Not everyone is on board...
…with the blogospheric revolution. Especially not this person (HT blogometer):
Blog: The word "blog" is literally shorthand for "boring;" a vulgar, overused word that strikes your ear with the dull thud of a cudgel to the soft spot of a child. It's an abbreviation used by journalism drop outs to give legitimacy to their shallow opinions and amateur photography that seems to be permanently stuck in first draft hell. Looking in the archives of the blogs, one would expect someone who has been at it for years to slowly hone their craft and improve their writing and photographs, since it's usually safe to assume that if someone does something long enough, he or she will eventually not suck at it. Even with lowered expectations, you'll get a shotgun blast of disappointment in your face.
It's an unspoken rule that every blog must use the same layout as every other blog: long, slender columns of annoyingly condensed text, thousands of links to other blogs, plugs for shitty political books, and more links to yet more blogs:
Comments
As for the word being ugly, see . (And for more on the subject of phonaesthetics, see .)
And really, I've never understood what is so revolutionary about the idea of posting your thoughts online. I mean, blogs are a fantastic invention, and how they are interacting with the "legitimate" media is fascinating. But who says that blogs have to be some sort of new equivalent to newspapers? Why should they (have to) be written formally, and carefully edited? Why should the opinions (have to) be deep? Why should the photography (have to) be professional?
It reminds me of that one time when a certain highschool teacher accused me of being an "ugly woman."
The advantage of posting as "other" is that I can link to my real journal. The disadvantage is that I can't edit my posts if I make a stupid mistake like that.