Monday, 25/Jul/2005 : 10:14AM
- Tom Reynolds. I’m not sure if I was faking being star-struck to wind him up, or if I actually was star-struck. Either way, he’s a terribly decent chap and one of those rare breeds – a blogger who’s actually worth reading. He’s also on the front page of BBC News Online this morning – link to story. I’d like to think that his use of the phrase ‘daily grind’ there was a discreet reference to this site, but frankly that’s preposterous.
- Another Tom.
- Violet Berlin. Yay!
- Damien Wasylkiw of the Media Lounge and Low Resolution. Yes, I host the latter – Damien and I used to make TV together, but have barely seen each other in the last two or three years. Great to catch up with him. Apart from looking more like Mahler than is healthy, Damien’s a top bloke, and I’m unreasonably excited about his forthcoming exhibition of mobile phone photos.
- Damien’s mate Mark of PictureLizard.com. Nice chap.
- Gia Milinovich, who insists we met in Glasgow a few years back, and while I’m sure she’s right I feel terrible about having no recollection myself.
Oh, hell. I’ve written one of those ‘look at all my amazing celebrity friends’ posts. Somebody find me a cat so I can take pictures of it and descend into total blog cliché.
Posted by jonathan at July 25, 2005 10:14 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
I don't remember you taking that pic.
I've been teased today about my slow decent into CatBlogginess... I've only owned the thing for 3 months... Next I'll be moving to Live Journal and splitting up with my husband via my blog...
Yes, I'm a loser.
Posted by: Gia at July 28, 2005 1:10 PM
I wasn't aware you were taking that picture either. If I *had* realised, I might have stopped slouching quite so much and opened my eyes slightly! As it happens, we have a cat who needs a home for two weeks in August. Be careful what you wish for (in print, anyway).
Posted by: Violet at July 28, 2005 1:11 PM
You mean 'discreet' I think, not 'discrete'. Sorry, but that's up there with apostrophes for me. /pedant
Posted by: Rosie at July 28, 2005 1:11 PM
Amended: you're quite right, of course. That said, one could construct some interesting allusions in a rather similar context, but since that's not what I had in mind I think we'd better term my original usage 'plain wrong' and leave it at that. The opening clause of the story is what niggles me. Ah well, it's published now. It'll only upset the aggregators to change it.
Posted by: Jonathan at July 28, 2005 1:12 PM