Thursday, February 14, 2008

La Musique de Nutjobbere


Sue, author of La Chanson de Phoenix, finds bragging "icky". Like, I’m assuming, stepping-in-dog-poop-or-walking-through-a-spider-web icky.

Sue and I have very little in common.

Since it seems most reviewees take only the painful parts of the review to heart, I will start off by saying that Sue seems like a very, very nice person - truly.

Okay? Are we all friends? All right - let’s get down to business:

Colours - fine. Site-mappage - fine. Name? I’ll be honest: it looks as though she spent waaaaaay too long deciding on a title, and it’s pretentious as all hell. With help from le Dic de Tionary, I found it translated, possibly badly, as "The song, especially a French one, from Phoenix".

Urm...okay. Even though her "about me" states that she’s hunkered down in Pennsylvania, I’m going to assume she’s from Phoenix, Arizona, and not using the most overdone metaphoric blog-title device on the interweb; I need to read another phoenix’s "ramblings" or "musings" like I need my coffee spiked with arsenic.

Look, let’s get right down to brass tacks here: if I want something to sink my teeth into, a long post about childhood rivalries probably isn’t going to do it, and neither is one pertaining to boast-associated guilt (even though the phrase "tough titty", especially from a mom, is pretty funny).

But, Sue, your son found fuzzy handcuffs in your bedroom? Interesting...yet, the very post that interrupts itself with that lovely digression just continues along in the same mundane pre-handcuff vein afterwards, and the world’s a sadder place for the lack of exposition. Imagine wandering over to a new blog yourself, Sue, and there’s this dry post about frustration and unfixed water-leakage, and then BAM! Fuzzy handcuffs! Don’t YOU want to read more about it? No? You’d rather read about "wifetrax" or what celebrity the blogster resembles?

Fair enough - I did say we had very little in common.

Gimmie something to chew on, Sue; with one quick reveal, you unearthed a goldmine of post-content opportunities, and you’ve just skipped over them like they’re a puddle on the sidewalk of self-involvement. The conversation with your son about why mommy has handcuffs in the bedroom, the confab with hubby over bedtime-toy storage...I’m telling you, the hilarity would write itself if you gave it access to your keyboard. Hell, the situation is so universally funny and rife with possibility that I could write a post on my own blog about it.

But I won’t, Sue. That’s your job. Unless, of course, you’d rather fill your space with hand-wringing over how you might have been misinterpreted, and then follow that up with more updates about whatever the hell "wifetrax" is and why you aren’t doing it...then, so be it.

Right now, it’s a

If you’ve got fuzzy handcuffs, Sue, you’ve got something more interesting going on that you’re not sharing with the class, and I’m feeling a little ripped-off. Homework assignment: write something juicy...not bawdy, not salacious, necessarily, just something engrossing enough to warrant a higher score; do that a bunch of times and resubmit.

Right? Are we still friends? Everyone’s been so mad around here lately...

32 comments:

  1. I hate, hate, hate how she has her archives structured. You click on the archive, and a list of posts comes up, but you can't tell what the posts are about because all you get is the title? WTF?

    Don't do that to me, Sue. Seriously. That's one blogger hack you need to lose. I'm down with expandable posts, and other shit like that, but that's not a good, user-friendly, hack.

    I'm also pretty meh on the design. Good review, Jobbers.

    And, I for one was never pissed. I'm still bummed that there were no spankings. None at all. Fuckers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nutjobber, Hrm. The title translates, per my three years of French, as "The song of the Phoenix", as in, the mythological bird. I know I don't make that clear in the 'about me'. But, I'm not from Phoenix, nor have I ever been there. I really am in PA. The blog title wasn't a long decision, just something spur of the moment.

    and Trouble... how hard is it to just click the toggle button and expand the post right there? It takes, what? a millisecond? It's better than scrolling through post after post after post, but if that's what you desire, suit yourself.

    No spanks. Damn me for not being the smut blog you guys wanted. ;-)

    Thanks for the review.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I had a good feeling you weren't from Phoenix, Sue, and that's why there's a bit of disconnect between the title of your blog and the writing on it.

    No "rising from the ashes" or anything, you dig?

    "Smut-blog"? I didn't say "fuck" once! I shall have to compensate for that next week...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hmmm.....from the poor thought process behind the review, it appears that you are one whose mind is in the junker. Juicy, are you saying you wish her to divulge the privacy of her bedroom or special time meant for her and her husband only?
    Wow, complete lame reviews on your site. Lack of thought, lack of insight, and a whole heaping of egoism. Had you read further into her blog posts, you would have come upon depth. Then again, you probably would be unable to comprehend that as well.
    *ahem* sorry, nutjob, or whatever you call yourself, but you seem out of touch. "wifetrax" (had you bothered to learn) is the same as what Mystery Science Theater is, except from a wife's point of view.
    I find this website full of waste, impetuous self-love and lack of depth. I give it a -10. If I were you, I may attempt more in-depth reviews instead of the shallow surface only drivel that spewed here.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Nut, I did too... but after you visited, and it wasn't about fucking.

    FUCK

    There, hehe. Honestly, thank you! It's been a fun ride!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh, Jacqueline.

    My mind is in the "junker" (?) because I want something interesting to read?

    Absolutely STUNNING insight into my efforts, my dear - homework for you: re-read the review, and maybe take a look at the world in which we live and wonder to yourself why I should give a fuck about "wifetrax".

    I guess we'll have to add the rejoinder "for entertainment purposes only" to these reviews, lest some simpleton mistakes Ask and Ye Shall Receive for the New York Times book review page.

    ...I gotta get "impetuous self-love" put on a button - awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Who else is up for a pissing contest? Be warned: I can pee, like, ALL DAY.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Were the post titles more descriptive of the content, then sure. But, without some sense of what the posts are about, I'm left with a "don't give a shit" attitude. It's your blog, do what you want with it. I'm just offering up an opinion about why I probably won't be reading it.

    And Jobber: I do so love the smell of a flame war in the afternoon. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's average at best. One star is about right.

    Sorry to burst your bubble, Jacqueline, but your little blogger friend is just average. I love when blogger buds have to rush to someone's defense after they've submitted themselves for review, and then don't like what they read.

    Don't like the program? Change the channel. Sue, I don't hate it, I don't love it. It bores me. And that's about as nice as I can be.

    Jacqui? Fuck off.

    Simple enough for you?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Her review of our review is kind of hilarious. I'm not much for blog wars, but the sad thing about this blog is that it's not good, but it doesn't suck enough for a finger.

    It's like fucking oatmeal. You might eat it. It's good for you. But it's just so bland. You don't hate it. You don't love it. Mostly, you suck it down, try not to taste it, and just don't care.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Huh. And I thought your review was rather encouraging.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think the most accurate word used in this review was "dry." I used to read her blog, and it's always been very dry. Sex stuff aside, the subjects most of the time are just...not interesting, TO ME at least. There are people out there who dig her and that's great. Not every blog is for everyone. My blog was reviewed here and lots of people said "Not my cuppa," and that's fine because there ARE people who like it.

    What bothers me is when someone submits their site to a place that will "fucking tear you apart" and then get butthurt over it. Disagreeing with parts of the review or defending something is one thing, because hey, maybe she likes her archives like that.

    I dont know if maybe she was expecting an I Fucking Love You or four star treatment, but you cant expect that on a site like this. And most of the time when those are given, I disagree with them anyway.

    Above all, do not take the interwebs too seriously. There are a lot of people out there who need to learn that. Especially those who choose to submit their site for review here. That doesnt just go for Sue, it goes for everybody.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Calamity: so did I.

    Maybe some pesticides leaked into the interweb well-water...

    ReplyDelete
  15. I thought you were really generous - even constructive.

    It's hard to find a non-offensive way to say "you're boring". And yet.. you did.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Jacqui's little whine fest just made my entire day...

    But not nearly as much as Love Bites' fucking oatmeal comment.

    Now I'm going to have to use that one on the next boring ass-faced whore I encounter.

    Just saying.

    I checked out the blog by the way and it was dry oatmeal.

    ReplyDelete
  17. What I kind of think is hilarious is that in her review of Jobber's review, she's whining because he didn't tear her apart enough.

    Now, just for a moment, imagine the squeals of horror and hatred if he had.

    Self-deception. It ain't just a river in Egypt, people.

    ReplyDelete
  18. And shar:

    I'm looking for an opportunity to use the term "ass-faced whore." And, because I'm truly ethical, I will give you all the credit. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  19. And love bites... You look for an opportunity to use it, I look for an opportunity NOT to use it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Shucks, you were being so SWEET! I don't think you could have been nicer. You old softie. And I don't mean that in the sense...well..heh. Nevermind.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Sue and Jacqui (jackee with an accent, perhaps, whatev)... you submitted your blog for review by a website whose address reads "I will fucking tear you apart." What exactly were you two yawn-fests expecting anyway?

    Pay attention, spice it up, or take your ball and go home.

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to line up Ballz' Patron shots on my ass. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  22. The internets are serious bizness folks, didn't you know that?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Aw....poor little reviewer-wannabes can't take a little thrown their way? child-hood insults are all you have to offer up? boo-hoo, you almost made me....never mind. You didn't.
    just a bunch of sad, pathetic angst ridden teenagers (assuming this because of your whole "be like us or sod off" attitude)
    TRUE reviews don't go from a "how to force your taste to be like mine" stance.
    As for your knocking the emos, Let's take a look at your pathetic childish names.... bitter mistress? emo-goth, probably a bed wetter. "queen of everything" Guess you lack the simplest of reading skills? MY blog wasn't submitted, my name isn't Jacqui. You are probably a hormonal spoiled brat who believes the world revolves around you as you will live with you lecher father the rest of your life, you daddy's girl.
    "love bites" - THAT is 100% classic emo, especially with that picture. I'm guessing you weren't loved as a child, and to make up for failures in relationships, you are now a bitter hag, never to fully grow up.
    basically, you are ALL lacking, and the only way to "spice up" you sad selves to make you feel "important" or "cool", is to try to deride whomever you come across. Oh, hit too close, didn't I?
    Yeah, my other post is not whining. you just can't handle negative thrown at your fragile egos.
    By the way, your site is a JOKE. Sue went here to get a ripping review, and you gave her FLUFF to work with. She's not mad because you whiny sots were "harsh". She was pissed because you were LAZY, and you gave her nothing to mock, nothing but pithy comments that sounded tired and dull. She was hoping for cruel, and got....fluff.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Dear Jacqui,

    You're hilarious.

    If you're just going to assume things, why don't you assume something fun - maybe I have a dragon's tail, Atomic Fireballs has daggers for teeth, and Love Bites, as a person, is comprised entirely of dandelion-stems and lit candle-wicks...

    I’m impressed that someone without the proper brain-capacity to understand how words work ("Yeah, my other post is not whining" sounds like a four-year-old with diphtheria desperately struggling to put a sentence together) can write a bunch of them down...in a ROW, no less!

    Good for YOU, my dear!

    Despite the hours and hours you must have spent cobbling this pitiful display of spite-filled bullshit together, since we've already established that you write with the dexterity of a sperm-whale on antidepressants, you must know that all the protestations in world are going to fall on deaf ears, that you're basically a big, old, hate-filled, icky fly that went SPLAT on our windshields, like, yesterday.

    But, hey, kudos for going to all that effort; your poor brain must be just THROBBING from the effort!

    Sincerely,

    Nutjobber, AKA Your Bestest Friend In The Whole Wide World!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Just in case anyone hasn't noticed, Sue's blog, La Chanson De Phoenix, is now closed to all but invited readers only.

    hehe.

    ReplyDelete
  26. lol, actually, nutjobber, I was picturing you as a flying monkey with flaming farts blowing out your ass. haha!
    "big old hate-filled icky fly" that really cracks me up! Is that the best you can do? oh, I am crushed.
    Were my words too big for you to understand? Or are you too high on over-inflated ego?
    So dreadfully sorry that my "spite-filled bull shit" isn't as up to par or as poetic as your wretched bile.
    Thank you for using the last few braincells you had in order to respond to me, I feel honored.

    Sincerely,
    Jacqueline, AKA The Woman You Wish You Could Have, But Never Will!

    ReplyDelete
  27. This is a problem I hadn’t anticipated when I took this job, becoming a big ol' blog-celebrity with an ego bigger than six cruise-ships and more balls than fifteen state-lotteries.

    I know you see me as a GOD, Jacqui, but, in truth, I am only a man...a man who reviews blogs and, evidently, responds to half-bright dipshits at length and ad nauseam.

    While doing so, unfortunately, I’ve developed this nasty little boil that keeps festering and seeping, leaking puss and inane, quasi-coherent babble, and no matter what topical-ointments I lovingly slather on said boil, the fucking thing just keeps getting bigger and uglier, taking up space in comment-sections that could better be used for even semi-logical discourse and, well, fun.

    For the record, fuckwitted rebuttals that seem to get more idiotic by the post aren’t anyone’s idea of "fun"; you might have been misled in this regard, Jacqui, so consider this a free consult for future reference.

    Do yourself, and all of us, a favour and go back to fanatically writing Ashton Kutcher for his autograph - I guarantee you’ll be more successful with that than you will be here - and then this will all be over and you can resume your life of yelling a the TV and pouting because the coffee-shop dude ran out of bearclaws.

    I’m sorry, but like I said in response to your VERY personal email, I am unable to fill any autograph-requests myself at this time, and if you would please mail any further correspondence to my assistant, Ethel, it would free up my mailbox for missives that contain matters of import, and not just what look to be badly-lit polaroids of a negligee strapped to a meatloaf.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hay! How did you know I wet the bed? Granted I was 2, but I think people should cut me some slack on that. BTW, I nominate Jaqueline for the "Heinous Overuse of Elipses'" Award. Oh, and you're dumb. How's that for highbrow?

    ReplyDelete
  29. P.S. "brain cells" is two words, not one. OH SNAP!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Jacqui appears to need friends.
    And isn't she some sort of uber-Christian? This really kind of fulfills my sense that fanatics usually only have a very thin veneer of niceness over a seething pool of world-hate.

    By the way, my current flame could in fact confirm that I bite. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  31. Aha...

    Get back on your meds, sweetie.

    ReplyDelete
  32. and, damn...

    Drama Queen Much?

    Girls, walk away from the keyboard. Y'all are taking this way too seriously.

    ReplyDelete

Grow a pair.