This DNC thing doesn't interest me in the least. Seriously. No emotion, not even boredom. So, how else to blog away the blog days of summer than to write about my new pet peeve: blogophobes and the blog marriage debate.

Why shouldn't two bloggers get married if they wish?

And what business is it of yours what they blog in the privacy of their own domain?

Yeah, I hear you. The first time I saw two bloggers posting it really intrigued me too. Titillated? Yes. The thought of those verbs, nouns, and adjectives coming together in cyber space sent goose bumps up my back. Intellectually I thought it was wrong, but seeing is believing.

Then something happened. I realized that these bloggers are just like you and me. Yes, they may be MT proficient, but at a basic level we are all the same species. What I had presumed two bloggers posting together looked like was a myth. Propaganda generated by Tech Central Station After Dark. Yes, there are plenty of bloggers out there posting together, but their blogs certainly didn't look like what the blog peddlers wanted you to believe. It was simple pornblography.

After this, the thought of two bloggers posting together kind of grossed me out.

Did this make me a blogophobe?

Not necessarily. I suppose to group-bloggers, the thought of posting by oneself seems a little weird, if not totally obscene. But we all grew up in a culture that emphasized that posting was a shameful act that should be done in the privacy of your own URL. Not to mention the stigma attached to group-blogging which is considering far worse--even unnatural! I am a victim of that culture, I guess.

So, I still don't find the thought of blogging with another blogger any nicer. It still creeps me out. But I do think we ought to treat all bloggers with respect. Let's not call them any bad names that might stigmatize them, because that just wouldn't be nice.

And if two bloggers want to get married, what business is it of mine? Just as long as they don't post together in my comments section, I have no problem with it.

Are there real objections to group-blogging? Yes, and I think there are perfectly valid objections to it.

The group-blogger activists (like Blog Up!) don't want you to know this, and their mouthpieces at the liberal internet news sites cover up the truth at every turn, but I swear there are problems with blogging with other bloggers.

For one thing, it is a well known fact that group-bloggers are hundreds of times more likely to get infected by the Bin Laden Suicide virus. I know, no one wants to say it, but it's true.

Just think about it, how is that the Bin Laden Suicide virus spreads? Through unprotected ports. Yes, it's possible to get the virus through port 8080, but that's extremely rare. That port was made for http extension, and let's face it, when blogging through backdoor ports without a firewall---you know---do I have to spell it out? The backdoor ports were made for ftp out, not in!

Were you that naive to believe the liberal propaganda that everybody is equally at risk for getting the virus? Right, like a monk's laptop without a modem could somehow miraculously catch the virus! Yeah, theoretically he could insert an infected disk in his hardrive, but think of the odds. They are astronomical.

So, we see that bloggers who post with other bloggers are far more likely to become infected with the Bin Laden Suicide virus than most normal bloggers, but there are other problems as well. Rates of trojan horses and worms are much higher in that community too. Sure, they aren't fatal to your computer if caught, but they are inconvenient and a nuisance.

Last, group-blogging has an indirect effect on the blogosphere. I agree with most of you that the arguments against group-blogging are fraught with bad analogies. The blogosphere won't suddenly collapse if bloggers are allowed to marry other bloggers.

But we should be willing to admit that there probably will be indirect consequences to legalizing blog-marriage. For instance, what kind of message are we sending if we say any two bloggers can marry so long as the two parties agree? Where will it end? Will the next step be to let two psudonymned bloggers marry? Or, fictional blog personalities? What if one of the blog personalities is an animal? That's some seriously gross schtick!

Or will we then say that group-blogs with multiple bloggers be allowed to practice blogymony?

Blogymony!!! I mean, bin Laden is for a country that allows blogymony!! Have the terrorists already won?

Also, perhaps some people are born attracted to other bloggers, but what about so-called 'bi-bloggers'. You know the kind, where they have their own blog and a group blog? Like that whole sicko group at Winds of Change or The Command Post. Were they 'born that way' too?

Perhaps our blogorientation, to some extent, is shaped by our culture. It isn't exactly choice, that's a false analogy, because our preferences are not usually chosen. But our preferences are shaped by the culture we live in. For instance, if given the choice between hot dogs and tacos, I choose tacos--but that is because I was raised in Southern California. In the San Francisco area there is a culture that glorifies the hot-dog (or, so I am told) and that is why so many up there prefer to suck them down in such vast quantities.

So, do we want a culture that eschews traditional notions of the blogosphere for a radical new concept? I, for one, do not.

Again, you might ask, aren't you being a blogophobe?

Maybe, but let's get one thing straight here, I have a lot of friends who are group bloggers. In fact, one of my best friends is a blogger of that sort.

So, on the personal level, you will never hear me calling a group-blogger by the many foul words so often heard on the playground or on hip-hop albums. You know: blag, blagget, bleer, blog-sucker, blogosexual, blomo, blairy, blike, etc.

Last, in my own defense, let me say that I am a libertarian by nature. While on the personal level I find the thought of one blogger posting with another pretty gross, I would never outlaw group blogging. If you want to blog with another blogger, be my guest. ItÂ’s a free country.

If you and your blogbuddy want to dress up like Darth Vader and Princess Leah and get blog-married, be my guest. No one should stop you. If you can find some Unitarian minister to perform the wedding, hey, more power to you.

And if the liberals up in Taxachussettes want to recognize your blog on blog union, dude, go for it. I say what some agnostic ministerÂ’s God joins together, let not the state put it asunder.

So, am I pro-blogmarriage? No.

If my church ever recognized such marriages I would totally blow a circuit. ItÂ’s wrong, itÂ’s disgusting, and the revered MT UserÂ’s Guide (v. 2.94, not that liberal v. 3.0 which is just a wishy-washy interpretation of the original) clearly states that bloggers who engage in group-blogging (let alone marrying one another!) will be condemned to the eternal and dreaded error 404! And look, you donÂ’t have to believe in the literal nature of the UserÂ’s Guide to see that such blogging is prohibited. IÂ’m no fundamentalist, but some things are so clearly stated as wrong that it seems like it would take a lot of interesting JavaScript tweaks to say the Guide condones it.

But there is a pretty important distinction here. I also think blogstitution is a terrible evilÂ…I mean, selling your posts to another blogger for money? Posting ought to be about the love of fisking or the hate of another post, but never about money. But I would also legalize blogstitution.

Heck, IÂ’m even for decriminalizing the selling of drugs on the internet. What you do with your own computer is your own business. If you want to do something stupid, or even dangerous, go for it. And while youÂ’re at it, please commit blogicide by deleting your post archives. I'm serious. Blogicide ought to be perfectly legal--even if the person committing blogicide is mentally deranged.

So, in conclusion, if a blogger wishes to get married to another blogger, it is none of my business. ItÂ’s sick and wrong, but not my concern. The government ought to recognize contracts, even stupid ones.

If you two want to post together in the privacy of your own domain, be my guest. Please donÂ’t spam me with trackbacks, and for all that is human and decent, please donÂ’t post any pics of you two typing away! ThatÂ’s just wrong.

So to all you Kos and Sulli readers, go ahead and call me a blogophobe. I donÂ’t care. IÂ’ll wear that label proudly if it means sticking to my traditional notions of blogging.

And to all you Hewitt readers and Freepers out there, keep your big government out of my (and the blagget's) domain.

And a last word of warning: sexy posts of blikes on group-blogs are likely to be fabricated. The real blogger is likely to be a 45 year Initech software engineer who lives in his brotherÂ’s basement and has serious issues.

Don't blog off to their posts! At the least you will need hours of therapy to cure you of the mental illness caused by the ugly reality of their true looks hitting your fantastic fantasy of mythical Blamazons blogging together.

At worst, you can go blind.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:29 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 1624 words, total size 10 kb.

1 Uh, hey, I'm no blogophobe, bubba. Whatever them bloggers want to do in the privacy of their computer rooms is their own business. But as soon as them webcams go on-line, them bloggers is invadin' my right to use the Internet without bumping into jpegs containing images that God Himself would have a hard time burnin' out of the ol' frontal lobes. Think about the children, is all this ol' boy is sayin'. Think about the children, or I'll be havin' to kick somebody's ass, if'n ya know what I mean. This cornpone monologue was brought to you by the good people at IJGBFLAIBTDADWTELITDOTGPOWTSAFIFMLE

Posted by: ccwbass at July 26, 2004 09:22 PM (qg4dU)

2 You are one weird son-of-a-bitch...

Posted by: Mudfish Billie at July 27, 2004 01:17 AM (uvu7I)

3 I've never denied it.

Posted by: ccwbass at July 27, 2004 04:05 AM (dYbjN)

4 I think your apparent blogophobia is just masking a deep rooted blogophelia.

Posted by: Jane at July 27, 2004 05:11 AM (PcgQk)

5 You had me at "not even boredom". Then you lost me again. But you picked me up in a sleazy dark chatroom with bad disco music and a tempting offer of no strings attached. And in the end I'm not quite sure what we're all talking about anymore but I think I love you.

Posted by: Simon at July 27, 2004 10:37 AM (UKqGy)

6 I started with the word 'blogophobe' (patent!) and the piece just wrote itself. Which is always kind of the wrong way to write anything. You know, it's supposed to work the other way around.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at July 27, 2004 02:14 PM (JQjhA)

7 We're HERE and we're Bleer! Get used to it! You have nothing to lose but your laptop. What Mudfish-billie said: You are one weird son-of-a-bitch... And coming from me, that should worry you. *snicker*

Posted by: Ironbear at July 30, 2004 06:36 AM (cswDs)

Hide Comments | Add Comment