Blog-O-Rama
by Jason GodeskyBlogs! They’re out to change the world! They nearly decided an election. They blew up scandal after scandal. We called bloggers 2004’s people of the year. They’re now featured on 24-hour cable news channels. Even people who barely know how to turn a computer on are hearing about blogs. 27% of Americans read blogs (well, no, not really…) In fact, about the only thing about blogs that’s still hard to come by is what the hell they are.
The personal website itself is ancient (in internet terms), and Kevin Maney pointed out that much of the content matter is ancient (in civilized terms), too. (To which, naturally, bloggers responded themselves.) And it isn’t just the threatened dinosaurs of the MSM (that’s “mainstream media” to all you kids who still don’t have a Technorati account) poo-poo’ing the revolution of the Blogosphere. The hard-boiled old-skool techies of yore have a hard time telling the difference between blogs and personal websites, too.
I can understand the confusion of journalists. They’re coming from a certain pedigree and tradition. Their job is to write the story, so they’re looking at the stories bloggers write, and not finding much difference.
I can understand the confusion of techies. They’re coming from a certain background, too. They write the systems that blogs run on. The same content management systems that so many blogs use, can be used for any number of tasks. Some blogs have no content management system at all, and are updated by hand. Others are home-brewed. So where is the difference from any other website?
Jeff Vail’s blog has just one author; this blog has a small handful. MetaFilter has thousands. Some blogs have a single subject; some (like this one) have a unifying theme or outlook. Some have no such connection whatsoever. Some amount to little more than public diaries. Others are news sources. Still others–like this one–are more an ongoing collection of essays. If we want to refer to “blogs” as a distinct subset of websites, what can we possibly point to that uniquely identifies them? With so much diversity in “the Blogosphere,” does that simply make the whole thing just so much pretension and hot air? A bunch of wankering hipsters wanting to think they’re doing something new?
I have no doubt that wankery and pretension play their parts, but to dismiss the Blogosphere entirely overlooks a very real–and very interesting–phenomenon at work here. What defines a “blog” is not subject matter, authorship, style, or even functionality. A blog is defined more on a shifting scale, a spectrum of blogness, defined by a number of criteria that all drive back to a unique understanding of memetics. None of these are unique to blogs, but taken in toto they define the criteria of a spectrum of blogness.
- Chronological ordering. According to Dave Winer, “[a] weblog is just a web site organized by time.” Where the basic unit of the website is the “page,” the atom of the Blogosphere is the “post.” These posts are chronological. By Winer’s standard, any website that’s ever updated is a blog. In that case, Vivísimo is a blog. However, I think Winer glosses over an important detail here. Simply updating does not a blog make; the updates must be the addition of a new unit, not simply changing the site.
- Comments. Any old thing online can allow for comments, but they’re one of the key criteria of blogness. Comments turn every post into a disucssion; they undermine the dictatorship of the author by reversing the roles of author and reader on a regular basis. Authors become readers, and readers become authors. Rather than a one-to-many relationship–one author dictates to many readers, who passively recieve and accept the author’s words–comments create a many-to-many relationship of author-readers, taking turns, as in a conversation.
- Syndication. RSS and Atom feeds allow interested readers to follow a blog much more closely. Simply hitting “refresh” constantly stresses servers and leads to frustration. Feeds notify readers immediately when new material is available. At the same time, they open up possibilities for interesting re-use. So far, this is mainly found in aggregators, but there’s a few others….
- Pinging. When I publish this post, it will ping a number of sites, including Weblogs.com, blo.gs, and Technorati. Immediately on publication, it will be spread across the internet on the Blogosphere’s rendition of news wires. Where syndication will notify my loyal, readers immediately, pinging will attract the casual blog browser.
- Trackback. As a consequence of syndication, many blog entries are in fact about other blog entries. For example, my thinking in this article is heavily influenced by Dave Winer. In these cases, a “trackback” to the original post essentially inserts a new comment, pointing to the new article. This expands the second criterion, comments, beyond the original website, and further reinforcing the inversion of the authorial and reader roles. Author-reader A writes a post on her blog, which is read by author-reader B. B makes her own entry, on her own blog, which tracks back to the original post as a comment. Now there is a new post on B’s blog–with its own comments–that expands the conversation in the context of a wider audience.
- Archives and permalinks. Where syndication notifies readers of the latest entries, blog entries also require permalinks–human-readable URLs that will continue to be reliable, even after the passage of years and software infrastructures. These old posts are organized in archives to make them easy to find. The memes transmitted in a blog post are easy enough to broadcast–they must also be easily retrievable at a later date to be useful, for that day six months from now when you mention it in conversation with your friends, and they challenge you to back it up with a URL.
- Blogrolling. Many blogs maintain a list of links of other blogs they read–a hypertext reading list. This helps tie blogs together into clusters within the Blogosphere, as some blogs will link to one another more heavily than others. These clusters correspond to the interests and focuses of the blogs in question, making blogrolling an interesting way of plotting the shape of the Blogosphere.
Most of these are not unique. A forum with an RSS feed has a blogginess of 2 out of 7, or 28.5%. So these criteria help to define a spectrum on which all websites lie somewhere between 0% and 100% blog. This site has 100% blogginess; SystemsThinker.com is 0% bloggy. Naturally, most websites lay somewhere in between. Vivísimo has syndication, making it 14.3% blog. Marco.org meets criteria #1, #2, #3 and a bit of #7, so we’ll call it 3.5. out of 7, or 50%.
As we can see, these criteria are interrelated. It’s difficult for a site to achieve a score between 50% and 100%–websites tend to cluster at either extreme. This indicates that the criteria do define a distinct phenomenon.
With its emphasis on the spread of memes, blogs have created a unique electronic ecosystem for the spread of ideas–the much-vaunted “Blogosphere.” That ecosystem is closed to a significant degree–when critics allege that the Blogosphere is significant only to other bloggers, they are in many ways correct, in the same manner that the ecosystem is significant only to individual organisms inside it. However, they are also quite wrong, and for analogous reasons. While a given ecosystem is primarily closed–marking it as a distinct system–it is not entirely closed, and can have significant impacts on nearby systems. The Blogosphere is a distinct memetic ecosystem inside our culture, and while it is primarily closed, it is not entirely closed. It still has an impact on the rest of our cultural systems.
Most interestingly, the Blogosphere is an ecosystem that predisposes itself to a very careful record of what it does–giving us a uniquely detailed example of memetics. We could hardly have planned a better laboratory in which to test the claims of memetics.
Chris Hardie would have provided an excellent example of trackbacks with his commentary on my post, were it not for Spam Karma’s predilection for fits of Nazism.
It’s a very interesting piece Chris has written, and if you haven’t read it, do so. Now. Did you read it? No, I said read it. Done now? Good. We can continue….
The barrier to entry Chris mentions is more important than most give it credit for. After all, what was the import of Gutenberg’s movable type printing press except to lower the barrier to entry for publication? Yet the social ramifications of Gutenberg’s invention–which I could go on about for some time, and have, and likely will again (though thankfully not here)–in a very real sense created the modern world.
As for the tone Chris discusses, I think we’re now getting into the subject of good blogs–as rare a subspecies as good movies, good books, Jabberwockies and the perfect cup of tea. I’m not saying I even disagree–I don’t–only that it’s a different question. After all, as much as we many want to deny it, Blade Trinity is still a movie.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 18 May 2005 @ 9:40 PM
In another piece that would have made an excellent trackback, Marco wrote a piece on this subject that had us bickering at the office all day long, much to the longsuffering agony of our co-workers. My original piece was prodded by some back-and-forth at work, so I was hoping Marco would be willing to intelligently consider the case I presented. Of course, once invested in a stance, it is very difficult to disengage, so I suppose I hoped for too much. The resulting article shows very clearly that Marco had made up his mind on the matter before reading a single word.
I’ll admit, the italicizded last line–”If you want to Comment on this article, you can do it the old-fashioned way: email me or post in my forum.”–really got under my skin. When Rob McMillin publicly criticized my previous article, “The Opposite of Malthus,” I was able to defend myself just as publicly. That is, until Rob shut down the thread. But the Blogosphere being what it is, I was able to respond here, and other bloggers joined in. Because of the nature of blogs, the conversation spread. Marco’s ending statement merely attempts to speak ex cathedra. If I want to take issue with his argument (and I do), then it must either be done privately (by email), or by other means (whether on his forum, or here). Either way, to someone who manages to stumble upon article #133 on Marco.org, we have Marco for the final word. The discussion is closed. There is no easy way to see that anything else at all has to be said on the matter. In my previous controversies, I kept the threads open, and even went to some pains to make sure that my fiercest critics remained visible to anyone who found my site. I believe I have impressed so many over my opponents’ criticisms by the force of my ideas–not by stifling discussion.
I’d have to be a fool to disagree with his point that blogs are over-hyped. In fact, that was why my piece spent so much time poking fun at the things. Many, many blogs amount to nothing more than narcissistic wankery. The superlative hyperbole surrounding it all has fashioned the Blog into another in a long line of technological messiahs–and my absolute break from such worship of technology is well documented elsewhere. Some of the more weak-minded among us have made the sort of idiotic statements Marco easily knocks down: that blogs will replace the mainstream media, that blogs are some kind of revolutionary new development, or that blogs will solve world hunger. These are straw men; easy to knock down, and not seriously held except by the most lunatic fringe. Marco wins handily against a position no one actually holds.
Much of the article is spent showing that none of my criteria are in themselves unique; I myself pointed this out from the onset. Rather, I said they formed a complex. People get congested all the time; they get fevers all the time; they get coughs all the time. By themselves, these individual symptoms are meaningless. When they occur together, however, they almost always indicate influenza. That’s the kind of complex we’re talking about here. The surest sign of such a complex is when its constituent indicators occur more frequently together–when their occurence clusters together–than separately. If my criteria do not indicate an actual complex, then why is it so difficult to find a website that fulfills exactly 5 of them? Why is it so easy to find websites that meet very few of these criteria, or almost all, but so difficult to find anything in between? Sites exist in this area, to be sure, but they are rare. That indicates a complex. As a true programmer, Marco is looking for a strict mathematical definition, and dismisses the reality of the phenomenon when any such litmus test fails to appear. It’s the kind of logic that says that influenza doesn’t exist, either.
On Content.
Blogs are a type of publication, utterly independent of the type, focus, or quality of what’s in them. Marco takes a quick shot at this, but the point is utterly void of meaning. Asking “what isn’t a blog?” is as aggrevating as asking, “what isn’t a magazine?” The diversity of blogs does not undermine the reality of blogs, any more than the diversity of magazines undermines the reality of magazines. The question raised is merely a deliberately obtuse attempt to deflect the issue.
On Comments.
The reason I’m developing both a blog and a forum for this website is because of this crucial difference, which Marco overlooks. A blog is a very different animal from a forum. A forum is a public discussion. The line between MetaFilter and a private forum is very thin. On this blog, only a small circle of authors can initiate “threads.” We guide the discussion. We pick the topics and the agenda. You have a chance to reply, but we set the tone. A forum is free-form and organic; it allows the community to be what it is, and moderator interference is not needed, and often not wanted. This is a minor difference in implementation, but a major difference in ramification and significance.
On Syndication.
Overlooking Marco’s condescension that I somehow don’t understand the Hypertext Transfer Protocol, I’m surprised he’s being so deliberately obtuse on the benefits of RSS feeds, given his general admiration for them. The problem with sitting at a site hitting refresh has less to do with technical difficulties than simple frustration. Either I will abandon the site, or I will become aggrevated. Neither is very good. RSS removes this. There’s nothing magical about syndication, and there’s nothing revolutionary about its technology. It’s simply a clever use of old ideas in a new way that’s added a new dimension to online publishing. No more, no less. To me, though, that seems very significant–that’s the stuff that the most important innovations are made of.
On Pings.
If Marco can suggest a better word than “ping,” I’ll gladly use it. Blogs pinging central sites like Weblogs.com, blo.gs or Technorati is significantly different from syndication, again less in implementation and more in ramification. Syndication uses a pull medium–you add a feed to your aggregator, so you can read it in a different format. Central servers like the ones in question, though, provide something closer to a push medium. New blog posts are broadcast to these sites, where browsers can see all the most recently updated blogs. These sites are not going to all subscribe to the millions of feeds available; it’s up to those millions of blogs to ping them. It provides blog authors a chance to broadcast their work to new audiences, rather than simply providing a more convenient means to your existing, loyal readership.
On Trackbacks.
Trackbacks can be–and are–used for spam. Quite regularly. So are forums. So is email. If Marco’s right and this means that trackbacks are nothing more than spam, then so are all forums, and all email. The fact of the matter is, this very post already has two very clear examples of where trackbacks would have been very useful. One was lost due to technical difficulties; the other, because its author simply does not value discussion.
On Permalinks.
Even the most ingenious permalink may cease to be so due to programmer sloppiness, but a well-made permalink is much easier to maintain. This post exists at http://anthropik.com/2005/05/blog-o-rama–Marco’s reply can be found at http://www.marco.org/index.php?x=133. Which has more permanence to it, the title of the post, or the internal primary key being used in the backend database?
On Attitude.
In his conclusion, Marco rises triumphant over a veritable straw man army. He accuses bloggers of their circular definitions, because a blog is any website that calls itself a blog. Of course, the first time I’ve ever heard of this definition is from Marco himself, not from any of the bloggers he accuses of tautologies. He calls the term “Blogosphere” “outrageous,” but makes no comment on memetics, or any attempt to argue my points that blogs form a sort of ecosystem of ideas.
His derision of the Dean campaign shows a dreadful lack of perspective–not an uncommon lack, mind you. Dreadful all the more for how common it is, really. Dean was the victim of one of the most artfully executed character assassinations in history, orchestrated by Karl Rove to eviscerate the Democratic Party’s best chance of fielding a viable candidate. The defeat of the Dean campaign shows that the entrenched powers of the mainstream media and the military-industrial complex are still able to crush all who oppose them. The fact that Dean even came as close as he did shows that those forces are not as invincible as we might have feared–that the single largest grassroots effort in American history can almost win.
Marco then talks about how blogs are irrelevant because it’s a closed system. His lack of understanding of how culture works is almost as striking here as his inability to grasp the points I already made. The Blogosphere is predominantly closed–but not entirely. His supposition that only bloggers read blogs is totally incorrect. Blogs are read by significantly more people than write them. But he is correct that the system is more closed than not. That is exactly what makes it a distinct system, and not simply an indistinguishable part of the larger culture. Marco is shifting the criteria he’s looking for. He wants blogs to prove that they are a real phenomenon–in other words, that they form a distinct cultural sub-system, which would be defined by the fact that it is more closed than not. Yet when he finds exactly this, he uses it to argue that this makes it irrelevant. Make up your mind, Marco; how can blogs simultaneously be non-existent and irrelevant? Doesn’t irrelevance imply existence?
On Relevance.
500 years ago, the modern world began as a consequence of Gutenberg’s printing press. Not only did it open up literacy and usher in the scientific rediscoveries of the Renaissance, it began to shape who we are on a fundamental level. Ferdinand and Isabella were the first to sieze on the concept. Suddenly, people across a kingdom were reading the same printed stories, and began to feel an affinity they did not share with others outside their kingdom. Two men who never met each other, one in York and one in Dover, would begin to think of one another as “countrymen.” In fact, the man in Dover likely had much more in common with a French man across the Channel–but they didn’t read the same books, or the same news, or the same stories. The printing press widened the gulf of languages, and allowed rulers to invent the myth of the “nation”–that their subjects were somehow bound into a single, fictional “people” as fictional as any race.
(Since this will certainly be read by people unfamiliar with these ideas, you’ll find the printing press’s importance to the conept of the “nation” substantiated in Jared Diamond’s Pulitzer-prize winning Guns, Germs & Steel, and the fictionality of human races described in, among other sources, Wikipedia.)
The printing press provided the perfect medium to reinforce hierarchy. The dictatorship of the author imposed a one-to-many relationship that mimics the relationships of a political dictatorship. The internet promised to change this, by providing an interactive medium which could facilitate amany-to-many relationships of author-readers. The social ramifications of this may be as wide-reaching as that of the movable type printing press–in time. We can’t expect these things overnight. Blogs are the next step in the fulfillment of this promise. They lower the barrier to entry–just like Gutenberg’s printing press lowered the barriers to publication. This opens the doors to others whose voices might otherwise have never been heard. Blogs didn’t start this process; not even the internet started it. Nor will blogs be the end of it. But it is a step on that way. For that, mark me down as a fan.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 19 May 2005 @ 11:47 PM
Also of interest: the Marco.org forum thread.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 May 2005 @ 12:29 AM
In all fairness to Marco, his forum is a public forum. For instance, your post in his forum led me to your response. Granted, it would be nice if article 133 had a link to the discussion. (I’ve tried to convince Marco that all front page articles should have a link to post-specific thread. The thread could be created as soon as a post went up.)
It looks like Marco wants to define influenza by the virus and you’d prefer to define it by the symptoms. Obviously both have different uses.
Comments - It still reminds me of the guest book thing. And the “guest book” concept was stolen from a paper guest book which has been around for hundreds of years. (Or at least a lot longer than the internet. I don’t really know where the concept started.) It’s a good idea–hence it’s lasted and been put in different forms. I think the forum formula works better than the comment formula, though. For instance, if you respond to my comment, I’ll likely only see it if I remember to check for a response. I’ll see a response on the forum thread as soon as it refreshes to the top.
Permalinks - The problem with your permalink is the 2005/05/ part. If you remember the exact month, you can find the post (after scrolling). But in practice if I want to find this post a few years from now, I’m still going to hit the search engine. Or perhaps find some other way to navigate to it.
Memetics - Hmmm. It’s an interesting sociological idea. I still don’t understand how applying it to blogs is anything other than a perversion of a complex sociological idea.
The Dean Campaign - I’ll agree with the character assasination one, but I don’t think Republican hands wielded the dagger. The single largest grassroots effort in American history can almost win…a party nomination. Or at least get a lot of popular support before the New Hampshire primaries.
On closed systems - eh. It’s a little closed, a little open. The relevant bit is that not all bloggers read all blogs.
On hierarchy - There were a handful of newspapers that occasionally littered my house. First, there was the Wall Street Journal. Huge readership, hugely influential. This success and influence came from percieved merit. Secondly, there was the Columbus Dispatch. Medium newspaper, medium influence. This came from its image as the newspaper of Columbus. It was convenient. And most people read at least the headlines, so it gave people common ground to talk about. Third, there was the Bexley news. This was a small newspaper that was mainly read because somebody carried it into the bathroom and put it next to the toilet. And heck, why not read about who was arrested for public indecency a block from where you lived. Finally, there was the Troop 166 newsletter, which I wrote for about a year. This was a publication with a very small circulation. (I think 50 at it’s height.) It’s publishing costs weren’t very high. But nobody read it except the very specific group it targetted.
More on hierarchy - I think we can say the same thing about blogs. Some blogs are read, others aren’t. We’ll get blog communities. Thus, there will be a few-to-few relationship in some places. Thus, it sort of works the same way the public bath house did. Some blogs will be widely, widely read. However, these are very good blogs. Like very good newspapers. The hierarchy is still there. The entrenchment is less, but still there.
Comment by Dan — 20 May 2005 @ 1:00 AM
Before I head to work this morning, I thought I’d defend myself on your weakeset point (the one that I can type the fastest reply to).
http://www.marco.org/blog
That’s the link I sent you, remember? No 2005/05. No database parameters. No flags. Everyone can use mod_rewrite. You don’t have to be a blog. And if you’re looking for a truly permanent URL, I think a database key (?x=133) is far more reliable than a title. I’ll never write another article number 133, but I may write another article on blogs.
Comment by Marco — 20 May 2005 @ 8:03 AM
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH damn it! The great and venerable Marco falls prey to a spelling error! Damn you and your not-forum for not having the ability to edit!
Comment by Marco — 20 May 2005 @ 8:05 AM
It should also be noted that Marco.org is an affiliate of Polo.org.
Marco!
Comment by Mike Godesky — 20 May 2005 @ 4:40 PM
Wow! Nobody has ever made that joke before. You’re amazingly clever and funny! Hahahaha.
Comment by Marco — 20 May 2005 @ 8:21 PM
I know, I know. It’s not easy coming up with all these blindingly obvious puns, but somebody’s gotta do it!
Besides, you seem to be under the impression that I was trying to amuse other people. I’m really just concerned with entertaining myself. If anyone else happens to find it funny too then that’s just icing on the cake. But it’s not the main objective.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 21 May 2005 @ 2:51 PM
Exactly. That would be just like comments. As it is, it’s very difficult for the casual reader to find out that there is any further discussion. Compare that to the casual reader coming across this article.
Some systems do that; you can subscribe to the comments on this article, and recieve email notification whenever a new comment is made. But I like the forum for other purposes; that’s why I’m setting one up.
True–it’s more about the link being permanent than necessarily memorable. I added the date elements to avoid name conflicts. So often websites change their underlying systems, and the ?id=x element breaks. Permalinks are meant to avoid that by making the URL independent of the underlying system.
I get a little sick in my stomach at bloggers’ misuse of the word “meme” pretty often, myself. However, blog posts do contain ideas, and blogs’ emphasis on aiding discussion and propogation provides an interesting model to follow how a meme spreads. For example, blogs have already shown us that memetic networks are not evenly distributed, and that some people are more influential than others. It’s also shown us that influential writers are not necessarily the ones we would expect; the “A-list” blogs tend to “filter” other blogs. It’s these smaller blogs that are usually the most influential. In other words, it’s not how many people read you, it’s who reads you.
I think Dean would have had a much better chance than Kerry. Dean had–still has–a very committed base. Kerry had … well … people who figured he couldn’t be any worse than Bush? I wouldn’t expect to have ever seen a deanisadouchebagbutvoteforhimanyway.com, for example. Kerry offended no one–and concommittantly, no one cared, either.
Rove dropped some comments like “Please elect this man,” and Democrats panicked like a bunch of chickens with their heads cut off, taking Karl Rove at his word. Karl Rove! I happened to be watching all the speeches on C-SPAN that fateful night, and while I thought Dean’s scream was a bit silly in its context, but not nearly as comic as John Edwards’ speech. I was shocked to see the coverage the next morning. The TV networks assassinated Dean; it was nigh-hysterical. Why? I can’t help but wonder about those 6 companies that own 90%+ of all media in the US, and their CEOs’ large contributions to the GOP.
Absolutely. I’d say this is a good thing.
Of course anyone can write a mod_rewrite. There’s no new technology in a blog, just a new application. Anyone can use a mod_rewrite; one way to use a mod_rewrite is to set up a permalink system.
So I apologize, i misjudged Marco.org. You’re more bloggy than I thought; you get a full 4 out of 7. Marco.org is 57% bloggy. Congratulations, you’re a blog!
Dave Winer, inventor of RSS, has a bad habit. He writes incredibly outrageous things, waits till people call him on it, then edit his original post to something reasonable and attacks his erstwhile detractors for attacking him. So I don’t allow comment editing, though I could, simply because I don’t want any such incidents to arise.
And really, how big a stick do you need up your ass to care so much about spelling?
Oh, wait….
Comment by Jason Godesky — 26 May 2005 @ 11:44 AM
Can’t go back and edit that one away…
-Jim
Comment by JCamasto — 26 May 2005 @ 12:51 PM
That’s not a very good reason to take away the ability to edit posts, IMO. Most people want to edit their posts at some point or another, and very few of them are anything like Dave Winer. Besides, the situation you describe could easily be fixed by doing what so many web sites do, and putting an “Edited at x:xx” at the bottom of the post so that people can see that it has been changed.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 27 May 2005 @ 8:17 AM
I’m a big believer in keeping a record of what actually happened. Want to make another point? Make another comment. Major corrections can be made the same way. For all his haraunging on me for the way I speak, this is exactly the situation where the inability to edit is simply delightful!
Comment by Jason Godesky — 27 May 2005 @ 8:46 AM
Yeah, but that’s how you end up with ten posts in a row by the same person.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 28 May 2005 @ 7:52 AM
And none of them add anything that couldn’t have been said in the original post.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 28 May 2005 @ 7:53 AM
It doesn’t just take up unnecessary board space.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 28 May 2005 @ 7:54 AM
It’s also really, really annoying.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 28 May 2005 @ 7:54 AM
That’s why it’s considered poor form to post multiple times in a row.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 28 May 2005 @ 7:55 AM
On most sites you can just edit the original message.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 28 May 2005 @ 7:55 AM
That’s … well, that’s a lot of crazy, right there, is what that is. Yup, a whole lot of crazy.
I can’t bring myself to delete it. It’s not every day you see such purity. It’s like Time Cube, right here on my own blog…
Comment by Jason Godesky — 8 August 2005 @ 1:40 PM
You want Time Cube, here’s TIME CUBE!! THE TRUTH OF TIME CUBE. 4 simultaneous days in 1 earth rotation, and a Cubic geometry of Time. Everything is cubic. Your body, atoms, the solar system, everything. Further information is available at Cubic Awareness Online. Seek the Cubic truth!
Comment by Time Cube is Ultimate Truth — 24 January 2006 @ 11:14 PM
Dude! Time Cube spam! Awesome!
Comment by Mike Godesky — 25 January 2006 @ 11:15 AM