You request, I respond

Reader-submitted question: Is there a picture of the Grammar Nazi on waterskis?

I get it. You guys think you can just request photos of me in a bikini, all wet and panting from exertion, and I will simply upload them to the Internet.

You know, the last time I did something similar, I received a number of complaints about posting "half-naked photos" of myself online. People are STILL complaining.

This is probably a bad idea, but here goes:

Maine

Michael had so much fun on the tube, we could hear him screaming from across the lake. Don't worry: my dad is already going deaf from his years as a guitarist in noisy dance halls. He will probably not be able to prove that this particular incident contributed to his hearing loss.

This is my sister-in-law, Sarah. You know her as the Blueberry Princess.

This is my grandmother: my mom's mom.

My uncle was kind enough to host us at his camp.

We finally got Steve onto the tube, but I couldn't convince him to go skiing.

Blog Share: Summer Edition

The next blog share will be next week, and I will be participating. This means two things:

1) A stranger will be blogging here anonymously. It will be something he or she would not normally post on his or her own blog.
2) I will be posting anonymously on someone else's blog. It will be something I would not normally post here.

If you recognise yourself, you may at least be comforted by the knowledge that nobody else will recognise you. Well, other than the people who recognise you instantly. BWAHAHAHAHA. Yes, I know what I am going to write about.

If you want to be a part of the blog share, there's still time to sign up: just get in touch with -R-. Several of my readers did it last time, and I think they all really enjoyed it.

This should really be on the Uriel blog

Reader-submitted question: I'm not sure how you are taking Edward Current's comments. As I watched this video, it became apparent that Ed is being facetious. For one thing, he calls the Bible "unerrant." The word used by those of this opinion is "inerrant." For another, he blatantly points out conflicting instructions given in the Bible and just says (and I paraphrase), "Accept the contradictions and act accordingly." No inerrantist would say this. They would claim very loudly that there are no *real* contradictions in the Bible, only *apparent* contradictions. They would then go through a great song and dance explaining why the contradictions aren't "really" contradictions.

So my question is, are you a biblical inerrantist or not? If you are, then I can see why Ed's video is bothering you. If you are not, then maybe you aren't picking up on his facetious tone, and you are bothered by the fact that the Bible might be inerrant but that you haven't believed this up until now, and you are wondering if God will condemn you for your lack of inerrantist belief.

Yeah, this should definitely be on the Uriel blog, but I don't want to break character over there.

Edward Current is a satirist. He and Uriel have a lot in common: many people think they are serious. They are not. It is all in jest.

Uriel is currently going through a crisis that was brought on when she showed kindness to a traveling missionary. When she meets people who follow other religions, she usually spits on them and tells them they are going to hell. For some reason, she actually listened to this guy's stories and realised that he has a holy book that says the entire book is true. She is not sure how to handle this. She is comforting herself by spending even more time than usual on the Internet, trying to find someone who will tell her what to believe. She thinks Edward Current is her soulmate. In a way, I guess he is.

I'll bring Uriel back when I figure out what to do with her, I promise. However, your questions still deserve answers.

Uriel is an inerrantist. She is also a member of a splinter sect that meets only on the Internet and uses the Bible along with several other "holy" books that have been passed along through the generations. Of course, they all exist only on the Internet. She believes that the hard copies were destroyed by the government because they were TOO TRUE. She also believes that you cannot trust hard copies, because they have both jots AND tittles. Online versions, on the other hand, are completely electronic and much more accurate.

Everything in those books (well, websites) is 100% true. None of it is metaphorical. As you point out, she goes through a song and dance trying to figure out how it can all be true when it clearly isn't.

I personally am not an inerrantist. Thanks for your question.

Back in Canada

This will be brief. We are in Halifax, and it is a lovely place. I lived here for four years while I was working on my degree, and my first job after graduation was at the MotherCorp station here in town. I love it.

We left Maine this morning and had breakfast at the Governor's in Bangor. It's a family tradition -- we used to stop there for breakfast and then drive home to Newfoundland. We had breakfast with my parents, who fly back to Florida tomorrow morning.

My parents were very surprised. I can't believe we kept our visit a secret for so long. Only my brother Matt (AKA Torq, AKA Philosopher King) and my uncle Rick knew we were coming. It was great.

I have Internet access here, but will probably not be back to regular posting for a few days. I want to walk in the public garden and look at the beautiful trees.

It's been ten years

Happy anniversary, Steve.

And happy Independence Day, American readers.

Far, far away

I apologise for disappearing: if I had posted about this, I would have given away the surprise I was plotting for my parents. I am in rural Maine and access to the Internet is nonexistent at the family cabin. I set up a few scheduled posts, but I won't be as accessible as I usually am. I'll be back in Canada next week.

Happy Canada Day

What you weirdos are searching for on Google

Behind the Hoffettes
Rowan [name of narcissist withheld]
Gucci Baby
I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes
john mcenroe : you're lying
what google keywords people are using to find me
i followed you down to the sound of my voice that haunts you
pants that make you have a butt
pouring new wine into old wineskins
"lindsey buckingham" + sexiest (and many similar searches)
i hate bikes they don't belong on the road

I am getting a lot of hits through Google Image Search for this and this. Also, someone really, really wants pictures of narrow-hipped women giving birth.

God only knows what I'd be without you

As you know, I have claimed that this is the best video in the history of modern cinematography. I stand behind that statement, but I know you have all been wondering what the second-best video is.

Well, wonder no more. I have discovered it.

Late Late Hoff

I know most of you have your Tivos set to automatically record all of the Hoff's television appearances, but I am posting this as a public service. You never know when a lightning strike is going to take out all electricity to a region. This could have disastrous consequences if your television shuts off. What if you missed this groundbreaking appearance?

What do you think?

I would appreciate your thoughts on this design. The bits and pieces have not been filled in, but I think you can see how it would all work. You can click on the image to increase its size on your screen.

Do you like the colours? The fonts? The girl? (She needs bangs and blue eyes, but those are minor details.) Should I ask my multi-talented friend Amy to tinker with this design or start over? Do I need something with stronger colours or a tougher image? If you have specific suggestions, we would like to hear them.

Tooth Fairy

I don't know what to do now

I now own snowcoveredhills.com. I have no idea what to do with it, though. Everything that's over there now is just there to hold the spot. Web design is definitely not one of my strengths.

Fortunately, the fabulous and talented Amy is going to help me out. I figured out how to log in, but the tips for getting started begin this way:

1. Unzip the package in an empty directory.

Unzip which package? Am I really so dumb that I can't figure this out?

If this works, I plan to move over there. Don't worry: I will give you lots of lead time so you don't get lost, and I'll put a link up at the top of this blog.

Reader-submitted T-Hoff

Parenting is the hardest thing I have ever done.

Michael has had a falling-out with a friend who said something hurtful. The friend later apologised and explained what he meant, but things have not been the same. There has been an unmistakable chill in the air for the past few days.

Michael has had disagreements and out-and-out fights with other kids before, but this one seemed to completely shatter him. He came home choking tears back, and stayed in his room by himself for hours. When the friend apologised, Michael was afraid that he was lying.

It has affected me, too: I am now constantly second-guessing his relationships with other kids. He suddenly seems more tentative and on the sidelines. I am unsure how to deal with it. Of course, it's possible that I am imagining all of this. Today was the end-of-school pizza party, and when we arrived at the gym, Michael was playing with a bunch of boys. We stayed near the door and watched quietly. I kept asking Steve if he was playing normally. He kept saying that he was; I remained unconvinced.

Yes, I am a crazy mommy.

I am posting this only because it is weighing heavily on my mind. The friend is like a brother to Michael and a nephew to me, and I am sure this will all blow over in a few days. In the meantime, it is hard to watch.

Sometimes I think I am not strong enough to be a mother.

Seven words

Because it's all about ME, ME, ME, it struck me as somewhat funny that I became afflicted with blog-induced Tourette's syndrome just as bloggers everywhere started to post George Carlin clips. (RIP, George.)

I watched his "seven words" act this morning for the first time. I'm not sure how I avoided it all these years, but it doesn't really matter. The point is that I was coming to it fresh. I was anxious to see what all of the fuss was about.

I was surprised and disappointed to see that it really wasn't funny. I only laughed once during the ten-minute bit. Now, before you dismiss me as a humourless wench, I will reassure you that I love South Park and I've enjoyed the other Carlin routines I've watched. I was expecting to laugh, if maybe a bit nervously because I don't really like curse words. Instead, I was bored.

Our language is fascinating. These words that we consider offensive can be completely stripped of their meaning when used out of context. Clearly, the words themselves aren't offensive at all. Swearing is for lazy people with poor vocabularies.

Grrrr

I feel a little like the old-time treasure hunters. I really believe that I'm searching for something that is just out of my reach. If I only put in more time, or pay more money, or look at another website, I will be rewarded. I am a moron.

Yes, I am still looking at blog designs. No, I am not any happier than I was before. If anything, I am LESS happy, because I spent the weekend sitting in my chair and staring at the computer instead of enjoying the lovely weather we are finally having in Name of Town Withheld.

I now have Wordpress and Typepad accounts. The main advantage, as far as I can tell, is that the URLs match my blog title. (When I started this blog two years ago, I named it "Steve & Megan", because I thought Steve would write here, too. I renamed it after he only posted once in the first year.) I am spending hours looking at templates, convinced that the perfect one is just a click away.

I am an idiot.

AAAAAHHHHHHH

I am thinking about changing the way my blog looks. That is Megan-speak for "I am frustrated and tired".

I spent hours mucking around in code, trying to switch to a three-column format. Like this, only with the Anime Sweetheart at the top instead of the red bar:
I figured this would be a better use of space than the current two-column format. You might think this would be easy. You would be wrong. Very wrong. I think I may have developed Tourette's syndrome from the stress.

You can see that there are only two columns here and that it really doesn't look any different than the last time you visited. There is a good reason for this: After hours of stress, I decided to go back to the way things were. Isn't that GREAT? I put in hours of work for absolutely no benefit! What is this, the federal government? And after all of that, the joke was still on me: I lost all of my widgets AND the blog header half of you say I should change. They all had to be put back manually.

I love Wordpress blogs, but I am not keen to spend hours installing updates every few months. Blogger is nice and simple, and I don't have enough patience to muck around in code all the time. I don't even have enough patience to look at much code, which is part of my problem.

I am tempted to just pony up the money to get my blog designed by a real designer. You know, someone who knows what he or she is doing. There is no real reason I haven't done this yet. I can stay with nice, comfortable Blogger AND have a design that suits my needs. It is just a matter of taking the time to do it.

The other problem is that I apparently have no idea who I am. I feel like the site design should be about me, or at the very least make sense with my title. Am I snow-covered hills?
Of course, there's always this reader-submitted photo:
I've been told that the only thing I'd need to do to make this image perfect would be to Photoshop Baywatch over the TV screen.

Speaking of which, there's always our old standby:
But that won't work. I am not nearly hot enough to withstand constant scrutiny, especially not when compared to a man-god like the Hoff.

I admit that I often feel like Townie Bastard's mascot (on the right, under "About Me").

Yeah, I definitely need to suck it up and hire a designer. Any thoughts on what I should tell him or her?

Truthiness

Reader-submitted: I'd love your thoughts on this video.

Interesting. I hadn't seen this until you pointed it out.

This story is about marijuana's increased potency. It is NOT your parents' pot. Got that? It's WAY WAY STRONGER. Also, kids are smoking it at younger ages.

EVERYBODY PANIC.

Many of the plants we buy have improved over the past few decades for several reasons, especially:
1) Crops are genetically different because the best/strongest/whatever strains have been identified and have displaced other strains.
2) Growing techniques have been refined.

Let's all freak out, shall we?

This story is missing something important: a source who could explain the leap from "increased THC" to "a lot more addictive". Maybe it IS a lot more addictive; I don't know. I can't know that, because the reporter hasn't made it clear. Her tone definitely tells me that I should be really afraid, but she isn't providing any real data.

Well, there are a few stats. There has been a huge increase in "marijuana abuse", which I assume means any use at all. ER visits due to marijuana use are way up.

Hmmm.

You might wonder what is sending pot smokers to the emergency room: surely it's not for the Jello. No, the reporter informs us that it's because they're paranoid. EVERYBODY PANIC.

I'm not saying that smoking pot is good. It's clearly not great for your health. I won't pretend that smoking cigarettes or drinking lots of gin is good, either. But I can't help but think that we're missing a larger story here. If pot really is more dangerous -- which the reporter didn't actually say, she just implied it and hoped we'd make the leap ourselves -- we deserve to know why.

Thanks for your question.

NOTE TO THOSE READERS WHO HAPPEN TO BE LEGAL COUNSEL FOR MY EMPLOYER: I learned this on the Internet, not from personal experience or associates. At no time have I considered horticulture as a hobby. I don't even like plants. Also, illegal drugs are very, very bad.

Ew.

"OK, so here's the concept. There's a girl sleeping, and a creepy guy outside her window videotaping her on his cell phone. He blows smoke on her and sets off the sprinkler in her room, which wakes her up. Here's the best part: She LIKES it! Then the whole thing starts vibrating. Guess what? It's the stalker's MOM!"

"Wow, that's a FABULOUS idea! Stalking is hot, and not illegal at all. You are a genius. We are going to sell a TON of LG phones!"

Reputation's changeable, situation's tolerable

I would like to draw your attention to two of the posts in my links list, because I know that you don't all use those links.

-R- is organising another blog share. The idea is that you write something you couldn't or wouldn't post on your own blog. You post this anonymously on someone else's blog, and host someone else's secret on your own site. I've done this twice so far, and I've been very pleased with the results. I'll be participating again, and I encourage all of you with blogs to do it, too. It is a lot of fun and you're sure to find a few new blogs that interest you. Now I just have to think of a secret to use.

On a different note, I'm always flattered when someone likes my blog. I got a couple of messages today from readers, but my favourite was the one I discovered on Mack the Hack's blog. Mack (AKA Kevin) and I have been Internet buddies for many years now. He was working for Name of Paper Withheld at the same time I was working for the MotherCorp Up There. He moved away after a while, but we were both members of an online journalism message board for years. I guess you could say it was an early social-networking site, and some of my current readers were also members. When it shut down, he and I fell out of touch. I'm pleased to see that he has a blog, and I always link to his latest posts. If you like my blog, you'll probably like his.

America's Got Hoff

You'll never get away from the sound of the woman that loves you

Reader-submitted complaint: When you posted about this video, you didn't explain what the song's about. The words freak me out. Is she stalking him?

Sort of.

It's hard to know what any songwriter really means, but I can make an educated guess at what Stevie Nicks intended. It appears to be yet another snarky, nasty breakup song. She is telling someone (hmmm, now WHO could that be?) that when he left her, he lost something he'll never get back. He has moved on, or at least he seems to have moved on, but she doesn't want to hear about it. Instead, she is determined to make him remember her forever: she put a spell on him so he will always hear her voice and think about her.

Yes, there was clearly a lot of hurt on both sides. This is a different version than the one I posted last time, but they both affect a lot of people because she appears to be shouting at him. You usually don't see people singing directly to their exes about their anger, but that's what you see here. (If you don't feel like watching the whole video, start watching around the four-minute mark.) It's a great song and it's performed well. I think it captures the relationship between Stevie and Lindsey, and that's one of the things that keeps the Fleetwood Mac fetishists going.

Sorry it took me so long to respond to this one: I meant to do it weeks ago and got distracted.

Interesting complaint. Am I converting some of you to fetishism?

You're filing a human-rights complaint? Not if I get there FIRST!

You probably didn't realise this, but we Canadians have a limitless ability to be offended. It is our new national pastime now that our hockey teams appear to be incapable of beating the (clearly inferior) American teams they are forced to play against.

Mike Myers' new movie is the latest thing to ruffle our feathers. It has not even been released yet, but we are already upset about it. You see, it is insulting to Hindus. It would be completely reasonable for a person to see this movie, think it is a realistic portrayal of the Hindu religion, and laugh at people who practise that religion. That's why it is entirely acceptable for people to take preemptive offense and claim that the movie is about their religion even when the filmmakers say it isn't. We support them in being offended.

Some people might claim that nobody would think a Mike Myers movie accurately reflects a real religion. We Canadians do not listen to these arguments. We sat by while Mr. Myers mocked many, many other people, and we simply can not accept it any more.

I mean, it was funny when he made fun of time-traveling Americans with scars:


That's hilarious. And we LOVED it when he mocked the English:


And the Scots:


And metalheads who live with their parents:


And Germans:


And Jewish mothers from New York:


Those things were all hilarious. This new movie none of us have seen, on the other hand, is OFFENSIVE TO SOMEONE'S RELIGION and it must be stopped. We are pretty sure that Hinduism is just like the movie, which would mean that Mr. Myers is exposing people to ridicule. That is one thing we definitely cannot accept from our comedians.

Happy Father's Day

Dad:


Steve:


Capitalist:

I am apparently NOT the centre of the universe

Reader-submitted question: Are you a Ray Comfort fan?

No.

I sort of see why you might think that, though. Uriel has mentioned him a few times.

Ray Comfort is the host of The Way of the Master, a Christian evangelism show. He is also known for street preaching: he hangs around with a TV camera, ambushes unsuspecting passersby, and asks them to answer a few simple questions: if his religion is true, will they personally suffer all of the torments he suspects they deserve? Their responses are broadcast on TV for Ray's fans to cackle at.

Ray's blog has become a hangout for fundamentalist Christians and atheists. Yes, it's an odd group. They try to convert or de-convert each other. Some are really vicious: mostly the Christians, who threaten their critics with eternal damnation.

I almost never go to his blog, but when I do, I almost always end up doing a Uriel post because I become so annoyed with his fans. Uriel is not Christian -- she is a member of a splinter sect that meets only on the Internet and prays together on message boards -- but she has a lot in common with Ray's fans. Well, she's currently having a crisis of faith that was brought on when she showed kindness to a traveling missionary, but I suspect she'll find her way eventually. Actually, I got the idea to write about the missionary by thinking about Ray's fans: would they convert to another religion just because someone told them to?

However, I have developed a new appreciation for Ray himself. I am starting to think that he is a satirist. I haven't been to his blog in a while, but I see that he has just posted a how-to guide for spotting a con:

• "Blind the simple with pseudo-eloquence";
• When you ask for ONE transitional fossil, complain because there are too many examples;
• Use a unique definition of "transitional fossil" and "survive"; and
  
• Insist that even if all of the evidence points to evolution, it is really proof of creation.

As I write this, no comments have been posted on this particular post, but it's just because Ray moderates comments. By the time you click that link, there will probably be dozens of responses, about half thanking him for proving the atheists wrong, a quarter patiently explaining why he's made a mistake, and a quarter explaining his mistake much less patiently.

I was planning to answer this question today anyway, but finding this post at the top of his blog this morning is a perfect coincidence. (Wait -- Ray probably doesn't believe in coincidences.) I really do think he might be a satirist. He thinks people should complain because there are TOO MANY fossils?

No, he can't be serious. This has to be a joke. His fans just haven't figured it out yet.

Happy birthday, Mom

Reader-submitted bicep flexing

Oh, Canada...

UPDATED JUNE 14: The video has been removed from YouTube, but is available at the Paper of Record's website.

My American readers probably don't realise this, but it's been a tough week in Canada.

First, CBC announced that it wasn't able to come to an agreement with the little old lady who wrote the theme song to Hockey Night in Canada. CBC management said there would be a contest to find the new theme song. Yeah, just like Canadian Idol.

Canadians lost their collective minds. You would think someone had burned the flag or something. Well, except that Canadians wouldn't care if anyone burned our flags. This, however, was SERIOUS. People were really upset. They weren't rioting in the streets -- this is still Canada -- but they were calling CBC's Talkback line. You know people are serious when they're calling Talkback.

Then it looked like all might not be lost. CBC management announced that they were willing to mediate the dispute with the little old lady. Canadians breathed deeply and...well, we didn't pray, but we DID rub the Buddhist good-luck charms we keep in our pockets.

At this point I was pretty sure that Tim Hortons or Molson would buy the rights to the song. I was wrong.

CBC's main competitor, CTV, bought the rights. (HAHAHAHAHAHA.) In perpetuity. (HAHAHAHAHA.)

It's all OK: The song's not gone! We can hear it every night on TSN! Plus, now we have yet ANOTHER reason to say that the CBC's out of touch with Canadians!

What a relief. We Canadians have already started to calm down. In fact, we've started to shrug our shoulders again, so clearly we're well on the way back to normal.

A news tip

Reader-submitted: Hey Megan, I remember awhile ago you linked to the article about the ex-CNN producer who was fired because of his blog. After reading that item, I decided to survey over 250 newspaper editors and publishers to see if they would allow their journalists to maintain personal blogs without prior approval. I published my findings over here. Anyway, I thought this was something you might find interesting.

I definitely do. Thanks for putting this effort in.

As my readers know, journalists love to demand information from random people. Then they drum their fingernails on the tabletop in an annoyed manner to encourage a rapid response, yell at the person, question his numbers, and ultimately slam the phone down.

So the results of this survey are fascinating.

My reader asked 250 news organizations the same question:

Would you allow your staff writers, without prior approval, to blog during their free time after work as long as they don’t write about the beats they cover for your newspaper?

EXAMPLE: A staff writer for your newspaper covers the local courts and cops beat and then goes home and writes in his personal blog about the national presidential election. He does this without asking for your permission. Would you be fine with this?

Only 39 responded. You can bet that if these news organizations only got a 16% response rate to their questions, we would all be hearing about the RIGHT OF THE MEDIA TO ASK QUESTIONS and HOW LONG WILL THE FASCISM CONTINUE.

Of the 39 who responded, almost half have rules about blogging: it's either not allowed at all, disclosure is required, or certain topics are unbloggable.

What do you guys think?

Reader-submitted book

David Hasselhoff, World of Warcraft Star

This is incredible. Just look at the detail. Consider the effort that must have been required to match it with the original: this is a true keeper. In fact, I suggest that you go over to PartyBoyHans's YouTube account right away and leave him a message so he knows that he is already a national treasure. At this point, it's just a matter of waiting for the paperwork to go through.

Now, I'm sure that all of my regular readers are very familiar with the original video. Like me, you probably have it saved on your desktops so you can watch it whenever you get depressed. However, I am aware that some of my readers are fly-by-night types who aren't willing to put the same amount of effort into maintaining their Hoff awareness. It is for those readers that I present the original:

"This may sound crazy, but..."

Reader-submitted: ...one of my PhD program classmates had us watch your video with Steve about the Woodcock-Johnson. There has been much debate over several issues, and I wondered if you could clear some things up for us.
1. What are Steve's qualifications for administering the test?
2. What is the nature of the relationship between the two of you? (husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend, etc...)
3. What is the purpose that you had in mind for that particular video posting?

I really appreciate anything you might share. The group that chose your video did so because one of them was originally attracted to the video partially because of your relationship. He really enjoyed the easy, comfortable rapport that you have. It just seemed intimate to him in a forum in which intimacy isn't very easy and he thought that probably spoke highly of the relationship you had off camera as well. We were attempting to keep the discussion light, but the discussion boards got way too serious.

What!?

PhD class?

Discussion boards?

As weird as this may seem, it does explain why this particular video has been viewed 100 more times than most of my videos.

1. Steve is a teacher. When we shot this video, he had just finished a course that qualified him to administer the achievement battery of the Woodcock-Johnson.

2. We have been married for almost ten years.

3. Steve's purpose for that video was to excitedly share yet another bit of educational jargon with our viewers. He always gets feedback from other teachers, so he loves to talk about new ways to do his job. My personal purpose for that video was to mock Steve. We do these from time to time -- you can see others here, here, and here. We try to make people laugh or to show something about our lives through our videos.

I think our videos show us as we are in person, but perhaps readers who know us personally would disagree. I am certainly open to other possibilities, so feel free to post a comment if it would contribute to the discussion that is happening within this reader's PhD class.

This is now my favourite reader-submitted question of all time.

Keeping you guessing

As promised: Ricki's blog.

A public-service announcement

...and a big sigh.

Yes, that woman is Stevie Nicks. Lindsey Buckingham is the man to her left, or to the right of the screen. The MAN. Stop looking for a woman.

This archival video shows Lindsey, who does not get nearly enough respect as a guitarist or a songwriter. I think this is because Stevie was so successful in overshadowing the rest of Fleetwood Mac during the early 1980s. She's no more talented than they are (in fact, I'd argue that she's LESS talented than Christine McVie or Lindsey, because she doesn't play a musical instrument), but she was very very good at self-promotion.

Boy, that sounds snarky, but I don't mean it quite in that way. The last thing I need is for Stevie fetishists to spam me with reader-submitted complaints about my lack of respect for their hero. I think she's great; I just think she gets an unfair amount of attention, given the relative talents of the other band members.

Remember: Stevie = WOMAN. Lindsey = MAN.

Hurting so good

Reader-submitted complaint: I don't understand your jokes about that writer in Toronto.

Hmmm. Well, they're partly inside jokes, but I thought they would be generally understood. Please accept my apologies. I will explain.

I think you mean this "writer". She is not well known outside certain Canadian journalism circles, and even then, only as a joke. She has no talent, but was somehow able to work as a columnist for both of our national newspapers. Over the years, she made more than her share of enemies among her co-workers. I believe some of them read this blog: perhaps they would like to expand on this point. I personally have never worked with her.

She started blogging a couple of years ago, and it was the first time most of us had read her unedited copy. It was horrifying. I've said before that copy editors are angels, but the ones at the Post and the Paper of Record deserve extra kudos for turning her dreck into something that was merely very bad.

Someone started an anonymous parody blog. I've been asked several times, so I will confirm again that I was not the anonyblogger. It became immensely popular and began to attract dozens of commenters who shared their stories of working with her at the Post. This was all done anonymously, which I disliked. I think that if you are going to criticise someone in your industry, you should do it using your own name.

Every once in a while, a comment would appear that defended the writer. Some were from real people; most accused the anonyblogger and his or her fans of being "jelous" of the writer's fame/talent/money/thinness. But some were clearly from the writer herself, although she was posing as her own biggest fan. These comments were consistently terrible: poorly punctuated and rambling, with lots of swearing and veiled threats. They were easy to pick out and appeared more and more often as time went on.

When I write about her, I write as her biggest fan.

The trainwreck

Reader-submitted: This is breathtaking.

OMG. Like STOP PICKING ON A SINGLE MOHTER who is just bringing her kid back from visitation with the non-cutsodial parent. I know words like that now because of her.

I siriusly dont know what you haters hope to accomplish by picking on someone who needs our suport most of all. I have already explained why she is my favourit author and I totally hope she does the nude photo shoot becuase what we all need is to see MORE of her! A person with narcissitisc personality disorder NEEDS to do these things adn we should all support her. Its a DISEASE.

What do you tink she should NOT buy, huh? The 139th stuffie? what is her kid gonna play with? I am gonna get a lawyer and sue you for thraetening the childs happiness. that is NOT called for. And is the kid supposed to NOT eat donuts for breakfast? Happy kids get whatever they want and if it doesn't come in a take out box its way harder for the mom.

I just love the haters. What, you DONT spend money on your kids lunch? Its freaking healthy. And yoga and therapy are important for people who have to deal with assholes like you guys who say they are just wasting there exes hard-earned money. How is she supposed to relax, by actually working? As if.

We all know that she has already written a screenplay becuase of what happened with Judd Apatow, so really the classes are a waste of money. Ill admit that. She already wrote a movie.

You people are jerks. The nanny needed cab fare. and she needed $100 for the kid. Thats how much it costs for a kids lunch and daily toy pruchases. Who else is gonna pay that, the dad? No, she has to EARN that money somehow and get it from publishing screenplays.

And in case you thought she was irresponsible. She GOES GROCERY SHOPPING. She does not just order take out and McDonalds. She is just like me and any attack on my favourte author is an attack on me, so just BACK. OFF.

Damn your love. Damn your lies.

Reader-submitted complaint: There's not enough videos of Lindsey Buckingham on this site. He is sooooo sexy!

Not ENOUGH videos of Lindsey Buckingham???

Some of my readers are nodding solemnly. Others are wondering who the heck Lindsey Buckingham is. Meanwhile, my dad is wondering how he could have failed so spectacularly.

It has been a long day

Actually, it's been a long couple of months. I am too tired to please anyone but the fetishists tonight. See you tomorrow.

For the link clickers

I posted a link to Just Below 63 a few days ago. Townie Bastard's response is on his site.

Incidentally, Townie Bastard and I have almost identical career arcs. It's freakish.

Who who? Who who?

Reader-submitted question: Who are all these readers submitting comments off-blog, anyway? Are they too shy to post their questions in the space actually provided FOR comments?

I'm not sure why, but some of my readers refuse to post comments. In fact, I estimate that only about 5% of my readers ever post in the comments box, and even fewer comment regularly. The others either refuse to talk back to me or prefer to send messages in other ways. This is OK -- it's the reason I posted my e-mail address on my profile page -- but it's not as interesting for the readers, I'll admit.

I think that some people want to know that I'll get back to them right away, so they send e-mails or instant messages. I read every comment and respond directly to many of them, but I don't write back to every commenter. I guess I'm contributing to the problem.

Anonymous commenters, do you want to respond?

Wait. No, you probably don't.

I need someone to hold my hair while I vomit

Perhaps someone who works for the Paper of Record can explain what the hell Leah McLaren is still doing there. Seriously, the woman's columns are basically parodies now.

In her latest column, Leah gives her lucky readers the following pieces of information:

• She travels. (Remember?) Usually to exotic places like Croatia, unlike you.
  
• She is 32. Not old and saggy-assed like you losers seem to think she is. EARLY THIRTIES.
• She used to have expensive, brand-name clothing, and she will list all of the brands because it's essential that you comprehend this point. SHE OWNED THEM. Her career is NOT going downhill. She travels and buys expensive things.
• She has more credit than responsibility. Just in case you didn't catch the earlier point about how much money she has.
• She looks awesome, even in old jeans and sweaters. (DUH.)
  
• She is not fat, she's thin. This point is repeated several times.
• She is blonde, smug and rich.

I really need someone at the Paper of Record to explain this to me. Why is she taking up space in our national newspaper?

"Hey, Canadiano"

Reader-submitted question: I've got a distinct cultural heritage of my own. In my culture (Texas), we settle disputes with our "shock and awe" military. For some reason, we can't get on your professor's list of treasured cultures. Why is that?

It's really quite simple. Canadians are tolerant and enlightened. That means that we cannot accept intolerant xenophobes like you. Cultures are to be treasured, but only when they show other people just how much we cherish diversity.

For example, if you were to bring a big container of tobacco to my house and set it on fire to cleanse the negative energy from my kitchen (caused, of course, by cooking meat), I would nod and show my appreciation for the enlightenment we both share. On the other hand, if you were to bring a smaller amount of tobacco to my house in the form of cigarettes, I would glare at you and maybe even clear my throat in a pointed manner to show my disgust for your lifestyle. There is a huge difference between the two: When you burn a LOT of tobacco, it is part of a treasured traditional ritual that I'm sure is practised somewhere in the world. That is very important to me as a Canadian.

A good rule of thumb is that cultures are more appreciated when Canadians don't know anything about them. That means that your Texan heritage is something we would prefer to overlook, and we think it would be best if you did, too. We've seen people from Texas on TV, and we're not impressed. Now, if you were to hand-roll sushi while listening to a CD of traditional chanting from Zaire, your activities would be cherished and supported. The side benefit is that we would not know if you were doing it incorrectly: you could stave off all criticism by telling us that yours is the most "authentic" way to make sushi.

Thanks for your question. The next time you visit my website, please hide your IP address by routing through a proxy server from a more enlightened part of the world, like Argentina. It makes me look bad when my web stats show too many hits from the southern U.S.

Hat tip: Miss Lyndsy

I am having a David Hasselhoff morning: rolling around on the floor, mumbling incoherently and eating greasy food from McDonald's. So this seems appropriate.

If you've got time to click a link

There is an interesting discussion about journalistic ethics over at Just Below 63, my fellow blogger from across the lake. This particular discussion is about publishing photos of dead bodies in body bags.

I can't get away from you, even if I try

Reader-submitted complaint: My roommate says you're just like every other Canadian and totally obsessed with the Hoff. I keep telling her you're different—special—but she doesn't believe me.

Interesting. Is this a Canadian stereotype I wasn't aware of? Something like the urban myth that we all say "aboot"?

Your roommate is afflicted with Humour Impairment. It's OK. This is serious, but much more common than I could have imagined before I started this blog. She needs to work her way up from TV shows with names like Stupid Americans Hurting Themselves. Please warn her to go slowly. I have discussed this matter with legal counsel, and I cannot accept any liability for the strain that could be created when she makes the jump to shows without laugh tracks.

My dry sense of humour is not always appreciated. I am not the driest member of my family -- not by a long shot -- but I post more of it on the Internet than the rest of them do. We express affection by insulting each other.

I think you need to introduce your roommate to someone in my family. That should help. Now, if you could only find one of my brothers...

The story BEHIND the story

Reader-submitted: My husband was out and about on free comic day and found that magazine in a discount bin at a comic store. (WHAT? Hello, employee oversight. Heads are going to roll. Hoff at a discount? So wrong.) He called me and said, "I found something that I think Megan is really going to like." I said, "Megan?" followed by "I'm scared. What is it?"

When I saw it, I was totally giddy. I mean, HOW AWESOME IS IT? And in totally MINT condition. I hope you realize the strength of generosity it took for me to mail it your way. I wanted to stick it under my pillow and keep it there FOREVER. But I knew it would thrill you even more so I willed myself to put it in the envelope and send it to its spiritual home.

Amazing story. Please tell your husband that I understand the strength of character it took to preserve the magazine in mint condition. There is always the risk that some sweat will get on the old-school stuff.

I know he is a moral person, so I appreciate the fact that he did not alert the comic-store owner to his grave error in misfiling it. This must have taken a lot out of him. Usually these situations only arise when Babe Ruth cards accidentally fall into shopping bags or rare recordings get slipped into the wrong LP case. A true dilemma, to be sure. If the owner had discovered his error, this priceless artifact might have been lost to his own private collection.

Reader-submitted Hoff

The way I've always dreamed it could be

Reader-submitted complaint: I won't go so far as to laugh at journalistic ethics, but you're sounding utopian. Do journalists mystically get less bounded by their own expectations and valuance of information than the rest of us?

No, but they should be. I hold them to a higher standard than the rest of you, and they often let me down. I expect them to follow basic journalistic ethics, but they don't always meet my standards.

About a week ago, a reporter told me that I am mean to people in her industry. I thought that was funny, because many of my readers have worked or now work as journalists. Most of my closest friends are former reporters, and I respect the role of the media more than most people do. Sadly, that respect means that when they let me down, they deserve additional scorn. We need to root out the evildoers, chase them from this land, and destroy those who would give them comfort.

Uh, sorry for getting all Cheney on you for a moment there.

Our system is not perfect. There are no formal standards: anyone can start a newspaper or radio station and take on the responsibility of providing information to the public. The industry is governed by voluntary standards that are generally accepted but by no means required. Nobody is going to pull your local science reporter's license if he starts to believe the Flat Earth Society's propaganda. The public has only two ways to insist on better reporting:

1. Refusing to buy subscriptions or advertising.
2. Public shaming.

Traditionally, members of the media have collectively called out the worst offenders in their midst. Media critics, ombudsmen and senior journalists are responsible for informally policing their industry. Sadly, this is not common in Canada. This may be why my columns provoke such a reaction from some working journalists: they know I'm right, but they can't believe I'm saying it.

So far, no journalist has ever told me that my columns about journalism are incorrect. However, I'm open to the possibility that they simply did not want to challenge me at the time, so I will throw this out there: If you believe I am incorrect on any matter related to journalism, please let me know. I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts. You can use the comments box or send me an e-mail privately. My e-mail address is linked on my profile page.

Thanks for your complaint.

Good news, bad news

Reader-submitted complaint: Journalism ethics? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That was really un-called-for. I demand that you apologise to me and all of my readers who are either current or former journalists.

Journalism ethics are real, although they're not like, say, medical ethics. They are a voluntary code and there are no standard consequences for reporters who violate them. There is no licensing body and, at least in theory, anyone can work as a reporter. However, a reporter who really screws up will get fired and won't work in journalism again.

I cannot point you to any definite set of rules, because different publications have different standards. My former employer has a pretty good set of guidelines, and that would be a good place to start.

I can provide a brief overview, though:

Journalism must be accurate. This means challenging a person's false statements. It means presenting as much information as possible. It means checking facts and getting as many sources as possible. Really outrageous stuff should be double-sourced, and things that are easy to verify should always be verified. Information should not be presented in a misleading way. Corrections should be prominent and online versions of stories should be updated with the correct information.

Journalism must be objective. This can be tough. Journalists are people (yes, ha ha...) and people can get wrapped up in their work. It doesn't mean that they have no stake in the issue -- usually reporters will have SOME stake in their stories -- but that they can fairly evaluate the issue. Often, one of the following things will cause problems for a news organization's objectivity:

• The reporter will be unable to accept the possibility that he or she has been duped.
• The reporter is convinced that someone is hiding a big secret or is corrupt to the core, despite evidence to the contrary.
• The reporter (or his friends or family) somehow gets involved in the story.
  
• News breaks late in the day and there is no time to allow the subject of a story to respond to a nasty allegation.
• There is not enough or no separation between news and editorial staff.
• There is censorship of some kind -- perhaps there is pressure to avoid making an advertiser look bad.
• A source has been paid for his or her information.
  

News organizations must be accountable to the public. They have an obligation to report the news and to bring matters of public interest to light. But they also have an obligation to acknowledge their own errors. Some have ombudsmen, but others do this through their senior editors. This can be tricky, because when staff screw up, the boss's first instinct is usually to back them up. This doesn't work in the news industry. The person at the top has to be willing to admit when he makes mistakes, account for the decisions he made, and promise to do a better job in the future. That's a bitter pill.

Journalism ethics can be complicated and it would take an entire blog to discuss them in any depth. There is no list of rules; you just have to learn the basic principles and apply them to situations as they arise. Sometimes this will be a matter of weighing principles that appear to be in opposition to each other: for example, there is no real consensus about how to deal with confidential sources who turn out to be lying or with government agencies that present compelling reasons a story should not be published.

Thanks for your complaint.

Ugh.

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: I'm an annoying Gen-Whyer, and so are you!

I really shouldn't read Leah McLaren's columns, but for some reason, I always do. Leah, you see, represents women of my generation. I know this because she keeps insisting that she does, even though there is absolutely no evidence of this.

Today, Leah informs us that, like me and the rest of the approximately one million Canadians who happen to be our age, she is a gypsy who takes a casual approach to international travel. We just show up in Zanzibar with our Blackberrys and hang around.

This is really helpful. It's like Leah is peering right into my soul. I'm thrilled that she represents me to the rest of Canada through the Paper of Record, because I've been waiting for someone to express my desire -- no, need -- to drop everything and leave the country on a moment's notice. This is really the way I live. It's too bad that it took until now for someone to be pioneering enough to point it out. Thank you, Leah!

It's really unfortunate that Leah apparently does not know anyone who isn't an annoying childless freelance writer from Toronto. She claims that this lifestyle is very common and depends on "portability of work (i.e. self-employment)". I see. What she really means is "(i.e. unemployed wanna-be writer)": I can tell you from experience that self-employed people can't live this way. Clients don't like it when you run off to Libya. Only tortured, misunderstood, artsy weirdos can do this. The rest of us have to earn a living.

I suspect that Leah's friends don't actually do this, either. They've shown poor judgment by talking to her about their lives, but they've got to make money somehow. Organic food, lofts and Converse All-Stars aren't cheap, and used-book stores don't pay their staff as well as Leah would like you to think.

I had to read her column several times to figure out what is actually happening here. Leah provides four examples of this supposedly common behaviour:

• Herself. She disappears to other countries without telling her family where she's going, because she is so hip and awesome. No indication of how often she actually does this. Also, she has a cell phone. People of the world: The 1980s are long gone. Cell phones are no longer a status symbol. Please stop telling us that you own them: We are not impressed.
  
  
• A friend who books flights at the very last minute because it is cheaper. No indication of how often he actually does this or where he is going. I suspect he is going to Winnipeg.
  
  
• A friend who likes to go to other countries without planning ahead. No indication of how often he actually does this. However, he has an iPhone, so you should be impressed.
  
  
• A friend who went to Kenya without telling Leah. No indication of how often she does this, whether she tells other people, or whether the trip was planned.

I don't really like "trendwatching" articles, but this doesn't even meet the lowest standards for trendwatching. Thanks, Paper of Record.

Baby, one more time

Reader-submitted question: why did britney spears want to be famous?

I give up.

What, there's no punch line? You actually expected me to know the answer?

Unfortunately (for you), I don't know very much about Britney Spears, and I don't write about her very often. I don't expect this to change soon.

What's in the cards you don't play?

Reader-submitted question: Do you think there should be a federal shield law for journalists?

No.

First, remember that I am not a lawyer or an expert on the policy implications of shield laws. If you want that sort of information, you are on the wrong blog.

I wrote about journalistic privilege a few months ago. The Cole's Notes version of that post is that the phrase refers to a reporter's decision to defy a court order that would otherwise force him or her to reveal information, usually the name of a source.

This is not a real privilege like the kind lawyers have. Your lawyer will keep your secret within certain limits and can't be forced to tell. Your friendly neighbourhood reporter, on the other hand, can be sent to jail or fined for contempt of court. This usually doesn't happen, though. Usually, one of two things will happen:

• The reporter will crack and give up the information. This sometimes happens when a judge refuses to consider a fine and insists that the reporter will sit in jail until he gives up the information. Although editors and producers are usually willing to pay a fine for the sake of preserving their journalistic integrity, they do not want their employees to go to jail. They may tell the reporter to reveal the information instead.
  
  
• Someone else will come forward and give up the information. The reporter is usually keeping a secret about the identity of a confidential source, but it's sometimes about original research. In any case, someone else has the information the court needs. That person will often come forward to keep the reporter out of jail.
  

Some people have suggested that there should be a federal shield law to define reporters' right to protect their sources. I've been told that some states have shield laws, too.

I don't know much about the implementation of shield laws, but I'm cautious about them. I do understand why reporters would want an honest-to-goodness privilege -- heck, I don't want to go to jail, either -- but I think it's dangerous.

The media are representatives of the public. They should get everything the public can get, but the flip side of that is that they should not get anything the public cannot get. We can't create a special class of people who have a different type of access or a different ability to defy court orders.

I would think the media would be concerned about this, too. A federal shield law could probably only work if reporters were regulated in some way. That's the sort of thing people talk about from time to time and realise is a bad idea. Journalism is not regulated in democratic societies, unless you count the libel laws and other laws that all citizens have to follow. The industry is informally self-policed using ethical guidelines that vary from one publication to another. A reporter who really screws up will not work again, but it's not because he lost his licence to work as a journalist. It's because no editor or producer who knows his history will hire him. There is no central organization that can certify or censure individual reporters. Who would take on this role? The federal Department of Propaganda?

Who would be considered a journalist, anyway? This is dangerous territory. Some bloggers are definitely journalists. Are all bloggers? I think you could argue that I am a columnist. Would this type of law allow me to refuse to testify about things I learned while researching blog posts? If there was a law that applied only to journalists, there would need to be some way to determine who is a journalist. Our current anything-goes system is not perfect, but it's better than the alternatives.

To anticipate your next question: No, I don't like it when reporters go to jail or face heavy fines for refusing to give up what they consider confidential information. But I can't agree that they should have a different ability to conceal information than the rest of society.

Thanks for your question.

Hey!

Reader-submitted complaint: I didn't know that you have a blog!

Oh.

Yeah, I guess you didn't. It's not a secret, but I didn't exactly take out an ad in Name of Paper Withheld to get more readers, either. I'm glad you're here.

I'm going to tell you something I don't always tell new readers. I publish new content every day, so the newest post might not be representative of the rest of the blog. You have to read a number of posts to really get a good sense of what a blog is. Then you have to come back tomorrow to read more.

I love to read blogs, but it takes effort to find new ones. That sounds silly, because there are probably millions of blogs, but you never know what you are going to get. It takes time to find people who write about the things I'm interested in, and even more time to read through enough posts to decide that I want to go back and read more.

This blog is about all of the things that are important to me, so I'm glad you're here. Please be reassured that I do not write about you personally. (I'm always surprised at the number of people who, upon learning that I have a blog, wonder if I write about them.) Look around, and stay if you like what you see. If you scroll down, you'll see labels on the right side. They will take you to all of my posts about a particular topic.

Don't break the spell

Something about this song is oddly comforting, but I can't figure out why. Something about the bass and keyboards is more familiar than it really ought to be.

I feel like I must have heard it when I was a little girl, but that doesn't make sense. My dad was in a band 25 years ago, so I heard a lot of music at the time, but this wouldn't have been one of the ones they played. Or am I wrong, Dad?

UPDATED: My dad has disavowed participation in anything that resulted in my blog being named after a Stevie Nicks song. He has suggested that I heard it on the radio during the early '80s when Rumours was in heavy rotation. That's certainly possible. At the risk of committing 1970s blasphemy, I will say that the video above feels familiar like the one below:

Steve Gets Healthy

Blacklisted

I'm a huge fan of Danny Williams, but I was pretty disgusted to read at Townie Bastard's site that he has decided to "cut off" one of the local provincial-affairs reporters. No interviews or access to the premier for...well, goodness knows how long.

I definitely don't approve of any media strategy that ends with reporters being blacklisted. I worked with David Cochrane for a short time at CBC St. John's before I moved Up There, and I can't imagine that this will end well for Danny.

Reporters are paid to report the news. I've written a lot about responsible reporting, and I won't defend a journalist who's unethical, but David's a good reporter. He does some analysis, too, and this may be why Danny's upset with him. I honestly don't know what set him off: this little tiff over Andy Wells' stupid fundraiser seems like small potatoes. Maybe David really did screw up about something, but if so, I don't know what it was.

From time to time I will hear people talk about cutting one reporter or another off, usually in the context of national politics. I've never seen this done, so I admit I'm not clear on how it would work or how it could possibly benefit anyone. What, you just stop talking to the guy? How does that help? Do you do the same thing with non-journalists who criticise you, like advocacy groups and the opposition parties? Do you make all of the staff stop talking to the guy, too? How do you decide when it's a good time to start talking to him again? Do you just call him up and expect things to be hunky-dory all of a sudden?

This seems to be counter-productive. The only way to make sure a journalist understands your side of a story (whatever that might be) is to talk to him. Refusing to grant interviews only ensures that your critics will be the ones featured in the story. Not exactly the best plan for someone who feels like he's getting picked on.

Now, there are definitely times when it's a bad idea to talk to any reporter about a particular issue. This is not the same thing as shutting an individual journalist out, though. Those situations are usually time-limited and apply to all members of the public, not just reporters.

Do any readers have experience with this?

Man, oh, man...

Reader-submitted question: do people kill seals because people think its the best way to make their money?

No, they do it because they are sadistic sonsabitches who just love to hurt cute baby animals. Keep your kittens away from sealers. They actually don't care if they kill the seals at all. You can tell because sometimes after a thwack on the head, the animals will keep moving. Obviously, they are still alive, and the psychos just love it. They like nothing better than walking in pools of blood. It's like a murder fantasy, except that they actually get to live it out.

They say they do it for money, but really, it's because they are pure, unadulterated evil. Who else would kill baby seals?

OK, I'm not being fair. This was a sincere question, and I'm just making fun of it. My dear reader, I have written quite a lot about the seal hunt. You can find all of my posts on the topic here (this post will be at the top, so just scroll down). I remain convinced that if you really want to stop the seal hunt, you should pay sealers to sit at home and NOT kill seals. This would shut down the hunt without the need for consultants, publicity stunts or expensive ad buys. And that's exactly why PETA will never do it.

Boring conversation anyway

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: You didn't give me an interview, so I'm going to say that you suck!

I don't know who originally said that you should never argue with men who buy ink by the barrel, but in general, it's not a bad idea. (Well, except when the men making these bulk purchases are really bad at journalism or grammar.)

The Paper of Record has a bone to pick with Harrison Ford. Apparently Mr. Ford sucks, and everyone knows it. We tolerate him, but don't respect him. And we definitely don't love him. Basically, we put up with his presence on our movie screens because -- well, the Paper of Record never really makes that clear. But it's in the Paper of Record, so it has to be true.

You see, Rick Groen wasn't able to interview Mr. Ford for his column. If the actor had made himself available, I have no doubt that the Paper of Record would have published one of its typical fawning stories, complete with a photo. But he didn't, so the Paper of Record will have its revenge. They CONTROL the masses, doncha know? Simply by saying that nobody likes him, they will make it become true!

It would never have occurred to me that nobody likes Harrison Ford. It's a ridiculous notion. Sure, some people don't like him: nobody is universally loved. But the man is an icon and has been in dozens of movies, including some of the most popular ones ever made. Han Solo has a cult following. Raiders of the Lost Ark is still one of my favourite movies.

But the Paper of Record is desperate for proof that everyone hates him. He sucks because his name reminds the writer of Presidents Harrison and Ford. He sucks because he's in Steven Spielberg movies. He sucks because he doesn't direct himself. He sucks because he likes privacy and didn't want to be president, governor or mayor.

Did I miss something? Is it now a black mark on an actor's career if he does not run for public office?

Over and over

I talked to a reporter the other day.

Now, I talk to reporters all the time, but I don't usually talk about my personal life. I'm not exciting enough to make the news very often.

However, the NWT Blog Awards are going to be back in the news on Monday. Sadly, I have to agree that the way the contest ended is fair game for the arts section.

When the reporter told me she wanted to do a story about the cheating, I told her that I really wished it hadn't happened. I haven't talked about it much because I didn't want it to end the way it did. I was basically in denial about it for days. I knew it was happening, and it was happening during the first round, too, but it really took off on the last day of the second round of voting for Best Post and Best Blog.

Online polls are very easy to "goose", but I was hoping that nobody would. I mean, it's a stupid blog contest. It doesn't mean anything. It's definitely not worth cheating. Heck, my own family forgot to vote.

There are two ways to cheat. At first, people were using proxy servers. I saw this happening and thought they were morons for going to the extra effort. Then they started to clear their cookies -- this probably took about one second each time and allowed them to vote as many times as they wanted. I was pretty annoyed, and this is why I ended up calling both categories three-way ties. Apparently, no matter how many times I say this, people do not clue in that I can see what they are doing when they are on one of my websites.

Fewer than 100 people actually voted. During the second round of voting there were 335 visits to the site, 1090 page loads and 488 votes for Best Blog. I watched one person in Nova Scotia vote 100 times over a two-hour period. It apparently never occurred to this person that an additional 100 votes would be noticeable.

I ended up closing the contest a few hours early. I was thinking about letting it all play out, but then someone in Quebec came back (yes, back -- I assume he was taking a break) and started another round of megavoting. By the time he'd voted 76 times in a row, I decided to put him out of his misery. Seriously, if you're going to sit in front of your computer getting calluses on your hands, it should be for something much more exciting than blog awards.

People have asked me who really won. Honestly, I don't know. There was so much cheating that there is no way to separate the real votes from the fake ones. I am pretty comfortable saying that Best Post really would have ended in something close to a three-way tie. All three posts were within a vote or two of each other for days, and I was getting ready to call it a tie when the numbers suddenly spiked. The vote totals for Best Blog are all so far off that I can't tell you who really won.

It doesn't matter, though. My goal was never to pick the best blog in the NWT, and I don't think you could do that even if you wanted to. The point was to get more readers for local blogs and to promote the community of bloggers. In that way, it was a success.

Although I thought of it as a silly, fun contest, I clearly underestimated its importance to other people. Obviously, they thought it was important enough that they were willing to spend hours at their computers trying to keep their favourite bloggers' numbers up. (And people say bloggers are the losers.) It is great to see that people have superfans who are willing to go the extra mile to get them some much-deserved recognition. I'm just sad that they thought this would be the way to get that recognition for their favourite writers.

When everything's going bad

I'm a nice person. I promise.

Reader-submitted question: Do you keep scaring new people, or is it the same person who just can't let go?

You mean the grammar stuff?

I keep scaring people. Family members say they're afraid of me. Strangers say they're afraid of me. Friends say they're afraid of me.

The last reader-submitted item came from a person who is worried that I will savage him if he puts his creative writing online. Only a grammar terrorist would do a thing like that. I should probably take this opportunity to state emphatically that I would never want to stifle creativity and that I really do want to read his stories.

Yes, those pants make your butt look fat

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: Things you should never say.

Consider this your monthly dose of free communications advice. I really mean it. If you say any of these things, I may be forced to take violent action against you.

I refuse to comment. Uh, moron? This is a phrase the media made up to make you look bad. When you won't answer their questions, they say you're refusing to comment. It's a way to make you look shady and untrustworthy. Never ever ever use the word "comment" when talking to a reporter. It just puts the word in her head. If you can't talk about something, say that you can't talk about it and explain why.

Anecdotal. I sort of understand this one. I mean, you're a bit slow to begin with. You can't be blamed for telling people that their stories are anecdotal. They're technically anecdotes, right? If nobody's ever told you that the worst thing that ever happened to you was anecdotal, I suppose you might not realise that this word sends the message that it's just a cute little story that's not worth taking seriously.

Safe. You're stupid. Never tell anyone that something is safe. It might be safer, but it's not safe. The second something bad happens, you'll be screwed.

I'm not going to talk about it. That will make everyone else stop talking about it. I have lost all respect for you. Fortunately, I didn't have much to lose. You don't control what other people say, and you don't control their opinions about what's important. The only thing you can control is whether you tell them your side of the story.

I don't know what happened, but I assume... Uh, hello? Stop talking. If you don't know what happened, just shut up. The last thing you want to do is start guessing about it in public. Your educated guesses are helpful in private while you're trying to figure out what really happened. They are not helpful to anyone else. Tell people you're going to find out what happened, and then go and find out.

You didn't use the same words I did, so you're wrong. No, she's not. You're a control freak who can't stand it when someone else talks about your favourite issue. There are times when you need to use your jargon. Those times should be very rare. If your jargon's really the only way to explain something, tell people why. At all other times, normal people should be able to understand you and talk about the issue using normal English. Don't tell people you're collecting nasopharyngeal swabs when you could just tell them you need to rub the insides of their noses with Q-Tips. And it's a waste of your energy to get upset with them when they don't use your jargon.

Not in my backyard. Okay, I knew you were an idiot, but this takes the cake. People don't say this about THEMSELVES. The phrase means that a selfish person is refusing to go along with something that almost everyone agrees is in the public interest. Usually the selfish person thinks it's in the public interest, too, he just doesn't like the way it would affect HIM. Until recently, I wouldn't have believed that it was even possible for someone to be this dumb. However, you have surprised me. Boy, I love surprises.

It's been too long

David Hasselhoff - MyVideo

All of the elements of true ART are present in this video:
Intense singing...check.
Expensive sets...check.
Killer special effects...check.
Hot models...check.
Sexy singer...check.
Music that no mortal could duplicate...check.

I can't read the German on the web page I found this on, but it doesn't matter. His dazzling musical genius transcends language and culture.