Something else that hasn’t changed

Still getting spam comments.  The filters have caught them all so far, but the following was so good that I had to share it with all you lovely folks.

People get annoyed about institutions charging them bank fees to access their own money , but bank accounts do have the underrated benefit of making it impossible for a disturbed child to steal your life savings and use it to buy mass quantities of candy.

The original has met the well-deserved fate of all such messages – extreme deletion – but the actual content had a certain charm.  It is most likely an actual quote from somebody else, in fact.  No way a real spammer came up with this.  It makes me wonder if any of my own non-mots have been plagiarized and attached to links for cheap foreign medicine or appeals to help launder untold millions from an imaginary dead potentate.

So, that’s what traffic looks like

So last night one of my old posts got about 100 hits.  New one-day record at Hive 2.0.  It’s gotten another 53 today, too.

As it turns out, this largess is courtesy of Harvey at IMAO.  Somehow he found the old post and I wound up with a lot of unexpected guests.  Many thanks to him, and to all of you!

Thank you kindly

New blogroll addee Borepatch has returned the favor.  In addition, it seems to have led to a new commenter.  I thank both of them, and concur with BP’s warning to the readers – I have been known to go on at length.

He also offered a bit of advice.  Well, I hate to disappoint in a friendly request, but since the Mrs. Nightfly is allergic to cats, I have none of my own to post pictures of.  In a neighborly spirit, however, I offer this shot of the Official Dog.

Unpersoned

UPDATE, 5/11 – Thanks for the visits.  Sadly, comments on this post are bollixed.  I can only add them via my dashboard.  Who the hell knows why, maybe Botta has hackers on payroll or something.*  Please click here if you’ve got something to say – I actually AM interested!

* No, of course he doesn’t.

Twitter is a reality unto itself.

Dip into anyone’s follow list, and you’re likely to see a decent variety of folks.  To take a for-instance, my follow list holds a few political bloggers, a few humorists, more than a few hockey writers, and many of my blogfriends.

Does this mean that I have a wide cross-section of cultural, political, and social thought in the timeline?  That’s a entirely different kind of question, altogether.

With only sixty people on my follow list, I’m not going to get too much depth and breadth of human thought on any topic.  But I don’t think it’s necessarily limited, inasmuch as I follow people for all sorts of different reasons.  When the hockey folk retweet, for example, I’m likely to get links to all sorts of things I disagree with.  Well, I read them, and think about them.  Other people more inclined to advocacy of any kind sometimes tweet things they disagree with themselves, or a link to their own rebuttal (leading one to check what the original said).  And half my follows couldn’t give a rat’s rumpus about hockey or whatnot.

In the end, I think I get a reasonable variety; no more or less than if I hung out all day at Starbucks.  (But if I was on Twitter that whole time… hmmmmmmm…….)

This calculus changes when you get to those who follow you, however, and that’s the topic of this post.