duck

boynton's probably setting herself up here - but we notice the recent run of (0) comments and suspect we may be coming close to the record for consecutive ducks. Maybe boynton will be inducted into the hall of fame. It's a mental game of course, but she may have to tweak the output range to get the input level back to normal.

---

Comments: duck

I almost feel it necessary to comment being that my first was under similar circumstances (a post about comments). So, essentially, there. I've ruined the 0 once again.
Posted by .es at August 9, 2003 03:00 PM

ah - runs on the board.
That post was absoloutely begging to be so ruined, .es, and I'm so glad one was off the mark so quickly. There was much irony in the duck as she sat, but it was rather embarrassing.
And note the transition: that former post was serious/pompous blogging pontification, this is LCD blogging self-reflection. Maybe that's the normal trajectory?
Posted by boynton at August 9, 2003 03:08 PM

You keep using big words :(
Posted by Scott Wickstein at August 12, 2003 12:56 AM

I'll keep an eye on the syllable levels, Scott ;)

btw - did you see the cricket stats link? A fairly comprehensive site for sportingpundits and trivia heads.
Posted by boynton at August 12, 2003 11:26 AM

Yeah I had a look- but I'm already well covered in the stats section.

Cricket stats are a touchy issue with serious cricket pundits. Each pundit will have his/her own view about the stats that matter.

We are a strange breed, cricket pundits. You think there's some difficult artists? You've seen nothing yet!
Posted by Scott Wickstein at August 13, 2003 12:28 AM

Gosh - this touchy-stats issue is rather intriguing, Scott. Sounds a bit like "What is History?" - some stats - like facts- gain ascendancy, or matter more than others?
There is no such thing as a plain stat?
Posted by boynton at August 13, 2003 12:37 PM