This may be brief, as I have just returned from vacation and am not as of yet fully recovered. Hopefully will be returning to a semi-regular schedule of better posts in the near future. However, this really couldn't wait.
Not sure if anybody else reads the comments I get on my entries here, but I do, and I seem to have acquired a Mystery Commenter who is pretty clearly opposed to at least most of the beliefs I hold. Most of these comments have been pretty benign and unobjectionable, but the most recent got my hackles up. I do not, as of this writing, know who this person is, I have only their tag, something about Blog-Eating-Waffles (what a concept!) and a sparse profile. That's fine, it's not particularly important (I don't even know what my own profile says, if it says anything). It's also fine if somebody disagrees with me; I have encouraged this in the past, and continue to do so now. I'll also readily admit that I'm not the most informed person on all things, nor do I pretend to be. I am, for what it's worth, more informed than your average guy on the street, but this blog hasn't got anything to do with that. It mostly serves as my take on whatever pops into my mind based on whatever I know of it, and should be taken as nothing more than that.
However, cherry-picking select things that I write to criticize based on whatever facts I have omitted or was unaware of...that is not respectful disagreement, that is looking to start a flame war, which I am not interested in. If you want to read my blog, that's great, I appreciate it. If you want to comment, even better. If you disagree, that's okay too, we have our right to free speech. I embrace that, and you should too. I am not, though, looking to have my blogs edited for accuracy. If I was interested in that, I would do it myself; my sterling grades on written papers during my college years indicates that I am fully capable of doing so if I wish. Clearly, I am not here to give you your news, and if that's why you're here, I recommend going elsewhere for it. Primarily, I am here to entertain (or to attempt to), in the style of a Jon Stewart or a Bill Maher, though I am no match for them in terms of my comedy or my knowledge, but then again, it is their job to be unmatched, while it is my job to stock the shelves at Target. This is just something I do in my free time, when the mood strikes me; I am hardly a professional.
If you are not entertained by my blog, please feel no obligation to continue reading it. If you wish merely to fact-check someone, I recommend applying for such a job at a news company (don't waste your time applying at Fox News, however, as they do not employ one).
Finally, if you wish to attempt to wield logic against me, you should probably be aware of the ways in which logic works. I am not interested in "having it both ways" as Mystery Commenter has suggested. If I was accepting President Obama's statements that he is responsible, then you could possibly make this claim. However, I do not recognize his acceptance of the responsibility. If I just took everyone at his or her word, then I would believe that the crazy guy on the street corner is Jesus, that Tom Cruise is sane, and that Barack Obama both is and is not a socialist, since I hear both of these uttered so frequently, and then the world would cease to exist because two contradictory things would be true. So, there you have that, I am not trying to have it both ways. Of course, I have a basic understanding of logic and do not attempt to perform gymnastics with words. I call it as I see it, and all those other great cliches. If I suggest that some Americans are happy to blame the black guy for any disaster that befalls this country, it's because I've seen significant evidence of it, but I am not suggesting that any one particular person is doing this. So, Mystery Commenter, believe it when I say that neither the universe nor my blog revolves around you (and do not make the mistake of believing that even this entry is about you; it was merely prompted by your remarks). This suggestion about a portion of the American psyche in general was not directed at you, nor anyone else in particular. You don't care what color the President's skin is, neither do I. Some people do, though, and my statement was issued to that end. A person with common sense might have deduced that from my phrasing, and the add-on that you were "waiting for this" sort of remark only serves to further my belief that you are just looking for a fight to pick. Now, you have had your say on this matter, I have had mine, and I am considering this the end of the issue. Once again, if you (and by you, I mean anybody) wish to read my blog, great, if you wish to comment, better, if you wish to disagree, fine. If you wish to solicit unwanted editing, take my words out of context, and attempt to use faulty logic against me, I will rapidly lose patience with you, and your comments containing any of these things will be cheerfully disregarded.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"However, cherry-picking select things that I write to criticize based on whatever facts I have omitted or was unaware of...that is not respectful disagreement"
ReplyDeleteWhere did I state I would be respectful in my disagreement of your fictional posts? You're posting about things that you are either wrong about or haven't even researched. I am merely informing you of what you are overlooking in any given situation or the facts that you are omitting. If more people would just look up facts rather than spouting off what they've heard from this site or that news shows or this guy on the radio we would have a lot less disinformation going around. Hence why they say "There are 2 sides to every story".
Also note, "respect" has nothing to do with "facts". The manner they are presented in may come off as disrespectful but it's all in how you interpret what you're reading. Think of it like this, you could see this as "Hey maybe I should do a tad more research before posting information that may be wrong" vs. "someone proved my beliefs to be wrong, they're a dick." If you don't like someone stating "You're incorrect" then make sure you're not.
"I am not, though, looking to have my blogs edited for accuracy"
So you would rather think what you believe is right and not learn when you're wrong? Stick to fiction novels, maybe write about Narnia. Narcissism rears its ugly head ... If you wish to ignore the facts and look like a tool than that's perfectly ok. Carry on. You would think someone with "sterling grades" would have a little higher standard regardless of the medium used when writing. I have a PHd in "Trollanomics". Prove me wrong.
"I am here to entertain (or to attempt to), in the style of a Jon Stewart or a Bill Maher"
The style they use is unique but they are generally accurate. Or at the very least stretch the truth to fit their political agenda and talking points. There's a vast difference between "stretching the truth" and "Total fiction". If this is the angle you wish to take then again, do some fact checking.
I am not interested in "having it both ways"
You've made that clearly obvious with the prior narcissistic rant. The examples you give are quite frankly fail, someone states "I'm responsible for this" and you say "Nope!" Ok well then why do you believe BP is responsible? Transocean owned the rig, and the vast majority of those on the rig were Transocean personnel. Why should BP be at blame? Sure they leased the rig but it was Transocean people on it doing the work and obviously something went wrong. Hmm...
In conclusion you've clearly shown me that you are indeed a narcissistic individual even making sure to point out that your blog doesn't revolve around me when you are making a post...about me. A simple reply in the comments would suffice :-)
Your claim that "I have a basic understanding of logic" is laughable unless you use your basic understanding outside of the blog. Stick to "paper or plastic" or at the very least before posting take 5 minutes and use Google. I don't have all the answers just sitting ready, I do a few minutes of research.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteActually you're fail, you can specify what sites for Google to use :-) Learn to use the power of Google...wield it carefully.
ReplyDeleteremove them from context to achieve some form of desired manipulation"
If I linked them on another site then I could take them out of context, however showing what exactly I'm replying to is hardly taking out of context as even a monkey could scroll back up and read back over the post.
Also it's rather amusing how you try to piece together a puzzle without having the slightest clue. You know that you're offended, you know you want to lash out, but you aren't sure how so resort to any type of lame analogy you can.
Here allow me to enlighten you as to how to deal with you're normal troll. You ignore them, further responding to them shows that you are in fact angry and that the comments are indeed getting to you. Or just continue to comment and show your frustration through lackluster insults that add nothing to the facts.
You haven't disputed facts...merely just are upset with me being here.
Fail. Harder.
It's his ex so ignore her.
ReplyDeleteThe plot thickens!
ReplyDeleteIgnored.
Shut up Sara. She made valid points.
ReplyDeleteI, personally, think that a blog is a blog. There doesn't have to be fact-checking or Google searches for someone to air his/her respective opinions. I have a whack-job religious cousin who blogs about the glories of ultra-conservatism and having 8 zillion kids--but the primary point is that SHE IS ALLOWED TO. There is freedom of speech after all. At least right now...
But... since there is, apparently, fact-checking on this blog:
"Here allow me to enlighten you as to how to deal with you're normal troll."
The quoted statement is badly punctuated, as well as having the wrong usage of your/you're.
Maybe instead of Google, you should consult Merriam Webster, Mr./Mrs. In Ur Blog Eatin Waffles.
Please. Just go bother someone else.
If you don't like people correcting you or proving you wrong maybe you should make it friends only. Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"There doesn't have to be fact-checking or Google searches for someone to air his/her respective opinions"
ReplyDeleteWell if you would keep up with whats being said, I stated above "If more people would just look up facts rather than spouting off what they've heard from this site or that news shows or this guy on the radio we would have a lot less disinformation going around"
There's no denying too many people have opinions without the slightest clue of what they are speaking about today and that's what causes a lot of disinformation. The news has turned more opinionated and is now less about actual facts or investigating. Disinformation is like a wildfire spreading across southern California, or a flood ripping through Tennessee. Sir Winston Churchill's right now more than ever, "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
I'm also not narcissistic enough to overlook criticism. Thank you for correcting me :-) However a simple misspelling does not equate to fact vs. fiction or his beliefs vs reality.
Judging by lack of reading comprehension and your quick jump instructing someone to "shut up" I can only assume you are Mrs. Uninformed Blog Writer. I'm certain you agree with him because of his "sterling grades" and based on his narcissism in this blog after a few comments posted I'm sure he would command it. Opinions are great, opinions based on factually inaccurate information and being spewed out by someone acting like they are informed, not so much.
Why would you not want to know the truth?