Poetry & Blindfolds

This is my silly meme in which I take friends’ pictures on facebook, couple them with their status updates and produce hit CDs.

 

 

Occasionally, it occurs to me that I should probably promote this blog.  I don’t know how.  Now, it is worth pointing out that I don’t know how for two very specific reasons: (1) since a lot of these blogs are not particularly “showy” or written as entertainment pieces, promoting the blog would be like inviting people to come sit in my kitchen while I’m rinsing silverware; and (2) I really don’t know how.

 

I took a brief (read: two minute) tour of the Networked Blogs discussion boards on Facebook in an effort (read: half-assed) to promote my writing.  I found a series of discussion threads, filled to the brim with promoting bloggers and their pitches.  Some made me laugh.  So I thought I’d share:

 

Pitch: Please LIKE our page we will LIKE you back immediately!

Assessment: This author, who will remain nameless (though, if pressed, his name is Ted Ings), thinks of himself in the plural in order to make himself sound like a gang.  Plus, he doesn’t really want to find anything interesting to read, he simply wants people to click on LIKE or something and he’ll do the same.  Sort of like standing on the street and agreeing to shake someone’s hand, but only if they shake yours, too.

 

Pitch: hey great blog ! take a look at mine !

Assessment: My theory is that this fellow was merely hopping various blogs, pasting his pitch and his URL all willy-nilly, and finally wound up in a discussion thread, where the pasted text didn’t quite make sense.  I also suspect the fellow noticed that his pasted text didn’t quite make sense… but that he thought, ‘whatever’ and left it there.

 

Pitch: ..i love writing poems.. ..follow my blog if u like it… ..thanks…

Assessment: This fellow seems to go the extra mile.  Not only do you get a smiley face for following his blog, but you get a winky.  The majority of blog promotional bits I read have a smiley.  Or a winky.  But a smiley AND a winky?  Crazy.  It nearly makes one overlook the weird use of periods, the textspeak “u” and the goofy way the whole thing reads.  Nearly.

 

Pitch: {THE NEW BK} (NYC) REALITY! {REALMUSICREVOLUTION} COMING BEFORE SPRING!  CHECK OUT THE SNIPPETS AND THE “PATH TO GREATNESS” MIXTAPE HIT SINGLE “IM A CHAMP” FOLLOW AND I WILL DEFINITELY SHOW LUV BACK,, *YA GODGUIDED R&B G*

Assessment: Someone picked up the tattered remnants of other peoples’ ideas and tried to glue them together into a whole new idea.  This grammatical Frankenstein should be left to die on the table.

 

Pitch: Follow the above blog and like my FB page – leave me a message on FB (with the name you have followed me and the links you want me to follow) – I will follow back within 24 hrs (working days)   PS: This blog might be helpful to you as well – it got technical guides
Assessment: “It got technical guides.”  I love that – even more than the mind puzzle of “24 hrs (working days).” 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for promoting my own blog, I completely forgot about it.

 

 

 

In response to an article (posted on Facebook by my friend Peter) entitled “Why Do Americans Keep Getting Suckered By Right-Wing Lies?” I postulated:

 

Vincent: In my experience, lefties are a bit more about giving everyone a fair shake; righties are a bit more about giving themselves and their friends a fair shake. Since most people are generally selfish, the latter is usually a far more attractive yoke to bear.

 

This inspired a fellow named Sterlin to comment:

 

Sterlin: Vincet, why should we be obligated to give anyone anything at all? What’s wrong with preserving our own self-interest?

 

Vincent: Sterli, your first question is very interesting. So I’m not going to give you an answer.

 

Sterlin: That’s pretty much how I saw this conversation panning out, but I at least gave you the benefit of the doubt.

 

At this point, I knew two things about Sterlin.  (1) He had little or no developed sense of humor. (2) He was jumping from questions to personal attacks within two comments, so the prospect for a constructive, let alone “light”, conversation was slim to none.  And so off we went on one of my favorite internet cat-and-mouse games I’ve played recently.

 

Vincent: Just trying on the ‘why should we give anyone anything’ philosophy on for size. Doesn’t fit – a bit small – but I like to at least try to be on the same page as those who engage me.

 

Sterlin: I never said that’s it not okay to give things to someone. (what? – ed.) I’m all for the freedom of charity and the notion that anyone can give their property to whomever they choose. I’m merely trying to understand where your posistion actually is, and if we differ, or if I see fault, we can hash out the details through debate.

 

Vincent: Sterli, I’m not sure why you would ask “why should we be obligated to give anyone anything at all?” and then add “I never said that’s it not okay to give things to someone.” I’m deathly afraid of getting into a debate with you based on those statements, as I fully expect you to say “why is the sky blue?” followed by “I never said the sky wasn’t blue.” I find such an approach disingenuous at best.

 

Sterlin: “Obligated” is the key word vincet. Your reading comprehension is a bit off today.

 

Vincent: Sterli, you introduced the concept of obligation; I didn’t. Your ability to know what you’re writing is a little off today. Another reason why debate would be a fool’s errand.

 

Sterlin: You’re dancing around the implications of your argument. You said that “In my experience, lefties are a bit more about giving everyone a fair shake; righties are a bit more about giving themselves and their friends a fair shake.”  Is this not a ridiclous assumption to make in the first place? You didn’t even deny the fact that I used the “concept obligation.” In that space you’re basically agreeing with it. Vincent why is it that “righties” are more into giving themselves and their friends a fairshake? Think about the conclusion of your argument.  If the concept of obligation is not inherent in what you’ve said please clarify. But I doubt that you can do that. I’d love to see what you have to say.

 

Sterlin: If my ability to know what I’m writing about is a little off, yours is worse.  This makes you a hypocrit.

 

Vincent: Congratulations, sir, on giving yourself massive amounts of credit by winning a debate that we are not having. Further, you have my admiration for trying to goad me into a debate, long after I clearly stated I would not have one. I am particularly fond of the boorish insults that you have attached to your sentiments, the kind of which I have not experience in-person since I was eight years old (and extra kudos for concluding I am a hypocrit [sic] when I made no contradictory statement). Since I cannot graciously admit defeat, as there is no debate, I can only wish you well with your hollow victory. Well played.

 

Sterlin: It must be a very secure place to make outrageous and presumptive claims and then not have the integrity and grace to back them up.  You, sir, deserve the congratualtions.

 

Vincent: I confess, Sterli, to being unsure what “congratualtions” are, but if they are anything like congratulations, I am touched by the intent but must refuse them. But I am increasingly in awe of your ability to compound insult onto insult – that could not be an easy task! It has been years since I was able to be so challenging and insulting to people, while demanding debate and declaring myself the winner in a few short exchanges, but I was very unhappy and self-loathing in those days. Fortunately, I now find people who employ this method to be the source of great entertainment and laughter. This is for you: ha ha.

 

Sterlin: It would have been more accurate of me to call you a coward. That would have been the real insult.

 

Vincent: Indeed! I must confide to you that your insults are not so much effective as laughably transparent. No doubt your friends, presuming you have any, have told you the same. However, I do not wish to discourage you from your well-honed talent at being a “keyboard commando”. It takes a certain kind of intelligence to call someone a “coward” while being behind a computer screen. On that front, as well as our debate that never happened, you are the victor.

 

Sterlin: It’s funner to goad you into whining. Keep going.

 

Vincent: I sincerely appreciate the gymnastics you want to go through in an effort to make yourself appear clever. Nothing appears to be more “funner”, does it?

 

Sterlin: Yes, Yes. Continue.

 

Vincent: You are too kind! What we have determined here, Sterli, and something I suspected from the beginning, is that you did not want a debate at all. Rather, you wanted someone to have an online fight with. I have done my best to humor you, as one does with any misbehaving bitch with distemper, but find myself disinterested in your one-note solipsism.

 

 

Sterlin: Vincent, in all honesty, I did want to debate. I wanted to know why you said what you said, and why you think what you think. I didn’t intend the conversation to move in this direction, which is basically a waste of both of our time. I’m just curious why you didn’t say “I don’t want to debate this,” instead of making some assumptions about my philosophy when you don’t really know anything about me. Instead of making these assumptions, you could have asked me a question and I would have explained. The things you said to me where just as much as an insult as the things I said to you. Perhaps I went about trying to start a debate with you the wrong way. Perhaps I was just as presumptuous.

 

 

 

*crickets*