Is it just me, or does "Teemings" really suck ass?

The BBQ Pit
1

Just got done reading through “Teemings”. Well, tried to.

The “Tastes Like Chicken” article was actually clever, but the rest of it was overblown pseudo-intellectual drivel.

Meanwhile, I submitted a brilliant, well researched piece on why I think drunk dirving laws are out of control and it got rejected. Sadly, my piece was about . .I dont know . .100 times more intelligent than any of the boring slop posted in this magazine.

Oh well, typical of the mentality on the SDMB. Obviously the requirements for being in Temmings in

  1. Be a total bore with no friends
  2. Be buddies with the SDMB staff.

Frankly, this website is teeming all right. Teeming with dull bullshit.

By the way, when you are done reading everone’s crappy posts here, feel free to check out some real reaidng at the currently dormant:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/1685/

2

What??!! It’s gotta just be you.

No offense.

3

Boy…somebody needs a nap.

Can we say “sore loser?” How ‘bout “big, whiny crybaby?” Or maybe, "quit that cryin’ or I’ll give you somethin’ to cry about."

Perhaps you didn’t get “rejected.” Perhaps your submission was slated for another issue. Have you pulled your head out of your ass long enough to think about the fact that David and Euty received shitloads of submissions and couldn’t possibly use ALL of them for the first issue?

Putz.

4

theuglytruth said:

Sour grapes, anyone?

You can always post your article on the board, you know. Then we can all decide how intelligent it is. You’d have to put up with crappy posts about it, but such is life.

5

Yes, Mr. Truth, I agree. Your dissertation on whether the Carebears or the Smurfs would win in a fight was truly one of the top five essays of the past millenia.

6

Especially since everyone knows that the GoBots would kick all their collective asses.

7

theuglytruth said:

I hate to break it to you, but the reason your article was rejected was that it was precisely not “a brilliant, well researched piece.” In reading it, I found so many flaws in the logic and background that I simply could not agree to have it appear in Teemings.

But, hey, nothing’s preventing you from posting it in, say, Great Debates. I’m sure the Teeming Millions would love to take a shot at ripping it apart.

Normally, of course, I would never have said anything about your article. We rejected it, and several others, for various reasons. Everybody got the same e-mail, that their articles did not fit in to our view of what Teemings would be. (I hope anybody else who may have had an article rejected doesn’t assume this means I’m equating your article to the one under discussion here, because I’m not – as I said, there were many reasons.) But you chose to take your whine public, and that is why I am responding here.

8

Hey great link!

Anything in all caps, bold, italics, w/ red print and underlined must be true!

9

David,

I don’t want to appear like I am supporting the OP at all, however I did have one comment about “Teemings”.

I just wished there was more material in there. I liked what was there, but was expecting many more articles than there were, since I was expecting you guys would have been buried under a flood of submissions.

Was the short length due to a lack of submissions, lack of good or relevant submissions, or lack of time and effort available to create the site and edit? (all of which are perfectly understandable) Or was it a creative choice, to make the first issue have just a few choice articles as a trial balloon?

Una (who was hoping to see a recipe article, based on some of the great ones she’s got from MPSIMS lately…)

10

Are you fucking shitting me!?!?

Let’s examine this paragon of website creation here:

“Top News Website Links” - dead link.

“Lowes Should have Discounted that Hammer” - dead link.

“Wacky Californians Declare Town Hate-Free Zone” - dead

“Brand-new Moreland Report - The Truth About JFK JR” - dead (oh my, now there’s an unintentional pun…)

“Xena - Warrior Reporter” - dead

“Big Brother is Watching You” - dead

“Libertarian Letterbombs” - dead

“Liberty Library” - dead

Oh yes, and my favorite:

“A Great Meaningful Link for All to See” - bad URL.

Yes, all in all, I count only 5 working links including the “Weather Channel” and “Libertarian Party” ones. That’s, uh, crap-tacular.

The three things that you do have working I would place in the “bizarre rant” category. But that’s just IMO.

Even the freaking page view counter doesn’t work. How sad.

You advertise “Unrelenting…Unrivaled…Uncensored”.

How about adding “Unfinished…Uninteresting…Unimportant”?

How can you throw stones at “Teemings” and give this shambling atrocity as a comparison? My Goddess! Please don’t take this personally though. I would never have even commented so rudely about your “site”, except that you dare to throw it out into the light of day to squirm on the sidewalk as a comparison to “Teemings”.

11

It’s a little of both. Firstly, David does pretty much all of the hands-on editorial chores, so he has to make time to go through each article with a fine tooth comb (even my own articles); a rather time consuming process for someone who’s doing this for free. We did get quite a few submissions, and still have more coming in, but these were the ones that we had ready for our target date of October 1st. The e-mail that we do back and forth does take some time off as well as neither of us spend 24/7 online.

We also spend time going to the authors and getting biographical info up, getting the HTML written and making sure everything works correctly (at least from our end) before we go live with the issue. So, like I said, the whole process is fairly time-consuming for a “spare-time” project.

And as far as recipes go, did you read “Tastes Like Chicken?” Ummm … now there’s good eatin’!

12

Well, all I know is that I spent three weeks penning a delicate, heartfelt love sonnet, composed in the style of Herrick, in honor of Anthracite.

I got it back in the mail four days later with markings all over it in David B’s handwriting, punctuation and meter corrections (some of which I might have challenged!), and what looked suspiciously like chocolate smears, plus a note from Eutychus55 calling me a “sissypants.”

13

Damn … I could have sworn I sent the “sissypants” letter to Dan.

14

Just in case you haven’t seen the slim volume, Teemings is located here. With my economist’s hat on, let me say that a slim initial volume is an indication of an intention to produce a high-quality publication rather than a vanity publication. :wink:

Anth you are evil. But be grateful the site is dormant - it’s probably an improvement.

To theuglytruth: you claim your piece was brilliant and well-researched. Fair enough. But your two necessary conditions
for publication in Teemings, viz:

are straightforwardly incompatible. Or were you trying to make a point about inconsistency in drink “dirving” laws with this remark? Do tell, o wise one (unless you feel this whole thread is “out of control” in which case feel free to wallow in whatever self-righteous way you see fit).

picmr

15

Thanks for taking the bait, everyone! LOL

16

Yet another example of “when you’re shown to be wrong, pretend you were just kidding.”

17

It’s good to see that Cecil is getting the moderators he paid for, David! Hope the cheap coffee mug is worth all the effort!

18

Thanks for the support. Maybe you should get out of your coffin and take the time to read that the site has not been updated in a long, long time. See, unlike you computer geeks, I have a life and don’t have time to update websites.

19

See, I was going to be nice, Euck, and let this thread die off in a nice way, but now you turned me into a evil, resentful troll.

Everyone point and laugh at the Moderator!

20

Then why make a point of directing us to it?

Nice to see you take criticism well :rolleyes:

It will be interesting to see how you deal with the slagging you are going to get if this thread continues.

Have a good day.