Okay, so I thought, hell, let us continue to take a look at blogging from a 2009 point of view.

Now Missy would tell me that I am simply seeking to get attention. That is that I am only seeking to get people to look at me.

WELL OF COURSE I AM. HAHAHAAHAHAH

Anyway, I am republishing this Award Winning discussion on blogging. What are our responsibilities? Well let us take a look at how I saw this issue in March of this year.

I promised to continue this blog hours ago. But a funny thing happened on the way to chapter two of this saga.  We have a nice small group here. I have mentioned it many times. We talk about war criminals like dicky c and w and rummy.  We talk about corporate excesses. And most of the time we can stay on the front page for an entire day!!!

We have people here with advanced degrees, sometimes many more than one. We have people who have been published in the real world. We have people who have had more than a few moments of fame.  TPM as a mainstream blog of course has great journalists and pundits who appear on TV regularly and the site is cited on cable news often.

I am talking about our little community here. So I check out Craig Crawford from time to time and hit on his ten rules. And I know we have our own rules here, TheraP had done more than one blog on this subject and so have others. But it struck me as funny, because of my mood at the time.

So I thought about doing a serial on these rules. And we might end up in a more serious discussion as the comments came in.  Of course I never know when others are going to find interest in my subject or my take, but that is the fun of it all. Is it not?

Now when I first started blogging here in November, I was afraid.  I would post something and get two comments. And fade into obscurity.  But as I got more comments and positive reinforcement, I got braver and braver. And at times, funnier and funnier.

So sometimes I get to the point where I have a little too much hubris and I get carried away.  And that is also the fun of it. Do you not think?  But I consider that I am writing to my friends after my first few months and I get relaxed because, after all, who is reading me?  

There is something to be said for being ignored.  No one cares what you are saying anyway.  You cannot get in too much trouble.

So anyway, I am doing my comedy act and pontificating. And my friends all start joining in the festivities.  Q has my rolling on the floor laughing, Sleepin is doin something with Grouch. And Amike, the soft well educated man here, chimes in talking about sweet potatoes. Obey shows up and Yva is providing links and everything is good. Good and normal but more comments than usual. And we are up to 50 or so and Gregor shows up. And Gregor attempts to get at some serious issues about blogging and we are having a discussion and as I am clicking a submit to him,

I see: Craig Crawford.  At first I think, oh yeah we are blogging about him.

Well, the submission goes through and sure enough, someone calling himself CC has commented.

I am flushed.  I mean I am getting good vibes from the song I did on another blog, and here is somebody I have watched on TV for twenty years and is a professional journalist and I melt.

Now, is this Q making a joke? Or Obey or somebody else?  I figure, I have nothing to lose.
So I respond, respectfully and humbly and submit and I come back because somewhere in all this my computer is crashing and I need a cleaning.  I get back and there is Q responding:

THE PEASANTS ARE REVOLTING.  THE END

Now I am in stitches and I realize, CC has replied to my reply.  No I really am CC.

CC even replied to Q somewhere in there.

Ok. So what do we do now?  First Gregor has me rolling on the floor because he comments:

Why doesn't CC respond to me?

Our rule for the day is CC's  second commandment:

   2. Nobody likes a know-it-all. Thoughtful, knowledgeable commenters gain a following. Condescending smartypants are about as welcome on a blog as they are in someone's living room. They generally persuade no one and aggravate everyone. When fact-checking, pointing out a typo or dead link or asserting a dissenting opinion, do it in a respectful, friendly way.

First, I kind of look like a smarty pants most of the time. I figure what is the point of blogging if you cannot be a smarty pants and I do not know enough most of the time to get too serious anymore. Further, I know there are people here that would feel safer with a weapon of some kind if I were really in their living room.

We have talked often about taking a cheap shot at someone for misspelling since I never could spell. Or making too much of a dead link.
 
The more serious side of this has to do with my discussion with Gregor in the first blog.

Now there is context here. If I am relating a story and end with, and then I buried my dog.

A comment asking: How long were you married to her?  Might seem a bit harsh.

On the other hand when Q responds to this first chapter with: This is the single worst blog I have ever read.  I laugh. Because of context.

So begin the discussion on Chapter 2 of our series. 

Some may feel I am wimping out here. You will find no obscenity which at times is an art I can be good at. Hahhahahahahah

Oh, and never forget, somebody you never would have thought of, may be listening or reading.

Okay, so that is how the second chapter went. But I am only adding here that there can be no real rules for idiocy. But we attempt to cope. hahahaha Oh here are some of the comments that went with the first blog:

I don't get the angst about some commenting guidelines for users of my blog (brought on by an escalation of flame wars between users, not any criticism of me). There's nothing there to suggest anything to the rest of the blog universe, only to regulars on mine: http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/commenting-guide.html

And btw, reading over TPM's much lengthier Terms of Service (requiring the user to accept before registering), I'd say yours are much more restrictive and burdensome Craig Crawford

My response:

I cannot tell if this is a joke, but I have nothing to lose and it goes to another of your rules regarding anonymity. This IS me. This is my name.
That is a separate issue that I was going to get into later because on bigger blogs my name will not work because it is too common.

I am just going to take the chance this is not a joke. I have nothing to lose as I said.

As you might imagine I do not correspond with too many famous people, none actually hahahahahahahaha

This was meant as a satire with some meat to discuss your rules (which are really universal) in the context as delivered right above you with my friend Gregor.

If this is really you, hello, nice to meet you. I have been watching you and reading you for at least two decades.

I am an old man in my pajamas.

I still cannot stop laughing.

I certainly wish you no harm. I am just speechless.

If it is a joke, its a good one. (ME)

Mr. Crawford responds:

Well I am me, Craig Crawford, last time I checked. Yes. Not a joke at all. And I chafe at the idea of being called famous, consider myself a bit player in the pundit game. No, didn't think you meant harm, just wanted to clear up that I wasn't trying to tell commenters on other blogs how to act. Based on the observations I saw here, realized it could be taken that way, so I changed its title to "How To Be a Better Commmenter ON THIS BLOG." Thanks for the help, really. And you and yours are welcome to play with our gang anytime: http://www.craigcrawford.com

Cheers!

THE PEASANTS ARE REVOLTING.

THE END. (THE Q)