What's wrong with this fracking blog

One of the many things wrong with this fracking blog is that I don’t ever write anything interesting on it.

I do, however, have a plan to change that. I’m going to write something interesting real soon now, perhaps this weekend, if I get done putting away the Christmas stuff all over the living room (whatever Christmas stuff the dog has not yet destroyed, that is).

Also, there are many technology upgrades to the site that could be done to jazz it up all web 2.0 style, which upgrades Gary and Harold and I earnestly discussed in a hip coffee shop in Davis Square, Somerville, MA, on January 1 or 2 this year, when it was cold and slushy/icy outside and crowded inside with tattooed people. Although nothing has yet come of that earnest discussion, I did enjoy it very much, and it was fun to be the facilitator of the first in-the-meatspace encounter between longtime wetmachiners Gary and Harold. Perhaps something will come of that someday.

But on the the good news side of the ledger, my earnest entreaties have gotten Gary posting again about random shit (notice how I take credit for Gary’s contributions?), thereby helping to restore the proper Wetmachine balance between earnest stuff from Greg and Harold and random bullshit from other parties (with Stearns’s stuff being both earnest and random bullshit, a remarkable achievement).

But as for you, reader, you don’t help this fracking blog any by never leaving any comments & getting a discussion going. What the frack is up with that?

OK, I go now. But as a wise man said, stay tuned.


  1. “reader, you don’t help this fracking blog any by never leaving any comments”

    Now that is just not true… I do comment occasionally! Whenever the captcha let’s me? lol

  2. Is there another way to bullshit?
    I’ve been wondering about the lack of comments. I know people read it because I get personal comments from people I know professionally that shows they are aware of my musings, and I get random people I don’t know thanking me in public restrooms and such. And yet we just can’t get a discussion going. Somehow, the circumstances just don’t bend that way. I don’t know whether it is the technology, design, or our pretending towards comprehensive authoritativeness. Maybe all three. While I would like to have a dialog (multilog?), I am (maybe too lazy to do other than to be) accepting of it as being what it is. Go with it.

  3. Conneticutman1,

    Well yes you do, and thank you. I was just ranting in general. Captchas are a pain, but I don’t know what to do about that. Hmmm…

    And Howard,

    Sure, I’m fine with whatever reaction we get — I like the readers we have — and like I said, if I were to write more interesting stuff, I might get more interesting comments.

    The nice thing about sites that have discussions going is that they tend to develop a community feel, & are more fun. Or, maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about.

    Certainly I would like a much bigger readership for this site. Why? Why, to increase the odds of my selling more books, of course. And it would be nice to have advert revenue that covered the monthly costs — not that those are large, but just on general principles.

    At that January discussion, I think that Gary and Harold and I really did come up with some good ideas. Some of them fall to Gary, as our webmaster, to implement. But many of them come back to me, as ringmaster of this circus. And of the list of concrete suggestions of things that John could do to make the site better & more popular, I’ve done exactly zero of them, more or less.

    So I’m just giving myself a virtual kick in the ass, here before the wetmachine faithful multitudes.

Comments are closed