahahaha.

And now ABOUT THAT VOTE....LOL!

[Scribe]

This is not a transparent attempt at getting in a commercial, but rather for informational purposes only for those interested:

To be fair, not only have I apologized to Alexandra here, but I have also posted a MEA CULPA to my blog (where I posted the original criticism).

[Scribe]

spiritofecstasy, the use of patterns is something I learned from THIS president...

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005

For the record, I only used "slam dunk" twice and "by definition" once... I think the pattern is in your own head.

[Scribe]

North by Northwest: "s/he would never, repeat never, concede that point to us."

— Wrong; see last post to Alexandar above.

North by Northwest: "Because that's how large these guys' egos (read: 'chip' on their shoulder) are"

— Wrong again.

North by Northwest: "it'll reveal the double standard by which they live: OK for us, bad bad bad for the Republicans."

— Another case of "pot calling the kettle black." And who are "they"? I'm not a part of any "they" as you likely wrongfully assume.

[Scribe]

jeff stiles,

You defined it that way, I did not.

"What a freak..." Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.

[Scribe]

Alexandra,

I happen to agree with you on your observations about Yellow Dog. My comments were partially gut-level, first blush comments and partially "devil's advocate" comments to see what kind of reaction I would get. I got the reaction I expected both here in the response and the nastiness and ugliness of comments to my blog, most of which were too nasty to publish.

I certainly can understand why you might presume I was a Yellow Dog sympathizer, but I am not. It would be a bad thing to suggest such simply because it would be wrong and an inaccurate assumption because I am indeed NOT a fan of Yellow Dog. I am indeed an independent, but have no delusions of being a tower of justice.

I grant you that I was not being fair and I sincerely (no, really, sincerely) apologize. I was not being partisan (as I do not have a "dog" in this fight, so to speak), I was simply being contrary. As an independent observer, you should be grateful for the loyal readers who came to your defense — at least the civil ones, like jess.

By the way, I love your artwork and the look of this blog. And, funny thing is, I actually voted FOR your blog. I'll leave you all alone now since needling is not well received.

[Scribe]

jess1dering,

To answer your questions:

1) I unfairly lumped Alexanda's comment "a friend of Yellow Dog" in her UPDATE on the post with the comments you said. I apologize.

2) No, but Yellow Dog would likely represent his political affiliation to "Yellow Dog" Democrats. I guess I didn't realize there was a "All Things Beautiful" Republican group.

3) I suppose it's based on a presumption of the totality of the things both you and Alexandra said — "friend of Yellow Dog," "Judging by the identical Church photograph on their respective blogs," "Did you notice that, just like Yellow, this one got his commercial in ? It's so transparent that it's laughable, don't you think ?" etc. etc.

4) I see it all the time on blogs left and right, and when I'm in a particularly sour mood I do it too. What you call whining in my post, I call observations. What you call facts and suggestions in her post, I called whining. I suppose it's a matter of perspective — when we agree with it, it's suggestions and observations; when we disagree with it, it's whining.

As far as the last line, you're right. I apologize.

[spiritofecstasy]

Scribble,

"All Things Beautiful would, by definition, talk about all things beautiful. That's why I enjoyed seeing the whining and ugliness toward a competing blog."[1]

"And your evidence that we're in collusion is that we use a similar graphic, which is readily available for anyone to use and is used by people on both sides of the spectrum. That's the type of "slam dunk" evidence that got us into this war, but that's for another discussion."[2]

[1] "By definition"

By definition "all" means everything. Those disturbed, those who disturb, desperados, the fringe who agress but pose as egalitiarians in defiance of anything historical or observable. But by "definition" if it ain't right then is has to be wrong. All includes; those who jump but never think. It takes *time* to think, more time than to be led. It takes time, but not alot, to erase one file and use proxies. By "definition", anomalies are a "departure" from normal.

[2] "evidence" ... "collusion" ... "it's the war"

The Diebold machines were fixed! Recount Recount Recount. FEMA blew up the levy to flood one specific spot that was within a 100 MILE CIRCLE of FLOODING.

Amb. Joe Wilson, married, to a Woman known only in photos as Nikita, (they wasted another four million copies sold in book sales by not putting the scarf and the dark glasses on Old DNC Joe). Joe is apolitical and darn serious.

NOW IF AN ANOMALY occured in voting for just one blog in just one category then it would not be an anomaly. BUT IN THE SAME BREATH OF TIME for specifically partisan blogs to suddenly jump in the vote tally is A DEPARTURE FROM NORMAL. That is; by "definition" of an anomaly.

COINCIDENCE HAS LIMITS. It's not important but it's about the White House but I don't care about it. It is the same as The War. It's a slam dunk that theme, plot, logos, timing, criticism, timing, vote bursts are just, by "definition", COINCIDENTAL.

IT IS JUST A COINCIDENCE that a fun thing is another tantrum opportunity by the same ad nauseum, ad infinitum, ad hominem faux egalitarians who just happen to have the same "taste" in pictures.

By "definition." "slam dunk." "War."
By "definition." "slam dunk." "War."
By "definition." "slam dunk." "War."
By "definition." "slam dunk." "War."
By "definition." "slam dunk." "War."

BUT MEMBERSHIP HAS IT'S PRIVLEDGES and it's distinct patterns. And those patterns again. Then over there. and again. by definiton those patterns keep appearing so they are patterns.

Ramsey Clarke doesn't have a blog and was not nominated for "The 2005 Weblog Awards."

[North by Northwest]

Jess1dering - Scribe isn't listening. And if s/he were, and by some miracle re-read Alexandra's post and discovered that there is absolutely no envy present, neither overtly nor covertly, that Alexandra is simply standing up against someone's bad sportsmanship by demonstrating the true nature and motivation behind his actions, s/he would never, repeat never, concede that point to us. Because that would be tantamount to Napoleon's Waterloo. Yeap, that's right, Napoleon. Because that's how large these guys' egos (read: 'chip' on their shoulder) are

The notion, that Alexandra was actually standing up for someone else wouldn't occur to them. That she was upset to see Yellow Dog play his little game whilst happily hurting innocent bystanders to spin his position into a partisan 'fight', they don't want to admit; how could they; it'll reveal the double standard by which they live: OK for us, bad bad bad for the Republicans.

Alexandra has got it down: she's named a spade a spade and unmasked a crummy little game, totally insignificant of course, but now made somewhat more interesting due to their protestations.

[jeff stiles]

The way that Scribe defines "All Things Beautiful" would involve thinking that terrorism and rape and kiddie porn and poverty and sodomy are also beautiful.

What a freak . . .

[Alexandra]

Scribe,

I don't understand why you are suggesting that I am slandering another competitor. Either you simply don't read, don't understand anything you do read, or have decided you don't wish to.

I responded to Yellow Dog who has been slandering his fellow competitors as well as the awards and their organizers.

Why be in, if you want out? Then continue to stay in, and slap everyone around who you don't even know, and insult them simply for wanting to be a part of it. More importantly, and the premise to it all, the accusations are as a result of having different opinions, but are delivered as personal blows regarding our blogs and the bloggers who author them?

Instead of addressing the subject, and for the sake of clarity the subject is: If you are IN AND winning, be gracious to your fellow bloggers, and the organizers who make humongous efforts to make it a success. If you want OUT, get out. Why stay and feel the need to insult everyone, just because you are unhappy about being a part of something you quite obviously hate.

What did we do to Yellow Dog? Absolutely nothing.

I was excited to be nominated and even more excited to be made a finalist. I went over to everyone's blog to visit, which is the normal thing you do, and was shocked to read (this is not the first derogatory post Bob wrote about his fellow competitors or the awards) his insults. I understand it is supposed to be very cool, to say that you don't care about the awards, fine, say you don't care; but why make scurrilous comments about other competitors' blogs in the process. Necessary, no. Fair, certainly not. Gracious, absolutely not. Self serving and unbecoming, probably.

But perhaps you will tell me otherwise, as you have been readily insulting me on the back of it. You seem to be shocked and taken aback that I dare suggest you are a Yellow Dog sympathizer. Why? Is that a bad thing, or do you see yourself as the independent tower of justice, who is simply pointing out to a fellow blogger her attitude and her blog stink? If you were, your post on your blog would have contained no personal insults, and as it does, you are by definition excluded.

I simply pointed out that you both share the same faith, unless you put things on your blog you do not agree with. This so called readily available graphic has a strong message and that message you share with Yellow Dog otherwise you would not both have it plastered on the front.

I did not respond to the first couple, but when he did it again, I did not see why I should sit quietly and be insulted together with all of us.

Now I respond, and you accuse ME of shadenfreude? You are not being fair and you know it, so what is the point of a discussion when reasonability is attached to partisanship and not sportsmanship.

[jess1dering]

Scribe, A few questions in regards to a few of your comments; 1)"I do not know Yellow Dog...But, if you want to believe otherwise, it's your right to live in whatever fantasy world it is you reside." Question- for the sake of your own credibility please ,where do I say that you know Yellow Dog ? 2) "All Things Beautiful would, by definition, talk about all things beautiful" Question- then does it follow that Yellow Dog, by definition, talk about yellow dogs ? 3) "And your evidence that we're in collusion is that we use a similar graphic...That's the type of "slam dunk" evidence that got us into this war." Question- where do I say that I believe you're in collusion, because that wasn't my intent and I can't find that in my text? Help me out here. Where do you see it ? 4) "That's why I enjoyed seeing the whining and ugliness toward a competing blog." Two Questions- why would any person enjoy whining and ugliness? What whining and ugliness? All I saw from Alexandra were facts and suggestions. This is what I would term whining and it's all cut and pastes of your post aka. your voice:

"Alexandra's All Things Beautiful doesn't find beauty in those things she doesn't agree with or just doesn't understand.... She can't understand ..... She also doesn't seem to understand...... apparently she can't understand " It's that 'doesn't understand' mantra that my mind always attaches a whine to. I think that's because that is my real life experience with those words. The always seem to go with a whine. And here's what I call ugliness, again all cut and paste of YOU ;
"... one of her fellow competitors in the WEBLOG AWARDS contest (who happens to be currently beating the pants — or skirt or whatever she's wearing)..... so vane that envy for the award consumes them...
All Things Beautiful? Only with those rose-colored glasses through which she sees the world..... it's your right to live in whatever fantasy world it is you reside......For a more rational discussion not focused on vanity, stop by The Subjective..." That's what I call ugliness.

[Darrell]

You all make me laugh

Always glad to help!

[Scribe]

jess1dering, you and Alexandra are funny. I do not know Yellow Dog, and to be honest, haven't been to his site until today when Alexandra called him out. I'm sure Yellow Dog appreciates the free plug. But, if you want to believe otherwise, it's your right to live in whatever fantasy world it is you reside.

All Things Beautiful would, by definition, talk about all things beautiful. That's why I enjoyed seeing the whining and ugliness toward a competing blog.

And your evidence that we're in collusion is that we use a similar graphic, which is readily available for anyone to use and is used by people on both sides of the spectrum. That's the type of "slam dunk" evidence that got us into this war, but that's for another discussion.

P.S. Commercial? What commercial? Did I say, stop by The Subjective Scribe? Other than a link with my "posted by" name (which is part of the info requested when commenting) what other link to I provide? Did I invite others to come to my blog? No, you don't see it there because it doesn't exist — oh wait, I can't make that assumption, I suppose... remember that "slam dunk" thing? If I had said something like "For a more rational discussion not focused on vanity, stop by The Subjective Scribe at www.subjectivescribe.com or scribeokc.blogspot.com — now THAT would have been a commercial."

You all make me laugh.

[The Heretik]

What are these things called "blogs?" And opinions? They take too much time. Can't I just be an individual, just like everyone else?

[jess1dering]

Oh dear, Scribe. The title is "All Things Beautiful" not "all Things Beautiful According to Scribe"-------Can you grasp the difference ? It is very unbecoming to be nominated for an award and to respond by belittling the value of the award and making demeaning and insulting remarks about other nominees. Can you see how old Yellow Dogs behavior might wound the spirit of the awards which are meant to be uplifting and celebratory: meant to be fun. Has Yellow Dog considered the fact that the awards are a labor of love for those working hard to bring the project to fruition ? Yellow Dogs entire response is ungrateful and ungracious and unbecoming : It is also divisive and arrogant ( as in ,change the world ? - MmmmHmm, Yellow Dog is going to change the world by sending his readers out into cyber-space to "piss off " other bloggers.) Such rude behavior generally evokes a negative response from relatively normal human beings, wouldn't you say?? Alexandra only pointed out the truth, and we find the truth to be a " beautiful " thing here at this blog. That's why we keep coming back. Alexandra just told the truth and made a few suggestions as to how she'd like to see the positive spirit of the awards preserved. I agree with her. All of the other things that you mention such as "envy for the award" and "vanity" and not being able to understand "principles of equality and fairness" ? They are all personal attacks on someone else's character. That is the same sort of unfair, unbecoming, rude behavior exhibited by Yellow Dog : Birds of a feather flock together , and all that...If people like Yellow Dog have the need to insult others and essentially poison what was meant to be refreshment , and basically express nothing but contempt for the awards then why don't they just drop out? And why on earth wouldn't the gracious souls left standing be MIGHTILY glad to see them GO?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PS TO ALEXANDRA: Did you notice that, just like Yellow, this one got his commercial in ? It's so transparent that it's laughable, don't you think ?

[Scribe]

Talk about ironically named blogs... Alexandra's All Things Beautiful doesn't find beauty in those things she doesn't agree with or just doesn't understand. She can't understand why one of her fellow competitors in the WEBLOG AWARDS contest (who happens to be currently beating the pants — or skirt or whatever she's wearing) is less concerned about winning a vanity award and more concerned about making a difference in our nation's future. She also doesn't seem to understand (or agree with) the organizer of these awards inviting people who don't appreciate the awards (i.e. so vane that envy for the award consumes them); apparently she can't understand the principle of equality and fairness even when others don't appreciate it.

All Things Beautiful? Only with those rose-colored glasses through which she sees the world. I'll cast my vote to a more "beautiful" blog.

[George Berryman]

Huzzah - thanks for more nekkid chicks, Alexandra! :)

O.K. so now Yellow Dog is channeling Howard Dean, and really thinks that the votes for the Weblog Awards are going to win the Dems back The House. Really?

Alexandra that's all the leftists have anymore. They know they can't win on ideas. For all their rhetoric about Bush's low approval ratings they fail to point out the same polls that show congressional leftists are lower by ten points. They are showing their true anti-American colors these days and while that may play well in Berkley or Seattle it's not playing well at all with Middle America.

They are desperate now. Next month they will be showing a picture of Bambi on their website with a tagline reading "Vote for Congressional Democrats in '06 or a baby deer will die."

[Darrell]

I'm here quite often, actually. I don't always comment because you seem to cover my point of view better than I ever could. As for me, I see very little humor in "Jesus' General." And a quick look at their comments section shows me how the welcome a different point of view. I'm glad visitors here with opposing views don't have to meet the same fate!

[Alexandra]

Darrell,
My dear fine new best friend, it's good to see you over at ATB. Thanks for the support.
I don't think there is anything sinister going on there at the best humor, perhaps people simply prefer a good sense of humor to anything else.
Be that as it may, we are all having fun. Having the best time getting to know people and their different opinions and personalities. I really love that most of all.

[Alexandra]

LB,
Couldn't agree with you more, but then you know that already...

Gaijin,
Well the positions are not cast in stone so there will be a part two for sure. And the bike would look really cool!

SOE,
Anything from Oscar Wilde is fine with me, He's my favorite.

Janette,

Please don't feel like that. It upsets me to hear you say it, I am an incurable optimist like you, but it's important to remember what Kevin's visionary idea originally was and still is, and appreciate it like we do, giving him all the support we can.

In a way I am sorry I retaliated this way, but Bob (Yellow Dog) said some very insulting things to all of us including Kevin, for no reason at all. Now Kevin cannot possibly be seen to reduce to dealing with ad hominem attacks, and I felt I really wanted to. I did not appreciate being insulted togeteher with the rest of us, for no apparent reason. There was no need for it, we are not running a political election here, and gracious winners should be just that, instead of slapping us around like we are punch bags, simply because of a difference of opinion.

Blogging is all about difference of opinion, period. I don't know what side of the political spectrum you are on. I popped over and looked at your blog and made my decision that I like it regardless. I have many friends in the Blogosphere who bat for the other team but they are all civil and capable of a discussion which is both fun and challenging. We are not a bunch of Stepford wives here, we are all individuals and proud of it.

I pride myself on a site where everyone can come and treat it like a salon, and chat no matter what they think or which side they bat for. As long as there is respect, we can talk, and safely assume that someone can have a differing opinion without being an idiot. Like Patrick, my reader on the other thread right now, I have a modicum of intelligence and a moderate level of education, therefore I think I we can safely assume a level of understanding all round.

If one wants the other kind of single word echo chamber rhetoric with the smileys for comfort, you go to Atrios.

Please don’t be discouraged, we are having fun and wonderful new readers are being introduced to us, and moreover we are being introduced to each other and that’s great fun for the future. Now isn’t that worth ignoring the sour pusses. Well I wish I listened to my own advice earlier, I never would have written it.

[Janette]

I guess I came into the contest with the wrong expectations. I thought it would be fun and a great way to discover new (to me) blogs like this one. Instead it seems there's a huge amount of whining and sour grapes, primarliy from the usual suspects. I feel awful for Kevin at WizBang. It's a thankless job and I have no idea why he keeps at it each year.

[spiritofecstasy]

(re: translation)

AvM,

Sorry it took so long to reply I didn't expect any response. Or any one sooo quickly! First I wanted to link to the full size picture, my view of the homepage will often crop the picture and I thought others may not remember to click on the pic for the full view. Second; I didn't want to say: "Hey! You, You, No, not you, You, yeah You over there, Click the Picture!" So I looked for script to use in a hyperlink. Oscar's title came to my mind for utterly unknown reasons. The second link,  , is to a plot summary which somehow seemed appropriate. You just can't go wrong with O.W.

Is that earnest enough?

[Darrell]

Actually, the vote totals look screwy to me--a lot more votes in the secondary categories than the primary. And it's not like they didn't try to mess with the votes in previous years. Art imitating life? "Jesus' General" with over 7000 votes in the Best Humor/Best Comics category? Please!

Just vote for Alexandra every day and tell your friends to do likewise! And don't forget the other categories! Don't let the current totals turn you away. If they document fraud, they adjust the totals. I won't say "unlike Washington State et al..."

[Gaijin Biker]

Aw, now I wish I were in the top 4, just so you would do a picture of Riding Sun...

[Alexandra]

Alright Oscar, can you translate please. I'm missing it.

[spiritofecstasy]

All these years Jack has unwittingly been telling the truth: Ernest is his name, as is Jack, and he does have an unprincipled younger brother Algernon. Again the couples embrace, Miss Prism and Dr. Chasuble follow suit, and Jack acknowledges that he now understands “the vital Importance of Being Earnest."



[LB]

I think yellow dog doesn't realize how fortunate we are to have WizBang hosting the awards. If Kos or Atrios were the host, there would likely be no category for best new blog, and nominations for remaining categories would be limited to a select few. Not to mention the prevailing view over there that a blog's importance is measured mostly by how much money it brings in...

[Alexandra]

Hahahahahahaha! I knew somebody had to....

It reminds me of George Berryman @ Alamo Nation, who wrote "vote for Alexandra, cos sometimes she posts artwork with 'nekkid' chicks in it", referring to my article on rape which has a Rubens painting on the cover.

[jeff stiles]

Oh yeah, thanks for showing us more boobies, Alexandra! :)

[jeff stiles]

The Dems might think they have a chance of winning back the White House in '08, but I predict the GOP will rather win even more seats in both the House and the Senate that year. Three years is a long time from now, folks, and right now things are going well on both the economic front and the war front. By stressing quality (All Things Beautiful) over quantity (Yellow Dog Blog), we have every reason to remain totally optimistic.