[A]s we all know, I routinely violate rules #2 and 3 and yet I'm one of Vox's favorites, which was pointed out a few times in his comment thread, and thus was born the Lucas Exception by Vox Day, which states that "if a female blogger can be confirmed to be as amusingly bloody-minded as Rachel Lucas, she may post about her dogs or other non-feline pets, so long as such posts are not made more than thrice per week. Kids and cats are still right out."I'm not buying it. Dog-blogging is intrinsically wrong. The only reason Vox overlooks it is because Rachel's cute. If she weighed 400 pounds, the Exception wouldn't exist.
Don't be jealous. Not everyone can have an Exception named after them. You see, Vox gets me.
Which reminds me of something I often want to say here because once a while, someone will not get me and will misinterpret my penchant for the dog pics. I believe the reason I get the Exception, the thing that Vox and most of you (but not all) understand, is that I don’t think the dogs are cute. I think they’re ridiculous. I am mocking them. With affection, of course, but still.
On the other hand, I grant a waiver to Rachel under McCain's Law of Shameless Traffic-Baiting:
"Traffic is traffic, even traffic generated by flame wars with left-wing trolls, Google searches for celebrity breasts or links from ridiculous dog-bloggers."
UPDATE: Proving that she's not merely skating by on cuteness and dog-blogging, Miss Lucas adds an update to advise:
I’m sorry ladies but there are only so many lectures about the MomBlogging Revolution and Powerful Womyn and all that happy horses--t that a person can take. It’s not only tiresome on an intellectual level, most of it is the precise opposite of entertaining. Which in my mind, is what blogs are for. Entertainment. Even if they’re educational too, they have to be entertaining on some level to get anyone to come back. Otherwise we’d just read books.Entertainment? You mean like punkabilly, Harleys, hotrods, hot babes and classic pop swing?
No comments:
Post a Comment