Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/001310.php on line 91

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/001310.php on line 91
July 23, 2004
Friday Musing

First up, stats question!

For those of you smarter than me (which includes most of you), and for those of you who might know something about AWSTATS, can you tell my why my site shows three "authenticated users" I've never heard of? What is an authenticated user?

I'm sorry I started looking at the stupid stats program. It gives me a headache. There are "visits" and "pages" and "hits" and I read the instructions and I still don't understand the difference. I wouldn't care except they all show an astonishing range of numbers and it offends the obsessive-compulsive part of my soul that I can't mentally pigeonhole them.

I'd abandon AWSTATS in favor of one of the simpler programs that show up on my MT site, but the others don't offer the one stat I do find interesting, namely the search keywords.

Not surprisingly, the link to that Onion story ("American People Ruled Unfit To Govern") remains number one on this month's parade.

I do have to say that the sad soul who sought "argument that make men more intelligent that wemen" might want to consider, oh, I don't know, maybe wising up? You can't be smarter than us if you can't even spell us.

I don't think I've ever posted an "epistemological conundrum" although I used to be very fond of them. In my wild and crazy youth, of course.

To the person seeking information on "24 hour virus health" I'd like to point out that the health of a 24-hour virus is purely theoretical since there's no virus I'm aware of with a 24-hour lifespan. Aside from that grammatically pedantic kick in the shins, I'd suggest that any time you find yourself explaining to your boss that you had a, "24-hour virus" on Monday, which caused you to miss that critical deadline, you need to understand that what you probably had was a minor case of food poisoning.

There. Don't say I never learnt you anything.

Someone desperately wanted information on "origin of the phrase chitty chitty bang bang". Check the book or movie.

Although, to be pedantically correct, it was the noise the car made.

There are an astonishing number of people searching the web on information on how to say they're sorry for something. Let me offer some assistance.

"I'm sorry" is generally a good choice. There's no need to get complicated.

If you wish to express sorrow while disclaiming any personal responsibility for the situation, then say, "I regret...."

"I regret that you fell off the deck while drunker than a skunk and squished your cactus garden. I'm sorry I laughed hysterically and called you Pincushion Boy."

A look of sad sincerity helps. Flowers are good, too. (Or a pair of tweezers and a bottle of hydrogen peroxide, as appropriate.)

Always glad to help with these little conundrums, non-epistemologically speaking.

Another searcher wanted to tell "houston i like that commercials mcdonalds". I'm not sure how they ended up telling me, but for the record, I don't remember ever liking a McDonald's commercial. I do like the cheese commercials, though. Have you seen the one with the chicken talking to the cows? Funny stuff.

I don't even know what "boys clothing desexualized" means, but I'm pretty sure I've never linked to or written about the topic.

I applaud the thirst for knowledge revealed by the search for "article 92 of ucmj". If I knew what it was, I might be able to direct you to a more appropriate site.

It's possible someone wanted to "purchase smallpox needle". If it was a private citizen, I hope not. And yet...I'd like to think it wouldn't be a medical professional, either.

If you really need "pictures of how people wash their clothes" you need more help than I can offer here. I suggest trying a Laundromat in your neighborhood. It's a really easy skill to pick up. (Although, if it was the same person who wanted information on "wash day in 1930" then maybe I don't understand the scope of the problem.)

There was what I can only assume is a prurient interest in pictures of men talking while undraped. No such illustrations can be found on this blog. Nor any shower illustrations.

As far as that goes, there are no illustrations of bare knees, either.

Someone googled, "i m not saying this again" but the one thing you know for sure about me is that I'm going to repeat myself.

Probably ad nauseam.

(There have been a lot of foreign words in this post. I expect erudition points.)

I sympathize with the person searching for "how to pronounce ad hominem tu quoque". I wish I could help them, but when I read the word "hominem" I always think about hominy. Then I think about the color yellow which leads me to sunshine, which makes me think of a sunny day in the part which reminds me it's Friday afternoon and then suddenly I realize I'm hungry because I haven't had lunch yet so even though I didn't bring any hominy, I'm going to go eat.

My promise to you. I have never blogged on "bayonet drills" and I never will.

Posted by AnneZook at 01:38 PM


Somehow, it seems that many of your odd search hits are my fault. I'm pretty sure I posted something about Tom Paxton's "Talking Bayonet" at some point, though the context escapes me now.

'boys clothing desexualized' hits probably comes from the discussions of modesty and gender we were having a while back.

UCMJ is the Universal (Uniform? US? I'm not sure, actually) Code of Military Justice, and Col. Steve probably gets credit for that, from the Abu Ghraib discussions.

"Ad Hominem tu quoque" sounds like Lawrence Krubner.....

In other words, it's not you, its your loyal, but notably odd, readership!

Posted by: Jonathan Dresner at July 23, 2004 03:32 PM

Well, that makes it even more interesting!

Anyhow, I like my readers. They're interesting.

Posted by: Anne at July 23, 2004 08:22 PM

"I do have to say that the sad soul who sought "argument that make men more intelligent that wemen" might want to consider, oh, I don't know, maybe wising up?"

Everyone knows that wemen were a species of marsupials who lived in a wide-ranging territory that covered most of Gondwanaland when Pangeia was breaking up into the 7 continents we have today. Because of the large skull case volume (1000 cubic centimeters), which is close to that of modern humans (1200 cubic centimeters) and matches that of early human species, some scientists have argued that wemen may have had an intelligence matching that of early Man.

No, actually, I just made all that up. The person who typed that search query is an idiot. I'm guessing a skull case volume of perhaps 900 cubic centimeters.

Posted by: Lawrence Krubner at July 25, 2004 12:58 PM

""Ad Hominem tu quoque" sounds like Lawrence Krubner....."

Innocent, I say, innocent.

Posted by: Lawrence Krubner at July 25, 2004 01:00 PM

"In other words, it's not you, its your loyal, but notably odd, readership!"

One thing I like about Google's "related interest" searches it how it slaps me in the face with the idea that we, generally, disagree most with people who have somewhat similar ways of seeing the world. For awhile Google matched me most often with a fellow with whom I disagreed about everything. But Google was aware that me and this other fellow read most of the same blogs, and Google noted that we both left comments on these blogs. What did I have in common with this fellow? Well, we both read weblogs that focused on economics and politics, unlike some of my other friends who only use the Internet to meet cool people through their MySpace accounts, or some of my other friends who never go online. This fellow thought President Bush was great, I think President Bush is one of the worst presidents in American history, but me and this fellow both have an interest in politics and, unlike a lot of people, we both read a lot blogs of both the left and the right.

The lesson here is that sometimes Google sees things as being related when you would assume they were not related. If you link to an article on the New York Times that mentions "bayonet drills" you may have no memory of that part of the story, yet Google will remember.

Posted by: Lawrence Krubner at July 25, 2004 01:12 PM