I’ve come across a comment from you-know-who-you-are, Damon, that certain people, i.e. Damon, are not mentioned on this blog often enough… and that this in fact can be used against me, by Damon, to show how little I care about certain Damon who prefers to remain anonymous 😉
For this dreadful overlook on my, wretched infidel’s, part I humbly appologize this person, let’s call him hypothetically: “Damon”.
For anyone else, including Damon, who could also, like Damon, claim that perhaps is not mentioned on this blog often enough, please ask yourself a question:
Would You better have me posting messages to you on this blog or, rather, exchange them via slightly more personalized media included but not limited to:
- face-to-face contact when you do or do not expect it 😉
- random note written at the spur of the moment on a piece of a tax return,
- hallmark card that’s unable to fit underneath the sealed-shut a door to a cave,
- text sent at 5:30 am while semi-awake with a chance to get a follow up response that’s decreasing frightingly with every other minute of the passing night…
- old-fashioned e-mails that span and span and …
Damon Damon DamonDamonDamon DamonDamonDamon DamonDamonDamonDamonDamonDamonDamonDamonDamonDamon DamonDamonDamonDamonDamonDamonDamonDamon DamonDamonDamonDamonDamonDamon DamonDamonDamonDamon DamonDamon Damon
P.S. this blog gets updated quite randomly, quite possibly at a time when I have nothing to do otherwise, so…
1. Comment by He Who Should Not Be Named
22/Aug/2006 at 16:52
In defense of Dr. D., He Who Should Not Be Named feels obliged to point out that all of the exemplary modes of communication (those as compared to the aforementioned “lack of Blog Acknowledgement”) described herein (e.g., random notes, face-to-face, or Hallmark card underneath the door) are in fact modes of communication employed by Dr. D. rather than the “user.” Thus, although “user’s” argument has been fully and duly considered, it has not been found persuasive. Dr. D.’s objection to lack of Blog Acknowledgement is maintained for the reasons of record.
2. Comment by He Who Should Not Be Named
22/Aug/2006 at 17:02
Whoops, I almost forgot to say something MUCH more important:
381 yo!