The internet is a public place. It certainly is. Most of us are aware of that. It is a fantastically open marketplace where ideas can battle against other ideas.Sir, I'll not only not delete your comment, I'll repost it here to be fully appreciated by the audience.
And you know what? Posting for the sole purpose of mocking another person probably is low and messed up. It might be funny. You might enjoy it. But that doesn't make it anything other than low. You are deriving humor by mocking someone else.
At this point I have to point out the rank hypocrisy of your post, however. Your point that the internet is a public place and people can say WHATEVER they want is well taken. Then, promptly, however you tell other people what they cannot say (in your words, "don't make generalizations about "Bloggers.")
Doubtless, then, you are a hypocrite.
Oh and points for reading comprehension. Go back and reread that thread you graciously aren't linking to. It is the professed "blogger" who made that generalization, not the professed "livejournaler." But perhaps you were too busy making a generalization to realize that.
You are "downright sick" of it? Downright sick? Well then I guess we should all stop right? Because you are sick. But if anyone else says they don't like being linked too (and that is what they said--fundamentally different that saying that bloggers should quit doing it), they should suck it up because you do like it? Please.
I don't expect this post to last long, because I know the internet isn't that open a space. And I know that people like to bitch at others without being bitched at themselves. But, when you delete this entry, please do me a favor and go back and reread that thread.
I propose a "Guess what sort of foreign object is stuck up Dan's butt" contest.
I see you get comments like this, with their "I dare you to let the world see this!" posturing, and I just have to smile...
ReplyDeleteThey don't know you very well at all, do they?
Dorian, you think that's funny. We've gotten WFA submissions that are all "Link this, if you've got the guts."
ReplyDeleteHonestly. We link everything we FIND. They just saved us time. :-P
No I don't know Ragnell well at all.
ReplyDeleteBut I appreciate the publicity.
Folks might not agree with me, but I won't be scared into submission by guileless mocking.
So go ahead and guess.
My guess is for Ragnell is ego. Amazing that it would fit.
And, why is it that the person who gets all bitchy and proclaims that people just have to stop posting things like that because it is making her sick and giving her the vapors or whatever is always the one who decides that anyone who disagrees with him/her is the one who has a stick up their butt?
Remove the beam from your butt and I shall gladly remove the mote from mine.
Aww, isn't he just darling? I swear Ragnell, you get the most adorable posturing commenters ever!
ReplyDeleteI think the pink scares mine away...
Kali -- No, I think you just attract a different breed. I've lured a few of yours over here, remember? They don't seem to last as long as my own variety.
ReplyDeleteWell, I mean, what postures must one adopt when the topic of discussion is declared to be anal insertion? Surely not a classy one?
ReplyDeleteOh, and for the record, talking about someone rather than talking to them counts as mocking, guileless. Nice try, though.
I'm glad to keep you happy and entertained. Perhaps you could work up some sort of witty response next time? Snide swipes at how adorable I am--while I am sure they wound me terribly--don't really count.
But, hey... I got my 5 minutes of fame on a blog I'd never even heard of, so whohoo. I am an interewb star!
...did anyone promise NOT to guilelessly mock you? Or to actually grant you a witty response?
ReplyDeleteDo let us know so we can have words with him or her.
Honestly, sycophants these days. Can't do anything with them...
I love, love, love when people comment and say "I know you are going to delete this, but..."
ReplyDelete(and why does it seem to be mostly men? Is it just the kind of blogs I hang around?)
It's like that thing guys do when addressing a large number of women, and they throw their hands up and say "now don't hurt me for saying this, but..."
(oh, wait, maybe that's why I mostly see men do it...)
Most places I know only delete the rape/death threats and obsessive BINGO winners. Makes me wonder where people like dan are hanging out.
I just went back to re-read the comments on the other post and found this
ReplyDeleteJust as, I am sure, I will reasonably quickly withdraw from this space.
...they never keep their promises, do they?
(Really, how can one not mock that.)
From that other thread, after the bit you so graciously posted (out of context):
ReplyDeleteI'll stick out in the other thread a bit longer, of course. I can't wait to see what inventive things your fans come up with.
Oops. Someone failed their reading comprehension roll today. If you read that other thread, you also saw me explain exactly why I assumed it would be deleted. But again, I guess you couldn't be bothered to COMPREHEND what you read.
And Kalinara, what I said (check it again) was that I would not be scared away by guileless mocking. Not that I didn't expect it. So your guileless attempt at mocking me won't make me cower in fear, though it wounds me, wounds me to my very soul.
Do you people even read?
I guess not, which should be my clue to exit, but I am so waiting for a good guess... and I so love watching people patting themselves on the back for how witty they are.
Do you really think to hurt my feelings with this dribble? Do you really hope it will make me go away? Nah. You crave the entertainment value, so you will keep trying to mock me. Fine. Mock away. I have no problem with you all making yourselves feel better at my expense.
After all, I am doing the same.
Dan, we read your assumption and found it stupid and insulting.
ReplyDeleteAlso, from your debut comment, I found it perfectly understandable that Church would delete your comment on his own site. I run my site differently.
It's funny how the more you talk, Dan, the less intelligent you sound.
ReplyDeleteWe're amusing ourselves with your sheer inability to realize this.
Personally, the dans of the world always amuse me because they are just so earnest. It's as if they really believe they are saying something original and new and Absolutely True.
ReplyDeleteThe fact they they are also oblivious to their own incoherence is just a bonus.
(That, and this is a nice break from arguing justice and fairness with people who seem to be hyper-focused on the internal logic of the law as written.)
Ooh. Mickle goes for ironic detachment for the win! Good move. Classic Ciceronian tactic.
ReplyDeleteSo let's recap.
Mickle says, "Dan broke his promise to leave."
Dan says, "Nope. Not what I said. (Posts quote as evidence)."
Mickle replies (deftly ignoring the fact that she was, in fact wrong), "Isn't he cute, he thinks he is original and new and Absolutely True."
Which is, frankly, a non sequitur and unsupported by anything but her smug assumption that she is ironically hip and Absolutely True.
I don't really care if you think me intelligent or unintelligent. Not my problem. If, when I die, the only nice thing anyone says about me is that I was amusing, I'd be pretty happy.
And I think I said I was fine with Church deleting my comment. I accepted his response as I accept all of yours in the spirit with which they are given.
Ironic? Hip? Oh wait, I think I see the problem...
ReplyDeleteYou look around at all the posts about all things Green Lantern, the one true Flash, and whether or not this or that character would "really do" this or that thing and you think "Oh yeah, hipsters! Obviously." But don't be fooled by all the comic book content, friend. Folks around here are actually nerds.
Dan, my dear, you really can't win. Ragnell and Kalinara and quite a number of other frequent posters here, are PROS at witty remarks and guileless commentary. And they eat trolls for breakfast.
ReplyDeleteSo please stop foaming at the mouth, and calm down. Go and read a Green Lantern book or something. You'll feel SO much better.
I am truly sorry if you think I am foaming at the mouth.
ReplyDeleteI am resilient, and that seems to be equated with angry or out of control for some reason. I have little tolerance for people who think they are arguing when they are, in fact, just repeating ad hominem ad nausium.
As I said, I am not trying to troll. Frankly, I came to express a contradictory opinion (in part because they did so in other peoples' blogs, yes) and I stayed to engage in a give and take with the original poster rather than a flyby ranting--because on those occasions when I engage in argument on the internet, I stick around and defend myself, explain myself, and even apologize when I am wrong.
Nice attempt at minimizing my behavior by assuming that I am angry, however. Another classic argumentative move. Hey, I'm not the one who started talking about my ass or about how these kinds of posts or those kinds of posts were making me sick. That would be a clearer sign of someone being angry, don't you think?
Oh, and I happily self identify as a nerd. And a geek. Heck, I am even a dork. So I know that nerds and geeks and dorks all have their own hipsters.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou said,
I don't really care if you think me intelligent or unintelligent. Not my problem. If, when I die, the only nice thing anyone says about me is that I was amusing, I'd be pretty happy.
You are rather amusing, in a "gee, doesn't this person realize how badly he's coming across".
And before you accuse me of an ad hominem attack, once you express opinions in a public forum, you've opened the door, not just to what you've said, but how you've said it.
Thanks for letting me share.
Your pal,
Gordon
I've seen people leave in a huff, but I've never seen someone stay in a huff.
ReplyDeleteYa learn something new every day...
Gordon,
ReplyDeleteNot at all. I would never think to accuse you of making an ad hominem there. As you are at least looking (well, quoting, but let's not pick nits) at the words I have written. If they amuse you, I'm delighted.
Similarly, you amused me by leaving of the "kind of way" at the end of the third paragraph there. Not a biggie, mind you, but a chuckle nonetheless.
And I do stand by that statement. I figure people who want to change the world or whatnot tend to do the greatest harm. If I was amusing and that is all, then I will think I did alright.
Well sure, you say you came to express an opinion and engage in a discussion, but you've actually done neither of those things. What you have done is call someone on "hypocrisy" which was 1. factually incorrect and 2. completely unsupported with any examples from the post.
ReplyDeleteHypocrisy, if I may engage in a bit of pedantry for a moment, involves leveling a criticism at another party for a particular behavior while engaging in that behavior oneself. What Ragnell in fact did in her post was say that complaining about people linking to your public post and making fun of what is says is a stupid and annoying thing to do. Now here's where it gets complicated, so do try to follow along. It would only have been hypocritical if she had also herself complained about others linking to and making fun of her, which she did not do. In fact, she did the opposite right there in that very post when she said that she didn't have a problem when other people do it to her posts.
Then (and here's where it gets hilarious), after having failed to read and correctly comprehend her post, you went on to make a series of comments talking about how other people had failed to read and correctly comprehend your own posts. Which is stunningly hypocritical.
Which brings us all to the position we're in now, because how could we possibly not make fun of that?
Very good description of a of hypocrisy in an relatively inductive level argument, but what I am/was leveling is claim of hypocrisy in a relativlely deductive level argument. Quite simply (again so that you can follow along), I believe that the major premise was:
ReplyDeleteThe internet is an open and wild place where people can do and say what they want (short of threats, sending leagues of trolls, etc).
The minor premise was:
Good question. Something about other people shouldn't do thiings that sicken her. Here is where the hypocrisy actually happened, because what she is about to conclude from her rule is...
Conclusion:
You cannot say these things that I disapprove of on the internet.
Her exact words were:
But don't make generalizations about "Bloggers" (Especially if you are one, and if you have a livejournal, you are one too. Deal with it) and don't make bitter statements about them linking public posts.
If she truly believes her major premise, then she is being hypocritical in drawing this conclusion and making this proclamation.
Make fun all you like. I hear it is an open and wild place here.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(reposted for clarity)
ReplyDeleteAren't you gone yet?
Honestly, you must have very little to do. But at least you've finally phrased your criticism coherently enough to warrant a counter-argument.
Which is good, because your argument lacks any sort of factual basis.
Your interpretation of Ragnell's "major premise" is inaccurate. It's completely unrelated to anything she said, and it is not logically extrapolated from her comments.
If I may be so bold, I'd say her premise is exactly the point of her post which can be summed up as: "If you put something publically on the internet, it's stupid to complain about someone reacting to it."
That's it. She wasn't saying that the Internet is a wild and untamed place and even if she were, that doesn't negate her right to complain about things that annoy her.
Saying one complaint is pretty silly doesn't mean you're saying ALL complaints are really silly.
You can't prove someone is a hypocrite based on an argument she didn't actually make.
Honestly, I'm sure if you searched this blog (or mine even), you'd find many VALID cases of hypocritical behavior, so I'm not sure why you're still harping on this. Except to prove your inability to read with any sort of comprehension.
Well, I mean, what postures must one adopt when the topic of discussion is declared to be anal insertion?
ReplyDeleteBending over?
*snicker*
ReplyDeleteWhy haven't these people formed the Anti-Ragnell League yet? Its a nice group blog that really needs to be formed. I mean, ok Jimmy will probably insist on being in charge, but still...
ReplyDeleteBlogger is free! You can have 100% anti-Ragnell content! All the time! Under your total control! Organize already!
Why haven't these people formed the Anti-Ragnell League yet?
ReplyDeleteAnd done!
In reverse order:
ReplyDeleteNo, I am not Anti-Ragnell. I had never even heard of Ragnell before this started (Friday). It isn't personal--although I generally prefer it to be personal when someone starts talking about my butt.
Second, jokes generally work better when the humor is implied rather than explicitly played out. Thus the "no joke is funny after you explain it" rule. So bending over was kinda lame. I already made that joke. And, for the record, I prefer on my back. It is easier to relax and focus on breathing.
Third:
Your interpretation of Ragnell's "major premise" is inaccurate. It's completely unrelated to anything she said, and it is not logically extrapolated from her comments.
I don't know why this continues. Here is what I said:
I believe that the major premise was:
The internet is an open and wild place where people can do and say what they want (short of threats, sending leagues of trolls, etc).
I picked my words carefully.
Ragnell said, The Internet is largely public.
I take this to mean that the internet is out in the open. That is the classic public/private dichotomy is it not? I assume that the remainder, that is the non-public internet, doesn't matter for our discussion because it isn't connected to blogs or blogging.
Ragnell said, That's the Blogosphere. Its the wild.
Here, I would call your attention to the definite article "the." While the plain "wild" might mean "crazy," the modified "the wild" has a few specific meanings. It means ungoverned, lawless, unregulated, etc. You might think here of "The wild west." You could also think of a computer virus "in the wild."
So, tell me again how she said nothing like that?
Now, let's take your statement:
"If you put something publically on the internet, it's stupid to complain about someone reacting to it."
Which I could even grant.
Except that, you see, Ragnell is complaining about someone's reaction to what she put publicly on the internet.
So even your best attempt to justify your position doesn't work. Well, I suppose you just called Ragnell stupid rather than a hypocrite, but those are your words, not mine.
Oh, and bonus points for another snide attack! Yay! the classic, "if you are posting on a webpage, you must have very little to do." You wound me! But seriously, that one is fairly wrinkly at this point, don't you think? I'm sure everyone still reading at this point knows the standard answers, so I will spare them the recitation.
As a brief aside, I had no intention of staying very long--but as I indicated on the other thread, I will stay in this one longer. Longer because I know bullies when I see them. And this thread is all about getting people to pile on, make fun of, and generally ridicule me. In short, fairly standard bullying tactics. (to pre-empt the argument--I know the meaning of italics and of "contests").
Keep trying, if you wish. I am not chastened in the least.
Well I'm certainly Anti-Ragnell! But did it have to be so... so pink?
ReplyDeleteThen, promptly, however you tell other people what they cannot say (in your words, "don't make generalizations about "Bloggers.")
ReplyDeleteI bet you spent your youth writing angry letters to Nickelodeon because "You Can't Do That on Television" was, in fact, doing nothing but things that can be done on television. Get 'em, champ!
(Oh, and my guess as to foreign object is "Ayn Rand's typewriter".)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnd once more the utter incoherence and idiocy of your reply doesn't actually warrant a straight answer. You're picking pieces of statements out of a whole, neglecting comments, to construct and frame an argument that Ragnell didn't make. You can keep repeating yourself all you like, it doesn't change the fact that you've manufactured this argument yourself to look like some sort of white knight.
ReplyDeleteThat technique only works if we can't see the original words for ourselves.
If you want to call me a bully, you're welcome to it. But YOU are the one arguing in circles and trying to dictate someone else's opinions on their own blog. You are the one trying desperately to convince us that Ragnell's making an argument she isn't making. (If she were, honestly, she would have said it outright.) The rest of us are perfectly happy pointing and laughing.
Or in my case, enjoying my new summer vacation by poking at silly trolls who are arguing themselves in circles on my friend's blog.
You're also at least as much a hypocrite, considering your enthusiastic participation on at least one other thread which has, shock of shocks, linked Ragnell's post without notifying/warning her! Which as I recall, was part of the crux of at least one of the incidents that prompted this to begin with.
Wouldn't it be nice if people actually lived up to their idealized expectations of others?
Nope. But nice one with Ayn Rand's typewriter. Good image. I always disliked Rand, though.
ReplyDeleteI'm fairly sure that there was no Nickelodeon in my youth and I don't believe I've ever seen the show you mentioned.
Thanks for the kind words though. I will continue to read and pay attention to words that others say. As, I dunno, it is sort of the most common way of communicating on the internet.
Pardon me for responding to a blog with words of my own. I thought the point of the whole deal was to read and react. In fact, I believe Ragnell gave me specific permission to do so.
So wait a second... Doesn't this make the crux of your argument something along the lines of...
ReplyDelete"Damn you, Ragnell! Damn you and your Amazon arrogance!"?
No no Chris. That's YOUR argument. Really, my dear, you ought to remember these things.
ReplyDeleteShut up, Sperm Bank.
ReplyDelete...hey wait a second...
Kalinara,
ReplyDeleteNice try but wrong again.
Look, if you want to say I am taking her words out of context point to it. Show me the context. I have made a good faith effort to show how I interpreted them. Complete with quotes. If it was too fast for you, I could arrange a powerpoint presentation or something, I guess.
Oh noes. I am a hypocrite?
Maybe.
But I was here because of linking to other people without warning them solely for the purpose of mocking them. See that bit? The bit about mocking? Did you miss that? Have you seen me ONCE, one time, argue that I thought linking was verboten? Oh in fact, here is a quote from me in that thread:
Was it wrong of them to link to (name removed)'s page? No.
Oh and, if you'll notice my participation in that thread happened AFTER Ragnell posted there.
Please, please try to read and comprehend what you are reading before you go about attacking me for something I did not say.
See, I can actually find quotes of where you are taking me as saying something I didn't say. You can't even find anything to contradict my argument in what Ragnell said.
Reading is, as they used to say, FUNdamental.
I am glad to provide you with a source of entertainment. I don't mind being mocked or ridiculed, frankly.
And I may well be a bully, but I doubt it. I haven't told Ragnell what to say. I have disagreed with it. I never said "Don't do" this or that. That would be Ragnell, not me.
Well I'm certainly Anti-Ragnell! But did it have to be so... so pink?
ReplyDeleteOf course.
She's a girl!
Duh!
Oh and the crux of my argument was this: (cut and pasted to avoid typing it again)
ReplyDeleteMy particular argument was about the following two sentences:
...if the matter consists solely of linking and mocking, its hardly "really low" or "messed up."
I argued that it was, while potentially funny, "low" because it was an attempt at deriving humor from mocking another person--schaudenfreude, or more likely derision, if you will.
But don't make generalizations about "Bloggers" (Especially if you are one, and if you have a livejournal, you are one too. Deal with it) and don't make bitter statements about them linking public posts.(emphasis mine)
I felt then, as I do now that in a post about how open and wild the internet was, making such a proclamation was a bit overboard. So I did what it seemed the original blogger requested and I argued the point.
Oh my, you're funny. I don't need to provide you with the context of Ragnell's argument. It's on the top of the page.
ReplyDeleteRagnell linked it herself even.
You can provide quotes and presentations all you like. I've spent enough time in academia to realize that through the right selection of quotes you can argue pretty much anything. However, your quotes and mis-interpretations mean absolutely nothing. The context is right here. We can all see exactly what Ragnell did or didn't argue for ourselves.
As for your behavior on that linked thread, well, I think it speaks for itself. And anyone who follows that link can judge for him or herself.
Oh my, you're funny.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
I'm not asking for context so much as contextualization. That is, if you want to claim I am taking her words out of context, by all means make the argument. You seem to do a wonderful job of implying an argument without actually expressing it. Your time in academia should have corrected that problem. As well as letting you know that any use of another's words is a "taking" out of context--which is why we contextualize quotes as much as possible.
I think my behavior in that thread speaks for itself as well.
*I apologized to the linker for bringing any untoward attention to her and her page.
*I told her and others NOT to come here and defend me (thus I specifically asked them to avoid any accusation of trolling).
*I took blame for raising people's ire.
*I repeated the bit about "low" that is posted here.
*I said that people on this site seemed to be overly defensive about being called "low."
*I said it was within your rights to link, but that right doesn't exempt you from argument.
*I confessed to an argumentative streak.
*I suggested that others (myself included) should probably think more before posting.
*I suggested that this whole post and kerfuffle will be forgotten in a few days.
*Oh, and mentioned the "cute comment"="warning" tactic.
Bullet pointed for ease of reading. You may feel free to add anything you think is of value or interest.
I am not here to tell you how to think or what to think. At this point I am simply defending the claims I made and engaging in as peaceable a conversation as I can.
As I have said countless times, I will take your posts in the spirit with which they are given.
I think we're pretty much doomed to argue in circles. I think your "contextualization" is useful in academia (since the readers of a thesis probably is not going to go hunting down every footnote to understand the context of the quotes) but meaningless in a case like this where the original context is clear, quick and easy to read. Much the same as your bullet points really, since the thread linked is fairly short and we can read it for ourselves. No matter how much you defend your claim, my counter will always be "read the post again."
ReplyDeleteI'm sure some people have read your accusation, reread the original post and said "wow, he's right." Just as others probably did the same and went "err...no." Your subsequent defenses of your claim really aren't going to have any real affect on your audience, as they've already reread the post and made up their minds. (Much the same with my accusation against you. Anyone interested will have already read the linked thread and decided for themselves.)
I'm enjoying the discussion honestly, but at this point it's mostly been the two of us going back and forth. I'd like to respectfully offer to continue this conversation via email (kalinara@gmail.com) or AIM (username: kalinara) instead.
kalinara,
ReplyDeletedone
"Well I'm certainly Anti-Ragnell! But did it have to be so... so pink?
ReplyDeleteOf course.
She's a girl!
Duh! "
Brilliant!
I'm sorry, none of you were right, no-one gets the points. The answer was "A potato". Good try everyone, I'm sure you'll do better next time.
ReplyDeleteOh, and here I thought Ragnell was a reference to the extremely wealthy Ragnell clan who lived in Chesterfield, Missouri.
ReplyDeleteMajor assumption on my part.
Shan't happen again.
I argued that it was, while potentially funny, "low" because it was an attempt at deriving humor from mocking another person--schaudenfreude, or more likely derision, if you will.
ReplyDelete"All comedy is rooted in pain."
--Al Capp
"Tragedy is when I slip on a banana peel. Comedy is when you fall down an open manhol and break both legs."
ReplyDelete--Mel Brooks
urgh. That should be "manhole".
ReplyDelete"A well-balanced person is one who finds both sides of an issue laughable. "
ReplyDelete-- Herbert Prochnow
I'm still trying to figure out how mockery with guile is better than 'guileless mockery'.
ReplyDeleteguileless = 'innocent and without deception'.
I suppose everyone's supposed to mock Dan behind his back while professing friendship 4 evah?
Dan wrote: "I argued that it was, while potentially funny, "low" because it was an attempt at deriving humor from mocking another person--schaudenfreude, or more likely derision, if you will."
ReplyDeleteI think the general attitude on the internet is that it's entirely fair game and acceptable to mock people for what they post.
What's more unacceptable (thus, 'low') would be to mock, say, their appearance.
Jon,
ReplyDeleteI didn't say it was bad to be guileless, I said that guileless mockery would not make me leave.
Guileless has a number of meanings including "artless" and "direct"--and it is rather in that sense that I was using the word. That is, simply engaging in mockery of me doesn't make me feel compelled to go. I have a healthy sense of humor and can laugh at myself. I am a pedant, I am long winded, I am stubborn. I can be an intolerable ass. These things I know about myself. Your pointing them out to me do not wound me or bother me in the least.
I like that you used the modifier "more" in front of unacceptable. It shows that, at some level, you understand that mocking someone's post is a bit unacceptable, just not as unacceptable as mocking their appearance. Here we agree.
There are few things funnier than the pretentiousness of the overly well-read (myself included). The moment Dan made use of the adjective "Ciceronian" I knew this thread would be good for a chortle. Thanks. ;-)
ReplyDelete"The moment Dan made use of the adjective "Ciceronian" I knew this thread would be good for a chortle. "
ReplyDeleteAw, man, Dan better watch out or Scipio will come by and drop a load of classics major whoopass.
Hey, troll in the thread who's name starts with a D!
ReplyDeleteIf you think you're so better than us, why don't you GET A LIFE!
After all, through inductive deductive reasoning, I can easily guess you're saying that female comic book fans are stupid and shouldn't post. Or something.
Oh, Christ. Here we go again...
ReplyDeleteNah,
ReplyDeleteAll I was going to say was the resurrecting dead threads seemed to be fairly troll-ish, but I think Rob made that point more eloquently than I would have.
so i've gone back through a few chapters of this, and i still can't tell: was this whole back-and-forth ever actually about anything, or it it just an all-you-can-eat troll-feeding?
ReplyDeleteis it, i mean. (feel free to start a whole thread about the typo though, if y'all want.)
ReplyDelete