Lynn of Reflections in D Minor asks an interesting question[emphasis mine]:

I've been planning to write one more big political post before the election, to get all those thoughts out of the way, but after days of thinking about it I just can't get it all to come together. I guess the problem is that I want to be convincing but I know I can't convince anyone of anything. Far better writers than I are being ignored so what possible hope is there for me?

The thing is, not everyone reads the "better writers". The maze of links comprising the blogosphere leads people down the strangest paths, and those who are yet convincable may stray into your garden.

Though you may not make your points perfectly, you may make them "perfectly enough". You might phrase it in just the right way for the mind that's at the tipping point to topple in your direction.

Most people I know are open-minded to some degree, and those that ARE still uncertain are busily weighing THIS against THAT. You may - especially if you're a dynamite wordsmith like Lynn - phrase one side of the argument in such a way that all the loose pieces suddenly come together for the reader.

When it comes to what finally pushes someone off the fence, it's not always the 3000 word essay full of facts, figures, diagrams, and supporting linkage that does the trick. All that beautiful rhetoric may not even be read. Sometimes all it takes is one apt metaphor to pull the entire picture into focus. And, as when finally discovering a hidden image in a drawing, the picture, once seen, can no longer be UNseen. The vision cannot be undone, and the mind can no longer be unconvinced.

Even though you won't persuade everyone, you might persuade someone, and it is for the sake of the few - or even the one - that you must try.

Because you just never know...

Posted by: Harvey at 10:23 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 338 words, total size 2 kb.

Blogson Jeff of Au Fait is pondering what to do with his old blogposts:

I'm thinking of a system that throws complete blog posts in the trash, under some kind of strict rules, like "if no one has posted a comment, and the post is 'x' days old, out with it. Forever." Comments?

From a purely fiscal standpoint, if it's a matter of the storage space costing you money that you can't afford, then trash them.

Otherwise... well... personally, I still refer to my old Bad Money site fairly regularly, especially if I want to make an inside joke about an old post. I like to be able to include an explanatory link so the new folks can understand a punchline.

My observation is this: only about 10% of your blog entries will be looked at by you or anyone else ever again.

Trouble is, you can't know ahead of time which 10% that's gonna be, so if you dump everything, sooner or later you'll find frustration when you don't have that old post any more.

My other thought is to keep it because you'll be getting a trickle of new readers for as long as you blog. And I know that when *I* find a new blog that intrigues me, I like to poke around in the archives a bit - especially the first few posts - to see who the blogger is and what they hoped to accomplish with their site. Those first couple weeks are often very revealing.

In the end, though, the decision of what to keep and what to throw away is a personal choice, and I wouldn't presume to make it for someone else. For myself, though, the things I've written are a part of me, and I like being able to look back and see who I was, what I thought, and how I've changed.

That, and I wouldn't want to disappoint all the people Googling for "XXX black peeing porn".

Posted by: Harvey at 10:06 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Keep them. If storage cost is an issue, move them to your new site. Close comments on posts over 30 days old (to prevent spam). Those posts are you. They are what you felt, thought, believed, and were at the time you wrote them. The ability for you to look back and see yourself in that light - through that lens - in the years ahead will be priceless. Keep them. Or I will personally hack into your computer and erase everything.

Posted by: _Jon at October 28, 2004 08:39 AM (uHRYR)

2 Hear that, Jeff? :-)

Posted by: Harvey at October 28, 2004 05:57 PM (ubhj8)

3 Yep... and storage cost isn't an issue, either. Great comments (both); and thanks for posting on it here, Harv. _Jon's comments are quite sensible, and you really sunk sense into the matter with the observation "Trouble is, you can't know ahead of time which 10% that's gonna be..." How true. Durn... I was hoping to somehow escape writing code to archive stuff.

Posted by: Jeff at October 28, 2004 07:19 PM (bqJRc)

4 Quitcher bitchin', Jeff. All that coding will build character :-P

Posted by: Harvey at October 28, 2004 11:12 PM (ubhj8)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Blogson-in-law Alex of Alex In Wonderland has posted a question about how to deal with trolls:

When someone insults your entire readership, however, would any of you censor the post? Or leave it up and let the person get flamed?

Here's the Wikipedia definition of "troll".

1. A post (on a newsgroup, or other forum) that is solely intended to incite controversy or conflict or cause annoyance or offense. (Many posts may inadvertently cause strife as collateral damage, but they are not trolls.)
2. A person who posts these.

and is further explained:

Sincere but controversial or naive posters are sometimes mis-labeled as trolls, but the term is generally considered to be correctly applied only to those looking to provoke outrage or discord.

Good enough definition, but my standards are a little different. Here's what qualifies as a troll in the eyes of the host of Bad Example:

1) Directly and personally insults the host.
2) Leaves no contact information.
3) Makes no attempt to add content to the discussion.

And you know something? I've NEVER been trolled. Ever.

Which is not to say that there haven't been some incredibly rude, insensitive, boorish, and socially repugnant comments left here on rare occasions, but they've never been anonymous. I've always said that I'm entitled to my opinions because I'm always willing to explain why I hold them - if someone asks - and I'm willing to keep explaining until that person is either satisfied, gets tired of asking, or changes my mind.

Even the rudest of my commenters at least left contact information, so I give them credit for being willing to stand behind their words. That takes at least some guts, and I can respect that, even as I'm taking gross offense to what's being said.

Now - what to do about it. From the "How To Handle A Troll" page, a sample troll post in a Star Trek: Enterprise fan forum, regarding the relative unpopularity of the Enterprise series compared to Next Generation:

LOW RATINGS[.] NOBODY WATCHES IT LIKE STNG[.] STNG HAVE THE MOST RATINGS

Here's what the page suggests as the proper response:

You may have a valid point about the low ratings [of Enterprise], in comparison to some shows that have had a few more seasons to be developed. ST-TNG definately was a very popular show a few seasons into its run!

However, could you not use capslock all the time, as it can be rather difficult to read, and to some, it can seem like you are shouting.

And their explanation for why this is a good response:

Start with a compliment! As shown above, accept that they may well have a valid argument, and therefore have a necessary place within the forum.

Keep Calm! Don't let your anger show through.

Compliment them before any criticism - and keep that criticism to a minimum. They don't know how to react. Before long, they may find themselves drawn into sensible conversations with the group.

If possible, make any criticism sound like a criticism of yourself, not them. Here, the responder has made the caps problem seem like the readers fault, rather than the posters.

My opinion on that? Well, there's a fine line between diplomacy and appeasement, but when the only thing at stake is words & personal pride rather than actual human lives, I think it's prudent to be gentle for a long time before burning bridges and calling in air strikes.

For example, there's this comment thread to a post by Goldie of Drama Queen. I was fencing with a couple guys who tossed out chunk after chunk of moist, gooey, flame-bait. I'll show you a few of my responses. You can go to the post to see the bait, if you want:

Don't worry, Ev, the folks who understand the implications of the [9/11] attack will do what's necessary whether you know why they're doing it or not.

By the way, Ev, what did those school children in Russia do to deserve THEIR fate?

Goldie - Thanks, hun, you're a sweetie. And truth be told, I felt the same way about Bali. I didn't understand at first, but when I saw the pictures... it was all too clear.

Evan - true, Bush didn't win the popular election. But the national popular total doesn't matter & never has. It's all about the electoral college results, both parties knew that going in, and designed their strategies around it. It's an odd little quirk that lets someone win without a national majority of the popular vote, but it *does* serve to keep the small-population states from becoming irrelevant.

And yeah, I'm missing your point. You're saying that the American government deserved to have its citizens killed, but the citizens themselves didn't deserve to die?

Odd combination of ideas...

Anyway, what, specifically, did America do to deserve this? I'm at a loss to come up with a crime for which this is a just punishment.

Goldie - thank YOU for having a Prime Minister with courage :-)

As I once posted at your site:

"Australians are strong, loyal, trustworthy, and fierce fighters. If for some unimaginable reason you don't own a gun, consider carrying an Australian in your holster instead."

None taken.

Although I'm not sure what you mean by "convoluted".

Pretty simple, really. The murderous poison of Islamism must be destroyed so that the citizens of civilized nations don't have to live under threat from organized terrorism.

G - a very enlightened, sensitive and compassionate way of phrasing it. However, as long as terrorists and their supporters wind up dead or civilized, I don't care what you call them.

Evan - Um... the letter "S" in Morse Code?

I'm not advocating killing people for their heritage. I'm not advocating killing them for their religion, either. I have no problem with the majority of Muslims who just want to live their lives in peace.

But the ones who claim that their religion requires them to kill those who don't believe in Allah? I want them dead before they can do any damage. Or they can convert to a more civilized form of Islam. I don't care which.

I also don't care who kills them. It doesn't HAVE to be the US. If other countries would keep their populace of murderers in check, I'd be content with that. But if they're not going to take the responsibility on themselves, then I guess it's up to the US to go in and kill the terrorists for them.

Wait... so you're saying the US military is deliberately *targeting* peaceful muslims?

Interesting.

Anyway, thanks for wishing me stacks of dead terrorist bodies. I'm hoping they make a pile of them 1365 feet tall.

Twice.

An example of a more recent encounter can be found in the comments to this post.

The nearest thing I've ever had to an ACTUAL troll would be Mac Diva. Who chimed in on not one, but two of my posts, and was a complete assgremlin in the process both times.

I wasn't quite as reserved with Mac Diva, but on the other hand, I *did* get a whole lot of mileage out of the "Right Wing Circle Jerk" comment.

My basic formula, though, is: stay calm, ask the rude person an embarrassing question to make him clarify his position, watch with satisfaction when his response shows what an immature ass he is.

But the BEST part? Laughing at the flame-baiter behind his back because he's stupid enough to think that you're too naive to recognize flame-bait and ignore it.

Then wallowing in smug self-satisfaction afterwards.

Heh.

Posted by: Harvey at 10:35 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 1271 words, total size 8 kb.

1 I like to highlight their comments in a post and deconstruct them. But that's me. The funny thing is, the calmer you stay, the more irrational they get, which is fairly amusing...Of course, I don't get out much, so I have to take my amusement where I can find it.

Posted by: Susie at October 17, 2004 11:22 AM (lO8p0)

2 Depends on what mood they catch me in. Like today when I rather rudely told off a liberal lefty who left comments about the offensive Edwards "revival tent" speech. I suppose I should've kindly pointed out how stupid he/she was, but hey, it's my blog and if you make me mad - I will certainly let you know. I have deleted comments after warning the commentor that I wouldn't tolerate anything more along the line he was arguing. He decided to persist and I deleted him - then he tried the same thing under a different post - he was deleted again. I nearly banned him, but he didn't come back.

Posted by: Teresa at October 17, 2004 07:36 PM (nAfYo)

3 I noticed Trolls lurking on other blogs, but can't say that I've ever had one. The crappy Alex definition of a troll is a large ugly creature that lurks under bridges, coming out to cause trouble to unwary passer-bys. Or a mother in law. Same difference. I have been getting comment spam though. Weird. Comments that are advertising pron or meds. It's like having a public hotmail account! So do you lot have ground rules on what is allowed? Are they visible or more of the unwritten kind?

Posted by: Alex at October 18, 2004 02:08 AM (a1D32)

4 Shut up, you idiot.

Posted by: at October 18, 2004 10:00 AM (/k+l4)

5 Not only did I have trolls, I had malicious ones who highjacked my site. Bastards! Anyway, when they started I just ignored them. Trolls need verbal fuel to keep going. If you comment in a void and no one responds then they eventually they give up and move along. I like to save my precious time and hands for good blogging efforts. Thanks for posting this and having this discussion.

Posted by: michele at October 18, 2004 12:06 PM (2c9qq)

6 I had a problem with a troll once...I decided to skin him alive and wear his face for Halloween. I haven't had any problems since. Seriously though, I personally love Trolls, they're good for hits. I always say that I don't care if people like me as long as they read. I had one guy at miniluv that hated me so much that he devoted his blog to writing about how much I sucked, what a mindless idiot I was, etc. He was the exception. I banned his IP.

Posted by: Mike at October 18, 2004 03:24 PM (4uQ2O)

7 [note: my comm-ents seem to be rejecting the word m-en. Please forgive the hyphens] To the anonymous troll-wanna-be - blow me. If you can't be more insulting than the Bartender, you don't count. Shit. At least call me a jack-off idiot, or SOMETHING! :-P Alex - Rules? Not really. If I have rules, then I have to monitor and enforce. I've got too much blogging to do to waste time with comm-ent maintenance. Hell, I don't even clear out my comm-ent spam :-) I have a hard time imagining anything being so bad that I'd delete it. Although, with the last thing I posted from Peter, there was a particularly heinous bitch in the comm-ents at Hog On Ice named Totsie. Her I might ban, since her pure personal viciousness might overcome her lack of anonymity. On the other hand, the opportunities for skewering her with my hardest-core smartassery might outweigh the temptation to merely rewrite her comm-ent as "I'm a retarded pig-fucking monkey-humper". Hard to say until it happens. I guess it depends on my mood... :-)

Posted by: Harvey at October 18, 2004 11:30 PM (ubhj8)

8 Michele - Yeah, I still have the screenshot: http://badexample.mu.nu/archives/033872.php Yours was definitely the worst thing I've ever seen. And I remember what some of those people said before I first popped in. All I could do was squint at the screen with my jaw hanging down. How the hell could people who actually KNEW you say such vile crap? Unbelievable.

Posted by: Harvey at October 18, 2004 11:48 PM (ubhj8)

9 The thing at Hog on Ice was particularly vile to me. On many levels.

Posted by: Boudicca at October 19, 2004 06:13 AM (OfXwr)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I wanted to pick up on something that was left in the comments to this post, wherein blogson-in-law Alex of Alex in Wonderland said:

"You cannot possibly (and I mean the U.S AND the U.K) use [mass graves] as a secondary justification for war."

I think Alex is right about that. Mass graves aren't now, and never were, part of the stated reason for fighting the war in Iraq.

I'm checking Bush's 2003 State of the Union address where he made the case for war in Iraq (scroll most of the way down or CTRL+F "Twelve years ago")

The big reasons were that Saddam hadn't complied with UN resolutions, and that he hadn't provided documentation showing the destruction of the WMD that we knew he had after the first Gulf War. There WAS some mention in the SOTU of him oppressing his people, but that was just used as evidence that he was an evil man who would be willing to use the WMD that he couldn't document the destruction of.

Stopping the creation of new mass graves is a bonus, not a justification. It's nice that it happened, but even if all the graves in Iraq were single-occupancy, it wouldn't have mattered. The point of going to Iraq was that it was the easiest first step in trying to bring civilization to the barbarians of the Middle East. It was a good strategic location for our military so that we can project a credible threat of force into the other barbarian nations in the area (Iran, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, etc.), and attempt to bring them - kicking and screaming, if necessary - into the 21st century, and teach them that murdering people at random because they're "infidels" is NOT acceptable behavior.

A lesson that they WILL learn.

Even if it kills them.

Posted by: Harvey at 07:29 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.

I was e-mail chatting with blogdaughter Boudicca of Boudicca's Voice, and she was lamenting a bit that her Ecosystem ranking didn't seem to accurately reflect the amount of traffic she was getting. She FEELS more evolved than the Bear says she is.

She's got a point.

As much as I love the Ecosystem, it's flawed because it ranks by links and not traffic. What good does it do you to have 200 links if you only get 25 hits per day?

On the other hand, links DO matter. Somehow you made 200 people (or one person 200 different times, or something in between) like you enough to link you at one point or another, even if not all those people visit you every day. Those bursts of affection should carry some weight over a quick come-n-go, 20-second site-visit, shouldn't they?

There should be some sort of formula to combine both links & hits to give an overall ranking.

Damned if *I* know what it would be.

But here's my first stab at it:

L/H*R

L = unique links
H = average daily hits
R = Ecosystem rank

The effect of this is to lower your overall Ecosystem rank if you have links that aren't driving traffic.

Let's look at me (stats as of 10-4-04):

336/274*176 = 216

I get my rank dropped for having links that aren't bringing me traffic. Apparently when I get linked it tends to be as an indifferent courtesy.

Let's look at Bou (stats as of 10-4-04):

43/161*2361 = 631

Since she gets nearly 4 hits per link, she gets a boost in her ranking for having people like her enough to drive traffic to her site through those links. Bou tends to get linked with burning enthusiasm ("You've GOT to read this thing that Boudicca posted!")

I haven't actually tested out anyone else's numbers, so this formula is in dire need of peer review. Feel free to run your own numbers and leave suggestions for tweaks & improvements.

Posted by: Harvey at 11:10 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.