[Types of] Bloggers I, er, intensely dislike

Version 1.1

Published on September 6, 2004 By Angloesque In Blogging

This idea is a work in progress. As are most of my ideas, come to think of it. It's actually a spinoff of an idea I had about people on JU, but I'm not stupid enough (or kiss-ass enough) to name names.

1. Negativos. These are the people who couldn't see the light at the end of a tunnel with night-vision goggles. They see the world as full of horrible people, political quagmires, and shoddy policies be they government or company (or JU), and these people can't seem to gain a balanced perspective on the negative and the positive. I honestly think these people are the worst because they are such energy-leeches. This probably applies more generally to people I know and am thinking of, not just JU bloggers.

2. Bumpers. These are the ones who wait a few days and then comment on their article to bump it back to the top of the forum. Or else they edit their article, or their title, to bump it back up. (Okay, I'm guilty of waiting to reply, but I think it's counterproductive because the interest level your article may have aroused is likely gone.)

3. Anonymous cowards. These come in two sizes. (1) Dumbasses who managed to get here via a google search and don't bother to read the article, or its replies, or consider its context, before replying, and (2) JUs posing anonymously who bump their articles back to the top. (See #2)

4. A-Grammarians. Now I admit to being a grammar snob, but I can be patient with a few mistakes. I make them, too. Consistent erring without care is what bugs me. Capital letters and punctuation marks were invented for a reason, as were paragraphs. Like I told my students, using correct grammar is akin to gaining ethos; the speaker's respect gains a few notches when his/her grammar is above the stupidhead level.

5. Admins. On a previous forum I got on the wrong side of the admin, so now I generally avoid them (if I know who they are). Sort of a mixed metaphor of "Don't bite the hand that feeds you" and "Don't wake the beast."

6. Divulgers. I'm sorry but I don't want to know the details of your sex life, your divorce, or your great aunt's bowel movements.

7. Sensors. People who react too quickly and too sensitively to the smallest criticism.

8. Censors. These are those who abuse the "blacklist" button by either overuse or flaming those they've blacklisted.

9. Touchy-feelies. I don't want *hugs* or *kisses*. Blech. I'm already doing my best to stay away from my own grandmother's slobbering mouth, so I'll thank you kindly to keep your cyber-DNA to yourself.

10 (because the world should be neatly ordered into lists of 10). Bigots. These are the ones who make gross over-generalizations, whose are intolerant of the notion that they might just be wrong, or that anyone else has a right to his/her own opinion. They are characterized by vitriol and close-mindedness, the latter of which being what is to me the unpardonable sin. I generally find them cohabitating with Negativos.

I'm sure there are more, and that I'll come up with more creative names. In the meantime, I'm going to have to come up with a list of "[Types of} Bloggers I Love" so I don't fall into category #1.

Cheers.

Comments (Page 2)

Jamie Burnside

on Sep 07, 2004

or your great aunt's bowel movements

shit...

That wrecks my next article. Now what am I going to write about?

Angloesque

on Sep 07, 2004

SSG Geezer, I didn't say nothin' about animal bowel movements--those are fine by me.

Insightful

on Sep 07, 2004

"Can't see the light at the end of the tunnel with, night goggles."
and, the old, "who's," bowel movement?

This is good stuff. You ever think of doing some, comedy writing?

Good Job Angloest!

P.S. I assure that all spelling, and grammar errors, in this little, diddi, were done on purpose.
I mean, I would have to be a complete idiot to write this poorly by accident, right?

Enjoy!

Jay Walker

on Sep 07, 2004

2. Bumpers. These are the ones who wait a few days and then comment on their article to bump it back to the top of the forum. Or else they edit their article, or their title, to bump it back up.

Hey, I comment on my own articles sometimes. Most often, it's not for nefarious point-sucking reasons as you allege. Sometimes, I've just thought of something else to say. OK, sometimes it's been for point sucking reasons too. lol

Anyway, sometimes I like to add to what I've said. Better than starting a new thread and repeating everything I said before too. It drops off the map pretty quickly anyway, unless your new comment catches someone. And if it does, I say "fair dinkum Aussie!"

JW

historyishere

on Sep 07, 2004

I've added things a couple times as a comment to an article... I think if you do it sparingly, its ok....

stevendedalus

on Sep 07, 2004

Anglo, You seem to protest too much--are you perhaps guilty of all of the above?

I know I'm guilty of just now bumping you.

Angloesque

on Sep 07, 2004

All things in moderation.

See, you two aren't doing it for nefarious reasons. That's cool with me. I should've written "...comment on their article JUST to bump it back to the top..." and I've seen one of our infamous bloggers change her title just to knock it back up in the queue. (Aside: I love the word "queue.")

Insightful, gee don't I wish.

Humor writing is for talented people. And people who have day jobs.

Insightful

on Sep 08, 2004

Dang! You ARE screwed.

You want to switch addresses for about a month? I live in a "swing state," so your vote will count.
Me? I have no idea which way that I'm going to swing........Vote!
(I'm talking about voting folks.)
Pay attention!

Ah, er, well, I might have committed some of the crimes that you speak of.
I'm kind of new to this blogging thing.
I will work at trying to reduce my sins.

Oh! I read your lastest article too. I'm thinking that I would be a cowboy hat!
NO! I'm not from your home state.

Good stuff! Keep up the good work.

Gideon MacLeish

on Sep 08, 2004

I will admit to a few bumps of articles...but when I do it it's because I launched the article during a slow time and it got no responses...and I only do it when it was a REALLY good article that sunk.

I will occasionally delay my responses to bump an article, though...but I try to limit that to about a 36 hour window...after that I let it sink or, if another blog hits a similar note, I may link to it on the new article...but those are just good point whoring techniques, anglo....

Angloesque

on Sep 08, 2004

Wow, Gid, I could take point whoring lessons from a guy at the top. Was it a, er, tough mount to climb?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!