tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post4380571506185569935..comments2023-07-15T04:20:16.543-05:00Comments on Almost Diamonds: Unsolicited Advice for Maintaining the Appearance of Ethics OnlineStephanie Zvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15182490110208080002noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-23853188298290909962009-02-23T07:04:00.000-06:002009-02-23T07:04:00.000-06:00Isis, it can certainly feel as though I'm pulling ...Isis, it can certainly feel as though I'm pulling some of that down, even from people I respect and admire, but all in all, I think the task is that important.Stephanie Zvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15182490110208080002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-62319780431582541492009-02-23T06:19:00.000-06:002009-02-23T06:19:00.000-06:00On the Internet, nobody knows you're a microbe.On the Internet, nobody knows you're a microbe.gregladenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13934749780421265510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-69163984379993430572009-02-22T23:14:00.000-06:002009-02-22T23:14:00.000-06:00Vivir con mierda, es como vivir la mediadora.Vivir con mierda, es como vivir la mediadora.Isis the Scientisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13330006497489235490noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-48392575143871677642009-02-22T22:14:00.000-06:002009-02-22T22:14:00.000-06:00Last anonymous- I am very offended by your comment...Last anonymous- I am very offended by your comment! The nerve of liking this whole brew-ha-ha to unicellular organism stuff. I'll have you know unicellular organisms were around before you were ever complaining on teh internet, and in fact the vast majority of the history of life on earth is the history of unicellular organisms. They are fascinating and diverse critters, and they probably have more biochemical genetic diversity in a handful of sand than you will ever perform in your life! So there!<BR/>Neener neener, haha!<BR/>/absurd microbiologist gut-reflex defensive posturingBeccahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15356974556397009124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-34923818215243291182009-02-18T18:58:00.000-06:002009-02-18T18:58:00.000-06:00PZ, it's not me, it's Nintendo.PZ, it's not me, it's Nintendo.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-18126251813954830502009-02-18T18:22:00.000-06:002009-02-18T18:22:00.000-06:00But, PZ, if you're not watching, how did you...ooh...But, PZ, if you're not watching, how did you...ooh, you're good.Stephanie Zvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15182490110208080002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-74860695945111730972009-02-18T17:38:00.000-06:002009-02-18T17:38:00.000-06:00PZ and Chuck Norris are watching: It is easy to th...<I>PZ and <B>Chuck Norris</B> are watching: It is easy to think you've got something so right that everyone else will agree with you when they see it. But you usually don't, and yes, they are observing. </I><BR/><BR/>You have just associated me with a notorious moron on the internet! I am offended!<BR/><BR/>Besides, I'm not watching, anyway.PZ Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10911078800554129822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-70423892916355486772009-02-18T16:58:00.000-06:002009-02-18T16:58:00.000-06:00LOL Stephanie! Thanks for the permission.LOL Stephanie! Thanks for the permission.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-41411814282332626162009-02-17T19:59:00.000-06:002009-02-17T19:59:00.000-06:00Barn Owl, do you know, that particular viewpoint n...Barn Owl, do you know, that particular viewpoint never even occurred to me? Thanks.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous, you have my permission.Stephanie Zvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15182490110208080002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-5210607301270339172009-02-17T19:38:00.000-06:002009-02-17T19:38:00.000-06:00I read Greg's blog from time to time and find it a...I read Greg's blog from time to time and find it a bit obscure. I read Isis's post where she felt insulted with only vague interest -(at least the picture of being an annoying girl at high school was one I could understand) and found Janet's blog on the topic of communication somewhat interesting. What has evolved in other spheres since just seems very self obsessed. On an evolutionary scale, it counts in my book as unicellular organism stuff. I'd like to move on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-44365028420522063172009-02-17T18:14:00.000-06:002009-02-17T18:14:00.000-06:00From the unsolicited advice post:I don't know what...From the unsolicited advice post:<BR/><BR/><I>I don't know what's in your heart. I don't know what's in your mind. I don't have direct access to either of those (because I'm a distinct person from you)</I><BR/><BR/>My first response is "Well, DUH"; we aren't toddlers, and should be beyond the sort of magical thinking that allows one to believe in one's omniscience.<BR/><BR/>So why, then, are apparent claims or assumptions of omniscience and mind-reading ("Blogger A believes that ....", "Commenter B has no experience with ...", "Dissenting Voice C can't possibly understand this ..." "Concern Troll D is an uneducated moron", etc.) so common in teh blogospherz? <BR/><BR/>If you (in the generic sense) don't know what's in my heart or in my mind (and you don't), <I>stop pretending that you do</I>.Barn Owlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17150912499986780927noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-1118184104803334892009-02-17T09:31:00.000-06:002009-02-17T09:31:00.000-06:00I am sorry about that, Samia.I am sorry about that, Samia.Stephanie Zvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15182490110208080002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-69288830247753821212009-02-17T09:23:00.000-06:002009-02-17T09:23:00.000-06:00Jeez. I feel like shit after reading these commen...Jeez. I feel like shit after reading these comments.Samiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11434039760505116696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-48953634607640217232009-02-16T22:38:00.000-06:002009-02-16T22:38:00.000-06:00Any discussion should continue here.Any discussion should continue <A HREF="http://almostdiamonds.blogspot.com/2009/02/ironies.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.Stephanie Zvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15182490110208080002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-20411039864278726122009-02-16T12:30:00.000-06:002009-02-16T12:30:00.000-06:00Rule 1: There are no rules.Rule 2: See rule one.Rule 1: There are no rules.<BR/><BR/>Rule 2: See rule one.gregladenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13934749780421265510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-50551343022158162342009-02-16T11:57:00.000-06:002009-02-16T11:57:00.000-06:00Bless you, Anonymous #whatever-you-are. You win th...Bless you, Anonymous #whatever-you-are. You win the internet.Stephanie Zvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15182490110208080002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-17175522523403514872009-02-16T11:47:00.000-06:002009-02-16T11:47:00.000-06:00Individuals making rules for discourse seems unavo...Individuals making rules for discourse seems unavoidable. Janet is making rules. Stephanie is making rules in the OP. Your comment above, Greg, is making rules. "There are no rules" is a rule.<BR/><BR/>How about actually communicating, instead of quibbling over who is doing it your way? A conversation doesn't need a winner.<BR/><BR/>But I guess that's just another rule.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-57130155456234497052009-02-16T07:59:00.000-06:002009-02-16T07:59:00.000-06:00I am being asked to look at and respond to Becca's...I am being asked to look at and respond to Becca's comment. As Stephanie has noted, I am mostly staying out of this discussion.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the Wii post, I can't really address what Becca is asking here because I'm not absolutely sure what is meant in her question. Becca, have you not found or not read the "veiled metaphor" post or did you read it but feel you missed the point? <BR/><BR/>Here's a few guidelines to get a reader through some of the metaphors. <BR/><BR/>1) PZ and Chuck Norris are watching: It is easy to think you've got something so right that everyone else will agree with you when they see it. But you usually don't, and yes, they are observing. <BR/><BR/>2) Teamwork references are not metaphors: Teamwork and loyalty are good.<BR/><BR/>3) To the maker of the rules go the spoils. Which sucks. Question authority or attempted authority. I've often felt that when I see someone coming at me with rules and descriptions of how things are<BR/>supposed to be, those rules and descriptions are at least in part self serving no matter how 'fair' or well thought out they may sound.<BR/><BR/>The above are run of the mill social interaction/human behavior lessons. <BR/><BR/>4) I think the coolest metaphor from Mario Kart Wii is the bumping. You may have to actually go play the game in duo with another human being to really appreciate this. Two people are each steering a virtual race car down a road, and they are pretty close to each other. One drifts into the other by accident, then steers away. But these Karts tend to oscillate back and forth, so that kart ends up bumping into the neighbor two, three, or four times in a row simply because it got close.<BR/><BR/><BR/>The thing is, that on screen, you will see Mario in one kart and Donkey Kong in the other kart waving their fists at each other, clearly intentionally steering into each other, an generally trying to drive each other off the road. But really, all the human drivers of the virtual race cars were doing was driving down the street and got a little close.<BR/><BR/>The person who sees the screen and interprets this as a certain sequence of events will likely get it wrong. They get it wrong because they don't know what they are seeing, or how to interpret it, because of a bias built into the system, but they don't even know about the bias.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I do have to say that I am a little disappointed with the assertion that most of the effort in making a communication happen is in the hands of the producer of the communication. I am very much in agreement with Janet about the importance of thinking about the audience when one writes. However, once the writer has written, the range of things that can happen is much less in the writer's control than one might imply from Janet's missive. <BR/><BR/>What is missing in the argument are the myriad characteristics of the reader or the context of the reading, such as ignorance, predisposition, willful misinterpretation, cultural or linguistic differences between writer and reader, contexts shifting with alternate viewpoints, time, space, and the common phenomenon of the reader being a third party sent to a piece of text with an idea of what it means handed off to them first ("here, my friend, go read this Bible passage and learn how you have just sinned..."). <BR/><BR/>One has to consider, and is often free to ask about, the reason someone is writing something. The guidelines laid out by Janet seem to partly obviate the need to ask the reader a similar question or to wonder about or to recognize ambiguity or limitations in oneself, skipping right to judgment. Indeed, Janet, Isis and Physiprof, all of whom make valuable contributions to the discussion in so many important areas, and who are very different from each other in their on-line style, seem to have this one characteristic in common: They like to make or convey judgment as a central theme in the conversations they maintain. Janet's post is a friend of the court brief justifying this. Stephanie (in the OP) seems to be questioning the validity brief. I have not really questioned it; I simply reject it as inadequate and ill motivated. It is rule making (see thinly veiled metaphor) couched in an argument about communication that ignores a lot of what is known (see thinly veiled metaphor) about how people actually communicate. Again, as advice for writers it may be good, it is not a basis for valid judgment a priori or, as it is being used here, post hoc.<BR/><BR/>Becca, if you want, please feel free to expand/clarify on your<BR/>question.gregladenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13934749780421265510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-54468392510044423612009-02-15T23:14:00.000-06:002009-02-15T23:14:00.000-06:00Thank you very much. I'm going to bed now (essent...Thank you very much. I'm going to bed now (essentially, first time in two days) ... back at you tomorrow. <BR/><BR/>I will say, Stephanie, that this is quite an amazing post you've written. Truly, an internet ethnographers wet dream as implied by the first commenter.gregladenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13934749780421265510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-21779655791965619722009-02-15T22:51:00.000-06:002009-02-15T22:51:00.000-06:00Stephanie, please delete the previous comment beca...Stephanie, please delete the previous comment because I want to rewrite it.gregladenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13934749780421265510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-63057094959892290162009-02-15T22:19:00.000-06:002009-02-15T22:19:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-16952741004965449982009-02-15T21:11:00.000-06:002009-02-15T21:11:00.000-06:00Becca, I'm fairly sure I know what Greg meant, but...Becca, I'm fairly sure I know what Greg meant, but...Greg, want to clarify? (Okay, I'm cheating and sending him an email too, since he said he'd be staying out of this.)<BR/><BR/>Hey, Eva! Thanks for stopping by the blog. I just wish the occasion had been happier. I appreciate that sigh more than you can know.<BR/><BR/>Dude, snog means something totally different. Much more fun.<BR/><BR/>Liz, as much as I like Greg, I think you failed the irony test.Stephanie Zvanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15182490110208080002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-40695876397512890672009-02-15T18:47:00.000-06:002009-02-15T18:47:00.000-06:00Greg = teh rad!!!!!Janet = ten bad.Greg = teh rad!!!!!<BR/><BR/>Janet = ten bad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-64340035784780347872009-02-15T18:44:00.000-06:002009-02-15T18:44:00.000-06:00snog: snarky blog(may wonders never cease)snog: snarky blog<BR/><BR/>(may wonders never cease)DDedenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10033851770461086341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38764987.post-25833916749798409202009-02-15T17:20:00.000-06:002009-02-15T17:20:00.000-06:00I read Janet's post and did recognize that there s...I read Janet's post and did recognize that there seemed to be something that triggered it, but I didn't know what it was. And didn't care either, to be honest. I couldn't be bothered to read the whole thread of affairs you posted here, but I do appreciate that it is somewhere to be found, because the feeling of being out of the loop is probably worse than being out of the loop itself.<BR/><BR/>This *is* probably very much coloured by who gets along with who, that's true. But even so, as someone who gets along very well with Janet I do agree with you that her post could have done with an acknowledgment to what set it off. I left a comment there as well with some more chatter in it about online discourse in general, of which I'll copy/paste the last paragraph below for double enjoyment! =P<BR/><BR/>Sigh. So, I have to give a talk in a couple of weeks about why blogging isn't catching on among scientists, and this is just one of these things. The whole tiny little village atmosphere of "they said this, and he said that, and she did this". It's mentally exhausting and time consuming and I wish it wasn't that way, but at the same time I know it's unavoidable. Throw a huge group of people together and you'll get all the things that come with human interaction - even if it's from behind a computer screen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com