Reading Blogs; why?

There was a bit of an off topic exchange of views of the Cardinal Cahal Daly (RIP) thread between Turgon and ‘The Spectator’. ‘The Spectator revealed that he doesn’t read any of Pete’s threads and consciously avoids debating with Turgon, Turgon seems none too pleased. I would have commented there but I am tied to a cultural respect for the dead.

I have a confession to make. I do not read any of Pete’s entries. I occasionally read Turgon’s entries but to my recollection have not commented there in a long time. Is that wrong? Bad netiquette? There are a number of other commentaters who I do not read anymore either, and I am sure as hell that not everyone reads my ramblings.

Now let me be clear, I do not know Pete nor Turgon, I would probably agree on little with either but that would rarely stop me for reading someones material as I prefer to be reading the views of people I do not agree with.

That is why I read the likes of Slugger, to learn about other people and their views, that and I would normally work with computers and find the television invariably crap. I have no idea why others do but I know they do despite strong denials.

I must also say at this point that when I did debate with Turgon I found him to be a gentleman. The fact that I do not bother with his posts now should be no reflection on that, I simply feel that I have the right to chose how I spend my precious time, a glance at a blog for me is normally simply a quick break from working.

I would hope that no one would at all feel obliged to read my posts, I am of course, somewhat of a one trick pony after all.

Slugger is or should be about exchanging views and learning from other people but perhaps there is a limits on what is of value? Like me, most commentators on Slugger have very strong and set views. Are we by commenting trying to influence others? trying to annoy others? or is it just keyboard screaming?

What is the point in stating and restating set positions?

For example, I am essentially a critical follower of Marx. I am very interested in religons but I would find it rather pointless to debate many things with religous people as their views are based on faith rather than thought.

For example, what is the point in online debating the rights and wrongs of a greater Isreal with someone who believes in the legitmacy of that project simply because that is what it says in their bible? None whatsoever probably, at least not enough to merit taking time of of your work day to do so.

Having read the christian bible, I could venture into a theological discussion, being of the view that Christianity seems to be somewhat of a conspiracy to undermine the teachings of Christ (Seemed a bit of a Palestine Communist to my mind!) but people’s interpretations of the bible (and I have never met anyone who read it in Hebrew) seem to come from their background and upbringing rather than their own reflections.

Likewise, whilst I try and kept and open mind, short of God revealing himself to me and revealing which sect of Christianity is actually on the right path, religous people are highly unlikely to be able influence me with religous arguement.

I suppose the Turgon / Spectator exchange has made me question the value of blogging at all. Once in trying to explain the possible influence of blogging to a doubter I once compared it to trying to change the course of an oil tanker by pushing it with one’s hand, pointless as an individual but perhaps ten thousand hands could change its direction.

Now I am not so sure. Is is new media, or simply a new form of the soap box?

  • Kensei

    Turgon

    We all know what you think of me and I of you. I thought you had given up responding to my comments: you have told me you would on at least four occasions.

    The thing that nags is me is that there is a sensible person that I’d probably enjoy debating with under there. I’d just like you to not go into hissy fits. I know that sounds arrogant, but “polite to some of the commentators?”, even you must see ther silliness of that one.

    I have assidiously avoided debating you on any matters of substance, Turgon. And I’m not the one that stalked across sites. And by the by, I don’t know you and you don’t know me. You’re a random persona on t’internet.

    Mick

    The more I think on it, the more I think there needs to be a two way system. Unparliamentary language should be ruled out of order and the guilty forced to retract or take some timeout or other hit. It should work similarly for those clearly caught out. That keeps the incentives to debate right.

  • Lionel Hutz

    Kensei. Do you think anyone was guilty of that on this thread? Improper language or lies or whatever

  • Kensei

    Lionel

    I leave people to form their own opinions. But it’s not like I haven’t been guilty of it myself on occassion. If house rules were in place and a cultufre of not doing it I’d probably be less likely to do so.

  • Turgon

    kensei,
    I am not going to go into a further round of debate and am trying hard not to play the man. However, since you stated the following I will explain yet again:

    “The thing that nags is me is that there is a sensible person that I’d probably enjoy debating with under there.”

    You misundersatnd: I do not care in the slightest what you think about me or whether you think I am sensible. You know the reasons why I do not debate with you in the manner you wish. I do not ask you to like those reasons or approve of them. You can complain about them but it will not make me debate with you in the fashion which you claim to want. You know full well why that is. You also know how I will continue to treat you.

    However, now is not the time or the place to attack you so I will leave it at that.

  • Kensei

    Turgon

    You misundersatnd: I do not care in the slightest what you think about me or whether you think I am sensible. You know the reasons why I do not debate with you in the manner you wish. I do not ask you to like those reasons or approve of them. You can complain about them but it will not make me debate with you in the fashion which you claim to want. You know full well why that is. You also know how I will continue to treat you.

    I didn’t say you cared. You asked for why I occasionally still address you despite saying I wouldn’t, so I told you. No more.

    I get you like labelling people you disagree with and shouting people down. I don’t know why Mick tolerates it. I’m not entirley sure why you decided to not listen to what I was actually trying to say rather than stating what you wanted to hear regardless of that. The winning thing mystifies me. I don’t always express myself in the best fashion, neither do a lot of people. I simply hope you’ll consider the virtures of openness and patience in your private moments. But you know, your perogative.

  • Lionel Hutz

    Fair enough Kensei

    Turgon, you did it again! Presumptions. But Kensei’s point was similar to the TS made about you. If you didn’t care then you should have just said it and left it at that.

    Over and out