January 19, 2006

“Link” It Up

Devotees of this humble “website” undoubtedly realize that it is a mite different from other “weblogs.” Sure, it’s written by a bunch of lamebrain technophobes who still haven’t mastered the art of “posting” pictures. But that’s not exactly what we mean. Rather, we are referring to content.

That is to say, dear reader, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” aim to please with five—count ‘em, five—luminous mini-essays a week. Each weekday, you can glory in the veritable laugh riot that is “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly.” It’s like The Nation, only intentionally funny. Or, if you prefer, unintentionally unfunny.

Naturally, this is a somewhat peculiar format for today’s “weblog.” Or, for that matter, the “weblog” of tomorrow. As you undoubtedly recognize, dear reader, the typical “weblogger”—clad in indelicately stained pajamas—spends his time offering a festival of “links” to other pieces, sometimes with a smattering of added commentary. This allows said “weblogger” to proffer numerous “posts” a day (at least in theory), but the “posts” in question are shorter and less involved than the dunderheaded monstrosities that we present here. As Cleopatra might have said, pick your poison. (Or did Robert Downey Jr. say that? We can’t recall.)

Yet today, dear reader, we’re trying something different. We, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” have long envied “normal” “webloggers”—the kinds of folks who offer lots of “links” and little sermonizing. Their modus scribendi just seems so attractive!

Accordingly, in today’s humble “post,” we shall drop all our pretenses to crafting bone-chilling jeremiads, and focus on presenting some “link” love instead. This will also allow us to test another meta-“weblogging” theory we’ve long held. We firmly believe that obsequious “links” to other “websites” makes you very e-popular.

So, without much in the way of further ado, we, the crack young staff of “The Hatemonger’s Quarterly,” proudly present:

“Link” Love: An Official Pathetic Attempt at “Weblogging” Like Normal Human Beings

-A naked teacher accosting police officers with a plastic toy trumpet? We wonder which was the bigger bugle.

-We’re not clairvoyant or anything, but we have the distinct impression that this “weblog” is going to be really popular.

-We’re not clairvoyant or anything, but we have the distinct impression that this “weblog” is not really popular. No offense meant; we think it may be a language thing.

-Sadie’s new “website” is up and running, and it’s called Agent Bedhead. Interestingly, whereas her old “weblog” was far more visually appealing than ours, her new “weblog” is far more visually appealing than ours. Under such circumstances, does this really count as a change? Man, that was a really Zen observation. Or stupid.

-Sullywatch still sucks.

Well, dear reader, we don’t know about you, but that made us feel really, really good. We wonder how many “normal” “webloggers” will take our queue and try their hands at a few shortish essays.

In the meantime, since we’re so regular and all, we thought we ought finally to figure out what the heck SCOTUS means. We’ve seen that neologism more times than “the” in the past few months, and we keep on thinking “scrotum.” But, then again, in general we keep on thinking “scrotum.”

Posted at January 19, 2006 12:01 AM | TrackBack