Maybe censorship isn't all bad after all. My own encounter with it really brought out some great discussion and showed me that when push comes to shove there are people out there who'll stand up for me (at least when I'm right). That's so cool.

And it's given me something very precious. A link from Meryl Yourish!

Please note that anybody who attributes sarcasm to that exclamation will be virtually slapped upside the head by yours truly. Meryl's was the first blog I ever followed seriously. This was before I really even knew what the hell a blog was. She's been over in my "Daily Reads" since this blog's first incarnation as "Apropos of Nothing" (which nobody even knows about, that's how bad it was).

So getting a link from Meryl is very super cool to me. And to make it even better, she's in support of my position.

Thanks, Meryl!

Posted by: Jim at 02:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

So you don't believe in real magic? Well this will convince you. With my help you will now cast your very first real magic spell. Just do the following:

1. Take a deep breath.


2. Grab a pencil, pen, or other wand-like instrument.


3. Wave your wand in front of your mouth in a counter-clockwise manner. Those of you with digital clocks just wiggle it a bit.


4. Breath out! Jeeze. That was just a calming exercise, I didn't want you to hold your freakin' breath. Just breath normal, okay?


5. Speak the following line three times. Each successive line must be louder than the one previous. That means that you say it once softly, once a bit louder and then again a bit louder still:

inflatus lingua nimium

Okay, all done. You've successfully cast your first spell. What? Don't believe me? You didn't notice anything? Oh, really...

How is your tongue feeling? Does it seem a bit...large? Sort of slipping across your teeth instead of sitting nicely inside the old toothline, isn't it? In fact, it now takes some considerable effort to keep that sucker in place, doesn't it? Oh, my hapless foil how you have fallen into my evil snare.

Bwah hah! Bwah hah hah! Bwah hah hah hah hah! more...

Posted by: Jim at 12:47 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 1 kb.

The votes are in for the first elimination from Survivor: Blogoshere Island. Happily I received not a single vote to toss me. Unhappily for Pylorns he received five of six and got booted.

Pylorns, don't look at it as getting tossed, look at it as winning the first vote by a landslide. If only you had voted for yourself it would have been unanimous.

Posted by: Jim at 12:13 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Honey, in my part of the hemisphere, getting tossed means getting a hand job. Did YOU give him one?

Posted by: Helen at November 14, 2003 12:15 PM (k78uM)

2 I win! Dopple-G thought Pylorns would jump on that first but I said "No way, man. Helen will be on that like Rikki-tikki-tavi on a cobra." :-)

Posted by: Jim at November 14, 2003 12:29 PM (IOwam)

3 That's not what you said last night...

Posted by: pylorns at November 14, 2003 01:32 PM (oMGhn)

4 Last night I was medicated. Totally doesn't count. I call drunk guy exemption.

Posted by: Jim at November 14, 2003 02:02 PM (IOwam)

5 Not only did you guess that I would pounce on that linguistic error, you mentioned Rikki-Tikki-Tavi in a post. It's official. I worship Jim.

Posted by: Helen at November 14, 2003 02:14 PM (k78uM)

6 Man I love that movie. I used to try using references to it all the time but nobody would get them. If you move, I will strike. If you do not move, i will strike. Oh, yeah.

Posted by: Jim at November 14, 2003 02:46 PM (IOwam)

7 Movie.. Book man Book!

Posted by: pylorns at November 14, 2003 03:52 PM (mkbJL)

8 Rudyard Kipling was the bomb in phantoms.. er..

Posted by: pylorns at November 14, 2003 03:54 PM (mkbJL)

9 It was the movie for me, as a very young lad. Although I've got both on my Wish List.

Posted by: Jim at November 14, 2003 05:01 PM (IOwam)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Just in case that last post didn't gross you out enough I'm going to share something with you. Oh, come on. Why the long face? Y'all know that when I'm disgusted with something I share that disgusting thing with you. This increases the amount of disgust in the world thereby lowering my disgust level in relation to the world as a whole. Plus, Momma told me to always share. more...

Posted by: Jim at 11:38 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 381 words, total size 2 kb.

DO NOT FART!

There is absolutely no guarantee that it is gas that you will pass. Immodium is your friend. No, more than that, it is your lifeline.

Given my abhorrence of the crappers here at work and my current state of being on antibiotics I am trapped in my own peculiar little hell. Any time I have the bowel urge I must assume that bad things are happening, no matter how much it feels like plain old gas. This means that any time I wish to feel gastric comfort I have to truck into the ol' shitter, whip out a paper ass gasget and alight upon the ceramic throne.

This is all because of the Paris Hilton gag, isn't it God?

Posted by: Jim at 10:56 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.

Yes, the end of the week is here and that means it's time for The Cheddar X!

In the interest of saving space and keeping the Paris Hilton porn post as close to the top of the page as possible I've put the Cheddar in the extended entry. more...

Posted by: Jim at 09:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 533 words, total size 3 kb.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, right? Well, since my stats are totally mucked up by hits looking for the Paris Hilton and whatsisname amateur porn extravaganza I figured I'd just go with it.

After an intense search which led to many, many, many sites with posts much like my previous one that did not contain any link to the video in question I finally found a site that not only has the entire thing but has it for free. The site is understandably busy so it loads slow but it's worth it. This is some of the best in your face (and elsewhere) camera work I've ever seen in a non budget night vision sex video.

What's more, they have a second Paris Hilton porn where she's having a threesome with Playboy playmate Nicole Lenz and former MTV VJ/actor Simon Rex.

There's a nice compilation of Shannen Doherty stuff there too.

Without further ado, here is the link you're all coming here for: www.parishiltonshagfest.com

Posted by: Jim at 08:45 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

1 My apologies to Ryan for stealing his gag. Scratch that. All's fair in love and blogging. Heh.

Posted by: Jim at November 14, 2003 08:46 AM (IOwam)

2 I do not feel bad for beautiful Miss Paris, I see it as a lesson learned to all of us lust freaks out there

Posted by: PUSSYKIT at November 15, 2003 09:53 AM (EShIG)

3 But I couldn't see Paris in the video. Was she behind the letters? ;-)

Posted by: Simon at November 17, 2003 07:32 AM (YU5e8)

4 Where can I see these socalled videos of Paris.?

Posted by: J at November 19, 2003 12:57 PM (rZmE1)

5 THEY GOT MY E-MAIL WRONG

Posted by: J at November 19, 2003 01:00 PM (rZmE1)

6 Sorry, I have no idea where you can see the video.

Posted by: Jim at November 19, 2003 01:08 PM (IOwam)

7 binaryreport .com

Posted by: D at November 19, 2003 09:39 PM (lKUxU)

8 Here it is, no jokes http://www.sextapeparishilton.com/

Posted by: Miguel at November 23, 2003 09:03 PM (gJIag)

9 for those of u who dont no who paris hilton is shes a famous model. in my personal opinion i think that shes really hot and sexy. and if u ever seen her sex video please tell me wear i can find or see it. it would reallly help. i just want to see how hot she is.

Posted by: at November 28, 2003 09:12 PM (99FFQ)

10 this site fucking kicks ass

Posted by: at December 17, 2003 06:47 PM (rUlDs)

11 This site stinks!!! who the heck made this one?? this is just a piece of crap!>!>

Posted by: y-anne! at December 13, 2004 10:42 PM (WJ+J1)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Helen has a beautiful post this morning about a simple little thing that made a huge difference in her life.

I've got a similar story. After the worst breakup of my life I was in very sorry shape. I won't get into the gory details but it was so bad that Captain Responsibility (that's me) lost his license for driving drunk during this period. I started replacing food with alcohol and things were deteriorating rapidly. Get up in the morning, have a beer, go to work, come home, drink until sleep comes. Basically just plodding on though a semblance of my former life through inertia and not having any clue what else to do.

One day after work I flipped on the radio, grabbed a beer and sat down to start drinking. The song that was playing was "No woman no cry" by Bob Marley, a song I'd heard many, many times before but never really listened to. This time I heard it and listened to the lyrics, the drum, Bob's voice. I got it. Bob was telling me "Everything's gonna be alright". I dug through my CD's, got out Legend and played that song in a loop the rest of the night.

And I stopped drinking like an ass. I finished that open beer of course, I'm an alconomist after all. But I ordered a pizza for dinner instead of finishing off the case. I still remember that pizza, it was the fucking best tasting pizza I'd ever had in my life. First actual food I'd eaten in I don't know how long.

And I called my Mom. I basically hadn't spoken with anybody in weeks. They'd called but I'm an expert in avoidance. I also have a black belt in not-being-part-of-the-conversation-when-you-think-we-are-conversing-itsu. I hadn't spoken with Mom in even longer. I love her like you wouldn't believe but she's a nut and can be very trying to speak with. I'd been avoiding her for a while.

I called a bunch of other people too. My best friend E, who had been trying to get me out of the house for weeks. Made dinner arangements for later in the week with him. I called Doppel-G (he was down in Georgia by this time). I think he knew something wierd was going on but he didn't press, just talked about everyday stuff for a while. I think I even tried to call Lil Bro but I can't remember for sure.

After that night I put my life back together. Very quickly I might add so I guess I had caught it in time before I hit the big cusp. Basically all I had to do was get back into civilization, turn on the afterburners at work for a while to catch up and (most importantly) stop getting drunk every night.

Now whenever I hear that song and it gets to the "Everything's gonna be alright" part I get a tickle in the back of my throat, my eyes water and I have to fight hard not to cry. And sometimes, when I need it, I play that song and I don't fight the tears.

Posted by: Jim at 06:33 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 531 words, total size 3 kb.

1 See, you and Helen write this sort of thing beautifully, but it's like the one* kind of post I simply cannot do because I'm a repressed, bitter, cynical person. What a good thing the world's not full of Ilyka-clones. You guys rule. * one, thirty, what's the difference?

Posted by: ilyka at November 14, 2003 07:03 AM (9UvaM)

2 I could think of worse things than a world full of Ilyka clones. Just give me a minute. ;-)

Posted by: Jim at November 14, 2003 07:31 AM (fkewd)

3 One of the songs that does that for me is "Overjoyed" by Stevie Wonder. I did very much the same thing about a year and a half ago. My boyfriend of two years retired from the Air Force and left. Just LEFT. I was devastated. I was in such a hole, I was taking antidepressants with beer chasers. I listened to a LOT of different songs during that time -- the biggest hole this ray of sunshine had ever been in -- and this song rotated through the stereo (100 CD changer. heh.) "And though the odds say improbable What do they know For in romance All true love needs is a chance And maybe with a chance you will find You too like I Overjoyed, over loved, over you, over you" And whatta ya know? He came to his senses and I'm about to celebrate our first anniversary on the 29th of this month. Those lyrics still makes me all misty n' shit. Heh.

Posted by: margi at November 14, 2003 08:14 AM (4jrV0)

4 Just give me a minute. Excluding the obvious candidates (a world full of Hitler clones, etc.), I think even at my lowest points I could grant that a world full of George Michael clones would almost certainly be worse. So Margi likes "Overjoyed" . . . that is a good one. I'm partial to "Ribbon in the Sky," myself. I hear it's popular at weddings, which is normally synonymous to me with "dreadful," but I don't know, it's just sort of simple and beautiful, and not corny like "I Just Called to Say I Love You."

Posted by: ilyka at November 14, 2003 08:37 AM (9UvaM)

5 Funnily enough, Ilyka, I threw a shoe (or glass, or clothing, something) in the general direction of the stereo when it came on. I was not in the mood for birds chirping and "la la love" songs at that moment. (Go figure.) It was the lyrics of the song that got me the most. (P.S. I was listening to Joydrop's "Spiders" with more frequency at that time. Heh. I have very -- um -- eclectic musical tastes. If you want any of those songs I've mentioned, just let me know. I share.)

Posted by: margi at November 14, 2003 08:43 AM (4jrV0)

6 Actually it only took me a fraction of a second, Ilyka. Right when I typed the period to that sentence the name "Michael Moore" screamed into my forebrain.

Posted by: Jim at November 14, 2003 08:50 AM (IOwam)

7 Thanks for the props, guys. I am touched, and actually honored that I got comments from all 3 of you. Truthfull, anyone can write like me, all you need is: 1) repression 2) strange fuckwittage happening in your life 3) the ability to attract every loser within a 3 mile radius-and then date them 4) move to a foreign country And presto! You get beautiful writing. You know, I knew Ilyka and I had a lot in common when she mentioned she duct-taped her man's brake lights. Me? I change the summer tires to the winter tires on both cars. That's why I linked her Now waiting for Margi to hook me up....ooh...

Posted by: Helen at November 14, 2003 10:01 AM (ADrg6)

8 Damn, that story hits close to home. I'm right where you were, right now. I hope I find my song soon.

Posted by: rick at November 17, 2003 02:24 PM (oA/Vb)

9 Good luck, Rick. It's out there, and closer than you think. (And you can borrow mine for a while if it'll help.)

Posted by: Jim at November 18, 2003 04:07 AM (fkewd)

10 No, woman, no cry; No, woman, no cry; No, woman, no cry; No, woman, no cry. Said - said - said: I remember when we used to sit In the government yard in trenchtown, Oba - obaserving the Â’ypocrites As they would mingle with the good people we meet. Good friends we have, oh, good friends weÂ’ve lost Along the way. In this great future, you canÂ’t forget your past; So dry your tears, I seh. No, woman, no cry; No, woman, no cry. Â’ere, little darlinÂ’, donÂ’t shed no tears: No, woman, no cry. Said - said - said: I remember when-a we used to sit In the government yard in trenchtown. And then georgie would make the fire lights, As it was logwood burninÂ’ through the nights. Then we would cook cornmeal porridge, Of which IÂ’ll share with you; My feet is my only carriage, So IÂ’ve got to push on through. But while IÂ’m gone, I mean: EverythingÂ’s gonna be all right! EverythingÂ’s gonna be all right! EverythingÂ’s gonna be all right! EverythingÂ’s gonna be all right! I said, everythingÂ’s gonna be all right-a! EverythingÂ’s gonna be all right! EverythingÂ’s gonna be all right, now! EverythingÂ’s gonna be all right! So, woman, no cry; No - no, woman - woman, no cry. Woman, little sister, donÂ’t shed no tears; No, woman, no cry. I remember when we used to sit In the government yard in trenchtown. And then georgie would make the fire lights, As it was logwood burninÂ’ through the nights. Then we would cook cornmeal porridge, Of which IÂ’ll share with you; My feet is my only carriage, So IÂ’ve got to push on through. But while IÂ’m gone: No, woman, no cry; No, woman, no cry. Woman, little darlinÂ’, say donÂ’t shed no tears; No, woman, no cry. Eh! (little darlinÂ’, donÂ’t shed no tears! No, woman, no cry. Little sister, donÂ’t shed no tears! No, woman, no cry.)

Posted by: Achilles at December 06, 2004 04:36 AM (F931L)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I've had over 2000 hits from people searching for that porn video of a certain hotel heiress. It's not here!

For all of you folks who came here looking for it - sorry you wasted your time. The closest thing I have is The Somnolence of Clouds. It has sex and nudity and there's even a certain amount of controversy over it. Go check it out. I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

Update: Over 7000 visitors looking for a porn video that isn't here. Gawd. Remind me never to comment on porn videos again.

Posted by: Jim at 07:16 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

Lousy day for this blog, sorry. The thing with my entry being held out of the Carnival had me up stewing much of the night and much of today was spent following up on the multiple conversation threads dealing with it. On the plus side the censorship controversy brought quite a few visitors to see the post, almost guaranteed that it was more than would have come just from it being in the Carnival.

Much thanks to all of the people who supported me and argued on my behalf. Especially Ilyka, who was like a rabid bull terrier today. I can't express how much I appreciate your help.

Tomorrow - good stuff. I promise.

Posted by: Jim at 07:12 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.

I wasn't left out of the latest Carnival accidentally after all. I was straight out censored.

That was a personal call based on the nature of your post. I do apologize if you feel slighted, but it was just my preference not to add that one particular post.

-Max

The post I submitted was The Somnolence of Clouds. This is my erotic vignette from a few days ago. It was well received in comments and email.

Do I feel slighted at being censored? Yeah, I do. It's pretty easy to just note that the post is erotic fiction in the Carnival description. That's the actual description I submitted it with, after all.

People who want to go there do so. People who don't, don't. Same as somebody sick of the metrosexual meme wouldn't go to Andrew's post based on the description that was put with his link.

Christianity is a thought crime. That's an okay topic. The Pussified Toit thing? Also okay. Bush, France, Iraq. All okay.

The only censored item is an erotic vignette. A piece of tittilating fiction. War, death, politics, sexuality, religion are all valid but my well written story is not.

I'm more than slighted. I'm pissed.

Posted by: Jim at 11:30 PM | Comments (37) | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 2 kb.

1 What a crock. [insert massive eye-rolling here]

Posted by: margi at November 13, 2003 12:06 AM (4jrV0)

2 I agree with Margy. You know what you should do now? Spend lots of time blasting their site. Ignoring them. Hating them. It's what I'd do, anyway.

Posted by: Helen at November 13, 2003 02:31 AM (tdh2z)

3 What Helen said. I, for one, am furious. And, here's the irony: I didn't read that post. Not because I find erotic fiction offensive, but because I find it unsettling to read on a computer. I don't know why. Maybe there's something to that "women need ambiance" idea after all, or maybe I'm just weird like that. So had I seen it in the Carnival, I'd have probably skipped it again--but it still should have been there, damn it. Let the people decide. I'm going to write him an angry e-mail that I will somehow edit down to "politely aggrieved" in tone, observing that the freakin' "we prefer a marriage based on discipline--literally!" people submit stuff to the Carnival every week and are NEVER censored. Talk about uneven application of standards. Oh, and you might write to Bigwig (the guy who started the whole Carnival thing, if I recall) just to see what he thinks.

Posted by: ilyka at November 13, 2003 04:15 AM (1+elX)

4 I left him a comment, but I'm still miffed. How come sometimes expressing yourself doesn't make you feel any better? That sucks.

Posted by: ilyka at November 13, 2003 04:44 AM (1+elX)

5 Sorry, I had to go comment there, too. It became an issue of "sitting, steaming, needing to vent." Ilyka kicked ass. It's clear-just don't submit to his site again. I wouldn't.

Posted by: Helen at November 13, 2003 05:18 AM (tdh2z)

6 What an arse that guy is. Did you see his comment about my post? Thanks for the link btw. I shall be linking to his Carnival with a sting in its tail.

Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge at November 13, 2003 05:26 AM (ni3Uj)

7 No, I don't hate Max. I'm pissed at him but I don't even know him so why waste time on hating him? I got most of it out of my system while I was up past 1:00 in the morning steaming over it. Blasting his site and ignoring him won't work well either. He basically doesn't blog. So what is the suppressed to do? As far as Carnival benefits to the story go, the censorship thing will probably make up for the traffic lost by not being included. My main reason for submitting stuff to the Carnival is to get people to read my work (and the links bay-bee!) so I'll at least wash here. Heck, it even got Ilyka to read Somnolence! I think I will indeed take it up with BigWig though. Not to get back at Max but to maybe get a clarification on whether Carnival hosts are expected/allowed to censor or if accepting hosting duties means that you will not do so. Maybe avoid a problem like this in the future. And yes, Andrew, I did notice his quip. I wasn't sure if it was mean or done in a friendly banter manner. In my mood at the time I read it I wasn't a fair judge. Right now I'm disposed to give the benefit of the doubt and assume he was trying for humor and missed. But who knows? Anyway, that quip was a factor for me going ahead and reading your post.

Posted by: Jim at November 13, 2003 07:46 AM (fkewd)

8 I think I will indeed take it up with BigWig though. If it helps, I've left him a comment alerting him to it on the post he had up announcing the 60th Carnival. As for Andrew, I think I'm going to begin stalking him immediately--had not really read him before, but I likes 'im.

Posted by: ilyka at November 13, 2003 08:26 AM (1+elX)

9 Man, that first entry (virus warnings)was just sex jokes and lame ones at that. He didn't even warn us and then censors you? Something wierd is going on here, Jim. Your story was great! I'm still all tingly....

Posted by: Susie at November 13, 2003 08:59 AM (0+cMc)

10 It is a bunch of crap. So anyway.. I'm thinking we vote off someone who isn't interested in the game in the first place...

Posted by: pylorns at November 13, 2003 09:15 AM (zn1zt)

11 Yeah, Ilyka. It's hard to find a decent non-pussified metrosexual these days. Andrew's going on my watch list too. Glad I was able to tingle you, Susie. Too bad you're not on the island. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. I'd like to, Pylorns, but he's got immunity. Grmlbrgr...damn demi-lizardoid minions.

Posted by: Jim at November 13, 2003 09:39 AM (IOwam)

12 Is this person in the LoL? I know... Let's all get together and go beat the crap out 'em! That'll teach em "You don't mess around with Jim"!

Posted by: The Bartender at November 13, 2003 09:42 AM (nLjq4)

13 I once had an erotic fiction piece in the CoTV. It was labeled as such. Someone is crushing your civil liberties, Jim!

Posted by: michele at November 13, 2003 10:37 AM (ONsnV)

14 The posting of links is at the sole discretion of the site owners and administrators. As such, censorship (an action by a government) does not apply here. Those at Dead Ends simply exercised their right to decide what goes on their site and what doesn't. This cry of censorship is part and parcel of what one usually hears from Liberals with regard to the "conservative media." Further, there is a pretty clear distinction between vulgarities like Kim DuToit's adaptation of Ms Galore's familiar name and your story which I infer is marginally pornographic in nature such as your story. (I haven't read it yet, but I sure intend to after all this!) You may have been slighted, Jim, but now you're being a cry-baby. Let's keep our freedom-minded wits about us, ok?

Posted by: Trey Givens at November 13, 2003 11:14 AM (yaMs/)

15 I disagree Trey, on most of your points. Censorship is when a person in authority suppresses the message of somebody they have power over. It does not need to be the government doing it. In this case, Max had total control over my submission to the Carnival. He chose to omit my entry. That is censorship and even he has agreed that it was precisely that. Of course people have control of what they post on their own sites. However, there is a history and expectation when somebody requests, and is given permission to host the Carnival. As long as I have been involved in the Carnival there has never been a case where the host intentionally censored a participant. There is an expectation that the host will include all submissions that conform to his submission policy and the general guidelines of the Carnival. Mine did. There have been other erotic and even outright pornographic submissions in the past and these were accepted in the Carnival by the various hosts. Max did not state any criteria for post content in his submission instructions. He omitted my submission based on hidden criteria and did so without even the courtesy of emailing me about it. If Max had requested that submissions be kept PG-13 I would not have had a problem with submitting another post. If he had emailed me that he was uncomfortable linking to an erotic post I would have had no problem giving him a different one for the Carnival. He did neither of these things. Worst of all, it appears that he based his decision on the three word description in my submission email (An erotic vignette) and not on the actual content of the post. I hope I'm not actually coming across as a cry-baby. I am honestly not pouting about this. I am admittedly peeved about it but I am more concerned at the precedent this could easily set for future Carnivals.

Posted by: Jim at November 13, 2003 11:34 AM (IOwam)

16 censorship (an action by a government) Find me that definition, please. This is twice now you've screwed it up. You've confused "First Amendment infringement" with "censorship," as so many on the right do (regrettably, as it only provides more ammo for those on the left--and I haaate that). Only the government can infringe your First Amendment rights, but anyone can censor.

Posted by: ilyka at November 13, 2003 11:55 AM (1+elX)

17 I hope I'm not actually coming across as a cry-baby. Funny; I doubt Trey cares that he's coming across as an illiterate wingnut. Fuck him.

Posted by: ilyka at November 13, 2003 11:58 AM (1+elX)

18 I thought perhaps I was a bit too harsh in that last comment, but it's now official: Trey Givens is an unqualified asshat: "My message to Jim is simply this: Perhaps Max was rude to you, but youÂ’re being a cry-baby. You were not censored. You were excluded from a private party. Shut up." How the fuck is the CoTV a "private" party? Has this guy ever opened a dictionary in his life? "My message to Max is this: I donÂ’t know you from Adam, but itÂ’s totally your call. DonÂ’t give in to this pitiful attempt to bully you into putting something on your site you donÂ’t want." And when or where did you once express that your aim was to bully anyone into posting anything? Oh, that's right: it all must have happened in Trey's head somewhere, because it sure as hell didn't happen on this planet. "My message to those whoÂ’ve lent support to Jim in his censorship argument: IÂ’m calling you out. You may be just wrong but youÂ’re more likely to be hypocrites given the circles in which we travel. Check yourself before you wreck yourself." Jim, please--make him stop writing Wiggerspeak to me! Aaaiiieee! My eyes! My eyes!

Posted by: ilyka at November 13, 2003 01:00 PM (1+elX)

19 Good point on the item of what censorship means, Jim. You're far more articulate and courteous than Ilyka. I stand corrected. While we're talking about definitions let's just spell it out: To censor is "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable." So, no one was censored as the post remains here for the world to see. It wasn't deleted or even repressed. (I noticed your link in his comments.) You were simply excluded. Would you consider it censorship if on my site I did not include a link to you? It's Max's business to add links as he pleases and it's only courtesy that dictates that he'd post your link with the rest. It should go without saying that he is not going to post something to his site that he doesn't like. Jim, I support your being pissed about it, because by all appearances Max was rude to you. But you have exaggerated the case. (Not that I donÂ’t love hyperbole myself.) Why don't you just not link to him? Why don't you just ignore him from now on since you've been slighted now more than once? Also, Ilyka, I appreciate the clarity that your point has brought to my thinking, however, you act as if there isn't a valid reason for my definition. The word "censorship" does mean the action of censors, which used to be government officials. You also act as if you have no home training.

Posted by: Trey Givens at November 13, 2003 01:07 PM (yaMs/)

20 I've only submitted to CotV once, so I speak as a newbie. But I understood the whole creational purpose of it was to give posts that might get bypassed some exposure. I don't recall it saying anything about "after the owner of the host blog picks and chooses his way through them." Sure, if it's your blog you have the right to display on it what you choose. BUT if you take the responsibility of hosting a revolving event, aren't you obligated to go by the rules of that event? Man, do I sound calm and rational there or what? Oh, and this Trey guy? Fuck him.

Posted by: LeeAnn at November 13, 2003 01:08 PM (HxCeX)

21 CoTV is a private party, Ilyka, because it's their website. It's not some public forum for anyone to post links. And I also took down my original post about this issue to give it more consideration. I appreciate your flare for invective although it could use some refinement.

Posted by: Trey Givens at November 13, 2003 01:13 PM (yaMs/)

22 BigWig has recapped the purpose of the Carnival and commented on this event: Ideally, a specific Carnival should represent an entire cross section of the blogosphere; right, left, gay, straight, religious, agnostic, young, old, and all the shadings and blendings in between. All it asks from a person is that they send the best part of themselves to participate. To reject a submission based on one's "preferences" is anathema to its ideals. And, come to think of it, anathema to the ideals of America as well. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. If you can't link to posts you find disagreeable, don't volunteer to be a Carnival host. The waiting list is literally months long--let someone with a more democratic nature have a chance.

Posted by: Jim at November 13, 2003 01:13 PM (IOwam)

23 Well, good for them! But you're wrong Jim in claiming that it is an anathema to the ideals of America. It is the spirit of America to speak your mind, true, but that spirit doesn't mean you have to let people do it in your living room. And point of fact, someone, anyone else is allowed to start up a carnival of their own, am I right?

Posted by: Trey Givens at November 13, 2003 01:18 PM (yaMs/)

24 Bravo, Bigwig. That ought to settle it, though I do have one final question for Trey: You're using phrases like "check yourself before you wreck yourself" . . . and I'm inarticulate?

Posted by: ilyka at November 13, 2003 01:19 PM (1+elX)

25 That wasn't my claim, Trey. That was from BigWig, creator and master of the Carnival. But you're missing the point. When somebody hosts the Carnival they are acting as an emcee, not a moderator. They are hosting a participatory event with a history and certain expectations. One of the biggest expectations is that the host will not exclude participants based on their own feelings about participants' entries.

Posted by: Jim at November 13, 2003 01:23 PM (IOwam)

26 I didn't say you're inarticulate; I said you're unrefined. I do reserve the right to use any and all stylistic techniques in my speech and writing for the sake of effective communication and there is a specific and purposeful intent behind my use of that phrase. It is completely appropriate in the context in which it was written.

Posted by: Trey Givens at November 13, 2003 01:24 PM (yaMs/)

27 Perhaps I have a more cynical outlook on such things as that Carnival. I do not share the expectation at any moment that the host will refrain from excluding participants. Because why should I? It's not like I believe that they are without their own biases and thoughts on things. Just seems irrational to think that they would include any and everything sent their way. Of course, this is great publicity for your story. Now, I can't wait to get home and read it and find out what all the stink is about!

Posted by: Trey Givens at November 13, 2003 01:33 PM (yaMs/)

28 Just seems irrational to think that they would include any and everything sent their way. My God, but you're slow. Let me put this in as refined a manner as I possibly can: Jim did not submit his post to Max at Dead Ends--who I certainly agree would have been free to accept or reject it at his whim. Max could have decided "Today, I am rejecting posts by all persons whose names begin with the letter 'J'" and no one would have had any business complaining. Here's the problem: Jim didn't submit his post to Max; he submitted it to CoTV, which merely happened to be hosted by Max that week. CoTV is over a year old; it is effectively a brand now, and Max doesn't own the trademark on it--Bigwig does. This means that those who volunteer to host it should respect its original intent, which has now been stated clearly by Bigwig. Max gets this. Jim gets this. I get it, and most of the trackbacked entries to this post get it. Why don't you get it? Oh--and nice work taking that post telling Jim to shut up down. Pops up and down like a jack-in-the-box, doesn't it?

Posted by: ilyka at November 13, 2003 02:00 PM (1+elX)

29 Ilyka, just because Max was hosting it doesn't change the fact that just assuming that links are posted without regard to content is somewhat foolish. You would be better off not arguing that this CoTV thing is a matter of tradition at this point than in saying it's young. Because if that's the tradition, well, what can one say about that? It doesn't change the fact that one should generally assume that the hosts of any site do exercise some conscience in what actually gets posted. It was kind of Big Wig to clarify for us, wasn't it? As for my post, yep. It's back now. I edited it to my satisfaction and put it back up on my site. Thank you for your attention on that matter.

Posted by: Trey Givens at November 13, 2003 02:09 PM (yaMs/)

30 Holy Cow this sentence is unclear thanks to a single word: You would be better off not arguing that this CoTV thing is a matter of tradition at this point than in saying it's young. Allow me to restate: You would be better off arguing that this CoTV thing is a matter of tradition at this point than in saying it's young.

Posted by: Trey Givens at November 13, 2003 02:11 PM (yaMs/)

31 heh heh heh... I should have kept my mouth shut there, should I? Oh well. Nevertheless, I stand by my judgment on the matter.

Posted by: Trey Givens at November 13, 2003 02:13 PM (yaMs/)

32 Hey, Jim! Although the core of my opinion has not changed, I do believe I've been unduly harsh and have such issued an apology to you on my site. Best of luck to you in your protest!

Posted by: Trey Givens at November 13, 2003 06:27 PM (oi3pf)

33 Thank you for the apology, Trey. I hope you will enjoy The Somnolence of Dreams when you get a chance to read it.

Posted by: Jim at November 13, 2003 06:49 PM (fkewd)

34 When Trey said this about Ilyka: "I appreciate your flare for invective although it could use some refinement." I hoped and prayed that my respect for the cool Ilyka would not diminish if she stopped her defense. She didn't. She's awesome.

Posted by: Helen at November 14, 2003 02:22 AM (ADrg6)

35 When Trey said this about Ilyka: "I appreciate your flare for invective although it could use some refinement." Aw, fuck me--he made a gross error like confusing "flare" for "flair" and I totally missed it and didn't use it against him? And now we're all made up, and the moment's gone forever. Waaah! Thanks, Helen. It's always nice to be called awesome. In the spirit of back-at-ya: I'm still snickering with evil glee over "No Strip Dances for You." I can't decide whether I think you should ditch the PU, or keep him around for an endless supply of comic relief.

Posted by: ilyka at November 14, 2003 03:03 AM (9UvaM)

36 I will admit to ignorance on the flair-flare thing. Once again I find myself educated by Ilyka. I suppose that's the absolute least I could after the spanking I gave her in this debate. ;op

Posted by: Trey Givens at November 14, 2003 08:58 AM (yaMs/)

37 Thanks for the kind words and hope you continue to be pleased with the output from that Samizdata spawn called Dodgeblogium.

Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge at November 14, 2003 10:05 AM (ni3Uj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Seriously. She puts these evil thoughts into my brain and I am powerless to resist.

This travesty is to the tune of Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious of Mary Poppins fame. Yes, it's true. I have molested one of the world's favorite childrens' songs. Broken down, this version is cremasteric reflex it's a scrotomatic clenchin'. I'll sit quietly until the men in the white van get here.

For those who didn't see the comments referenced above, the Cremasteric Reflex is what causes a man's scrotum to contract when his inner thigh is stroked.

Cremastericreflexitsascrotomaticclenchin'!

Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle me
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle me
Cremastericreflexitsascrotomaticclenchin'!
The pleasure that it gives your groin
Is simply beyond mention.
If you do it oft' enough you'll
Release all your tension.
Cremastericreflexitsascrotomaticclenchin''
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle me
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle me

Because I was a fraid to wank
When I was just a teen,
Me girlfriend gave my thigh a stroke
And showed me something keen.
Then one day I learned the word
For my new favorite trick.
The biggest word you've ever heard
For playing with your dick!

Oh! Cremastericreflexitsascrotomaticclenchin'!
The pleasure that it gives your groin
Is simply beyond mention.
If you do it oft' enough you'll
Release all your tension.
Cremastericreflexitsascrotomaticclenchin''
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle me
Um diddle diddle diddle um diddle me

So when you're with that special gal,
Or got some time alone,
Just stroke that inner thigh a bit
And watch your scrotum roam.
But better do it carefully
Or it may change your life.
One night I did it with my girl
And now my girl's my wife!
She does Cremastericreflexitsascrotomaticclenchin'!
Cremastericreflexitsascrotomaticclenchin'!
Cremastericreflexitsascrotomaticclenchin'!
Cremastericreflexitsascrotomaticclenchin'!

Posted by: Jim at 07:41 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

Hey! I'm vain as hell. How come my entries keep getting lost? This is like 4 out of the last 6 where I'm missing. Dammit.

Anyway, it's over here.

Posted by: Jim at 02:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

(I wonder how many times I'll use that as a post title before it gets old?)

It's time to vote for the first Immunity Challenge for Survivor: The Blogosphere Edition.

I'm not allowed to tell you which one is mine or Don will molest my cow but it shouldn't be too difficult for you to figure it out. Look for brilliance, insight, humor and smugness. That's me in a nutshell. Plus humility, of course.

Posted by: Jim at 02:20 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

No it isn't, you jackass! If it's new then there wasn't a previous substandard product that needed improving. In order for something to be improved you have to start with an unimproved item. That old unimproved item might have been new but just making it better does not magically erase the fact that it was already there previously.

You cannot have something that is both NEW and IMPROVED.

[/rant]

Posted by: Jim at 06:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.

Ryan has a post worthy of all our fecal praise.

Here's the problem with shuffling up too far on the toilet seat, and this is what I noticed just a short while ago on the crapper. As any veteran male pooper knows, when you clench off a fecal fragment, your wang twitches. Or, maybe it's just me, but whatever. The point is, when I flex the appropriate kegel muscles to pinch off a turdlett, my pecker does a little spasm dance that usually involves brief upward motion.

Cuppa coffee and a poop post. Wednesday is starting very well.

Posted by: Jim at 06:42 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

My life is rated NC-17.
What is your life rated?

Damn. How am I going to get the Junior High girls with a rating like that?

(Link ripped from LeeAnn, who will unfortunately be swimming home within a few weeks)

Posted by: Jim at 06:03 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

Michele's post cheered me up quite a bit and I just got an email from the Pres that has put a big smile on my face.

I did not know until this afternoon that you were a veteran and just wanted to pass along my thanks for having served.

That's the President of my company, of course, not Dubya.

Posted by: Jim at 03:03 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

It's Veteran's Day and I've had some serious blues going on. I usually do on this day. It's part nostalgia, part loss and maybe a little bit of self pity thrown in. Maybe a lot of that last one, actually.

Anyway, I just read a wonderful post by Michele that has picked me up quite a bit. Thanks Michele.

Posted by: Jim at 02:22 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

One of the things in Kim's rant that I did agree with but didn't have the time to blog about has been expounded upon by Craig Henry. Specifically, men are protrayed as bumbling idiots in commercials and in many entertainment vehicles.

To go further, while men of all types are on the receiving end, husbands are the ones who get it worse

I don't doubt that if you totaled all the spending on these commercials you would conclude that "husbands are dumb" is the most popular advertising message in America. If TV commercials can shape the image of a sneaker or beer, what is it doing to the image of marriage.

...

I wonder if these ads are part of the reason that men are deserting TV, especially broadcast TV. The barrage of disparaging commercials just make it a little less appealing to the male demographic.

Absolutely, yes. My favorite television show is 7th Heaven. The fact that the show doesn't treat anybody as an idiot is one of the reasons that I like watching it. Other shows I watch include...uh...lemme think here...

Okay, so I don't watch a lot of shows. Sometimes I'll catch the Crocodile Hunter. Storm Stories and Mail Call are pretty good. I can always get into a decent documentary on the History Channel and Travel Channel's "Top blahblahblah of the World" are often entertaining. Notice a trend? I don't watch things that irritate me and the ever growing "guys are lovable losers/bumbling idots" thing has pretty much trashed television as an entertainment vehicle for me.

(Link snagged from Instapundit)

Posted by: Jim at 10:51 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.