Hey there. Just so you know, there’s a new poll running on the site. I’m wondering whether or not you prefer the variety of daily MP3 downloads or the showcasing of my amazing record collection via “Treasures From The Collector’s Slums”. The poll will be open until a week from Tuesday. One random voter will be rewarded with a copy of the new Qui single, “The Little Golden Blanket,” which has been issued in a limited run of 500 copies, and is hand-signed by the band: Paul Christensen, Matt Cronk, and David Yow. You must be a registered Swan Fungus user to gain entry, any votes cast by guests cannot be tracked and are ineligible. So there you have it! Incentive to speak your mind. After all, this isn’t a blog-tatorship it’s a blog-ocracy!

The last poll asked what your most-missed feature was and, as expected, “Adventures In Dating” won. So, look forward to some new stories in the next couple weeks. Since “Letters To No One” and “Interviews” both received votes, you can pretty much rest assured these will be unearthed again too. I guess that’s incentive for you to return to this page daily.

Now onto more pressings matters: I found an old article written by my favorite CNN-syndicated columnist, Judy McGuire. I think I should share my thoughts on it with you. As if by waving some magic wand of fate (not to my confused by my own “magic wand of fate” — wand = penis, fate = AIDS), it is about online dating! Jackpot! If any blogger out there has a better grasp on the topic than I do, so help me God I’ll sleep with that lame-ass writer bitch Judy McGuire. That’s how assured I am of my own mastery of the science known as online dating.

By the way, before we get started, I think I found Judy McGuire’s Facebook page. Feel free to add her as your friend. I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t dare take any relationship advice from that…thing.

Hey, you know who’s a strong proponent of online dating? Me! But also Judy McGuire, who overshares that she met her “long-term” boyfriend that way. They’ve been together for four months now, and, well…she’s thinking about telling him her big secret: she knows nothing about relationships or advice. Oh, Judy, it’s okay. He’ll understand. After all, he has to resort to meeting chicks on the Internet. For fuck’s sake, what a loser! Ha!

Full disclosure: I’ve met chicks on the Internet. Never through dating sites. Only through Craigslist and MySpace. I’ve never gotten laid out of it, because I used it more as a social experiment/performance art opportunity, but it probably wouldn’t have been too hard to “seal the deal” (penis ∤ vagina OR ◅ butt, unless penis ∇ ∵ of butt = out of ∂) if you know what I x . See your table of mathematical symbols for help.

Wait a minute, this isn’t an article about the joys of online dating, it’s about bad things that can happen! I was all set to agree with the author and share experiences from my own life, but she’s going to talk about how online dating can bring out the worst in people. That’s simply not true. Dammit, why didn’t I read the title of the article before I formed an opinion about it! Oh well, I guess I’ll have to do the next best thing and refute everything she has to say.

• Stalk much?: McGuire says shadowing your hook-up online is a “no-no,” then recounts an experience from her life where a guy would “be home, updating his profile, before I’d even had time to brush my teeth!” So I guess what she’s saying is that she’s the stalker in this story? I feel like the psychotic woman who stops by her computer to check up on her not-boyfriend before brushing her teeth and going to bed is way more scummy and creepy than the guy who just “updated his profile.” McGuire doesn’t even tell what he updated! He could have heard a song he liked in the car and remembered that Gaucho was one of his favorite albums. So he added i to his social networking profile alongside his other musical likes. Judy the psycho stalker got all steamed because he didn’t take his time leisurely sniffing all the flowers and texting his friends that he was in love with her. He just went home and wrote something online, and little miss idiot freaked out and called him scummy. Ha! There’s no way she’s fit for online dating. She should be in a psych ward.

• The shallow end of the dating pool: This one is so obvious I can’t believe her editor let her say it. McGuire quotes one of her friends after describing a pattern of behavior where looking at so many online profiles can make a person overly picky. McGuire’s “friend” says, “I find myself vetoing guys for the most shallow, silly reasons. Like I don’t like a shirt he’s wearing. Or he’s shorter than 5′10.” Uh…her friend is a woman…could that be the reason why she’s so shallow? Take it from me, the quantity of available girls never made me picky. I tried to hook up with those who I was attracted to, plain and simple. I’m pretty sure any guy would say the same. We might have different opinions about what is attractive, but we’re not looking at t-shirts or height. Sorry, that’s something irrational that women do. The fact that she follows up her statement with, “Looking back on my exes, none of them were studs.” The case becomes much clearer: McGuire’s friend is an ugly moron who thinks because she’s concealed behind the protection of a keyboard and monitor she can pretend she has really high standards. I guess I agree with the author in the sense that people who only look for something out of their league is a downside of online dating.

• Instant gratification or bust: The elusive “Instant spark,” which has only before been witnessed in romantic comedies (perhaps starring Sandra Bullock or Kate Hudson), is explained by McGuire’s editor/friend. She describes her as a “fox,” but I’m pretty sure that’s a lie. Any woman who takes all those fantasy dates from movies to heart is more likely to find herself sitting alone on a couch all weekend eating bonbons than going on dates. It’s a fallacy. It’s a myth, like the Lost City of Atlantis, or the Jewish girl who gives good head. The true-life love-at-first-sight, instant spark story is simply a rarity. Anyone who takes to the Internet in the hopes of finding that needs to be reacquainted with reality. The “editor/fox” Monica needs to get her head on straight. “No major fireworks?” So, what, you’re willing to give up on a guy because there were only mild or little fireworks when you first met in person? Ugh. Why don’t you get a horse and go live in the mountains someplace and don’t bother anybody. You’re stunting the growth of humankind.

• It can bring out your inner Mean Girl: The perfect way to end an article that has brought journalistic standards back to…fuck, I don’t know, I guess this is modern journalism, isn’t it. McGuire quotes another friend, Isabel, who says she’s only nice to people when she’s looking at them in person. Well, then, I’d say she’s not right for online dating. Isabel then says she deletes responses from people who say they like to laugh, because “It usually means something funny has happened, and there’s nothing worse than that.” The stupid bitch. She doesn’t even know how to be snarky, the cow. She thinks saying catty, inexplicably dumb things showcases her “inner mean girl,” but really she’s just telling us she’s a retard. Who says that? There’s nothing worse than when something funny happens? That bitch needs to be slapped in the face. And McGuire deserves a slap too for thinking it fit for a closing statement.

What did I learn from this column? I’m happy I’ve never signed up for an online dating site when I was single. If these girls are representative of one’s options for potential dates, I’d rather hang myself and die alone than end up with a creepy, shallow, high-maintenance cooze like Judy or her friends or her editor. I guess the answer I was seeking, “the downside of online dating,” is dumb chicks like these. Because really, I hate them. Don’t you? They think something funny has been said, and there’s nothing worse than that.

Well, except for a lame dating article.

No Comments »

| del.icio.us | Digg it! | reddit | StumbleUpon