Lunes, 29 de Julio de 2002

Hadn't really noticed this since it happened so gradually and quietly: GadflyOnline, a journal on the arts, has been put into the freezer. Like many an independent project before it, GadflyOnline has had to contend with financial realities. To continue publishing fresh content requires more resources than we have right now. As a result, we have had to cease active publication, finishing with the week of July 2, 2002. We have chosen to view these unfortunate circumstances as a temporary impasse and have already begun the search for funds to start the site back up. Until that can happen, GadflyOnline.com will exist as an archive of past content. Feel free to browse the archive sections or refer others to the Gadfly reservoir. Feed made a similar gambit when it set up a Playmate cooler on its homepage and declared they would be on ice and working to find a way to get back to speed. It's been a year, and a visit to their old address shows there weren't enough resources to even keep the ice box on-line. Who knows how much more mileage is Gadfly got left? After Suck and Feed closed shop this scribbler began relying on other independent Web outlets for his daily fix, turning to Gadfly and PopPolitics to fill up the void. PopPolitics is still going, though its output has been reduced to a trickle. Will have to do with that until I find another reliable source. Buh-bye, Gadfly! 11:11:01 PM    comment []

Started a new story which will try to update constantly: "Blog" watch: A (selective) reader, a fingerpost to articles regarding the nature and use of web logs, which by no means inteds to be comprehensive but simply an starting point. Today, a pair of posts from Slate. 6:37:34 PM    comment []

Added to the navigation links a pointer to the most commented post. Hoping it'll be joined by another one to the most recently commented post. Just a way to bring forth feedback. 7:35:44 AM    comment []

Joe Lira (the happy-go-lucky author of people are stupid who e-mailed this scribbler to express he'd be "honored if you were to link to me," let's forget the constant inbreeding of web logs) posted a few days ago his feelings towards whether using his log to post facts ("worthy content") or opinions ("[slash] quasi-fiction... not as worthwhile"). Back then, offered this little morsel: If the opinions are supported by facts, and they are well thought out and not just incoherent rants, you've got the best of both worlds. Joe asked for further explanation, wondering: "did you mean I am ranting incoherently, or I just have to avoid ranting incoherently?" My answer: "The second one; incoherent rants where the writers work themselves into a froth without any substantial arguments are the worst kind of 'quasi-fiction,' as you called it." For further proof, check the customer reviews on Amazon.com, where any amount of superlatives are promiscuously thrown aroud wihtout any obvious thought process backing them up. The above quotes have been slightly edited to make both Joe and myself look good. 2:04:36 AM    comment []