Putting His Paw in It

 

Orson: So, Foxy, why are ya even botherin'?

Silver Fox: Excuse me, Orson?

Orson: Why are ya even botherin' to post this?

Silver Fox: This was your idea... Plus, I haven't posted for a few days, and I just wanted to let my readers know that I've been very busy lately, and worse, that I currently don't have internet at home, so my online time is extremely limited.

Orson: My idea? My idea wuz ta actually participate in your friend Betsy's Pretty Piggy Party..

Silver Fox: Stop calling it that! Its official name is Betsy's Pretty Pedicure Party... or Giveaway and Pedicure Party... or Pedi Party...

Orson: Thanks for clearin' that up, Foxy.

Silver Fox: And you just like the idea of "pretty piggies" because it makes you think of pork, bacon, ham, and all the other pork products I don't share with you!

Orson: Stop correctin' me, Grammar Nazi! I wanted ta be a part of this, but thanks ta you, I can't be! This is... this is... kitty litter!!! I ain't really participatin' at all! First of all, ya were too cheap ta buy me any nail polish...

Silver Fox: You're a freakin' cat!

Orson: Stop interruptin'! An' then you kept draggin' yer butt until it wuz too late ta get any photos of me with my claws trimmed. Do you really think the two pictures below that ya stole off the internet are gonna fool yer readers?

Silver Fox: (muttering) They might have, if you'd kept your big mouth shut...

Orson: Uh-uh, not me! Gotta admit, I kinda like the one with the blue background, the one that shows "my" face. Makes me look like I'm wearin' my hat at a rakish angle... if I had a hat. Anyhoo, the only real picture of Orson the Great and Powerful in this lame little post is the one at the top... and even that one's horribly outdated. I'm what, 'bout seven years old now, Foxy?

Silver Fox: Something like that...

Orson: "Somethin' like that," he sez. You know yer own birthday though, don'tcha? (pause) Anyhoo, here I am, 'bout seven years old, and that shot wuz taken when I wuz about one year old!

Silver Fox: Is there a point to all of this, you little furball?

Orson: Prob'ly not... which makes it just like one of yer usual solo posts.

Silver Fox: I... think we'd better sign off now.

Orson: Why?

Silver Fox: Let's just say that I don't want any of my readers calling the SPCA if they see what I'm about to do to you.

Orson: Ahhhh, yer all talk, Foxy. (pause) Hey... Can I say it this time?

Silver Fox: Say what?

Orson: You know.

Silver Fox: *sigh* Go ahead.

Orson: (to the readers) Thanks fer yer time. And... meow. Or somethin'.

Idol Eyes

I have been looking through this warehouse I call an apartment for weeks, trying to find the following poem. "Idol Eyes" is certainly not the best thing I ever wrote, but I only did it as kind of a novelty piece anyway. It may make some tenuous kind of sense to you when you read it here, fellow babies, but if you read it aloud, I guarantee it won't make any sense at all to whomever hears it!

Which was the point.

Thanks for your time.

IDOL EYES

 

You idolize,

You idealize,

But whatcha gonna do when your idol lies?

Your idol lies

To your idle eyes,

So you'll never see the truth in his idol eyes.

You lionize

His lyin' eyes.

(But you'll never see the truth in his idol eyes.)

You idolize

But your idol lies,

And when his day is done? Well, he idle lies.

He idle lies,

Closin' idol eyes,

And when your day is done you idealize.

David'Z RantZ: "Readers," Yes. "Followers," Not So Much

So.

Someone want to explain to me what the big freakin' deal is about amassing "followers" -- not readers, as I'll explain shortly -- on your blog?

Here's a screenshot from today of my Blogger "Followers" widget. (And please notice the title I've given that widget!)

Thanks to my StatCounter, I have a pretty good idea of who my regular readers -- in other words, I'm not counting people who encounter this blog once because they're doing a Google search for Castle Dracula, the McDonald's coffee lawsuit, or even (I swear!) "mouse standing!" -- are. And frankly, at best, this blog is actually followed by somewhere between a third and one half of the 65 people currently signed up as "followers."

I have a handful of people who comment on almost every post. I also have "lurkers," people who read my blog regularly but rarely if ever comment. (That's fine, by the way. There's no law that says you have to leave a comment!)

I know for a fact that several of my "followers" used to read my blog regularly, but then, for whatever reason(s), they stopped. But when they stopped, they never bothered to stop "following" me officially.

Notice how I keep putting "followers" in quotes. Why? I think it's a misleading term. Y'see, I actually read all of the blogs I follow. I don't always comment on them, but yes, I read them! Other people... not so much.

And lately, I've noticed a disturbing trend. I frequently see comments like this: "Hi, I never saw your blog before! Following! Come follow me, too!"

"Follow me, too." Why? Just to inflate the number of official followers? Again, WHY? Is there a prize Blogger gives out when you reach some magic number of followers, and nobody told me?

So (he said again). A couple of questions here:

1. If you're one of those people whose Blogger profile says you follow 47 different blogs for every letter of the freakin' alphabet, do you really read all of them regularly? I'll bet you don't. So why don't you delete the ones you no longer read?

2. If you're one of those people who has over five hundred -- or over a thousand -- official followers, do you really think that many people are actually reading your blog on a regular basis? I'll bet they aren't.

Of course, I realize that the actual number of readers for a blog with hundreds of followers listed is still a hell of a lot more than the actual number of readers that a blog like mine -- with its crappy little list of 65 -- has. So I'm not trying to insult anyone who has a huge number of followers by suggesting no one reads them at all!

So, what's the sudden interest in inflating the follower count? Anyone know?

Anyway, I don't really have anything approaching a clever wrap-up for today's post, so I just want to share some observations with you on the subject of followers and/or regular readers.

Sometimes, the people who do follow a blog do so almost slavishly, to the point where it's almost scary. (Hence the photo of a zombie mob at the top of this post.)

A poetry blog I followed a long time ago had one reader/commenter in particular who would analyze and praise each posted poem by writing a poem about it in the comments section. And the comments were usually two or three times the length of the actual poem! Heh.

And another thing I noticed about a blog I used to follow was that an alarming number of its readers used to have an odd, disconcerting urge to want to do everything the same way that the blog's author did.

I mean, it's one thing if a Blogger-blogger has a recipe or a household cleaning suggestion that others want to try, or if he or she recommends a certain movie, or musical artist, and others want to experience these things themselves...

But I swear, this blog author could have said "I had a glass of wine yesterday, and I burped," and there'd be several comments to the effect of "Oh, [Blogger]! Please tell me what kind of wine you were drinking! I want burps that sound and smell just like yours!

I don't have any readers/followers like that, thankfully. All my readers are sane.

Helps me sleep at night.

Thanks for your time.

Finding Jesus

So, Jesus has been spotted once again, this time on someone's wall... which has since been painted over!

It's absolutely amazing how many times Jesus and his mom have appeared on foods... appliances... all sorts of surfaces! Here are just some of the places people have "found Jesus:"

This one's my favorite...

I think the next two are really pushing it...

And I think this one -- a Funyun ostensibly depicting the Virgin Mary and the newborn Christ child -- is really pushing it!

But the thing that cracks me up the most about these professed miracles is that they more or less show an image of Jesus which is in accordance with the average man's conception of what he looked like. It's not like any photos exist, nor any contemporary drawings, right?

After all, most of us in the Western hemisphere -- and not only those with a Christian background -- are used to picturing Jesus pretty much like these examples:

Or maybe Hollywood has given us our image of Jesus, especially film classics featuring actors such as...

Max Von Sydow in The Greatest Story Ever Told...

Or Jeffrey Hunter in King of Kings... This is the version of Christ that's popularly known as (I swear) "Jesus of Malibu!"

And I couldn't resist adding this photo!

Doesn't that actor look eerily familiar, fellow babies? Or don't you recognize him without his Dracula cape? That's right, the above photo is of none other than a young Bela Lugosi!

Back to the core article, here...

The problem is, educated minds say that Jesus probably didn't look like any of the above! Instead, he almost assuredly resembled the average Semitic man of the first century A.D.

Don't forget, Jesus was a Jew. (And let's try to ignore Archie Bunker's famous line "Yeah, but only on his mother's side!") So modern forensic anthropologists, using skulls native to that area of the world from that very era, have determined that he very probably looked more like this:

Things like the length of Jesus' hair, his eye color, and even his height were determined by several variables. Click here if you want to learn all the fascinating details!

So... what's my freakin' point? Simply this: If Jesus did indeed resemble the swarthier-looking, short-haired gent above, as postulated by today's scientific experts...

Who's this tiny-nosed, hippie-looking guy who keeps appearing on people's toast, frying pans, and potato chips?!?

Thanks for your time.

Sheldon Moldoff, 1920-2012, R.I.P. -- A "Comical Wednesday" Post

If someone were to hold a gun to my head -- which in and of itself wouldn't surprise me, given my checkered past -- and say "I don't care how many freakin' comic books you own, Foxy... I want you to get rid of all of them, except your top ten favorites!" I would agonize over the decision, certainly. But I know one of the books I'd save would be a comic from my youth, Batman #156, from 1963.

Back in the late 1950s and early 1960s, when I was learning to read, comic books were my main choice of reading material. (Well, those and the Whitman Little Golden Book series.) Anyway, two of my favorite titles were DC's Batman and Detective Comics, both of which featured Batman & Robin.

In those days -- in fact, all the way back to 1939 -- every Batman story was signed by Bob Kane. Kane was the only credited creator, writer, and artist on the feature due to a long, convoluted story which would fascinate you if you're a comic book fan (well, one who doesn't know it already), and bore you to tears if you're not a comic book fan.

If you want to know this "long. convoluted story," click here. As for those of you who don't really care, suffice it to say that what little artwork Kane ever did on Batman was mostly confined to the late 1930s and early 1940s, although he received sole credit for every Batman story written (never by Kane) and drawn (rarely by Kane) until DC Comics finally started giving all their creators credit in the mid-1960s! Kane never wanted anyone to receive credit for Batman, other than himself.

From 1953 to 1967, the vast majority of Batman stories were actually drawn by a comic book veteran named Sheldon "Shelly" Moldoff. Please note that the period from 1953-1967 very neatly includes the years "in the late 1950s and early 1960s" which I mentioned earlier... my formative years as a comic book fan, and my earliest years as a voracious reader.

In other words, it was Shelly Moldoff, and not Bob Kane, who drew the stories -- the writers varied -- which hooked me on reading in general. Therefore, Shelly Moldoff was "my" Batman artist, although I didn't know it until many years later.

I referred to Moldoff as a comic book veteran. Here are just some of his claims to fame, taken from Sheldon Moldoff's website:

Sheldon “Shelly” Moldoff of Lauderhill got his start in the comic industry more than 60 years ago drawing “believe it or not” filler items. In the 1940′s, the so-called Golden Age of comics, he drew such strips as Hawkman, Kid Eternity and The Black Pirate. he also drew covers for the first appearances of Green Lantern and The Flash.

But Moldoff is best known for a 14-year run with Batman from 1953 to 1967. He drew some of the goofiest but most beloved Batman episodes ever, including Zebra Batman and the Merman Batman, and he introduced Batwoman and the original Bat-Girl. And while we're talking about "goofiest but most beloved," fellow babies... They left out one of my favorite Moldoff-drawn characters from my faraway youth: Bat-Mite, the ultimate Batman fan from another dimension! (Yep, back then, Batman was far from the so-called "Dark Knight" he was in the 1930s and early 1940s, and as he is today.)

Unfortunately, two weeks ago, Shelly Moldoff passed away at the age of 91. And his loss affects me one hell of a lot more than the 1998 death of glory-hogging Bob Kane.

The following illustration is a Moldoff "re-creation" of the cover to Batman #156, pictured above.

And this is a Moldoff illustration of none other than Bat-Mite!

Both prints are currently up for sale on Moldoff's website. Sure wish I could afford them!

Thanks for your time.

WTD???

(Those of you who were expecting something exciting to mark my return to active blogging will be somewhat disappointed.)

Okay, fellow babies, help me out here, please! And please cooperate by clicking on the provided links.

As any regular reader of my blog knows, right before I ended my two-month hiatus, I changed my template. But since then, I've noticed something -- two "somethings," actually -- that kinda freaked me out!

Currently, if I go to the home page of my blog, this is what I see at the very top:

However, if I go directly to that post's URL itself, this is what I see at the very top:

Do you see the two differences? (And yes, if you clicked on those links, obviously you'd seeing today's post instead of the last one on the home page!) The title of the blog is in a different font, and the size of the post's titles are different! (The look on the home page is the desired look, btw.) I mean... WTD???

(That "WTD" is a private joke, by the way. For the uninitiated, let's just say that it's similar to "WTF," only much mellower. And that's all I'll tell you, so don't ask. There's a reason they're called "private" jokes.)

Anyway, does anyone have any idea why this is happening? I mean, is it some glitch in Blogger, or something that's peculiar only to me? (Don't say it!) Do you see the same thing, or is it something only evident in my computer, or because of my operating system, or my form of browser?

Maybe there's a very simple explanation. If so, I'd like to know WTD it is. And for once, I'm not going to do a 'net search for myself. My readers -- that's you, fellow babies -- are a very smart group, so I'll put you to work!

And no, the job doesn't pay.

Thanks for your time... and information.

Re-Opening Soon...

But... Don't hold your breath, either. That title means relatively soon.

Thanks for your time.