Time for a new look . . .
Mark Tiedemann has come up with his new look at his new look blog, "Distal Muse".
Want to know what I think?
That's why you're on the internet, cruising the interblargosphere. You're looking for things to read that you might not necessarily agree with but which spark your interest because you're always on the lookout for a new take or new point of view on something. It might even be something you already have a definite opinion on, but you read on because you like reading things that make you think regardless of whether you agree with them. You're all about soaking up as many differing viewpoints as you can, but you've no interest in entering a comment-battle so if you do object, you do so in silence (possible but unlikely). You may be looking for things to read that you already know you agree with and very little else (more likely). You may even be looking for things to read that not only contradict you but flat-out piss you off in order to inspire you to write a post for the blog you've been neglecting (if you have a blog, that's almost a given). I'll admit I’m one who trawls for material to inspire my personal outrage, vicious condemnation and inordinately long & verbose sentences, but it’s not a new addition to my activity budget. Long before the internet I was fond of writing essays, treatises, critiques, manifestos, poems (gah!) or comic strips about things which annoyed or intrigued me, or into which I'd put an inordinate amount of idle thought. They were many & varied: a convoluted comparison between the dangers of running red lights at a pedestrian crossing on my BMX with doing the same in a car; a detailed essay on the specific mechanisms of “clown evil” and the macro-karmic reasons for their hideousness; my pseudo-Freudian theories on why some men spend inordinate lengths of time reading in the toilet, delaying every other resident not currently using a colostomy bag and glorying in their own pungent stench; a series of unnecessarily graphic limericks featuring my best friend, a busty wench and zombies. Before 1994 and my first experience with electronic mail I'd fax (yes, fax), post or hand these missives to my friends and see what reactions I'd get. They ranged from “meh” to humouring me, the occasional laugh, occasional indignant defensiveness and – more often than not – sideways looks and quiet voicings of concern for my mental stability (especially when my letters were illustrated). I didn't know it then, but with my unsolicited opinionated ranting, arguments for or against things noone was actually discussing in the real world and blatant & ridiculous attention-seeking behaviour, I was in Gilbert & Sullivan’s parlance the very model of a modern major pain the arse. In today’s terms: a blogger. So, no, it’s not a new thing for me and certainly not a new phenomenon for humanity either, this public sharing of opinion with people who don’t care. Celebrated Protestant Original Gangster, Martin Luther, is famous for publicly posting his disagreements . . .
More ideas for comment policies
Dan Klarman recently referred me to Pharyngula's comment policies. That led me to Pharyngula's High Crimes and Misdemeanors. I think that we have many of these covered in DI's comment policy, but I do agree that all of these behaviors serve to hinder meaningful discussion. I anyone else has good comment policy ideas that they've seen elsewhere, let me know. I want to have free and open discussion, but I do want to keep the discussion moving and meaningful. Perhaps more important, let me know what you think about the comments of Karl, who submits comments to this site almost every day. How much access should have have to this site? Unrestrained? Severely edited? How would you handle Karl's many comments if you were administering this site? What is fair? How tired are you of Karl? Or do you see his points of view as a valuable foil that drives meaningful conversation? Here are Pharyngula's High Crimes and Misdemeanors:
Concern trolling A particularly annoying form of trolling in which someone falsely pretends to be offering advice to favor a position they do not endorse; a creationist who masquerades as someone concerned about the arguments for evolution as an excuse to make criticisms.
Godbotting Making an argument based only on the premise that your holy book is sufficient authority; citing lots of bible verses as if they were persuasive.
Insipidity A great crime. Being tedious, repetitive, and completely boring; putting the blogger to sleep by going on and on about the same thing all the time.
Morphing Changing pseudonyms to avoid killfiles.
Slagging Making only disparaging comments about a group; while some of this is understandable, if your only contribution is consistently "X is bad", even in threads that aren't about X, then you're simply slagging, not discussing.
Sockpuppetry Like morphing, but with a specific intent: creating multiple identities supporting a position to create a false impression of popularity
Spamming Using the comments to sell real estate, mortgage assessments, little blue pills, porn, or Russian mail-order brides. Spammers are not tolerated at all; they are expunged without comment.
Stupidity Some people will just stun you with the outrageous foolishness of their comments; those who seem to say nothing but stupid things get the axe.
Trolling Making comments intended only to disrupt a thread and incite flames and confusion.
Wanking Making self-congratulary comments intended only to give an impression of your importance or intelligence.
Carnival of the Godless #109
That's right, it's carnival time once again! This 109th time around, our gracious host Rana uses poetry to introduce each featured article. Click here for a big ol' fix of godlessness. I love the COTG and have been following it since it was in its venerable 80s. There's always a great range of articles and perspectives and I've found quite a few blogs who've ended up bookmarked for daily visits, so do get over and have a browse (oh yeah - one of mine's in this carnival too!). Cheers H
Diagramming the inner loop of immovable commenters
I attended Catholic grade school, so I was highly trained to diagram sentences. Truly, at least six years of spending an hour each day to diagram sentences. A very sophisticated method of warehousing students, I now realize. The silver lining is that this ground-in urge to create diagrams has spilled over into many other areas of my life. For instance, I was thinking about those un-curious website commenters who so often frustrate me with their entirely predictable thought processes. How would that thought process look on a diagram? Would it look as simple as it so often sounds?