Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Yesterday's Post: An Apolonation

Unless you're some sort of inbred hick, you'd probably figure out all on your own at some point while reading this post — thanks to what they used to call "context clues" back when I was a youngster in what they used to call "grade school" — that "Apolonation" is my own neologistic portmanteau-word meaning "both apology and explanation"; and I'm telling you this right here, upfront, before I've even supplied you with the first context clue so that you'll never know for sure whether you'd have been one of the readers who'd've figured that out on your own and therefore could've proudly held your head high and declaimed: "I am of dull-normal intelligence AT LEAST, dammit!"; or whether you'd have been one of the readers who, after finishing this post, would've still been all, "Guuuuuh, wha da fuck is uh 'apolonation' anywayz?" and would've had to've conceded that you might be an inbred hick of less than dull-normal intelligence and then would've had to've gone to your father and said, "Paw, are we a bunch of inbred hicks?' only to've had him answer, "Guuuuhhh, I dunno. Go ask my sister ... er, I mean, your Maw. She's tha one whut birthed y'all litter a' young 'uns."

Okay, okay — here's a bone1 for you: If you managed to get through that first paragraph, and you actually think it made sense .... you just may be an inbred redneck who's not smarter than a fifth grader.

Anyroad, the above caveat is necessary2 because I need both to apologize for yesterday's post — because it was fucking boring — and be clearer about what it meant — because some of you, in your comments, misunderstood what I was trying to say.

Okay, so: Sorry it was boring3.

Okay, now that that's outta the way ... to the Explanationmobile! [cue Batman Theme]

These lines from that post:
I was pretty happy with my performance4 ... but looking at the numbers objectively? Gotta admit, they kinda suck.

Which is fine because "suck" is pretty much my own assessment of my running skills. So I'm not disappointed by them.
were, I think, kinda misunderstood by readers as my way of trolling for some comforting words of consolation (which they weren't), because Teh Former Blogger Formerly Known As Teh Loose Former Moose aka LuMu said:
I disagree with the whole "suck" assessment. Didn't you used to be MUCH suckier? I believe you did. And 24/33 in your age group is not especially sucktastic at all, considering the fact that that is a tough, tough age group.
which was kinda nice of her and under normal circumstances, her "Didn't you used to be MUCH suckier?" observation would've won First Prize in the Best Left-handed Compliment category, except there was this gem from carpeviam (aka, "seize the n*ts@ck and twist it while the guy's already down"):
At least you finished the race. Despite the suckage. A DNF would be worse, right?
Wow. That brought a tear to my eye. You suck, but at least you didn't DNF. Plus, I have my health, too, right, cv? Don't forget that meaningless comfort! Now why don't I just go off in a corner and bounce this here red rubber ball while the real runners discuss real running.

Then, of course, there was this from My Favorite Blogging Transvestite:
Suckage? I see no absolutely no suckage.

I have yet to break more than the top 85% of my age group, much less the race. I am pretty sure I have not even the top 85% of all short, fat blonds running any particular race.

I would peel someone's penis like a banana ...
Oops! I accidentally included a little bit more of that comment than I intended. O well, the damage is done now, and there's no way to undo it.

By way of apology to RBR, let me add this link to her latest post because it includes this pic of a really hot GILF5 and she's so cute she'd be totally worth having to go to dinner at 4 p.m. to catch the early bird special then back home for some hanky-panky by 5 and light-out, night-night by 6:30!1!

In fact, I appreciate all of the kindness and encouragement. But I wasn't being down on myself in my assessment of my performance. I actually did much better than I thought I would in the race in question. My point was that it's just pretty much true that, in objective terms — however you wanna define "objective" — my numbers were not impressive to anyone but me. I actually gave this some thought: why it is that my numbers are soooo much better in 5ks, even ones where I'm not particularly happy with my performance, than they were in this 15k?

I reckon it's because loads of foax figure they can finish 3.1 miles; but once you get up to 9.33 miles, the number of foax running the race just to finish it goes way down. In other words, most of the people who run 15ks are serious runners, I guess.

I can't prove this. But I figure that's as likely an explanation as any.

I hope this satisfies all of you (that's what she said because she's a whoo-wer!1!).
_____
1 No, not that kind of bone. <--That joke was a really cheap-ass way to get you down here to the footnote area of this post and it was not the real reason I wanted you down here (THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID!1!). The real reason you're down here (THAT'S ...etc.!1!) is so that I could point out to you that I have now, three days early, violated the last provision of the oath I made at the beginning of this month — viz., not to use footnotes. I've already been ungentle for at least a week and a half; this past weekend I dropped the N-Bomb ("n*ts@ck") like twenty times; and I've been generally vulgar and potty-mouthed for quite some time.

And I'm pointing all of this out to you so that you don't feel the need to get all "GOTCHA!1! You used an illegal footnote!1!" in your comments; because, yeah, I know that already.

I also wanted to point out that I have decided there will be no repercussions for me for these violations of my oath. We must look forward, not backward. Because looking forward? I see a shitload of footnotes and n*ts@ck-sightings in the future. So come, grab my n*ts@ck (THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID!1! then he said, ZOMG!1! YOU'RE NOT A SHE!1!) and make the journey forward with me.

Also, I knew that if I didn't start using footnotes soon, j'og would never, ever leave another comment.

2 "Necessary" defined here as "arbitrary and totally unnecessary, like these footnotes."

3 And a big FUCK YOU to all y'all who thought my Ibañez post from a couple of days ago was more boring than the post I'm actually apolonating for, because I'll NEVER apologize for that one and as explanation for that refusal I refer you to the big FUCK YOU, above. Because Ibañez!!!1!!!!!1!

But, to be fair, I will apologize for those two big Fuck Yous.

Sorry.

4 THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID!1!!

5 HANDS OFF, dude-bloggers! I saw her first!1! BONUS: RBR also includes a pic of the GILF's granddaughter!1!

To be absolutely honest, though: I also totally would have fucked that hippo RBR posted a pic of in her 4/25  post because
HUBBA-HUBBA!1! I haven't seen bulgy, come-hither looking eyes like that since Barbara Bush!1!

But I wouldn't've wanted a relationship with that hippo because in time it would've been all, Glaven, does the fact that I'm a 4-ton hippo make my ass look fat? and I just neither need nor want that kinda drama in my life right now.

7 comments:

  1. Umm... you need at least a phD or be the former Governor of Texas, to make up your own words. Them's the facts, dude. *eyeroll*

    Ok, fine I will admit that the only reason I did not look up "apolonation" is because in looking up "neologistic portmanteau" I figured out you were just being a fucknob (one of my personal fav portmanatees or whatever the hell you said)

    On another note, congratulations, man. Finally admitting your true self has GOT to feel good. I mean, not every guy would be ok with publicly admitting that they want to "bag" a transvestite grandma (well, the hippo thing may have been a little TMI, but I am not one to judge.)

    That took balls, dude.

    Or ovaries, whatever the case may be. Again, I am not one to judge.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ok, it made me giggle that you edited your hippo tonnage reference. Hilarious.

    Yeah, I notice shit like that which makes me just as anal as you.

    Love you, man.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Your theory on races is totally accurate. I always finish in a higher percentile as the race increases in length as long as the other factors remain roughly the same. But it also depends on the race - a race of 15K put on by the local track club in the winter will be way more competitive then the Walt Disney World half marathon.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh I KNOW you have your health, G. ;)

    Sexual innuendoes at work, here.

    ReplyDelete
  5. To be honest, most of the running stuff is fairly boring to me. But...everything else is usually hilarious, so i'm going to keep reading even if you run your knees into the ground.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Your theory is sound. I LOVE 5ks in part because my stats look way more impressive - any ol' bumblefuck might rouse him or herself to walk/run/stagger a mere 3.1 miles, and I have such low self esteem that I lurve beating them. But actual runners show up at longer distances, painfully reminding me of my mediocrity. Damn those real runners...

    ReplyDelete
  7. I can't believe you used the term "inbred hick" that many times in the first paragraph without linking to my blog. you are learning to suck in whole new ways.

    ReplyDelete