Confused by Shifting Mutterings & Dearth

Visiting and re-visiting my applaudables and standing ovationables, lately, I sorrowfully noticed that a few have -- for many unfortunate months -- fallen into neglect. I'm not concerned about multiple week sabbaticals and even month-long absences (which are almost always prefaced with a 'gone fishin' notice of one kind or another) but rather the few who simply departed without a kindly nod to us, me, their attentive readers.

Although the art of the web-based-log is something every individual has to measure by their own reach, no matter how limited, I do not applaud blogs with months of vacancy and dearth.

I say, then, fare-thee-well to:

You will be missed by me. I enjoyed your words, stories, and insights.

On a totally different note, which is along the same vein, I read the following (which clearly confused me) at unfounded shamanic shifting & powerful foolish wondering:

Last night, as I was reading some favorite weblogs, I became aware of a creepy, fearful, dismay (sic) reaction defusing through me, from from my toes on up - because I was realizing that the likes of us are likely to get booted out of the blogosphere for logging a grossly insufficient number of cogent, critical, cursive, cynical, or saucy copyright violating posts on our blogs. Our bloggings must seem bloggled, boggy, or soggy to many quicker witted pundits, and some of them could stumble upon our weblogs.

I wish to thank Shamantic! The Wise (STW) for his tip of the hat toward snapperhead, since his words 'favorite weblogs' linked here. But I'm confused as to what this paragraph means. I linked to 'saucy', further linked to the sites referenced there, and further linked to many of the sites that are further link-referenced.

Although I understand from all this that the non-profit 'Creative Commons License' organization has been accepted by a corporate ad agency (in a pro-bono manner) I do not understand at all why this is a bother to anyone. Who cares if BzzAgent is helping to promote CC for free? And if anyone gives even one tiny bumble-fart one way or the other, PLEASE explain why, because I'm plainly sutpi-mystified.

As equally mystified as I am when I read and re-read your paragraph. When you say, "...booted...for logging a grossly insufficient number of...copyright violating posts...must seem...soggy to...quicker witted pundits...", are you stating we should plagiarize more or plagiarize less? Is this sarcasm? Does this read as contradictory to others as it does to me? STW, seriously now, were you floating on a bit of nature when you composed this paragraph?

Since STW does not permit comments on his site, I post these questions here in hope that someone (some quicker witted pundit) will shed some light where I am blind.

No comments: