Saturday, June 2, 2012

The Maverick Conservative Reaches Landmark: Same Audience as CNN, MSNBC and Yahoo

Hacker Boy (hacking into this disgraceful blog again, wile still vehemently denying Skip's contention that I am Piers Morgan, or so otehr hacker trained in a Ruper Murdoch organization): "Skip, you are pitiful.  Are you really going to brag about now havviong ten followers. You have previusly said that yuoir older daughter has at tleast 250 friends on Facebook, and there ae people out there on Twitter who have tens of thousands, or even hundeds of  thousands, of followers.  Are yu yreally going to brag aobut having reached TEN followers?  Tell me you aren't.  Please."

Skip:  "one of my main pleasures in life is doing things to make Hacker Boy unhappy. And I am morrally certain he IS Piers Morgan: perhaps the worst evening cable TV host of all time (despite the truly stiff competitioin from current and previous hossts at CNN and MSNBC)."

That is exactly what I am going to do:  BRAG about having reached teh audience level of CNN, MSNBC and Yahoo: TEN "followers".  I HAVE to do this immediately, because who knows how long I will hold this massive audience.  My typos keep getting worse, and I offend almost everyone at one time or anothe.  I don't THINK that I have ANY "followers" who are WOMEN.  I can't understand why not.  (lol).  As it is, two of the 10 are probably two of my four brothers (since Google changed the format, I can't even seem to get the most minimal information as to whom my "followers" are). Note, however, who are NOT my "followers". My two daughters are not.  None of my multiple nieces and nephews (to my knowledge) are "followers".  My only female friend , Sylvia, is NOT a "follower", and absolutely refuses to read tis blog.  She foams at the mouth if I even MENTIN this blog. As a hermit, I have no real friends.  Thus, whatever "followers" I have, I got the HARD WAY (totally based on what appears on the blog).  Now it is true that I have this suspicion that 1-3 of the "followers" have either died, or just forgotten they are "followers" (inadvertently not having removed heir names).  And how many of the "followers" actually fight through the obstacles and READ (or try to) even some of the entire articles? 

Still, this is thhe high water mark for this blog (itiful as that may be), i fyou discount the brief time on the MSNBC site, Newsvine, when I briefly had some articles with 50 to a hundred COMMENTS.  I appreciate my "followers", who have courage enough to "register" as my "followers" (whether they actually rfead the articles, or ae able to read them, or not).  Think of how LUCKY Mitt Romney is.  There is this game that the media plays--a deceitfuly, hypocritical game--hwere ONLY GOP candidates are asked to DISOWN individual supporters, because those suppporters have said something "outrageous".  Thus, Mitt Romney is asked, over and over again, how he can ACCEPT the support of Donald Trump, when Trump still refuses to "accept" taht Barack Obama was born in the United States. Meanwhile, Bill Maher calsl women c---s, and MILITANTLY refuses to accept that JESUS CHRIST was born at all, and Brack Obama is not asked to REPUDIATE Bill Mahe (or even asked whether Barack Obama agrees with BillMaher that Obama is really a "secular humanist", rather than a true Christian). 

Think of it.  If I supported Mitt Romney, some media person might QUOTE (lol) from this blog, and ask Romney whether he doesn't wish to REUDIATE The Maveric Conservative, and ask for my arrest, rather than levave open the idea that he is "accepting" such an evil supporter.  As it is, however, Romney is saved from this problem.  The Maverick Conservative has REPUDIATED ROMNEY, and has done so this entire election season. If you are "conspiracy minded", you might think this is a devious plot on my part to support Romney without leaving him open to being "tarred" with statements from this blog.  You "followers, of course, know that I am dead seriuious about refusing to support Romney, as I refused to support McCain.  McCain, by the way, was ANXIOUS to ATTCK his own supporters at every opportunity, not even waiting (most of the time) for the media to aks him to do so.  Romney, at least, is SMARTER THAN MCCAIN (damning Romney with faint praise).  Romney has not taken the "biat" to adopt the MEDIA positoin that he must either support EVERYTHING any supporter says, or DAMN that supporter.  McCain basically accepted that media hypocirsy/tacttic.  Rpmney, for example, has REFUSED to totally repudiate Trump, simply because Trump retains his kooky position on Obama's birth.  Good for Romney.  If only Romney wuld go further and ATTACK the media for not confronting OBAMA wiht similar type questins (for example, abut Bill Maher, Michael Moore, or many other far left LOONS).

Oh, I DO think I now have as many REGULAR "followers" as CNN, MSNBC and Yahoo.  They might cite "ratings" to try to show that they actually have more than an audience of ten.  But how many of those peole NOMINALLY watching CNN and MSNBC are actaually paying any attention, or are there for any otehr reason than anti-medai material (why I surf the people, in a limmited way).   Their nominal "audience" is bad enough . There real audience is MINISCULE. 

Then ther is Yahoo.  Some have argued that this blog is NOT relssponsible for the problems of Yahoo.  Some of you may not follow the stock market, or corporate deveopments. If you do follow those things, however, you know that Yahoo is in DEEP trub le: trouble that has become deeper since this bblog started calling for a boycott.  Yaho cannot keep a CEO.  They were so DESPERATE to hire the last on that they did not even bother to worry about whether he had LIED on his resume. For several YEARS, Yahoo has been looing for a PARTNER (maybe even someone to merge with, after blowing their chance to try to merge with Microsoft).  As far as we now know, no one is now INTERESTED in merging with Yahoo.  It is the old principle of RATS and a "sinking ship".  In this case, the peole of Yahoo ARE RATS.  But Yahoo is also a sining ship, and many of the people at Yahoo are having trouble getting off before going down with it. 

Only ten folloewrs (this blog).  But influence far beynd lthat.  And I could always start a RECRUITING DRIVE among the members of my own family.  No. My MOTHER is not a "follower" either.  At almost 90, she takes the position that she hears to much from me already, without trying to mess up her computer lookin gfor thi sblgo. 

P.S.  No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).  Nope.  As long as I am not getting paid, this is probably not ging to improve.  That is why I had to HURRY with this article, while I still had the chance to "BRAG", TRUTAHFULLY (if pitifully).  As it is, you may suspect that I adopted an assumed name to get that tenth "foolower".  Not ture.  My daugher, by the way, alfthogh not reading this blog, insists that she RECOMMENDED that all of lhere "friends" check out this blog.  I don't know whether she was telling the truth, as I do not go on Facebook. But you can see that it did not result in any "surge" of followers (tis was six months or more ago). Now my daughter does live in Boston, which might have something to do with it.  I would hate to think that too many people in Boston really LIKED this blog.  I actaully like Boston, as a city, but the people there are NOT SAANE (in the sense that people are sane in Texas). My other daughter, who has never "recommended" my blog, lives in New York City.  And they are both FEMINISTS (the SHAME of my life, until the sexism of the LEFT forced me to come out of the closet as a feminist myself).  Where did I go wrong, as a parent?  I don't know . The easiest thing is to blame it on my ex-wife--their mother--unfair as that proably is. 

No comments: