You’re going to have to explain this to me because I don’t get it. As I think I mentioned, the Day Job is playing around with Facebook, and I got myself an account through my office email. Suddenly, like vultures working the night shift out on the Tanzania grasslands, I am attacked by people wishing to become my “friend.” The thing is, I just don’t get it. Am I supposed to have a page somewhere on Facebook? All I have now is my extremely limited profile. I understand MyPage. That’s different. On MyPage you get yourself a bunch of really ugly pictures and paste them all up in a meaningless collage and then you find an mp3 of some really dreadful band that’s still struggling to learn their third chord and you play their music to show how hip you are, and everybody reads your page and mobs over to the latest club at 6 in the morning to drink Black Moquitos as an alternative to going home so that they can all show up at the brokerage hung over but happy. Or something like that. Does Facebook work the same way? Am I supposed to be finding dates, a job, likeminded thinkers (a frightening prospect), sources of secondhand electronics equipment? As I say, I have no idea. There is a comments feature in this blog. Would someone please use it and tell me what happens now that I’ve agreed to be Termite’s BFF.
Personally, I thought that “Sondheim in the Park with Mickey” was pretty eloquent, but maybe “Sondheim in the Park with Walt” would have been more metrically sound. Sometimes I think I’m wasted, being balkanized here in ForensiciaLand. I coulda been a contender, I coulda been somebody. Sigh. If you were smarter, I really would be so much funnier. You might want to work on your end of the bargain.
This has been a busy week on the high seas with the Sailors. Monday we chezzed it up for the last time on the extant topics, in preparation for Manchester Under the Sea. They’re about as prepared as they’re even going to be. HoraceMan, TSWAS, joined us, which was good, because he does have a debate brain that he can apply freely and extemporaneously to just about any resolution. He should probably become an extemper. Just the right amount of work, and he’d be in serious contention to qual for the various Nats. Why not? Anyhow, last night was a Tutti at the school, and we covered three areas. First, the next Pffft topic, at least in general terms, then the ballots from the MHL for the novices, with a side order of haranguing them about signing up for future events and beating their parental bushes for judges, and finally, more depth on Nov-Dec. I think we’ll do a demo round between Robbie and Termite prior to Glebrooks, as it will serve to, well, give them practice, and also to demo stuff in general. I’m still on the fence with the topic (which I will not pretend I didn’t vote for). It looked good when I voted for it, looked awfully thin on the ground when I first looked at it in any depth, and picked up some clout when I looked at it again. Once more it seems like a categorical aff vs a specific disproving situational neg. It also gets to draw on a utilitarian retributive justice neg, and that’s something I went into detail with coincidentally with the Plebes in the justice unit. It’s hard to see the neg as anything but some sort of utility, absent some cockamamie digressive approach. You know, because the resolution uses the word “is” and because Clinton demonstrated that we don’t know what the definition of “is” is, the resolution is not, isn’t it, or something like that. Beats arguing whether plea bargaining for testimony is just hands down. Then again, maybe we should spin off some pararesolutional version of LD for those who sort of like arguing but can’t get with the program of arguing the resolution at hand. ParaLD, in other words, for Parallel LDers. Works for me.
No comments:
Post a Comment