Karen Strang ([info]karen_strang) wrote,
@ 2007-03-16 11:32:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Long time no blog
I turn around and a season has passed.

Work progresses on the [info]urbaniak  book; I have just begun work on what is turning out to be a rather involved chapter regarding [info]robolizard . Meanwhile, my subject (Urbaniak, not Robolizard), I dare say, runs the risk of metamorphosing from cultural minutiae to minor cultural entity. I've checked with my editor and she insists that [info]urbaniak  's recent bloggy notice from the mainstream press will not significantly elevate Urbaniak's standing as a cultural force.  Meanwhile, the rolling stone of Urbaniak's blog continues to gather the moss of lost souls who turn to him for whatever tiny slivers of limelight he may shed upon their apparently dead-end lives.  Could Urbaniak be, in the end, a form of suicide prevention?  That would, at last, be a positive contribution to the culture.

(43 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]urbaniak
2007-03-16 11:34 pm UTC (link)
I am hope.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]humdrumtown
2007-03-17 04:10 am UTC (link)
Yes. It was between the pills or reading your journal everyday. Thank you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]karen_strang
2007-03-17 06:03 am UTC (link)
I am hope.

If by "hope" you mean "the thing with feathers," I shall tentatively agree with you.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]humdrumtown
2007-03-17 04:11 am UTC (link)
I can't wait for the book. :-D.

I miss your entries. Update more!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]karen_strang
2007-03-17 04:23 am UTC (link)
I will try. Thank you for your interest.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
I believe this is a legitimate question
[info]mikeyed
2007-03-18 06:59 am UTC (link)
so you discriminate against no-list celebrities from fraternizing with the general public, if that public does so by its own free will?

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: I believe this is a legitimate question
[info]karen_strang
2007-03-18 07:04 pm UTC (link)
I, too, believe this is a legitimate question, with some reservations.

1. "Discriminate?" How so? I do not treat Urbaniak differently than I would others based on a pre-existing prejudice. It is true his actions disgust me, but he is hardly unique in this regard. I think perhaps you mean that I disapprove of Urbaniak's actions.

2. Urbaniak, while culturally marginal, is not a "no-list" celebrity. He is a de facto movie star, has walked the red carpet at Cannes, has been celebrated (and repeatedly caricatured) in the pages of The New Yorker. He uses his (relative) position of power to his advantage at every conceivable juncture in order to expand and increase it. In this way he is the perfect model of the corporate ideal.

3. I don't believe in the concept of "the general public." Do you consider yourself a member of "the general public," or rather do you think of yourself as an individual? More to the point, is that you and your goatee in between Messrs. Hammer and Publick?

4. I'm intrigued by your use of the word "fraternizing," as it implies brotherhood, ie, Urbaniak is male, you (seem to be) male, therefore it's okay for Urbaniak to hang out with (on line, condescendingly) you, whereas for Urbaniak to hang out with (on line, condescendingly) females might imply another, less savory, term.

But the fact is, Urbaniak is not "fraternizing." An oil company does not "fraternize" with oil -- it exploits it, trades on it and destroys it, treats it as a commodity, just as Urbaniak exploits, trades on and destroys his "fans." His online sheep-friends come fawning to him, hoping for the tiniest scraps of recognition from him and he responds by leveraging their desire into a position of greater strength for himself in the marketplace.

5. I may or may not agree that there is such a thing as "free will." But I think I know what you're getting at.

Allow me, then, to re-ask your question in a more clearly formed way:

Q: Do I, Karen Strang, disapprove of Urbaniak hanging out, online, with persons of lesser social standing, if they choose to do so?

A: Allow me to answer with a question: do you "disapprove" of the destruction of the environment, the subjugation of women, the gutting of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, all in the name of ever-expanding corporate power? As it happens, I do, and whether Urbaniak understands it or not (my guess is "not," but who knows) his actions are the perfect expression of the culture in which he lives.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: I believe this is a legitimate question
[info]mikeyed
2007-03-18 07:23 pm UTC (link)
For 3, the person between Doc and Jackson is Ben Edlund, creator of the Tick. I do not mean to pass myself off as being able to grow such a goatee.

Augh, for your ulimate argument I wish I still had my logic and reasoning textbook, since from your premises, I can definitely see a flaw in your logic, but cannot for the life of me remember the exact principle. Not that I necessarily disagree or agree with your conclusion, but I know there's a flaw there. I believe it has to do with guilty by association or something to that extent, but I'm not exactly sure. I wish I could take that class again.

So you are you suggesting that he creates like some kind of boys club/tupperware party atmosphere, in which he puts down other individuals (and other blogging related activities), which others other agree with, therefore forming a sort of bond, and advertises himself in the same instance?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: I believe this is a legitimate question
[info]karen_strang
2007-03-18 07:58 pm UTC (link)
I do not mean to pass myself off as being able to grow such a goatee.

I appreciate and value your candor and bravery in this admittance.

I believe it has to do with guilty by association or something to that extent

Do you mean that I have found Urbaniak guilty by association with corporate America, or guilty by association with his followers, or they with him?

In any case, my goal is not merely to establish guilt but to promote a greater understand of the structure of our society, to thus be able to change it more effectively.

For, in the end, what is Urbaniak "guilty" of besides merely exploiting an operational framework that his society has deemed "normal," even "traditional?" For it is "traditional" in this country, is it not, since its inception, for corporations to expand their interests at the expense of human life?

All I'm trying to say ("all!" she says, with her book at 475 pages and counting! "all!") is that the corporate way of thinking is so pervasive and saturated in our culture that any artifact of that culture, examined closely enough, reveals the secrets of said culture. This is what a holographic view of culture is all about.

So you are you suggesting that he creates like some kind of boys club/tupperware party atmosphere, in which he puts down other individuals (and other blogging related activities), which others other agree with, therefore forming a sort of bond, and advertises himself in the same instance?

"Boys club" and "tupperware party" imply a measure of equality among its attendees. What Urbaniak has established at his blog is a court, where he is the king and his readers are his subjects. As at a court, his readers compete for his attention and plead for favors. And, just as a king exploits the labor of his subjects (whose lives he thinks of as his by divine right) in order to enrich himself, so Urbaniak exploits the labor of his readers (ie, their reading and commenting) in order to enhance his career, bringing him ever-increasing levels of wealth, power and fame.

The "bond" you sense at Urbaniak's blog, I assure you, is the exact same bond that Oscar Meyer shares with a pig.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]urbaniak
2007-03-19 01:12 am UTC (link)
Urbaniak, while culturally marginal, is not a "no-list" celebrity. He is a de facto movie star, has walked the red carpet at Cannes, has been celebrated (and repeatedly caricatured) in the pages of The New Yorker. He uses his (relative) position of power to his advantage at every conceivable juncture in order to expand and increase it. In this way he is the perfect model of the corporate ideal.

Thank you. Also the episode of "Sex and the City" in which I guest-starred was voted one of that show's all-time funniest by TV Guide.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]karen_strang
2007-03-19 04:02 am UTC (link)
My favorite periodical.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]robolizard
2007-03-19 03:05 pm UTC (link)
Pfft. Why the heck do you run the spotlight on me. My main purpouse on this blog is to make people angry and uncomfortable through the guise of a dinosaur. Nothing I did on the internet, save for getting upset about that chapter, was at all sincere.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]karen_strang
2007-03-19 05:34 pm UTC (link)
Mr. Lizard, you are but one thread in the dense tapestry of my work concerning Urbaniak. As for your sincerity or lack of it, I ask the same question I ask regarding Andy Kaufman: if a man acts like an asshole 24 hours a day for his entire life, is it still an act, or is he just an asshole?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]robolizard
2007-03-19 05:47 pm UTC (link)
The internet is not life. And Robolizard is but one of many net handles, I have an actual one on this blog. And its pretty obvious that I'm kidding. Pretty. Freakin'. Obvious.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]karen_strang
2007-03-19 08:12 pm UTC (link)
The internet is not life.

But of course it is.

And its pretty obvious that I'm kidding.

Kidding or not, your statements reveal character.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]robolizard
2007-03-19 08:36 pm UTC (link)
...

Are you the beat?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Deleted post)

[info]robolizard
2007-03-19 08:55 pm UTC (link)
Yeah... Urbaniak just hinted about his friends being the others, and you have an odd interest in comics, plus you praised the beat first time around, and knew her civilian usertag...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]karen_strang
2007-03-19 08:55 pm UTC (link)
I would hope that The Beat has better things to do than be me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2007-03-19 09:58 pm UTC (link)
Don't get me wrong, but isn't your life getting the most limelight from this blog?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]karen_strang
2007-03-19 10:21 pm UTC (link)
By "this blog" I assume you refer to Mr. Urbaniak's blog. It can hardly be a surprise that my own journal contains writing by me.

But to clarify, I do not and have never sought attention from Mr. Urbaniak or his readers. It was Mr. Urbaniak's decision to publicize my work and, unintentionally, provide me with a subject for my first book. cf: life, lemons, etc.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2007-03-19 10:32 pm UTC (link)
I dunno. Everytime you have a new entry you seem to comment. Not before nor after.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]karen_strang
2007-03-20 12:15 am UTC (link)
I'm terribly confused. Every time I have a new entry I seem to comment? How should it work otherwise?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2007-03-20 02:04 am UTC (link)
No, you comment on Urbaniak's wall.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]karen_strang
2007-03-20 02:39 am UTC (link)
Urbaniak's wall? Are we even talking about the same subject?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2007-03-20 07:40 pm UTC (link)
When someone like you, a major Urbaniak player, comments on his blog, made up of Urbaniak readers, you will get clicks. If you update and tell no one, you do not. You are inviting clicks to new entries. You know the power of the blog!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]karen_strang
2007-03-20 09:40 pm UTC (link)
But I didn't comment on his blog. He mentioned me in an interview. Shall I stand mute as a man spreads lies about me?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2007-03-20 09:51 pm UTC (link)
I think the other anonymous is referring to the comments you left on Urbaniak's blog on the 16th (on his March 15th entry), the same day you updated your own.

They're saying that you do that to intentionally attract clicks from Anklets.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]karen_strang
2007-03-21 12:03 am UTC (link)
I'm working on a book regarding the career of James Urbaniak. On 3/15, his career was altered due to his mention by James Wolcott. The change in his career alters (slightly) the trajectory of my project and is thus news in my life. If I am not permitted to post news of my life on my own journal, then what is the point?

I should also add that, as one can readily see through the merest effort, that the career of James Urbaniak is not my sole interest in life and I publish entries on many other topics.

If that is okay with my anonymous attackers, of course.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2007-03-21 01:34 am UTC (link)
"If I am not permitted to post news of my life on my own journal..."

That has absolutely nothing to do with what they said.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]karen_strang
2007-03-21 02:46 am UTC (link)
I have no idea what the hell "they" (and by "they" I mean Robolizard) were trying to say. But then the working of that particular adolescent mind is often a mystery to me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]robolizard
2007-03-21 03:15 pm UTC (link)
Awww, yah blitherin' poopslice! Yah gottit all 'rong lassie! I speak like a pirates now! [yahr!] No way that could have possibly been me! [ya hahr]. Besides, I'm like-- 300 years older than you at least seeing piracy died somewhere around the 1700's. Yah rottin' poop! [yaharhar]

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]karen_strang
2007-03-21 07:34 pm UTC (link)
All right, then whoever is using Robolizard's computer, IP #199.94.94.20.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]robolizard
2007-03-21 07:56 pm UTC (link)
Yahr! That's all of my College poop dog! Besides, I've been slaughtered by the british in the late 1800's! [following ip codes?! tisk tisk! ms. strang! that's no way to play the game!]

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]karen_strang
2007-03-21 08:35 pm UTC (link)
Now you're just trying to see if you can create the world's narrowest thread.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]robolizard
2007-03-21 08:41 pm UTC (link)
The narrowest thread of what?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]not_robolizard
2007-03-21 08:42 pm UTC (link)
Oohhhh... the web thingie. Ha! I've done narrower...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]robolizard
2007-03-21 08:43 pm UTC (link)
Oohhhh... the web thingie. Ha! I've done narrower...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2007-03-22 01:26 am UTC (link)
I meant the anonymous, but here's the gist: You say that you don't desire the attention of Urbaniak's readers, but you act in a way that deliberately attracts their attention (i.e. posting in Urbaniak's blog on the day of your update so that they will mass-click on your name and read your entry). In other words, your words are not matching your actions.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]karen_strang
2007-03-22 02:32 am UTC (link)
The "anonymous" was Robolizard.

You say that I "deliberately" post on Urbaniak's blog. Yes I do. When I am attacked on his blog, what do you recommend I do?

As for destroying the free will of his readers, manipulating their feeble minds so that they have no choice but to click on my name, I'm afraid I cannot claim that power.

As for myself, I've been reading his blog for a year now and have never once clicked on one of his readers' names. We apparently have vastly powers of will.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2007-03-22 09:48 pm UTC (link)
Ooh! Guess who this is!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2007-03-22 02:06 am UTC (link)
Yeah, okay. Whatever you say, crazy lady. Maybe you should stop obsessing over other people's lives and get one of your own.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]karen_strang
2007-03-22 02:33 am UTC (link)
I'm quite content with my life, thanks. It's the rest of American culture I could do without.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Help for downloading for free
(Anonymous)
2009-05-02 04:18 am UTC (link)
Huh. I want to get program XRumer 5.07 Palladium for free. Have you any url?
I'm so need this magic program! It's can break captchas automatically! Activate accounts via email automatically too! Absolutely great software! Help me!
And did you hear news - price for XRumer 5.0 Palladium will grow up to $540 after 15 may 2009... And XRumer 2.9 and 3.0 - too old versions, it's cant break modern catpchas and cant break modern anti-bot protections. But XRumer 5.0 Palladium CAN!!!!
So help me for download this great program for free! Thanks!

(Reply to this)

(43 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…