Year: 2006

Categories
People

Human heat sinks

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Kathy Sierra has a post complimenting Robert Scoble on his decision to stay away from the negatives. One paragraph is:

The notion of “Happy People” was tossed around in the Robert-Lost-His-Mind posts as something ridiculous at best, dangerous at worst. One blogger equated “happy people” with “vacuous”. The idea seems to be that “happy people” implies those who are oblivious to the realities of life, in a fantasy of their own creation, and without the ability to think critically. The science, however, suggests just the opposite.

She then goes into a discussion on the neuroscience of happy versus not people and myths of happiness and happy people and so on. We have to assume that her use of the term ‘vacuous’ is in reference to my post–it’s not a common word. I gather she believes my post must not be ‘happy’ enough in order to link–which, indirectly, makes a statement about my ‘value’ to the discussion. For all the mention of the Dali Lama and the power of positive thinking, this is an antagonistic action.

This, in a nutshell, is the problem with much of this discussion: the words don’t necessarily match the actions. A person can use a great number of high sounding, very positive words, all the while committing a negative act. Conversely, a person can use any number of negative words, or what can be perceived to be a negative tone, in the hopes of accomplishing a positive event.

We’re basing all of this on ‘words’, not intents. Doing this penalizes those who speak bluntly, while the less blunt, or less direct, end up being shiny all over. Where are the plain speakers? Where is the writing that unabashedly accepts the consequences for the intent behind the words?

Robert Scoble may talk about wanting to filter out those critical of him, and that don’t add to the ‘value’ to the conversation. What is value? When you spend time reading a person’s writing, you’ve already given them ‘value’ because you’ve given them your time. Anything negative you say in response to the writing has to be balanced against the fact that you gave of your time. I value time–it would have to be almighty negative for it to tip the scales against.

Robert and Kathy mention ‘happy’. What is happy? Is it a state of mind, or a coy turn of phrase? I have seen a person walk into a room and eviscerate another, leaving them with no dignity, no respect, all the while smiling and using the sweetest of terms. Is the perpetrator then a ‘happy’ person? They have all the markings of one.

Forget the neuroscience and new age blather: what is happy? If both Kathy and Robert are going to define how people must behave to be part of their circle and have value, then I think we’re entitled to ask them to define, in their own terms, ‘happy’. This way, we can then use this measurement with the only people that matter: Robert and Kathy.

You know what a truly happy person is to me? In the context of this environment, and discussion? It’s a person where you could say anything in their comments, and it just flows off their back, like water off a duck. The Dali Lama that Kathy mentions. They may not like the words, they may be saddened, especially if the person saying the words is a friend–they may even moderate the comment; but their happiness could not be impacted by such an ephemeral event. Fortunately, most of us just aren’t the Dalia Lama–aren’t that happy. It’s a good thing, too, because the Dali Lama’s strength isn’t in his own lack of anger, but his ability to generate outraged anger in others.

But this isn’t about anger, and this isn’t comment moderation. If this was about comment moderation, this discussion wouldn’t be happening. Comment moderation is an old topic–do what you want, end of story. This is about defining whether another person is contributing value, and basing this value on some artificial criteria labeled euphemistically ‘happy’. And what is happy? What is happy behavior in weblogging? Is it the words, or the intent of the words that determines ‘happy’?

I’d rather someone who speaks frequently, bluntly, intent plain to see in their phrases–face to face with those who they would criticize. The words may be negative, but the intent is not to slyly undermine or slay with innuendo–no whispers hidden in honeyed words. No, the intent matches the words. One can then engage, or not; but at a minimum, one is given that option.

The person who speaks softly, all bright yellows and sunshine glee, all the while they look out at you from the corners of their eyes–to all appearances, they are happy. Oh, look at them! They are so happy! Yet they can take your energy more quickly than the harshest critic, leaving you frustrated, and discouraged.

They are human heat sinks.

Both Kathy and Robert have a habit of indirectly referencing what others write without directly letting their readers know the source. To all intents and purposes, they’re moderating the discussion, not just their comments. More importantly, they use ‘good’ words, but it has a negative intent. They may say they do this because they don’t want to engage the negative people. If this is so, then why do they continue to engage the negative people?

Enough time and energy spent on this discussion. More than enough.

Jeneane who is rather blunt in her writing had this to say in comments at Kathy’s:

So, let’s get real: Moderate for spam, anonymous, and annoying commenters, and take the heat for whom you delete.

Puffing it up as some grand step toward a better life is just a little bit unbelievable.

Okay, I’m off to meditate.

Categories
Weblogging

Eat the red couch

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

You know the nice thing about being a woman in weblogging, especially if you frequent the ‘weblogging as topic’ or technology lists, is that no one listens to you anyway, so you can damn well say what you want. The guys, on the other hand, take it all way too seriously because they’re listened to–well, if they’ve learned how to ‘pump the tire’, so to speak, they are–and they want to go down as someone wise, with it, and prescient.

I read in Dave Rogers weblog his quote from Shel Israel’s take on what Nick Carr had to say on innocent fraud:

The other thought is that maybe you should reflect on just quitting your blog. You don’t like the blogosphere. You certainly don’t seem to like those of us who are dedicating lives and energy to its promotion, and–don’t be offended by this Nick–we really won’t miss you a whole lot if you just sit down and shut up.

Now, I could respond in depth, like I’ve responded elsewhere this week, hopefully with something learned sounding and impressive but then I thought: why waste my time? Why not just have some fun, and say whatever the hell I want and we’ll all have a giggle, which is probably a lot better use of our time anyway.

So, here’s a brain teaser: what sentences can you derive from the following words: Shel Israel, blog evangelist, naked conversationist, tells Nick Carr to sit down shut up.

Here’s my first:

Shel Israel is a doo-doo bird

Pretty good, eh? I have more. For instance, here’s one that’s a nod for Mr. Seth FinkLEStein, in honor of him being subscribed (”OHMIGOD I’m subscribed!”) by Mr. Israel, blog evangelist:

Shel Israel is a doo-doo bird

I know, am I hot or what?

Nick Douglas, in comments, threatens to wag these boys’ valley because this whole thing is SO ONE DAY OLD. Since he’s been so damn good this week, with this and this, and oh god, I loved this, I have one just for him:

Shel Israel is a doo-doo bird

I know, my Mom said I had a cunning way with words.

La Shawn Barber manages to convert ANY topic into an anti-liberal rant, usually sprinkled equally with comments of faith and the virtues of a Darwinian philosophy of survival of the pricks. This, is especially for her:

Shel Israel is a doo-doo bird

You’re applauding, aren’t you? I can hear you. You love it, don’t you? You want more. Well…

Ethan, long time masochistic follower of the Bb Gun, also wrote on the whole innocent fraud thing. Being as he’s not attending Mike Arrington’s party tonight (”What? Why not? Everyone who is anyone will be there. Well, maybe not people in North Dakota. And Nick Douglas. And probably not Nick Carr.”) because he just attended FugIT, deserves one of his own:

Shel Israel is a doo-doo bird

Stop it! Stop it! You’re making me blush! A girl can handle only so many compliments. OK, OK, one or two more.

Lance, you’re A-List. And Shel?

Shel Israel is a doo-doo bird

Kent Newsome author of the shot heard round, well, the block tracks much of this including a comment by Hugh MacLeod, who has been mean again. Bad, bad, Hugh. If you don’t stop, we’re going to make you drink that wine you keep hawking.

Newsome points to (and writes some damn fine comments in) the original post that seems to have started this latest, where the author tells Seth to stop wallowing in his disillusionment. Survival of the pricks, indeed.

Kent, this one is just for you:

Shel Israel is a doo-doo bird

I better stop now, or you’re going to hurt yourself, laughing at my brilliant and witty sentence reconstructions. Time for you to have fun. Feel free to drop your gems in the comments; or in the pond, wrapped around a rock, if you prefer. Whatever you do, don’t sit down, and don’t shut up.

Have a happy weekend. Do something real.

Categories
Diversity History

What a wonderful treat

Monthly I get a fresh batch of downloads at eMusic. I don’t have the largest plan–the most I can download is 20 at a time. Usually this is enough for an album with maybe a few experimental downloads from unfamiliar groups. I think it will be years before I manage all the jazz downloads I want.

Last weekend when I went looking, I found an incredible collection: the complete works for Ella Fitzgerald when she was recording with the Decca label. The British label JSP is re-releasing a mix, and it includes probably some of her finest singing.

I’m not sure which is my favorite; probably “Baby, it’s Cold Outside”, with Louie Jordan. No, perhaps it’s “Black Coffee”. I can’t tell — it’s one good song after another. And quality, too. No scratches, good faithful reproductions.

I listened to it last weekend while I walked, and lost myself in another era–my favorite era. I softshoed past the cardinal, the titmouse, and the robins, while they looked on in seeming interest. No one else was about, of course. I’m only insane when I’m alone.

I would give anything to have been born in the 1920’s. Yes, there was the Depression, but whether it was because of the Depression or despite it, this was a time rich with exploration and strength–even for women. Especially for women.

Back in the 1920’s, 30’s, 40’s, a strong woman was someone to be looked up to and admired. Jean Harlow, Joan Crawford, Katherine Hepburn, Virginia Woolf, Elizabeth Taylor, Eleanor Roosevelt. You could be a feminist without having to carefully explain to the guys around you that it really didn’t mean you wanted to emasculate them. These women were honorary man feminists according to Lenore Levine. I don’t particularly agree with this designation, but I do like her description of today’s Nicey-Poo feminism:

Nicey-Poo Feminists have taken the sensible idea that women should be supportive of other women, and distorted it almost out of recognition. That is, Nicey-Poo Feminists believe that feminism means never saying anything controversial (at least in their own circles), and never saying anything about another woman that isn’t nice.

Nicey-Poo Feminism has been promoted by the new new Ms. (post-1990). This magazine is afraid to print anything which any segment of their audience might find offensive. After all, if they actually said anything mischievous or funny, their circulation might increase. (A fate they seem determined to avoid at all costs.)

The clothing of that long ago time reflected the personalities of the women. Many of the suits were tailored, severe, with padded shoulders and angular lines. The women who wore them seemed unbending in their resolve–determined and capable. Yet the gowns were fragile and light, and flowed behind the woman as she glided with exquisite grace and femininity across the dance floor. And the hats–I can only wish for a hat with a net dropping down to teasingly cover half my face; me peeping out through the netting in a move both coy and bold–we just can’t do this today. Butt cracks peeking out from pants too low is not the same.

During this time, women fought for and won the vote, admission to college, and demanded entry in fields normally restricted to the men. These were not quiet women, willing to demurely wait for someone else to pave the way. But they weren’t all of a kind–they couldn’t be classified as ‘feminist’ and ‘mother’, because many were both. And more. What extraordinary set of events happened to make women into what we were during this time? And what can we do now, to re-capture it?

If I was born in the 1920’s, I would have been in my late teens and early 20’s during World War II. I would like to think I would have volunteered to serve–as a pilot, surveyor, or radio person. Who knows? Maybe I would have been Rosie the Riveter.

Anyway, these were my thoughts while listening to Ella. It’s a rare collection of songs that can completely repaint your world.

Categories
Weblogging

I’m right I’m right I’m right

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Jeneane, writing at Blogher:

I’d like to see some kind of system where I have the say, but readers can overrule me if I’m being hardheaded. Maybe I could tag a comment as “troll” or “flaming asshole” but Shelley might come along and tag it as “valid point” or “shut up and listen for once.” At which point I could tag her comment as “point taken,” or “i’m right i’m right i’m right!”

She mentions that Scoble is moderating his comments. I couldn’t tell, as I seem to incapable of accessing either his feed or his site. But I checked the feed in Bloglines, which does have it cached, and read this:

One of my most memeorable conversations, though, was with Buzz Bruggeman, CEO of ActiveWords and a good friend. He told me to hang around people who are happy. And I realized I had been listening to too many people who were deeply unhappy and not bringing any value into my life. He told me to listen to this recording on NPR about “finding happiness in a Harvard Classroom.” He also told me about the four agreements, which are Don Miguel Ruiz’s code for life. Good stuff.

Yes, I am now approving every comment here. And I will delete any that don’t add value to either my life or the lives of my readers.

I’m reminded of the Sylvestor Stallone movie, Demolition Man, and the people who only wanted to think happy-happy thoughts. The term vacuous comes to mind.

Robert brings many of his own problems on himself. He’s very skilled at enticing emotion–and then stepping back acting all hurt and seemingly confused when he gets exactly what he’s after; and what feeds his machine.

Most of us are happy to get comments, period. I certainly would not discourage any commenter here by arbitrarily deleting their writing because I don’t perceive them to be ‘happy’ people, or because the person disagrees with me, even strongly. I suppose then I would have to only post happy writings, and we can see from the lack of comments on all these posts how much interest they are to folks.

A storm is rolling in fast, and we’re under a tornado watch. Before that, this last week has been hot and mild. I should prefer the mild weather, but I awaken and come alive during the storm. I know the devastation of thunderstorms and tornadoes, but I still find the storms to be fascinating.

We are attracted to sound and fury. It is the nature of our beast. If you want only happy-happy, enjoy the solitude.

(Note, I’m not linking to Scoble’s post. I don’t know that I would consider this post ‘happy’. I wouldn’t want this post to show up up in his referrers and trick him into reading something that isn’t ‘happy’.)

Categories
Social Media

Scrambled eggs

It’s Easter morning where I am. The storms of last night were mild in our area, and the sun is up, the birds singing, and a nice breeze blowing through my windows. The trees are mostly green, except for the dogwood, with it’s pink and white dog tooth blooms.

If I were a Christian, I would end my post here, because it is Easter, after all. Oh, I might mention the bunnies running around earlier. Since I’m not a Christian, and weblogging is neither all Christian (or any other religion) nor all based in the US, one can continue on as usual despite this holiday or that. Well, other than one can’t order any camera equipment for this week. (And I so wanted that 600mm.) I wish now, though, that I’d bought a new spring outfit. I always used to buy a light yellow outfit for Easter. Yellow is not my color, but I only wanted yellow for Easter. Go figure.

Sam Ruby pointed to a Matt Mullenweg post titled, The Feed Validator is Dead to Me. It seems that Sam et al at the Validator made a correction in how the case is treated for wfw:commentRSS. This, in turn, led to Matt’s rejection of all things Validator:

Is anyone else sick and tired of the so-called feed validator changing its mind on fundamental issues every other week? I’m sure Sam Ruby and whoever else is still working on the Validator mean well, but the constant ivory tower decisions to change the way it interpets “valid RSS 2.0″ is making it seem more like a political advocacy tool than anything else. Perhaps I should give the benefit of the doubt and “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

Whoa! It is just such tirades that make me hesitant about porting back to WordPress. It’s not that the software isn’t good — I like it. Or that the developers aren’t hardworking–they are, and I appreciate their hard work. It’s that Matt has a real strong arbitrary streak himself, all the while that he disdains what he perceives to be an arbitrary streak in others. This inconsistency tends to grip my graw, as we used to say back in the home country.

Hey, I’m all for arbitrary, but not in my tech. I want my tech to be mind numbingly consistent. I don’t want the developers of Firefox’s JavaScript engine to suddenly decide that wouldn’t it be fun to process all math operations in Firefox as base 8 rather than base 10 by default.

A technology validator’s primary purpose is to validate against a known specification or standard: no more, no less. If the specification or standard is open for interpretation, then the results may not be consistent against various implementations. If a feed specification or standard is clearly defined so that there are no ambiguities, then neither Sam nor anyone else can make any form of arbitrary decision as to what the validator will, and will not, accept. There would be no issue of personalities, because either the feed is valid, or it’s not.

It’s the same with code: either a PHP program is written using valid PHP, or it breaks. I would expect that someone who has spent time with WaSP, as Matt has, would understand this one. After all, I seem to remember this organization’s intolerance to Mozilla’s growing pains back in the days when this effort was fairly young. As for myself, I have finally taken WaSP’s message to heart–so much so that I want my syndication feed to be without ambiguities, and valid.

I know, same old story: the syndication ‘wars’ continue, in which case most of you turn away in ennui. The thing is, I don’t think many of you realize how fragile the whole syndication thing is. When you have imprecise specifications, undergoing change from many different players, the whole thing is held together by a thread. The only reason it’s worked to this point is that most feed aggregators include code to handle all the many arbitrary differences. Frankly, who this serves, I have no idea: I think it’s an abysmal waste of development skill and time.

I’m more or less deciding to drop my RSS 1.x feed, primarily because I can incorporate my use of RDF into many other applications. I’ve never thought that syndication was the best use of RDF, and to too many people, it is RDF (as witness WordPress use of RDF to signal an RSS 1.0 feed, rather than rss1, which would be more appropriate). I’m thinking of making my full content Atom feed my main feed and removing the username/password, as some folk have had problems with this. I figure if my content ends up being re-published in its entirety at another site without my permission, I’ll then handle it the way it should be handled: by using my skill with tech to demonstrate to the site the error of its ways.

The Atom feed is the only feed I know of currently being actively supported by an organization outside of this environment. Support for RSS 1.x seems to have died out. RSS 2.0 is doomed to be forever broken because of an ill-advised assignment of the specification to an organization that seems to be indifferent to the problems associated with it. Okay, fine. Atom: one and only.

Still, I’m not sure how redirecting my feed of one type to another will work. Will have to try, see what happens.

But to return to the concept of arbitrariness, when I do have the time to finish porting back to WP, then I know I’ll be committed to spending time having to create plugins countering some of this arbitrariness. That’s okay, I can publish the plugins; a developer likes to see her work used by others.

As for the syndication feed Validator, frequent changes are perhaps not the best approach when it comes to what the Validator will or will not accept–I would suggest those maintaining the Validator consider a Fix Friday, once or twice a month, preceded by a note about what will change. No need to add to the chaos.

Oh and for those of faith: Happy Easter, May your Passover be a happy time with your families.

My goodness, Bloglines is really broken. It absolutely refuses to acknowledge a new syndication feed URL. If it isn’t in the repository, it literally doesn’t believe it exists. Luckily I’ve been making a move to Newsgator to manage my feeds between my different machines.