Andrew J. Lederer

got linked by gawker again the other day (was it the 4th or 5th time this year?) for the coca-cola post. it was the 1st time they aimed their celebrated "snark" at me, claiming i'd used too many italics.

it was a rant, really and when i read it over, i decided i hadn't italicized enough. still, i knew there was an italics imbalance in the post before i published it, but i didn't have time to work it over any further, 'cause gawker's deadline for "blogorrhea" had arrived and i suspected they'd like this one.

who knows? it could be the italics thing tipped them in my favor; maybe their ability to mock was the element which ensured my inclusion. if so, thank god for inadequate proofing -- i'll take the thousand or so extra hits, snark or no snark.

plus they helped me overcome an andrew-rule problem that had been plaguing me for a while.

sometime within the last few months, i was reading over a pre-written post before publishing. i was at my friends house -- you know, the one who supplies me with my daily requirement of ambient pot -- and i'd made sure to finish my writing before i arrived there, so's i wouldn't be unduly influenced by his environmental maryjane.

however, i couldn't help looking the post over one more time and when i did, i felt i had probably used too many italics.

as a result, ever after, i've been unable to err on the side of less italics, fearing it was the unfair advantage of thc that had given me my italics-busting insight.

but now i can cut back on the italicizing and attribute it to the dressing-down i got from gawker.

and not my unnamed friend's pot.

sometimes, life is good.