April 15, 1997
Living is a form of not being sure, not knowing what, next, or how. The moment you know how, you begin to die a little. The artist never entirely knows, we just guess. We may be wrong, but we take leap after leap in the dark.
I'm having major qualms about moving. I hate going to a new place where I don't know anyone and having to start all over again. New state, new city, new house, new job, new life. Joy. Notice I didn't mention friends? Guess that's because we don't have any now, so I guess any future ones couldn't be termed as "new" could they? Well, maybe. We're introverts; homebodies. Our old group of friends are the dope smokers, the wild crowd, and we just don't do that anymore. I have found myself becoming more and more reclusive since I lost my job, and simply don't cultivate friendships the way I should. I did call my one very good friend last week; who invited me to call her back this week so we could meet for lunch. I didn't call her back.
Seems I can be much friendlier over the internet than I can in person; case in point, one of my best online friends Elly. The last couple of days we've talked more than usual, and the more we talk, the more I freak. We seem to be living parallel lives, she and I; regarding a lot of things.....relationships, family histories, personal likes and dislikes. It's almost eerie. She mentioned that she had visited Windy's Web Designs and snagged a particular border; I had visited earlier that evening and got the same one.........not really much to that, except that the other border that she snagged that she didn't mention was also another that I had snagged, and apparently we posted them at approximately the same time! I read her entry for today a little while ago, and she mentions that she has just applied for membership in the ARCHAPELAGO web ring. I haven't told her yet that I have applied for the same ring.
UPDATE: This is the e-mail I received this evening regarding the above-mentioned webring:
> Hiya. I've had a look at your pages. At this time, it's not really meeting
> the standards as specified on the Archipelago main page. I'm always glad to
> see another journal keeper online, and I look forward to seeing your pages
> Regards, Lucy Huntzinger
My immediate reply was as follows:
Excuse me, but exactly which standards are you referring to?
Your requirements are as stated:
- Professional quality writing (I do already have one book published
that is doing quite well, I might add, and am working on the
second as well as the third)
- minimum 1 entry every 7 days (Although I admit this is a new
journal, it has already met those requirements)
- Attractive layout (the background and dividers were obtained from
a professional graphics artist on the web, and the actual layout
is exactly the same as another diarist who *has* been approved
for your ring)
- Interesting (well, what *you* consider interesting may not be
what other people find interesting, so this is a little broad by
- Segregated journal pages (this has always been the set-up)
- Ease of navigation (links are provided to the next days entry,
the journal index, and the main site; on *every* page)
So, since I've obviously met all these requirements, the question is,
Why was I turned down? The only obvious answer must be the
content........but wait! Did not the next paragraph on the
Archapelago page state, (and I quote):
" although I don't disqualify sites just because I disagree with or
don't particularly care for the content"
Seems to me to be a contradiction here somewhere......and if this is
the way you run a webring, you can be sure that your participants
will, indeed, be "elite".............
I'm sure your strict, personal requirements are not what Sage
Weil intended when he started the WEBRING; however to each his
own.........Regardless of whether my site would meet your own
personal criteria in the future, I will not be re-applying for
membership as this is much too reminiscent of grade-school children
who exclude others from their club because they don't like the way
they dress or look.
Okay, so I'm a bitch. And yes, today I'm in a somewhat pissy mood. But I take great offense at someone telling me that their requirements for inclusion in this ring include content that is more than: (and I quote here:) "not merely pedestrian recordings of the day's events. "
Yet her latest entry is about her sick cat, what book she is reading, and her job hunt? Sounds like a "recording of the day's events" to me.
Your site clearly borrowed from another site's layout. As you did absolutely
nothing to make it look different, it's not a point in your favor. Nor does
your site have the logistics worked out for both Netscape and Internet Explorer
in using it. The calender intrudes into the border. There is nothing especially
original in your use of it.
- Yes, Archipelago is an exclusive web ring, and it says so right up front: it
is for the best of the online journals. You just began your journal; four
entries is not much to go on. I expect to see someone with at least a month's
worth of entries so that I can be sure they're able to stick to a weekly entry.
- You may be a published writer; however, your journal is banal. Maybe it'll
get better, maybe it won't. It's only my opinion, but it's my web ring to run,
and I made the qualifications. Archipelago is for good writers. You have not
demonstrated your best writing qualities in your journal so far.
- Don't apply for things that involve acceptance or denial if your feelings
are so easily bruised. It's just a stupid web ring, Theresa, it's not a comment
on your worth as a human being. Jeez.
Needless to say, being the type of person that I am who would like to clarify things to my own satisfaction, I just *couldn't* pass up this golden opportunity to reply..................
On the contrary; as opposed to being upset about being turned down, I
find it rather humorous; in that your own journal entries cannot even
follow your own specifications for this webring.
Yes, the journal index borrowed from another site's
layout.....(with that person's permission).........and, I might add,
this person borrowed it from another!
- As far as the Netscape/Internet Explorer logistics, I don't
recall the main Archapelago page containing any statements that the
journals must be set up for any particular browser; and my main page
*does* state that this site is best viewed with Internet Explorer.
(BTW, *your* journal looks less attractive in IE 3.0 than it does in
Netscape; but hey, who's comparing?)
- Your main page says nothing about having to have a month's worth
of entries; if it *had*, I wouldn't have applied.
- I understand that you make the qualifications; however, don't you
think it might be a good idea to follow your own qualifications? I
thought your ring was supposed to contain diaries that have
entries that are "reflective, and not merely pedestrian
recordings of the day's events".......(your words) I suppose your
entries about your sick cat, what book you are reading, and your job
hunt are considered "reflective"? Hmmmm.............I'll reflect on
that for a while..........
- My feelings are not easily bruised; as I said, I find the whole
thing rather humorous in that you want to run a copy-cat
web-ring, but you cannot make up your mind what the qualifications
are, or even follow the ones you have posted.
- And I *totally* agree with you-----Archepelago *is* a stupid web
ring.......maybe it will improve; maybe it won't. Regardless, the
confusing requirements make it something that I would rather not be a
part of anyway.
Ah, the glories of freedom of speech..................
Food for thought: If vegetarians eat nothing but vegetables, then what do humanitarians eat?
|Tess's Treasures Index