right next to “gullible”

right next to “gullible” in the dictionary
someone explain to me the point of “joke” blogs. i don’t get this. like this blog? and its corresponding blog, written by her “adoring model boyfriend”? i mean, i get that it’s fake. i do. but that doesn’t make it interesting to read. so she’s mocking a style of human being, right, the self-absorbed ditz? by writing a blog just like a self-absorbed ditz? i don’t understand how this is really any kind of humor: wit, satire, commentary, or irony … it’s a one-trick joke.
and then you’ll come across the blogs, like this one, that almost seem too have to much material invested in them to be fake. i mean, why would anyone go through so much trouble to write an entire fake blog, and a fake 100 things, to mock the classic southern redneck who’s got a dixie flag on his ‘vette and who says things like ‘squirrel covers’ for underwear and wants women to ‘ride my ‘stache’? i don’t think that character would be all that funny in real life. much less on a blog.
the question becomes, where does the revealing journal-style of the blog end, and the fantasy world of blog-creation begin? is it a joke if the author never reveals the punchline – namely, ‘ha ha, i’m kidding!’? is it a joke if you’re cariacaturing real-life personalities that perhaps aren’t as one-sided as ‘vette-driving, ‘stache-wearin’ southern boys or self-absorbed princesses?
i don’t know. i don’t mean to insult these bloggers, or imply that they don’t deserve to have weblogs. by all means, create as many fake blogs as you want. but for my two cents, the joke only lasts until you get it. and then it gets old.