If Dave Horsey says he loves you...

Well played, Ms. Pothast! Just to clarify, it was also his avidly admiring comments about the online PI that got me.

Why am I getting such grief from Emily Pothast for merely pointing out that 95 percent of the blogs ever created have gone dormant and suggesting, therefore, that, for most people, blogging one's way to a steady income is a bit of an illusion.

I understand that now that you pointed it out, but I didn't get that from the cartoon when I first saw it. I thought the cartoon was about there being a dearth of an audience for blogs, which simply isn't true. The 95 percent thing is a valid point, but it's not a function of the medium itself; it's a function of the low bar to entry. How many of those 95 percent are started by people with limited talent, no practice writing regularly and no potential audience? Many of them, probably, and that's what (hopefully) puts the blogs begun by your former P-I colleagues in a different category.

That said, now that I understand what you intended to communicate, I do not see any indication that you specifically meant to antagonize them with that cartoon (though it may have hit close to home for some). Regina thinks it is in poor taste; I'm not particularly offended by it but can see how it could be taken as a dig in the context she described.

So I do apologize for using the word "clueless" when at worst the cartoon could be described as "insensitive." My choice of words, in that case, pertained to the Emily White article more than the cartoon.

Sheesh! (That's a cartoon word.) Why am I getting such grief from Emily Pothast for merely pointing out that 95 percent of the blogs ever created have gone dormant and suggesting, therefore, that, for most people, blogging one's way to a steady income is a bit of an illusion. How does that make me clueless about the nature of the internet? Rather, I think, it is a description of one reality of the internet. It is a Darwinian world online and only the fittest survive.

Emily. You're right as usual. I wasn't thinking of the comments. R

I think Emily White responded to the post she meant to respond to. Re-read the thread. I'm afraid I started it when I compared Dave Horsey's apparent cluelessness about the nature of the Internet to an equally clueless quote from White's article in City Arts magazine. To which you responded "Thinking is not Emily White's strong point." I've never met Emily White, so all I have to go on is how she represents herself in writing, which is (at least in this case) darn near impossible not to want to have a little fun with.

Regina, I'm sure you've been told this before: you tend to shoot from the hip and ask questions later. Most of the time your instincts are good, but sometimes you end up having to revise your position in the face of new information. Contrary to what our former president "The Decider" believes, I think this is a sign of maturity, not weakness.

I keep bringing up that Emily White article because I think she needs to be taken to task in this specific case for pontificating about something she has (by her own admission!) clearly not taken the time to understand. She might otherwise be a very thoughtful writer and editor, but what good is that if you're unwilling to take criticism and learn from your mistakes?