« Arthur of the Roundish Table--The Two Quests Continue | dickday's Blog | The Superaccountant: The Monstrous Math »
Craig Crawford: How to Properly Prepare Your Comments for Publication
MESSAGE OR A MASSAGE?
Craig Crawford is a fine reporter. I have almost always enjoyed his appearances on cable news. He is mostly liberal although it became clear that he is one of those Texas Dems who has been slighted too many times and therefore ends up as more of a moderate. Too much of a moderate for my tastes. But, he presents a clarity sometimes. I will not waste my time on rush or sean or savage or others who are so vitriolic that I have thoughts of suicide after reviewing their work. I believe I need to hear 'other' views from time to time.
The reason for my recent interest in his blog is that he is clearly upset with the comments he receives from readers at his Trail Mix blog associated with CQ. I would assume that if I had been published for over thirty years and was known by hundreds of powerful people over that time period, that I would be more immune to criticism.
Just last week he noted that his usually short blog is just a hobby of sorts, that he does not need it nor evidently make much money from it. He does it out of sheer pleasure. The pleasure to write and to be read.
There was a fine post awhile ago at TPMC from a conservative blogger. He wrote a simple essay about how to write a letter to a member of Congress. It really was well done.
But Crawford has come up with his own rules for writing a comment on a blog. Or at least an important person's blog. As I read through it, I see important points and less important points. Many of his points touch on problems we have at TPMC. Other points underline why I would rather be writing post-em notes to my refrigerator than wasting my commentary on Craig Crawford.
The ten points are too many to handle in one post, so I would like to handle them on a daily basis.
INTRODUCTION
Pardon the interruption in daily political posts for an important housekeeping message.
The pressures of rising participation -- and passions -- in our Comment sections necessitates our first-ever Commenting Guide. Please review carefully before posting comments.
TOP TEN WAYS TO BE A BETTER COMMENTER
1. Contribute new information to the discussion. At least scan the entire thread to see if what you are writing has already been said. Repeating yourself is also unhelpful. Relentlessly pressing the same argument with multiple posts, in a single thread or over a period of days, is another form of spam and subject to deletion. Persistent violators are subject to blocked access.
Now there is a lot here to digest. And there are many problems with taking this point too literally. For instance, if a commenter (ever notice that MS wishes you to say commentator instead of commenter. But when I make a comment to a blog, I am not really a commentator. That seems too much of an esteemed position for an old man in his pajamas) writes:
I disagree with your post Mr. Crawford.
And another writes:
I agree with your post Mr. Crawford
I would appear to be stymied as to how to create a comment.
I mean, if I were to say:
I disagree with your post most vehemently, is that being repetitive? I understand that to make a comment like:
F*&k you Craig Crawford-- and I repeat that comment fifteen times on the same post, I have violated his prime directive.
But, what if 14 other commenters have basically said:
F*&k you Craig Crawford --then it appears that I should refrain from writing that comment. Especially if it has been stated by so many other people.
But, taking that case from a different angle, what if I said:
F*&k you Craig Crawford and your mother.
Would this add more to the conversation?
And if commenters do not add a comment because it would amount to repetition, would the poster, in this case CC, get the wrong idea and not fully grasp the sentiments of his readers?
But what if I commented in increments like:
#235: F*&k you Craig Crawford
#322: And your mother
It seems to me that I have just expressed two different sentiments in two different comments.
But let us look at a more complicated example, one I take from Dr. Reich from our site:
All told, according to the new data, the nation's economy shrank at an annual rate of 6.2 percent. Last month, the government's preliminary estimate of the drop in fourth-quarter GDP was only 3.8 percent. Roughly half the Commerce Department's revision was due to a sharper drop in business spending than had been anticipated. As a result, business inventories -- the amount of stuff they they have on hand to sell -- have dropped. That's good news because eventually businesses will have to replace their inventories, in anticipation of at least some consumer buying, and such replacement spending will spur the economy. But here's the bad news: Inventories still aren't dropping as fast as sales are dropping, suggesting even less business spending and investing coming up.
And then I decide to comment as follows:
#121 But an additional 1.4 million people were receiving benefits under an extended unemployment compensation program that Congress approved last year. That tally was as of Feb. 14, the latest data available, and brings the total jobless benefit rolls to about 6.5 million. That was up from 2.8 million a year ago.The four-week average of new claims, which smoothes out fluctuations, increased 2,000 to 641,750, the highest since October 1982. (APNYT 3/6)
Is it all right for me to amend this comment as follows:
#317 Please disregard my comment posted as #121, because I meant to post it under a blog by Professor Krugman at an entirely different site.(embedded: Buy Insurance Here)
And
#647 I would ask you to reinstate #121 and disregard #317, because it appears that lower unemployment rates of decline might indeed have an effect upon the inventories, or at least the rate of decline of those inventories.(Embedded: Buy Viagra Here)
#932 I would amend #647 to reflect the fact that I meant to include EXPECTATIONS of declines in the drop of the unemployment rate from a standpoint of EXPECTATIONS of declines in total business inventories. Thank you.(Embedded: Buy Real Estate Here)
You see the basic problem we have here. I have kind of broken CC's first rule by commenting too many times in the same blog and repeating myself and, no doubt others who assert a direct relationship between falling rates and discussions by pundits on cable news.
In the end, I believe that Mr. Crawford's First Law of Blogging has an underlying message, a feel to it so to speak. The real message is:
THE PEASANTS ARE REVOLTING.
Thank you for your support. Only nine more rules to become the perfect commenter.
THE END
Craig Crawford is a fine reporter. I have almost always enjoyed his appearances on cable news. He is mostly liberal although it became clear that he is one of those Texas Dems who has been slighted too many times and therefore ends up as more of a moderate. Too much of a moderate for my tastes. But, he presents a clarity sometimes. I will not waste my time on rush or sean or savage or others who are so vitriolic that I have thoughts of suicide after reviewing their work. I believe I need to hear 'other' views from time to time.
The reason for my recent interest in his blog is that he is clearly upset with the comments he receives from readers at his Trail Mix blog associated with CQ. I would assume that if I had been published for over thirty years and was known by hundreds of powerful people over that time period, that I would be more immune to criticism.
Just last week he noted that his usually short blog is just a hobby of sorts, that he does not need it nor evidently make much money from it. He does it out of sheer pleasure. The pleasure to write and to be read.
There was a fine post awhile ago at TPMC from a conservative blogger. He wrote a simple essay about how to write a letter to a member of Congress. It really was well done.
But Crawford has come up with his own rules for writing a comment on a blog. Or at least an important person's blog. As I read through it, I see important points and less important points. Many of his points touch on problems we have at TPMC. Other points underline why I would rather be writing post-em notes to my refrigerator than wasting my commentary on Craig Crawford.
The ten points are too many to handle in one post, so I would like to handle them on a daily basis.
INTRODUCTION
Pardon the interruption in daily political posts for an important housekeeping message.
The pressures of rising participation -- and passions -- in our Comment sections necessitates our first-ever Commenting Guide. Please review carefully before posting comments.
TOP TEN WAYS TO BE A BETTER COMMENTER
1. Contribute new information to the discussion. At least scan the entire thread to see if what you are writing has already been said. Repeating yourself is also unhelpful. Relentlessly pressing the same argument with multiple posts, in a single thread or over a period of days, is another form of spam and subject to deletion. Persistent violators are subject to blocked access.
Now there is a lot here to digest. And there are many problems with taking this point too literally. For instance, if a commenter (ever notice that MS wishes you to say commentator instead of commenter. But when I make a comment to a blog, I am not really a commentator. That seems too much of an esteemed position for an old man in his pajamas) writes:
I disagree with your post Mr. Crawford.
And another writes:
I agree with your post Mr. Crawford
I would appear to be stymied as to how to create a comment.
I mean, if I were to say:
I disagree with your post most vehemently, is that being repetitive? I understand that to make a comment like:
F*&k you Craig Crawford-- and I repeat that comment fifteen times on the same post, I have violated his prime directive.
But, what if 14 other commenters have basically said:
F*&k you Craig Crawford --then it appears that I should refrain from writing that comment. Especially if it has been stated by so many other people.
But, taking that case from a different angle, what if I said:
F*&k you Craig Crawford and your mother.
Would this add more to the conversation?
And if commenters do not add a comment because it would amount to repetition, would the poster, in this case CC, get the wrong idea and not fully grasp the sentiments of his readers?
But what if I commented in increments like:
#235: F*&k you Craig Crawford
#322: And your mother
It seems to me that I have just expressed two different sentiments in two different comments.
But let us look at a more complicated example, one I take from Dr. Reich from our site:
All told, according to the new data, the nation's economy shrank at an annual rate of 6.2 percent. Last month, the government's preliminary estimate of the drop in fourth-quarter GDP was only 3.8 percent. Roughly half the Commerce Department's revision was due to a sharper drop in business spending than had been anticipated. As a result, business inventories -- the amount of stuff they they have on hand to sell -- have dropped. That's good news because eventually businesses will have to replace their inventories, in anticipation of at least some consumer buying, and such replacement spending will spur the economy. But here's the bad news: Inventories still aren't dropping as fast as sales are dropping, suggesting even less business spending and investing coming up.
And then I decide to comment as follows:
#121 But an additional 1.4 million people were receiving benefits under an extended unemployment compensation program that Congress approved last year. That tally was as of Feb. 14, the latest data available, and brings the total jobless benefit rolls to about 6.5 million. That was up from 2.8 million a year ago.The four-week average of new claims, which smoothes out fluctuations, increased 2,000 to 641,750, the highest since October 1982. (APNYT 3/6)
Is it all right for me to amend this comment as follows:
#317 Please disregard my comment posted as #121, because I meant to post it under a blog by Professor Krugman at an entirely different site.(embedded: Buy Insurance Here)
And
#647 I would ask you to reinstate #121 and disregard #317, because it appears that lower unemployment rates of decline might indeed have an effect upon the inventories, or at least the rate of decline of those inventories.(Embedded: Buy Viagra Here)
#932 I would amend #647 to reflect the fact that I meant to include EXPECTATIONS of declines in the drop of the unemployment rate from a standpoint of EXPECTATIONS of declines in total business inventories. Thank you.(Embedded: Buy Real Estate Here)
You see the basic problem we have here. I have kind of broken CC's first rule by commenting too many times in the same blog and repeating myself and, no doubt others who assert a direct relationship between falling rates and discussions by pundits on cable news.
In the end, I believe that Mr. Crawford's First Law of Blogging has an underlying message, a feel to it so to speak. The real message is:
THE PEASANTS ARE REVOLTING.
Thank you for your support. Only nine more rules to become the perfect commenter.
THE END
Advertisement
"F*&k you Craig Crawford and your mother." I just wanted to be the first commenter to say that.
Oh yeah. And just so I cover off all my bases:
- "Wonderful post DD, and I agree completely."
- "Complete crap DD, and you are a menace to the Republic."
- "When did Shiteface start writing your blogs?"
There. I think that covers all the angles. And the angels. And the Angles.
March 9, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hahahhaha. Q There are ten of these rules. It is pretty funny as you go down the list. We will see if anybody gets interested in this. Otherwise I will just publish the rest at once.
March 9, 2009 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is nothing I like so well as wry. Rec'd.
March 9, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Belle. You have a nice evening.
March 9, 2009 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a BBC series called House of Cards, Ian Richardson played a diabolical PM, whose favorite rejoinder to a question was: "I couldn't possibly comment on that..."
Is that, or is that not, a comment?
March 10, 2009 6:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
ohohohoh... I have information to add to this thread, Precious information!
Richardson's favorite answer in full was "You might say that, I couldn't possibly comment" (accompanied by a slight contraction of the musculi frontalis, zygomaticus, and risorius).
And now I'm going to have to find new and creative ways to express my great appreciation for your posts DD. I'll start with:
This was a very entertaining and edifying post, Dick! I am rejoicing at the prospect of reading the next installments!
March 10, 2009 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Obey for the full quote and for the description of his priceless moue of distaste.
It has been suggested that no one could have played that role but Ian Richardson.
"Well, you might say that; I couldn't possibly comment."
March 10, 2009 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
lol! (someone needs to come up with a Richardson emoticon...) |~? ... naa
March 10, 2009 8:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or a quick way to embed the video.
March 10, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yva, very nicely done. You people are all so good at this tech and then you are so precise.
March 10, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Ellen!! my pug brain is too dumb to figure that out...
March 10, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obey, you are just too blessed kind. I love to wake up to cheerful things. I am waiting for one of yours that takes me half an hour to read before I even begin a comment!
March 10, 2009 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
haha! beware what you wish for! got one in the works on Adam Smith's moral philosophy... ACK!!
March 10, 2009 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you write: I do not have a comment at this time. you have made a comment.
Orally, if you say, I have no comment. You have made a comment.
But if you go to these professional blogs and do not chime in, there is no comment. It is like me yelling at the tv. Which I still like to do.
hahahahahhahaaha
March 10, 2009 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Commentator? COMMONtater? Never. You're at least a sweetpotater.
Although this post awakened my math phobia, I loved it.
March 9, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you AMike. I mean are you really going to get upset because #126 called you a poopy pants?
March 9, 2009 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
So much for the belief in the free flow of discourse; if he ever had one.
March 9, 2009 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Justice you are a professional. I know I become a cry baby at times, but do not you get used to putting the stuff out there and getting a bad review from time to time?
March 9, 2009 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, great. More laws for me to break.
:-D
March 9, 2009 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahahhahaahha. That is one more reason I like you. It is that fine attitude.
March 9, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was going to comment (commentate?) earlier, but it seemed Quinn already had everything covered. After much consideration (considerationtating?) I finally came up with something additional to add:
Go Brewers!
I love the humor, dd. This was fun!
March 9, 2009 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Go Cards!
Important to provide journalistic balance. Though I think we can all agree, those Cubs fans are beyond the pale. Nutbars.
March 9, 2009 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
TruckNutz Cub Fans, they is! Agreed!
March 9, 2009 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The other rules are a lot worse Sleepin. No kidding.
I am laughing as I write this because I do not think you like too many rules. The rules of the highway are bad enough.
March 9, 2009 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now wait a minute...
March 10, 2009 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, go Brewers - and take the Packers with you!
March 10, 2009 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
TruckNutz, would be my guess! :O)
March 10, 2009 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I had an upstart research assistant once, enrolled at Bryn Mawr, who informed me that I was wrong to use "orientate" instead of "orient." In America, perhaps. In England, no, at least not during the era in which I spent a great deal of time there. But, "vas ist los;" can't we just keep it simple and agree that CC is right that plowing through 200 "me, too!" comments is tedious while, simultaneously, we say: "We bloggers do it every day, CC; what makes you so special?" But this challenge is ill-behaved, untoward, and even I am shocked (yes, shocked) that CC's mother would be brought into the discussion.
March 10, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
did you see what belle?
March 10, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought maybe you were kidding Belle. Otherwise this day kind of exploded on me. He commented three times!!! I promise to watch my mouth after this, er my keyboard.
March 10, 2009 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, DD, Darlinface. So sorry. I was only attempting to be wry, but I am so bad at it, unless it is in the construction of sandwiches. What would the ingredients be for humble pie?
March 11, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you DD. I have never heard of CC. I must say CC seems to have a bit of an ego issue. That is not uncommon in blogs or commentatering.
The trick is to prick them evenly all over with a (pitch)fork, as to keep their swollen heads from exploding. Then bake and enjoy as usual.
Love,
the not-famous-whatsoever chicken, who is quite happy to be no one, really.
XXOO
March 9, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bwak, the big guys want it both ways. This blog he has obviously sells his books and articles and CQ. But the peasants in pjs are no cooperating.
March 9, 2009 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
bwak, I fear for you, I really do. Chickens should NEVER commentate on baking. :-)
Republican chicken: I don't believe we need to get the chickens across the road. I say give the road to the chickens and let them decide. The government needs to let go of strangling the chickens so they can get across the road.
I broke no rules in this commentate. Can I haz pony, pleaze?
March 10, 2009 4:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am still learning how to spell commentate. Under this rule and the other CC rules, I do not see that you are guilty of any infraction. And you appear to be pursing the aims of the Society for the Preservation of Chickens.
So I hereby award you a free meal at the Colonel's.
March 10, 2009 4:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a matter of principle, the puppy does not dine with military personnel.
Of course, if they were to offer pizza...
March 10, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really feel that CC could be making it fun again to be a revolting peasant!
March 9, 2009 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah froggy, we should all go there after we are sure what the rules are. Then a assign a rule to break for everyone.
March 9, 2009 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
(yawns)
March 9, 2009 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
How revolting of them!
March 10, 2009 3:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suggest that we all gather our pitchforks and kerosene soaked rag torches and ride over to the CQ Ranch and give ole CC a piece of our collective mind.
Once there, we can round up that scoundrel and drive him batty by just copying and pasting your favorite comments ad infinitum, ad nauseaum. (While I love the F*** You and your mother! comment, that is going to be my new standard response to anything about Joe Lieberman.)
Vigilante commenting! Break every rule and Break it with gusto!!!! Where's my tar and feathers?
March 10, 2009 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good idea. We need at least ten so that every one of us can break one of his rules. Except swearing. Because he can go--see they are all animals. And totally misunderstand whatever point he was trying to make in three paragraphs.
March 10, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
In anticipation of posting on CC's blog and violating rule #1, I submit the following practice effort:
Actually, dd, this is an astounding idea. I suggest we have perhaps ten rules that we can break while writing on his blog. And no swearing, to be sure! After all, we wouldn't want him discounting us as all animals. And what was that you were saying about misunderstanding the point he was trying to make in three paragraphs?
March 10, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
His blogs are so short. But he pretends to intimate things. Like he is an insider. So lets say he makes some assertion like:
Washington is abuzz with rumors that President Obama is reniging on a campaign promise to get more money for education.
And then we take it to mean:
The state of Washington. or
SAY WHAT on the reniging
or
Why in God's name would he not pay back his school loans?
Even I am guilty of that, just misreading the damn blog in the first place cause its three am.
Should I go ahead to publish the other rules or just link it here?
March 10, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, please! One at a time with you contributing your verse as a commentaryator, ok?
March 10, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was afraid of boring the sh..out of everyone.
I got it set up to do two or three of the next rules, cause I do not need an intro. This runs out at 6 or 7, I can publish then. hahahahahahahahahaha
I am going to watch how many direct quotes I take from the guy except for the rules. hhahahahahahah
March 10, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
DD this is like asking if we want our three meals on a daily basis or just the whole month's worth at once. What, are you Jenny Craig? Piecemeal please. Salivation is salvation.
That was a short commentation.
March 10, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh gees Lefty. All right, Let me take another look. I have 7 hours or something. I am not going to overlap them. Lately I have been keeping two going by logging every twelve hours. I look like a hog.
(sorry Miguel)
March 10, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Craig Crawford, you're a pompous jerk.
(Damn, if I had only scanned the thread I would've seen that this is clearly not new information.)
March 10, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahahahhaahahhaha. See. Its hard to do. And what do you do when there are 210 commentators as Bwak puts it? You would spend three hours reviewing before you put in your ten words.
March 10, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
But what if there were 210 commentators commentating at the commune and 200 of them were repetitive redundancies commiserated over and over again by 200 different authors, and 10 repeated the opposite view redundantly. It would appear to this blogger that avoiding the 199 of the one side and 9 of the other leaves us with something akin to Fox News,a bastion for repeating redundant Republican talking points in the effort of presenting an illusion of fair and balanced commenterating, which means that there are only two views of anything and since repetitious voices need not be heard, the result is a perpetual stalemate.
Unless of course one was to delve into nuance in which there are never two sides of any issue. To these folks opinions are like snowflakes, no two are the exactly the same.
March 10, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes Gregor. And you are getting to real issues here. Craig is not all wrong. And I start out by saying I like him. But unless a 'big' blogger ends with a 'yes' 'no' question, it is a waste of time for anybody to join in the discussion after fifty or something. We go longer here because we are so small and we have discussions within the blog. Sometimes we do not even care who the blogger is. The issue has our blood flowing.
But Craig is not going to reply to my comment.
Dr. Reich does not have time to reply to anybody's comment unless he is in some mood or something.
Here you do a blog on health care. You or Miguel might get 80 comments. but it might represent twenty of us just talking back and forth.
What Crawford wants to do is make something from an advertiser, sell his CQ--he is a partner or something--sell his books and keep his name out there. And guess what? He gets idiots who call him poopy pants and it pisses him off.
My point in getting into his rules, besides satire, is to get a discussion going later about what rules should govern. There are rules here for instance. Unless its you or Q joking, we really should not say f u and your mother.
That is covered in another rule.
I am taking too much of your time Gregor. You and I and many others have talked about this.
Thank you. This really was the purpose of this
March 10, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
DD, your point is valid. You do not take my time, I give it.
When the trolls arrive, I think f u is perfectly acceptable. I think that we have a knack here oftentimes to say f u in many more words so that the meaning of f u is understood without use of those words exactly.
It seems to me that even if posts are redundant, they should be made. What irks me on some blogs are the endless pithy remarks that bring nothing meaningful to the post. I like the recommend option here because it serves as approval but doe snot require elaboration.
March 10, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
CHECK THIS OUT.
March 10, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Craig is not going to reply to my comment.
See what ya did!
Great to have him stop by and visit! Seems like a regular kinduva guy, which is not to be confused with a "heckuva job"!
March 10, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get the angst about some commenting guidelines for users of my blog (brought on by an escalation of flame wars between users, not any criticism of me). There's nothing there to suggest anything to the rest of the blog universe, only to regulars on mine: http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/commenting-guide.html
And btw, reading over TPM's much lengthier Terms of Service (requiring the user to accept before registering), I'd say yours are much more restrictive and burdensome.
March 10, 2009 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I cannot tell if this is a joke, but I have nothing to lose and it goes to another of your rules regarding anonymity. This IS me. This is my name.
That is a separate issue that I was going to get into later because on bigger blogs my name will not work because it is too common.
I am just going to take the chance this is not a joke. I have nothing to lose as I said.
As you might imagine I do not correspond with too many famous people, none actually hahahahahahahaha
This was meant as a satire with some meat to discuss your rules (which are really universal) in the context as delivered right above you with my friend Gregor.
If this is really you, hello, nice to meet you. I have been watching you and reading you for at least two decades.
I am an old man in my pajamas.
I still cannot stop laughing.
I certainly wish you no harm. I am just speechless.
If it is a joke, its a good one.
March 10, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
He writes exactly as he talks. At least that is how I read him. Which tells you this is who he is. I am here come and get me. Educated yes. Experienced yes.
pompous, no.
Kind of fun, huh?
March 10, 2009 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I am me, Craig Crawford, last time I checked. Yes. Not a joke at all. And I chafe at the idea of being called famous, consider myself a bit player in the pundit game. No, didn't think you meant harm, just wanted to clear up that I wasn't trying to tell commenters on other blogs how to act. Based on the observations I saw here, realized it could be taken that way, so I changed its title to "How To Be a Better Commmenter ON THIS BLOG." Thanks for the help, really. And you and yours are welcome to play with our gang anytime: http://www.craigcrawford.com
Cheers!
March 10, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
THE PEASANTS ARE REVOLTING.
THE END.
March 10, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahhahaahahhahahahahahaQ what do you think. Is he the real thing?
March 10, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup. And you, still in your pajamas.
'Course I'm just wearing this old bear rug.
March 10, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
ha, well if it helps prove my identity, here's my winning bedhead pic on my twitter page: http://twitpic.com/1pg1s.
if that won't do, i'll see if DNA can be converted to ones and zeroes
March 10, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
oops, here's correct link: http://twitpic.com/1pg1s
March 10, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good God man, put up a friggin' warning before you link to that, willya? It's a new era of responsibility, doncha know.
Second thought, work on that DNA conversion thingie.
0's and 1's are pretty low risk.
March 10, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
hahahhahahahha
March 10, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fascinating.
March 10, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just came back to see the rest of the thread, Dick. Hilarious! nice of this Crawford guy to stop by.
March 10, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obey, this is really something. It is more hilarious every time I go back and read it. You work with famous people, maybe just in their industry or profession, as I gather. I know there are talented people here, and some of them have had some fame from time to time.
Not me. Certainly not in the last ten years. I got so charged I ended up napping for three hours.
What an experience!!!
March 10, 2009 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
DD
I read through this entire thread. You made my day!!
This was a hoot...especially the CC posts hahahahahahaaha
March 10, 2009 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Buddy, I am totally shocked today. This is a day I shall remember for sometime to come!!!! And thank youfor the kind words.
March 10, 2009 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
All well and good Dick, so long as that jolly green guy doesn't decide to show up here.
March 11, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
All well and good Dick, so long as that jolly green guy doesn't show up here.
March 11, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink