Appropriately, loyal reader and long-time friend Charlie Chilkoot has earned the honor of posting the 15,000th comment in WatchDog's history.
Thanks to Charlie and to all the other commenters who have helped make the blog a success since its debut 14 months ago.
Here is Charlie's comment, one of three dozen or so that follows my post about Mike Francesa possibly landing at MSG if he leaves WFAN:
Nice job Best, you've found another topic to ring up the page views.
Comments (4)
Neil, if you had posted any of my daily criticisms of you, Watchdog would have been well over 15,000 comments a long time ago.
Jeez, what an Honor. Wish I had been more witty.
Reminds me of the time Alice Puster sent me to the Blood Bank of Alaska for the now defunct Anchorage Times, to photograph the 100,000th donor. For fun I was the 100,001st, getting over a fear of needles to provide a pint of B+. Now my arms look a little like Keith Richards' arms, what with all the needle marks and veinous scar tissue, and I've donated gallons since that day.
It's a great group here. Keep up the good work.
Neil, my apologies. You finally did post one of my daily criticisms of you on the Francesa possible landing at MSG blog post. Can you kindly explain how it finally appeared in your comments section basically 17 hours after I posted it? I counted 31 posts that appeared in the comment section after I sent that comment on July 8, 2008 at 23:18. I thought I had a valid point to make concerning your use of the word "not" but I don't believe anyone of those 31 people who posted after me read it since you did not give them the opportunity. I am just confused how my post on July 9, 2008 at 17:35 appears before my post on July 8, 2008 at 23:18. Dammit Charlie Chilkoot, I really wanted to win that toaster. I think you rigged this, Best. Yeah, your long time friend wins, there is definitely suspicious about that. And he complimented you with “Nice job Best.” I don’t think my comment, “Neil, from what learning annex night school did you get your journalism degree?” would have been given its own post if it had been the 15,000th comment. I demand a recount, Best. And did you count your own comments in the comments section? And what accounting firm did you use to validate the accuracy of this supposed historic annal?
Listencat: The comments function has some sort of filter that is designed to eliminate curse words and such but often traps perfectly valid comments for reasons I can't quite figure out. So every few days I go into the "junk comments" section and rescue the valid comments that shouldn't be there. I found yours there and approved it for posting.