Pretty much the sort of reply that was expected. Let’s pull the interchange apart:
“My goodness, how terribly brave.” As previously, you react to criticism about your religion/atheism stance by immediately attacking the poster, instead of looking at the underlying opinions and concepts. Sigh.
“Spoof email address” — Since when has not posting a valid email address been a sign of cowardice? Perhaps I don’t have an email address; more likely, I like to be choosy about who I share my email address with.
“Being insulting” — how? A blog, is by definition, a venue for exchange of opinions, not necessarily facts. Although I agree that it does read as if I’m attacking you personally, it is in fact a more subtle complaint about some of the tags you chose for that link item. Let me explain:
“stupid” tag versus “ignorant” tag: Both are gross generalisations that are uncomplimentary and quite probably substantially incorrect.
“religion” versus “bloggers”: Again, a very broad category. The pairing of “stupid religion” and “ignorant bloggers” tags both have unpleasant connotations, while being defensible at a strict literal level.
“bigoted” versus “idiots”: My Australian Oxford defines “bigoted” as “unreasonably prejudiced and intolerant”; what was the rationale behind your choice (opinion) of the tag “idiot”?
“christians” versus “timelady”: As before, the pairing of “idiots christians” tags and “bigoted timelady” tags has connotations that are quite negative and quite possibly unintended (I can vouch that my use of the term “bigoted” was meant to be a careful dictionary-based usage based on your blog writings, and specifically not intending to be a personal slur).
At a wider level, the journalist’s choice of the term “Christian” in the article title is a little unfortunate; reading the interview with Mark Dice and looking at “The Resistance” site shows that Mark is an author with a vested interest in creating book sales of a new edition of his book, “The Resistance Manifesto”, which includes items such as the “American Stonehenge” in the revisions. Once you note all the indicators:
* “Christians” in the title versus “A Christian organization” in the opening words of the article;
* The significant vested interests of the interviewee in stirring up controversy;
* The mischaracterisation of the 500 million population target suggestion on the monument as a “call for elimination of over 90 percent of the world’s population” — this is an incorrect personalisation of a more abstract goal (e.g. what about lowering population by only reducing the birth rate?);
* The term “Christian” can cover a wide range of opinions, from quite conservative to quite radical. The “Resistance” organisation doesn’t appear to have links to any of the mainstream denominations, and its position and statements, as characterised by its web page and words by spokesman Mark Dice, are clearly relatively extreme;
* The interaction between religion and government in America is different to other countries because of the religion statements included in the American Constitution. Transcribing items from that environment into other contexts — such as Planet LinuxSA — may introduce dissonances that do not relate to other countries or cultures;
- you can see that the selection of the set of tags “stupid religion idiots christians” based on the contents of this item is drawing a rather long bow. It is specifically in this context that I chose to suggest the tag “ignorant” — my research, as evidenced by the points above, suggests that tarring all Christians and/or religious believers with “stupid” and “idiots” based on this extremist and agenda-driven item is not well-informed.
“JUST DON’T READ IT:)” — Well, I repeat my previous request: Please change your blogging structure so that these religion-bashing items do not appear on the front page of the Planet LinuxSA site — every word of yours that I was complaining about in my earlier post was reported in the summary paragraph included on the Planet LinuxSA page.
And finally,
“You are a very silly person:)” — Agreed; what was it people said about the sanity of carrying on arguments on the Internet?
Okay, such a lengthy screed.Let me guess, you have a LOT Of spare time, yes? I was actually busy last night with friends, and family. I highly recommend it:)
Now, lets see,and in no order:
1) of course you have an email address. J’accuse. You are just hiding behind anonymity.
2) I do not control Planet LinuxSA, talk to the site maintainer. I have told you this before, and in small easy to comprehend words, and yet it seems to fail to register. IT IS NOT MY SITE:)
3) The tags were correct. These people were being stupid, and idiots. And Christians. You are using faulty logic. ‘Alma Cogan is dead, therefore all people are Alma Cogan’. See now?
4) Insulting me because of my choice of tags is silly and childish, and you certainly do not like it if I respond in kind. I told you from the beginning, civilised discourse and debate, yay, pathetic childish games, well, this what happens. So lets pretend we are both adults, ok?
5) If you do not like the way the article is written, can I suggest you do not complain to me, complain to the actual journalist? Astonishingly common sense, I would have thought.
6) You are still being silly. I can remove your comments at any time, but have chosen not to do so at this stage, after all, you are, albeit a somewhat cowardly one, fellow Linux follower:) How about this : scroll past my entires on PLanet LinuxSA? There, doesn’t that feel better already? Just ignore me:) If you do read them by horrible, awful mistake, then, feel free NOT to complain to me about their syndication. I am sure you are all for censorship of any idea not yours, however, I would suggest that is something best done on your own blog. Stop trying to press your opinions on others.
7) No, before you start, I am not pressing anything, I express my opinions on my blog. MY BLOG. Don’t know how often I need to say that. Anyone wants to syndicate them, how very nice. Not my issue. When have *I* forced you to read it? When has Planet LinuxSA forced you to read? How hard is that for you to grasp?
I had assumed that you’d registered your blog with Planet LinuxSA; it appears that others have chosen to syndicate your blog. It seems that this assumption is incorrect, in which case, my apologies.
I was reticent to take up this issue with the Planet LinuxSA maintainers, and so I came to your blog. Part of this reason is that I do like many of your postings, especially science-related items; another reason is that I lacked some confidence and/or technical expertise to talk more directly to the LinuxSA site maintainers.
I’ll have a chat to the LinuxSA site maintainers to see what’s their understanding of the situation; it may be that my understanding of the nature and purpose of the Planet LinuxSA wiki may be incorrect.
I still regret that personal attacks feature in your responses.
It is a little late for moral high ground now. I have explained at every opportunity the Planet LinuxSA is not my blog, nor under my control. You choosing to ignore that, and to come to my blog, anonymously, like a coward in the night, to complain and deride my posts – well, I think you lost any claim to the high ground some time ago.
The Planet LinuxSA wiki features the works of members of LinuxSA – it does not state these must be only Linux based. I have previously spoken to the maintainers, and let them know they get all my work or none, up to them – I believe in freedom of speech, not censorship because *you*, or indeed, anyone, does not approve of what I write.
I would also defend your right to have a blog, and write pro christianity statements, and have that syndicated too. LinuxSA is diverse, with a single stated commonality.
I have little respect for your opinion after your behaviour, I am afraid.
Ahhh… I’ve dug around a bit, and found the linuxsa-talk list… I’d forgotten all about the existence of this list, but now I remember reading the linuxsa in the time leading up to the creation of this list.
I hadn’t realised that you were involved in the linuxsa-talk list, but some digging through the archived messages informed me of your contributions.
It was my mistake to assume that “Planet LinuxSA” would be something akin to the current linuxsa list only, forgetting about the linuxsa-talk list component of the Linux SA community.
I’ve been quite surprised at the aggressive style of some of your comment replies, but I now realise that your style is somewhat influenced by the linuxsa-talk list ethos. As such, I believe that I am unlikely to influence your opinions.
I am astonished that you thought it at all appropriate to come to my blog, contain about the content and style of my writing, not listen when I explained repeatedly I was not responsible for Planet LinuxSA, and then believe you had any right to attempt to influence me.
The mind boggles that you thought peremptory demands for me to alter what and how I write would naturally lead to me being ‘influenced’ in any positive way by you.
I am intruiged you have so much time and energy, and so little else happening in your life, that you indulge in archive searching, to try to get more of my background.
My responses are purely based on the rudeness of your presumptive and quite ridiculous stance about my posts via a site I repeatedly told you was not under my control. A more polite, measured, and less ludicrous stance would have merited an equally pleasant response.
Reasoned polite debate, I informed you from the first, was what I wanted. Perhaps a lesson for you to learn for the future, that a more courteous response method would be a better place for you to start.
Nonetheless, I do wish to say should you modify your stance as recommended, then debate, while not converting anyone, will be possibly informative for us both:)
Suggested tags for your “American Stonehenge” link:
ignorant bloggers bigoted timelady
–karma
My goodness, how terribly brave. Spoof email address, going onto someone’s personal blog, being insulting because you do not like what is written?
I wonder if I could find a solution for you?
I know.
JUST DON’T READ IT:) You are a very silly person:)
Pretty much the sort of reply that was expected. Let’s pull the interchange apart:
“My goodness, how terribly brave.” As previously, you react to criticism about your religion/atheism stance by immediately attacking the poster, instead of looking at the underlying opinions and concepts. Sigh.
“Spoof email address” — Since when has not posting a valid email address been a sign of cowardice? Perhaps I don’t have an email address; more likely, I like to be choosy about who I share my email address with.
“Being insulting” — how? A blog, is by definition, a venue for exchange of opinions, not necessarily facts. Although I agree that it does read as if I’m attacking you personally, it is in fact a more subtle complaint about some of the tags you chose for that link item. Let me explain:
“stupid” tag versus “ignorant” tag: Both are gross generalisations that are uncomplimentary and quite probably substantially incorrect.
“religion” versus “bloggers”: Again, a very broad category. The pairing of “stupid religion” and “ignorant bloggers” tags both have unpleasant connotations, while being defensible at a strict literal level.
“bigoted” versus “idiots”: My Australian Oxford defines “bigoted” as “unreasonably prejudiced and intolerant”; what was the rationale behind your choice (opinion) of the tag “idiot”?
“christians” versus “timelady”: As before, the pairing of “idiots christians” tags and “bigoted timelady” tags has connotations that are quite negative and quite possibly unintended (I can vouch that my use of the term “bigoted” was meant to be a careful dictionary-based usage based on your blog writings, and specifically not intending to be a personal slur).
At a wider level, the journalist’s choice of the term “Christian” in the article title is a little unfortunate; reading the interview with Mark Dice and looking at “The Resistance” site shows that Mark is an author with a vested interest in creating book sales of a new edition of his book, “The Resistance Manifesto”, which includes items such as the “American Stonehenge” in the revisions. Once you note all the indicators:
* “Christians” in the title versus “A Christian organization” in the opening words of the article;
* The significant vested interests of the interviewee in stirring up controversy;
* The mischaracterisation of the 500 million population target suggestion on the monument as a “call for elimination of over 90 percent of the world’s population” — this is an incorrect personalisation of a more abstract goal (e.g. what about lowering population by only reducing the birth rate?);
* The term “Christian” can cover a wide range of opinions, from quite conservative to quite radical. The “Resistance” organisation doesn’t appear to have links to any of the mainstream denominations, and its position and statements, as characterised by its web page and words by spokesman Mark Dice, are clearly relatively extreme;
* The interaction between religion and government in America is different to other countries because of the religion statements included in the American Constitution. Transcribing items from that environment into other contexts — such as Planet LinuxSA — may introduce dissonances that do not relate to other countries or cultures;
- you can see that the selection of the set of tags “stupid religion idiots christians” based on the contents of this item is drawing a rather long bow. It is specifically in this context that I chose to suggest the tag “ignorant” — my research, as evidenced by the points above, suggests that tarring all Christians and/or religious believers with “stupid” and “idiots” based on this extremist and agenda-driven item is not well-informed.
“JUST DON’T READ IT:)” — Well, I repeat my previous request: Please change your blogging structure so that these religion-bashing items do not appear on the front page of the Planet LinuxSA site — every word of yours that I was complaining about in my earlier post was reported in the summary paragraph included on the Planet LinuxSA page.
And finally,
“You are a very silly person:)” — Agreed; what was it people said about the sanity of carrying on arguments on the Internet?
cheers,
–karma
Okay, such a lengthy screed.Let me guess, you have a LOT Of spare time, yes? I was actually busy last night with friends, and family. I highly recommend it:)
Now, lets see,and in no order:
1) of course you have an email address. J’accuse. You are just hiding behind anonymity.
2) I do not control Planet LinuxSA, talk to the site maintainer. I have told you this before, and in small easy to comprehend words, and yet it seems to fail to register. IT IS NOT MY SITE:)
3) The tags were correct. These people were being stupid, and idiots. And Christians. You are using faulty logic. ‘Alma Cogan is dead, therefore all people are Alma Cogan’. See now?
4) Insulting me because of my choice of tags is silly and childish, and you certainly do not like it if I respond in kind. I told you from the beginning, civilised discourse and debate, yay, pathetic childish games, well, this what happens. So lets pretend we are both adults, ok?
5) If you do not like the way the article is written, can I suggest you do not complain to me, complain to the actual journalist? Astonishingly common sense, I would have thought.
6) You are still being silly. I can remove your comments at any time, but have chosen not to do so at this stage, after all, you are, albeit a somewhat cowardly one, fellow Linux follower:) How about this : scroll past my entires on PLanet LinuxSA? There, doesn’t that feel better already? Just ignore me:) If you do read them by horrible, awful mistake, then, feel free NOT to complain to me about their syndication. I am sure you are all for censorship of any idea not yours, however, I would suggest that is something best done on your own blog. Stop trying to press your opinions on others.
7) No, before you start, I am not pressing anything, I express my opinions on my blog. MY BLOG. Don’t know how often I need to say that. Anyone wants to syndicate them, how very nice. Not my issue. When have *I* forced you to read it? When has Planet LinuxSA forced you to read? How hard is that for you to grasp?
Do have an absolutely SUPER day though:)
I had assumed that you’d registered your blog with Planet LinuxSA; it appears that others have chosen to syndicate your blog. It seems that this assumption is incorrect, in which case, my apologies.
I was reticent to take up this issue with the Planet LinuxSA maintainers, and so I came to your blog. Part of this reason is that I do like many of your postings, especially science-related items; another reason is that I lacked some confidence and/or technical expertise to talk more directly to the LinuxSA site maintainers.
I’ll have a chat to the LinuxSA site maintainers to see what’s their understanding of the situation; it may be that my understanding of the nature and purpose of the Planet LinuxSA wiki may be incorrect.
I still regret that personal attacks feature in your responses.
cheers,
–karma
It is a little late for moral high ground now. I have explained at every opportunity the Planet LinuxSA is not my blog, nor under my control. You choosing to ignore that, and to come to my blog, anonymously, like a coward in the night, to complain and deride my posts – well, I think you lost any claim to the high ground some time ago.
The Planet LinuxSA wiki features the works of members of LinuxSA – it does not state these must be only Linux based. I have previously spoken to the maintainers, and let them know they get all my work or none, up to them – I believe in freedom of speech, not censorship because *you*, or indeed, anyone, does not approve of what I write.
I would also defend your right to have a blog, and write pro christianity statements, and have that syndicated too. LinuxSA is diverse, with a single stated commonality.
I have little respect for your opinion after your behaviour, I am afraid.
However, DO have an absolutely MARVELLOUS day!
Ahhh… I’ve dug around a bit, and found the linuxsa-talk list… I’d forgotten all about the existence of this list, but now I remember reading the linuxsa in the time leading up to the creation of this list.
I hadn’t realised that you were involved in the linuxsa-talk list, but some digging through the archived messages informed me of your contributions.
It was my mistake to assume that “Planet LinuxSA” would be something akin to the current linuxsa list only, forgetting about the linuxsa-talk list component of the Linux SA community.
I’ve been quite surprised at the aggressive style of some of your comment replies, but I now realise that your style is somewhat influenced by the linuxsa-talk list ethos. As such, I believe that I am unlikely to influence your opinions.
cheers,
–karma
I am astonished that you thought it at all appropriate to come to my blog, contain about the content and style of my writing, not listen when I explained repeatedly I was not responsible for Planet LinuxSA, and then believe you had any right to attempt to influence me.
The mind boggles that you thought peremptory demands for me to alter what and how I write would naturally lead to me being ‘influenced’ in any positive way by you.
I am intruiged you have so much time and energy, and so little else happening in your life, that you indulge in archive searching, to try to get more of my background.
My responses are purely based on the rudeness of your presumptive and quite ridiculous stance about my posts via a site I repeatedly told you was not under my control. A more polite, measured, and less ludicrous stance would have merited an equally pleasant response.
Reasoned polite debate, I informed you from the first, was what I wanted. Perhaps a lesson for you to learn for the future, that a more courteous response method would be a better place for you to start.
Nonetheless, I do wish to say should you modify your stance as recommended, then debate, while not converting anyone, will be possibly informative for us both:)