I loved this little sample. Never heard of lamebook until reading this entry.
This style of hypertexting with such sparseness (not providing further context than a link and name of Website) feels frustrating to me. It kind of harkens back to a reading I did for a UU service where someone wishes I had provided the author, title, etc. etc.
Sure, clicking on the hyperlink can provide the source, but that requires just that extra bit of effort with a Smartphone. Waited a couple days to actually click on the link at a desktop.
Just providing some feedback. Sum it up, context with a hyperlink for a quote like this would've provided more enjoyment. The major reason I would've wanted more context is because I didn't know if you wrote it at one point or something.
Interesting feeback.
Sometimes I worry that it's not clear what I've made vs. what I'm just posting (though generally the latter is a bit more polished, eh?). But if it has a "via", you don't have to worry: it's not by me.
I just didn't have much more to say about it! I guess I could've said I liked the Demon fighting w/ Jesus bit.
But what else would you have wanted context-wise?
Interestingly for a while there was a push in the other direction: lists of pure URLs, no title, no description, no comment...
Honestly, on the Smartphone, I didn't notice the "via lamebook" anywhere. Sure, I could've been more observant. I think the small tag just didn't catch my attention on the Smartphone.
Might have to do with my current habit of just skimming stuff, except this block of text required actual concentration because it wasn't polished. I thought maybe you were quoting something when you were a teen or pre-teen and wanted to keep the feeling of it or something.
Maybe putting the "via lamebook" could've come before the text. Other than that, I could just be reading too much into it and would have just wanted to have primer context instead of speculating that it was something you wrote at a younger age.
Entertaining, either which way.