However, as far as I can tell she only posted as a reader - simply coming up with a question about context for the article you linked to - and a legitimate one, which could be translated as "why do you think this is relevant? How is what this person writes insightful or otherwise significant?" Since you were kind enough to post this diary with a link to BHL's text, you obviously have an opinion on the subject and think it is worth sharing. So the question was simply, as far as I can see, why this is.
Now you may not have the time or the desire to respond, but please do not go off telling people to go do their own research on a topic you started and where they simply react (politely) to what you wrote or linked to. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Your reply is not appreciated when looked at in the context of the petty comments which have nothing to do with the reason of the post in the first place.
When I have to worry about whether or not I have given enough information in my diary to satisfy the readers; it defeats the purpose of my diary. If you have a tough time grasping this concept; I suggest you provide what you consider to be the guidelines to what you consider a constructive diary should be. Of course then you will be imposing your beliefs which would be counter to the purpose of this site. Anotherwards; be thankful someone is posting a legitimate diary and enough with the petty comments which are not constructive in the least.
Perhaps you can tell us what makes you an arbiter here? When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
the comment was derisive of the nature of the diary.
No it was not. That you take it as such only says something about you, not about the comment or about Fran.
All the comments above were legitimate responses to your "Why not do your own homework!!!" reply which was completely inappropriate and flippant. There was no aggressivity in Fran's comment, just a question. A reply that stated "I don't really know, but I found the article interesting" would have been fine. Instead, you chose to be contemptuous.
If you have a tough time grasping this concept; I suggest you provide what you consider to be the guidelines to what you consider a constructive diary should be.
As afew posted above, the answer to that question is explicitly in the site guidelines. Let me quote them for you:
If you want to post a diary, first think about whether your thoughts are a good fit for a diary topic. Somebody recently opined that you shouldn't put up a diary unless you'd put about an hour's time into writing it. That may be excessive. But you should be prepared to put in a little more time than a few minutes to make a quality diary entry. If what you want to post isn't worth that kind of time, consider a comment on an open thread or somebody else's diary on the same or similar topic.
So there is no ambiguity there. We won't enforce the rule harshly, but if you post a very short diary and are unwilling to answer even basic questions about it, you cannot expect the community to react kindly. We do have standards.
Of course then you will be imposing your beliefs which would be counter to the purpose of this site.
Well, my beliefs, shared by many on the site, is that the quality of discourse here is something we care about, and that requires both the ability and the willingness to respond to questions without delving into ad hominems.
be thankful someone is posting a legitimate diary and enough with the petty comments which are not constructive in the least.
I am thankful for your diary, even if it falls short of the guidelines, it did open conversation on a ligitimate topic. The only petty comments, unfortunately, were yours. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
If you are not willing to engage on the substance of the matter at hand, perhaps you should stop referring to this as a "diary." There are very few cases in which three sentences should constitute a diary.
I interpreted the original comment by Fran as petty and more concerned with what she perceived as the shortfall of the diary than the diary itself and deserved a reply.
That may be the case, and that may be ok, but when you received several responses telling you that your interpretation was probably too harsh on Fran, you chose to, again, react, haughtily. It is the second reaction, and your unwillingness to acknowledge the very explicit response of the community (4 unambiguous responses to your comment on the slowest day of the week) that made me react.
We can all have different interpretations of things, and that happens a lot here on a site where not everybody is a native English-language speaker and uses the right expression each time. But we should always be ready to give the benefit of the doubt to others. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
However, in this case, you got messages from many people, all telling you the same thing. I know it is hard to acknowledge that one overreacted, but this is something that we do on ET, and that we appreciate - and which contributes to respectful dialogue.
I've tried to acknowledge your points in various comments. I'm sorry you won't see it. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Majority doesn't rule one's thoughts.
You have been incredibly arrogant and rude and have dismissed attempts to explain and discuss with you by yet more arrogance.
There's clearly something you don't get about this place. When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
So go ahead: When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
I don't mind you finding my comment petty or inappropriate - but I do mind the language you used. I don't mind disagreement, but disagreement can stay in a polite frame.
And it would be considerate of you if you could keep in mind that many people here are not native English speaking, so maybe our choice of words is not always correct.
Give us all a break. When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
Fran is not a native English speaker. She posts the Salon every morning (spending a lot of time and effort to do so), so you might have noticed that she is a pillar of the community. She is nice, it shines through all her comments. So it is not surprising that the communoity would be offended at your harsh interpretation of her words.
I've acknowledged that you could interpret her comment differently than it was meant, since you're not a regular. I've responded to your questions about who's an arbiter, and what are the rules here. I've suggested some ways for both sides to back pedal from the early confrontation.
Other members of the community have commented on the substance of the diary.
What else do you want? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Goodnight and Good luck
I'm not claiming my own diaries are literary masterpieces, but if someone raises an issue in the comments, I try to add corrections and updates. Obviously I contribute (however minor my contributions may be) because I enjoy doing so, but if I wasn't prepared to accept some constructive criticism, I'd just let my writings collect dust on my hard drive. "The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde
It was a good link: it belonged in the Salon, but our friend, like me, hadn't read the Guidelines (lesson learnt by me!).
Add the fact that we're "divided by a common language", and this is what we get....
My - very British - thought too :-)
" ... our friend, like me, hadn't read the Guidelines (lesson learnt by me!)."
Me too - I NOW learn you only have to spend about ONE hour on a diary ! CRIKEY! :-)
Perhaps the stubborn arrogance displayed needs our understanding and compassion - after all he is an American :-) Sadly they're not exactly noted for their humility and consideration; here in France I so Often hear American voices rising above those of everyone else (except perhaps the Italians) in restaurants - clearly THEIR conversations are the most important and we'd no doubt benefit from hearing them :-)
I read somewhere that this attitude comes in part from an education system which tends to emphasize positive feedback to boost pupils' self-confidence - while in France the feedback is often highly critical and negative (possibly in French or Foe by Polly Platt, a nice American :-)).
It's a pity that he uses "good night and good luck", Ed Murrow's way of ending his broadcasts, which displayed courage, lots of research, persistence, but not arrogance - like the contributions of so many of our American members - of course :-) Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice. Blog - Nice Experience
While the 'education system emphasized positive feedback to boost my self-confidence' at the age of six; my favorite pet donkey died on our farm. As I was crying over my loss; my father said I shouldn't be too upset because the donkey would come back to life in my later years. I guess it has in the form of the jackass who wrote the clever comment I am replying to :>)
(and sorry for the delay in responding, I was travelling) In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I am saddened by your unprincipled way in which you monitor your site.
It is one thing for me to admonish Fran for what I perceived to be a petty comment but it is quite another for you to ignore personal attacks clothed in sarcasm and then rationalize them as side disputes.
Anyway, the standard to judge a comment is not quite the same at the beginning of a thread, when it is an overreaction to something that might be innocuous (or not), than after a 50-comment thread of "vigorous" discussion, where you generated, rightly or wrongly, a lot of hostility from several posters.
You chose to feel insulted by Fran's innocent question/request, lashed out and were unhappy to be called on it. Now you are again choosing to feel smeared here. To which I can only say: choose differently. Then I'll change my standards towards you. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
For regulars here, Fran is a committed treasure of blogging, who never has a harsh word for anyone - only queries. It is not surprising that some Don Quixotes (and if Daily Tossers are called Kossaks, then why shouldn't we be called Quixotes?), would rise gallantly to her defence. We ET males are, mostly, gentlemen.
I think both sides were unaware of the two-sided context of misunderstanding. I suggest that we draw a line under it and begin again. You can't be me, I'm taken
I only bring this up , not because I am offended by his comment ( I have much harder skin than to worry about a 'toff' like Ted) but to expose the double standard which you seem to modrate the site by. Your rationale of his comment being the 50th and not the 1st is not valid. Personal character assasination should not be tolerated at any time.
He should have been told this and possibly have his posting of his photographs suspended from appeaing on the site for a month with the exception of those photographs of his wife :-)
