Wednesday, April 29, 2009

A friendly message from blogger.com

Just got this in the old inbox:

Hello,

Your blog at: http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/ has been identified as a potential spam blog. To correct this, please request a review by filling out the form at http://www.blogger.com/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ...

Your blog will be deleted in 20 days if it isn't reviewed, and your readers will see a warning page during this time...

Sincerely,

The Blogger Team

P.S. Just one more reminder: Unless you request a review, your blog will be deleted in 20 days


Now, they did say I wouldn't be able to post, and apparently I can, so who knows. I smell....shenanigans!

Anyway, long story short: People think I am secretly randall munroe but finally I have proven otherwise: I am really a robot! Specifically, the DoucheBagger9000
Posted by Carl

36 comments:

  1. KobraApril 29, 2009 at 11:21 PM

    Smells like conspiracy to censorship to me. And that smells of bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  2. rsApril 29, 2009 at 11:24 PM

    Hahaha, sounds like the fanboys have banded together to try to take out xkcdsucks!

    ReplyDelete
  3. MooseApril 29, 2009 at 11:27 PM

    No. NOOO. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

    Fuck you, Carl, I need this! NOOOOOOOO, my virtual livelyhood that I have squandered.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lint of DeathApril 29, 2009 at 11:50 PM

    Looks like some sort of terrible trick to me. I hope you were careful about clicking the original links.

    ReplyDelete
  5. TrismegustisApril 30, 2009 at 12:37 AM

    What in the hell is a "spam blog"?

    What, like, a blog full of advertisements?

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousApril 30, 2009 at 1:56 AM

    The "PS. Just one more reminder" bit gives it away

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes, kanouApril 30, 2009 at 2:07 AM

    Yeah, spam blogs are those blogs that aren't actually useful for anything except someone made it to link to things to raise PageRank. Clearly, this blog was made to raise xkcd's PageRank.

    ReplyDelete
  8. TimofeiApril 30, 2009 at 2:22 AM

    Looks like a phishing attempt to me.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Lint of DeathApril 30, 2009 at 5:59 AM

    In other news, the April 29 Dinosaur Comics is the perfect example of how xkcd should be making references. T-Rex's lines in the first panel are a paraphrasing of part of the hilariously terrible fan fiction, HALF-LIFE: FULL LIFE CONSEQUENCES. But Ryan North never calls attention to the fact that he made a reference, nor to what. He leaves it entirely up to the reader to catch it, and even works it in so well that it sounds like something T-Rex might say.

    Oh, and the strip as a whole is hilarious, that's something Randall could learn from, too :-)

    ReplyDelete
  10. AnonymousApril 30, 2009 at 6:39 AM

    This proves it! He is randall! I told you he was a giant chicken!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Spring-Heeled JackApril 30, 2009 at 7:05 AM

    Anony, even if he is Randall, how does that make xkcd better?

    ReplyDelete
  12. JohnApril 30, 2009 at 7:38 AM

    I wish Carl was Randall. It'd be an epic troll on us all.

    ReplyDelete
  13. AnonymousApril 30, 2009 at 7:39 AM

    no, that's what xkcd is for.

    ReplyDelete
  14. thomasApril 30, 2009 at 8:18 AM

    Blogger is only suspecting Carl of being a spambot because he makes the same five criticisms of every xkcd strip! lololololol

    --Oh wait, that's just what the completed "report this blog" form says. And it didn't acknowledge the xkcdsucks FAQ. And I can't print out the form without the original signer's drool coming out, too.

    ReplyDelete
  15. AnonymousApril 30, 2009 at 9:01 AM

    ALRIGHT

    I will go through this with you guys ONE MORE TIME

    NOW

    this thesis is based on two basic assumptions:
    randall has no soul
    carl has no life

    NOW
    if we assume that something living is a requirement for having a soul, we can clearly see the correlation there!

    but that is not all, as randall has taught is in previous strips, correlation does not imply causation.

    OR DOES IT?

    Now if we assume randall is carl, we also assume that rancarll will not want anyone to find out, hence him explaining to us how correlation doesn't imply causation. Besides, I heard the guy who originally said that was a communist, and those don't have souls either.

    BUT THERE IS MORE

    Now we assume the market for attention (not to be confused with the market for cash money dollars) is divided in two sections
    1) people who like xkcd
    2) people who do not.

    Now, xkcd has covered section 1 already, but what about section two? nobody ever speaks directly to this group, it's a serious market gap. And hey, who could better understand how these people feel than the guy who regularly sells his dignity for one more unfunny homage to those who like catching references and seeing themselves in stick figures.

    OBVIOUSLY randall and carl are the same person.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  16. PippingradApril 30, 2009 at 9:21 AM

    By telling everybody his comics are shit and how they're shit? I'm sold!

    ReplyDelete
  17. AnonymousApril 30, 2009 at 9:40 AM

    Hello Maddox,
    This is Orbitz.

    I'm so sorry.

    Sincerely,
    Orbitz

    P.S. I Am Orbitz

    ReplyDelete
  18. the_cuddlefishApril 30, 2009 at 10:08 AM

    Maddox is a fucking hack whose internet popularity should have ended before it began. GODDAMN.

    ReplyDelete
  19. JohnApril 30, 2009 at 10:16 AM

    I like the idea that Randall is cornering the entire market by appealing to both fans and non-fans. It's brilliant.

    But until 'Carl' starts rolling out xkcd sucks t-shirts, let's enjoy the ride.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ann ApolisApril 30, 2009 at 12:37 PM

    But Randall must have a soul! Otherwise how will he be damned to hell for his kiddy-fiddling urges?

    ReplyDelete
  21. CarlApril 30, 2009 at 1:10 PM

    I am actually pretty sure it wasn't a phishing type thing, oddly. That would make it simpler.

    I didn't click the e-mailed link; I went to blogger.com as usual (through the URL bar) and there was a note attached to the dashboard for xkcd sucks. So...yeah. I suspect it was just picked up because, as someone said, I link to the same site so much that a robot looking for that only might think this was some kind of pro-xkcd spam site.

    Stupid robots.

    ReplyDelete
  22. MikeApril 30, 2009 at 5:54 PM

    Carl, I can host your web site for you for free if you want or if blog spot kills it.

    Just throwin that out there.

    I love this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  23. dragon2041April 30, 2009 at 7:05 PM

    Guiyz! Itz soo obvious! Why has u not seen b4?

    Carl, Rob, and Randall r all secretly teh samm persun! Actually, that persun duz not exist! Itz a lei consxtruczorzed by Bill Gates so that seals can rule the world!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Dr. SApril 30, 2009 at 9:22 PM

    They don't think they're the same person.

    It's a Tyler Durden situation.

    Sorry, Carl/Randall.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hey, It's That Guy!April 30, 2009 at 9:34 PM

    Who gives a crap if they're the same person? xkcd still blows monkey balls.

    ReplyDelete
  26. dragon2041May 1, 2009 at 4:23 AM

    "Hey, It's That Guy!": Sarcasm. Learn it well.

    ReplyDelete
  27. AnonymousMay 1, 2009 at 5:10 AM

    OF COURSE

    It's so obvious! Dr. S just blew my mind.

    (I'm the explanation anon)

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hey, It's That Guy!May 1, 2009 at 8:34 AM

    @dragon2041:

    I do not think sarcasm means what you think it means...

    ReplyDelete
  29. AntoidsMay 1, 2009 at 8:40 AM

    H,ITG!: You are the only sincere person in this comment section.

    Thank you for joining us. You may leave your logic at the door. Hopefully, it will not be there when you return.

    ReplyDelete
  30. AmandaMay 1, 2009 at 9:57 AM

    oo i watched fight club last night!

    actually not really cuz i am not feeling well so i actually just sort of went to bed.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Ann ApolisMay 1, 2009 at 2:31 PM

    Get well soon, swine flu woman.

    ReplyDelete
  32. dragon2041May 2, 2009 at 9:28 PM

    "I do not think sarcasm means what you think it means..."

    See, i woudl have laughed if you had said "that word" instead of "sarcasm". alas.

    ReplyDelete
  33. pooreMay 3, 2009 at 12:21 AM

    @dragon2041:

    I would've laughed if you weren't ALL FUCKING RETARDED.

    (Except Amanda)

    ReplyDelete
  34. Ann ApolisMay 3, 2009 at 2:19 AM

    I wouldn't have capitalised "all". Unless you mean that one person is wholly retarded, as opposed to that everyone is retarded.

    ReplyDelete
  35. dragon2041May 3, 2009 at 6:51 AM

    @poore:
    I would've laughed if all wasn't capitalized.

    @ann: Wait, nevermind, you said it.

    ReplyDelete
  36. AmandaMay 6, 2009 at 11:28 AM

    i loff you guys

    quite a bit

    and i laughed at all of the comments so um yay?

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)