Hello, Ducks!
Starzina Starfish-Browne here with your
Eric’s! Daily! Horoscope! for Friday,
February 15, 2013.
We will be playing The VD Match Game tonight
and tomorrow at 7:30 at L’Etage. We
trust We shall see you there. The doors
open at 7. You can buy tickets here http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/331562
or buy them at the door. Which We will
be working, because We’re classy like that.
We
notice that no one could be bothered to participate in Our contest yesterday. Presumably you are saving up all of your
energies for The VD Match Game. Here,
for those who nakedly skimmed past it, is the set-up for said contest:
“Speaking of Monsieur Johnny Depp (sigh),
this is an historic Eric’s!Daily!Horoscope! occasion for another reason. Our Google-O-Meter™’s Google-O-Metrix™, by
way of the handy and dandy index off to the right there, inform Us that today
marks Our one-hundredth mention of Monsieur Depp within these hallowed
pages. As there are currently about
seven hundred of these e-pisstles here in Bloggonia, that means that, if We had
(subjunctively) been writing these every day of the week for a hundred weeks,
We would have mentioned Monsieur Depp every Thursday, say, despite Monday’s
child being fair of face which seats five, and despite still wearing Our
Tuesday panties. Do you follow?
You do?
God bless Us and save Us! (That
was pretty Papal, wunnit?) So here’s a
little game, especially for Our long-time Gentle Readers. In addition to Monsieur Depp, there are
twelve other celebrities who appear in our index more than twenty times. (Any analogy to Jesus and the twelve apostles
is purely intentional. (Hey, Wer’e gonna
be the fuckin’ Pope…are you gonna tell Us We’re wrong?)) Without cheating by looking off to the right
there, how many can you name? Leave your
answers in the comments below. (Here’s a
hint: Anne Frank, who has already been
referenced in today’s e-pissode, isn’t one of them.) We’ll supply answers tomorrow.”
It being the aforementioned tomorrow, here
are the answers in question:
Charlene Tilton (81) If you don’t remember
that period, you either have skid marks on your naked skimmer or you’re very,
very new.
Justin Bieber (77) And, just because We’re
especially cranky this morning, here’s his video:
Helen Keller (64) We’d’ve thought that number
would be larger, but seeing is Beliebing.
Cher (41) We don’t really talk about Cher as
much as We probably should, but We do have a propensity for saying “Cher and
Cher alike”.
(See that there? “Propensity”.
Smart people are hot, no?)
Charles Nelson Reilly (35) No comment.
Prince Harry (32) Won’t Charles be pleased to
see himself on top of Prince Harry?
(Is anyone else now imagining an especially
ribald set of new lyrics to the children’s song “On Top Of Spaghetti”? Just
Us? Alrighty, then.)
(See that there? “Ribald”.
Smart people…oh, never mind.)
Willam Belli (30) Willam is the only bona
fide celebrity that We actually know, so We are thinking that a mere thirty
mentions in just over three years shows admirable restraint. Or Admiral Nelson’s taint. One of those. (Meanwhile, didja know that if you
say “bona fide” with a southern accent it sounds like “boner fried”? Seriously.
Try it right now. We’ll wait.)
(See?)
Prince
William (29) We used to mention him way more in Our pre-Bloggonia days, but
then he started looking like his dad and got all married and shit, and his
brother suddenly got way hotter. (Who
the hell’s voice was THAT?)
Justin Timberlake (26) We have no idea.
William Shakespeare (23) Because We are SO classy, you’ll be tempted
to eat Us with a fork.
Uma Thurman (22) This is another one where We’d’ve
thought the number would be way higher.
We feel like We say that all the time.
Gene Rayburn (21) Because, did We mention, We
will be playing The VD Match Game tonight and tomorrow at 7:30 at L’Etage. We trust We shall see you there. The doors open at 7. You can buy tickets here http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/331562
or buy them at the door. Which We will
be working, because We’re classy like that.
Here is a little Aquarius fillum, for Our
birthday Aquarians:
And here are the HorrorScopes:
Today is Harold Arlen’s birthday. Arlen, of course, wrote the gay national
anthem Over the Rainbow. Speaking of gay, it is also Cesar Romero’s
birthday.
You’re blazing new trails (Is that your way of saying We’re
flaming?)
(On a scale of one to Cesar-Romero-in-his-Joker-costume,
how flaming would that be?)
and making the world more fun today (Who can turn the world
on in argyle? Who can take a nothing day,
and suddenly make it all Gomer Pyle?)
(Sorry.)
— even if you’re
just going about your daily business. (POOP!)
Your tremendous personal energy (Oh, please.)
keeps things lively and engaging for all! (Engaged?
We haven’t even been out of Our house with another human being since the
last week of January.)
You can make huge strides forward today (In these shoes?)
— if you let your ambition take over. (Just don’t mix up
Ambien™ with your ambitchin’.)
It can lead you to a success you have deserved for a long
time, but you’re going to have to swallow your pride in order to follow it. (Honey,
We have swallowed things a lot bigger than Our pride.)
When you show you can be a team player (There may be no “I”
in “team”, but there is a big “U” in “Uranus”.)
and work for the greater good, those in power take notice —
and they will be impressed by your selflessness. (What?
Are We not supposed to be Ourself?
Who, then, shall We be? Shall We
be a clown? Does all the world truly
love a clown?)
(Ya know, if We went back over that and made all of Our
pentameters iambic, that would be almost downright fucking Shakespearean. GodDAMN, We be classy!)
Don’t be surprised (SURPRISE!!!)
if some day quite soon they ask you to step up and take on
bigger responsibilities. (Oh, sure…pretend
it’s OUR responsibility. We’re just here
to be your damn scapegoat.)
Country line dancing, anyone? (What da fuq you talkin’ ‘bout, Willis? We be playin’ da got-damn VD
Match Game. Country line
dancing, Our black ass!)
An offbeat social event (What’s that? A Naked Skimmers Anonymous meeting?)
is certain to be packed with cool people (So is a morgue.)
— and it comes with a built-in icebreaker! (Well, ya got Us there.)
Check the net for local events and check ’em out! (Oh, yes,
by all means. Lettuce just toddle on
over to Wikipedia, and Google “local events”, and We’ll just see how THAT works
out.)
(AssHat.)
(Your Your-O-Scopes:
(Meanwhile, why We didn’t think of this sooner, We’ve got no idea, but
better laid than necking, as they say (and how right they are!). For
real live actual ass(tromlaogical) ho(roscopular) advice, please visit Our good
friend AstroGeek here: http://agskylab.blogspot.com/. Our Own
epistular musings are of use to you only insofar as making you feel better by
comparison, but he will give you actual pertinent advice for your very own
lives, based on upon the positions and transitations of all manner of planets,
planetoids, asteroids, Altoids™, hemorrhoids, and other heavenly flotsam,
jetsam, and Jetsons. Plus, he knows all about Uranus!)
*****************************************************************************
Starzina
Starfish-Browne was born in the wagon of a traveling show…well, okay, not
really. She was actually born in Lowake, Texas, the daughter of a beautician
and either a garage mechanic or the town mailman. At sixteen, she escaped her
humble beginnings by running off with Doctor Browne’s Traveling Medicine Show
and, more to the point, Doctor Browne. Following the dissolution of this
unfortunate entanglement (Doctor Browne was a Virgo and Starzina is, of course,
an Aries), which produced a daughter, Starzina entered a contest in Soap Opera
Digest and won a scholarship to Oxford (yes, in ENGLAND), where she earned her
doctorate in the newly-created dual major of Astrology and Human Sexuality.
There is absolutely NO TRUTH to the rumor that Starzina’s second daughter has
Royal blood, despite tabloid photographs allegedly depicting her cavorting on
the Italian Riviera with Princes William and Harry, clad only in Prussian
helmets and armbands of questionable taste. Starzina currently resides with her
daughters in Philadelphia, the City That Loves You (On Your) Back, where she
enjoys Double Coupon Day at the local SuperCruise and “encouraging” the
coxswain of the Penn rowing team.
I didn't play yesterday because, before reading the rest of the post (which I did eventually read), I looked at the numbers of mentions of other people. I would have been able to tell you four of them easily, though. I may have mentioned two other people who weren't in the top seven.
ReplyDeleteWe feel as though We say the same things over and over, but We guess We really don't. If you discount Cher (who really is there because We tend to substitute "Cher" for "share") and CNR, who gets referenced for two reasons (Match Game and "as gay as"), the difference between the top 3 (4, counting JD)and the bottom 7 is really significant.
ReplyDeleteFuture PhD candidates in American Literature, take note.
The thing that amazes me is how many labels are of people you mention on one, two or three times. If you include particular friends of yours (Aunt Ovella, TCWBITWWW and maybe even myself), at least one of us would be in the top ten. But who would know to count us? (Other than people who never skim, which is probably just us... I suppose what I do is worse; I don't skim because, if I don't have time, I don't read at all.)
ReplyDeleteAll in all, you do keep things pretty fresh. And I do like the new naming convention for your post titles (as received via email). It is much more appealing to read someone when you have even only a semblance of an idea of what you'll be reading. A "semblance" meaning "seemingly nothing," it's the seemingly that is most important. My guess is you can get much higher hits with the titles you are sending via email. Now, all you have to do is correlate with the titles in the actual posts.
We decided early on that the index would be only celebs. Co-occurrence must make for a fascinating search....where else would one find Genghis Khan, George Bernard Shaw, and George Clooney, for eqample, all in the same place?
ReplyDeleteOh. I wouldn't WANT you to have any of your friends in there. There were times when I didn't read for a few weeks in a row and wondered if you'd written anything to me or about me and I did a search for "Daughter," but not that's in your byline there's no reason for it.
ReplyDeleteYou're absolutely right about the labels but I would consider getting rid of SOME of them... especially the ones that are there only twice or especially once, at least when the celebrity isn't someone who has any current relevance or significance. The labels are useful, but not when you have as many as you have. There are so many that it takes long to find one, even when you know who you're looking for and even though the list is in alphabetical order.
(As if you care about what I think... but I still offer up my opinions when I think they could be useful. And I definitely think you should start giving your posts titles along the lines of "The One Where Starzina..." because, again, they give the reader an idea of what they're going to be reading about, which is always helpful. And it gets the name "Starzina" out there more often. And it lets you throw in something the is going on in the world currently.)
/end rant
You are missing the main point of the index. It is not so much a tool for people who are already here as it is a search tool to get people here. Thus there cannot EVER be "too many" terms, and the more obscure the better. No one is going to accidentally stumble across these pages by searching "Johnny Depp" or "Justin Bieber", but they might by searching "Fifi D'Orsay" or "Zasu Pitts".
ReplyDelete