Alright, so our motion is this:

Overlong and unfocused blog posts should be broken into component parts and published one bit at a time.

Let me introduce our panel:

To my right is Andreas, arguing in favor of the motion. To my left is Dafna, arguing against it.

Compromise:

I’ll just repost the darn thing–for if indeed there is “beauty in imperfection” who am I to withhold the literary equivalent of the Taj Mahal from the world?–and then I’ll see if I can cook up more coherent and iPhone-friendly blog entries in the future.

p.s. i take offense @ the only five readers comment as i am one of the five, you count me irrelevant.

Break your “essays” into component parts and just write and publish one bit at a time. Easier to read on iPhones, easier to write….

You wouldn’t want to get a reputation as an RSS tease. You know what the girls say about those….

The situation is different than previously in that this time I deliberately posted a new entry and then pulled it, as I adjudged it an unfocused mess of an essay, and I didn’t know how to fix the stupid thing. Maybe I’ll repost it later when I’m in my “screw it” mood.

I apologize for the inconvenience. I really don’t understand why deleted blog posts don’t simply disappear from other people’s RSS readers.

This is getting more mysterious by the day. Clearly, there is a secret sub-blog only for the initiated.

On account of being neither lawyer, doctor, mathematician, politician, nor expert on anything, I’m currently teetering on the verge of losing not only my rights to opine but also my ability to eat and–more importantly–my Internet connection. So right now I’m a bit distracted by having to figure out a way to generate some sort of income fast, or I’ll be moving under my favorite NYC bridge within the very near future. (I’m torn between Brooklyn and Queensborough. Depends on which one provides free Broadband.) Hence my somewhat diminished focus on regaling my readership of about seven people with angst-ridden monographs.

If your upcoming milestone birthday ends in a zero, simply read the number backwards. If it ends in five, however, the reverse method only rejuvenates for ages 65 and up.

Alternatively, you could add up the digits of your age, e.g., 99 = 9 + 9 = 18. That way, you’ll never be older than 18, at least not until you’re 199. (Where I’m from, we call this the Quersumme. I’m sure there’s an English term for that, but I had to hock my dictionary.)

your arbitrary deadline for the next blog entry is 01/19, my birthday. and it’s a milestone sucks to be old age.

any silly counting methods to make it my age sound younger? maybe if i count in base three, instead of base ten?

opine away. your rights to opine will be revoked if you are NOT a mathematician, lawyer, politician, doctor, and/or expert on global warming. furthermore should your typos hit critical mass you blog will self destruct in 5, 4, 3…

i thought him the comic relief on another blog until i discovered an immensely talented seemingly angst ridden writer with an obsession for semantics. a veritable quill that could kill if leveled without restraint at fellow bloggers.

apologies if my post includes bad writing and peacock terms. there are days i can barely form a thought let alone unravel a blog as tightly woven as the cyberquill. i do love trying. please convey my wish for a new entry to peter g.

dafna

Hence, the laws of basic arithmetic preclude us from ever reaching a decade that conforms to the semantically convenient way of defining our decades, unless, of course, at some point in history there was a 9-year-long decade, which made the count permanently shift from 0-9. Which decade was that?

Therefore, the 1st decade A.D. began on January, 1, 1. The 100th decade began on January 1, 1001. The 200th decade (= the 2nd millennium) began on January 1, 2001 (and not, as was widely and erroneously celebrated, on January 1, 2000), and the 201th decade will commence no sooner than January 1, 2011.

I agree that time is just a counting system. But no one started counting time at zero. If we consider our decades, centuries, and millenia to begin with years ending in 0, it means that somewhere down the road we lost an entire year–where did it go?

0>1 = 1
1>2 = 2
2>3 = 3
3>4 = 4
4>5 = 5
5>6 = 6
6>7 = 7
7>8 = 8
8>9 = 9
9>10 = 10

It just seems that right up to the 11:59 on the ’09 year is correct? I’m just trying to justify both sides of the argument. Neither side matters, because time is just a counting system with meaning attached to it.