James Capozzola of The Rittenhouse Review explains his blogrolling policy:
Normally I will spend a few weeks looking at a blog on a prospective basis in order to avoid certain missteps I have made in the past, namely, linking to bloggers of dubious personal integrity and questionable mental stability.
Two things puzzle me about this statement:
Too bad my old blog is somewhere in the bowels of the blogger database; this would be a good place to put a link to my scrap with Rittenboy. He linked to me for about 2 days.
Posted by: Diana on December 24, 2002 08:10 PMPerhaps it is time that someone introduced a new word in the limited vocabulary of Mr. Capozzola, in light of his questioning the mental stability of other bloggers.
That word would be "projection."
Posted by: Pejman Yousefzadeh on December 24, 2002 08:44 PMI didn't think that it was possible for this guy to get even more pompous and full of himself. I was wrong.
Posted by: Andrea Harris on December 25, 2002 11:33 AMAt times I wonder if it's worth spending time criticizine such folks.
Then I realize that, no, it is worthwhile, and someone's gotta do it. Thanks for the sacrifice. :-)
Posted by: Dean Esmay on December 25, 2002 11:45 AMThere's also his unpleasant habit of making snide comments about the physical appearance of those he criticizes.
I don't think he's posted personal photos online...I'm wondering if he's particularly fine??
Posted by: Joy Rothke on December 26, 2002 04:26 PMJust wondering -- does Rittenhouse Review get so much traffic that a place on its blogroll is a particularly desirable prize?
Posted by: Cronaca on December 26, 2002 07:31 PMYou mispelled his name Doc. It's really Crapozzola ; )
BTW, you making the Blogbash on the 30th?
Posted by: Nick M. on December 27, 2002 01:16 PMYes Rittenhouse has sufficient traffic that a spot on his extensive blogroll provides some readers. He is also a very fine writer and a very nice guy.
It seems a bit odd that the contents of Jim's blogroll are of such central concern in some qurters.
Posted by: dwight meredith on December 28, 2002 12:11 PMWell, Dwight, perhaps they wouldn't be, if he didn't insist on bringing up the topic.
Posted by: Bill Quick on December 28, 2002 05:21 PMdm:
The fact that I spent 5 or 10 minutes posting on Capozzola's blogrolling habits and some others have spent 2 or 3 minutes commenting hardly makes them of "central concern" to any of us.
And anyone who can write some of the things he has written (about Norah Vincent, for instance) and voluntarily associates himself with the other assholes at WarbloggerWatch hardly qualifies as "a very nice guy".
Posted by: Dr. Weevil on December 29, 2002 10:18 PMDoc, you've found your substitute for Warblogger Watch.
You devil, you.
Diane, I think I have screenshots of the Rittenhouse brouhaha. I'll have to dig around.
Posted by: Meryl Yourish on December 30, 2002 01:19 AMAh, Crapozzola, the Master of Pompousassity™, strikes again.
Posted by: Emperor Misha I on December 30, 2002 01:17 PMAs a friend of As a friend of Mr. Capozzola's, I can personally attest to the fact that he is not pretentious.
As for Joy Rothke’s question: Yes, he is particularly fine.
In the coming weeks, look for my blog to join the ranks of smary liberal bloggers everywhere.
www.iconology.blogspot.com
Mr. Capozzola's, I can personally