The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

FMJRA 2.0: Technical Difficulties

Posted on | October 30, 2011 | 4 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

Unfortunately, one of the casualties of our server move this week was the sooper-sekrit software which makes doing the FMJRA merely difficult instead of damn near impossible. Smitty is working on the issue, but for now the best I can do is list our top linkers:

  1. The Pro From Poca (12)
  2. The Camp Of The Saints (10)
  3. Herman Cain PAC (9)
  4. (tie) Daily Pundit and Conservative Commune (7)
  5. (tie) Lonely Conservative and Nice Deb (6)
  6. (tie) Da Tech Guy, Pirates Cove, and Wintery Knight (5)

Also, we scored four Instalanches this week, which did VERY nice things to the hit count.

Also also, thanks to Proof Positive and Dell Hill for mailing in their links this week.

Hopefully we’ll have this little problem resolved by next week; in the meantime, if you’re on Blogger or LJ  or something else that WordPress hates, please e-mail me your links by November 4 with “FMJRA” or “Shameless Blogwhoring” in the subject line. Thanks to everyone for their linkagery!



4 Responses to “FMJRA 2.0: Technical Difficulties”

  1. Proof
    October 30th, 2011 @ 5:54 pm

    I feel your pain, Wombat. My technical expertise tells me that most of the problems are caused by software upgrades,  software glitches, or software.

    Good luck on getting everything shipshape again.

    October 30th, 2011 @ 7:50 pm

    Damn, that’s actually good news.
    When I couldn’t link you a few times yesterday, I briefly thought it was on my end.

  3. Adjoran
    October 31st, 2011 @ 2:06 am

    All the tech guys I used to know insisted it was gremlins.  Nasty buggers, unpredictable except that they always strike at the most inopportune time to defend against them.

    I’ve seen some screwy things the last day or two, but had assumed it was either Discus or just bad juju.

  4. Proof
    October 31st, 2011 @ 2:16 am

    Bad juju? You must be referring to juju 2.0!