On the off-chance that he can do something about it, I forwarded the link to this post to a friend who works in user experience design at Google.
*nodding soberly*
What kills me is that any of this is treated in any forum (Time, The Stranger, etc.) as new. Your A-L list here covers it nicely, and this sort of wisdom has only been around since . . . Usenet.
You and I take all of this for granted, but why doesn't Time know this stuff? More to the point, how in the world could a writer for The Stranger (not exactly The Horn Book, mind) get to the point of writing on that blog *without* realizing all of this?
*sigh*
A possibility: the young lady *will* have the power to transmute metal and fight crime.
Maybe the rest of us just need to unlock the power of creative naming?
Back in my moderator days, I always gave a virtual tip of the hat (often combined with other, less complimentary, gestures) to any troll who could actually get *around* my "bored now" response. Like all jaded moderators, after a while it really took some doing.
Was there EVER a better marriage of work and practitioner? Wow. Sign me up for more BoingBoing going forward.
Zander (#129): The point here is that these are things that flamers write, not to exclude all of the statements from discourse per se. Some of these objections are reasonable to make when they're actually true; e.g. "You're answering my evidence and arguments with nothing but ad hominem attacks." (I've certainly said that myself, when I thought it was true.) But plenty of the statements cited here *should* be excluded from civil discourse.
~
Pursuant to #115: "This is a very emotional issue for me, therefore I get to rant, while everyone else has to tiptoe around my grief."
By extension from #96: "You know, Gandhi said [quote that could be construed to support my point], but it was Joseph Goebbels who said [something I'm going to assert applies to your argument or style of argument]."
Xopher (82): You're welcome. Sometime inspiration just strikes you, y'know? ;)
"You picked the wrong person to start a fight with. You will regret this."
#67 ::: Dan MacQueen :::
That one seems to come from the same family of non-argument as: "I'm a church-going Christian, and therefore [I'm morally upright]" or even "I'm a law-abiding taxpayer, and therefore [my thoughts on policy carry as much weight as any expert's]."
~
More:
"Well, now that everybody's ganging up on me . . ." [Especially effective when the schmo is a minority of one for good reason.]
Level-headed opponent says something like "You haven't answered any of So-and-so's objections, and you seem to be ignorant of the basics of copyright law|freelancing|animal husbandry." Flamer says, "Well, if we're just going to get into name-calling . . ."
"Disagree with me all you want. But I'm still right - and the facts prove it."
"I'm finding it hard to believe that the [seemingly generally decent people] here would descend so quickly to [namecalling, cannibalism, animal felch fetishes, etc.]"
"Am I still entitled to my own opinion? Is that still allowed around here?" or "You have your opinion, I have mine" or "Our opinions differ so much, we may just have to agree to disagree." [I.e. the retreat to "freedom of opinion" when matters of fact are under discussion.]
"I predict that after you've calmed down and had a chance to think this over rationally, you'll see that I'm right." Or the simpler version: "Your emotions are blinding you to the truth here."
[Opponent makes important, subtle distinction.] "Oh, sure, if you're willing to dream up some elaborate example, I'm sure you can prove any point you want. But the simple truth is . . ."
"We're never going to get anywhere if you won't discuss this fairly|civilly|calmly." [Best when opponents have been signally fair|civil|calm and complainant hasn't.]
"Well, guess what? I don't have to answer to you." [Especially after poster has been "demanding" answers.]
"Some of us here are trying to have a civil discussion . . ."
At least in ~The Punisher~ (what a title!), the creators *sometimes* had the title character reflect on the moral gray areas his work took him into. Unless, you know, he was going after the Kingpin, or somebody *totally* bad like that.
Esquire's February story on Ramsey Clark's dogged legal defense of Saddam Hussein focused on Clark's political naivete, but also revealed how someone as privileged as Clark - someone who could collect a much larger fortune anytime he wanted - is motivated by a genuine, thorough, total belief in the *universal* applicability of due process.
Teresa - Welcome high snark indeed, and thank you for it.
Living in Texas (and with kids in public school here), I put *nothing* past the Texas State Board of Education. My big hope would be that, on the textbook front, the combined weight of the California, New York, New Jersey, and Florida standards would counterbalance.
I do fear the Pandora's Box scenario that would emerge. On the national level, it seems to me that one or two strains of Christian belief are represented far, far better in the lobbies. But the many smaller fights (school board v. national standards body, local parents v. school board, parents v. standards body, members of Congress v. standards body, Secy. of Education getting grilled in subcommittee hearings . . .) would make for fun viewing!
When I read Teresa's original post, and again reading this post, the phrase that came to mind was "portfolio theory." Smart financial investors (individual, institutional, whatever) do this by taking on a range of calculated risks. Their portfolios will include some investments that are quiet, slow gainers, safe as houses; these will probably never "pop" like a bestseller, but they are highly likely to reap strong returns over time. General Electric's stock would be an example. I would compare this to, say, John McPhee's influence on Farrar Straus's catalog: he's not going to rocket up the bestseller list with his next "Uncommon Carriers," but I'm sure it doesn't hurt FSG's feelings to keep all of his books in print and have so many copies of them on the shelves of so many bookstores across the country. Financial managers will also try to latch on to some big gainers -- the Googles of the week, year, or decade -- that will rain down riches upon their houses. In Farrar Straus's case, the Google's name is "Tom Wolfe." He comes out with a new book, and boom!, FSG gets to take more risks on unknown could-be-okaysellers -- just like financial managers take risks on some companies (or other appreciating assets) that seem sound but are as yet unproven.
TNH and PNH: Does this match your experience?
Like Hunter McEvoy, I was immediately drawn to your comment on "the one true way to do word counts". Your method seems eminently sensible, but . . . how much variance does it produce from using the word-count feature in Word? I'm obsessive enough about this that I have my Word toolbar customized to include the word-count button (on every computer I've used for the past 10 years), and I check it constantly (with keystroke shortcuts, even!) as I'm writing.
But if it not as good as the One True Way . . . I can change.
Anxiously awaiting your reply,
Mr. OCD Word-Count Man. :)
Raising Arizona! You've reminded me that I must either (a) get my VCR fixed, or (b) get the DVD of it for myself as a belated Christmas present. And aah, the isles of Scotland . . . can it have been ten years?
All the best to Making Light and the Nielsen Hayden duo for 2006!
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2008 | 4 |
| 2007 | 10 |
| 2006 | 2 |
| 2005 | 1 |
Total: 17 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Tim Walker:
Show all comments by Tim Walker.