Continue reading "You can run but you can't hide, Anne Burger" »
This comment from Rosebud struck me as ominous:
Where is OMG, anyway. There hasn't been a peep from him for a day or two. And our porky friend has been quiet, too.
I, too, had been wondering. Then TerrierMom made this comment that really made me feel bad: ...
Recently someone posted a lengthy but well-reasoned negative comment about a restaurant. And then, to make sure other potential customers didn't miss it, he/she posted the same comment under a couple of other entries where the restaurant had been mentioned.
I "published" all three comments because I thought it was kind of a clever way to get his/her points across.
I guess he/she was pleased with his/her success, because the next thing I know, the comment had been posted under two more entries. At that point, it began to feel like spam. I killed out all but the first one.
The moral of this story, class?
As Dining@Large's first year draws to a close, I have some advice for new readers who want to post comments. Choose a user name carefully. Going back to look at the first comments, I see that people used names like Catherine and Bill and Kate, and are probably bitterly regretting it now -- except for HelloWorld who had this insightful observation under a post on peppermint ice cream:
Peace people We love you
But I digress. My point is, regular contributors have learned that it's good to have a user name that differentiates them from other posters, such as Robert of Cross Keys, Piano Rob, Robert the Single One, and so on. Some have decided they simply wanted to spread their wings a bit after a few months and have taken on new personae...
Maybe this will work. Here's how you create a link in a comment:
<a xhref="the URL here" rel="nofollow">the link here</a>.
Actually it doesn't work because the crack blogware makes an unnecessary "x" appear before the "h" in an entry post, and it shouldn't be there. Maybe one of our Web Editors will explain why. So if you use it, take the x out first.
If you need to find this post later, just click on the category "Commenting" to the right.
Dahlink got an error message yesterday when she hadn't posted since early morning that said:
Continue reading "Too many comments have been submitted from you" »
I just got this e-mail from a reader, and I thought it might be time to answer some of these questions again so we can suck even more people into wasting even more hours posting on the blog:
I want to thank everyone for the funny and very nice comments posted under What You Missed such as:
Why do you want me to downgrade to only checking 3 or 4 times a day?
Posted by: Hal Laurent | January 31, 2008 8:58
While I wasn't fishing for compliments (the post was aimed at the people who tell me they mean to check my blog but they forget to), I was more than happy to get them. Thanks again.
Anyway, I had been planning to post my favorite comments of 2008 so far at the end of January, but at the very end (including under that post) there were too many, so I'll just list the ones I had collected before then:
I was hoping the foie gras discussion would die a natural death, but apparently that's not going to happen. I think both sides have said about all there is to say about their positions, and now it's devolved into name calling. I'm invoking Rule No. 2 here and declaring a moratorium on the whole subject.
Let's move on. If you're still feeling cranky and want to yell at someone, you can tell me how WRONG, WRONG, WRONG I am in my choice of diners.
I've noticed lately that more people whose names haven't appeared before have been taking part in discussions, and that's great. If you happen to be new readers, I want to point out a feature of the blog that you may not have noticed.
On the right of the main page under Categories and Recent Posts is an update of Most Recent Comments. If I've been lazy about posting a new entry, like today, some of the commenters have probably picked up the slack. I love that.
It's not literally the most recent comments, but the most recent comments under five different subjects, so there might actually be several new comments under the entry you're interested in. It's particularly helpful when someone has gone back and posted under an old subject, as Clark did under Top Ten Cheap Eats.
This is very exciting: Owl Meat Jerky has just posted the 3,000th comment on Dining@Large:
Screaming Yello Zonkers
Remember the great Quisp versus Quake war of the early 70s? It all turned ugly when they showed graphic photos of Quisp's POW camps.
As you may remember, Hal Laurent was installed in the Commenting Hall of Fame last September for being our 1,000 commentor with the immortal words: ...
Continue reading "Congratulations! More balloons! Party hats!" »
Here's my problem with the heated discussion going on under Top Ten Restaurants Open on Christmas Day. It's more fun for me if there's a discussion going on as opposed to just my saying something and someone else reacting to it. And I'm not in the business of censorship. On the other hand, I want everyone who participates to enjoy the discussion, and I'm guessing neither side in the Working on Christmas debate is enjoying it anymore.
But aside from that, it's starting to get personal. And you all know the Rules, specifically Rule No. 2. I don't want anyone to feel he or she is going to get attacked for speaking up.
And I thought this would be the most boring Top Ten of the year. Oh well, at least it didn't devolve into a fight over crab cakes.
I just received an insightful e-mail from a reader about my entry Iconic Figures of the Baltimore Restaurant Scene, and I asked if he/she would post it under the entry as part of the ongoing conversation.
Here's what he/she wrote back: ...
