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.
I disagreed that anyone who posted a link and excerpt to his own work was ipso facto a blogpimp.
I'm not clear where you're at on that.
Cool.
And, as far as you speaking for the owner of this site, are you referring to the excerpt of one of his posts that was posted here?
I referred to that and asked for some clarification on how posting an excerpt, as is usually done here, constitutes "obviously attempting to draw away [FR's] participants"? This seems to be what motivates the blog overlord phenomenon.
IOW, I hear what JimRob is saying and agree with it. What I don't agree with is reading that to mean that a blogger can never post a link to his own stuff.
My specific questions on that were here, at #142, if you 'd like to address them.
LOL!
As do others and they want to see their investment pay off *here*, not elsewhere.
Then drawn and quartered.
And your entire bloodline removed from the planet Earth.
THEN maybe we can talk.
Well, that’s where I’ll have to disagree with you, my FRiend.
I don’t see any value in making a distinction based on WHO posted the thread. If the article is within normal posting guidelines, then the marketplace of ideas will prevail and, in my view, freepers are well able to decide for themselves whether or not to read the article at the link.
Again, you know I am all for stopping abusive posters and spam. But I just don’t agree with you that not posting an entire article means someone is using FR as a marketing tool.
Quite the opposite! I think clogging up the site with big loads of articles that people haven’t even decided yet they want to read is the waste!
And I still don’t see where people are getting the idea that someone is forced to click on the link. If the excerpt is garbage or just not interesting to the freeper, they don’t go there. If they go there and read the article, they come back to FR to discuss it. I just don’t see the problem or how that differs from any other posting.
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this.
Then please don’t click on any of the links to articles that are excerpted. All those nasty LSM sites earn money based on your hits.
P.S. Apart from the fact that the vast majority of bloggers make pennies, if anything on their site, I’m sure you realize that whatever they do make comes from something like Google Adsense or from people clicking on ads on their site.
I don’t see how this takes anything away from “support” for FR, any more than it takes “support” away from FR for me to click on Rush’s site (he makes money off his site based on hits), the American Thinker, Flopping Aces, The Looking Spoon, Powerline, Fox Nation, Drudge -— good grief, the amount of money Drudge makes off our clicks is incredible -— how in the world does the fact that someone makes money off our VOLUNTARY clicks — clicks made solely because the reader decides for hismelf to view the content — hurts FR in any way, shape or form.
If a poster is abusive or a spammer, that’s got to be stopped. Otherwise, I can decide for myself what to click on or not. And I’m all for capitalism and people making money off of content that I CHOOSE to read for FREE.
Let me attempt an analogy.
My mother gave me a Kindle for Christmas. She did so because
she thought I would enjoy it. It required that I create an account
with Amazon and purchase e-books from them. Nice gift. Thanks, mom.
Now suppose Amazon had given me the Kindle. They would be doing so
IN ORDER that I create an account and purchase e-books from them.
Thus the distinction.
Again, I can't say it often enough that I am not talking about allowing abusive posters or spam on FR. Of course not.
But legitimate bloggers? People who may post to their own stuff, stuff that is "okay" to post if posted BY SOMEONE ELSE?
I find it rather ironic that a forum such as this absolutely depends on people creating content and putting it out there for us to read, if we so choose, FOR FREE.
Yet, some apparently begrudge people, who may work very hard as writers and New Media pundits, making money, even a few pennies, on content that we are perfectly able to read FOR FREE if we want.
So we sit around reading content that is FREE to us, regardless how much work or effort it took to produce that content and regardless of how much it cost to publish it on the internet, and have a total fit that someone who created that FREE-to-us content might make a few pennies from Google Adsense.
That seems pretty ridiculous to me.
I'm happy if people make money on their work. Especially since, in this case, someone else (Google, usually) is paying for it.
Again, I am obliged to state that I am of course not including abusive posters and spam, which can simply be handled the usual way -- by alerting the mods.
“Apart from the fact that the vast majority of bloggers make pennies, if anything on their site, I’m sure you realize that whatever they do make comes from something like Google Adsense or from people clicking on ads on their site.”
Since you seem to know so little about the monetization of sites, it’s rather pointless to discuss this with you further.
Click whatever you want.
It’s your life.
Please enlighten me on monetization of sites.
And I do click on whatever I want and so does every other freeper. That’s why it’s not well-founded to proceed as though people are “forced” to click on a link to a blog or any other site.
Thank you for making my point.
Arrogant and ignorant. Good idea to stop feeding it.
Now if it would only stop humping my leg and declaring some sort of mythical “victory”.
I understand your distinction, I just think it’s a distinction without a difference.
From my point of view, in the end, you still got a free Kindle, which you thought was a nice gift.
In the end, you still make your own choice whether to create an account with Amazon and order 1 or one million books from them.
To me, it’s all still good.
I just don’t agree that the MOTIVE of the poster, whatever it is or may be assumed to be, has anything relevance whatsoever to whether or not the post is a “nice gift” (to use your analogy) to FR.
If it’s not a “nice gift,” whether it was given by “Mom” or “Amazon,” doesn’t matter: it’s still spam or some kind of garbage that either needs to be zotted or allowed to die its natural death.
If it is a “nice gift,” doesn’t matter to me who gave it or whether they make something off it in the future because of my VOLUNTARY CHOICE to buy books, click on the link, etc.
Hey, what if Mom, an Amazon affiliate, bought your Kindle through her website and not only made a commission off it, but will make money off any books you may buy in the future? (Not how it works, but just making an analogy here.) :) I just don’t see a prob with that.
It’s still a nice gift and I’m still in control of how much, or if, I use it.
Nice bullets, Lazamataz.
You make me ROFLMBO!
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.