4/24/09
After the last entry in the exchange to follow I sat at my computer and thought about what it was saying about the individual who made it, a blogger who refers to himself as Paleo Pat [Later: see note] and provides some information about himself [Later: I had a link here to "AboutMe" but the page is now quite different] - little that would distinguish him from several dozen (at least) other male individuals in the general location in which he states he lives.
This was the first time I had gone to that web blog, a result of a clip on a particular entry included in a e-newsletter I receive daily. I thought it was a reasonable place to make a comment that related to my own newly published article on the same general topic of anti-tax protesting.
My initial comment is listed as 10:41pm 4/19/09
------------------------
Organized protests and email/petition actions in the US (and elsewhere) in regard to high government taxes and/or various regulations are plentiful with the aid of the Internet. But this type of activism is insufficient to towards the goal of a "better" society. A strong relationship of individual self-responsibility to social order exists and needs to be understood, and then individual self-responsibility practiced. My latest article at OpEdNews.com Tax/Regulation Protests Are Not Enough
I frequently have articles published at OpEdNews.com because it *is* a "progressive" news site and, while many there have some of the wrong ideas of how to get to and even in some ways what constitutes a better society, I am highly confident that all writers and commenters there really do want one. I think that there can be inroads made by reaching out beyond the "choir" with this view of those who do not currently hold some of the same views by finding some foundational common points. I am pleased that the managing editor, after rereading and reconsidering, moved my submission from a diary entry to which she had downgraded it, to a headlined article for April 17 2009.
--------------Paleo Pat April 19th, 2009 at 11:59 pm - Reply
I agree, sorta.
----------------------------Reply to blogger's comment 4/19/09
Without stating on what you do and do not agree of what I wrote here and/or in my article at OpEdNews.com, your 3 word reply, "I agree, sorta" is vacuous and vacillating. Neither is appropriate for a person who is trying to convince others of the rightness of certain ideas - the purpose of your blog I have assumed. So, make it public with what you do not agree of what I wrote *and* why - that would be saying something on which others can make an assessment.
------------------Reply from blogger Paleo Pat April 20th, 2009 at 1:17 am - Reply
Easy Killer! I was referring to Op-Ed News.
Boy, make a comment and someone takes your head off... . Wow.
Meaning, I don't like them, nor would I submit something there, although, I did once, and it was accepted. Mostly though, I tend to believe that Op-Ed news is not even remotely a place that Free-Market Values are even respected, much less appreciated.
My reply to blogger listed as posted at 10:12pm 4/23/09:
------------------
<< Easy Killer! I was referring to Op-Ed News.
Boy, make a comment and someone takes your head off... . Wow. <<
Pat, I have no "Killer" tendencies. I do however, make clear statements when pointing out when someone has made a weak response to me. But in no way was my reply a "take your head off" type. Maybe your reply is a result of very often looking for problem commenters where there are none.
<< Meaning, I don't like them,<<
So if I understand you, your original comment, "I agree, sorta", now has become "I don't like them". .... This is very confusing to say the least. By what process did you go from the one to the other? And further, to this "I don't like them", my reply is "why not?" And please be specific as to what you object and why, since that would be the only meaningful answer.
<< nor would I submit something there, although, I did once, and it was accepted. Mostly though, I tend to believe that Op-Ed news is not even remotely a place that Free-Market Values are even respected, much less appreciated.<<
The point of publishing at OpEdNews.com, as I have stated elsewhere, is to reach beyond the "choir", those who are already or mostly convinced of the superiority of voluntary trade to mutual benefit, which necessarily is without interference from outside parties, those not agreed to by the trading individuals. I am convinced that the vast majority of those contributing articles and/or comments at OEN are desirous of a better society, though most do not understand how to achieve or even what constitutes the optimal society.
BTW, your blog has a block to check for notification of follow-up comments by email - but it did not work for your comment to which I am now responding after being curious and checking back myself.
Reply to above:
Paleo Pat
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:46 pm - Reply
I'm not interested in debating with you. Sorry!
Don't know why the mail notification thing doesn't work. Works for others.
and please, don't try to bait me into a argument. Else I will ban you.
I can sure see from the above why observations are made by many (in writing and verbally) that a great number (?majority?) of bloggers do not have anything really substantive to say - they just like to complain, or "rant" in the current vernacular. Interesting how this individual "Paleo Pat", turned the request for a substantive answer into some sort of challenge issued for a "debate". He was the one who responded to my original posted message, with, "I aggree, sorta." -- which gave almost no information at all. When asked by me to put some substance into that 3 word reply, I get accused of being "Killer"...... Now I read that as being highly defensive of a position that was being shown to be weak and he did not like that being made public.
So when I calmly but clearly point out his illogical retort and then ask for his reasoning within his later response where he said "I don't like them", he responds with more avoidance and defense. If he didn't mean my recommendations and writing, when he wrote, "Meaning, I don't like them", but rather something else, he didn't make that at all clear. And he had every opportunity to clarify himself as to what he liked and didn't like about what *I* wrote, not the site on which it was published. However, he chose not to, but rather to shut me off by threatening to "ban" me from his blog - again with the insinuation that anything I might say would be attempted "bait" for an "argument". What a shame that this individual - like a great number of others who take up lots of bandwidth on the Internet - view any reminder that only reasoned discussion (one of the original definitions of the word "argument") has benefit for human interaction as the equivalent of a physical attack ("Killer"). Paleo Pat does not show himself to be a truly reasoning individual at all, simply one with a lot of gall and anger - plus a lot of time on his hands to put out a daily (often more than once daily) blog. So much for his 3rd to last "Love" on his "about" page: "Intelligent Conversation". But then the very next listed item is "Pragmatism" - which to me means that he is not really interested in principles at all, simply short term actions, even if they violate principles.
And I really have to laugh at his last stated "Love": "People that are Unique and Intriguing". With his approach he won't attract anyone who thinks outside the current thinking box defined by several other of his "Loves":
This list negates his ability to recognize the appearance of any "unique" people, and those who do appear - like me - he would not find "intriguing" because they do challenge his closely held ideas of what is going to promote a "better society".
Lastly, Paleo Pat's last 3 items on his list of "Hates" says a lot about him too:
These are all items he can modify. They are under his control - even the last one with respect to the negative aspects of age if not the passage of time. But then he's very unlikely to come to that understanding or learn how because he spends so much time being angry on his web blog *and* threatening to ban someone who could have been a valuable resource. His loss.... At least I got a good Kitty Reflects entry out of this ;>)
After writing all of the above, I decided to make a last comment at this blog entry on April 24th.
Pat. I think we have had a failure to communicate. I sat here at my computer and wondered why you would respond as you did above, threatening to ban me, suggesting that I wanted to "bait [you] into an argument" - despite the fact that the dictionary meaning of argument is "discourse intended to persuade", and I do not (and did not) engage in any other type. I even wrote some to myself about it - a possible entry to my Kitty Reflects on MoreLife.
After 4 complete readings of this exchange I am now concluding that in your second comment you were giving me negative assessments about the *where* of my submitted article, Tax/Regulation Protests Are Not Enough was published, but *nothing* about *what* I wrote (something not at all clear to me by your original brief 3 words), although that is what I had requested. Consequently part of my response is not applicable as written and for this I apologize:
<< So if I understand you, your original comment, "I agree, sorta", now has become "I don't like them". ... This is very confusing to say the least. By what process did you go from the one to the other? And further, to this "I don't like them", my reply is "why not?" And please be specific as to what you object and why, since that would be the only meaningful answer.<<
It's your blog of course and if you do not wish to respond to something a commenter has said/asked (eg. "Without stating on what you do and do not agree of what I wrote here and/or in my article at OpEdNews.com, your 3 word reply, "I agree, sorta" is vacuous and vacillating."), that is always your prerogative. Since you appear to want quick snippet comments/replies from readers to which you make the same type while I seek and am quite willing to make the time for reasoned discussion, I will read and comment elsewhere. Please note that this not "bait", to use your wording, simply a plain reasoned and courteous reply with apology as appropriate included.
No follow-up comment from Paleo Pat shows... Don't know exactly what to make of that except that he apparently had nothing to say in response... But at least he didn't remove it. See the entire exchange and the article preceding the comments.
3/30/10 Note: This entry was written just a week before our yearly northern migration, forgotten and only now rediscovered. The last comment I made at the blog entry is still there with still no further comment by Paleo Pat. Interestingly, the AboutMe page that shows now is dated November 8, 2009, the author going by "Patrick" and that page content is different. (Unfortunately there is no earlier version archived by the "Wayback Machine" of this particular page at his blog.) Hmmm..... Maybe I'll read some of his more recent items to check the style, and content - but not now.
 |
 |