The rules of the netwebblogosphere are important to us all. What we are looking for is clarity. The purpose of course, is to communicate with another human being (most of the time) in a manner that will make it possible for him or her to ingest the material and throw it all back at you or throw up it all over you. These metaphors are getting more and more complicated, do you not think?        

I get confused all the time. I was reading a WSJ editorial written by that freedom fighter Karl Rove a month or so ago. Well you can imagine. I did an entire blog on it demonstrating that the only thing he had correct in his entire essay was his name following the title. I will not reproduce the essay and my response here, but suffice it to say that old karl maintained:

That w's Administration was one of the greatest administrations to ever sit in the WH from January of 2001 to January of 2009, because there was nobody else there.

That under w's guidance, America experienced 52 continuous months of growth which is more months than the other 44 months under w's guidance which ended upon the greatest economic downturn in our nation's history at least for the last 80 years.

That under w's guidance, America was never attacked again as it had been under w's guidance on 9/11/01.

Old karl then supplied us with five or six other lies and if you missed them, you can catch them on the internet by watching dicky c's interview by King (not Larry but the guy who looks like Anderson's older brother) it is all the same stuff anyway.

Now the problem with the editorial, was that it was not addressed to the person or persons to whom karl was writing. Let us take this example in light of our next:

                    ETHICS OF THE NETWEBBLOGOSPHERE:     

                    IS THIS THE PARTY TO WHOM I AM WRITING?


7. Be clear about the subject or person you're addressing. There is nothing more confusing and maddening for a thread reader to come across a cryptic response to someone else's comment and have no idea what the dialogue is about. The easiest way to prevent this confusion in our blog is to right-click the date stamp on the comment you're addressing and copy the url that appears in your browser. Or in some cases you might just copy a particular quote into your response, but be sure to add the name of commenter.    

And as always we must thank Craig Crawford and Trail Mix for providing a framework for these discussions.
                        
Now  I am a bit of a commie symp, and I am not a techy and I do not right click enough. I am more of a left clicker. And frankly, I do not have the faintest idea what Mr. Crawford is talking about in the third sentence here.  But I do know this:

In the above example, I do not think that karl made clear whom he was addressing with his editorial.   If he would have simply added a little preface to his essay prior to publishing he would have saved untold damage to a majority of readers.  I would have suggested a preface that would go something like this:

This editorial is really addressed to those 9% of Americans who still believe that dicky cheney did a fine job as vice president of the United States and to those 9% of Americans who are grateful for the 52 months of prosperity, and to those who are sure that the earth is 8,000 years old and to those  forgetful of the current economic crisis and to those who get their news from Fox and to those who believe that minorities should not vote or hold jobs.

Now, you see, everybody would have been prewarned. With a preface like this, I would have known that there would be absolutely no truth whatsoever in the editorial.

I should also note that karl is never clear about the subject he is addressing. His title had been something akin to: Why we all love George W. Bush. 

But that was not the subject of his essay at all. He lied to us in the title. It was much too vague.The true subject of his essay and in fact all of his statements as a pundit for Fox was as follows:

I am being paid by conservative think tanks funded by billionaires who need a platform upon which to spew propaganda to keep the rich rich as it were and the poor poorer and the middle class less middle class.  I pull out most of my facts from my own ass and from other sources pulled out of other repub lackey's asses in an effort to make as much money as possible in the shortest period of time. And I also owe it to myself to spew as many lies as possible while I am under investigation for felonies committed over the last eight years and the two years before that as head of w's campaign for the presidency.

There. Now we have clarification. Now I know where karl is coming from, where he currently is and where he is going. See how simple that is.  It is turd blossom talking to idiots.

Now if the main stream media would keep this all in mind, they could quit quoting him or talking to him or replaying his speeches. Everyone could just agree that karl is irrelevant because he would not know the truth if it bit him on his sloppy stinky ass.

Geez, I am so glad I got that off of my chest.

In our little Tier Two world, Mr. Crawford's rule has some real applications.   I think this rule is as applicable to a post as it is to  a comment.

When you create a post ask yourself these questions before pushing the submit button:

1. Is there a point that I am addressing in my blog today?

2.  Do the arguments I make apply to the point I am addressing?

3.  Why are we here?

4.  Would there be any interest whatsoever  in the subject of this blog?

5.  Did I remember to set the timer on my TV this time or will the frozen pizza just be burned beyond recognition again?

6.  Did I properly place my obscenities into my argument or are they again just thrown in helter skelter like tinsel on an xmas tree? Or rather badly strewn tinsel on an xmas tree? Oh forget it.

These are just some of the questions you might ask yourself. Feel free to chime in and give us your structural questions. I am constantly asking myself if that funny smell means that the ash on my cigarette has fallen on my pajamas again and ohhhhhhhh.

Damn I hate that.

One example that I came across last night was entitled:

IS JESUS UP MY ASS CRACK?

I postponed my appearance at this disgusting blog until I realized I might be able to use it as an example. In fact, Tim Fuller provided a link to a story where people were claiming that they could see our Lord & Savior (blesses himself) on a cushion in a pew at some church. (And that is why they call them pews-a yadayadayadayadayada yada yad-THAT'S ALL FOLKS) Now I concluded:

1.  The title was disgusting.

2.  The subject was disgusting

3.  The link/story/picture was disgusting

You see. We have clarity and consistency all in the same blog. What's not to like? THE ENTIRE IDEA BIRD BRAINS, THE ENTIRE THING IS DISGUSTING.

Now as to the commenter. I once made the most wonderful comment:

w and dicky c. are guilty of war crimes; crimes against humanity and nature and god as we choose to view our personal god. They have lied, cheated, stolen, tortured and murdered in an attempt to achieve their own selfish ends.

Now that is a fine comment. I even removed the 75 obscenities that were first included in that thought. So what was the problem with it? Well it was submitted in response to a blog at Open Salon entitled:

WHERE ARE YOU SPENDING YOUR CHRISTMAS?

Well, you can imagine, my comment did not go over well.

You see, even the lowliest of the low can make mistakes.

And always remember this:

IF LIFE WERE EASY, ANYBODY COULD DO IT!!!!