Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2008 July
2008 June
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 February
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 August
2007 July
2007 June
2007 May
2007 April
2007 March
2007 February
2007 January
2006 December
2006 November
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 November
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 July
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
My Links
My Work-at-Home Site
My homepage
My Archives
Tblog December archives
Tblog November archives
Mark Latham
Mangled Thoughts
Musings by Andaloo
Paul and Carl
James Morrow
Evil Pundit
Red Tigress
The Bladder
Blog Search Engine
Raymond
Lauren Karsten
Tim Blair
Derek Sapphire
Bernard Slattery
Investigate Magazine
The Comedy Lounge (Perth)
The Polarizer
Sydney Dance Classes
Online Business Review Directory
DealByEthan.com
Salo Creative
Best Aussie Dating Sites
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
2005 Archives
You'll see in the archives section above that 2005 is missing. That's some glitch that will hopefully rectify itself eventually. But in the meantime if you want to find my posts from this period they are below:
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
Being a tightwad and a cheapskate (and also particularly greedy) I'm constantly on the lookout for ways to get web traffic for free. Signing up to a traffic exchange is one of the better ones. Here are some you might want to join:
Traffic Swarm
Web Biz Insider
Clicks Matrix
Traffic Project
Clickin' Fingers
Pro Hits Plus
Stock Traffic
Funny Farm Traffic
Hit Safari
Traffic Roundup
Traffic Tornado
Easy Hits 4 U
Vinterchange
Counter Crazy
Storm Hits
Click Thru
Advertising Know How
Deep Sea Hits
Weblog Directory - Directory of blogs from all around the world.
| Feral glitch |
| 03.28.04 (3:48 pm) [edit] |
| It's not just the journos at Sydney's Mourning Feral who are airheads. Looks like the geeks they hire to put up the online edition are too. Have a look at today's front page. They've left visible code at the top of it! |
| 0 Comments |
| Spooked |
| 03.22.04 (2:14 am) [edit] |
|
I'm not losing sleep over the threat of terrorism in Sydney yet. But it's certainly put me on edge: I'd just hopped on the train into the city at Stanmore station. There were only a couple of people in that particular carriage. I went to sit down and saw a black sports bag on the seat. I immediately thought: terrorist bomb. I saw a Citirail guy on the train a carriage or so down. I told him about it. He said he'd inform security at the next station. I wasn't taking any chances. I walked right down to the far end of the train for the rest of the journey - just in case. Sure, the chance of it being a bomb was remote. But still, it put the wind up me. |
| 0 Comments |
| More on team spirit |
| 03.18.04 (5:58 pm) [edit] |
|
Paul Bickford has a few more thoughts, and, er, other stuff, on said sex scandals. Scroll down and you'll see that he makes the point that huge cash settlements might imply some bending of the truth by the women making the accusations of sexual assault. A good point. But there's a flip side, too: If, in trying to be skeptical about this you decide that they can't all be telling the truth, then you'd have to agree that they can't all be lying either. |
| 2 Comments |
| Team spirit |
| 03.18.04 (5:16 pm) [edit] |
|
Mark Latham is the latest high profile person to offer his wisdom regarding this disturbing football-rape syndrome. Gets it way wrong, like most people. He suggests that a part-time job might help solve the problem. Eh? Yeah, sure. And ballroom dancing will prevent suicide. The problem is that it's a manifestation of the growing tribalism that you see all over the place now. These blokes run around in packs, thumping the snot out of other blokes in packs. They do this for a living (and a very good one). They don't think of themselves as individuals who should at least attempt to be responsible for their actions, and navigate themselves through life in a thoughtful way - which is probably the most basic requirement of civilization, let's face it. They are members of a privileged club, who feel entitled to have whatever they want, whenever they want. This attitude suffuses much of the rest of their lives. In most of these cases here and overseas these assaults were committed by blokes who were all members of the same team. That, to me, is really interesting. You don't just hear about a bunch of blokes, one or two of whom were members of a footy team. It's usually: "Canterbury Bulldogs players" or "St Kilda players" or whatever. They are bonding off the field in preparation for the next battle on it. Call me a prude, but even when the woman who is gang-banged is consenting, I still find the whole thing disturbingly primitive, not to mention weird. I mean, what a strange thing to do? Bond with your mates through the act of sex with a woman. If that's the point of the whole thing, why not just, er, cut out the middle-chick and get down and dirty with each other? Obviously, that's not on. Next time they're in the scrum they might get distracted and start goosing each other, or even pashing on. The whole point of biffo-ball games is to sublimate the tribal battle instinct into something spectacularly violent (but not lethal) to entertain the cheering crowds. Can't have them making love, not war. Basically, the more people say, "Gee, we've got to do something about this. Let's introduce a new code of conduct, or give them mentors, or counselling," the worse the problem gets, because it continues to encourage them to perceive themselves as members of a special group deserving outside attention, not individuals who should be responsible for their actions. |
| 0 Comments |
| Appeaseniks |
| 03.15.04 (5:11 pm) [edit] |
|
Re the atrocity in Spain, and its electoral fallout: I'm amazed at the stupidity of people who still can't understand that whoever commits these acts is just not part of our civilization. And that to appease them will only take us back to the Dark Ages. I've often heard a quote (I think it's by Jean Paul Sartre) that is used in defence of these scum suckers: "Terrorism is the atom bomb of the oppressed." There are heaps of things wrong with that, both intellectually and morally. But just re the "peace-lovers" who invoke it: If they are against America even having nukes, then why do they not condemn these "freedom fighters" for repeatedly using theirs? The whole point of having a nuke seems to be that you don't use it. You just sort of make it known that you have it to scare the bejesus out of anyone who might want to challenge or attack you, so that they don't. If your enemy also has a nuke, but also doesn't use it, then you have a stalemate. Far from ideal. But still, no one gets hurt. MAD wasn't quite so mad after all. But if governments keep appeasing terrorism (that is, the detonation of smaller, but still devastating nukes) as a means of fascists getting what they want, then more and more people will use it. And it will eventually become an all-in nuke-fest involving nukes both small and large. It's so clear that to solve this problem all over the world, governments have to unite against it, stamp it out wherever it may be. It's like getting rid of rats. You thwock 'em when you see 'em, leave baits around the joint, and you also put poison in their nests. And you do it everywhere. A lot of bong-suckling bolshies will be pleased with the socialists being elected in Spain, thinking it makes the world safer. Their logic is utterly arse-about as usual. The scum-sucking psychos who engineered that result through their brutality have now become emboldened and re-energised, and it now makes it more likely that terrorism will be used again. My guess is that they'll attempt something really huge here just before the next elections. |
| 0 Comments |
| More on rugby scandal |
| 03.10.04 (6:07 pm) [edit] |
|
Another good article on morality, rugby and rooting. This whole scandal, and the way people react to it, is really interesting. It's not just about sex. It's also very much about the decay of civilization in general, and this "crisis of masculinity" we keep hearing about in particular. For decades, fluffy wuffies have been shit-canning the cultural practices (codes of gentlemanliness, marriage, etc) that kept men's Inner Bulldogs on leashes - the rationalisation being that those same codes were there to oppress women, maintain elitism, etc. With those inner restraints removed and nothing but idiotic misandrist campaigns to replace them, many blokes are going backwards fast. Hence the cult of bonding through biffo and gang-banging. It's a primal force that's filling a cultural void. Remember, nature abhors a vacuum. Same with human nature. And those fluffy wuffies really do suck, don't they? |
| 0 Comments |
| Feminist bimbos |
| 03.10.04 (3:38 am) [edit] |
|
From Andrew Bolt I learn that the vacuous Catharine Lumby is being paid (quite a bit I imagine) to try and put out the media fire over the Canterbury Bulldogs' pack-rape scandal. It seems pretty ironic, since she's always banging on in her columns about white males and their sexist bonding rituals. I recall one particularly silly article she wrote in The Bulletin about all the appallingly classist misogyny (and racial hatred) pervading the sport of cricket. Yet now she's defending blokes whose sport and sexual practises make cricketers seem both wussy and, er, pale by comparison. Could the money have something to do with it? No, of course not. She's a leftie. They don't worry about that stuff. Completely incorruptible. Maybe it's the white uniforms, the bat brandishing and ball shining she finds so offensive about cricket? Perhaps it's all that high-falutin' talk about the quality of the pitch, which makes women feel threatened, and constitutes a kind of grass ceiling. Rugby doesn't have any of that. It's a really civilised, inclusive game which brings out the poet in every man and celebrates diversity. Actually, I might be being a bit being harsh. Obviously she's not going to be condoning rape, but she'll be doing her best to deflect moral judgements of the other sexual goings on. Regarding that: Sure, much of the wild porking that no-neck boofheads indulge in with their groupies isn't illegal (and I would never say it should be) but it's still not particularly edifying. And some sort of moral contemplation about it should be encouraged, at least. I don't want to sound like a wowser but there does seem to be something primitive going on. We might just have thrown the codger out with the bathwater re this whole schtupping thing. While I can't stand people telling others what they can and can't do in the sack, I also get annoyed at the sort of inverted wowserism practised by people who chant the "porn is liberating" and "don't you dare knock rooting!" mantras ad nauseam. "Liberating"? A more accurate description would be that it's usually tacky, mostly benign and sometimes just plain brutal. Alcohol is legal (and should be), but that doesn't mean it's necessarily always good. Indulgence should tempered with, er, sober thought about the consequences, which vary according to the individual and situation. Same with screwing. Or here's another analogy: sex is like food (kinky, I know). On one extreme there's Macca's. On the other, a smorgasbord of "posh nosh" in a five star restaurant. Casual sex and/or whacking off to porn is like Macca's. Nothing inherently evil and wrong about it. But do you want to eat Macca's all your life, forever? Let's face it, the sex drive is still a dark and mysterious force - even when expressed in a consensual, legal way. Trying to put a positive spin on mad shagging forever is not only boring and dumb, but also dangerous. The bizarre thing is that so much of this talk comes from feminists, who used to be synonomous with man-hating frigidity. The hatred of men is still there (if by "men" we mean gentlemen as opposed to brutes) but the frigidity has been replaced by a total lack of sexual restraint. These feminist bimbos are priceless, aren't they? Thanks to them there are now many permanently damaged women who think of all sex as rape. And now, they've produced another kind of pathologically deluded woman - the kind who proudly declares, "Look at me. I'm a stupid whore! Aren't I powerful!" Sad all on its own. Also, what's this saying (and doing) to the blokes? |
| 0 Comments |
| Truly evil blogger |
| 03.07.04 (10:56 pm) [edit] |
| I thought that we RWDBs were the most bad-asssssed cats in the Blogosphere. But we've lost that mantle, that's for sure. The Dark One himself has started blogging. He's left his first post over at the Rat Pack's abode. I'm still gagging from the smell the sulphur! |
| 0 Comments |
| Selective outrage |
| 03.06.04 (6:20 pm) [edit] |
|
Couple of days ago, The Age ran an editorial condemning a rugby player's off-colour gag about a recent rape scandal. I can understand the feeling of outrage at someone seeming to make light of another's suffering. But then, why no outrage about the callous indifference displayed by the gay community in their "tongue-in-cheek" display of "fashionable militarism"? So, it's all fine and dandy for numerous gays to make light of thousands of people being killed. But if you're an Aussie bloke, you'll be roundly condemned for making one joke about a woman being pack-raped. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? Reminds me of another fashionable double standard involving race in general, and one Geoff Clarke in particular. He says he's the most villified man in Australia. I'd use the terms "patronised" and "molly-coddled" myself. |
| 0 Comments |
| Plumbing the depths |
| 03.05.04 (1:13 am) [edit] |
|
From Slatts, I learn of the first sewage pipe photo to be posted in the Blogosphere. If this continues and other online diarists start dangling their cameras down their drains, we'll soon have a whole new subgenre: "bogging". |
| 0 Comments |
| Aussie blogs |
| 03.04.04 (11:31 pm) [edit] |
|
It's good to know that Anthony J Hicks' blogs site is back up and running. (I assume it's been up for a while, but I've only just recently visited it again.) Anyway, for those of you who haven't yet seen it, it's here. Well worth looking at, especially for those with a special interest in blogs from Down Under. |
| 0 Comments |
| Hit counter |
| 03.04.04 (5:49 pm) [edit] |
|
I'm making my stats public, because I hope to eventually earn a few bob off this blog by placing an ad or two. So I've just configured a Bravenet one, which starts from now - hence the low number. (But rest assured, I've had thousands of hits already to this site. Honest!) |
| 0 Comments |
| Chick-flick biopics |
| 03.03.04 (1:59 am) [edit] |
| A bit more on that Plath fillum: It seems an unusual project for Hollywood, because the real Sylvia was a lot more attractive than the star now playing her (Gwyneth Paltrow). Which is not exactly the case with this film. |
| 2 Comments |
| More phunny photos... |
| 03.03.04 (1:36 am) [edit] |
| ... phrom Evil Pundit. |
| 0 Comments |
| I feel guilty |
| 03.03.04 (1:29 am) [edit] |
|
In my last post I called Sylvia Plath a whinger, but I kind of regret saying that. Why? I just did a Google search for a snap of her. I half expected to see one of her bum hanging out of an oven, head concealed in said cooker's innards. But I got this. She was a winsome, sweet-looking creature wasn't she? The thought of her going the way she did makes me feel quite sad to be honest. |
| 0 Comments |
| Arty wankers jump the twig |
| 03.02.04 (10:23 pm) [edit] |
|
Was reading about this new fillum Sylvia about the life and death of that miserable, whining poetess. Subsequently found this site, describing a whole plethora of arty carkings. Now why can't some of our contemporary Oz-lit figures make an effort and go the same way? (I'll tell you why, 'cause they're too damned comfortable, that's why. Let's cut their funding, and make the bastards suffer - just as they're supposed to!) |
| 0 Comments |
| Move over Michael Moore... |
| 03.01.04 (10:55 pm) [edit] |
| ... here's another celebrity anti-war activist with even more fire in the belly than you! (Er, although his actual belly is a lot smaller - so that kind of cancels things out, I suppose.) |
| 0 Comments |
| Wild sex? |
| 03.01.04 (3:30 am) [edit] |
|
Is it just me, or does this site make you think that maybe this whole sexual liberation thing has gone just a little bit too far? (I wonder, does Peter Singer have a profile up?) |
| 0 Comments |
