Log in

User Profile
Reviews... Un-edited's Journal

Below are the 25 most recent journal entries.

[ << Previous 25 ]


  2003.01.27  23.35
"About time eh?" or "I really don't give a crap"

So I'm sure you've all been on edge wondering what the deal is with this community. When is my journal going to be reviewed? When is any journal going to be reviewed? You all are asking. And I know this because you ask me (much to my chagrin).

Well, In the spirit of reality review let me give you this tidbit of information. I could care less if you get reviewed or not. No really, you have to believe me on this.

I thought this community was a fabulous idea, if I do say so myself, and I enjoyed it thoroughly. Unfortunately, I bit off more than I could chew you might say. It soon got to big for the meager amount of time I could devote to it.

So now my friends... I declare to you the official inactivity of this community until further notice.

The reviewme community is as well, but that's fairly old hat isn't it?

Along with this:
A) I no longer want jurisdiction over this community. If you are interested in taking over this community do not comment but e-mail me at Chaudfeu@hotmail.com with a clearly marked subject line (or else it may be deleted as junk mail, and that's not my problem). Tell me why I should give it to you, any ideas you have for the community, and pledge to me your dedication... because I'd like not to see it inactive again anytime soon.
B)Once I decide to reactivate the community everyone will be cleared, clean slate. Reviewers and those waiting to be reviewed. Indeed my impatient reviewees, you will lose your precious place in line. Well not exactly. If you reapply you will take some precedence over those who are newly applying.

If you would like to be notified when the community is reactivated and/or when I'm again accepting reviewers and reviewees please comment to this post. CLEARLY state this request since I don't feel like spending much time sifting through requests and reactions

Good day.

PS - Hopefully this reactivation will be soon, but no promises. I won't reactivate untill I know I'll be able to spend the time to get the community off the ground again and have it stay there

ADDENDUM: For anyone who asks for their journal to be reviewed after the time I made the post saying I wouldn't accept them, and ESPECIALLY after this post. Once the community is re-activated they will be on a "Moron Blacklist" and will immediatley receive a -5 score with no written review. Congrats Stupids!


  2002.11.15  03.54

I finally noticed from http://www.ljdrama.org , that reality_review was listed as The worst community of the week! at Livejournal.us

Yes, I'm sure we're all hurt and going to cry and shut this community down. I just found out today, bite me! :D

Mood: amused

  2002.10.29  06.24

I decided to FINALLY go ahead and get at least one review done. How long has it been? OIOIOIOIOI!

A) Profile:

1) Bio: Hmmm...not much going on here. Just a blurb about being married on September 11th of this year. She has links to a zombie brain eating thing and her Amazon Wish List and has an icon that's supposed to remind us that she's married. That's it. Like I said, not much. 2/5

2) Contactability: Just e-mail and comments enabled. 2/5

B) Journal:

3) Frequency of Posting: It seems to change every month. Sometimes it's either every day or every few days or there can be many days between posts. In the very beginning, she didn't post for half a year and I don't think she posted at all in 2001. She admitted that she was "no longer a LiveJournal addict" . I never thought it was possible to be cured of a LiveJournal addiction. 2/5

4) Spelling and grammar: Nothing too horrifying. 4/5

5) Quality of content:

I) Length: Most are either short to moderate length. 4/5

II) Depth: Just like the bio, not much going here. There's quite a few quizzes and some snippets about her life, but that's it. I don't consider "I hate swallowing pills, 'nuff said!" very deep at all. 2/5

III) Clarity: It's kind of like a fart in a bathtub sort of thing. 4/5

IV) Flow: Given that there's times that she would stop posting for almost a year, I'd say not much going here either. When she actually DOES post more than quizzes, there's some flow, but when there's not much else, there's not much flow. I think a pregnant woman would have more flow than this. 3/5

6) Customization: It's a paid account, but the only things customized are the colors and the comments. Hell, I could do better than that. 1/5

7) Userpic: Quite a few Tori Amos pics, but the only one I don't like is the default one because Tori looks fucked up there. Other than that, they're okay pics. Nothing that gets me excited, but nothing that makes me sick either. 3/5

Total score: 27/50

Final score: 5.2/10

Mood: calm

  2002.10.29  14.08

Check this: this review gots to be "informative" and "entertaining," by express mandate of the Peepul. You know. Back to the Golden Oldies of r_r, sort of thing. Apparently we've been devolving into "crudity" and "run-the-mill-ness."

Well, who am I to argue with someone brave enough to leave anonymous comments. Fine. You want informative, I got your informative.

"Entertaining" we shall have to leave to chance, Deus volent and the crick don't rise.


yourfallenangel's username says much. A "fallen angel" -- seriously, DIG the following, this is HOT STUFF -- is one of those rebels against Heaven back when Lucifer challenged the Throne. There's some sort of poem about this by a crackwhore limey hight John Milton. I dunno if we can trust the word of a Brit about angelic activities, since the British snitched the spiritual welfare of Englishpeople away from the Church of Rome in AD 1519 -- are you writing this down? there will be a quiz -- when Henry VIII threw a hissycow because the Pope wouldn't let him divorce his brother's widow whine whine whine.

So, okay, these British? Clearly, they don't know NOTHING about angels, since the Catholics are the sort of people who sit around and worry about things like this, and LO AND BEHOLD, we do some digging and find that John Milton was a member of the Anglican Church. See? SEE? He didn't know what he was talking about. He cribbed some demonic-sounding names from Thomas Aquinas' little black book, wracked his brain for some sort of "sympathy for the fallen" themes, and threw 'em all together into a literary scramble.

It scans, sure, and sometimes it rhymes, but it LIES! It teaches EMPATHY and PITY for the fallen angels! yourfallenangel has clearly fallen (HA HA HA, WORDPLAY! INTELLECTUAL!) for this claptrap and chose his username accordingly.

yourfallenangel has already branded himself suspicious in my eyes, going around believing EVERY DAMNED THING that some poncey Englishman felt like going around scribbling down.

I could go into this "Jonathan Angel Alious" parallel with Richard Bach's hit counterculture marine biology book "Jonathan Livingston Seagull," but it would be wasted because everyone threw out that book when it and Kahlil Gibran's The Prophet suddenly became majorly uncool, even for liberal studies majors.

I am now ready to start the actual review. I do hope that it will leave you satisfied that you have, in fact, been informed of important things.

A) Profile: I am instantly rendered hostile by the fact that the "Interests" section is much, much larger than the bio itself. Almost never a good sign...

1) Bio: So, our boy Jonathan Angel Alious was born in AD 1986, which 'ud make him INFORMATION sixteen years old. I concede that this is not, in and of itself, immediate cause to move that he be lynched. It is not the sole domain of sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds to think that a snappy bio is comprised of the words "There's Words [sic] down there.. And you can im me anytime. I'm usually around." and a few charming linkbuttons to some INFORMATION</red> fascinating websites.

This sort of bio puzzles the hell out of me. It doesn't tell me a damned thing about the ljer except that he likes keeping things short and general. Rather than make me want to read his journal, it makes me want to collar him and slap him upside the noggin a few times.

So, okay, fine. There are Words down there, so let's check 'em out and avail ourselves of the information gained thereby. Included in this mishmash of Words are things like "dreadlocks," "fallen angels" (... fine. fine!), "squee," and "david berkowitz." These mollify me a little bit; you really can't help grinning a bit whenever you see that someone else is interested in "combat boots" and "knitting."

We're technically not really supposed to pay any attention to the Friends sections, but the Members Of bit caught my eye. This dude belongs to fifty-six communities. Holy infrogmation! How's he keep up with them all?

... Ooh. One of them is pridegoth. I suppose I could take to trolling them, but mocking goths is like shooting fish in a barrel. Another of his communities is gay_sex_tips. That's informative; I've been looking for a community like that for a while. For one thing, I bet they've got some kick-ass usericons I can steal. Woohoo! succulent_women!

Well. The bio itself sucked fish guts. The interests and the communities rocked boxes. I'm pretty sure this evens out to a 2.5/5

2) Contactability:
I am hard put to decide whether the People's Right To Know about yourfallenangel's myriad contact options or yourfallenangel's right to privacy should take precedence here. Tell you what. I'll inform you that he's got the full slate of contact options -- from an e-mail address through messenging services (LOTS) to enabled comments -- and then let you decide whether to take advantage of 'em. THAT WAS INFORMATIVE, WASN'T IT? So's this, really: 5/5

B) Journal:
But... now that I know that he's got gothy stuff going on... and wants to be a fallen angel... I think I fear to tread in here.

3) Frequency of posting: ... Huh. Well, for December and November of last year, he was posting at least once every day, with some skips. He keeps this steady updatage all the way until August of this year, when he abruptly slowed down to one or two posts every week. There doesn't appear to be any explanation for this; I can only guess that he did indeed get that job that would enable him to get his tongue pierced (don't look at me, I'm only reporting what I read), and that job keeps him hopping too much to post much anymore. Dissenters? ... will be shot. I say he's got a job, and I'm just so proud of him that he gets a 2/5 instead of the measly one point I was originally gonna stick 'em with.

4) Spelling and grammar: It ain't good. In one of his most recent entries, he mentions that he's been using a program to train him to type more accurately, and for this I applaud him; some of his misspellings have honestly gotten much better since Pre-Program. However, his spelling is still atrocious and his grammar makes me sob. In many entries -- that is, the ones that aren't cut-and-pasted AIM conversations or quiz results -- his syntax is so garbled that I can't figure out what he's trying to say. I don't care if you can't type well or quickly; if you can't master the art of putting words in their proper order according to their syntactical relationships to the other words in the sentence, you don't get more than .5/5, and that is final. Indulge in a copy of Kate Turabian's writer's manual, if you're really so dead-set on improving.

5) Quality of content: I wonder if it makes me a bad and judgemental person because I automatically get het up over this category as appertaining to those journals belonging to goth teenagers who write poetry. Probably.

I) Length: Well, the entries that he actually composes are usually quite short: between one and five medium-sized paragraphs. The other entries -- e.g., the one that seemed to be his own poetry (I wasn't really paying attention; LJ poetry tends to make my eyes glaze over, even if it's the Second Coming of Yeats) -- are ickily long. You find yourself praying that the poet's anguish stop, and not for the reason he intended. If he'd learn to use the lj-cut, preferably with the text reading "POETRY: Do not read unless you are also ANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGSTY and have no literary taste," I'd be a whole lot happier. 2/5

II) Depth:
I found one or two deep posts, about his feelings for his mother and his take on a previous relationship, but most of it is drivel. INFORMATION! D-R-I-V-E-L. This means that it is of no interest or import to anyone save the poster, and it can't really be of interest or import to him, either, because it's so garbled that he likely can't puzzle out what he typed. 1/5

III) Clarity:
I think I covered a bit of that up in "Spelling and grammar," because I am cool and multi-taskive like that, but lemme just reiterate: keep practicing your typistry, and quit treating all text like magnetic poetry. Despite modern poets' opinions to the contrary, word order does indeed matter, and omitting a crucial verb does not impress or enlighten anyone, even other goths. 2/5

IV) Flow:
"Does the progression of entries follow any clearly-discernible pattern?" Fuck no. 1/5

6) Customization:
He gets points for not doing the whole thing in black and spooooooooooky dark red, but I'm not wowed. Even for a free user, he's been lazy about customization. It's easy to read, and I always try to reward that, but boy is it bland. 2/5

7) Userpics:
He has all three to which he is entitled. I'm not too impressed with any of them, but fair's fair: 4/5

You want information? I got your information: I'M BORED AS HELL.

FINAL SCORE: 4.4/10 => 4/10


  2002.10.28  12.00

So, I cruise on down to my latest victim reviewee, and realize that it's another of the sensitive, reflective types who thinks that describing him/her/ersself by astrological sign means anything whatsoever to us sane people.

Plus it's a transsexual, so anything I say against him/her/er will be chalked down on my "bigoted jerkface" slate.

What the fuck ever, brah. You get what points you get because I think you suck, not because I care about your cup size or biological right to thereof.

A) Profile: I knew it was going to be a bad day when I saw that the Yahoo!Messenger username is "realityisalie." There really doesn't seem to be any adequate comeback to that, other than "yer mom."

1) Bio: Blah blah blah Pisces deep thought "I tend to think my perspective is more unique than most." ... Honey, that was either the third-worst and fourth-most-wrong solipsistic declaration I've ever heard, or the most profound bullshit I've heard for at least the past week.

Somehow it came as no surprise to see that her (his/ers) interests include "transgender issues," "peace," and "goth."

Fuck me, why do I always end up reviewing the ones that either have no life or desperately need to get a real one? 2/5

2) Contactability:
Yeah, sure. Someone grab her (him/es) aboard AIM or Yahoo (dig that "realityisalie" name) and beg her to stop being a weenie. "Pisces," the fuck. 5/5

B) Journal:
This job sucks at times. You have no idea.

3) Frequency of posting: "The stars are right." Cthulhu and his friends may be awakened when the stars are right; shardangeli may post when the stars are right. They are almost equally frightening in prospect, mostly because the stars are right far more often for shardangeli than they are for the Sleeping Ones. Thank god that the stars are only right a few times a month. 2/5

4) Spelling and grammar:
Unfortunately, shardangeli has caught me in one of my grammar!nazi modes again. I'm truly sorry about that. Some reviews it don't hardly show at all, and then it'll come raging forth against some poor sap who has no defense against it.

THAT SAID. Most of shardangeli's entries are fairly decent, grammar-wise. There is a slight problem about her (sure!) misuse of commas, but as if any of you could tell the difference. She (he/es) can spell well, and she (whatnot) goes easy on the creative misspellings that most of you freaks like to slip into your daily reviews of Who Said What To Our BF OMG!!! So K3wli3z!1!

Which brings me to my real annoyance: a plethora of bangs. More than a plethora; an overabundance. Terry Pratchett hath said it truly and wisely: "More than one exclamation point... a sure sign of a sick mind." When I saw that tell-tale overuse of exclamation points, I knew it was only a short amount of time before I'd come across the horde of emoticons, and, unhappily, my premonition was borne out: a FUCKTON of emoticons, almost every damn post. No, not just a fuckton; a METRIC FUCKTON.

Stop it, stop it, stop it! I can tell that you have a brain, Shard; you utterly spoil that effect when you AOLize your posts by misusing the noble bang and by scattering around those emoticons as if you hadn't access to some perfectly acceptable verbal equivalents!

I will not mention my opinion of this "ciao4now" painfulness. It would blister your monitor. Besides, you can probably imagine it on your own; your own imagination is no doubt turning over this "ciao4now" in bemused horror, possibly accompanied by thoughts of "Why am I suddenly thinking of Lisa Frank gradeschool binders and 'Saved By The Bell' reruns, as well as unexplainable flashes of drooling Mongoloid idiots?" Ciao4now. The Forty Immortals of France have probably been so curmudgeonly throughout their entire existence simply because of the linguistic indigestibility of "ciao4now" has reverberated throughout space and time to produce a roaming case of linguaphilic grumpiness.

I have, however, decided to forgive her (what's yer pleasure) her Britishisms like "realising" and "colour." We cannot all be fortunate enough to spell things the American (read: "correct") way. 2/5

5) Quality of content:
Maaaaaaaaaaan, why do I gotta read "sensitive" and "reflective" posts? I'd almost welcome some damn quizzes.

I) Length: Now this I can praise with no qualms: most of shardangeli's posts are four or five decently-sized paragraphs, no need for scrolling. There are a few entries that fall short of four paragraphs; there are a few that stretch to eight or nine. No lj-cuttage that I could see, but then, she (ra!) doesn't really need it. 5/5

II) Depth:
Oh, you reflective and sensitive and unique-perspective people. Self-examination is deep, but the thing is, ...

It's only deep to you. I can't find anything profound or thought-provoking in your soul-searching, which may say more about me than about you, but if so, it's that I'm so much better than you that I can't find anything in your life to relate to mine. We all knew this, but it bears repeating for the newcomers to the community.

Moreover, "Things have gone well today, but those things are a little private, but let's just say that he has popped my cherry and made me his ;)".

Christ. 2.5/5

III) Clarity:
I'll give her this: most "deep thinkers" ain't this easy to understand.

Oh, except the whole "wolf" thing. What's with the howling? 3/5

IV) Flow:
Flow necessarily suffers when you only post a few times every sidereal cycle. 1.5/5

6) Customization:
Eh. She (full-time, apparently) is a free user, and thus hasn't much opportunity to noodle with formatting. Colorscheme doesn't displease me, and the font's easy to read. Most of my beef with formatting comes from the posts themselves: I ain't digging this whole "no space between paragraphs/no indent" bit, and have I mentioned the emoticons?

I mentioned the emoticons. They suck. But hey, they're in blue! 2/5

7) Userpics:
... Wolf... thing? wearing hoop earrings.

Another wolf-thing in shadow, and a self-portrait. I'll give her three points for having all three userpics to which she's entitled, and another half-point for having the balls to put up a photo on the Web, but those wolf-things, man. Earrings on a wolf-thing. I just don't know about this. 3.5/5

Boring. You deep thinkers need to start thinking more entertainingly, dudes.

TOTAL SCORE: 28.5/50
FINAL SCORE: 5.7/10 => 6/10


  2002.10.09  12.05

AXIOM: Almost everyone who keeps a LiveJournal is a total loser.
COROLLARY: Some of us are not total losers.
MJ'S THEORY OF LJ-WORTH: If I do not like your LJ, this places you squarely in the "total loser" category.
COROLLARY: There is no arguing with MJ, so don't even try to defend yourself, loser!

Now that that's out of the way, we can get started. I wonder into which category today's victim reviewee will fall?

A) Profile: Hopefully she'll learn one day that "hopefully" is a fucking adverb.

1) Bio: Mmmkay. No song lyrics/poetry, and for that she gets an automatic floor of three points. She gives us some of the most pertinent info right off the bat; I always like to know when y'all are married. It gives me a safe margin of error in my guesses as to who's going to offer me head in exchange for a few more points. There's some more good shit re her interests -- "showing boobs to boys," "the princess bride," and "disraeli gears," to name a few of 'em. "Disraeli Gears" was one of the finest albums ever made, so go listen to it right now. It'll go nicely with my Creamy goodness of review.

Oh, and one more thing, before pointage: webcam? This must be some new-fangled techy stuff. I get cranky when confronted by things of that nature. 4/5

2) Contactability:
What, the webcam-promise didn't scare you off? Well, all right; you could grab her by means of LJ-comments, e-mail, AIM, ICQ, or Yahoo. I guess you could go to her website or her Amazon.com wishlist, but you should go to mine instead. 5/5

B) Journal:
"My face is itchy." What, there's no mood icon for that? LJ sucks.

3) Frequency of posting: AXIOM: If you post more than thrice a day, every damned day, with one day off per month, you are MOST LIKELY a total loser.

Look at her calendar. RUN DON'T WALK to look at her calendar.

Is there a reason to post this much? Boredom, empty days, short attention span, many many interesting happenings of which we must all be informed RIGHT NOW -- pick one. Except the last one. That only applies to me.

We're going to go with Occam's Razor here: 2/5

4) Spelling and grammar:
Proper capitalization, a good handle on punctuation, the odd typo, and occasional creativity with the President's English. Which is not bad. The President himself is, um, creative with the language, too.

Moreover, she can spell "necessary" and "relevant" correctly, which is more than I can say for most of you goobers. As to whether she pronounces them "nu-kyah-lur" or not is not for me to say. 4.5/5

5) Quality of content:
She bought The Principia Discordia, which I got online for free. LOSER!

I) Length: Fine by me. There's LJ-cuttage where needed, some one-liners, and some blobby long entries suitable for killing time between classes. 4/5

II) Depth:
I tend to give at least a three in this category if the reviewee has at least one post per every fortnight that does not deal with the daily grind/her bf who is omg!1! so KAWAII!!!!/which slash pairing she is likely to be. Since kitchenwitch posts on a goodly assortment of topics including but not restricted to her thoughts on the fucking pussies who jump at medication for depression without even trying to beat it the mental-toughness route, her lj-anniversary, and being true to one's self, I'm going to extend her some almighty pointiness towards non-loserdom: 4.5/5

III) Clarity:
See Ionia. See Ionia merrily waffle about stuff. See Ionia do so with commendable, non-jaromility. 5/5

IV) Flow:
I am in automatic favor of anyone who can jump from a personals ad from someone "originaly [sic] from E. Africa" to a post about the desirability of becoming an alcoholic. It may not make real sense, but in the cosmic scheme of things it's pretty rational. 4.5/5

6) Customization:
Consistently easy to read across all sub-pages, large plain font, and mellow colors. I tend to like these sorts of pages more than insanely complicated but sort of pretty (on the most advanced browser/moniter/OS) kinds. Therefore, she may bask in her 4/5

7) Userpics:
Willy Wonka, Falcor, Castro being fetching, and vegetarian-versus-omnivore, plus some lame Beatles ones. Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaantastic. 5/5

Eh. Not a total loser. Not as cool as me -- is anyone? -- but still quite non-loserish.

TOTAL SCORE: 42.5/50
FINAL SCORE: 8.5/10 => 9/10

I want cheesecake.



  2002.10.08  01.28

WARNING: I've been stuck at home, sick, for the past five days. And you know what? When I'm feeling miserable, everyone else will damn well follow suit.

*cracks knuckles*

A) Profile:

At least it leaves me with no pretensions.

1) Bio: Yes, it's another one of those.

the stars gleam
the poets dream
the eagles fly
without you
the earth turns
the sun burns
but I die
without you

Stab me with a rusty spork. siren5284's song lyrics tell me nothing about her, except that she has bad taste. Luckily, she also gives us four (wow!) short sentences of real biographical information--just enough to give me a fuzzy picture of who she is.

In case that's not enough to intrigue me, she also gives this fuzzy picture.


Minus one point because I refuse to believe that someone named Stacey from Illinois is interested in British politics. NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, lists "antidisestablishmentarianism" as an interest.

Unless they're British (also spelled "stupid").


2) Contactability: *sigh*


B) Journal:

3) Frequency of Posting:</b> She's not as prolific as artisdead or as sporadic as psymonetta, which is a good thing.


4) Spelling and grammar: Perhaps her shift key was devoured by rabid dogs of hell. If this is indeed the case, I will give her back a point.

Seriously, I suspect that she has bad grammar because she doesn't care, not because she doesn't know any better. That's almost worse.


5) Quality of content:

Huh? Whassat?

I) Length: I have a theory that every livejournal user has their own "yawn threshold," a limit to the amount of words they can type without losing their readers to boredom. If you surpass your yawn threshold, no one will finish reading your post.

The good news is that most of siren52684's entries are short. The bad news is that her yawn threshold is around twenty-five words.


II) Depth: About as deep as the quotes on her userpics. That is to say, not very. C'mon, girl, I know you can work some commentary on Kantian ethics into your posts about your daily grind.


III) Clarity: Yes.


IV) Flow: "Three days until I'm in Chicago with Jerrod!" "Two days!" "15 hours!" "2 hours and forty-five minutes and fifteen seconds!"

Yeah, baby, it flows. Downhill.


6) Customization: First of all, it's pink. The text is pink, the highlights are pink, and the links are pink (or purple). The background is white. The first thing I thought when I saw this layout was, oooh, fresh meat. After reading several entries, however, I realized that pink text on a white background is actually a cunning defensive maneuver, since it blinds those that would prey on these delicate, gazelle-like creatures.

Second, the comments links, although customized, annoy me. I don't feel like singing--I have a cold. MINUS FIVE BAJILLION POINTS.


[3/5] (for effort)

7) Userpic: She has all three userpics allowed. Since I can't wait until those blinking stars go out of fashion, I'm deducting one point. I'm also deducting two points for that popular seizure-inducing text. However, the francophile userpic is likely to annoy erythros, I'll give her one point back.


Comments: To be fair, this journal isn't half as bad as I made it out to be. It is boring, yes, and there are many things about it that annoy me, but the girl behind the words seems like she'd be a lot more interesting in person than she is over the internet.

Total score: 31/50
Final score: 6/10

[EDIT] The gnomes messed with my math. Don't worry, I squashed the fuckers.


  2002.09.27  14.19

The entire point of this community is to rip grammatically-challenged boring assholes into little shreds of Netdebris, and do it amusingly. That's it. The sum total of our mission in life is to make mistakenly-egotistic people cry and to make all of you sadistic bastards laugh while we do it.

eianorange totally fucks up that mission, because he's witty, articulate, mechanically-sound, and thought-provoking.

I'm COMPLETELY pissed off by this, and I'll try my damndest to take it out in points, but it's going to be tough. Expect rampant pettiness and small-minded nitpicking during this review, because my day is shot to hell if I can't make someone sulk that I don't like their widdle wivejournal.


A) Profile: I can't read the runic or Hebrew alphabets, goddamn it. That's got to be worth at least a couple of points, right?

1) Bio: *SMIRK* Got news for you, cupcake. Your tables have broken my browser, and no amount of clever verbage designed to clue me in about how smart/articulate/proficient in jargon y'are will assuage my fury at lack of HTML skill.

On the other hand, lookit his interests. Slick beyond compare, especially when I think of all of you fucktards who have things like "dogs" or "Anne Rice". He has "freestyle chemoshamanism," "applied semantics," and "verbal ontological terrorism." I like it. Fuck me if I know what "freestyle chemoshamanism" IS, but I like it. 3/5

2) Contactability:
You can beg him for sex via one of the five options he's given you. This is what I call generous. 5/5

B) Journal:
Oh, I just can't wait. Remind me, please, why linguists other than William Safire and Aponar Kestrel make me froth at the mouth.

3) Frequency of posting: I'm tired of making up interesting metaphors for frequency of posting. Think not less of me in my magnificence if I just say that he posts sufficiently frequently for full pointage. 5/5

4) Spelling and grammar:
Me 'at's off to the Troll; he's got "intentional misspelling" listed as one of his interests. Because I am me, and therefore all LJ loves and fears me, I suspect that he rushed out and listed that as a sop to my trollishness as soon as he signed up for a review.

That's my theory, and I'm sticking to it.

And boy, am I disappointed to find that his intentional misspellings make too much sense to be non-words.

A word, though, about his preferred formats: I'm not digging the center alignment on a lot of posts. It jars my tender sensibilities. Because I am the sole arbiter of all LJaestheticism, I declare it unsuitable and dock a point for it.

Other than that, I can't really find anything to bitch over. Besides, he's not going to care about this section, anyway, since he points out, many times, that he ascribes to the Humpty-Dumpty Rules of Language: all words are, to him, merely metasyntactic variables. Fair enough. In non-variable pointage, he gets 3.5/5

5) Quality of posting:
Uh. Here's where we get into trouble, boss.

I) Length: Long enough. Mostly. 4/5

II) Depth:
Deep enough. Mostly. 4/5

III) Clarity:
This is a rare thing, boys girls and muppets: someone who is speaking intelligently and clearly of his field of expertise, and I still don't know what he's talking about. I know history, I know economics, I know (most) grammar rules; however, when it comes to philosophy, religion, and why love and war are the same thing, I am lost. This both annoys and delights me, that one of you fucking pathetic people who wants us to review you can educate me in this way.

Also, I have no idea what [GoN] means, and I suspect that the deciphering of it is vital to understanding more than a smidgen of eianorange's posts.

ALSOalso, dig his entry for August 29. Can you figure out what the hell this is supposed to mean? You being the average LJer? I thought not.

Okay, old sock, pointage for this one nets you a 2/5, and you only got that two points because I enjoyed your posts about your nights off from thinking about anti-memetics.

IV) Flow: Well, um, no. Posts jump around like a frog on a hot plate, and it's almost as hard pinning down a cogent theme as it would be to figure out some of the religiomystical waffle. 1/5

6) Customization:
Sidebar template with yer standard sans-serif font and a lovely background image. There's some noodling with text links, and I find the colorscheme pleasing. Okay, I'm fair and judicious and that sort of thing: 5/5

7) Userpics:
Three of them (three, when he could have ten. Pussy.), but one of them is Havok. Havok, for the love of Mike. HAVOK. Havok. Oh, fuck me sideways with a scythe. Not even Gambit or Forge or someone cool. I weep tears of BLOOD. 1/5

Read this journal. See if YOUR brain doesn't explode. See if YOUR brain doesn't light up once or twice and you have to admit to yourself, "... this guy may DAMN WELL be smarter than I am."

TOTAL SCORE: 33.5/50
FINAL SCORE: 6.7/10 => 7/10

I'm drinking chai tea right now.


  2002.09.26  22.12

Yes, I'm back. I had planned to do two reviews over the summer, but that didn't happen (for a very good reason, I assure you). This is the first of those two; the second will be here later tonight, or possibly tomorrow.

A) Profile:

1) Bio:
A quote and some very general self-description. "I ramble and I tend to drink too much. Sometimes I'm stupid. Every now and then I'll be brilliant. I'm mostly just an idiot." This could be anyone, damn it! I have no idea who this person is, and it doesn't make me curious enough to go looking for more.

So much of the interests list seems incongruent with the rest of her journal. I read it and expected her to be another whiny goth girl, which she's clearly not. She is, moreover, a Clash, Ramones, and Velvet Underground fan, which raises her in my estimation. But that bio still irks me. 2/5

2) Contactability:
Commenting, email, and ICQ. 4/5

B) Journal:

3) Frequency of Posting:
Like me, she hardly posts at all during the summer. Otherwise, she posts at least every couple of days, which is enough. 4.5/5

4) Spelling and grammar:
Very few spelling errors, and certainly nothing that made me want to throttle her--a nice change from some of the people I was reviewing before. There were also some scattered grammar issues, but nothing major. 4/5

5) Quality of content:

I) Length: Please, for the love of God, USE LJ-CUT ON SURVEYS! Other than that, her entries are almost always less than one screen long. Oneliners are relatively frequent, but not irritatingly so. Unfortunately, those uncut survey posts are so freakin' annoying that she still loses half her points in this category. 2.5/5

II) Depth:
Here's where the fun starts.

This journal has quite a range of depth to it. At one end of the spectrum, you have her poetry, which she posts quite often. Anyone who has the guts to put her poetry in her LJ wins bonus points with me.

Somewhere in the middle is the more common "what-I-did-today" stuff. Not shallow by any means, but not particularly deep, either.

And then there's the rest. The "song of the day" thing is nice for a while, but it gets old. It'd be nice if she just posted the title and put an lj-cut before lyrics so that her friends didn't have to go through all that if they didn't want to. There are also a lot of quizzes. Quite a lot. Yes, they're fun and surprisingly addictive, but they don't really add anything of value to a journal.

Having said all that, I'm giving her a pretty good score in this category. This isn't the most profound journal I've ever read, but it's better than many I've seen reviewed here. 4/5

III) Clarity:
Crystal clear. Mostly. 5/5

IV) Flow:
It's a little choppy, what with the interspersed song lyrics and surveys. If I ignore those, though, it flows pretty well. 3/5

6) Customization:
She's done just about everything she can with a free account. The background is great, and the color scheme is nice and simple. The window title and scrollbar colors have been changed, she has custom comment links, and she uses the Disjointed layout, which I am quite partial to myself. 5/5

7) Userpic:
As a free user, she could have 3 userpics; she has 2. Her default pic leaves me saying, "...meh." But "This is not your day, love" makes up for it. 3.5/5

This isn't the greatest journal I've ever read (that would be artisdead), but there's something oddly compelling about it...I can't help liking it, in spite of my reviewer's cynicism.

Total score: 37.5/50

Final score: 7.5/10

Mood: content

  2002.09.06  14.52

A) Profile: I can't pronounce "bizatachi." I keep wanting to make it into the Japanese slang for "bunch of weirdoes," but I'm not sure that'll wash.


1) Bio: On one hand, the bio consists of song lyrics. Gaaaah. It isn't even a band I've ever heard of, and since I am the only living musical critic of any worth whatsoever, this does not bode well.

On the other hand, he's got "richard feynman," "the daily show", "godel escher bach," and "anti-bolshevism" as some of his many interests. Haaaw yeah.

So, I dig the interests, and find the listing of them intriguing, but the bio itself makes me want to shove people into giant blenders. I think this rounds out to a 2.5/5

2) Contactability:
He's got an e-mail address, which counts even if it is Hotmail, and an AIM handle. This, plus comments, makes him one easy-to-get-a-hold-of bastard. 5/5

B) Journal:
I should shuck all of my pre-conceptions before diving into this journal. After all, just because he calls himself The Electric Warrior doesn't mean he's going to be as ... well, Buff as The Insane Warrior.

Well, who is.

3) Frequency of posting: Pshaw. It's nothing to scream over, either way -- sometimes he'll go a fortnight without posting, and sometimes he'll withstand the Lure of the Net for as long as three hours before making another entry. While it's refreshing to review someone who doesn't live in this fucking thing, I think that I could stand to be updated on random pieces of Russian/otherwise brain-hurting literature a bit more often than every few days. 3/5

4) Spelling and grammar:
He can spell well, and his grammar is... well, it passes, but in some cases, only barely. I have Issues with some of his dependent clause placements, and I had to stop and reword certain sentences in my mind a few more times than I like to see in reviews, but on the whole, the average LJer wouldn't have a problem with 'em. (spyderqueen will now explain the technical terms, and hit me over the head for having misused three of them.) 3/5

5) Quality of content:
He's reading Gravity's Rainbow. This makes me suspect that I'm going to have to be forgiving in the depth category, and that by now his brain's so fried that he won't give a damn what I say in this review.

I) Length: Y'all could stand to use the lj-cut feature a tad more often, buddy boy, but at least you don't indulge in many of the goddamned single-line entries that sound the praises of Mariah Carey. 4/5

II) Depth:
Lessee. We've got some amateur epistemology, an assortment of literary reviews, a goodly amount of life reflections, and a few tidbits of just plain funny stuff. He puts some genuine thought into his posts, and reading some of these entries will require the same amount of brain-work that he clearly puts into it.

I mean, how can I possibly justify not giving a full five points to someone who muses, "Jews are niggardly. Everyone knows that. They should change the word to Jewardly."?

I can't. I just couldn't live with myself if I didn't shell out 5/5 for it.

III) Clarity: Excuse me, were you not paying attention when I mentioned that he's been reading, and then trying to sort out, Gravity's Rainbow? There's some pretty obscure stuff in this puppy, but it's obscure in a clear sort of way, if you can but dig it. I'm pretty sure that he uses a private code at times -- do you know what to make of "interjectory asertiks"? -- but most of the time, these entries are straightforward and clearly laid out. 4.5/5

IV) Flow:
Well, call me old-fashioned, but I'm not sure that passing from a haiku on the boss's obesity through a mini-dissertationj on classical music being geared toward the wealthy to No Blue Martini For You exactly flows. Is it just me?

It could be just me.

But then, I'm just the one handing out the scores. 3/5

6) Customization:
What's black and white and red and pristine all over? The Electric Warrior's journal layout. 3/5

7) Userpics:
There's only one of them, but since it's a Bruce Lee Pancake Rabbit, there's no way it's not getting full points. 5/5

I thought I was going to be bored while reviewing this journal, judging solely by that damned song lyric bio, but much to my delighted surprise, I was thoroughly interested, and had quite a few startled chuckles result from various bizatachiisms. Give this sucker a read. You'll be entertained.

FINAL SCORE: 7.6/10 => 8/10


  2002.09.03  18.30

I'm feeling gloomy, so I decide to finally tackle this deityofdeath review because I need me some darkness a la HR Giger on laudanum. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to go read some Sandman comics now, because deityofdeath. is more like Thomas Kinkaide on Red Bull.

A) Profile:

1) Bio:

In the ghetto....come on let's all sing along...

On a cold and wet February day, a little child was born to draw anime in the ghetto

In the ghetto
and they stole her bikes....

But, she graduated anyway, and now she's in the college of communitay in the ghetto

In the ghetto...

Actually, her bio is kind of sweet and naive, in that Power Rangers Wild Force way. But, I wouldn't try to read her profile unless you have DSL, because she seems to have caught a nasty case of Bishoen. Geshunteit. 3/5

2) Contactability:
All of the normal implementations. Pretty good for ghetto. 4/5

B) Journal:

3) Frequency of Posting:
Do they have $tarbucks with internet access in the ghetto, because she's a bran muffin and a latte type of poster. 5/5

4) Spelling and grammar:
Well, it's not ebonics. 3/5

5) Quality of content:

I) Length:Generally one or two paragraphs per entry, which is a good thing, because that hot pink font starts to sting sumphin fierce. 4/5

II) Depth:
Generally every entry is either an anime quiz, or begins with "Well, today (insert clause relating to sex acts or bodily functions here). It's diaric, predictable. As soon I read "I woke up with a sore butt", I thought..."hmm, gang banged by the local varsity football team". Lo and behold a mere sentence later she writes "...gang banged by the local varsity football team." Now really, a deityofdeath does the gang banging, a deityofdeath does not take it in the ass. Everyone should read this entry, and then you will know why she should change her username to puffy.

There was brooding, I'll give her that, but it was more like making out with your pillow style brooding, not the dark cavernous moist and pointy crevice and an eyebrow raised sort of brooding worthy of a deity of death.

Overall, her journal is like me arriving at home after work in the summertime. Generally, my down syndrome neighbor is serenading me as he sings along to his mother's Janice Ian records. I walk from my car to the house with a certain sort of satisfaction that can only be derived from the absurdity of other people's trumped up pain being sung with great gusto by those who don't even know that people feel sorry for them. (even though they shouldn't) The sun shines, the dogs rush up to the little dog gates to greet me as I pass, and I can't help to pause before I turn the key, just so I can hear the last chorus.1/5

III) Clarity:
Yeah...we've all been through it. 4/5

IV) Flow:
Since her criteria for paragraphs appears to be more length related than content related, the flow suffers. At last, something that she can make suffer. 2/5

6) Customization:
It's a template she futzed with. The colors match her friend mollilolli and apparently, she wants me to spread my black wings. Darling, I think the enormity of their shadow would overwhelm you. 2/5

7) Userpic:
All anime...and one of her looking like erythros's favorite dude from Babylon 5. 2/5

It is accomplished, and I will rise again.

Total score: 30/50

Final score: 6/10


  2002.08.24  23.41

You know...

I have been asked to give my solemn promise to be judicious and broadminded in this review.

Fair enough. It'll be a novelty, if nothing else.

Let's roll, homeys.

A) Profile: Ha. Ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha ha... WAAAAH HA HA HAAAAA!

Man! Her bio is really, really funny! I am upLIFTED! That is some seriously grade-A stuff, suitable to bring a grin to anyone's fa ---


I have a sudden, horrible thought.

Supposing... just supposing... that ...

She didn't do that on purpose?

That it's a genuine attempt at a real bio?

... oh, shit. I just broke my promise, and I haven't even started the review.

Well, I tried.

1) Bio: It's in pink.

I approve of this; I like pink, and most of you twerps need more color in your bio pages.

That of which I do not approve includes the entire text content of the bio.

mona tried to tell me
to stay away from the train line.
she said that all the railroad men
just drink up your blood like wine.
and i said, "oh, i didn't know that,
but then again, there's only one i've met
and he just smoked my eyelids
and punched my cigarette."

So, what's your take on this one? Do you feel any better for having read it? Are you enlightened on any level whatsoever? Do you yearn to learn more of this user?

It sounds like a song lyric from a band that I hate, and I can't make it fit any tunes from songs I do like. Maybe it's from a beat poet? If so, I'll gladly beat him further.

... SWEET MOTHER GAIA, maybe it's claire's own work?

If so, IF SO, then the defense rests and I really don't need to do any more of this review.

But yeah, I like that pink, and that she, unlike MOST of you, can spell Janeane Garofolo's name correctly. .5/5

2) Contactability:
"MJ, would you say that claire has a plethora of contact options?"

"Why, yes, La Guapa, I would." 5/5

B) Journal:
Why don't I ever get to review journals of people who don't obsess over aging rockers? Why? Why? Why?

3) Frequency of posting: *raises an eyebrow*

Heeeeeeeey, koala4life posts more than you do. Your life must be inferior. You clearly don't have as much time, impetus, or duty to your public as she does, because she posts at least twice and usually ten times a daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

Jesus Waffle Christ, but she posts a lot. No one needs to post this much. No one except Kibo needs to post this much. 3/5

4) Spelling and grammar:
She can spell, all right. There are a few typos I spotted -- f'rinstance, she seems to spell "Robert Palmer" as "B-o-b D-y-l-a-n" -- but on the whole, she's got it down pat.

Grammar-wise, she's also pretty jake. I note that she has made a stylistic choice to leave words in lowercase, even words that just cry out to be capitalized. I mean, fuck -- who knows? She might be making all of these entries on an onscreen keyboard, the shift keys of which are a HUMONGOUS pain in the gizzard to press as the same time as yer letters. It's not horribly annoying, s'long as she keeps it on her own journal. The instant she ventured out of her lj and imposed her damned minority literary style on my turf, her lazy-typist-ass would be GRASS. 4.5/5

5) Quality of content:
Okay, MJ. Deep breaths. You promised to be fair. You promised. You gave your solemn fucking oath, and anyway she has your sponsio in the form of your little grey book.


I) Length: Pretty durn good. So far, I haven't had to pull a "page down" on any entry. For those to whom this kind of stuff is important, the IE 5 window is fullscreen, on a fifteen-inch monitor screen res of which is 1280 x 1076, now shut up and eat your ramen and Jolt. Also, she uses the lj-cut when entries are going to be tiresomely long or would eat your friends page whole. Yes, very good. 5/5

II) Depth:
... You'd think that someone from the ancestral home of the mighty Blair clan would be able to put a little more thought into her entries than the travails of some ant, the whereabouts of her vibrator, or the concert efforts of the regrettably-not-yet-mummified Bob Dylan. I mean, sure -- old Francis Blair did talk about Peggy Eaton sometimes, but he also found time on the side to devote to advising President Lincoln and mocking William H. Seward. There must be a balance. Vibrator, politics. Dylan concert, serious and weighty discourse on gay rights. Drowning ant, ... something slightly more important than drowning ant.

It's not hard. I mean, artisdead can do it. 2.5/5

III) Clarity:
IV) Flow:
Another day, another reviewee getting full points in the Mickey Mouse Duo of Only Outright Fucking Downs Syndrome/Crackwhore Reviewees Don't Get These categories. 10/10

6) Customization:
She has a better colorscheme than you do. It's comprised of dark wine-colors and some teal backdrops, and it looks quite pretty. The layout is your standard sidebar wossname, and it's not too terribly boring; it's less boring than me old standby the Refried Paper, but it's not as exciting as the Disjointed layout. You win some, you lose some. I don't really like the font she uses, but at least it's consistent, and I suspect that on a monitor fixed at a lower screen-res than mine, it would look a lot nicer. In sum, 4.5/5

7) Userpics:
I wish I could say that I liked these, but I don't. I happen to detest the Beatles and Bob Dylan, although I do like both the Grateful Dead and the tie-dyed rendition of the Deadbear she's chosen as one of her icons. She also has a self-portrait or two, and you know I always give mass propz for those, simply because it does take huevos to post pictures of yourself in a public forum, no matter how hot you are. Ultimately, the userpics score comes down to the fact that I am fair, and that it would be unfair of me to superimpose my musical preferences over hers and lop off points according to what sticks out.

... Oh, wait, haven't I been doing that all review?



Well, here, I'll make up for it, since she does have a full complement of pics. 5/5

Is it funny to put someone on your friends list who hates you? Yes. It is. It shows willing, at any rate.

All beabling aside, though, this journal's worth a read. Go ahead and scroll through it; there are some genuinely interesting things in here, if you don't mind the lack of shift key and the dearth of cosmically-as-opposed-to-locally deep topics.

FINAL SCORE: 8.2/10 => 8/10


  2002.08.23  00.49

I like muffins.

A) Profile: Ah. It's a good sign when his bio page doesn't break my browser with ill-designed tables.

1) Bio: ... are you fucking kidding me? "All facts must be filtered, or else, you might get something in your facts."

DEFINITION TIME, YOU GUTTERSNIPES: "bio: (n.) not a Jack Handey moment." -- From Erythros' First Unabridged Dictionary of LJSpeke.

This, plus six interests -- baking, books, brew, chopping broccoli, cooking, and movies -- makes me surly.

You won't like me when I'm surly. 1/5

2) Contactability:
Comments enabled. Annan e-mail address. Wouldn't want him to go out on a limb and make himself too accessible, or anything. 2/5

B) Journal:
This had by-the-lord-Harry better be more rewarding than the profile. It had just better.

3) Frequency of posting: ... Well, gosh. That muffin he's got must be a bran muffin. He is as regular as the tolling of Big Ben or the eruption of Old Faithful.

... Well, not that regular. But regular enough to suit me; you'll never go wanting for a Bad_Bread update for too long. 4/5

4) Spelling and grammar:
I have no real complaints with Bad_Bread's treatment of the English language. He can use apostrophes correctly, he doesn't use unintelligible netjargon, and while he does flirt with comma splices, he breaks off the relationship before I can advise him that it's unhealthy. (From Erythros' First Unabridged Dictionary of LJSpeke: "advise: (trans. v.) to hit someone with a meat cleaver.")

So, okay, he'll do. His spelling borders on the disgustingly icky at times, but for the most part, he can handle words like "recommend" or "pallet," which is half the battle. I can forgive him an occasional "teakie torch" or the like. He's not as stellarly and unimpeachably perfickt as me, of course, but he's better than ninety-five percent of my other reviewees. (Watch me so totally damn with faint praise.) 5/5

5) Quality of content:
This is by far my favorite category. I find it so so so gleesome to inform someone that his journal lacks depth of any sort.

I) Length: Bad_Bread's posts are redolent of that elusive quality I choose to call "enoughness." (It's right before "gullible" in the EFUDLJS.) There are some hideously short posts, consisting of bald facts like "It's a loaf" or Apparently I'm just uninteresting" or even the Gawd-help-us of "waffles," but for the most part, his posts are single-paragraph niceties. 4/5

II) Depth:
Dear Sir (she paused, then typed slowly and viciously) Or Madam, As The Case May Be: Your journal lacks depth of the deep sort. Although I find records of your cooking escapades (in blank verse, no less) to be mildly intriguing, I cannot see any real deep or thought-provoking quality to your journal entries.

Why should I punish you for this, especially since I find your posts interesting despite lack of depth? Why should I care if you, unlike the blessed psymonetta, are unable to reconcile the philosophical arts with the culinary?

Well, son, everyone knows about Panaetius, but who the fuck knows the name of Scipio Aemilianus's cook? 1/5

III) Clarity:
Hnh. ... It's a goddamned cooking journal, occasionally garnished by bosses falling off ladders and defining patriotism as opposed to tribalism. If it weren't clear, he'd have so, SO many bodies buried out back: hapless victims of the Unclear Loaf. 4/5

You thought that was deliberately obscure, didn't you. Well, screw you and the mouse you clicked in on.

IV) Flow: See above, replacing "clear" with "flowing." 3/5

6) Customization:
No, no, no. I understand that baking and coding don't mix, but couldn't you at least have noodled with the ... FONT? Or the comment-text? Or the colorscheme? Anything? Anything at all?

Fine. Fucking CONFORMIST. 2/5

You're getting off LIGHT just because the damned thing is easy to read.

7) Userpics: Perhaps if the various images weren't so fuzzed and unfocused I might be better prepared to judge them charitably. 0/5

Do you know, despite all that was wrong with this journal, I found it rather enjoyable. Go ahead and give it a read; you won't get bored, precisely, although you might find yourself wanting to "advise" him that FINE, it's a loaf, after the fifth time he's informed you of this.

FINAL SCORE: 5.2/10 => 5/10


  2002.08.22  17.20

Well, well, well. Look who's come crawling back.

I was looking at the list of prospective reviewees, and my eyes were crossing all over the damned place. Sheesh. We need to get cracking on the reviews, or these twerps will plague us TO OUR DEATHBEDS.

So, on that note, maybug2300. It's a sad, sad job, but someone's got to do it.

A) Profile: I wonder, is it mean of me to take off points because her username irritates me? Vacillating as it does between "junebug" and "maybeth" (or something like that; like I have time to go around collecting all the portmanteau names that begin with "may"), it's like the equivalent of someone scritching their razor-sharp nails down my spine, which has been temporarily replaced with a piece of slate.

Really, would this be mean of me? Because you know that I don't like being mean.

1) Bio: I consider it a waste of my time to try to unravel these weird little koans she thinks are profound. (TIP FOR NEWBIES: "profound" is not the same thing as "contradictory".) I found myself wanting to correct the (many) typographical mistakes than to actually read the damned thing.

By the way, is your face misunderstood? Is it really? I myself often find that people misunderstand various of my trolls, or my thesis on why You, Specifically, Are A Dumbass, but rarely do people come up to me and say, bluntly, "Hey, I don't understand your face."


As for interests, she's got some good ones. Sherlock Holmes, Silly Putty, sleep, slinkies, and cats -- oh, WAIT. Sonofabitch -- she's also got suicide. ... FUCK. I hate it when people like this want us to review their ljs. I always get the unnerving feeling that if I'm as harsh as they deserve, they'll go jump off the Coronado Bridge or something.

Well, drive her to her watery grave or not, her rating's still 2/5, and if she doesn't like it, she knows where to go.

2) Contactability: AIM. Website. E-mail address. Comments enabled.

I swear, the only people who have this many contact options are the ones I don't feel like talking to. 5/5

B) Journal:
Yes, yes. I'm getting to it.

3) Frequency of posting: Well, most of August is empty, but she's on a road trip... through KANSAS, no less. Nothing against Kansas, but if I were driving through it, I'd have nothing to post about, either.

Pre-road-trip, there are big fucking chunks of posts, nearly every day. I'm at a loss to explain these, because there's nothing to prompt them, narrative-wise. Listen, kids -- it's okay to live life, as opposed to posting about minute and unimportant bits of it. Really. 3/5

4) Spelling and grammar:
Her spelling is all right. Her grammar makes me cry. You don't want elaboration on my opinion of her mechanical skills. You really, truly do not. 2/5

5) Quality of content:
Oh, ha ha. Look, it says "quality". I should be looking for some of that. Let me grab my pickaxe and mining helmet, first.

I) Length: Good news: it's uninteresting and short. 4/5

II) Depth:
What's that? 1/5

III) Clarity:
If you don't clearly understand what this chyk's saying, you are fucking retarded. 5/5

IV) Flow:
In keeping with the other half of the Mickey Mouse "We'll Give You Some Points So You Still Feel Validated In Having A Journal" Duo, the entries flow pretty well. I mean, they're the account of her cute little daily grind. If anything didn't flow, I'd be slightly worried. 5/5

6) Customization:
... First of all, what's the deal with the badly-drawn mostly-nude alien? It looks like a pickle in a thong. ... Unless, of course, it is the maybug itself? Hmm.

I'm fond of the disjointed layout that she uses for all of her pages -- it just looks really cool, to me -- and her colors are nothing to scream about, but at least they're easy to read.

In sum: annoying and mundane, but not horribly so. 3.5/5

Tell me the truth, that was mean, wasn't it? Oh, I hope it wasn't mean. I'd feel just terrible, honestly.

7) Userpics: One of them is that same badly-drawn alien. For that, she forfeits all right to points. 0/5

I hate it that I'm forced to be mean to people like this. It feels like kicking a puppy.

Except that I don't get the added benefit of hearing the puppy cry and squeal afterwards.

TOTAL SCORE: 30.5/50
FINAL SCORE: 6.1/10 => 6/10


  2002.08.21  13.02

A) Profile:

1) Bio:
"I think I am an open and honest person." I think so too. That should have been obvious enough. A single paragraph that says quite bit.

"I only have a few private entries, and they are mostly poems, which were friends only first. LoL I get paranoid about my work." I don't blame you. Also, if you try to sell your works, posting them on an online public forum can hurt their chances of being published elsewhere.

Anyway, the rest of the bio are quotes (one from Tori Amos! YAY!) and a song. Obviously, those have a LOT of meaning to her. 4/5

2) Contactability: There's e-mail, AIM, Yahoo and comments enabled. 4/5

B) Journal: EEEEEEE!!! She has a stereotype parody that I passed around on LJ done! YAYAAYAY!!!! Lookie! Lookie!

3) Frequency of Posting: Close to everyday and seldom misses over a day! 5/5

4) Spelling and grammar: Nothing too horrid, BUT doesn't seem to understand the concept of an apostrophe and also has sentences that need to be introduced to the very lovely comma. And what is PROLLY? No, really, what IS that? Besides being the lazy version of PROBABLY? Other than those things, it's readable. 3/5

5) Quality of content:

I) Length:
None too short and none so long that they (CRY) lj-cut. 5/5

II) Depth: She talks a lot about her own personal life. Remember when she said that she thought she was open and honest? She wasn't lying. However, it doesn't often go beyond day to day things and when it does, it's all about ANIME . That doesn't make her shallow because she isn't. It just doesn't seem to go beyond what was mentioned is all. 3/5

III) Clarity: No problems here! 5/5

IV) Flow: Since it's generally day to day, it flows quite nicely. Kind of like the water effects in this current song. *Plug* This Morn Omina: K'hai *end plug* 5/5

6) Customization: WAAAA!!!! LIGHT BRIGHT!!! LIGHT BRIGHT!!!!!!! WAAAAAAAA!!!! White background, light purple font! Either I have really sensitive eyes or it's all a taaaaaaad too bright! It looks pretty, but that doesn't change the LIGHT BRIGHTness of the journal. She has the comments customized and has a paid account. So, I think a bit more could have been done. 2/5

7) Userpic: I LOVE her default pic! I just LOVE it! I think "Borg Queen" when I see that one! The anime pics are cute, "close your eyes" is VERY pretty and the Josh/Lyss one is adorable! All of them are very nice! 5/5

Total score: 41/50
Final score: 8.1/10

Mood: accomplished

  2002.08.13  00.11

Sorry for the absence. Had boring things in "real life" to take care of and haven't had a chance to frequent any communities, much less review a journal. Blah blah, on to the review.

A) Profile:

1) Bio:
"...other factlets to note so that you may subconciously judge and stereotype me..."

Not only do I like the word "factlet", I like the whole line. It has a certain whatchyu-dealy-semi-humorous bite to it (I'm havin' trouble with words today, sorry). The rest really pretty much sucked. I'm deep and whatnot. Her candor seems nice, but is it genuine or there to impress me? Guess I'll have to look at the journal to find out.

Oh yeah..."God's genitals" as an interest? This oughta be interesting...4/5

2) Contactability:
Commenting enabled in journal, an e-mail and AIM bump her up to 4 points, but during our brief IM she seemed pretty cool and was smart enough to be ashamed with being associated with AOL (a secret contact method). For that, she gets another point. 5/5

B) Journal:

3) Frequency of Posting:
Her posting is slipping into a more regular rythym, missing an occasional day or two here and there though. Average number of posts in a day: way too much...I mean, 5 per day (average). One day she even manages to get 9 posts. Nine!! Holy guacamole.

Regularity - workin on the rythym.
Amount - too much.

4) Spelling and grammar:
She makes it known in her bio that she is not the biggest fan of grammer and punctuation. Too bad for her that it makes her entries look as if they were typed out by the average teen with nothing to say and little time to say it. Not sure if this is a "statement" being made by people nowadays, but I do know that a little proper spelling, grammar and punctuation go a long way in improving the quality of your writing. Plus, there's the whole stereotypical concept that poor english = poor intellect and, whether that's true or not, visitors typically base their impressions off appearance. 2/5

5) Quality of content:
This rating is broken down into four sections as this is the most important rating.

I) Length: Too short. Too frequent. Too bad. Actually, there are several longer entries, so it's not so horrible, but there needs to be more use of the lj-cut tag. 3/5

II) Depth:
Though it has it's share of deep entries, a good portion of it is about as deep as the kiddie pool in the neighbor's backyard. She had some good entries...some that I feel should've been elaborated on more by her and commented on more by visitors, but a lot is a "this happened, than this and then this and so forth".

She's got a decent sense of humor (communists - eheheh) and there are some semi-interesting events that happen . Random thoughts that're going through her head are fine, but not always interesting. Has potential for a 5, but I must give it a 3.99/5

III) Clarity:
Clear? As glass. A bit of randomness, a bit of sucky technical junk to make it more difficult. Normally good though. A little "Windex w/ new, improved grammar!" and she'd be good to go. 4.5/5

IV) Flow:
While there are definite things that are recurring things (e.g. roomates), I have to wonder...What's the purpose of the journal? You can't really tell from the way the entries progress. Too much randmomness (or perhaps it's just not tied in well enough). Either way, the rocky road ice cream I had at lunch woulda flowed better if I tipped the container upside down. The constant commie-comments, etc help though. 3/5

6) Customization:
I don't think she's made any efforts to customize. I don't think she cares. Default scheme - because it's my favorite - nets her 1.5/5

7) Userpic:
Seven userpics on a free account. I can live with that (and I can spare 2 points too). A point for Ms. Marilyn (who's recently had some newly discovered pics released...psst, go find one of those), a point for the relaxed pic (it's a nice pic), and a half point for the bunny ears (cute, not original). No points for the webcam pics (sucky quality = sucky points). 4.5/5

Overall, a half-decent journal. Drop the foolish teeny-bopper talk, elaborate more on the deeper entries, PUNCTUATE and keep the humor and you'll have a great journal. I plan on peeking in occassionally for the close-to-deep entries that pop up every now and then.

Total score: 35.49/50

Final score: 7/10


  2002.07.29  00.15
REVIEW FOR friedrich

A) Profile:

1) Bio:
I guess Don thinks "bio" means "resume".

My research centers on regional climate in the eastern U.S., which I believe to be affected by changes in the Atlantic Ocean circulation. I have studied the soils from several of my sites under the microscope (example shown above). But there's no image. Hmm... 2/5

2) Contactability:
E-mail and comments 3/5

B) Journal:

3) Frequency of Posting:
Someone buy friedrich a bran muffin and coffee. Once or twice a week is average... 2/5

4) Spelling and grammar:
No spelling problems, and exceptionally fun grammar. He used the words "antiromantic" and "spandrel", for chrissakes ( yes - i give you permission to pull out your dictionaries for this one) I reward his verbosity with a 5/5 and i frolic with glee at this opportunity to learn words my roommate won't understand.

5) Quality of content: If Stephen Jay Gould were alive, he might say that this song celebrates the mythical importance of a large spandrel. Hooray for "spandrel"! Hooray for everything! His entries are full of links, most of which are things he stumbled across surfing the web. They're somewhat engaging, and that's all fine and good. But I gotta dock him for the number of boring quizzes he posts. 3/5

I) Length:
Really short - we're talking a line or two at most. I suppose that's preferred to rambling on and on, but little snips and bites are unsatisfying. He uses LJ cut on anything above a few lines. 3/5

II) Depth:
Entries regarding his father, his mentor, and hoping not to have another lonely Christmas are quite deep, but his writing style, which is impersonal and academic, leaves me wanting more. I can envision a brain sitting in front of a keyboard typing these entries, but sometimes I wonder if there's a heart... 3/5

III) Clarity:
Yes, though you might need a dictionary on hand to help you through. 5/5

IV) Flow:
Rather disjointed, probably due to his infrequent posting and somewhat mechanical writing style. 2/5

6) Customization:
nada. zip. zilch. 0/5

7) Userpic:
3 pics - two of himself, and one of a pink monkey, which i like a great deal... 5/5

I'm sure one could drown in the depths of friedrich, but we're not given a chance...

Total score: 35/50

Final score: 6.6/10

Mood: sleep deprivation is beautiful

  2002.07.28  21.44

This is my first r_r in more than three weeks. I do hope I haven't forgotten how this whole thing works. I more than suspect that I'm going to be mixing around categories and scores like there's no next Wednesday, but it's my review and I can do what I want. Booyaka.

By the way, I think I've finally cracked the mystery of why some people add themselves to their friends page. It is not, except in certain cases, a huge ego-trip; instead, it's a convenience allowing someone to view both her own entries (together with comments) and her friends's entries on one page, saving valuable Net-goofing-off time.

This is my theory. I call it The "You Blithering Idiot, That Was So Fucking Obvious" Theory of Single-Page LJing.

A) Profile: Emoticons. God save me from the ubiquitous emoticons.

1) Bio: Mary Poppins is misspelled. So's "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious". This rings many, many alarm bells. Speaking of tangential icebergs, I don't believe that I've ever seen anyone qualify her agnosticism as "polypantheistic" before. This catches my interest, as does her listing of syzygy as an interest (by the way, Theodore Sturgeon is unhappy you misspelled that, too), but then she has to go and spoil it by ending the whole thing with an emoticon. Spare me.

It's a good bio in that it whets the appetite for the journal ahead, but I'm not sure that she wanted to spur reviewers to unholy bloodfeuds against people who so abuse hyphens and dashes. 4/5

2) Contactability:
Hmmph. Comments enabled and a website link, plus I think I'll give her another point for the default "elynne@livejournal.com" e-mail addy, even if it's not obvious. Why? Because I can, and because I've just noticed that one of her interests is "crisp apples." That, see, makes me want to contact her. 3/5

B) Journal:
... "yay balrog"? Well, it takes all sorts.

3) Frequency of posting: Like most people with a low-drama life, she feels the need to update on it whenever anything of even marginally-higher-drama happens. Sometimes she'll post seven, eight, NINE times a day. Why is this? Huccome? 3/5

4) Spelling and grammar:
Honey, I've killed for fewer mistakes than you make. Three things shall ye learn, and you must listen to me because much can be learned from those who reverse verb and subject in their sentences.

1) Hyphens are not dashes, and vice versa.
2) You think you can get away with abbreviating "doctor" as "dtr," but you CAN'T.
3) It's all right to throw commas into sentences sometimes. Really. It is.

Those minor nits aside, and notice that I am merciful and say not a word about her fascinatingly and horribly creative spelling, there's not much to say about elynne's prowess with the English language. I can easily ascertain what the hell she means by any given phrase, and that's the bottom line, even if unnecessarily doubled consonants makes me twitch. 3/5

5) Quality of posting:
The real trick here is finding an entry long enough to subject to analysis, damn it all.

I) Length: Fucking bumper-sticker one-liners.

Look. I appreciate that every now and then, you really need a one-liner post, because it's funny, or it's a link to something you desperately need on Amazon.com, or it's the first line of an eleven-page post about the perfidies of Vladimir Lenin, but the key is that every now and then. elynne makes one-liners just about every day. Grrr.

The entries that aren't one-liners are still pretty damned short, and she has a very good grasp of when to use the lj-cut. I suppose I'd rather have shorter posts than word-hemorrhage-huge ones, but I feel cheated when I read for thirty days and have fewer than five thousand words to show for it. 3/5

II) Depth:
Movie reviews, work-schedule-bitching, and something called Neverwinter Nights, which I presume is an RPG of some sort. Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaantastic.

Most of the time, her posts are about her daily routine, or lack thereof, and to be quite honest with you, she ain't kidding when she cautions in her bio that she'll have a long run of boring posts. While I concede that laundry is a fine and good thing, and so is the taking of showers, I honestly don't see the point of telling alla us about it.

Now, if she'd been taking a milk bath or doing the laundry of Stephen Hawking, then I'd want to know about it. However, those things only ever happen to me, which entitles me to take off billyuns and BILLyuns of points for sheer asininity. 2/5

III) Clarity:
Damn straight. As a general rule of thumb, when one's posts tend to focus on how great it is that Jur-ass-has-had-it Park features man-eating dinosaurs, those posts are as clear as Chrysalis.* 5/5

IV) Flow:
Many of the entries for every day follow logically on the tail of each other. For some reason I find this depressing; maybe it's because the sheer mundanity of the thoughts expressed makes me want to believe that no one could hold onto them for longer than one post's duration. 4/5

6) Customization:
She's got a paid account, but she doesn't do much with it. Her colors are pretty pastels, of which I highly approve, and her layout is simple and easy to read.

... she's got those damned dragon mood icons, though. Major uncool. 4/5

7) Userpics:

And the default is the Queen of Wands.

Clearly, I need say nothing more. 5/5

I rather liked this journal. I was expecting a lot from elynne, who makes some of the most intelligent comments in this community's posts, and expectations were mostly lived up to.

Now if only she'd learn to spell.

Total score: 36/50
Final score: 7.2/10 => 7/10

*If you didn't get the Wild Cards reference, don't worry about it.


  2002.07.28  04.49

Seeing as I'm still awake at 4am, I figured I'd put up a couple reviews. Admittedly yes, I do have better things to be doing, but it's my civic duty as a reality_reviewer to spit at least a couple of these out every couple weeks. I picked the gay guys! Whee.

Please note, I will be assigning points on a more or less arbitrary basis for the duration of this review, simply because I can. You may also note that my formatting (and indeed scoring) of reviews is totally inconsistent; if so, you may feel free to go screw yourself. Kthx.

Anyway. So. archanglrobriel. One of our own. Points there already. But let's move onto the profile, shall we?

A) Profile:

WARNING: Do NOT expose to excessive cold, damp, fog, Fundamentalist Christians or Republicans.
Exposure may cause aggressive behavior, snapping, biting and episodic seizures (especially during news coverage).

1) Bio:
One of the most entertaining bio's I've read in quite some time. Possibly one of the best I've ever reviewed, not like that's saying much. I'm taking a point off for listing interior design as an interest, though. Eensy bit generic. 4/5

2) Contactability:
Comments enabled: 2 points.
Yahoo! ID: 1 point.
Email address @ livejournal.com: 1/2 point.
Website listed as http://NotJumpingOnTheWebPageJustForTheSakeOfVanityBandwagon.com: Priceless.

Take your 5/5 like a good 'yote. Bonus points for setting your journal name to "Bad dog! No Biscuit!". (Don't get me started on the "Bad fox! No lube!" running gag. Seriously. There's pictures. You don't want to see them.)

B) Journal:

If anyone sees me wandering Vegas like some leisure suit dinosaur in a bolo tie and a fumanchu moustache, please just shoot me...k? K.

3) Frequency of Posting:
Averages a post or two a day. I'm happy, biased. Have 5/5.

4) Spelling and grammar:
There are both. Lose, um, a point and a half for abbrv. and *poses*, though. The judgement of the Stray is nothing if not arbitrary. 3.5/5

5) Quality of content:
I) Length:
I could put an obscene comment here. I really, really could. It'd be so easy.
Instead, I'll just tell it like it is. USE THE DAMN <lj-cut> MORE OFTEN. I know you can, I've seen you do it. Some stuff is just waytoolong though. If it was boring, I'd be docking a fuckton of points. As it is, a respectable 3/5 remain.

II) Depth:
On the good side of average. Enough lightweight everyday stuff, but handled with a degree of thoughtfulness that's none too common - the kind of thing that you might start scrolling past, then go back to read as it catches your eye. Some interesting, more introspective entries, too. I like. 4/5

III) Clarity:
Good, good. Not exactly crystal, because sometimes he refers to people by initials - but at least this is consistent so you can build up an image of that person. More often than not he links to people's LJ's anyhow. 4/5

IV) Flow:
It's a little scattershot. There's some degree of consistency, but it seems he writes about whatever's on his mind at the time, which I guess I can't complain about. Still, minus two points for the fact you could read a lot of the entries in any old order. Less of a flow, more of a fountain. Whatever the hell that means. 3/5

6) Customization:
De nada. Standard style, and the colourscheme only really works on the lastn and friends views. Also, I hate those damn hamster icons. However: BEST COMMENT LINKS EVAR. X howls/Bark at the moon. I smile. And yes, I'm biased. You get 3/5 here, and one of those points is for the comments links.

7) Userpic:
'Yote! So cute! Sosocute! Rest of the icons are kinda eh, but there's 9 of 'em, all created by his fair hand, apparently. And lookit! 'Yote! Sodamncute! 5/5, just 'cause.

Oh, just go read it and judge for yourself. I like, you might not. A little gay scene-centric, which may affect your bias - it didn't really bother me either way. Still, a respectable journal with some interesting and insightful stuff mixed up in the day-to-day.
But... ohsocute'yote.

Total score: 39.5/50
Final score: 7.9 => 8/10

edit: I fucked this up slightly. It's fixed now, and hopefully no-one saw. ¬.¬


  2002.07.26  04.20

A) Profile for wheezieness: "I could charm the pants off anyone. I know how to handle people--especially you."

1) Bio: Beautiful, she starts us off with a quote, "I will be harsh as truth and as uncompromising as justice. I do not wish to use moderation." -William Lloyd Garrison. How appropriate, though unfortunately, it's reality_review you're talking to this time. I welcome the invitation, it makes my job that much more rewarding.

Moving on to original content, she quickly proceeds to classify and denounce a good deal of the typical internet trailer trash we all love and kindly advises them to waste someone else's life, as her time is obviously far too important to be spent conversing with what she considers to be her intellectual inferiors. It's about here I decided to start a mental list of things to hold against her once I've moved on to the actual journal.

Whatever room is left she uses to describe precisely how little she cares for what the world thinks of her and how anything she writes she writes for herself alone. Now that's just peachy, but why then are you turning to review communities of any type for analysis? Your words lack conviction, and I'm left fully expecting to find proof twelvefold to support my suspicions.

[ 3/5 ]

2) Contactability: AIM, Email, Comments. Check. [ 4/5 ]

B) Journal: "I hated Great Expectations. Everyone was all, oh yeah it's so good, it's this and that. When I read it, it was all blah, blah, blah, some plot, blah, blah, blah."

3) Frequency of Posting: Practically every day, though on occasion slipping off for a week or two without notice. Or perhaps with notice. I really didn't bother to do more that skim for clues around disappearance dates. You'll understand why when you search for yourself.

[ 4/5 ]

4) Spelling and grammar: While she's decidedly hypercritical of others' grammatical shortcomings, I'm hardly impressed with wheezieness' show-stopping command of the English language. Calm down chipper, they're not all out to get you with undotted i's and crooked t's.

[ 4/5 ]

5) Quality of content: "I watched FRIENDS and Charmed. They were both such good episodes, oh my gosh."

I) Length: A reliable five paragraphs recounting every social triviality to happen between the hours spent outside a bedroom, all with a refreshing lack of quizzes.

[ 5/5 ]

II) Depth: Soiled year books, the tragedy of coming in second place at the Quiz Bowl and earth-shattering life-destroying democracy-rending rumors of a secret crush on the infamous sociology professor, Mr. Cooper. A life packed to the brim with teenage drama. Once and a while wheezieness will offer a glint of insight, but it's buried in a desert of dry, literal recitations of daily happenings. And the boyfriend of the hour.

While I'm on that note - sweet mercy! wheezieness skips mates faster than the bubonic plague. Chevy, Lorenzo, Bryant, Albert, Nathan, Steve, Mike, Leonel, Dean, John, Mr. Cooper, Ryan, Ben, James, Jeffrey, Ernie, and so forth to the ends of time. To top it off, she claims, "Not that crushes aren't fun, but I'm not a girly girl type to fall madly in love with every freakin guy I see." Bwahahahha, can someone cue the laughter tracks?

[ 2/5 ]

III) Clarity: Since she's never with the same partner for more than two entries it's never much of a problem to figure out the few static characters. (Mr. Cooper, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Cooper) [ 3/5 ]

IV) Flow: Terrible in a completely uninteresting and unmotivating fashion. [ 3/5 ]

6) Customization: Very poor, even for a free user. Come on wheez, Even the most daft of teenieboppers can figure out a few simple overrides. [ 1/5 ]

7) Userpic: Three award winning shots off a cracker-jax webcam. Don't get too creative on us, might strain a cortex. [ 2/5 ]

Comments: I must be on a losing streak - Remind me next time to try and find a journal more exciting than a quadriplegic swim meet. As it turns out, all that drivel in wheezieness' profile about "I don't care who I offend, it's my life!" really added up to nothing at all, not once could I find anywhere that Wheez had gone out on a limb or stood alone. Taken a risk. You have to have more than a personalized LJ punch card to offend.

Total score: < 31/50 >
Personal score: < 2/10 >
Final score: < 6/10 >

Mood: bored

  2002.07.25  14.33

Review of reene

A) Profile:reene
It’s been a long time. Shouldn’t have left you. Without a dope beat to step to, step to....
So I’m extremely negligent in getting this review out. I was on vacation and you weren’t, so suck it up. Besides reene was orca busy with lots of cons – and I don’t mean scams. We got a major geek on our hands here people, so watch out.

1) Bio: The bio is quite short and done in bullet points, almost as if it’s a slapped together resume for a job the person isn’t commited to getting. Does reene truly want to win an interview in her application to be my LJ friend? It’s unclear. There’s something to be said for being short and to the point, but I wouldn’t know since I’m a verbose mthafcker. She is a grrl geek which makes her a bit cooler in my biased book.
She only lists a handful of generic interests, but I give her a bonus point for being the only person in LJ universe who has an interest in “lurid sex”. 3/5

2) Contactability: Comments, e-mail and IM, but alas no webpage so I can’t give full credit. I obviously can’t call it a character flaw since I’m guilty of this as well. Still, I must be true to the Reality Review code: 4/5

B) Journal:

3) Frequency of Posting: Pretty damn sparse. She will not manipulate your friends page in the least, if that’s what you’re concerned about. She only posts about twice a week (three times max), and a third of them are friends-only for some indiscernible reason. I’m not sure what she’s saying in the friends-only posts which are supposed to be juicier than the public entries, but I guess we all have our reasons. 1/5

4) Spelling and grammar: Reene’s radioactive Ukrainian grasp of the english language is leaps and bounds ahead of most native-born folks. I salute thee. She’s quite conversational in her writing, but still uses proper capitalization and real words for the most part. 5/5

5) Quality of content: Shoujocon? What’s that? Something that’s taken up a lot of her time lately, if you don’t know. But there’s some other stuff in there occasionally, if you read far enough back. (Or if you wait long enough for the conference to be over.)

I) Length: Reene writes the exact perfect length of posts, in my humble-ass opinion. They are aesthetically pleasing to look at, often being about 2 or 3 short paragraphs long, meaty enough to give me something to read without going on too long. There are occasional uses of bullet points and lists, but not too often. She never uses the lj-cut, but doesn’t really need to. Besides – since she only appears on your friends page once a week, if she cut her posts you might not even notice they exist. 4/5

II) Depth: No tests or quizzes for the most part. When she does indulge they’re generally collectively listed. When will people learn that these quiz results are pointless and rarely amusing or telling of your character? But I digress. reene occasionally digs in deep, but not too frequently. I wouldn’t so much say her journal is superficial, because I don’t feel that way when reading it, but after the fact I still only have a shallow understanding of who she is. Most of her journal is “I did this” and “we did that” and “I want to do this” which gets rather mundane at times. 2.5/5

III) Clarity: What she lacks in depth she makes up for in willingness to put out? I can see right through her. 5/5

IV) Flow: And her journal does have a flow. Maybe not a compelling flow (i.e. I’m not being urged along in the pull of her entries) but it’s not like I don’t understand one entry from the next. Still, the large gap in entries does make me wonder what the other 98% of her life is like. 2/5

6) Customization: This paid user journal is barely customized at all, though she did recently change the comments text, which I like. Her journal is simple and clean and....boring. Which I might not mind if the text didn’t cause me to doze off – maybe some neon green and funky fonts would brighten things up. Or maybe not. 2/5

7) Userpic: 9 userpics, almost all anime. Yawn. But her one userpic of Alan Greenspan won me over a bit. 3/5

Comments: Part of the reason why I took a long time to review this journal is because it’s rather innocuous. I prefer outrageously good or outrageously bad journals – I could neither hate reene or love her. Though she didn’t annoy me either, so there’s something to be said for that -- I’m just not sure what it is. Perhaps her journal is better suited for those who already know her in real-life.

Total Score: 31.5/50 => 6.3/10

Mood: sleepy

  2002.07.23  12.24

Cross posted:

I'm going to buy like, a blank book and I want to send it to random people to draw in it and write in it and just have it sent all over the place, then get it back when it's full. Is anyone interested? If so, email your mailing address to me @ orpheusmac@hotmail.com

(i need some sass that only you realityreviewers can dish out)


  2002.07.23  10.10

A) Profile:

1) Bio:
He's a geek, a cartoonist, a musician, a linguist, an improviser, and a child of the living God. What more could you ask for? "I'm also a geek for money." Haha, that made me smile. Damn, this journal is making it hard for me to be bitter and sadistic. I'm not liking that. Well, at least I don't like something. Even if it is the fact that it's hard to find something wrong with the journal. He draws toilet doors for crying out loud. I'm amused. He'd better wash his hands before shaking mine though. He seems to be a strong Christian, and I couldn't help but smile at that. Gah, I'm not being a good petty, bitter, grump right now! Very well done bio, I'm impressed. The only thing that I didn't like were the question marks from the bad symbols, since obviously he copied it from some original file. 4/5

2) Contactability:
Email, AOL, ICQ, MSN, website, and comments are enabled. Can we say computer dork? [I know, I know, I shouldn't be talking.] 5/5

B) Journal:

3) Frequency of Posting:
An average of 2 posts per day. He misses a few days every once in a while. Passes them off with a "I've been busy." It's more sparse the more you go back, time-wise. Hah. 3/5

4) Spelling and grammar:
It's good. Really good. This I like, because I go crazy when I see spelling/grammar mistakes. 5/5

5) Quality of content:

I) Length: They range from one to seven paragraphs. But he puts in bolded titles so the paragraphs don't seem overbearing. 4/5

II) Depth:
His entries are mostly about his day. Anything deep is rather very occasional. Hmm. 3/5

III) Clarity:

IV) Flow:
Blah, it does indeed flow. There's occasional little distractions, but it doesn't really take away from the flow. 4/5

6) Customization:
If I could give more than 5 points, I would. Then again, would I LIKE that? I mean, I'm already shelling out so many points anyways. ;) Beautiful customization. It's simple and sophisticated and very neat. I love how the time and date and all that is on the left of the entries, and having a line beside the entries is really good for someone like me, because I like to lean on things. So I've got a weird subconscious thing going on about how it's like a wall for the words to lean on. Nevermind, I'm rambling again. 5/5

7) Userpic:
There's only 5 out of the possible 10. Take advantage of the many icon spaces you have! I know this is one of the main reasons I even want a paid account. The icons are cute though. 3/5

Comments: Overall, a great journal. It's interesting, and very pleasing to the eye. Very well written. Now excuse me while I go yell at someone, since I didn't get to do that here.

Total score: 41/50

Final score: 8.2/10-->8/10


  2002.07.22  23.52

A) Profile:
1) Bio:
Welcome to Jon's life. Jon is an aspiring young drummer (in the stereo summer) who loves art. You know how I know this? Because he tells me (in so many words.) It's not particularly grabbing mind you, but it's entirely refreshing to actually see a full out bio. I heave a sigh of relief for I do not have to start off with a severe cut of points. Cheers my boy, good show.4/5

2) Contactability:
Email, comments, website and AIM. It's the average. Not above and beyond like some happy self absorbed lunatic, yet you can get in touch with him if you need to. Full points. Good start, maybe I'm just in a good mood because I'm listening to some of his bands mp3s... color me biased.5/5

B) Journal:

3) Frequency of Posting:
Still no problems. He posts at least once a day sometimes even up to four times. I'm not sure that everyone comprehends how odd, and surprising, this is to me. Particularly after the last two reviews I did of his friends: xjustinx and xcoldcutsx. Oh and he doesn't have x's surrounding his name either, surprise surprise. 5/5

4) Spelling and grammar:
Well... we drop a slight bit here. I'm sure he would claim it to be artistic, but I'm shaving off a couple points for a few annoying little habits. Nary a capital is to be seen and he does that writing to the left thing.3/5

5) Quality of content:

I) Length:
Why is he so content upon being perfect? It's been a long day and posting a few scathing remarks would do me a world of good. Unfortunately this model boy has a nice array of short and longer entries, none overly long. Hurray for him.5/5

II) Depth:
I'm not saying the boy never has a deep moment but don't hold your breath, they don't enter in to often. He even has posted a couple applications to be his girlfriend (and mind you, he has not shortage of applicants. What a charmer.) There is an occasional spot of light in the dark sea of daily events, so I'll give him a couple points.2/5

III) Clarity:
Well, nothing in the text, but once again I'm taking off for his choice of formatting. I do it because I can.4/5

IV) Flow:
No problems here. Again. I'm going to scream, or maybe just yawn. Maybe I do miss a little bit of that craziness, because the boys a wee bit predictable.5/5

6) Customization:
Ah my dears, he's going to college for graphic design, one of his questions on his girlfriend application asked of their favorite paint shop pro filter... how could he not have customized his journal? Really now. 5/5

7) Userpic:
He has two userpics. One, an old picture that bears the title "i am jon". The other the top half of his shaggy head. The second is the only one used. Finally I can take off some points! Come on Mr. Artist, I'm sure you could do better.1.7/5

Comments: Overall I was pleasantly surprised. I was utterly prepared for another disgusting journal that just leaves me wondering why they offered themselves up for such a beating. But no, this journal was good. Well put together, fairly entertaining. What is a disgruntled reviewer to do?

Total score: 37.7/50
Final score: 7.5/10-->8/10

Mood: disappointed

  2002.07.18  12.50

A) Profile: A name like rhinohumper is SURE to get my attention! Just wanted you to know that!

1) Bio: What a bio should be. It's just enough to keep you interested, but not enough to fill the entire page. It's not littered with pictures and clutter either, which is a plus.

"Got a joke for me?" Yup, sure do:

A Polish Roman Catholic walks into a bar... ;) 5/5

2) Contactability: E-mail, AIM, Comments, Text Message. 4/5

B) Journal: Dragosljvich, hot and spicy chicken, bowel movement (Now there's a weird string of words, don't ya think)!?

3) Frequency of Posting: Almost every day! 5/5

4) Spelling and grammar: If she made any serious grammar mistakes, I didn't notice them. 5/5

5) Quality of content: "I hate anime! " Well, anime HATES YOU TOO! :p

I) Length: Some are long, some are short, some are moderate and yet none of them require an LJ tag, unless it's the occasional quiz. No small feat, I say! 5/5

II) Depth: She talks mostly about her personal life. Sometimes, she goes beyond that and speaks of movies, books she's read and even religion, although she seems to just scratch the surface here and with anything that isn't necessarily a day to day aspect of her life. She's not shallow, that's for certain. However, anything deeper may be hidden in her friends page, which I can't see. Anyway, she really LOVES to cross-stitch! She has a need of reminding people of that! HEEHEH!

"Okay, this was a REALLY dumb journal. I hope nobody actually read through it all the way... " I kind of have to because I'm reviewing it...ehhehhee. 3/5

III) Clarity: Oh yes, she's as clear as this song I'm listening to *plug* Scooter--Friends *end plug*. 5/5

IV) Flow: She flows as much as the "monthly bill", I daresay. 5/5

6) Customization: It's a paid account and all I see are colors that look like someone threw them up. GEEGH! Is that a chewed carrot? Well, she seems to like them, but I don't so NA! She customizes her user comments though, but that's about it. There's nothing that sets this journal apart from a FREE account. Hell, my own paid account is more customized than this and I'm no good at HTML either, so I don't want to HEAR the "WAAA! I suck at HTML" excuse, mmkay!? 1/5

7) Userpic: You can use ten user pics in a paid account and yet, she only uses 5. That "angry man" looks scary!!! YOIKS! So, one point for that one. 1/5

BTW, she'd get along well with my mother in terms of the Golden Girls! HEEE!

Total score: 39/50
Final score: 7.4/10

Mood: accomplished

[ << Previous 25 ]