Bitchy Poll Results and More
In the post asking "Is the blogosphere just a bitchfest?" over 800 of you have weighed in with your opinion so far. The majority of the votes (302) went to "the blogosphere is not a bitchfest." In second place with 231 votes at the time of this post is "you say that like it's a bad thing." The Allure article I mentioned had a poll asking readers what they thought about the "rise of the bitch." It's not up on their internet site yet so I can't link to it, but my guess is that if they were asked about the blogosphere, many of the Allure readers might answer that "yes," the blogosphere is a bitchy place. Why? Ken, a commenter in the previous post, put it best:
"The blogosphere is a giant conversation. If you stand around with the bitches, you get bitchiness. But you can find anything, presented any way you want."
I think that the Allure readers are probably into sites that are celebrity driven like Celebitchy or Perez Hilton.com. Hilton was interviewed for the Allure article and stated proudly, "I'm pretty out there. Just ten minutes ago, I published something making fun of Britney's baby! I'm not afraid of 'going there.' And obviously people seem to be enjoying it: I mean, I'm getting four million hits a day." So yeah, apparently bitchy sells if you have certain celebrities attached to your bitchfest. Hang out at Hilton's site for a while and you will probably understand the definition of bitchy pretty quickly. But Hilton's is a gossip site, so what can one expect? Bitchiness is the raison d'etre.
But what about political blogs--outside of Wonkette--are they "bitchy?" Well, yeah...look at Atrios's "Wanker of the day." If that's not bitchy, as well as a bit childish, I don't know what is. What purpose does "Wanker of the day" and other bitchy political commentary serve or what purpose does bitchiness in general serve? Allure says that "Bitchiness is even a form of social seduction in certain circles--a way of drawing others in." One study at Bringham Young University even found that kids as young as four engage in "relational aggression." "They know that there are certain kids they need to be nice to and others who are throwaways." The kids think, "I don't need to be nice to them and in fact, I may raise my social status if I am not." So imagine, you call others names and try to make them subhuman, then your inner circle puts you higher in the social strata. What a plus. If you are a sadist, that is.
If "bitchy" is defined as speaking up with an opinion about political issues that are important to you, then maybe bitchy is a good thing, but if bitchy is done with the sole intent to harm others or to dump your bad feelings onto the world, maybe it's time to re-examine your etiquette on the internet (and maybe elsewhere in your life). So how bitchy is too bitchy? Perhaps someone should ask blogger Luke Ford, a supposed friend of Cathy Seipp, who recently died of lung cancer. Ford has posted negative things about Cathy on his blog, stating:
Okay, this goes way beyond bitchy. It reminds me of a story a supervisor of mine told me in graduate school. He stated that one of his patients wanted to just "be himself" and would take a dump in front of anyone without regard to their feelings about his decision. Ford has decided that regardless of how anyone feels, he will continue to "be himself" and dump his negativity onto his blog for posterity. His choice. But it is reflective of cruelty, not bitchiness--he may not see that, but it is clear.
So, perhaps the right question is not, "Is the blogosphere a bitchfest?" but rather, "What purpose does this bitchfest have?" Will I or others learn from it? Get information from it? Be a better person for it? or am I just here to take a dump on other people to get my jollies? If the latter, perhaps you should be spending more time reflecting on why you are sadistic rather than just a bitch.
"The blogosphere is a giant conversation. If you stand around with the bitches, you get bitchiness. But you can find anything, presented any way you want."
I think that the Allure readers are probably into sites that are celebrity driven like Celebitchy or Perez Hilton.com. Hilton was interviewed for the Allure article and stated proudly, "I'm pretty out there. Just ten minutes ago, I published something making fun of Britney's baby! I'm not afraid of 'going there.' And obviously people seem to be enjoying it: I mean, I'm getting four million hits a day." So yeah, apparently bitchy sells if you have certain celebrities attached to your bitchfest. Hang out at Hilton's site for a while and you will probably understand the definition of bitchy pretty quickly. But Hilton's is a gossip site, so what can one expect? Bitchiness is the raison d'etre.
But what about political blogs--outside of Wonkette--are they "bitchy?" Well, yeah...look at Atrios's "Wanker of the day." If that's not bitchy, as well as a bit childish, I don't know what is. What purpose does "Wanker of the day" and other bitchy political commentary serve or what purpose does bitchiness in general serve? Allure says that "Bitchiness is even a form of social seduction in certain circles--a way of drawing others in." One study at Bringham Young University even found that kids as young as four engage in "relational aggression." "They know that there are certain kids they need to be nice to and others who are throwaways." The kids think, "I don't need to be nice to them and in fact, I may raise my social status if I am not." So imagine, you call others names and try to make them subhuman, then your inner circle puts you higher in the social strata. What a plus. If you are a sadist, that is.
If "bitchy" is defined as speaking up with an opinion about political issues that are important to you, then maybe bitchy is a good thing, but if bitchy is done with the sole intent to harm others or to dump your bad feelings onto the world, maybe it's time to re-examine your etiquette on the internet (and maybe elsewhere in your life). So how bitchy is too bitchy? Perhaps someone should ask blogger Luke Ford, a supposed friend of Cathy Seipp, who recently died of lung cancer. Ford has posted negative things about Cathy on his blog, stating:
"Where is Cathy’s daughter Maia Lazar in all this? After I explained my intentions, she said Sunday that she does not care what I write, be it negative or positive, about her mother. And even if Maia did care, I’m not going to soften my approach to a public figure such as Cathy to spare anyone’s feelings.
Cathy was magnificently polarizing. She was easy to love and hate. That she was overwhelmingly wonderful to me does not change how I will report on how others’ felt about her."
Okay, this goes way beyond bitchy. It reminds me of a story a supervisor of mine told me in graduate school. He stated that one of his patients wanted to just "be himself" and would take a dump in front of anyone without regard to their feelings about his decision. Ford has decided that regardless of how anyone feels, he will continue to "be himself" and dump his negativity onto his blog for posterity. His choice. But it is reflective of cruelty, not bitchiness--he may not see that, but it is clear.
So, perhaps the right question is not, "Is the blogosphere a bitchfest?" but rather, "What purpose does this bitchfest have?" Will I or others learn from it? Get information from it? Be a better person for it? or am I just here to take a dump on other people to get my jollies? If the latter, perhaps you should be spending more time reflecting on why you are sadistic rather than just a bitch.
Labels: blogging
posted by Helen at 6:00 PM
53 Comments:
Ummm...when you say, "take a dump", you mean in the emotional, "I'm gonna be 'real' about my feelings even if they upset you" kinda way. Right?
If pursuing the truth is bitchy, then I am bitchy.
If it is wrong to write something negative about someone who died or is suffering, then you might as well end all journalism.
Be true to your values, Helen, and stop reading newspapers.
Hmm...
or we could analyze why you'd choose to link to someone taking a dump on a dead person, eh?
It's not a bitchfest really; it's a great big circle jerk.
I'm bitchy because I thoroughly despise what you wingnuts stand for. You are, in your tiny way, helping to hurt America and hurt the world that America is part of. Hope that helps clear it up for you.
Good luck with that.
"I'm not afraid of 'going there.' And obviously people seem to be enjoying it: I mean, I'm getting four million hits a day." "
I can't help but to slow down and gawk at the twisted metal that accompanies the flashing lights and men in assorted uniforms associated with disaster. Just maybe I 'll see the charred,mangled, and torn bodies that will assure my ego- "It can happen to anyone, but today it didn't happen to me. I live a charmed life of immunity through obvious divine intervention."
On that note, I confess. If I'm feeling down, or particularly stupid on any given day I'll go to the internet and read comments at Kos or Huffpo. They boost my Ego when I realise that no matter what self doubts I may have there are a plethora of folk FAR less inhibited than I'm being at any particular time.
Then I consider exactly what hit counters imply for certain websites, and why variations of "freak shows" have ALWAYS had a niche in the "civilised" world.
I suppose that's fair enough, yet I certainly try to avoid a poke in the eye with a sharp stick when it's my turn to be the freak by "keepin' it real" in certain spheres.
""What purpose does this bitchfest have?" Will I or others learn from it? Get information from it? Be a better person for it? or am I just here to take a dump on other people to get my jollies? If the latter, perhaps you should be spending more time reflecting on why you are sadistic rather than just a bitch."
Ok. So, what are your answers, Helen?
I mean, it seems your definition of "dumping for jollies" is totally defined by your viewpoint. When YOU are "dumping", you think it's for informational, political purposes. When I "dump"--well I'm just being a sadistic bitch.
Or not.
Think about it. And we'll check the attitude in the future.
It's everyone's chance to get their 15 minutes of fame (or infamy should you so choose).
I try to stay away from bitchfests, and those that indulge in them. It's no fun to lose an argument, and it can be positively dangerous to win one.
I'm no psychologist, but isn't the whole "I gotta be me" thing the epitome or definition of "narcissism"? Why is it the "I gotta be true to myself" is always followed by one of the following: a bodily evacuation of something -- usually with noise, a very rude or insensitive comment that is usually neither true nor constructive, or some abusive behavior -- physical, emotional, et al.
Luke has gone to the dark side.
dr zen-
I'm bitchy because I thoroughly despise what you wingnuts stand for.
Very zen-like. You obviously are in a state of calm, untouchable spiritual bliss.
You are, in your tiny way, helping to hurt America and hurt the world that America is part of. Hope that helps clear it up for you.
Can you go into more detail on this? Does everybody that post here "stand for" what you claim, even when we disagree with Dr. Helen and/or many of the other posters?
It depends on what you call a "dump". If you are, say, confronting someone involved in abusing you I wouldn't call that a "dump", I would call that the consequences of their actions. Yelling at someone may be unpleasant, but is insignificant next to battery, fraud, etc.
To some extent this may be a female thing. Some women think that their feelings are or should be law - that isn't the case. If you batter me you have committed a crime, and "rudeness" pales in comparison to that. In other words, when you batter someone they aren't the bad guy for yelling at you in response.
dr zen, could you elaborate?
I can only guess what you stand against. And that would be anything I stand for, since I am a "wingnut". But what do you stand for? Where do we part ways? Where do we agree? I don't know where you really stand. Except that it is against me, according to you.
Ideally, there would be a br549 party of one and a dr zen party of one, and around 350 million more (or so)parties of one in this country. I would be worried if we did not have differences.
The new Iraq policy your wonderful party has come up with has more domestic pork shoved into it than one can shake a stick at. None of that pork, of course, has anything to do with Iraq. It is my view, and will always remain so, that the line item veto is a must. A democrat president can pull the bull out of republican pork, and a republican president can pull the bull out of democrat pork. Or any president can pull any bull.
Overall, I'd say yours was a pretty vague drive-by bitch, that cleared up nothing. At least not for me.
Luke,
You are not pursuing "truth," you are opening your blog up for any personal attacks that people want to throw at Ms. Seipp for some bizarre reason. You say you are her friend? With friends like you, who needs enemies? You honor a friend, what you are doing is wrong, shameful and just plain cruel. If you don't know that deep down, you have no scruples.
I have tried in my oen way to avoid bitchiness in my blog in favor of reasoned discussion. Reasoned discussion gets less traffic than does bitchy. Your opponents are more likely to send traffic your way if you are a bomb thrower than if you are a validating and affirming conversationalist. The descent into bitchiness is less about being bitchy than it is about getting traffic, those same social mores at play. By ripping someone I improve my standinging in the some circles of the blogosphere and as an added bonus may gain more readers for my tripe. The blogosphere will be a useful resource when the bitchiness is replaced with meaningful thought. Until then we are on competing soapboxes and the heckler's veto holds sway.
You honor a friend, what you are doing is wrong, shameful and just plain cruel. If you don't know that
Why do you link then?
If a "friend" talks bad about you, and then another "friend" repeats the badmouthing to your face, is the second one really a friend for bringing it to your attention in detail? I say no. They can defend you, alert you that there's backtalk going on, but to put it out there for all to wallow in? That's not a true friend either.
Any comments on the unhinging -- again -- of Althouse? I see her wiki's been updated, and the blogosphere is a-cackle with the hoots and derisions from this latest loss of temper. Such an emotional lady, and on all the unsuspecting issues (not war or politics, but breasts again.)
Is she really so clueless as to what such attacks and emotional responses are doing to her reputation as a serious professional? (Remember the tears at the libertarian dinner? Where are all the strong, emotionally intact libertarian law professors? Are there really no women that can be better included in this group? Althouse is old hat, and so bitterly jealous of the young feminists, it seems.)
anonymous 11:34.
Yes. By linking, Helen is doing just what she says she dislikes. Start a controversy (one that she disapproves of, to be sure, tsk tsk) and the hits keep coming.
Althouse doesn't do well with criticism, does she? Good grief--the time that woman spends on defending herself...
Anonymous 11:34:
Yes, Ann's reputation is so "damaged" that she is being asked to write for the "New York Times" and do repeated appearances on Bloggingheads etc. Boo hoo. Or are you just here because you are upset that there are other outlets allowing those who don't toe the liberal line 100% a little coverage? Better get used to it.
Yes, Ann's reputation is so "damaged" that she is being asked to write for the "New York Times" and do repeated appearances on Bloggingheads etc. Boo hoo
Her credibility is sinking quickly.
Her NYT columns fell flat, and the bloggingheads keep her around as flack entertainment value.
What was that you were saying about the need for women in the blogosphere to have thick skins? BooHooHoo indeed. Stick with Glenn lady; Althouse unhinged is a good example of what happens when a woman is left alone and can't handle walking and talking nicely amongst others. Moderated comments, call for people to visit other sites and defend her. Drama Queen as Law Professor... we'll never get used to that, thankfully.
anonymous 12:16:
I was waiting for Helen to respond and defend her link; I suspect she thinks the rules change because the one being insulted (Seipp) here has passed. How truly sad these women are. Really, does it cost that much to just rent the damn boat yourself? There's got to be better ways to raise yourself some cash.
Too bad you didn't have an option that read "Is bitchiness one of the qualities of the blogosphere". It obviously is, although only one quality among many. It's a great opportunity to learn from experts in many fields. As with most endeavors in life, you get out of it what you put into it.
I would define bitching in its broadest sense to mean taking issue with something or someone. But it isn't how the issue-er frames the issue, but rather how the issuee chooses to receive it. Noone says "i'm going to bitch at you now", but they say "boy, you sure are bitchy".
What a strange and beligerent atmosphere here.
Let me look at the cube from a different angle. Forget the definition of bitchiness; too deep for me. The blogosphere, like the Internet is a reflection of our minds. So the Id is the first and most pervasively represented; reams and reams of sex.
Second, anywhere people are gathered at a party, at work, at school, or at play, you'll notice a good portion of the conversation is banal, often midly insulting, covetous crap. I call it bitching. That's the second most common thought tied up in most folks' petty lives.
So why would the blogoshere be any different? The comments on this topic are themselves mostly petty bitching and sniping.
And if I had to put up with the constant crap Althouse puts up with, I'd probably get rid of the comment section. My hat's off to her; I wouldn't waste my time.
Helen writes: "You are not pursuing "truth," you are opening your blog up for any personal attacks that people want to throw at Ms. Seipp for some bizarre reason."
How do you know I am not pursuing truth? How do you know what comments I receive and how do you know which ones I choose to not publish? When I started interviewing people who knew Cathy at the end of 2002, I did not limit their comments to positive ones about Cathy. I interviewed her ex-husband, for instance. It would be absurd for me to limit comments on Cathy to positive ones. Many people had many negative experiences with Cathy (or anyone) and those experiences are just as important as the positive ones. If you know anything about Cathy's work, then you know she's a slashing writer.
You're still on about the boat?
Must be a hidden reason somewhere to be so hung up.......
1. You have a blog no one goes to, with adds no one clicks on, so you have to rent a VERY SMALL BOAT without the added income of a successful web blog.
2. You have a dog, but it only comes when you whistle because of the pork chop hanging around your neck, and you're jealous because Dr. Helen is an attractive woman.
3. You have a body like Roseanne, and aren't much to see in a bathing suit. Dr. Helen, on the other hand, doesn't have that problem, either. And again, you're jealous.
4. You wrap your package up in the cloak of radical, liberal feminism, because, after all, it is only about who you are, not what one looks like. People just need to understand that.
How'm I doin'?
Hot or Not @ 6:20:
You talkin to ME?
Silly rabbit... this floats your boat? It just made me laugh when Helen justified her "work" here -- like what she's doing with Luke and Cathy Siepp -- by claiming it helped her and the hubby rent a boat for a week. That was pathetic. Really, you're on that tight a budget, dear? Or you just need to justify this blog?
Aside: You really think she's hot, capital T? Tough times out there in blogland, eh? Else you don't get out much, what saving up to rent that boat and all.
anonymous 11:34-
If a "friend" talks bad about you, and then another "friend" repeats the badmouthing to your face, is the second one really a friend for bringing it to your attention in detail? I say no. They can defend you, alert you that there's backtalk going on, but to put it out there for all to wallow in? That's not a true friend either.
I would say that the friend that tells you about negative badmouthing is doing the right thing. (If they do it in private, not to rub your nose in it, etc.) Libel, slander, defamation, etc. and even simple smearing can do real damage to people, their reputations, and their lives. That's why there are tort laws addressing them and one can collect damages in some cases when one is the victim of them. Keeping quiet when you know there are negative things being said about someone isn't necessarily good "friendship". In some cases one may be taking part in the damage by keeping quiet about it.
(If they do it in private, not to rub your nose in it, etc.)
Absolutely.
So ask yourself, is linking to a site she claims "dumps" on a dead woman doing it in private?
Luke had the better of the exchange, fwiw.
Libel, slander, defamation, etc. and even simple smearing can do real damage to people, their reputations, and their lives.
How about all those who do it to themselves, even videotape their outbursts? Anybody read Sullivan today? heh.
Turnabout is a bitch, considering how many people have been smeared and had their reputatations affected by overly judgmental eyes, eh. Ask Jessica Valenti.
Anonymous 7:49:
Yes, Jessica Valenti is just "ruined" now, poor little thing. Please. Ms. Valenti is doing just fine, probably better since the whole "scandal" took place. Save your tears for someone who needs it.
Save your tears for someone who needs it.
Ouch. There's something underlying all this "breast" anger, can't be good for the health you know.
Not sure if she needs my prayers (way more effective than tears, you'll find, once you tire of playing the victim card...)
Reading the comments at Althouse, there's a lot of "she's our hostess," "this is her living room," "her bar," kind of stuff. I don't see it that way. Soliciting comments on a public blog is more like taking your living room furniture (or your barstools, if you like) into the middle of an intersection and carrying on conversations with traffic zooming around you. The pretense that we are "guests" seems, well, pretentious. When the host feels perfectly free (be honest--the hosts do feel free) to insult her guests, are the guests still required to behave well?
Dr. Helen,
I've been reading Cathy and Luke for a while now, and as far as I can judge from what they've written, it seems that they were really friends, and Luke is just a little bit different from her other friends. Another time would call it a different class. My amateur take is: He's grieving in his own way, coming to terms with the end of a real live human he valued a great deal. If he's angry with her for dying - so what? We all have to grieve the same way now, only one way is acceptable? We have to be polite when we're in pain? Hasn't anyone commenting on this been to a wake?
Phil-Z
anonymous 7:49-
How about all those who do it to themselves, even videotape their outbursts? Anybody read Sullivan today? heh.
Don't know what you're talking about, link please.
I personally don't videotape myself and have never authorized anyone else to. If someone was videotaping me in a private place and publicly releasing it that could be a crime/tort in itself.
Turnabout is a bitch, considering how many people have been smeared and had their reputatations affected by overly judgmental eyes, eh. Ask Jessica Valenti.
Not familiar with this. Link please.
Luke,
I followed you a lot in the early days, back when you were blogging before "blogging" was a word. (Was it '97 or even late '96 when you started? An eternity!) Back then, you seemed to take pride in not filtering (or vetting) or doing so haphazardly. Don't know if you've changed that mindset or not.
This subject caught my attention because I'm in a more extreme situation. I also lost a friend to cancer this year--a single mom about the same age as Cathy, but her daughter is only eight. My friend was a minor celebrity who lead a colorful life in her 20s and 30s, and I have been working on building a biography of her that her daughter can read when she's older.
As wonderful a woman as she was, there are things in her life that were less than perfect, and some will reflect badly on her (as our frailties always do). Would Dr. Helen suggest that I leave such things out?
I'm in no way inclined to play up or dwell upon the lurid (nor the trivial, as those two often overlap), but I am inclined to report the facts. I think that's what I'd want in the same situation. I will, of course, have the advantage of time, as a year will have passed before I present anything publicly, and I anticipate many years before her daughter reads it.
No two politicians in a democratic country could have been more at odds than Winston Churchill and Neville Chamberlain. Beyond policy disagreements, there was a real personal dislike between them, perhaps "bitchiness," especially on Chamberlain's side. Yet when Chamberlain died, Churchill gave one of the finest speeches of his career in the House of Commons.
Go read it. And read it again. It wouldn't hurt to read it a third time or commit it to memory.
It remains one of the classic funeral orations of all time, almost Periclean in its grandeur and simplicity, yet without a trace of bitterness or mean-spiritedness or anything unkind or false.
Modern writers would do well to meditate on the meaning of all this before touching a keyboard again.
Or siting down before a videocamera creating images potentially on view to everyone, your guests plus plenty of others not inclined to view the world through your own rose-colored glasses?
Good example of what's gone wrong in American politics -- open your eyes and confront reality, or fall back asleep and just dream about the stars and the sand, and the sea? Men will stay awake; dreamers will dream.
"Grieving in his own way?"
He's cashing in on someone else's death, trying to grab a little bit of attention while the corpse is still warm. Luke Ford is a poisonous crapweasel, and has nothing to be proud of. He's just demonstrated that he's willing to go even lower than anyone expected. So now we know. That's the only useful "truth" that has come out of his blogging.
No one here has raised the important link between bitchiness and wit. Cathy Seipp was quite often bitchy and I loved her, while perezhilton bitchiness grates because he is so incredibly stupid.
He's cashing in on someone else's death, trying to grab a little bit of attention while the corpse is still warm.
If you believe this, again I ask: what is the significance of Helen providing further publicity/cash by providing a public link? She must be callously grabbing attention/quick cash via readership blog ads too, no? Otherwise, she could have just described her disgust and revulsion without further his project, right?
I agree w/Luke that sometimes the best way to know and remember a person is to view them as a whole, warts and all. Haven't read the link, so I'm not certain if he or Helen is more correct in their interpretation of how the negative stories are presented. Biographies without personal judgment, just the facts as recounted by those there, often help you understand and perhaps accept people better, perhaps owing to the inclusion of those negative personal traits. Whitewashing usually doesn't hold up.
anon 10:51:
Thank you. I get really annoyed when I hear stuff like, "We are in [the blogger's] home so it's [their] rules."
This is NOT a private room. I have said many times before, this is more like standing on a soapbox at Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park.
I reckon this site COULD be like a private room. It could be accessible only by a few approved registrants.
But obviously, that's not REALLY what Helen, Ann, etc. want. (Boat rental fees and, I suspect, their love of the attention, being what they are.)
People who stand around shouting invective on street corners shouldn't be surprised when invective is hurled back at them. You'll get no sympathy from me. Don't like it? Then stop standing around shouting on street corners. If all you want is to express your views and have people tell you how right and brilliant you are, then for God's sake just express yourself to your friends and family.
Anonymous 7:45:
Look, the MSM and other information outlets hurl what I consider insults at me and other Amercians everyday. I don't like the PC commentary, the constant malebashing, etc. Do you really think that I should be allowed to "shout invectives" as you call it at them? I doubt you believe that. I can write letters to the editor with my insults, do you think they are obligated to publish them just because I say so? Of course not. They will probably put the letters aside. Perhaps if I say things in a constructive manner, they might print my letter but they might not. Should they shut down and talk to friends and family? I doubt you think they should. No blogger is obligated to print your nasty opinions of their writings. You are welcome to start a blog and shout as you say, from your own street corner. But to think that a blogger is somehow obligated to post your trash is not only laughable, but wrongheaded.
Helen,
Anonymous 7:45 does not say that you are obligated to publish anything. You can moderate the comments and publish only what you want to publish. You can choose between moderating and keeping an open forum but it is hard to do both because you cannot control who wants to post comments.
Newspapers can publish what they want, but only up to a point. If their subscribers and advertisers thought the paper was insulting them, the paper would have to change direction. And you do get to hurl invective at the paper all you want...as you regularly do in this blog. Newspapers are a different media with restrictions that blogs do not have. Readers of newspapers cannot publish comments at will. Readers of your blog can. Unless you do something different. What do you want?
Just to try to understand exactly where you are coming from, anon 7:45 P.M., one only has to go through the posts and count.
To wit: If all you want is to express your views and have people tell you how right and brilliant you are, then for God's sake just express yourself to your friends and family.
Oh, that you would follow your own advice.
You post exponentially as compared to Dr. Helen, on the blog she, herself, established. I have seen you use the word boat more times in your posts than in a year's worth of issues of "Yachting World".
Dr. Helen does choose and post the headings for the ensuing comments of others. But she is almost always the one who contributes the least in this open comments section.
Seems she responds to a direct question when asked, or to a pot shot when it is directed at her. And she has said "thank you" more than every commenter combined. Otherwise, she reads a lot, eh?
Hell, start your own blog. I'd come there. Just to see what you are truly capable of if nothing else. Besides bitching and hypocrisy, that is. With your skill using the word "boat", you could approach all the boat and yacht manufacturers in this country to put adds on your blog. There are plenty of them.
And, you could post a picture of yourself behind the wheel of a BOAT in a bathing suit, taken while on vacation where the money was generated by your now successful blog. Simple!
br549:
Well, I'm not the same anonymous. I only posted the once on this thread, at 7:45. I understand you wouldn't know that, but there you are.
Helen and br549:
I have no interest in starting my own blog. I only post here because Helen is standing on that corner shouting invective. Generally speaking, I'm not presumptious enough to assume that people would want to read my opinions and musings. I mean, I'm not the one who started this fire. I'm just responding to it. Sure, it's my choice to respond rather than ignore. I could ignore some guy standing on the corner shouting about how we should send all these ni**ers home too.
Anyway--whether I choose to start my own blog is so beside the point. Such a red herring. The point is that Helen and others also have CHOSEN. They have chosen to speak (and not privately) but then wish to stop any backtalk. They suggest backtalkers are rude and seem to want sympathy for having to put up with it. And that's just ridiculous.
Again, Helen is welcome to moderate her blog. Make it accessible to only a few registrants. But I imagine Helen doesn't want to do this because deep down she knows such a blog would just become an echo chamber, would soon become not so interesting to those few allowed registrants and ultimately would result in little traffic or attention.
But, hey, maybe I'm wrong. Again, Helen, you say you're not obligated to publish the comments of naysayers. I don't say you are. So, go ahead. Turn it into a private site.
Oh. So what you mean is you're not capable of doing yourself what you critisize so well in others, or at least web blogs not of your liking - that you also can't seem to stay away from. Don't sell yourself short. Many of the largest blogs on the web were started on or as a whim.
There are many blogs I am well aware of and have not visited more than once because I do not agree with what I found there. I don't drop in, do a drive by bitch, and bail out. I just don't go back at all. No interest in it. However, and by the same token, I have no desire to return there and tell the blogger what is wrong with their site (or self). I change the channel, as it were.
You could be much more helpful, and still be anonymous.
Eschew obfuscation. Come up with another alter ego just as invisible as anonymous. It would clear a few things up, but still allow you the privacy you wish. No one knows who br549 is in reality. But everyone knows who I am here if and / or when I post. That is only to alleviate some of the fog that revolves around anonymous.
Helen is welcome to moderate her blog...... I'm sure she thanks you for your permission. I know I sure would! You are so kind.
Someone else's blog is not about you and what you think that blog should be about, and its rules of engagement. I suppose you watch a TV show you hate every week. And then write nasty letters to the network - never realizing all you have to do is change the channel. Or turn off the boob tube.
You are an "obliviate". See Fox News' web site to find out what that is. It's also a blog.
br549:
You're not making any sense.
If I return here, you're right; it's my choice.
I am not telling Helen and others what to contain in their blogs.
I'm simply saying--Don't go around crying about the criticism, when you're the one that chose to open your mouth.
This is not a difficult concept.
The point is that Helen and others also have CHOSEN. They have chosen to speak (and not privately) but then wish to stop any backtalk. They suggest backtalkers are rude and seem to want sympathy for having to put up with it. And that's just ridiculous.
Amen! Grow up ladies and stop being so clueless.
I change the channel, as it were.
Umm... blogs are interactive in a way tv is not. Haven't you heard about that feature -- it's quite distinguishing.
Let go... don't try to control everything. And most of all, don't fear honest criticism!! It really can make you stronger, see things that you've missed. A good critic can truly be your friend, more valuable than 10 yes-men or sychophants.
No one knows who br549 is in reality
My guess is it's Glenn. I think a lot of bloggers know, or post comments under aliases.
I only post here because Helen is standing on that corner shouting invective...
I could ignore some guy standing on the corner shouting about how we should send all these ni**ers home too.
And anonymous #5,632 loses all credibility. Except anon never had any to begin with because it's just an anon and cannot be separated from all the others.
Generally speaking, I'm not presumptious enough to assume that people would want to read my opinions and musings.
So posting at this blog is just an exception?
No one knows who br549 is in reality
My guess is it's Glenn. I think a lot of bloggers know, or post comments under aliases.
Uh-huh. Do you really believe that, or are you just being cute?
Amy K.
Sorry, been busy the passed couple days. A slew of movies I hated came on back to back for a couple days. So I watched all of them, and then wrote critical letters to the networks that put them on, those who wrote the screenplays, the actors and producers.
Now where were we?
I'm not a pimple on the Instapundit's fan tail, much less actually him.
Never met him - or the Doc.
But you wouldn't know that.
By the way, what color is the sky in your world?
The majority of the votes (302) went to "the blogosphere is not a bitchfest."
302/800 is 37.75%
What you had is a plurality, it's how Bill Clinton became our President.
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home