Very kind of you to take 'blok' on board. Thanks for your invaluable elaboration as to the term's significance. I'm hopeful it would contribute positively to people's general perception of blogs and their true worth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Cat...Fictional_kings
We're only one shy of having the Ten Commandments of Blokking. What should the last one be? Wipe your shoes?
In the end it's all about turning the blog into a literary tool, and not just a vehicle for the other vanities most people do.
If someone writes a blok/blog as a literary tool and someone else writes a blok/blog as a vehicle for vanities, aren't they both still using the same medium?
That's a rhetorical question. Let's put it this way: bad filmmakers and good filmmakers both use the same medium. What of it?
Because you don't understand my question, you deem it to be rhetorical?
My point was that whether you write a blog as a literary tool or a blog as a vehicle for vanity, wouldn't they still be the same thing?
Oh, so I don't "understand" your lame condescending question? You're so much smarter than me, aren't you?
Learn your way around the concept of "rhetorical".
And no, they wouldn't. Unless you want me to consider your blog the same thing as a blog made of pictures of babies...
If I was smarter than you, it could only be because I'm not acting as if your questions/points are meaningless and empty, as you have mine.
At any rate, if a "literary tool" and "vehicle for vanity" both use the same medium - blogs - aren't they both the same thing - blogs?
No. Now shut up, you annoying creep.
Does this mean you are unable to explain why two blogs are something other than two blogs?
No, it means SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Which also means you are incapable of explaining why two blogs are something other than two blogs.
Good God, what an annoying cretin. Look, if you want to dwell on this remarkably clever point of yours to equate all blogs in an egalitarian display, by all means, indulge in it. But just stop annoying me with your condescending crap. If you think your blog or my blog is the same thing as a blog made of pictures of babies or cats or whatever, fine, I don't give a shit. But stop annoying me. Ever since the beginning you've been bothering me with your Socratic questions, as if you have some great revelation which eludes me, and it's REALLY annoying. That's why I said: it's a rhetorical question, which means that you've already decided on an answer for it, and you are only being condescending with your questions, expecting that my answer will prove your worthless point correct. IT WON'T. Get it in your stupid head: a literary blog is better than a blog made of the usual vanities that other people blog about. It doesn't matter if they use the same medium, which is why I said: bad filmmakers and good filmmakers both use the same medium. What of it? That was the whole point of Ben's post: that literary blogs are superior to the other kinds of blogs. If you don't get that, get out of here, you are wasting your time and my time with your condescending egalitarian nonsense. I don't care if you or your people disagree with me, that's how it is. Literature is the only thing that remains in history, all the rest is impermanent. Capisce, motherfucker?
I have not made up my mind about the answer to my question. Apparently you have, however. Does that mean your answers are rhetorical?
If one blog is superior over another blog, perhaps that is so. But, aren't they still both blogs? If they are both still blogs, aren't they still the same thing?
You say that literature is the only thing that lasts in history, but isn't a fair amount of history filled with personal account? Isn't history itself often provided by personal account? Are not vanity blogs fueled by personal account?
No. No. No.
Enough.
My original question, according to you, was rhetorical because I already made up my mind beforehand. If you have done the same with your answers, why are your answers not rhetorical?
Personal accounts have never lasted through history? Personal accounts have never been used as history?
Enough of what...simplistic questions that you are incapable of answering or providing an explanation for?
Commenting by HaloScan
