Showing posts with label Comments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Comments. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Announcing a (Further) Change in Comments Policy
My "experiment" with a "looser" posting policy has brought me to the following conclusion: the benefits of allowing anonymous (albeit moderated) posting (a slight increase in submitted postings) have not outweighed the negatives. (Postings on Jewish/ Middle East topics seem to attract particularly uncivil comments from anonymous sources, and in my experience to date, anonymous comments rarely advance the substantive discussions I would like to encourage.) More generally, perhaps somewhat contrary to web convention, I think comments are more worthy of taking seriously when someone takes responsibility for making them. Accordingly, I am turning off the anonymous comment option, and those wishing to comment will have to register. Let me know if anyone has trouble doing so.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Announcing a Change on Comments Policy (Experimental)
Well, I'm coming up on two weeks, the blog is starting to attract readers and some enthusiasm, I'm enjoying myself and thinking I may stay with this, and my announced policies on comments seem to have intimidated nearly everyone. (A majority of the existing "comments" are by me, and even I am thinking twice about submitting...)
On the advice of some fellow bloggers/mentors, I've made some technical changes facilitating comments and, on an experimental basis, am loosening up my prior criteria for posting. I'm staying with a moderated system, and I still (vastly) prefer signed to anonymous comments. Nonetheless, I will now consider posts with screen-names only, in the interest of trying to promote some discussion.
Of course, I reserve the right to make further changes, in either direction, as I gain more experience and see how the discussion goes. It is still very much my hope that comments will be well-considered, reasonably literate, and civil in tone. (I may make allowances for certain colleagues.)
On the advice of some fellow bloggers/mentors, I've made some technical changes facilitating comments and, on an experimental basis, am loosening up my prior criteria for posting. I'm staying with a moderated system, and I still (vastly) prefer signed to anonymous comments. Nonetheless, I will now consider posts with screen-names only, in the interest of trying to promote some discussion.
Of course, I reserve the right to make further changes, in either direction, as I gain more experience and see how the discussion goes. It is still very much my hope that comments will be well-considered, reasonably literate, and civil in tone. (I may make allowances for certain colleagues.)
Althouse: I love this new moderation!
Althouse: I love this new moderation!: "Saturday, December 30, 2006"
Some advice on posting to moderated lists by the divine Ms. A (from an old post on her site, not specific to me):
And, while this is probably obvious by now, follow what I say, not what I do--TWB.
Some advice on posting to moderated lists by the divine Ms. A (from an old post on her site, not specific to me):
And here's some advice for avoiding having your comments rejected. Don't use bad language. (I don't mind it myself, but I'm worried about filters.) Don't be abusive. (I'm fine with people disagreeing with me, but if you just want to call me a moron, get your own blog. You can whine about censorship over there too.) Don't try to make the thread be all about you. Don't cut and paste long quotes. And don't bring up subjects that are completely unrelated to the post, unless it's funny or cool or aptly analogous or something else that I happen to appreciate.
And, while this is probably obvious by now, follow what I say, not what I do--TWB.
Friday, March 23, 2007
A Word to the Wise: More on Comments
I urge my law students to get into the habit of reading footnotes: often the most intriguing issues and deeper questions will lurk there, buried in not-quite plain sight (albeit smaller fonts).
The same is true of comments on this blog. Since this is a (highly) moderated list, I'll do my best to keep the comments limited to those I consider worth your reading. As some of you have already discovered, I also have a tendency to comment on myself, often rather archly. (Think "The Word" segment on The Colbert Report.) I'm not sure this is the best strategy for a blog, and I may reconsider it down the road, but it fits well with my occasionally absurdist sensibility, as well as my inclination to reflect the fragmented state of my own consciousness, and I'll try it for now.
The same is true of comments on this blog. Since this is a (highly) moderated list, I'll do my best to keep the comments limited to those I consider worth your reading. As some of you have already discovered, I also have a tendency to comment on myself, often rather archly. (Think "The Word" segment on The Colbert Report.) I'm not sure this is the best strategy for a blog, and I may reconsider it down the road, but it fits well with my occasionally absurdist sensibility, as well as my inclination to reflect the fragmented state of my own consciousness, and I'll try it for now.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
On blogs, pre-existing narratives, and "packaged" events
Can this blog work? From a college classmate, David B. Black, whom I know (I think) only via our email listserv:
> I'll add my voice of support to the others I'm sure you're getting.
> The pattern is large numbers of people who are obsessed with a
> particular meme, and they come to every event that looks like it fits,
> and apply their pre-existing narratives. The result is no learning,
> reinforcement, and fueling of passion and division. This pattern
> applies to pretty much every element of political spectrum. Smart
> groups are getting "wise" to this, and starting to stage or package
> events to serve as focal points for this kind of passion -- the
> Mohammed cartoons are an example, transparent because they elicted no
> passion on original publication, only when packaged and sold.
>
> People who look at events dispassionately, and bring up all relevant
> points of view, including ones that lean against their preference are
> rare.
> I'll add my voice of support to the others I'm sure you're getting.
> The pattern is large numbers of people who are obsessed with a
> particular meme, and they come to every event that looks like it fits,
> and apply their pre-existing narratives. The result is no learning,
> reinforcement, and fueling of passion and division. This pattern
> applies to pretty much every element of political spectrum. Smart
> groups are getting "wise" to this, and starting to stage or package
> events to serve as focal points for this kind of passion -- the
> Mohammed cartoons are an example, transparent because they elicted no
> passion on original publication, only when packaged and sold.
>
> People who look at events dispassionately, and bring up all relevant
> points of view, including ones that lean against their preference are
> rare.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
This comment (from a healer) goes straight to the Front Page
Alan,
Standing on the sidelines and listening/observing L'Affaire Kaplan through admittedly filtered sources, several thoughts come to mind.
Is anyone really paying attention to the primal drives that are "driving" operative behaviors? The Hmong community and Professor Kaplan come from ethnic backgrounds where betrayal and annihilation are major themes, occurring a mere 30 years apart. Hard for me to believe that this is not playing a MAJOR role.
The operative word for me is "respect". When survival is at stake, respect often goes out the window. Much of what I hear is being driven by subcortical drives committed to survival at the expense of reason. Respect requires a good deal of "neocortex", supposedly what this legal institution thrives on and teaches. ( I believe "Your Honor" is a commonly used phrase in the courtroom.) Until ALL sides involved demonstrate some degree of respect for each other (including the supposedly impartial adjudicator, the law school), I doubt this conflict will be resolved satisfactorily.
An aside: Marshall Rosenberg's "Nonviolent Communication" offers very good guidelines for communication in this sort of situation where emotions are very heightened.
The law school teaches about contracts, torts, jurisprudence. This is all based on hundreds of years of experience in dealing with aggrieved parties. This is certainly the situation here. Why doesn't the law school model these principles in this circumstance? Walk the walk! What the heck is all this back room stuff, yelling over the phone, forums, emails? Good grief! There are judges and juries all over the place on this case. Heck, why not formalize it into a mock trial and let each side present its case. It could be one of the greatest learning situations ever constructed if the parties could realize this does NOT have to be a life and death situation!
(Addendum: As currently formulated, for Professor Kaplan, it actually probably IS closer to a life and death situation given that tenure, salary, grants, social standing all may be at stake. I'm not sure what the Hmong community has to lose given that Professor Kaplan never had any intention to harm in the first place. If he said what they allege he said, yes, those would be threatening words of a narrow ignorant mind. I believe his letter of March 5 eloquently concluded any debate over whether he is a narrow minded bigot. I say this while acknowledging that Hmong survival in recent history has certainly been tenuous and sensitivity is needed.)
Having a forum to discuss "prospectively" what to do about sensitive issues seems akin to having an elephant standing in the room and discussing what to do to avoid having an elephant standing in the room! Good luck!
Stop patronizing the Hmong law students as little helpless people that have been victimized by a big powerful enemy. This WAS true in the 1960's and 1970's and needs to be acknowledged as such. I don't believe Professor Kaplan was in attendance at those events. He WAS present in 2007 at ANOTHER event! Don't confuse the two! They have little in common yet the emotional response from many parties involved is communicating that the events are equivalent. THEY ARE NOT! Pay attention to the differences!
Ray Purdy
Standing on the sidelines and listening/observing L'Affaire Kaplan through admittedly filtered sources, several thoughts come to mind.
Is anyone really paying attention to the primal drives that are "driving" operative behaviors? The Hmong community and Professor Kaplan come from ethnic backgrounds where betrayal and annihilation are major themes, occurring a mere 30 years apart. Hard for me to believe that this is not playing a MAJOR role.
The operative word for me is "respect". When survival is at stake, respect often goes out the window. Much of what I hear is being driven by subcortical drives committed to survival at the expense of reason. Respect requires a good deal of "neocortex", supposedly what this legal institution thrives on and teaches. ( I believe "Your Honor" is a commonly used phrase in the courtroom.) Until ALL sides involved demonstrate some degree of respect for each other (including the supposedly impartial adjudicator, the law school), I doubt this conflict will be resolved satisfactorily.
An aside: Marshall Rosenberg's "Nonviolent Communication" offers very good guidelines for communication in this sort of situation where emotions are very heightened.
The law school teaches about contracts, torts, jurisprudence. This is all based on hundreds of years of experience in dealing with aggrieved parties. This is certainly the situation here. Why doesn't the law school model these principles in this circumstance? Walk the walk! What the heck is all this back room stuff, yelling over the phone, forums, emails? Good grief! There are judges and juries all over the place on this case. Heck, why not formalize it into a mock trial and let each side present its case. It could be one of the greatest learning situations ever constructed if the parties could realize this does NOT have to be a life and death situation!
(Addendum: As currently formulated, for Professor Kaplan, it actually probably IS closer to a life and death situation given that tenure, salary, grants, social standing all may be at stake. I'm not sure what the Hmong community has to lose given that Professor Kaplan never had any intention to harm in the first place. If he said what they allege he said, yes, those would be threatening words of a narrow ignorant mind. I believe his letter of March 5 eloquently concluded any debate over whether he is a narrow minded bigot. I say this while acknowledging that Hmong survival in recent history has certainly been tenuous and sensitivity is needed.)
Having a forum to discuss "prospectively" what to do about sensitive issues seems akin to having an elephant standing in the room and discussing what to do to avoid having an elephant standing in the room! Good luck!
Stop patronizing the Hmong law students as little helpless people that have been victimized by a big powerful enemy. This WAS true in the 1960's and 1970's and needs to be acknowledged as such. I don't believe Professor Kaplan was in attendance at those events. He WAS present in 2007 at ANOTHER event! Don't confuse the two! They have little in common yet the emotional response from many parties involved is communicating that the events are equivalent. THEY ARE NOT! Pay attention to the differences!
Ray Purdy
Monday, March 19, 2007
Now what do I do with Josh Henson?
Dear Alan,
Not one to lightly gloss over the intellectual musings of one whose mind has survived a legal education, I should note from background research (from my Webster's "new" collegiate dictionary (c) 1953, which I have overused since we in college together, when men were men and expletives were deleted), the following definitions which seem a propose [sic] following my initial viewing of your blog spot:
Wise: v.t. (AS, wis.): To instruct...
Bard: n. (F: barde, fr. Sp., fr. Ar.): A piece of armor for a horse
Whether this is a subtle indication of your teaching method, or merely you horsing around, I write to add my congratulations to your bold new intellectual effort, marred only by one error [deleted out of regard for common decency]. If television has taught me anything, it is that any problem can be solved in less than 30 minutes (including commercials and at least one surprise twist). Keep that in mind. As Voltaire said, "any thought worth thinking is worth saying publicly..."
Regards,
Josh Henson
(also willing to be named, except in law suits).
PS Voltaire did not really say that. I just made it up.
[Actually Josh, I think it was, "any task worth doing is probably worth doing poorly"--one of my guidelines for producing this blog--TWB]
Not one to lightly gloss over the intellectual musings of one whose mind has survived a legal education, I should note from background research (from my Webster's "new" collegiate dictionary (c) 1953, which I have overused since we in college together, when men were men and expletives were deleted), the following definitions which seem a propose [sic] following my initial viewing of your blog spot:
Wise: v.t. (AS, wis.): To instruct...
Bard: n. (F: barde, fr. Sp., fr. Ar.): A piece of armor for a horse
Whether this is a subtle indication of your teaching method, or merely you horsing around, I write to add my congratulations to your bold new intellectual effort, marred only by one error [deleted out of regard for common decency]. If television has taught me anything, it is that any problem can be solved in less than 30 minutes (including commercials and at least one surprise twist). Keep that in mind. As Voltaire said, "any thought worth thinking is worth saying publicly..."
Regards,
Josh Henson
(also willing to be named, except in law suits).
PS Voltaire did not really say that. I just made it up.
[Actually Josh, I think it was, "any task worth doing is probably worth doing poorly"--one of my guidelines for producing this blog--TWB]
And more recently, after some briefer postings
From the redoubtable Ann Althouse:
Yay! See, this is what you need to do to blog. Keep it short!
[Ann, Can I quote you on that?]
Sure! I hope it's a concise entry.
Yay! See, this is what you need to do to blog. Keep it short!
[Ann, Can I quote you on that?]
Sure! I hope it's a concise entry.
Some Early Encouragement
From a colleague preferring to remain unnamed:
Alan--Looks good! Congratulations on giving birth. I enjoyed the [non-]founding statement.
From Nina Camic, a colleague willing to be named:
Oh, wonderful! I must link to you. I am at the Detroit airport for a couple of hours and I see I have my reading cut out for me. I am thrilled that you have taken this on!
From Lisa Salkovitz Kohn, a college classmate:
Alan -- congrats on the new soapbox - pulpit - lectern (bimah?) ...
Whatever you may make of it!
From Bruce E.H. Johnson, both a law school and college classmate:
I added it to my bloglist for my aggregator, at bloglines.com. At
this point, bloglines says there are zero subscribers, Alan, so you've
got a long way to go, even with me joining the bandwagon.
Alan--Looks good! Congratulations on giving birth. I enjoyed the [non-]founding statement.
From Nina Camic, a colleague willing to be named:
Oh, wonderful! I must link to you. I am at the Detroit airport for a couple of hours and I see I have my reading cut out for me. I am thrilled that you have taken this on!
From Lisa Salkovitz Kohn, a college classmate:
Alan -- congrats on the new soapbox - pulpit - lectern (bimah?) ...
Whatever you may make of it!
From Bruce E.H. Johnson, both a law school and college classmate:
I added it to my bloglist for my aggregator, at bloglines.com. At
this point, bloglines says there are zero subscribers, Alan, so you've
got a long way to go, even with me joining the bandwagon.
And on the Meta Question
From John Farago, an undergraduate classmate, now teaching law:
i admire your willingness to blog, and share the implicit frustrations with the medium you express there ...i pretty much have avoided starting a blog because i find those frustrations overwhelming and unacceptable, and i'd suggest you may want to reflect a bit over time on whether that medium really works for what you are trying to do...at present i think it's a bit of a poor fit, but i have no idea whether to suggest adjusting your goals (to ones that better fit a blog's disturbingly rigid interactions with the dimensions of time and space) or adjusting the medium (to one that better suits your epistolary voice) or adjusting your friends (to avoid people like me who carp [OR CRAP?] without invitation on the meta-question of Whether This Was a Good Idea...)
i admire your willingness to blog, and share the implicit frustrations with the medium you express there ...i pretty much have avoided starting a blog because i find those frustrations overwhelming and unacceptable, and i'd suggest you may want to reflect a bit over time on whether that medium really works for what you are trying to do...at present i think it's a bit of a poor fit, but i have no idea whether to suggest adjusting your goals (to ones that better fit a blog's disturbingly rigid interactions with the dimensions of time and space) or adjusting the medium (to one that better suits your epistolary voice) or adjusting your friends (to avoid people like me who carp [OR CRAP?] without invitation on the meta-question of Whether This Was a Good Idea...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
