Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!
Bart Stupak's amendment barring federal funding for abortions did pass but could be removed from the final bill.
Click to Print
Include Comments
Something Light: The 10 Commandments of Christian blogging
Godblogs, a September 23 gathering of Christian bloggers sponsored by the Evangelical Alliance, hammered out some guidelines for Christ-like blogging, ChristianToday.com reports.
Dr Krish Kandiah, Churches in Mission Executive Director at the [Evangelical Alliance], said: “During the Godblogs event, we discussed ideas about how to communicate a code of best practice to evangelical bloggers.”
Here’s what they came up with:
You shall not put your blog before your integrity.
You shall not make an idol of your blog.
You shall not misuse your screen name by using your anonymity to sin.
Remember the Sabbath day by taking one day off a week from your blog.
Honour your fellow-bloggers above yourselves and do not give undue significance to their mistakes.
You shall not murder someone else’s honour, reputation or feelings.
You shall not use the web to commit or permit adultery in your mind.
You shall not steal another person’s content.
You shall not give false testimony against your fellow-blogger.
You shall not covet your neighbour’s blog ranking. Be content with your own content.
Never mind that we bust these around here all the time…What Commandments would you add?
back to top101 Comments to “Something Light: The 10 Commandments of Christian blogging”
You shall not salt another’s blog with incessant astroturf and comment spam.
Report comment to moderator
I find it interesting that no where does it discuss perhaps taking the time to reasearch the materials in the discussion so that you actually know what you might be talking about!
Is willful ignorance less of a sin than outright lieing?
I also find it curious that no thought is given to how one should handle the situation when you are clearly shown to be wrong! The integrity line dances around it but doesn’t address it directly. WMB refers to humility at intervals which somewhat captures the ides. But a realization that we all “sin” and the understanding that we need to ask forgiveness when we “sin” might be a worthy addition.
Report comment to moderator
Well, Musing, I would use a combination of the following two to answer your curiosity:
Honour your fellow-bloggers above yourselves and do not give undue significance to their mistakes.
You shall not murder someone else’s honour, reputation or feelings.
But perhaps you need to “win.”
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 3,
I am happy to lose when the facts clearly show differently than I have understood or believed! And when I am found wrong, I try ot apologize.
It is only from mistakes that one truly learns.
Or an alternative model which was driven home by the VP of R&D I used to work for: we only learn from experiments which fail.
But if it is argued there is a mistake, could it perhaps be based on factual data or sound logical reasoning?
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer,
and as lawyer you don’t need to win?
But more correctly, what I want to win are:
1) sounds substantiated facts on which to base the discussion
2) reasoned arguments based on these facts
All too often it seems we tolerate what is nothing less than willful ignorance in the mistatments made on this blog.
Report comment to moderator
So the poster child of willful ignorance in the recent past would seem to be the post suggesting giving $425,000 to every person over 18 in the U.S. as an altenrative to the bailout.
Simple math checks which anyone with a 6th grade education (it requires long division) can perform show that this number is seriously in error.
It was posted with an assertion of correctness and when challenged never repudiated or marked with an apo0logy.
This is quite simply willful ignorance AND it pollutes and contaminates the discussion with incorrect and misleading assertions.
Quite simply this is a disservice to everyone reading this blog. It also does not speak well for the quality of thought and care in selection of data used for reaching our conclusions in this blog.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: You shall not be so proud of your intelligence that you belittle fellow bloggers.
Report comment to moderator
When responding to a blogger, ask for information. Do not make assumptions. Don’t assume that someone is wrong for saying what they say. We can’t possibly play god and think we know enough about someone else and have the right to determine that a person is in the wrong for talking about what that person finds important.
Report comment to moderator
You shall not argue ad hominem or ad populum . Neither shall you set up straw men.
You shall not make more than two consecutive posts.
You shall not blog under offensive screen names.
You shall not blog while someone is paying you to do something else.
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 7,
where have I commented on the intelligence of a fellow blogger?
I have, as described in the guidelines, seriously attacked a clearly discredited and false post.
I also note that this false post can easily be checked for validity and this presumably was not done.
No where have I made any suggestion on the motives for such an incorrect and misleading post: I have not criticized the poster. I have made major criticisms of the post.
But good try Outkast: you seem overly sensitive on this comment.
Report comment to moderator
reg post 8,
gee reg, whenever I ask for defintions so I can make sure I understand what the posters means, there are cries of derision from certain sectors of this blog.
When I ask for supporting data and references for assertions, there are cries of derision from certain sectors of this blog.
If we are to understand the other, the other must be willing to explain. If the other refuses to explain, no conversation is possible.
Report comment to moderator
You shall not take yourself too seriously. Blogging is a very low risk/low yield activity and should be treated as such.
Report comment to moderator
I have not criticized the poster.
poster child of willful ignorance
Report comment to moderator
outkast post 13,
yes – the post demonstrates willful ignorance BUT is the poster willfully ignorant? There are a variety of possiblities here and I do not presume to know the intent or motives of the poster.
I have, however, commented on the post very negatively.
If the poster feels that this is a negative comment on them, then I suggest that the poster may perhaps have personalized the post too much.
The post is open season.
The poster is not.
No where have I criticized the poster, but I believe I have been, with reasonable justification, moderately scathing regarding the post.
But do look at my responding posts no this issue in the original thread: I specifically asked the originasl poster if they perhaps had not made an arithmatic error or if perhaps I had somehow misunderstood them. The poster specifically did not respond to my two sets of requests for clarification.
Now there is no requirment for a poster to respond to any post.
Nor will I can I draw any conclusion from the lack of a response.
But the lack of clarification after two requests for clarification does perhaps grant me more lattitude in criticizing the quality of the post.
And I am more than happy to criticize this facutally erroneous and highly misleading post.
Report comment to moderator
As an aside, if I find a truly egregiously erroneous post which I intend to use as an example in one aspect of the discussion or another, I usually try to give the original poster the opportunity to correct it, clarify it, or retract it.
If after several queries for clarification, the poster insists on letting the originla post stand, then I consider it open season.
Am I always perfect in this? Probably not.
If someone clarifies their point latter will I attewmpt to consider their new positon: usually I hope.
But if I do give you several chances on clarifiing or refining a post and you do not choose to correct it, then I suggest that that post is now fair game.
Such was the case with the $425K post.
Report comment to moderator
1. Thou shalt swallow thy pride and apologize even when thou think thou are right.
2. Thou shalt leave another blogger alone when they ask you to.
3. Thou shalt refrain from setting thyself up as a final authority on any matter.
4. Thou shalt follow the rules of the blog both in spirit and the letter.
5. Thou shalt stick to the topic or issue and not use it as an opportunity to settle a personal dispute or inflame a conflict with another blogger.
6. Thou shalt refrain from attempting to intimidate, silence, or cause another blogger to leave the site.
7. Thou shalt remember that this blog is open and welcoming to all equally if they abide by the rules set forth.
8. Thou shalt remember that this blog is read by many people, in many countries, from many backgrounds and beliefs.
9. Thous shalt remember that thy words can hurt or heal, anger or sooth, judge or empathize, alienate or increase understanding.
10. Before thou posteth, thou shalt think “What would Lynn Vincent do?”.
Sadly, I have broken many of those myself.
Report comment to moderator
thou shalt not blog with musings and their ilk if you want to remain sane
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, your #3. I am the final authority on what I like. When I was a kid, dad (& others) used to say, “You don’t know what’s good”. Or, “You like her!”
I’m the world’s authority on what’s good.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, only in a courtroom! And I don’t go there often.
Other than that, I’m pretty easygoing. I figure you’ll come around to my way of thinking sooner or later.
Report comment to moderator
Tell the truth. Do not misuse statistics, cherry-pick data, or otherwise use misleading information to make your point. Do not misquote others or take their statements out of context in a way which makes them appear to hold a view which is not theirs.
When you discover (or have pointed out to you) that you have made a mistake, admit it, apologize for the error, and correct it so that future blog visitors will have the correct information.
Use the blog to promote ideas, not yourself.
Oppose the ideas of others where you think they are wrong, but do not attack the other people themselves. Remember that our true enemies are not other people but spiritual powers (Eph. 6)
Do not post others’ ideas as your own, or post copyrighted material without permission (except to the extent normally allowed in any other form of writing).
Do not let blogging turn you away from direct personal interaction with people around you, distracting you from their needs, or from your need for those relationships.
Remember to look for the good and for laughter. There is much that is serious in this world that needs serious attention, but there is also much that is good to celebrate, and everyone needs some laughter in their lives.
Don’t try to get that laughter by making fun of others.
Remember to give thanks to God for the mind He gave you to think and to blog with, and for the amazing technology He enabled other minds to create, that lets us do this thing called blogging.
Whatever you do, on-blog or off-blog, do all to the glory of God.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 19,
ah so you do enjpy and work at winning when on the field of ideas!
By contrast with your comment about being easy going (permit me some sketicism here based on our discussions !
), I tend not to be easy going in any of my activities: this is one of the reasons I like mountaineering. 
But then there will always be differences and these differences between people are critical to nurture if our world is to be suiccessful.
Report comment to moderator
No, Musing. You are neither quite as cerebral (and logical) nor your opponents quite as idiotic (and irrational) as you would like to pretend. A common vice (or affliction) of the left is to be unable to view oneself objectively.
Your idea of a compelling argument is to a) present some data presumably in line with your known political/social/cultural/religious views, b) pompously editorialize about it while ignoring or discounting any contradictory data, and c) then stick a goofy yellow leering hobgoblin face at the end of your post (and sometimes sprinkling these faces throughout your message).
Oh, yes. And when backed into a corner, you begin (like a squid in the ocean furiously pumping an inky black cloud behind it as it flees a predator) to frantically parse the exact meaning of words like ‘dog’ and ‘is’ and ‘a’.
At this point, of course, most ordinary human beings engaged in conversation with you give up in disgust and shuffle wearily away, vowing to shave their heads and join a monastery (or a nunnery) located in some desolate remote inaccessible wasteland, and renounce all connections with the human race, such as it is.
I should know. Even now I sit in a loin-cloth on a sun-baked rock in the Sahara Desert (in front of my narrow little cave, you know), picking fleas off my scalp and putting them one by one into a little worn depression in the rock. For my dessert, you know. I splurge that way, once a week.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline post 20,
hear hear!!!
Report comment to moderator
An aside that will not make me popular (but in the Sahara popularity is not all that important):
Regards the ‘face’ things that people use too frequently in their posts: It seems to me that they are the equivalent of someone making a face at you in an actual conversation.
So, say you are talking to someone about the weather:
“My,” You say (trying to make conversation). “It certainly looks like rain.”
“NO.” The other person says. “There is no chance of rain today, you complete moron.”
Then, quite suddenly and unaccountably, they lean forward and thrust their face directly in front of your own. Their face transforms and becomes a large yellow leering cartoonish circle of a face obscenely winking and vigorously masticating its jaws. Sometimes it even turns different colors like purple and red and the eyeballs bulge out – maybe even the tongue protrudes and waggles at you.
Then quite as suddenly, the face reorganizes and recedes, the person withdraws and continues as calmly with his (or her) speech as though nothing extraordinary had happened.
Anyway, it is unsettling to gentle sensitive spirits such as me.
I am sorry. It just is.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 22,
hmm, I don’t believe I have ever argued that I am cerebral.
I do argue that my facts tend to be sound, and if they are not correct, call me on it with references please. Do you have specific examples where my facts are in error?
I do find it amusing at times that posters here can at times be so “elastic” with thier language.
My recent favorites are marxist and socialist: niether of which, based on repeated request for clarification, does it appear that typical posters using these terms understand their meaning. So yup when you use language imprecisely to try to make your point I will indeed insist that you clearly define your terms or quite literally I suggest you do not know what you are talking about.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 24,
you do seem to be highly focused on and sensitive to matters of style!
Report comment to moderator
Oh, Musing. I refuse to be drawn into your linguistic blender today. I have to go back into my cave and lie down on my bed of nails and broken glass.
But God will surely forgive me this one tiny transgression (perhaps if I flog myself extra hard tonight?):
A Marxist is a follower or adherent of the political/social philosophy or ideology of Marx. Now there are degrees of adherence, no doubt. Imagine that. A Marxist is a follower of Marx. Wonder where THAT came from?
A Socialist is a sort of squeamish Marxist, Musing.
You did not ask but a Leninist is a person who is involved in the practical application (hence elastic adaptation) of the theories of Marx.
And finally (you did not ask) but a Stalinist is a person who understands that the whole thing is a crock anyway and is useful only as a vehicle to ultimate power over humanity (Statism).
Report comment to moderator
Good list, Anlir.
Remember that all you say and do someday will be shouted from the rooftops–so be careful with your words.
Remember you don’t know any of your fellow bloggers, with some exceptions, so presume nothing about them or their motives.
Assume all the other posters are as talented, beautiful, spiritual, smart and charming as you are . . .
Report comment to moderator
#16: Anlir, I like your list.
I would add one more: You shall not be drunk with power on your blog. An no one better accuse me of this, or I shall crush you.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #22
A common vice (or affliction) of the left is to be unable to view oneself objectively.
So how are those of us on the left supposed to respond to that kind of sweeping attack (not to mention the other unfair and hypocritical characterizations in the post)?
Report comment to moderator
Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Or NOT…
You can just tell part of it to serve your own argument.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #30.
So how are those of us on the left supposed to respond to that kind of sweeping attack (not to mention the other unfair and hypocritical characterizations in the post)?
Excellent question.
I would suggest genuine heart-felt contrition and some sort of penance, vigorously and enthusiastically inflicted. I will think about exactly what that penance should be, if you really want me to.
I am quite good at thinking up appropriately novel, innovative and interesting penances, most especially for other people.
Report comment to moderator
TJ Very funny!!!!!
Anlir- good list.
How about this, Thou shall act like adults.
I do not post often to this blog, but I do read the posts often(some are very funny and others are not).
My daughter has to participate in blogs as part of our homeschool group. These kids do not always agree and there have been times when a few blogers have “flamed” others or otherwise been unkind. Here is the difference, they call one another on it(nicely) the offender owns up to it and they all move on. They exchange ideas and values.
Report comment to moderator
TJ-LOL
Anlir- nice list
How about thou shallt not treat teenagers as thee’s inferiors.
or
Thou shallt not nitpick peoples grammer.
Report comment to moderator
I would suggest genuine heart-felt contrition and some sort of penance, vigorously and enthusiastically inflicted.
Well, I will give Drill style points for humor, because that response is unbelievably hilarious.
Three words in response:
Not. Gonna. Happen.
I do however, have a proposal, which I shall discuss after lunch.
BBL
Report comment to moderator
16-
again, Anlir’s ability to show what an abusive person is like is unsurpassed. I am being serious. We have some talented people here, talented in the behaviors of abuse, that is. Anlir’s contribution is a great service to the readers, thank you! Thanks for spelling it out.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: Style IS important, you know.
Not to brag but I am quite good at it.
For instance I know exactly how many buttons to leave unbuttoned on my overalls (when wearing a tshirt, of course!).
And I know just the angle a John Deere hat should be canted at, on my head.
I also know that I should remove my boots before taking a nap on the sofa. (But I hardly ever do that since style should never supercede personal convenience.)
Also, to be properly stylish in matters of civility, I should remark that I am very glad you post on WMB, by the way.
My complaint about the horrible yellow hobgoblin faces people sprinkle about in their posts is simply a personal pet peeve – you are merely one offender (and hardly the worst) in a vast sea of offenders of all stripes and persuasions. So don’t take it personally.
Report comment to moderator
TJ – Oh, I don’t know… You seem like a rather benevolent dictator.
(Sorry Drill)
Report comment to moderator
Post 35 (Anlir):
Penance would do wonders for you, Anlir.
Well, in the cloying spirit of civility that is settling like a noxious fog over this thread, I would admit that I generally like YOU too, except for your obnoxious penchant for making and posting interminably long lists, mostly of things that are wrong, but what the heck – at least you show actual industry, which is getting hard to find, right or left, these days.
Well, actually making lists is okay, too. It reminds me of my dear Great Aunt who would (literally) make lists of her lists.
Her very last list was a carefully constructed list of the arrangements and details regarding her own funeral, believe it or not.
For some reason that seemed strangely futile to me, at the time.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 27,
well your definiton here is very good:
“A Marxist is a follower or adherent of the political/social philosophy or ideology of Marx. Now there are degrees of adherence, no doubt. Imagine that. A Marxist is a follower of Marx. ”
I can state then quite comfortably that effectively none of the American politicians running for national office this year (there may perhaps be a house member here and there) are Marxists.
It would then help if we purged this term from our vocabularies here: it is by your definition incorrect AND it is inflamatory with no explanatory content.
Thanks for being so clear, and I assume we can mover forward honestly based on this crisp defintiion.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 27,
actually I will disagree on this point:
“You did not ask but a Leninist is a person who is involved in the practical application (hence elastic adaptation) of the theories of Marx.’
I suggest a Leninst a a follower of the general tenets of Marx but who argues that the revolution can come from the agrarian class, not just the industrial working class.
Both believe in the model of the end of the historical dialectic.
And again I suggest that there are no Leninist in national office and we can also remove this term from our vocabularies on this discussion group.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 37,
one can argue the importance fo style all day and it makes for an interesting discussion.
I personally find the quality of ideas, the depth of factual evidence and logic supporting them, and quality of the analysis of key import.
these can to some extent be evaluated objectviely (facts and logic are easily checked for example).
Style by contrast is in the eye of the beholder and I find arguments over taste to be a subject of much conversation but little real impact.
Report comment to moderator
Rather than arguing over who is more or less objectvie, it probably helps to recast the question as follows:
1) who has the most relaible and sustainable facts
2) has the analysis of these facts been performed in a reasonably rigorous manner
These can be nearly objecively evaluated and more critically any individual can examine the arguments and conclude for themselves whihc arguments are most valid.
And amusingly this bbecomes a multreentrant transaction: we can also evaluate the quality of analysis based on individuals comments on the quality of analysis!
Report comment to moderator
I personally find the quality of ideas, the depth of factual evidence and logic supporting them, and quality of the analysis of key import.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
You made my day Musing!
Report comment to moderator
Actually, Musing, I hate to have to get off my bed of nails and broken glass, laboriously crawl out of my cave (rubbing scabs off the whole way), reposition myself on my sun-baked and extremely hot rock, and disagree with you yet again, but I suppose duty beckons.
Barack Obama and Joe Biden are indisputably, by my definition, Socialists, hence squeamish Marxist-Leninists. One can argue intelligently (or unintelligently) about the exact DEGREE of how Marxist-Leninist they are, of course. But that they are definitionally speaking Marxist-Leninists is, as noted, unquestionable. One could also even impute a smattering of Marxism/Leninism to John McCain and Sarah Palin as well, to be technically correct.
After all, many of the major rails/institutions in this country (Social Security/Medicare/Welfare/Fed Reserve/Progressive Income Tax/Etc.) were called for in the Socialist/Communist (Marxist-Leninist) Party platform in this country, say one hundred years or so ago.
Now with the ‘bailout’ – provided it happens as the Democrats want, and it probably will – we are basically seeing the direct nationalization of the financial sector, i.e. achieving yet another key Socialist (Marxist-Leninist) goal. So in that sense, those who push for it whether they acknowledge it or not are Marxist-Leninist.
You may not LIKE the term, but that is neither here nor there.
Report comment to moderator
Thou shalt not turn “Something Light” into a micturating competition.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 45,
now I will ask you for your defintion of socialist.
by your definiton of Marxist-Leninist it would appear that they clearly do not fit. I have provided clear cokmponents of marism and Leninism which they do not appear to espouse.
So it would seem that either your defintion is wrong or that you are misusing the words.
So if you insist on this position, then I will reask you for your definition. It would seem that your earlier one does not match what you really mean.
Report comment to moderator
And both Marx and Lenin called for the right of the workers to vote!
So anyone espousing democracy is a Marxist-Leninist?
You are making a classic logical error:
A => B
does not mean that
B => A
Or all cows are green does not mean that if you are green you are a cow.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
‘Or all cows are green does not mean that if you are green you are a cow.’
Are you green?
Report comment to moderator
llama post 49,
I minimize the amount of personal information I give out on this blog.
Report comment to moderator
#11
But, when you used a very poorly defined term the other day, and were called on it, I heard no apology or restating of what you had said. (i.e. “Creationism”)
Llama is right about one thing for sure, Musing. You do parse words to the point of being almost impossible to discuss anything with. You refuse to just TALK, but insist on babbling on like an encyclopedia/dictionary to the point that you simply wear the other person down.
It comes across as very elitist.
Although, there are other times that I sit and read your posts and learn from them. That is why I was extremely disappointed in your very partisan explanation of the financial crisis. I expected better.
Report comment to moderator
#22
Exactly.
I’ve got to say that this whole thread had me laughing out loud this morning. It was good to laugh on this site.
Report comment to moderator
So how are those of us on the left supposed to respond to that kind of sweeping attack (not to mention the other unfair and hypocritical characterizations in the post)?
******Probably the same way that we nasty “CCRs” are supposed to respond to your sweeping generalizations, and “unfair and hypocritical characterizations” of us.
Report comment to moderator
Now that I’m back from a stupendous lunch at Shane’s Rib Shack, I have a serious proposal for the editor of Worldmag:
Establish a daily blog called “The Boxing Ring”.
If you have a personal “beef” with someone or you just want to get into a knock-down, drag-out argument with them, that’s where you go. If you want to get into a personal “back and forth” with someone, that’s where you take it. If you just want to “rip a new one” on someone who’s blogging style or comments just grates on you, that’s where you go. If you want to make a personal comment about someone, that’s where you take it. If you have a long-standing grievance with someone on here, that’s where you go.
In other words, if it’s of a personal nature, and does not address the substance of the statements or ideas a person has presented, or does not address the topic at hand, you have to take it to “The Boxing Ring”.
The Editor would have the authority to “sentence/banish” an individual to “The Boxing Ring” until they personally assure the editor that they will behave on the regular blogs. If you get sentenced to “The Boxing Ring” more than 3 times by the Editor, you get thrown off the site completely.
Individuals would be free to go to “The Boxing Ring” as much as they felt necessary, of their own free will. Bloggers would be strongly encouraged to invite the other individual(s) they’re having a dispute with to take it to “The Boxing Ring”. An individual would be free to either (a) accept the invitation, or (b) discontinue their personal dispute on the regular blog. Other bloggers would be free to recommend that two (or more) individuals who are having a dispute or getting into it to take it to “The Boxing Ring”.
The Rules of “The Boxing Ring”:
1. No cursing.
2. No threats of violence or other illegal activity.
3. No violation of the Worldmag terms of use.
Other than that, have at it!
Report comment to moderator
Musing: You are getting muddled. I never mentioned ‘A’ or ‘B’ nor did I accuse them of improper relationships or associations.
Also, I did not mention cows, particularly green cows. (At least not on this thread – however, I know something about cows and I recommend that you immediately separate your green cows from your other cattle. Then call a vet, quick. Another hint: While the vet is there, try to get him (or her) to vaccinate and de-worm your dogs, cats, horses, children, wife, yourself, etc. all in one fell swoop – it saves money and multiple trips into town. Remember, with medicine, a mammal is a mammal.)
Perhaps you missed my definition of a Socialist, Musing.
A Socialist is a squeamish Marxist-Leninist.
Report comment to moderator
trs post 51,
well if I were to start complaining regarding style, I would say that I find it exasperating that people misuse worsd, fuzz words, when asked to account for thier misuse of words get hufffy, do not include adequate background material to confirm their intentions, use poor logic, add material which is not germane to the discussion, don’t inlude material which is germane, …
But then I have no expectation that people are writing to please me, they are writing to express themselves and they have the right to pretty much do this as they see fit, consistent with posting poliices.
I do expect people to:
1) use facts which can be verified
2) when meaning of a word is unclear, define the word
3) use reasonable logic
But these are not my personal preferences, these are the minimum technical requirements for clear communication using a language.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir – I think you have a good idea there about The Boxing Ring. I second Anlir’s motion.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir Post # 54: Well, I don’t know. It sounds so draconian.
I, as I have mentioned somewhere, have a gentle and sensitive spirit.
I think if you do this ‘Boxing Ring’ thing then we will also need a sort of ‘HUG ROOM’ in which only soft, affirmative, esteeming adjectives and approved non-action verbs are allowed.
I would probably spend most of my time there in the HUG ROOM, gently going to and fro, wiping away tears and comforting the wounded and fatigued, due to my gentle and sensitive spirit.
Report comment to moderator
So now I’ve learned a new word–micturating–only from a doctor.
I can’t imagine where I’ll use it . . .
Report comment to moderator
Michelle: I think it has something to do with the optics of improperly installed eyeballs. I will ask my optician about it next week during my appointment.
Report comment to moderator
Well, perhaps we need a “Humor & Sarcasm” room too
Seriously, I don’t think my proposal is draconian. It addresses a very real, and vexing problem on Worldmag. It would help to free up the regular blogs for a more civil, substantive discussion.
I do have a pretty good track record on here of getting the editors to adopt some of the regular features on Worldmag, including:
1. “Whirled Views”
2. “Rants & Raves”
3. “Something Light” – I would note that it’s intention is to be affirming and positive (a “Hug Room”, if you will).
It’s clear that there will always be disputes of one sort or another on here because you have a wide range of people with different views and personalities. Plus we’re all prideful, stubborn, self-righteous, “know it all”, little jerks sometimes.
Report comment to moderator
anlir post 61,
lets generalize your thoughts there. Lets add:
1) room where facts are not required
2) room where logic is immaterial
3) room where words mean what one wants them to mean at this moment in time
4) room where responses to posts are not allowed
5) room where the original poster can construct the responding post from the poster of their choice (this makes the discussions very clean!)
6) room where beliefs are facts
You seem to have potentially hit upon a goldmine Anlir! Very clever. I will keep working on additional rooms which might be necessary to meet the WMB needs.
Report comment to moderator
anlir post 61,
but how will posters know which room they are supposed to post to????
Report comment to moderator
Thou shalt not post and post and post and post and post ad nauseum.
Report comment to moderator
You have my admiration and respect Musing for your insistence on reason, logic, and facts, which are an “Endangered Species” in the blogosphere. I would want you on my debate team!
Report comment to moderator
Klasko, the greatest trick the blog master drunk with power ever did was making everyone think he was a benevolent dictator…
Report comment to moderator
You shall not post in order to annoy. Annoyance shall not be your goal. Neither, repetition.
Report comment to moderator
anlir post 65,
thanks for your steadying and humorous voice!
Report comment to moderator
“Thou shalt make an attempt to make thine point clearly.”
There are a couple people who dash out a sentence or an enigmatic question, leaving their meaning unclear. I often wonder, “Was that serious? Sarcastic? What did he/she mean by that?”
So please don’t assume that others know where you’re coming from or what you mean.
Report comment to moderator
Okay, Teen_Tink, I’ll agree not to pick on teenagers.
Report comment to moderator
#47 Drill,
Tell her to get a dictionary man!!
Report comment to moderator
I’m sure Lumpy and Musing are the same bipolar person. Musing is no more elitist than any other lefty that can’t think straight from what I can see but she is a little more insane than most. It’s not her fault that she was victimized either. I appologize in advance for any of her future misunderstandings of everything possible.
It is just a guess but I don’t think she is green or a cow but I may have to be corrected on that. When I was a whack job lefty, I used to see green cows now and again when messed up enough and they were truly and even sometimes virtually frightening.
I’m glad those days are over. Musing, my conversion proves there is a God and there is hope for green cows and those that see them.
Report comment to moderator
llamam post 71,
dictioinaries don’t help when people are uising rubber defintions.
The only hope is to pin them to their defintion and even then Drill won’t stick to it.
Ah well logical consistency appears to have came very late in human evolution!
Report comment to moderator
llama post 72,
the number of erroneous staments in this post is so high as to be laughable!
You continue to demonstrate that you are happy to spout off without any knowledge of the facts.
But as we have seen before llama’s are apparently more than happy to continue to lie even when the facts are clearly laid out before them, so perhaps there should be no expectatiojn of facts or logic in this post either.
But keep it up llama, you are indeed increasingly humorous if not honest or accurate!
Report comment to moderator
25 and counting… out of 74 – that’s greater than 1/3.
Report comment to moderator
Musing #73″
dictioinaries don’t help when people are uising rubber defintions.
The only hope is to pin them to their defintion and even then Drill won’t stick to it.
I don’t have a dictioinary. Never heard of such a thing. And I certainly don’t go around uising rubber defintions. I hope never to be pinned to a defintion. It sounds painful, depending on what a defintion is.
None of these words are in my dictionary, which is fairly complete, except it is weak in ebonics.
This is one reason we have a failure to communicate, I suspect. You are perhaps using some sort of different language? Perhaps these yellow face thingees are ritualistic tribal blessings (or curses) stuck at the end of sentences in order to ward off evil spirits.
It is merely a sort of theory, of course.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 76,
you provided a very clear defintion of Marxist.
I agreed with your definition and then demonstrated that using your definiton none of the major national candidates were Marxist.
You insisted that some were without showing how your earlier definition was incomplete or inaccurate.
Sounds like a rubber definition to me.
I am increasingly convinced that the classic defintion of Marxist for this blog is:
Marxist: someone I disagree with
By this definition, I suggest you are a Marxist!
Choose a definition and then be willing to stick with it or indeed you are using rubber definitions.
Report comment to moderator
Musing, your commentary permeates with superiority over those you speak to. Your method is quite typical of those I deal with in the science world. It is unforunate that you cannot see this. It seems your only purpose here is to point out the flaws in others comments.
You come across as a person buried in passive agressive tendencies. You seem to smile as you tear to shreds the postings of others. If you’d like to talk about your problems sometimes, I am a good listener
Would it help if we we gave you a badge and awarded you sheriff status so you can begin arresting those that violate your laws of posting?
Report comment to moderator
On this blog, Musing only impresses himself/herself and the other leftists. It’s fun to watch, but tiresome to engage in.
Report comment to moderator
chalzz post 78,
I see that you appear to be indulging in a critique of my style.
Fair enough.
But do you have a substantive critique of my data or my logic?
This is argued to be a blog of ideas where debate is a contact sport. You are not trying to make a friend of me, and I am not trying to make you my friend.
We are trying to vigorously explore ideas.
If a demonstrated failure of your logic and facts comes off as “permeates with superiority over those you speak to.” I suggest that perhaps it speaks more on the quality of your argumentation and ideas then perhaps anything else.
Report comment to moderator
chalzz post 78,
so consider, the creationist approach to science is, as we are seeing and you are apparently complaining about, unable to sustain itself on either the evidence not the approach to evaluating the evidence.
In fact the creationist approach is by its own admission religion and not science. The superiority here is the ability of the scientific approach to collect and analyze data in a rigorous objectvie manner which is simnply not possible form a pure belief perspective.
So to continue the creationist argument without changing its form has already been explored extensively and creatiojnism has foundered.
If we are to continue the argument successfully, the creationist team will need to develop a new approach or line of argument. Behe’s intelligent design was an interesting example. Again, however, the key underpiunning were weakened by Behe’s insistence on a faith layer which litterally does not stand scurtiny when reviewed objectively.
Is this science’s problem or Behe’s problem? Behe is playing in the realm of science: the answer here should be straightforward.
So what will be the new paraidgm or approach used to try to rehabilitate creationist arguments from a scientific perspective?
And without a new approach, the outcome has been explored many times and is nearly certain.
Report comment to moderator
28/81. Plus the last word: watch and see.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: Since we have now firmly established that a Leninist is a person who attempts to practically (flexibly or, shall we say, unscrupulously) apply Marxism (regardless of the theory of Marx itself) in order to establish the DOP:
Further we have nicely established that a Socialist is a sort of squeamish Leninist (i.e. low degree Leninist):
We also found that a Stalinist (or Statist) is a Marxist-Leninist who knows the whole thing is a crock and simply uses the ideology as a vehicle to establish a de facto tyranny ala individual or committee.
Additionally, we now perforce need to establish the definition of a LIBERAL.
A liberal, my dear word-conflicted friend Musing, is a sort of namby-pamby Socialist.
So, introducing your friends ‘A’ and ‘B’ (and their sometimes friends ‘C’ and ‘D’), we can say that since D <= C and C is <= to B and B is <= to A thus D <= A, or:
A Liberal is a sort of namby-pamby, squeamish, unscrupulous Marxist.
I think this is enough today on definitions, rubber and otherwise.
Teacher has to go now and play poker in the teacher’s lounge, whilst smoking a cheap stogie.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 83,
no actually we had agreed that a Leninist was a person who argued that the revolution could be led by the agrarian workers and not just the industrial workers. this is the classical definiton I believe.
Your rubber defintions are apperaing.
I am back to now calling you a Leninist based on your felxibiltiy of definition where:
Leninnist: I disagree with you (synonym of Marxist)
As I have been noting and you are now proving you have been very vague and imprecise with your definitions.
And when we try to converge, you move again.
I believe my indictment of your use of language and words is now nicely proven. Thank you for your assistance in making this point clear.
Report comment to moderator
Dril.
oh wait, based on your definitions it would appear that you are a Marxist-Leninist.
My apologies for calling you a Leninist.
Report comment to moderator
So lets be clear:
Classic Marxism posits that history proceeds through a dialectic confrontation of opposites from which arrives a new synthesis. In the classical Marxian version the challenge between socialism and capitalism is the last dialectic (sometimes referred to as the end of history) and with a revolution led by the industrial workers a workers paradise can be established.
The problem of course was that Russia had a miniscule industrial working class: they were insufficient to drive the revolution. And for a revolution of the agrarian workers to occur, would suggest that Marx’s dialectic model was in error. Lenin therefore as I understand it proposed that the revolution could indeed be led by the agrarian workers with some revisionist cleanup of the Marxist model.
My sense was there was much controversy over this change in theory, but in Russia this was simply dealt with in a straight forward manner.
My memory becomes hazy here, but I have this sense that Trotsky is involved in this part of the conflict and I need to go rereview this material again.
In any event based on these definitions of classic Marxism or Leninism, pretty much no modern Amercian candidates fit the bill.
Drill, however, having started off well, is now trying to stretch the definition to meet Drill’s present needs.
Now my memory suggests that one of the operating principals of the Leninist revolution was that in the cause of the revolution it was appropriate to have language mean whatever it needed to mean to support the revolution (there is an interesting scene in “Reds” on just this point).
As such, Drill is in fact demonstrating classic Leninist use of language.
Based on his apparent operating definition of Marixst-Leninist, this seems very appropros. and Drill is indeed showing himself to be effectviely an operating Leninist (although it appears Drill prefers Marxist-Leninist).
It was a long time ago that I studied this material, so if there are chronological or factual errors in my understanding here, I would be delighted to have my points clarified.
Report comment to moderator
Now it would perhaps be more useful if Drill would confine himself to the use of the word socialist. This has a more general meaning perhaps and may not cause as much techical difficulty for Drill as Marxist or Leninist.
I am not as well versed in the details of socialist theory (Marist-Leninist theory is generally historical: it is pretty much abandoned today, and I learned my material in history class).
We can perhaps simply state that a key component of socialism is control of the economy by government.
I will suggest, but perhaps be in error, that this gives us a spectrum from a pure free market to an economy totally controlled by the government.
Practically there are no major countries with a totally free market today (a great subject to discuss in and of itself) and with the fall of the Soviet Union, there are (with the possible exception of Cuba) no fully socialized countries. My sense is every other country, including the U.S., exists somewhere i the interior of this spectum.
So with the possible exception of some of the more extreme libertarians and possibly the Kato Insittue, American Enterprise Institute, and possibly the Heritage foundation (should I include the Chicago school of economics?
), everyone is to some extent a socialist.
So even the term socialist has limited value for communication.
It is therefore perhpas more useful to consider the following aspects of the situation:
a) how much of the economy is controlled by the government
b) which portions of the economy are controlled by the government
c) how does the government exercise this control
There are good philosophical discussions around all of these points, but bandying the term socilaist will provide no help with this discussion at all: even Drill who has now been established as a Marxist-Leninist as his preferred term is a socialist to some extent. Classic Marxism asserts that socialism will win the dialectic confrontation with capitalism.
P.S, now will Drill fall into the all cows are green. Something is green, therefore this something is a cow logical failure!
Report comment to moderator
Anlir and musing both made constructive posts here, but borh were on the edge of rebel activities.
I do like Anlir’s proposal and I hope the powers that be consider them seriously.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir – you should send your suggestion directly to Mickey. He doesn’t always get a chance to read every post on every thread.
Report comment to moderator
random name post 88,
I object mightly to your characterization of me!!!!
I am deep in the lower left hand quad of politcalcompass, I expect to recognized as the full fledged revolutionary that this implies!!!!
What is this “edge of revolutionary activity”.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: Ah. One more definition for your edification, since you must disinter poor old hoary Trotsky from the cold comfortless earth in which he uneasily lies, no doubt emerging with great caution from the grave, with the hatchet still sticking jauntily out of his cranium, and a look of astonishment and realization upon his disintegrating features:
A Trotskite, Musing, is a Leninist with a really REALLY bad head-ache, i.e. one who was finally run down by a Stalinist. And found out the hard way that the whole Marxism gig is really a complete crock.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 91,
it was an ice ax, not a hatchet.
And if he was run down by a Stalinist then you are critiquing the Stalinist gig which indeed was a very very bad gig, but different than Leninist and arguably not Marxist.
Report comment to moderator
Part of the problem here is that it would appear that there is a tendency to use what are actually quite specfici terms and attempt to apply thgem generally, usually as a perjorative.
This probably does not help the conversation and certainly introduces the potential for lots of confusion: it is perhaps great polemics but bad communication.
I think that the political compass efforts is an interesting approach to this exercise decoupling the economic (right vs. left) from the central control (authoritarian vs. libertarian) perspective:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/
I am unsure hwo to thank for making the original reference to this site.
In any event, it would at least take us form the simplistic and usually wrong one dimmension perspectvie to at least a two dimensional perspective, which is an improvement.
If we wanted to do this right, we would talk specifics and discuss details of policy. My sense is that there is a common mode failure which leads us to not consider this option.
Report comment to moderator
Technically an ice pick, i.e. neither an ice hatchet, nor an ice axe (I have seen an ice axe called an ice hatchet and vice versa).
I suppose you could call a pick an axe, however, if you want. I am easy that way.
And Trotsky would not object at this point, I am sure. I think it would seem a minor detail to him at most.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 94,
no, as I understand it, it actually was a mountaineering ice ax:
“On August 20, 1940, Trotsky was successfully attacked in his home by a NKVD agent, Ramón Mercader, who smashed the pick of an ice axe into Trotsky’s skull.[55]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky
The mountaineering community takes a perverse sort of pride in this fact.
There is allusion to this in “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” and most of the local performances get this wrong but the movie has it correct.
Report comment to moderator
Musing #95:
Okay.
The mountaineering community takes a perverse sort of pride in this fact.
Well, if one is marketing a product, it is perhaps considered useful to advertise (or tout) all possible uses of the product.
Although I myself would not buy (for instance) a Stihl chainsaw based on the model’s obvious utility in some previously committed and celebrated gruesome crime.
But then I am rather old-fashioned in how I determine what to buy, I am afraid.
Report comment to moderator
I own a Stihl chainsaw. I did not start learning to use a chainsaw until I was 60 years old. I had a deprived childhood.
I have neither hurt myself with my chainsaw nor have I used it to commit a gruesome crime. I use my pellet rifle for for my violent crimes. I am being written up in the bunny book of genocide.
One of these days I will write a serious post about what I have learned about genocide by murdering bunnies.
Report comment to moderator
Drill post 96,
there is difference everywhere isn’t there.
But of course mountaineers buy ice axes because they are needed for mountaineering.
But at some level the Trotsky incident means that nonmountaineers might just have become aware of one of the main stay tools of mountaineering.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name: I own several. Without them I and my family would presumably freeze to death in the winter since wood is our heat source.
My brother’s father-in-law lost both of his legs in a chain-saw accident a number of years aso; he was standing behind his son who was cutting something with a big saw, the son swung the saw around not realizing his father was there and cut both legs off above the knee. Somehow they got the bleeding stopped and saved his life.
A big chainsaw will go through flesh and bone without even changing RPM. They tell me.
I am extremely careful but the problem is that as much as I use them, it only takes one tiny moment of inattention out of a lifetime of using them carefully to kill me – or, worst, kill someone else.
Not to mention a tree maybe falling on me or someone working with me or bucking back and skewering me like a roasted apple on a stick.
Or a chain breaking when pulling a tree over with winches or machinery and whipping back and beheading me – and the chain is probably American made and not even a radical Islamist.
Or getting attacked and bit by a rabid mad squirrel who did not appreciate his tree being cut down, then immediately swelling up like a giant eggplant from the toxic bite such that I am unable to crawl back into my pickup and drive home, and hence dying alone in the wilderness, except for my dogs who will eventually get bored sitting by my cooling slowly deflating carcass and depart to go back home for supper, eventually.
Dogs always keep their priorities straight.
Report comment to moderator
You shall not give false testimony against your fellow-blogger.
How about not against anybody?
Report comment to moderator
#99
Drill, that is an excellent and important post. I cannot improve on it.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!