Wikipedia stats (1 Viewer)

mjp

Founding member
Wow. This is impressive and depressing, considering the general lack of quality of that article.

Charles_Bukowski has been viewed 347,508 times in 2009. This article ranked 7670 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org.

In contrast: F._A._Nettelbeck has been viewed 787 times in 2009.
 
Yes, and how many research projects by lazy students have relied on this poor information as their only source? Of course, the alternative is to join here and ask us to do their work, so I guess that it is a good thing!
Bill
 
There is this sentence in that article :"One critic has described Bukowski's fiction as a "detailed depiction of a certain taboo male fantasy: the uninhibited bachelor, slobby, anti-social, and utterly free"" and it bothers me so much, because always think:Is it all only about this(certain taboo male fantasy: the uninhibited bachelor, slobby, anti-social, and utterly free)? No, don't agree that it is only reason why Buk is so attractive.
 
Utterly free? Yes, utterly free to be an under payed wage slave in the factories, and later on at the post office.
 
To waste one iota of your life being concerned about what wikipedia contains is akin to cementing your nuts to a freshly-poured foundation of a house, having the house completed, and then setting fire to it, only to realize you now have to hack your nuts off with a rusty grapefruit spoon in order to save yourself.
 
From the article:

The People Look Like Flowers At Last will be his final posthumous release as now all his once-unpublished work has been published.

The article is not even up to date, although the list of books seems to be.
 
Utterly free? Yes, utterly free to be an under payed wage slave in the factories, and later on at the post office.

To be fair, the wages at the U.S. Post Office aren't exactly slave-like. My Dad supported a family of four on them just fine and we never lacked for anything.

But repetitive and mind-numbing ? Yes - a lot like a factory.
 
To waste one iota of your life being concerned about what wikipedia contains is akin to cementing your nuts to a freshly-poured foundation of a house, having the house completed, and then setting fire to it, only to realize you now have to hack your nuts off with a rusty grapefruit spoon in order to save yourself.
I was going to say the same thing.
 
To waste one iota of your life being concerned about what wikipedia contains is akin to cementing your nuts to a freshly-poured foundation of a house, having the house completed, and then setting fire to it, only to realize you now have to hack your nuts off with a rusty grapefruit spoon in order to save yourself.

Trying to picture this one "au feminin" I came up with deliberately getting both of your breasts squeezed tight in mammography equipment and then the technician drops to the floor from a heart attack because someone has pulled the fire alarm and everyone gets evacuated while you stand in a room with no windows on the 10th floor of a building as the power goes off.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top