December 09, 2004

We Do It for the

We Do It for the Children

Our recent spate of self-flagellation over our failure to receive one measly nomination for the 2004 Weblog Awards has met with a number of friendly e-mails from our warm-hearted fan-base. In fact, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have finally understood why the weaker sex spends so much of its time whining: It really pays some dividends. Honestly, you ought to give whining a try. (Isn’t that a number from “The Music Man”?)

Anyway, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have been basking in the luminous glow of sundry friendly e-epistles. The crack young staff, say such devotees, was robbed; your humble “weblog,” they remark, is the bee’s knees. Or words to that effect.

To which we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” respond: Thanks, friends. You—the manifold readers of our humble musings—are all that matter. Well, you and global warming.

Sure, we may be shunned by fancy “Weblog Awards.” Sure, we may not even be nominated for such coveted prizes. Sure, we may be as popular as Denny Terrio, whilom host of “Dance Fever.” Sure, we may be as big as Danny Devito. Sure, we may…

Hold on a second, dear reader: Somewhere in the midst of that last paragraph we lost our train of thought. Oh yeah, we remember what we wanted to say: We suck.

Wait a minute. How come we don’t feel any better? We undertook the composition of today’s edition of our humble “weblog” in order to raise our spirits, and we’ve ended up lower than Robert Downey Jr. at the Betty Ford Clinic.

We guess what we are trying to say is that “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” like fine wine (of fine whine) is not for everyone. Sure, the masses may go for pathetic “weblogs” such as, say, Sullywatch. But “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly” is the Lamborghini of “weblogs.” It’s the beluga caviar of the Internet. It’s the kind of “website” men want to be, and women want to be with.

Now we feel much better. Accordingly, we may use the remainder of today’s humble e-musings to discuss some of the recent constructive criticism we have received.

One intelligent reader of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly” thought that the crack young staff might have been overlooked come awards time due to its “website’s” name. The “Quarterly” part of the title may have misled some e-readers.

Perhaps so. Yet, as we detailed in one of our first posts, “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly” title was taken (with permission) from an old print publication to which we are very much devoted. We couldn’t very well change it. Also, we should note that Gentlemen’s Quarterly is not actually a quarterly. In fact, it’s not even for gentlemen—unless by “gentlemen” you mean “effete weirdoes who still slick their hair back like Pat Riley.” Yet that hasn’t stopped it from becoming festooned with Ralph Lauren advertisements.

Our pal Gordon, basking in the glow of his impressive 2004 Weblog Award nomination, has suggested that our lack of a “comments” section has hampered our “website’s” popularity. That’s probably true. Still, as we noted long ago, we despise “comments,” in large part because they are made by a passel of illiterate chuckleheads.

We’d rather read the telephone book. Or, even worse, the collected works of Andrea Dworkin. But perhaps we’ll change our minds.

Gordon also noted that we lack a “trackback” feature on our “website,” which puts yet another wrench in the works. Very true, very true. Yet we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” are such incorrigible technophobes that we can’t figure out what the heck “trackback” does. In fact, “trackback” sounds to us like a crappy techno band. It conjures visions of Bill Clinton wolfing down Big Macs in an Adidas tracksuit.

And, believe us: Even the female members of the staff don’t want to give him a Monica Lewinsky. If that’s what you need to get a nomination these days, count us out.

As a result, dear reader, we suppose we’ll have to be content with the fact that our humble “weblog” is beloved by some of the world’s most gifted e-readers. Sure, it’s a small audience, but the Bolsheviks took over Russia with a fairly small crowd.

Perhaps that wasn’t such a good analogy.

Anyway, dear reader, let us end this rambling edition of our unheralded “weblog” with a butchered quote from some famous movie we never saw: 2004 Weblog Award nominations!?! We don’t need no stinkin’ 2004 Weblog Award nominations!

With that in mind, we humbly exhort you to vote for the Llamas, Dr. Rusty, Gordo, and the other fine “weblogs” that have been nominated.

Posted at December 9, 2004 01:01 AM | TrackBack