Theres the haiku and flower arranging, too.
Posted on 05/17/2011 1:30:40 PM PDT by stolinsky
Forgive me, Freepers, for I have sinned. My sins are many:
1. I linked to my own website, which is a sign of the arrogant belief that people might want to read what I write. Of course, if I didn't think that, I wouldn't write in the first place, so it's hard to see much difference.
2. I "stole bandwidth," though it's hard to see how posting a short exerpt with a link was worse than posting a long article--or how repeated insulting comments don't also "steal bandwidth."
3. I wanted people to "pay" me to be "showered with my wisdom," though my website has no advertising and costs me $299 a year to run, plus untold hours of time.
4. I used too many bullet points--or is it too few semicolons, I forget?
5. I claimed to have a graduate degree, though this couldn't be true, since I expressed myself plainly, in short paragraphs, and never used a $5 word when a two-bit word would do as well.
6. I claimed to have scars from a line-of-duty injury in the Army Reserve, though this couldn't be true either, since "people like me" usually avoid service.
7. Unlike my critics, I use my own name instead of a screen name, because I'm willing to stand up and be counted for what I say, and believe.
8. I assumed falsely that I was among friends, so any differences could be resolved amicably. Instead, I got more anger and vitriol than I ever got from liberals in the years I posted on NewsMax and on my own website. Yes, they occasionally called me "Nazi," but even the most fanatical never threatened violence or called me mentally ill--both of which are ways communists used to silence those who disagreed.
9. I assumed falsely that most conservatives are interested in saving our nation from leftists undermining it from within, and extremist Muslims attacking it from without. But instead, some are too busy squabbling among themselves about who doesn't really "fit in" with their small group--a sure recipe for defeat.
For all these sins, forgive me. My pennance will be to forgo blogging for a month. Perhaps that will be enough time for the anger to subside. Or not.
You have to know by now that that’s impossible.
By the way I agree with everything you have posted today.
Theres the haiku and flower arranging, too.
I have repeatedly said I am all for cracking down on abusive posts and spam.
However, people would be forgiven for taking away from this discussion that one and all bloggers who post a link to their own site are persona non grata.
In fact, I have repeatedly asked for clarification on that and gotten nothing but that all bloggers who post to their own stuff must post the article in the entirety, else they are being considered “rude” and are greedily trying to get hits.
If that’s the case, I can’t agree with that.
For one thing, I personally hate having more than the excerpt show when clicking on a thread. So many threads, I simply want an idea what the article is about. I simply do not want to see the whole thing, then or ever. An excerpt is enough for me to figure out if I want to read the whole thing.
But that’s about preference, which is not material here.
I’ve listened in detail to the arguments posited here and on other threads and, except for the ones you made in your first paragraph (which go without saying — abusive posts, sites and spam should be stopped the usual mod-way, and which apply to ALL posts, not just those posted by bloggers to their own blogs), all the arguments boil down to simply begruding the person any hits he may get as the result of freepers voluntarily deciding to look at his site or article.
(And, btw, if the type of response I’ve gotten from some of my fellow freepers who disagree with me on this point is any indication, I take severe issue with your characterization of “politely” asking bloggers to whatever. In fact, this very thread and one other was about how ridiculous freepers were in the way they presented their views to the blogger.)
I have presented my views in several different posts and won’t repeat them here.
I just can’t find anything whatsoever “rude” at all about posting a link and an excerpt, regardless of WHO posts it. I don’t see how it makes a damn bit of difference who posts a thread or whether they make money off hits, as every article has a link and every click on a link counts as traffic and all traffic increases the monetary value of the site. No one is forced to click on a link.
Here in Louisiana we just bring water balloons and super squirters...
...no shortage of water in Louisiana these days, no sir!
There is not a thing I can think of that is keeping you both from taking this up with Jim Robinson instead of trying to get us to change something we're obviously not going to change unless Jim Robinson's position changes.
Perhaps he can also answer your questions where we have failed over and over and over and over and over and over as you have asked your questions over and over and over and over on multiple threads on multiple days.
Thank you.
I am getting close to closing up shop on this one.
I am sorry to see some good bloggers get the short shrift, and even more so for some secret handshake about what is and is not “rude” posting to grow up on FR out of the simple, but completely usual, workable and longstanding idea that posting should not abused and should contribute to the forum.
Apparently not, or you wouldn't keep defending blog pimping.
With apologies to TheOldLady.
You either don't listen or don't want to listen or have some sort of disability. Talk to Jim Robinson if you are still unclear at this point. This is ridiculous.
They all post a link, it's part of the posting process.
all bloggers who post to their own stuff must post the article in the entirety
When they do otherwise they are fishing for hits.
I can’t agree with that
Bummer. Why?
I simply want an idea what the article is about
Read the title, and who posted it, and what the source is.
These are good indicators.
I don’t see how it makes a damn bit of difference who posts a thread or whether they make money off hits
Here is where we differ.
We are not a hit farm for scummy bloggers.
No one is forced to click on a link
They are if they want to read the rest of a pimped blog post.
Why not just post it here?
Those are gunner’s jobs. I do the sword manufacturing and the paintings with a cat’s tail.
Thanks for your response.
My reference to this as a mod-function is not that mods have to be out there doing extra-patrolling for bad bloggers, but that, just as with any other thread that's not appropriate for FR, if a bad blogging thread is found, why can't the mods be asked to deal with it? IOW, why can't it just be treated like a usual bad thread?
From the OP and others, it seems that instead Freepers are approaching bloggers, speaking for the entire site, community and even for JimRob, and making demands about posting the entire article and so on.
Which makes no sense: if the article is so bad that it shouldn't be here, why demand that the entire thing be posted?
If the article is so appropriate that the entire thing should take up my screen space, then what is the problem with simply linking to the article in the first place?
I have carefully listened to all the arguments and they all boil down to one thing: begrudging someone hits because they might make money.
[My thoughts on the fact that FR is completely dependent upon people creating content, publishing it to the internet and making it available to us FOR FREE here, #233.
I've addressed that repeatedly and won't do so again here. As I said, you and I will just have to disagree with each other on this.
And the only reason I think there's any problem with it is that there have been two posts by bloggers in the last week or so that seem to indicate that there IS a problem with good bloggers, who do good work, getting ragged on by a group of people who have developed some kind of standard for what they believe is and is not "rude" posting.
Your analogy concedes that a group of freepers have taken it upon themselves to filter the site for the rest of us. I can't go along on that in principle. I know you don't mean it this way, but I object to the idea that the rest of us have to be protected from dumb posts or that we can't figure out for ourselves whether we want to click on a link or not.
I think we are each able to police the site. If we find a violation, we can ping the mod. I have never a mod not to take action when appropriate.
Again, I am all for stopping abusive posts and spam. I also, to your point here, of course support freepers ragging on a poster or a post if that's their opinion.
What I don't support is a group of freepers, claiming to speak for the community and claiming to protect the rest of us, telling posters that they must do it this way or that way when, as far as I know, there is no actual rule that blogs or anything else MUST be posted in full unless on the excerpt list.
The excerpt list is simply a list of sources that MUST be excerpted. But that doesn't mean everything else MUST be posted in full.
Therefore, at least as I understand it (I can trust you to correct me if I'm wrong! lol), no one has the authority to say a blog post must be posted in its entirety, or even to say it's "rude" not to. Whether or not it is "rude" is someone's, or some group's opinion. It certainly is not a shared definition.
Why can't you just read the beginning of the article and move on if you don't like it? What is so very horrible about having words on the screen past the part in which you are interested?
For your personal hatred, every blogger on the site must comply with what you want against Jim Robinson's expressed wishes?
This part of your argument deserves
“brief excerpts” does not equal “therefore, the article must be posted in its entirety.”
“only and obviously attempting to draw away our participants” does not equal the perfectly usual and required link to the source material/full article.
“the more apt I am to ban his account and blog” does not equal “therefor, a small group of freepers should take it upon themselves to create and enforce a standard for certain blogs and bloggers, according to their particular point-of-view”
I’m so sorry that I forgot to ping you to Post #292.
Of course that gets you back for Post #289 [giggles!]
Smart phone. iPAD. Whatever. Maybe I just like the idea of choosing which articles I want to see more of.
I said it was my preference not to see the entire article. So what?
Your preference is to see the entire article.
I could just as easily say to you, why don’t you just click on the link if you want to see the entire article?
Like your particular point-of-view should overrule that of those who are obviously working with Jim's permission and approval on his own site?
What are you trying to achieve, exactly, with this incessant and unneccesary argument? Why not go to the ultimate authority and settle it once and for all?
I think I know.
Yeah it does.
Yeah it does.
Yeah it does. This is why Jim dubbed humblegunner Blogger Overlord. Simply because you don’t like it doesn’t change it.
If this was a trial and you were the defense lawyer the jury would put YOU in prison.
The quality of the post isn't a primary issue. Further, it's hard to tell from an excerpt.
I don't click on blogs other than as an expeditionary function to learn what malware and adware is present.
if a bad blogging thread is found, why can't the mods be asked to deal with it?
I'll get real basic here: Would you rather be a tattletale or a vigilante?
If some cholo comes into my yard and kicks my dog, I'm not calling the cops.
I'm going upside his head with a stick. I'm good with a club.
If some crackhead breaks into my house in the middle of the night,
I'm gonna cap him. It's my house, my dog, my community.
I object to the idea that the rest of us have to be protected from dumb posts
Dumb posts are a peripheral issue. Pimped excerpts are the issue.
I think we are each able to police the site. If we find a violation, we can ping the mod.
Would you rather be a tattletale or a vigilante?
We shall just have to disagree on this, as you say.
Cheers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.