tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post6707639371713052230..comments2024-03-27T15:44:43.564-08:00Comments on What Do I Know?: Trolls or People? Commenters Who Push My Civility StandardsStevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10498066938213558757noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-27004207357076212832013-02-09T14:00:01.774-09:002013-02-09T14:00:01.774-09:00I guess I am guilty of proactive deletion by appro...I guess I am guilty of proactive deletion by approximation. Re-read, please.<br />Jacob Dugan-Brausehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287631724339961459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-87643638412823091972013-02-08T12:55:22.369-09:002013-02-08T12:55:22.369-09:00Allow me first to acknowledge your admission that ...Allow me first to acknowledge your admission that I had not in fact suffered from some complication of perception on my part as to what Munger had actually written.<br /><br />Also, I'm made aware that you speak of 'unwritten expectations', I too, tend to have some expectations also. One being that people will actually carefully read and precisely or correctly comprehend that which they do read. I'm often disappointed as you can well imagine....<br /><br />I did have a point to make, and I won't apologize for using descriptive terminology that, by definition, was perfectly apt for the circumstance. Words have distinct meanings and I try to apply the proper word for the circumstance. 'Insult', is such a subjective term, but is it an insult to describe a distinct reality? Is it really 'rude' or 'uncivil' to speak of what cannot be denied? If dishonesty, false narrative and hackery are perfectly descriptive terms for the circumstance, what is the insult? The obvious insult is the dishonesty, the hackery and the false narrative.<br /><br />Some people prefer not to be exposed to something that maybe makes them uncomfortable, or something that challenges their preconceptions, or maybe threatens to upend something of their fancy.<br /><br />As you noted, if Jacob or Harpboy were able, there wouldn't have been even the possibility of any interaction wherein anyone might have become more aware of just what it is we might know of something.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-80566903349382810132013-02-07T14:11:37.734-09:002013-02-07T14:11:37.734-09:00Kathy, AKJah, Jacob, Harpboy, and Joe, I appreciat...Kathy, AKJah, Jacob, Harpboy, and Joe, I appreciate your your thoughts and please excuse me if I address this mostly to Anon.<br /><br /><br /><br />Anon, <br /><br />Suppose you were walking down the street and saw through my window that I was having a discussion with my friends. You walk up to the door where there’s a sign that says “Please remove your shoes and refrain from smoking.” You then walk through my front door, leaving muddy boot prints on my carpet, sit down in the middle of our discussion, light a cigarette, and start to give your opinions. <br /><br />We would be so taken aback by your behavior that we wouldn’t even hear what you were saying. <br /><br />Something like that has happened here. I have a sign at the comment box that asks people “to refrain from personal insults, rambling tirades, and significant repetition.” Yet you jumped right in throwing insults at another blogger, telling us how awful he was, and repeating phrases like 'hackery' and 'dishonest' and 'false narrative.' <br /><br />An unwritten expectation, explained above in this post, is that people will support their assertions with evidence so readers can evaluate their claims. These rules are common in science, where people’s writing is evaluated by how well they use empirical evidence to support their statements. This standard is also common in other forums like high school debate teams, where the debaters are evaluated on the evidence they bring to support their assertions. <br /><br />And when you did provide backup evidence on Obama’s speech, you convinced me that you were right and Phil was wrong. You gave us two more quotes that I missed. You also mentioned news reports on the speech, but didn’t give us specifics. I did find one in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/us/politics/climate-change-prominent-in-obamas-inaugural-address.html?_r=0" rel="nofollow">NY Times that makes your point</a> well: <br /><br />“President Obama made addressing climate change the most prominent policy vow of his second Inaugural Address, setting in motion what Democrats say will be a deliberately paced but aggressive campaign built around the use of his executive powers to sidestep Congressional opposition.”<br /><br /><br /><br />You said several times in your comments things like, “Anyone making the least effort knows . . .” Well, we don’t all know about every topic. And all I've been asking was that you make the least effort and show us your evidence. Like I’ve just done with that New York Times quote. And like you did with the two more Obama speech quotes.<br /><br />Think about this blog as a Vegan restaurant. If you’re looking for steak, there are plenty of other blogs where red meat is not only acceptable, but encouraged. That’s not my preference. I didn’t force you here. If you drop in, please respect our preferences. You can even tell us about the wonders of steak and ribs, but please don’t actually bring any in here. <br /><br />You did have a point to make, but you made it very hard for us to hear it. If some of my readers - say Harpboy - were in control of the delete button, we never would have heard it. I’ve come to terms with Phil. I have the same problem with his style that I have with yours: lots of name calling. But I do appreciate his knowledge from experiences in a variety of fields. So I stick my head into his blog now and then to see what’s up, and if I think he’s gone too far, I might say something, but usually others have already done that. But it’s his blog and he can do what he wants there. That’s the beauty of the First Amendment. The same applies to me. And <a href="http://www.blogger.com/home" rel="nofollow">Blogspot</a> allows you to set up a free blog and set your own rules. <br /><br />So, thanks for coming by. Thanks for making me think about this more deeply. And do come back. Bring along the evidence, but leave the insults in the car. I don’t expect everyone to have the skills of a debate team member, but I do expect them to do their best to respect our style here. Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10498066938213558757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-38955587243883149072013-02-07T00:30:04.778-09:002013-02-07T00:30:04.778-09:00Harpboy appears unready for a life not of his own ...Harpboy appears unready for a life not of his own design.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03878884323732649241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-50043110850177698012013-02-06T11:31:02.281-09:002013-02-06T11:31:02.281-09:00Arguing with axe-grinders is a waste of time. If ...Arguing with axe-grinders is a waste of time. If someone who refuses to identify themselves wants to attack another blogger, let them go to that blog to do it. You should have deleted her/his comments and not bothered to justify it.HarpboyAKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-55244152262438269892013-02-06T04:49:32.895-09:002013-02-06T04:49:32.895-09:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jacob Dugan-Brausehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287631724339961459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-32776263476169226892013-02-06T03:57:04.356-09:002013-02-06T03:57:04.356-09:00And, yes, Steve, (in case anyone is wondering), I ...And, yes, Steve, (in case anyone is wondering), I did go back and reread Munger's posts to see if your 'suggestion' or your 'interpretation' of 'what I might have seen on a first read may have been something else entirely' could have some merit and that I may have 'misread' what Munger posted.<br /><br />...<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-9206145577649111732013-02-06T03:41:14.765-09:002013-02-06T03:41:14.765-09:00As for whether you agree or disagree with how I ch...As for whether you agree or disagree with how I choose to use links, I don't feel that's what this discussion turns on.<br /><br />I chose to comment on your post specifically because you brought up the issue of 'blogger ethics'. I offered information which was on topic and in context to your heading. I see by the heading above that there's some inference that I was maybe possibly a mere troll. <br /><br />You said I might have a 'problem' with your post. I can only note it was you who stressed that it's important to 'get the details right'. I don't believe I missed any detail and I certainly don't believe I had any comprehension difficulties.<br /><br /><br />I also know what it it to be a mere troll. Like a lot of nomenclature connected to the web, the word 'troll' is often brought into play in circumstances where it's not actually pertinent, situations like whenever someone's confronted with some content they don't care to hear or some other what they deem to be an inappropriate instance. Sometimes a 'troll' is nothing more than a troll and sometimes it's a convenient label used as an attempt to censor or demean. Myself, I'd save the troll label for some instance that is more properly descriptive of actual trolling.<br /><br />I'm guessing, unlike most of your readers, you did become engaged to a degree, you were able to find at least one example similar to what Munger is claiming exclusivity for, and, though your 'interpretation' leaves much to be desired, you also found examples of Munger's hackery i cited. You found those things without my providing links. As you conceded earlier instances of 'challenged' material originating from Munger, there's little doubt that he's still not concerning himself with journalistic ethics, or for that matter, little regard for fact or reality.<br /><br />As always, I appreciate your time. Confirmation of that which we can know can only be resolved by confronting what we don't know.<br /><br />False narratives and fictional constructs have no place in reasoned debate. They only deserve scorn and derision.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-3398116766057328162013-02-06T03:08:28.709-09:002013-02-06T03:08:28.709-09:00In Munger's deceptive attempt to smear the pre...In Munger's deceptive attempt to smear the president using someone else's story about Obama's speech, Munger leads off his setup listing a few 'dangers' he said topped his list of 'concern'. <br /><br />Number one in that list of Munger's pet dangers was "Non-response to the real dangers of climate change". <br /><br />In the next breath, Munger claims 'none' of his pet dangers came up in Obama's speech and he went on to attempt to claim there was no mention 'because EXXON'.<br /><br />Yeah, well, that charge is an utter fabrication. It's a bald faced lie.<br /><br />Here's the pertinent quote from President Obama's 2nd Inaugural speech:<br /><br />"We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations."<br /><br />"As stated, we have a moral and ethical responsibility to provide a habitable world for our children, grandchildren, and all as yet unborn generations. Climate change is a civilization challenging issue that mandates active U.S. engagement with our entire global community. It requires a commitment to lower our own greenhouse gas emissions and to provide financial and technical resources to those most vulnerable and least resilient in adapting to our changing climate."<br /><br />"Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms."<br /><br />Is there any way to read that as a non-response to the dangers of climate change? No, in fact, a majority of articles about the president's speech noted how the president set a precedent specifically because he was so forthright with his inclusion of statements about climate change.<br /><br />Again, It's very clear this example of Munger's hackery was but another of his fictional constructs. This particular example of hackery was also topped off with Munger's dog-whistle racial slur. That alone qualifies the post as being not only unethical but indefensible.<br /><br />I truly believe it's fairly disingenuous to attempt to imply I made some error in comprehension in regards to Munger's hackery. I don't have a problem comprehending what I read, and I don't have a problem recognizing hackery in all it's forms.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-28687653015371931172013-02-06T03:06:04.384-09:002013-02-06T03:06:04.384-09:00Speaking of military suicides. Munger took someone...Speaking of military suicides. Munger took someone else's story line about the issue and proceeded to create a false narrative in order to attempt to smear the president, and falsely attempted to lay blame on the president. <br /><br />One can mince words all they want, the crux of what Munger attempts to pass off is that the president is and certainly was responsible for, unresponsive to and/or simply uncaring concerning the issue when reality does not support that premise in any way. It's a fictional narrative, a construct not supported by reality.<br /><br />Our president is not, by any stretch of the imagination, 'as responsible for the growth of this tragic epidemic as is anyone'. <br /><br />Anyone spending minimal time researching what is known and what is suspected about the causes of the increase in these suicides could not in any rational manner attempt to assert that the current president is as responsible as anyone else. The lowering of military standards for recruitment, stop loss orders, constant rotations, and any number of other causes are the result of previous administration policies and/or Congressional moves beyond the control of the president. Not to mention illegal wars of convenience that were started some time before the current president could be considered to be in charge.<br /><br />One only has to look at the issue objectively and see that the cascading causes which are leading to the increases in these suicides are the result of policies and and circumstance that our current president had little or no control over. <br /><br />On top of that, as I said before, anyone who makes the least effort to find out what this president has done in regards to this issue would know that attempting to portray Obama as the least bit unengaged or uncaring, or 'as responsible as anyone else' is ludicrous. This president is more engaged than any president before and he's done more than any president before. He's been leading the VA and the DoD in addressing and revamping both policies and reaction to the crisis.<br /><br />You want an example of total disregard for journalistic ethic? Munger's post. Hackery in a nutshell, the perfect example to showcase for your post's heading, Steve, was, at least in part, blogger ethics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-65138515015114944422013-02-06T00:17:17.505-09:002013-02-06T00:17:17.505-09:00Jumpin bald headed Jesus, you have the patience of...Jumpin bald headed Jesus, you have the patience of a saint. You can bet i will read more often than i do. Thanks AKjah.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30897652.post-27431587602948405282013-02-05T18:55:21.776-09:002013-02-05T18:55:21.776-09:00Steve -- I hadn't read your previous post unti...Steve -- I hadn't read your previous post until you referred to it here, but now I have just spent 15 minutes carefully reviewing everything you and Anon have said. <br /><br />First, my compliments to you at all stages of this discussion. Too few bloggers are this conscientious in seeking an ethical way to write about controversial stories. I especially commend your consulting (and quoting) the Reuters guidelines. As a former newspaper reporter I appreciate respect for journalistic best practice, since too few practitioners seem to be following it these days.<br /><br />Second, my compliments to you for your patience in lots of back-and-forth with Anon. Most bloggers would have deleted the comments and moved on long before you did. Your mild tone did eventually calm Anon down and get us a little farther in a quest for truth, even if we haven't really arrived yet. <br /><br />I suspect some of your readers checked out of this discussion long before the end; it's a bit too inside-baseball for most people's taste. But it does validate your credentials as a responsible blogger. Thank you on all counts.kathy in KYnoreply@blogger.com