as usual, regarding our sacred duties to the Exalted Commentariat. The reasons for this are manifold, mostly to do with multiple bouts of intoxication in at least three countries that we can remember. Luxembourg may have been involved, but that evening is particularly hazy in our memory. Let us begin:
1) Regarding the above, ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© addresses the perennial complaint on this blog. To wit:
If only there were some sort of entity that could address the concerns of this weblog’s readers…
An investigation into the hiring practices of in-house contractor 3Bulls! Ambassadorial Services, Incorporated is currently under way. We expect full exoneration.
(Readers will note that this is a sure-fire way to get the Ombuds to post. Be merciful)
We should also add that the above-linked thread is reaching Atriotic levels of insanity. We are currently pondering some kind of prize or award for the thousandth (or other arbitrary) comment, but fear that arguments over such a contest and its attending prizes would easily outnumber the existing entries.
2) UC is in particularly fine form in the latest Pitchfork Listomania installment. A representative sample:
Putting the song through my mass spectrometer, I can see that compositionally it is only barely different than The Microphones pt. 4.1341. I call shenanigans. David Bevan thinks this song is so clever for avoiding a hook. I say that if you are baking a chocolate dessert and forget cocoa, one deserves only admonishment and not some praise for making an alternate kind of dessert.
UC: spooning the carob of malice into your music-blogging rumballs since 2005.
3) plover, in the continuing landmark case Fish v. Shorebird, includes in opening arguments:
The sheepish look on a particular shorebird at, with this post, disturbing the tranquillity of those who thought this particular brouhaha had subsided a month ago caused one of our editors to suggest filing it under “fish vs ovine”, but said editor was, to easily imaginable effect, threatened with being locked in the room with the ombudscrew.
This is, obviously, blatant anti-ombuds bias. The most we would ever inflict is a generous measure of bourbon, and perhaps some brochettes. On behalf of our colleagues, particularly the ombudsovine, we demand an immediate retraction.
Any other business?