November 11, 2005

What do you think I'm not talking about?

Yesterday, in the comments to my post on "The Apprentice," one of my regular commenters raised -- in three long comments -- a subject he thought I should be addressing. That brought these sensible remarks from another reader:
[P]erhaps you're not familiar with the concept, but there's this thing called "etiquette". The way it works is, this is Ann's blog, and she writes about what she wants to write about. So that there is some organization, she might choose to - say - talk about a silly TV show in one thread, and talk about Supreme Court nominations and the law in another. This makes it easy for the rest of us to be able to read the things we like to read, while skipping the rest.

If you have a discussion topic you'd like to propose to Ann, there's this other thing called "e-mail" that you can use. It's handy - it lets you have a private conversation without the rest of the world listening in. For example, you could suggest that she write about something that you'd like her to write about.

I suppose it is possible that you are acquainted with both of these concepts, and are simply ignoring them because you have something which you feel is so important that it must reach the Internet at once. In that case, there is an admirably simple solution: you can get yourself what is called a "blog", and write about whatever topics you wish, and people who share your interests or who find your writing interesting may join you there.

It's really a very lovely set of concepts.
He's right! But it occurs to me that some readers don't want to reveal their email addresses to me, and I don't mind taking requests, though you can't expect me to address every topic. I can't explain every point of law you want explained, and there are some topics where I don't see myself adding any value. That doesn't mean I don't think they're important. It's an attitude I'm most likely to take about things that are especially important.

Anyway, I thought it might be a good idea to put up a post where it is on-topic to raise new topics. What do you wish I would blog about or blog more about -- or podcast about?

IN THE COMMENTS: My favorite suggestion so far is from SaysMeow:
I'm hoping for a compendium post on "The Althouse Man"--you keep tantalizing us with tidbits but don't give us the full-scale doodle. So far we've learned that:

He joyfully dons his Andy Warhol wig--
Yet he does not look like a Stooge (strange, I thought Moe's haircut was quite a lot like Andy's)--
His facial hair, if any, does NOT resemble the Creepy Guy from "Joy of Sex"--
He doesn't cry in public--
He does not wear shorts, no never--
He's pro-Hadley, anti-Baxendale...or is it the other way around?

But there's so much more we want to know!
Maybe all you readers could also help me out by reminding me of various "Althouse man" elements from bygone posts.

36 comments:

Icepick said...

Your damn banner quotes!

...

That's just a joke!

Troy said...

How about evolution AND ID. They don't have to be mutually exlusive.

Ann wrote: "But it occurs to me that some readers don't want to reveal their email addresses to me...."

For the record to other readers... I've e-mailed Ann 2 or 3 times and it's safe. No stalking, no automatic forwards of jokes, prayers, or recipes and no spam.

Ron said...

Honestly, Ann, I don't know if I want to suggest any topics, ideas, etc. I like knowing that I'm reading what you are interested in, even if you write about specific topics where I have no interest. When I see one of those topics, I move on, or sometimes take a stab at it, on the principle that someone whose writing I like and respect is choosing to discuss something I, up to this point, have had no interest in. You get me into threads where normally My Eyes Would Glaze Over, and what greater sign of respect can I show?

Ron said...

Wait, I correct myself slightly. More acorn bombardment during the podcasts would be nice...

Pete said...

Troy said...

". . .I've e-mailed Ann 2 or 3 times and it's safe. . . .No recipes . . ."

Mmmm. Ann Althouse recipes.

stoqboy said...

I like the "best of" lists that you link to. Maybe you can do some lists of your own like best squirrel neutralizers, or 2 best cars I ever owned. That reminds me, the best car I ever owned was a Toyota Celica, and the worst car I ever owned was a Toyota Camry, but my favorite car was a 1964 Rambler Ambassador.

Adam said...

Congressional efforts to bring Internet political activity under the McCain-Feingold rules?

David A. Carlson said...

MADISON!

For all of us who have ended up someplace else.

And how about some pictures of Old Music Hall and the URPL folks - after all, Land Use Planners are folks who want to practice law without the degree.

Laura Reynolds said...

Please no ID vs evolution.

I'd like Ann to offer a POV on U2. I don't recall there being a debate on that topic.

I like the Apprentice and Amidol (the show not the drug- heh) posts.

If it turned out to be unwise for Ann to see my email address (which she has many times), my faith in humanity would suffer a great deal. Not kidding.

SippicanCottage said...

Boy Scout Walk yourself over to that keyboard right now, young lady, and get busy:

Squirrels. 24/7

Ruth Anne Adams said...

More drawings.
More bickering with RLC.
More news about the sons.
More photo-blogging of dinners with Nina.
More DVD reviews [since you don't see many movies in theaters]

Ruth Anne Adams said...

One more thing: How to celebrate/commemmorate the 3 millionth hit on the blog. Quit being modest. You're reaching a goal you set. How is that any diffent than 1200 words by 3 p.m.?

Is there a counter on the podcast? We'll celebrate that, too!

Troy said...

I like the movie and music postings.

Someone earlier said (and I'm paraphrasing) that whatever interests you interests us -- broadly speaking that's true.

Write whatever the hell you want to write about and we'll keep coming around -- skipping those things we're not interested in and commenting on those we are and lurking about on those we don't know enough about to commewnt on.

Your eclecticism is one of your main draws.

Gordon Freece said...

How about girlie pictures?

Faithful Progressive said...

I would like to see how you rationalize Judge Alito's backing away from a written promise to Congress, as set forth in the following quote:

"Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, including the procedure you will follow in determining these areas of concern. Identify the categories of litigation and financial arrangements that are likely to present potential conflicts-of-interest during your initial service in the position to which you have been nominated.

I do not believe that conflicts of interest relating to my financial interests are likely to arise. I would, however, disqualify myself from any cases involving the Vanguard companies, the brokerage firm of Smith Barney, or the First Federal Savings & Loan of Rochester, New York.

I would disqualify myself from any case involving my sister's law firm, Carpenter, Bennett & Morrissey, of Newark, New Jersey..."

I would also like to see you address why we should believe anything he says to Congress during his confirmation hearing--if he did not do what he said he was going to do last time around.

SaysMeow said...

I'm hoping for a compendium post on "The Althouse Man"--you keep tantalizing us with tidbits but don't give us the full-scale doodle. So far we've learned that:

He joyfully dons his Andy Warhol wig--
Yet he does not look like a Stooge (strange, I thought Moe's haircut was quite a lot like Andy's)--
His facial hair, if any, does NOT resemble the Creepy Guy from "Joy of Sex"--
He doesn't cry in public--
He does not wear shorts, no never--
He's pro-Hadley, anti-Baxendale...or is it the other way around?

But there's so much more we want to know!

Robert said...

Ann Althouse called my comment "sensible".

Immortality.

Gordon Freece said...

Faithful Progressive's on the right track up there. Some more questions:

Please explain how you rationalize the fact that you are always wrong.

Why doesn't it bother you to be wrong all the time?

Why do you not admit that you are a war criminal? Repeating the denial simply proves that you are in denial about your denial itself; please explain how you rationalize this meta-denial.

Why are you still beating your wife? Give three examples.

Ann Althouse said...

Eddie: That was cosmic green.

EnidV said...

I agree with Gerry - Tivo blog "House", I think THE best medical shows ever.

I also agree with others that say blog what you want, we'll read or pass over. I love the diversity in your posts, and I always seem to learn something.

Keep up the good work.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Althouse man: --never picnics
--can install screens/storm windowns with little effort
--probably good with the NYTimes crossword puzzle
--won't eat cold eggs [unless you pay him]
--loves coffee
--loves art
--is not under-educated
--is a "he" [is that heteronormative?]
--drives a great car, but not too great
--would never leave a pregnant woman in a van full of smoking Episcopalians

Mom said...

Althouse Man --
-- is not alarmed by squirrels
-- can sleep through hails of acorns

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Althouse man:--strong on foreign affairs [and brush-clearing]
--smart like Russ Feingold
--is a boomer, but doesn't always think the world revolves around him
--doesn't have bumper stickers on his oh-so-fine vehicle
--appreciates obscure posts and Necco wafers

knox said...

Some guy commented a while back about how attractive you look in your photo up top... he's paying VERY CLOSE attention to this thread!

Ron said...

Ann, I think most the commenters in this thread are a'fixin' to git you hitched again!

Is there a 'Yenta' HTML tag?

Ann Althouse said...

Ron: I thought the concept of the "Althouse Man" was something like the "Gibson Girl," not a personal match for me (a subject I actually never write about).

knox said...

"I thought the concept of the "Althouse Man" was something like the "Gibson Girl," not a personal match for me (a subject I actually never write about)"

indulge us (hee!)

Ron said...

Ann: You may perceive the Althouse Man as being like the Gibson Girl, but I don't think that's the tenor of the commenters! I could be reading this wrong of course, but knoxgirl's (hee!) may be giving the game away! A world full of busybodies!

Or perhaps both are true?

Just guessing!

XWL said...

because I'm greedy, and an admirer of Letterman, here's my top ten topics which I think Prof. Althouse hasn't talked about but should:

10. Terrell Owens (seriously, should he have been essentially fired for stupidity?)

9. What is the female equivalent of The Three Stooges (what comics/actors do women find hilarious that leave men cold?)

8. The size of Simon Cowell's head (you've AI blogged, but avoided this important topic)

7. Lesbian Cheerleaders!!!!!!!!!

6. Your feelings about Dr. Mitsugu Shuga's claim that you can type a woman's personality by her breast size and shape

5. Which fictional character would make a great president?

4. Term limits for newspaper columnist, pro or con?

3. Squirrels; Furry terrorists, suburban plague carriers, or tools of a secret cabal of nefarious no-good doers out to disrupt the good Professor's sleep and peace of mind?

2. Cotton Candy

1. Stake your claim and mine the golden nuggets of insight while fighting off claim jumpers regarding your position on the extended use of outdated metaphors.

XWL said...

adendum to the above list:

(replace No. 2, cotton candy with the following)

2. After this week's South Park, it's clear that Cartman will one day be President and his politics could not matter less to him, should he govern as a Liberal, Moderate, or Conservative?

(now that I think about it, I do want to know your opinion on cotton candy, so ignore the lesbian cheerleaders instead, they are getting plenty of coverage anyway)

Ann Althouse said...

Hey, I forgot to watch "South Park" this week!

I'm really glad this comments thread isn't loaded with heavy political topics! I like the affirmation about my method, which is: whatever catches my attention.

Unknown said...

Keep on keeping on.

Visiting here is like hanging out with the regulars at the local coffee shop or having My Dinner with Andre.

Finn Alexander Kristiansen said...

I like the person above who wanted discussion of lesbian cheerleaders. That is a topic that touches the very fabric of American society and stability.

Or, what is it with the Coors marketing department and the usage of sexy twins?

Aren't they really endorsing incest? After all, you put attractive women in ads to make guys think about sex, and if you put two women in the advert, the guy is thinking about a threesome, and put two women who are twins, well...? Hello? What is that?

And why twins? Is implied sex with twins somehow okay, but normal sisters not? Does looking identical mean it's the same person and not really incest?

What's up with that Ann? And do women see the ads the same way, and do they worry about men trying to get them into bed with sexy relatives?

That's what Ann should talk about. That, and, what is the cutest or best corporate mascot or character(like the Pillsbury doughboy or the miniature Chuck Wagon). Or what commercials moved you over the years.

Troy said...

Althouse Man... Is that like Piltdown Man (except real and not a hoax)? sounds like someone they'll dig up in 50,000 years next to a dead squirrel in the glacier (Sciurus Madisonius).

And you should talk about Mr. Sulu coming out. I'm sure we can never get too much of gay Star Trek.

Lesbian cheerleaders might be fun -- unless you're waiting to use the bathroom in a Tampa, FLA bar.

XWL said...

After googling "anti squirrel" it's clear that you aren't doing enough squirrel blogging as you aren't even in the top ten.

This site was first.
And this site was next.

Ann Althouse said...

Troy: An old guy coming out in this day and age? Too lame to talk about!