|
|
Wednesday, October 1st, 2003
|
3:00p - Pretty good year
Back in 2000 I determined never to write a weblog because I had nothing to say. (Quiet at the back there.) What changed was seeing the example set by ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) jiggery_pokery - not only jiggery and pokery, but quirkery and geekery. (He has some interesting thoughts today about LiveJournal and LiveJournals.)
In twelve months, LiveJournal has easily provided $10 of enjoyment. Selection is iniquitous, but internetsdairy, mauralabingi and verlaine are consistently good reads, while huskyteer's journal complements mine from day to day. I'd like to meet more of you (but will not actually do anything to effect this).
LiveJournal does with ease everything rival blogging services do with pain, especially seamless RSS integration. What it lacks is Movable Type's classification; memories are clunky in comparison. So I've done a manual count of the subjects of 280 posts to give you fair warning of what to expect in the next twelve months:
music: 50 sex: 9
cinema: 29 Iraq: 8
libraries: 25 religion: 8
books: 20 Harry Potter: 7
politics: 17 typography: 6
trains: 15 theatre: 6
language: 15 maths: 4
LiveJournal: 11 drugs: 3
art: 11 crosswords: 3
maps: 9 Philip Larkin: 3
No need for a category labelled 'funny'. Sorry.
(3 comments |comment on this)
|
8:15p - Be prepared
At Charing Cross this evening there was a call for 'Inspector Sands', the do-not-be-alarmed code for a reported fire. It was followed by two-and-a-half do-be-alarmed requests for us to leave the station. Not even the staff paid attention, probably because few of us could hear the announcement. London Prepared have their work cut out.
(1 comment |comment on this)
|
10:45p - Maps (wait, they don't love you like I love you)
There seemed to be no LiveJournal community devoted to maps. So I present ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif) cartographica. Join!
Even if you don't, you can help by coming up with interests that will snag mapfans - the closer to unique, the better. Have a look at the userinfo for linguists for an idea of the hardcore jargon I'm after.
(8 comments |comment on this)
|
|
|
|