No excuses
I'm well aware that over the past few days I haven't been at the top of my blogging form. There are contributing factors: it has been hot and very humid; I'm new to blogging; ongoing domestic dramas - suffice to say the wife understands RWDB to mean Really Worthless Dead Beat; dental problems – flouride poisoned water was not allowed to impurify my precious bodily fluids as a child; and I'm committed to undertake lots of hours of professional development training after work.
The quality of my posts has suffered. I've become sloppy; not enough effort has gone into editing posts to eliminate unnecessary words. The important thing is I'm aware of the problem. Making excuses isn't going to get me where I want to go. I want to be respected and widely read so I'm going to have to lift my game.
Fortunately, I've remained alert enough not to have posted anything outlandishly stupid – at least I don't think I have. Some of my political blogger adversaries have, however, lost the plot.
As noted several days ago in the post When academics attack, I'm of the opinion that John Quiggin's post The national comparisons game is, well, drivel, especially coming from an economist.
Even though Quiggin is aware of my post taking him to task – he must be, I posted a link to it in his comments section – he refuses to respond. I therefore decided to take my challenge to his comments section. He tried to fob me off by responding with some economist schtick but ignored the essence of my posts.
I persisted with questions for Quiggin but his site suddenly refused to accept further comments. Comments were edited and reedited but rejected. Two changes of email address did not help. Omitting my URL didn't work either. My frustration grew with every failed attempt.
Then I noticed some of my comments, especially the later, more pointed comments, had been omitted from Quiggin's comments section. I sent Quiggin an email asking what was going on. After a few hours, during which time he posted to his site but did not respond to my email, I posted this, claiming that Quiggin had wimped out by blocking my comments.
Quiggin did eventually respond, telling me the comments were rejected by his spam-filtering software. He suggested that if I really wanted to comment at his site I should persist and I'd probably eventually get through. He ignored the question of the disappearing comments.
Somewhere in the midst of this, one of my comments reappeared. I sent off another email to Quiggin asking if my comments had been removed, and one of them later replaced, by his spam-filtering software. He replied that, bizarre as it might seem, this was indeed the case. He also asked that I correct or retract the accusation that he had blocked my comments.
After giving the matter much thought I've decided a correction is not yet warranted. I've invested quite a bit of time and effort in posts, comments, comments that were rejected and comments that were omitted. Quiggin owes me some answers as a common courtesy. Answer the questions that follow – to my satisfaction – and the correction is his:
1. Do you stand by your contention that the article Tim Blair linked to, which is based on a Eurochambers study deriving from the research of Pavle Sicherl, Professor of Economics at the Lubljana University and Founder of SICENTER, was intended to scare?
2. Do you stand by your contention – stated in behind-the-scenes emails – that it was your spam-filtering software, acting without input from you, that blocked my comments, removed a number of my comments and later replaced one of my comments?
No excuses, please.
Oops, almost forgot, for stupidity for which there is no excuse, go here.
The quality of my posts has suffered. I've become sloppy; not enough effort has gone into editing posts to eliminate unnecessary words. The important thing is I'm aware of the problem. Making excuses isn't going to get me where I want to go. I want to be respected and widely read so I'm going to have to lift my game.
Fortunately, I've remained alert enough not to have posted anything outlandishly stupid – at least I don't think I have. Some of my political blogger adversaries have, however, lost the plot.
As noted several days ago in the post When academics attack, I'm of the opinion that John Quiggin's post The national comparisons game is, well, drivel, especially coming from an economist.
Even though Quiggin is aware of my post taking him to task – he must be, I posted a link to it in his comments section – he refuses to respond. I therefore decided to take my challenge to his comments section. He tried to fob me off by responding with some economist schtick but ignored the essence of my posts.
I persisted with questions for Quiggin but his site suddenly refused to accept further comments. Comments were edited and reedited but rejected. Two changes of email address did not help. Omitting my URL didn't work either. My frustration grew with every failed attempt.
Then I noticed some of my comments, especially the later, more pointed comments, had been omitted from Quiggin's comments section. I sent Quiggin an email asking what was going on. After a few hours, during which time he posted to his site but did not respond to my email, I posted this, claiming that Quiggin had wimped out by blocking my comments.
Quiggin did eventually respond, telling me the comments were rejected by his spam-filtering software. He suggested that if I really wanted to comment at his site I should persist and I'd probably eventually get through. He ignored the question of the disappearing comments.
Somewhere in the midst of this, one of my comments reappeared. I sent off another email to Quiggin asking if my comments had been removed, and one of them later replaced, by his spam-filtering software. He replied that, bizarre as it might seem, this was indeed the case. He also asked that I correct or retract the accusation that he had blocked my comments.
After giving the matter much thought I've decided a correction is not yet warranted. I've invested quite a bit of time and effort in posts, comments, comments that were rejected and comments that were omitted. Quiggin owes me some answers as a common courtesy. Answer the questions that follow – to my satisfaction – and the correction is his:
1. Do you stand by your contention that the article Tim Blair linked to, which is based on a Eurochambers study deriving from the research of Pavle Sicherl, Professor of Economics at the Lubljana University and Founder of SICENTER, was intended to scare?
2. Do you stand by your contention – stated in behind-the-scenes emails – that it was your spam-filtering software, acting without input from you, that blocked my comments, removed a number of my comments and later replaced one of my comments?
No excuses, please.
Oops, almost forgot, for stupidity for which there is no excuse, go here.
posted by Anonymous at 2:35 PM |
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home