Comments on: One More Political Thing http://www.peterwall.net/2008/04/29/one-more-political-thing/ by peter wall Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:42:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Rebecca http://www.peterwall.net/2008/04/29/one-more-political-thing/#comment-91 Rebecca Sat, 10 May 2008 19:19:35 +0000 http://www.peterwall.net/?p=39#comment-91 I think Melissa's comment above was petty and immature - no matter how many LOL's preface it. I read the Shakesville blog occasionally and many times I find it entertaining just as "mainstream American cinema" can sometimes be entertaining. And occasionally, I find posts, either from Melissa or other guest bloggers, that are concise and reasoned pieces of writing. It seems a pity that her ego, displayed by her comment above, doesn't allow for criticism. I think Melissa’s comment above was petty and immature – no matter how many LOL’s preface it.

I read the Shakesville blog occasionally and many times I find it entertaining just as “mainstream American cinema” can sometimes be entertaining. And occasionally, I find posts, either from Melissa or other guest bloggers, that are concise and reasoned pieces of writing. It seems a pity that her ego, displayed by her comment above, doesn’t allow for criticism.

]]> By: adam http://www.peterwall.net/2008/04/29/one-more-political-thing/#comment-90 adam Mon, 05 May 2008 18:28:05 +0000 http://www.peterwall.net/?p=39#comment-90 Your decision to avoid seeking evidence that would refute or alter your tentative conclusion effectly renders it your final conclusion. Play semantics if you want. Your decision to avoid seeking evidence that would refute or alter your tentative conclusion effectly renders it your final conclusion.

Play semantics if you want.

]]> By: Peter http://www.peterwall.net/2008/04/29/one-more-political-thing/#comment-89 Peter Mon, 05 May 2008 13:48:57 +0000 http://www.peterwall.net/?p=39#comment-89 Absolutely it's a tentative conclusion because it can be changed. But I'm not going to assume the burden of seeking out new evidence that contradicts it. Absolutely it’s a tentative conclusion because it can be changed. But I’m not going to assume the burden of seeking out new evidence that contradicts it.

]]> By: adam http://www.peterwall.net/2008/04/29/one-more-political-thing/#comment-88 adam Mon, 05 May 2008 13:27:42 +0000 http://www.peterwall.net/?p=39#comment-88 Well, then I guess it isn't much of a tentative conclusion then, is it? Well, then I guess it isn’t much of a tentative conclusion then, is it?

]]> By: Peter http://www.peterwall.net/2008/04/29/one-more-political-thing/#comment-87 Peter Fri, 02 May 2008 21:47:20 +0000 http://www.peterwall.net/?p=39#comment-87 I've read stuff you've linked over there on many different occasions. I've rarely found any of it compelling or persuasive, but rather often so affected with sentiment and insider-ism that it is nearly incomprehensible. The other day when you linked the whole blog without linking the specific post I read a few of the things that were up there and came to pretty much the same conclusion. At this point, I don't really feel any need to go "explore her blog further" to see more of what has always been the same on every previous foray. I much prefer to spend my time reading things that are presented in a rational fashion and allow me to make my own decision rather than beating me over the head with apparent truisms and then attempting to make me look like a bad person because I disagree with them. I’ve read stuff you’ve linked over there on many different occasions. I’ve rarely found any of it compelling or persuasive, but rather often so affected with sentiment and insider-ism that it is nearly incomprehensible.

The other day when you linked the whole blog without linking the specific post I read a few of the things that were up there and came to pretty much the same conclusion.

At this point, I don’t really feel any need to go “explore her blog further” to see more of what has always been the same on every previous foray. I much prefer to spend my time reading things that are presented in a rational fashion and allow me to make my own decision rather than beating me over the head with apparent truisms and then attempting to make me look like a bad person because I disagree with them.

]]> By: adam http://www.peterwall.net/2008/04/29/one-more-political-thing/#comment-86 adam Fri, 02 May 2008 21:42:54 +0000 http://www.peterwall.net/?p=39#comment-86 <em>Instead, you make an apparently sarcastic remark and leave me confirmed in my tentative conclusion that you have no substance to offer anyone who does not already agree with you.</em> Maybe sometime after July, you'll have some free time to explore her blog further and decide whether that tentative conclusion has any merit. Instead, you make an apparently sarcastic remark and leave me confirmed in my tentative conclusion that you have no substance to offer anyone who does not already agree with you.

Maybe sometime after July, you’ll have some free time to explore her blog further and decide whether that tentative conclusion has any merit.

]]> By: Peter http://www.peterwall.net/2008/04/29/one-more-political-thing/#comment-85 Peter Fri, 02 May 2008 16:00:57 +0000 http://www.peterwall.net/?p=39#comment-85 And that comment just demonstrates my point. You said nothing of substance because your remark is (apparently) predicated on the assumption that the people who read your blog are the people who don't already agree with you or take your premises seriously. It may in fact be that the people who make your blog successful are the ones who don't need convincing, who already agree with you, or who otherwise accept the legitimacy of what you write to the extent necessary to ground their opposition. But you do not addresss these possibilities and instead assume (apparently) that I will automatically agree with you that high readership alone refutes my contention that you do a poor job if persuading. (That is like saying that we know mainstream American cinema is high-quality because it makes so much money.) Instead, you make an apparently sarcastic remark and leave me confirmed in my tentative conclusion that you have no substance to offer anyone who does not already agree with you. And that comment just demonstrates my point. You said nothing of substance because your remark is (apparently) predicated on the assumption that the people who read your blog are the people who don’t already agree with you or take your premises seriously. It may in fact be that the people who make your blog successful are the ones who don’t need convincing, who already agree with you, or who otherwise accept the legitimacy of what you write to the extent necessary to ground their opposition.

But you do not addresss these possibilities and instead assume (apparently) that I will automatically agree with you that high readership alone refutes my contention that you do a poor job if persuading. (That is like saying that we know mainstream American cinema is high-quality because it makes so much money.)

Instead, you make an apparently sarcastic remark and leave me confirmed in my tentative conclusion that you have no substance to offer anyone who does not already agree with you.

]]> By: Melissa McEwan http://www.peterwall.net/2008/04/29/one-more-political-thing/#comment-84 Melissa McEwan Fri, 02 May 2008 04:55:21 +0000 http://www.peterwall.net/?p=39#comment-84 <i>because she writes for insiders (i.e., people who already agree with her) and is usually atrocious at writing persuasively</i> LOL! Excellent points. That must be why my blog never took off. because she writes for insiders (i.e., people who already agree with her) and is usually atrocious at writing persuasively

LOL! Excellent points. That must be why my blog never took off.

]]> By: Peter http://www.peterwall.net/2008/04/29/one-more-political-thing/#comment-83 Peter Thu, 01 May 2008 23:09:26 +0000 http://www.peterwall.net/?p=39#comment-83 No, I don't understand whether the author (Melissa McEwan) is trying to point out sexism, or if she is trying to point out that she thinks Clinton is the better candidate, or if she is just tromping on shallow journalism. If it is any of those, I think she did a fairly poor job, mostly because she writes for insiders (i.e., people who already agree with her) and is usually atrocious at writing persuasively (i.e., for people who do not already agree with her). The upshot is that I got the impression she wanted to say something about any or all of the three points I listed above, but what she said was not particularly compelling on any of those points, individually or together. No, I don’t understand whether the author (Melissa McEwan) is trying to point out sexism, or if she is trying to point out that she thinks Clinton is the better candidate, or if she is just tromping on shallow journalism. If it is any of those, I think she did a fairly poor job, mostly because she writes for insiders (i.e., people who already agree with her) and is usually atrocious at writing persuasively (i.e., for people who do not already agree with her).

The upshot is that I got the impression she wanted to say something about any or all of the three points I listed above, but what she said was not particularly compelling on any of those points, individually or together.

]]> By: adam http://www.peterwall.net/2008/04/29/one-more-political-thing/#comment-82 adam Thu, 01 May 2008 23:01:45 +0000 http://www.peterwall.net/?p=39#comment-82 You don't understand the point of pointing out sexism? You don’t understand the point of pointing out sexism?

]]>