Comments on: Wanker of the Day? http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/02/wanker-of-the-day/ Black. Gay. Father. Vegetarian. Buddhist. Liberal. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 02:47:01 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: terrance http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/02/wanker-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-71670 terrance Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:11:54 +0000 http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/02/wanker-of-the-day/#comment-71670 For the record, I moved the blogroll closer to the top and changed the title today. ("Blogs Linking Here" not being clear enough, I guess.) Hopefully it's prominent enough now that I may finally qualify to address the subject of linking. As for Duncan addressing the "meat" of my initial post, I haven't seen him address the meat of much of anything, beyond a word or two. I'm not knocking it, though. That's evidently what some people prefer. Fine. What's funny to me is that the previous post was probably the most dispassionate I've been about the subject. If I <em>cared</em> about it as much as I used to, I'd have caught it when it was happening. But once I read about I couldn't help thinking about it in terms of what I'd read and written in the past, particularly since I've spent a lot of time going over it for a project I'm doing at work. Like I said, that's the way my brain works. And, for better or worse, I'm a writer and not an aggregator. So I congenitally unable to write "Oi," hyperlink it, and call it a day. There are plenty of people who do that already and do it well, so it would hardly be original content on my part. What interest me at this point is understanding how and human systems work this way, and figuring out what those who want something different can do differently themselves to achieve that. But I think the subject gets too far under some people's skin for them to get that. Instead they get defensive. Why? I dunno. I'm not saying they should do anything differently than they already do. It's the rest of us that have to change <em>if</em> we want change. For the record, I moved the blogroll closer to the top and changed the title today. (“Blogs Linking Here” not being clear enough, I guess.) Hopefully it’s prominent enough now that I may finally qualify to address the subject of linking.

As for Duncan addressing the “meat” of my initial post, I haven’t seen him address the meat of much of anything, beyond a word or two. I’m not knocking it, though. That’s evidently what some people prefer. Fine.

What’s funny to me is that the previous post was probably the most dispassionate I’ve been about the subject. If I cared about it as much as I used to, I’d have caught it when it was happening. But once I read about I couldn’t help thinking about it in terms of what I’d read and written in the past, particularly since I’ve spent a lot of time going over it for a project I’m doing at work.

Like I said, that’s the way my brain works. And, for better or worse, I’m a writer and not an aggregator. So I congenitally unable to write “Oi,” hyperlink it, and call it a day. There are plenty of people who do that already and do it well, so it would hardly be original content on my part.

What interest me at this point is understanding how and human systems work this way, and figuring out what those who want something different can do differently themselves to achieve that. But I think the subject gets too far under some people’s skin for them to get that. Instead they get defensive.

Why? I dunno. I’m not saying they should do anything differently than they already do. It’s the rest of us that have to change if we want change.

]]> By: Demosthenes http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/02/wanker-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-71639 Demosthenes Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:22:07 +0000 http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/02/wanker-of-the-day/#comment-71639 My mistake, I meant to say "even were the specific complaint itself valid, its worth as a rebuttal would not be." My mistake, I meant to say “even were the specific complaint itself valid, its worth as a rebuttal would not be.”

]]> By: Demosthenes http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/02/wanker-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-71638 Demosthenes Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:20:58 +0000 http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/02/wanker-of-the-day/#comment-71638 Doug: Perhaps, but on the other hand there's a great big link at the top of the page that DOES say "link and blogroll", in addition to the one on the side that says "this is the blogroll". And this whole line of debate is a complete sideshow. Complaining that he wants to "shoot people in the face" after reading the post? Not even trying to address the meat of the argument, thus (indirectly) validating it? Even were the complaint valid, it'd still be invalidated. Doug: Perhaps, but on the other hand there’s a great big link at the top of the page that DOES say “link and blogroll”, in addition to the one on the side that says “this is the blogroll”.

And this whole line of debate is a complete sideshow. Complaining that he wants to “shoot people in the face” after reading the post? Not even trying to address the meat of the argument, thus (indirectly) validating it? Even were the complaint valid, it’d still be invalidated.

]]> By: Bruce http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/02/wanker-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-70916 Bruce Tue, 03 Apr 2007 02:35:49 +0000 http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/02/wanker-of-the-day/#comment-70916 Somebody needs to send Atrios a package of high-quality, illegal BC ganja, a bong and a one-way train ticket to the Adirondacks. Let him get it out of his system, come back and be a person. Somebody needs to send Atrios a package of high-quality, illegal BC ganja, a bong and a one-way train ticket to the Adirondacks. Let him get it out of his system, come back and be a person.

]]> By: Doug http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/02/wanker-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-70760 Doug Mon, 02 Apr 2007 22:28:48 +0000 http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/02/wanker-of-the-day/#comment-70760 It's less generous to your linkees in that it's virtually impossible to find your blogroll. After several minutes of looking, I had to do a text search of the page to locate it, and even after that I couldn't find it again without doing another text search. On the front page I have to scroll down 11 times to get to the blogroll and it's wedged in between 2 ads both of which are larger and more colorful than it is. It’s less generous to your linkees in that it’s virtually impossible to find your blogroll. After several minutes of looking, I had to do a text search of the page to locate it, and even after that I couldn’t find it again without doing another text search. On the front page I have to scroll down 11 times to get to the blogroll and it’s wedged in between 2 ads both of which are larger and more colorful than it is.

]]> By: Doug http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/02/wanker-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-70744 Doug Mon, 02 Apr 2007 21:43:25 +0000 http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/02/wanker-of-the-day/#comment-70744 You're complaining that Atrios doesn't link to smaller blogs. (You claim that you don't care but, well, you wrote a really long post about it, so it seems that you do care after all.) However, your blogroll is virtually impossible to find, so you're not doing much to promote other blogs either, which is what you're complaining about Atrios not doing. You’re complaining that Atrios doesn’t link to smaller blogs. (You claim that you don’t care but, well, you wrote a really long post about it, so it seems that you do care after all.)

However, your blogroll is virtually impossible to find, so you’re not doing much to promote other blogs either, which is what you’re complaining about Atrios not doing.

]]> By: terrance http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/02/wanker-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-70732 terrance Mon, 02 Apr 2007 21:31:03 +0000 http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/02/wanker-of-the-day/#comment-70732 So, lemme get this straight. Now it' snot that I don't have a blogroll, it's that it's in the wrong place and in the wrong format? And it's less generous <em>how</em>? So, lemme get this straight. Now it’ snot that I don’t have a blogroll, it’s that it’s in the wrong place and in the wrong format?

And it’s less generous how?

]]> By: Doug http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/02/wanker-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-70716 Doug Mon, 02 Apr 2007 21:01:55 +0000 http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/02/wanker-of-the-day/#comment-70716 In all fairness, your blogroll is located really far down your page--a casual reader would definitely miss it--and you have to click on the menu to see the blogs. Atrios is over-reacting, as he is wont to do on the blogroll topic, but he does have a point that you are complaining about his blogroll practices when yours are, if anything, less generous. In all fairness, your blogroll is located really far down your page–a casual reader would definitely miss it–and you have to click on the menu to see the blogs. Atrios is over-reacting, as he is wont to do on the blogroll topic, but he does have a point that you are complaining about his blogroll practices when yours are, if anything, less generous.

]]> By: terrance http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/02/wanker-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-70697 terrance Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:12:55 +0000 http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/02/wanker-of-the-day/#comment-70697 They also don't seem to care that he was actually wrong about the not having a blogroll-on-my-front-page-business. But then, they didn't bother to look any more than he did. And I thought <em>I</em> had a short attention span. They also don’t seem to care that he was actually wrong about the not having a blogroll-on-my-front-page-business. But then, they didn’t bother to look any more than he did.

And I thought I had a short attention span.

]]> By: Demosthenes http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/02/wanker-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-70672 Demosthenes Mon, 02 Apr 2007 19:40:00 +0000 http://www.republicoft.com/2007/04/02/wanker-of-the-day/#comment-70672 No matter which it is, I think it's safe to say that your post succeeded in getting under his collar. (That, and the 150-or-so people who took the time to write a comment on the site explaining in great detail how they don't care enough to write a comment. Or something.) "Amnesty" was clearly a great idea. No matter which it is, I think it’s safe to say that your post succeeded in getting under his collar.

(That, and the 150-or-so people who took the time to write a comment on the site explaining in great detail how they don’t care enough to write a comment. Or something.)

“Amnesty” was clearly a great idea.

]]>