Michael Herman

Why I am the victor in this blogging war you ask? The question should be: "Shouldn't it be illegal to be as damn good looking as I am?", cause that's about as obvious as the answer to the original question. The clear cut winner in this blogging war is yours truly, Michael Jonathan Herman. Only this man, nay this Adonis, has clearly maintained his integrity, while still providing a humourous and unedited website for all to enjoy. He has risen above the ashes of the petty squables, and has shown himself to be the brightest, funniest, most well read, sexiest, and above all, modest...est of them all. Although the space on the internet that I will explain why this is so could better be used to look at pron, write hateful messages to Ukranian nuns, or start your own cult, I will still endevor to explain to my 'special' friends why exactally I am so much better than them.

Darwin first penned the theory of Natural Selection. This states that the weakest members of any species would be killed off, in order to preserve the genetic superiority of the rest of the group. This law was designed for you people. Chaz: Although you claim to be the most popular and the richest, due to the ad's on your site, you have clearly compromised your integrity and any small sembelence of ethics that you had in order to attain this. He has been using illegal, immoral and just annoying tactics to gain visitors to his site (I'm serious, what he's doing for his ad's IS illegal). He may have his illusion of greatness, but in reality, he is a sham, who props himself up by being an annoying whore. Does this sound like a victor to you? Ben: Like The Rolling Stones, this once great thing has turned to advertizing and Viagra to attract the masses. He, while maintaining some semblence of a blog, has further degraded into really bad poetry, and cheap gimmicks to try and gain a crowd. Plus, he too sold his soul to the advertizing devil. Again, his integrity has been shot down, AND he cavorts with the biggest whore, Chaz. Fromstein: In a different light, we could have been friends. However, between your 'on again, off again' blog, your bigorty, and the fact that you are slowly planning to ruin my friend, I can see that you too are destined for evil. And to top it off, you have also joined with the advertising group, in spite of your promise to give the money to charity. What charity, the "Beat Starving Mother's With Orphaned Refugee Minority Fund"? Lauren: If you wrote once in a while, I could clarify your existance, and maybe have something to say about you. Thus, you see the winner is clearly me, as I have transcended the materialism of these fools, not sucuming to the will of the advertizers, and still have a damn funny blog on the internet.


A Cranky Old Jew said...

Herman, you pig fucking, infant slapping, Everyone Loves Ray watching, Jewass bitch. I have NEVER had ads on my site (aside from Chaz's shameless whore ads for his own blog).

While I was briefly considering the idea of putting ads on my site and donating 100% of the proceeds to charity (the same idea you brought up publicly at a charity dinner last night, I might add, you filthy prick), Google decided my site was a little too PG-13, and so the whole concept never approached fruition.

I bet you all expected me to make a fruition joke about or closeted friend? Nope.

So, I move that Herman be disqualified from the contest and/or castrated. Not because he lied, that I can deal with, but because he lied about me.

Much love,

Chaz said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Chaz said...

I agree with Fromstein (ew).

Herman, like Ben, you did not follow the rules and took shots at not just me, but our entire blogging group.

But if you hadn't, this was a sorry excuse for two paragraphs.

1) You have "risen above the ashes of petty squabbles"? Please. As I have said many times before, you devoted an entire post to how evil I am! And, in the post before that, you said how all our blogs were bad!

And, in your June 21st post, you just complained about your situation ("providing a humourous...website for all to enjoy"?).

2) You have shown yourself "to be the brightest...most well read"? Let me tell you why that is ridiculous. First of all, anyone who reads should know that "most well" makes zero sense. Would you say "most good"? No. You should have said that you were the "best read". But then again, you probably shouldn't have said that, because clearly you have not read Darwin's On the Origin of Species. Natural Selection has nothing to do with what you wrote. You can ask Ed, and he will tell you that genetic superiority is not preserved by Natural Selection, it is attained by that means, after random mutation. Also, notice how you first call Natural Selection a "theory", and then a "law". Good job.

Also, I would think that bright people would know how to spell words like "endeavour" (2 mistakes), "semblance" (2 mistakes), "ads" and "mothers" (apostrophes?), "succumbing" (3 mistakes). There were others, but they were probably typos.

3) Get some new material! Fromstein and Ben (and even you) have already used the 'Chaz is evil and a whore, etc.' argument many times. We all understand that I am evil. There is no need to beat it down like Fromstein will do to starving mothers with his non-existent advertizing.

Herman, I read this, and cried. With joy, might I add, because now my sentiments were confirmed: You stand no chance at winning the blog war.

Chaz out.

Herman said...

From: Unfortuantly, this message was written while the idea was still in motion. I was under the impression that you WOULD attain advertisments. However, since this is not the case, I will simply continue hating you for other reasons.

Chaz: Obviously the part of your brain that controls the sense of humour has been taken out back and shot, like Old Yeller, or that hooker that one night.

I don't think you quite grasp the concept of HUMOUR.

Pour example: I list all my amazing qualities. The last quality is 'modesty'. Clearly, after listing all my qualities, I am far from modest. This is known as 'juxtoposition' or 'irony', depending on how you look at it. This is an element of humour.

Another element, that you clearly did not pick up on, was the fact that I fully acknowledge that my blog is FULL of typoes. That last sentence probably had a typo in it too. If you look carefully, I refer to my blog as "humourous and unedited website". I am fully aware that I don't edit what I write. This gives my work a fresh and authentic look. Hence, my misspelling of many works, my questionable grammar (and you missed "the most modest...est"). All of this is in a effort to make people LAUGH, and because I'm way too lazy to proof-read.

In addition, you repeatedly claim how I am just as involved in the bolg war as all of you. You cite the example of ONE post as my undying hatred towards you. ITS ONE POST. I made a post on why I hate Jewish School. Does this mean that I now have a vendetta agianst every Jewish school in the world? I made ONE post about your blog. The post prior to this insulted ALL the blogs, even ones that weren't involved in the war (ie. Jared). Once again, an element of HUMOUR, which you seem to be sorely needing. Afterwards, you can check on my site, and you will not see one word of the blog war, unless it has been mentioned on the comments somewhere. In addition, all the comments I leave on your blogs since then have been related to the topic discussed.

With regards to your 'evil': While I comment twice on you being a whore, I never say the word 'EVIL' in conjuncture with your name. I use many more colourful adjectives, but not evil.

As for the Evolution comments: While strictly speaking, I misquoted it, clearly everyone understood the meaning.

My second most recent post was an inquiry to my readers, based on the reaction my "Draft" post recieved. One must interact with their fan base to try and please them in the best way possible, by getting their input.

Finally, your supposed 'Rules of the Blog War'. In the letter Miranda sent us, she told us that we must "State your peace, and why you think you're right/wrong, be sure to use colorful language dotted with the air of vindictiveness." Clearly, if I prove why all of you are wrong, then this shows how I am then right. It says nowhere that I cannot 'take shots' as you put it at you. So you creat these rules to mask the fact that you did NOT read the stipulations properly, and that your entrys are clearly lacking.

Ben: Just shut up already!

So I shall again reiterate that I am the winner of this blogging war.

Peace and so on

Chaz said...

Wow, Herman. That was humour? My bad. You see, I was under the impression that it was just you complaining about how life, blogs, and the fact that you "can't get a girlfriend" (a common motif in your writing) all suck.

I never mentioned anything about editing or proofreading. That is why I didn't mention the typos that you made. What I did mention were the blatant errors that just show that you don't know how to spell. If you write 'pron' instead of 'porn', then that was just a typo. If you write 'sucuming' instead of 'succumbing', then you just have no clue.

Also, for someone who is so adept at reading, I am shocked that you horribly misread Miranda's instructions. In fact, right after the line that you quoted about vindictiveness, it clearly says "But no finger pointing!! All of this 'Chaz said this' and 'Ben posted this' stuff is played out."

Way to read, Herman.

Oh and one more thing. I realize that I was just referring to one post, but you keep claiming that you maintained your integrity and what not. Maybe you don't understand the clear implications if that statement, but let me break it down: If you so much as write a word, let alone an entire post, that undermines this statement, then you haven't maintained your integrity! It is a simple concept.

Chaz out.

Herman said...

Ever heard of self-depricating humour?

You DID clearly mention my editing and spelling, as you commented on my numerous misspellings. (that word was probably also badly spelt). So there. (And, btw, pron is a homage to the Kingdom of Loathing, a web game I used to play)

I didn't have Miranda's original email in front of me, so I had to go with the the excerpt on her website. In any event, I fail to see how you can prove yourself the winner, if you DONT show why the other's are not.

As per your last paragraph, there is a difference between INSTIGATING (which I have not done since the orignal post on my site), and DEFENDING yourself (which does not comprimise your integrity, in fact, it increases it)
(Or however you measure integrity).

In any event, the integrity remark was also directed at my lack of advertisments (From and Lauren nonwithstanding).

Peace and so on

muffin said...

Wi cant we all just get a lawn?

Bensinger333 said...

And google took away my ads. So no money for me...:'(