wrong!
- this post is about decoding them posted by monkeyJuice at 4:59 AM on January 14, 2002
I don't think something that adds to a previous FPP should necessarily get its own FPP. Why couldn't this have gone in the comments of the original post? posted by mcwetboy at 7:26 AM on January 14, 2002
Well, I'm not interested in reading the original thread (which was basically a bunch of people typing in their undecodable codes). I've been wondering how long it would take to get a decoder set up -- I was counting on some industrious geek somewhere to do the work for the rest of us. posted by barkingmoose at 8:09 AM on January 14, 2002
Here is one of the problems with blogging. You've got a self-referential subculture that builds blogs for other bloggers. posted by Erendadus at 9:08 AM on January 14, 2002
"You've got a self-referential subculture that builds blogs for other bloggers."
And that's a problem for you why? And if that's one of the problems, what are the others? posted by y6y6y6 at 9:19 AM on January 14, 2002
hehe, I caused a mini comotion. Some people really take all of this so seriously. posted by lostbyanecho at 10:04 AM on January 14, 2002
Here is one of the problems with blogging. You've got a self-referential subculture that builds blogs for other bloggers.
you're right, and it's unique to the blogging culture, in fact it's something brand new. film, television, journalism, radio and the printed word have never, ever been guilty of this. posted by rebeccablood at 11:03 AM on January 14, 2002
film, television, journalism, radio and the printed word have never, ever been guilty of this.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention. [explosion]
Subscribe
posted by mcwetboy at 4:44 AM on January 14, 2002