So I headed over to GWOP to share in all the enthusiam for Kate's new show that surely must be building, but I got sidetracked by something that I've been meaning to understand/make fun of for a long, long time.
Every time Sharla posts one of her Open Discussion threads, she posts the same set of instructions --- or, as I like to call them: rules. Because the 21 rules appearing at the very start of the blog clearly aren't enough, we also have rules of conduct for each the Open Discussion threads.
Yes, Sharla, as we know, is a complete rule freak. Which isn't too suprising. If you've bothered to draft the Official Rules and Code of Conduct for something that comes naturally to most species (ie., motherhood), it makes sense that you would devise a dizzying set of rules to govern every other aspect of life.
Dare I say that Sharla might be the only person who is more controlling than Kate? And yet, friends, what is the one rule that Shara so conveniently ignores? That's right, that pesky little Golden Rule.
But I've made fun of Herr Sharla's obsession with rules plenty of times before. No need to repeat myself. Today, I'd like to focus on this bewildering GWOP bewilderment:
----------------------------------
"Remember or try the Facebook Group for things that would be off topic or too personal on the blog."
----------------------------------
Huh?
I guess I need an example of something that is "too personal on the blog" that would not be "too personal on Facebook".
I admit that I'm no facebook wiz, but I do know that most facebook members (except for the GWOP moderators) sign up on facebook using their real names and that member profiles commonly disclose stuff like hometown, current city, school, employer, kid's names, etc. Facebookers will also post pictures of everything you can possibly imagine: their kids, their homes, their vacation plans, their new flat screen TVs, their obvious problems with alcohol, their body parts, their collections of severed body parts -- you name it.
Last but not least, let's not also forget all the idiotic status postings.
TMI, people!
I also know that if you don't take specific action to privatize all that personal content, you're feeding it to friends, friends of friends, advertisers and god knows who else, INCLUDING SHARLA.
So um, facebook ain't exactly private. And for anything TOO PERSONAL, it's actually less private than posting anything anonymously at GWOP. And so perhaps here layeth Sharla's true motivations. Does Sharla want you GWOPPERS to post all the valua ... err, personal stuff on Facebook and not GWOP so that, you know, she has a face, a name, mailing address, and if you wouldn't mind, a social security number to attach to it?
No worries, Sharla's intentions can only be good. Afterall, who can possibly forget how very kind, giving and fiercely protective Sharla was toward PENNMOMMY when her imaginary son fell ill and then died so tragically.
Breaking News! DWTS Cheats
So I'm trying to vote for Evan and I get this message: "Sorry, we couldn't find that page"
Don't believe me? Here are some pics.
Pic #1: Here's me trying to place my first vote of 32,403 votes for Evan. I click the word "VOTE" in that little pink box.
Don't believe me? Here are some pics.
Pic #1: Here's me trying to place my first vote of 32,403 votes for Evan. I click the word "VOTE" in that little pink box.
Pic #2: Denied!
Good thing, ABC doesn't do heart transplants. Because website problems (wink, wink) when you're a Reality TV Show who has just told 23 million to vote must be kinda like when the heart slips from the surgeon's hands and lands on the floor.
Whoopsie!
I would also like to comment that is next to possible to post pictures on blogger.
I would also like to comment that is next to possible to post pictures on blogger.
Wow, so defensive
Apparently Sharla has had ENOUGH with all the negative GWOP characterizations and has taken to creating a "Things We Are Called that We are Not" thread. GWOPPERS are invited to add to list.
In Item #5, Sharla writes that SHE is definitely not a child advocate and has never claimed to be one. Yeah. whatever. I noticed that it's gone now but for the first umpteen years of the blog's history, she hosted a a link to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. And the stupid What We Want section still says "We want child labor laws to recognize that children in reality shows deserve the same protection that children in scripted shows have."
Yeah, Sharla, we believe you. Just like we believed your "PennMommy is real." And just like we believe you had nothing to do with the Pig blog. I know you don't like hearing this, Sharla, but you and your pals ( Julie, Jodi and Serena (nhrn)) have a wee credibility issue.
I also especially loved Item #6. The GWOPPERS, or at least some of them apparently, are NOT bad mothers. Sharla writes, "Some of the us don't even have children. " So there. Take that, you sheeple!
Would it have been possible for Sharla to create a more stupid thread? Since when are you not what you are just because you say you're not? Has Annie Louise's poignant art history lecture on pointillism taught Sharla nothing? I thought we're all supposed to step back and connect the dots.
The trouble with threads titled "Things we are called that we are not" and then inviting people to build the list is the wonderful opportunity for omission. For example, if no one pipes up and says "Hey, we're not mortally stupid", I can only conclude that GWOPPERS must be mortally stupid.
So far, the list of what they are but are not isn't very long. But once they move past the word "shribbled" and officially decide whether they are or are not shribbled, I'm sure the posts will pick up.
Who will be the brave first GWOPPER to step forward to say "We're NOT judgmental."?
Because of all the things they are or aren't, that would be the only trait that matters.
In Item #5, Sharla writes that SHE is definitely not a child advocate and has never claimed to be one. Yeah. whatever. I noticed that it's gone now but for the first umpteen years of the blog's history, she hosted a a link to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. And the stupid What We Want section still says "We want child labor laws to recognize that children in reality shows deserve the same protection that children in scripted shows have."
Yeah, Sharla, we believe you. Just like we believed your "PennMommy is real." And just like we believe you had nothing to do with the Pig blog. I know you don't like hearing this, Sharla, but you and your pals ( Julie, Jodi and Serena (nhrn)) have a wee credibility issue.
I also especially loved Item #6. The GWOPPERS, or at least some of them apparently, are NOT bad mothers. Sharla writes, "Some of the us don't even have children. " So there. Take that, you sheeple!
Would it have been possible for Sharla to create a more stupid thread? Since when are you not what you are just because you say you're not? Has Annie Louise's poignant art history lecture on pointillism taught Sharla nothing? I thought we're all supposed to step back and connect the dots.
The trouble with threads titled "Things we are called that we are not" and then inviting people to build the list is the wonderful opportunity for omission. For example, if no one pipes up and says "Hey, we're not mortally stupid", I can only conclude that GWOPPERS must be mortally stupid.
So far, the list of what they are but are not isn't very long. But once they move past the word "shribbled" and officially decide whether they are or are not shribbled, I'm sure the posts will pick up.
Who will be the brave first GWOPPER to step forward to say "We're NOT judgmental."?
Because of all the things they are or aren't, that would be the only trait that matters.
Go Evan! Go Evan! Go Evan!
In case you are all wondering, iwhyawli plans to throw all 32,032 of her DWTS votes to Evan-the-Olympian. Yes, I know, I don't feel like looking up the spelling of Evan's last name and certain GWOPPERS can't seem to cope with my spelling errors\laziness.
My reasons for voting for Evan are really quite simple.
1. The Pussy Cat Doll woman is already a professional dancer and has no business participating as a contestant, despite her many teary assertions that 'this doesn't come easy' for her. If dancing, after the umpteen years of dance lessons that were so apparent in last week's up-close-and-personal home movies, still doesn't come easy, perhaps Nicole should contemplate another career. That, or shut up. We all understand her motivation for going on the show and it didn't have anything to do with wanting to learn how to dance and\or winning the much-coveted mirror ball trophy.
2. Max is a moron. Sure, he's cute enough in the face and certainly has a very nice body. But standing next to the well-chiseled, lean mean body mass that is Chad Ochocinco, Max Chmerlooskywitz looks like the fricking pillsbury doughboy. My main man Evan also has a far more sculpted body than Max so I'm not quite sure why Max seems to thinks he's the modern day David. Max is a male bimbo.
3. I don't like the stupid diamond earring that Max wears. Reminds me of Jon.
Good luck, Evan!
My reasons for voting for Evan are really quite simple.
1. The Pussy Cat Doll woman is already a professional dancer and has no business participating as a contestant, despite her many teary assertions that 'this doesn't come easy' for her. If dancing, after the umpteen years of dance lessons that were so apparent in last week's up-close-and-personal home movies, still doesn't come easy, perhaps Nicole should contemplate another career. That, or shut up. We all understand her motivation for going on the show and it didn't have anything to do with wanting to learn how to dance and\or winning the much-coveted mirror ball trophy.
2. Max is a moron. Sure, he's cute enough in the face and certainly has a very nice body. But standing next to the well-chiseled, lean mean body mass that is Chad Ochocinco, Max Chmerlooskywitz looks like the fricking pillsbury doughboy. My main man Evan also has a far more sculpted body than Max so I'm not quite sure why Max seems to thinks he's the modern day David. Max is a male bimbo.
3. I don't like the stupid diamond earring that Max wears. Reminds me of Jon.
Good luck, Evan!
Couldn't Happen to a Nicer Guy
Well, well, well ... looks like one of my favorite passers of judgment and his Wife #2 are heading back to divorce court yet again. Third time's the charm, Matt. Hope you make it to this finish line this time. So many women, so little time, eh?
I guess what they say about karma is true.
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2010/05/report-matt-lauer-and-wife-split
If you've forgotten why I wish nothing but good things for Matt Lauer, read here.
Click here if you'd like to watch a giant jackass weigh in on someone else's life.
I guess what they say about karma is true.
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2010/05/report-matt-lauer-and-wife-split
If you've forgotten why I wish nothing but good things for Matt Lauer, read here.
Click here if you'd like to watch a giant jackass weigh in on someone else's life.
iwhyawli's Point CounterPoint on Pointillism
Is no fine art form safe from GWOP's hatchet?
First, we all much enjoyed GWOP's total misinterpretations of the Truman Show. Then ChurchMouse pops up to misconstrue Louisa May Alcott's viewpoint in "Little Women". And now, most recently, we have Sharla and 'Annie Louise' (wink wink) relying upon neoimpressionist technique as further evidence that Kate Gosselin is the world's crappiest mom.
I stumbled on this week's GWOP's main page post by 'Annie Louise' (wink wink) when I was over there copying Sharla's Mother's Day picture. Apparently, only people who took an art history class would know what pointillism is. :: a million eye rolls ::
---------------------------------------------
Kate's Behavior as Art by Annie Louise
Once again, this falls into the “why was I using any brain cells even thinking of this?” category. But something occurred to me about how people here are so criticized by the sheeple for the way we point out seemingly small things about Kate. They think we pick on her for things that don’t matter. But it’s actually a lot like pointillism (welcome back to art history class, folks.)
You know it – the style of art (Georges Seurat, etc.) in which the artist uses small dots of paint. Viewed up close, it looks like random little blobs. You step back a bit, and a whole, very cohesive picture appears. (pixels on an LCD TV work the same way to form an image.)So while we may talk about little “dots” a good deal of the time – hair extensions, a scowly photo, a cackly laugh, a sick tup on the laundry room floor, “come and get your popcorn,” a book tour away from the kids – we’re all keenly aware of the big picture those things form. Taken by themselves, I don’t think anyone would think twice about one of the “dots.” But each one fits into the big picture, and it’s a damn ugly and disturbing one.She just keeps supplying us with dot after dot to add to the picture, doesn’t she?
Thank you Annie Louise
Posted by Sharla on 05/06/2010
-----------------------------------------------------
Dear Annie Louise (wink, wink):
You ignorant slut. I know you weren't talking to me in your ... um, very provocative essay because ... um, I am not a sheeple. I wouldn't have the foggiest clue what Kate Gosselin or her kids were doing if it weren't for your ilk following her around like lost puppies. But allow me anyway, if you will, to point counterpoint your completely stupid post.
First a correction: Y'all don't 'seemingly' point out small things about Kate. There's no question about it. You DO point out small things about Kate. You all do it every day, all day.
And yes, we gwopwoppers totally get that you do it to "paint" a picture of Kate -- a very unflattering one. We also get that you're 100% physically and psychologically incapable of painting your picture using any sort of positive strokes and bright colors.
I won't speak for other gwopwoppers, but what strikes *ME* as so completely oddball about you and your [holds nose]kind[hold nose] is that you're bothering to paint a picture at all--- even if it were by some miracle a totally positive picture.
I'm not sure I can't state this any more clearly than I've already tried to state a hundred mission times, but normal people do not sit around and scrutinize, analzye and judge every last detail of another person's life. Normal people worry only about their own lives, their own happiness and their own love offerings.
In the spectrum of life, people can be classified by three personality types: fans, normal people and psychos. I don't "get" fandom myself. Sure, there are lots of people, restaurants, books, songs, ideas, etc. that I admire but aside from the occassional rant on this here gwopwop blog -- the only way any celebrity will ever know how I feel about them is if THEY walk up to ME on the street and ask me. Fans, for whatever reason feel its necessary to go the extra mile and show their appreciation. All in all, fandom is apparently fun for the fans, seems completely harmless and is perhaps flattering, rewarding or motivating to the celebrity. Normal people, like me, just quietly buy their stuff, or not, and move on with life. Psychos try to inflict personal harm and injury on the object of their affection.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: YOU GWOPPERS ARE PSYCHOTIC!
Seurat's magnificent paintings represent his scientific experiments with color. He wasn't using dots to communicate the solution for world harmony in secret code. If he knew that highly paid professional sots like 'Anna Louise; (wink, wink) would one day misrepresent the significance of his work and color discoveries as a vehicle for crucifying someone, he probably would have taken a blow torch to A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grand Jatte and never painted again.
If Anna Louise (wink, wink) actually did take an art history course, I'm betting she flunked it.
First, we all much enjoyed GWOP's total misinterpretations of the Truman Show. Then ChurchMouse pops up to misconstrue Louisa May Alcott's viewpoint in "Little Women". And now, most recently, we have Sharla and 'Annie Louise' (wink wink) relying upon neoimpressionist technique as further evidence that Kate Gosselin is the world's crappiest mom.
I stumbled on this week's GWOP's main page post by 'Annie Louise' (wink wink) when I was over there copying Sharla's Mother's Day picture. Apparently, only people who took an art history class would know what pointillism is. :: a million eye rolls ::
---------------------------------------------
Kate's Behavior as Art by Annie Louise
Once again, this falls into the “why was I using any brain cells even thinking of this?” category. But something occurred to me about how people here are so criticized by the sheeple for the way we point out seemingly small things about Kate. They think we pick on her for things that don’t matter. But it’s actually a lot like pointillism (welcome back to art history class, folks.)
You know it – the style of art (Georges Seurat, etc.) in which the artist uses small dots of paint. Viewed up close, it looks like random little blobs. You step back a bit, and a whole, very cohesive picture appears. (pixels on an LCD TV work the same way to form an image.)So while we may talk about little “dots” a good deal of the time – hair extensions, a scowly photo, a cackly laugh, a sick tup on the laundry room floor, “come and get your popcorn,” a book tour away from the kids – we’re all keenly aware of the big picture those things form. Taken by themselves, I don’t think anyone would think twice about one of the “dots.” But each one fits into the big picture, and it’s a damn ugly and disturbing one.She just keeps supplying us with dot after dot to add to the picture, doesn’t she?
Thank you Annie Louise
Posted by Sharla on 05/06/2010
-----------------------------------------------------
Dear Annie Louise (wink, wink):
You ignorant slut. I know you weren't talking to me in your ... um, very provocative essay because ... um, I am not a sheeple. I wouldn't have the foggiest clue what Kate Gosselin or her kids were doing if it weren't for your ilk following her around like lost puppies. But allow me anyway, if you will, to point counterpoint your completely stupid post.
First a correction: Y'all don't 'seemingly' point out small things about Kate. There's no question about it. You DO point out small things about Kate. You all do it every day, all day.
And yes, we gwopwoppers totally get that you do it to "paint" a picture of Kate -- a very unflattering one. We also get that you're 100% physically and psychologically incapable of painting your picture using any sort of positive strokes and bright colors.
I won't speak for other gwopwoppers, but what strikes *ME* as so completely oddball about you and your [holds nose]kind[hold nose] is that you're bothering to paint a picture at all--- even if it were by some miracle a totally positive picture.
I'm not sure I can't state this any more clearly than I've already tried to state a hundred mission times, but normal people do not sit around and scrutinize, analzye and judge every last detail of another person's life. Normal people worry only about their own lives, their own happiness and their own love offerings.
In the spectrum of life, people can be classified by three personality types: fans, normal people and psychos. I don't "get" fandom myself. Sure, there are lots of people, restaurants, books, songs, ideas, etc. that I admire but aside from the occassional rant on this here gwopwop blog -- the only way any celebrity will ever know how I feel about them is if THEY walk up to ME on the street and ask me. Fans, for whatever reason feel its necessary to go the extra mile and show their appreciation. All in all, fandom is apparently fun for the fans, seems completely harmless and is perhaps flattering, rewarding or motivating to the celebrity. Normal people, like me, just quietly buy their stuff, or not, and move on with life. Psychos try to inflict personal harm and injury on the object of their affection.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: YOU GWOPPERS ARE PSYCHOTIC!
Seurat's magnificent paintings represent his scientific experiments with color. He wasn't using dots to communicate the solution for world harmony in secret code. If he knew that highly paid professional sots like 'Anna Louise; (wink, wink) would one day misrepresent the significance of his work and color discoveries as a vehicle for crucifying someone, he probably would have taken a blow torch to A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grand Jatte and never painted again.
If Anna Louise (wink, wink) actually did take an art history course, I'm betting she flunked it.
Happy Mother's Day to all the Moms
Here's a happy happy Mother's Day to all you moms out there, excluding GWOP moms, Jodi, Julie, and Gloria Allred.To all you GWOP moms, Jodi, Julie and Gloria, I hope not a day goes by without someone telling you what a crappy mom you are. I hope that someone just like you will have the good sense and fortitude to lobby hard for the removal of your kids from your homes as soon as humanely possible. Finally, I wish complete and total financial hardship for you and a shortage of low-heeled, sensible shoes. I'll be at the spa and I damn well not see any of you there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
