We hardly ever have "object" diaries, apart from the DoDo train series.
and we need to have more non-financial non-energy stuff. It's not because it's all I can write about that this should be true of the whole site! In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
However, the nature of the reaction I caused does indicate that some subjects are hard to broach. I can write diaries such as the ones i have up at the moment, but these are few and far between. I simply have neither the intellectual or evidence based resources to do these very often.
Yet other sorts of diaries.. we have demonstrated time after time that there is a hostility towards them. I am disinclined to seek the evidence for that although I imagine it will be demanded. But that is mine and others' perception. So they are not written.
It's a silencing tactic, but it works. keep to the Fen Causeway
Yet other sorts of diaries.. we have demonstrated time after time that there is a hostility towards them. I am disinclined to seek the evidence for that although I imagine it will be demanded.
It's completely false to say that "hostility" has been "demonstrated" - even one time - where? But I've learned that it's a bit of a waste of time asking for evidence from those who think their opinion should be enough.
Yet again, I have not seen ANY evidence of "hostility" to diary content itself which is about personal content, or deals with non economic, non energy issues. Sometimes diary discussions go on deal with other kinds of issues from those central to the diarist's concerns. That's not evidence of "hostility" but of the simple fact that people get interested in a variety of issues - though that may annoy some writers of diaries and assumed by them to be motivated by "hostilty". Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
I agree with Helen. There are topics that others might be interested in which get jumped on by people who feel the need to nay-say, very sternly so.
I agree with Helen. In some of those cases, it would be best if they just stayed away. But instead of the critical ones censoring themselves, the writers self-censor.
Notwithstanding, I think that a partial answer might be to figure a way to bring interesting Open Topic threads to the attention of those who only read the Salon. Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.
Frank Delaney ~ Ireland
Indeed, but not for anything I wrote in my somewhat personal travel diaries, for example. The only thing which fits your description is the "jumping on" by the one doing the complaining here. But I still maintain that nobody, as far as I'm aware, expressed "hostility", certainly not to the personal content of a diary, while discussions may have to led to the expression of scepticism (not the same as "hostility") about some of the more general issues raised. In Wales did a personal diary about "woo woo" stuff (her borrowed label) and seemed happy with the wide-ranging discussion. The Lasthorseman included some pretty far out stuff in his recent diary, but because it was a very personal diary everybody tip-toed around that, including me, even when Gianne referred me back to it.
I agree with afew, there shouldn't be little ghettoes for believers and sceptics, etc. but open discussion about the general issues raised in any diary. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
When responding to someone who says, "I feel this way," an immediate response along the lines of, "Where's your evidence? Are you sure you're not making this up?" comes across as hostile.
Helen: "...we have demonstrated time after time that there is a hostility towards them".
But is it worth my pointing out the difference?
Don't you think it might be better to take a lighter, more conciliatory tone? There are many things wrong with ET and many things right. ET is not one-size-fits-all. Accept diversity, me duck ;-) You can't be me, I'm taken
Where do I send the flowers? Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
upset in some way because of their perceptions - which to them are real, and thus the so called evidence that you call for is irrelevant to them
Even those in minority groups who sometiimes feel very offended recognise that claims that one feels offended do not settle matters:
House of Lords: What I wondered is whether the Sikh community have got experience of reporting incidents to the police which they think constitute good reasons for bringing a case and for being confident that a conviction will occur and still finding that the police are not taking action, or that the police cannot get the cases past the Crown Prosecution Service. (Dr Singh) No, we do not have evidence of that ... While I say the blasphemy laws should go, they seem to be too dated, there should be something similar which allows freedom of discussion, real discussion, which is so important we should get behind the superficial niceness of dialogue to real discussion because a lot of things that we say are religious are really cultural things that should have gone years ago. ... but the tests are the hurt it causes. Lord Avebury 527. You get differences in the perception of what could be -- (Dr Singh) But then, against that we must have the second, it must be offensive. People could, of course, say that anything is offensive, you should not say this or you should not say that, but there should be a second test of the real damage done as well. It should not be just a cursory statement that "I feel offended by this". There should be a quantification of the damage that is alleged to have been caused. http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldrelof/95/2112703.htm
House of Lords:
What I wondered is whether the Sikh community have got experience of reporting incidents to the police which they think constitute good reasons for bringing a case and for being confident that a conviction will occur and still finding that the police are not taking action, or that the police cannot get the cases past the Crown Prosecution Service.
(Dr Singh) No, we do not have evidence of that
...
While I say the blasphemy laws should go, they seem to be too dated, there should be something similar which allows freedom of discussion, real discussion, which is so important we should get behind the superficial niceness of dialogue to real discussion because a lot of things that we say are religious are really cultural things that should have gone years ago. ...
but the tests are the hurt it causes.
Lord Avebury
527. You get differences in the perception of what could be --
(Dr Singh) But then, against that we must have the second, it must be offensive. People could, of course, say that anything is offensive, you should not say this or you should not say that, but there should be a second test of the real damage done as well. It should not be just a cursory statement that "I feel offended by this". There should be a quantification of the damage that is alleged to have been caused.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldrelof/95/2112703.htm
ET is not one-size-fits-all. Accept diversity, me duck ;-)
I think that's what he's defending:
afew: The community isn't organized around separate clubs with non-club-members excluded, and diarists don't get to choose who joins in the discussion. That's how this place has functioned up to now, and that's what people are, understandably enough, used to.
The community isn't organized around separate clubs with non-club-members excluded, and diarists don't get to choose who joins in the discussion. That's how this place has functioned up to now, and that's what people are, understandably enough, used to.
I suggest you study afew's response too. I wouldn't quite agree with him that "hostility" has been expressed towards "spiritual" diaries, but rather scepticism about some of the claims of those writing about "spiritual" matters. I'm pretty sceptical about some approaches to the "spiritual" but I read with interest this book some years ago:
In this challenging series of dialogues with nineteen artists, writers, philosophers and critics, art critic Suzi Gablik addresses these and other central questions about the meaning and future of art in an age of accelerating social change and spiritual uncertainty. In conversations that are by turns intense, personal, philosophical, intimate and poignant ... Thomas Moore, author of Care of the Soul and archetypal psychologist James Hillman show how art's present crisis of meaning is tied to the broader context of our contemporary social and spiritual crises.
And what do you know, I share Obama's mum's liking for this TV series:
One of Ann's favorite spiritual texts was "Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth," a set of PBS interviews with Bill Moyers that traces the common themes of religion and mythology, http://www.jcf.org/new/index.php
http://www.jcf.org/new/index.php
So there's certainly no hostility on my part even to the spiritual - per se. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
Now you say "other sorts of diaries". You can't be talking about political diaries, you currently hold the two top spots in the rec list with political subjects. I don't think you're talking about personal-experience diaries either, since there have been many of them on ET, always well received, including a fine list of your own. So far from being absent on ET, personal-experience diaries are (and always have been) a feature of ET.
So I can only think you mean diaries about spirituality. Yes, they incur some hostility from those who don't believe in a spiritual plane. The hostility works both ways, however. If I were to write a diary saying what I think of spirituality, I guarantee it would set off a storm. Which is why I don't write it. These are issues that divide us, and I think they are not susceptible of rational discussion on a forum like this in such a way that we might reach agreement, or even an empathetic understanding of the other's position.
What you are suggesting, it seems to me, is that those who don't agree with "spiritual" discourse should stay out of such diaries. So you'd accept as reasonable that those people could have their own diaries of "anti-spiritual" discourse, from which the "pro-spiritual" should stay out. But putting up a diary here means accepting comments from other members (within limits concerning excessive language, insults, etc). The community isn't organized around separate clubs with non-club-members excluded, and diarists don't get to choose who joins in the discussion. That's how this place has functioned up to now, and that's what people are, understandably enough, used to.
What does "such things" refer to, which, allegedly, some people "don't like" ? Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
Today, most of what I did consisted of understanding the cartographic symbology of symmetrical and asymmetrical anticlines and monoclines.
I'm afraid that's as exciting as it gets.
Don't see the banana; just be the banana. *crazed scientist-y look and mad glint in eye *
Visualized Turbulence (Image 2) The distribution of vorticity in developing Mach 1 turbulence, as computed with the PPM gas dynamics code on the TeraGrid cluster at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) in 2003 using a computational grid of over 8 billion cells. This series of images shows the vorticity as it evolves through the transition of fully developed turbulence. The vorticity, which measures the amount of shear in the flow, highlights thin surface-like regions in the flow across which the flow speed changes very rapidly. Later in the development of the turbulence, these sheets of vorticity roll up to form a large number of vortex tubes or filaments, which, especially given the high flow speeds here, are somewhat akin to tornadoes. http://www.nsf.gov/news/mmg/mmg_disp.cfm?med_id=62873&from=mmg
http://www.nsf.gov/news/mmg/mmg_disp.cfm?med_id=62873&from=mmg
But I was reminded of:
[minstrels] Big Whorls Have Little Whorls -- Lewis F. Richardson
Big whorls have little whorls That feed on their velocity, And little whorls have lesser whorls And so on to viscosity.
Fluid dynamics is not materials science. Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
But you kinda knew that. Nice bubble verse BTW.
At least a glaring error gets you commenting. Still travelling?
GOOD News: Secret Life of Rocks Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.
</bitter>
On a serious note, an alike proposal has been made by one of the more controversial professors (Schuiling) of my former university. Last year, if I recall, he went to Turkey to see how feasible it would be to create peridotite pebble beaches - beaches and saline water would be a good spot to enhance chemical weathering. Don't know how that ended, but I'll find out during my Christmas break - a friend of mine came along. Schuiling's name pops up here and there on the web.
In praise of olivine...
But the process is neither simple nor straightforward. This is why "seeding" the ocean with iron oxide to cause a plankton bloom is an uncertain longtime means of capturing CO2. Limestone deposits are often found in alteration with shale deposits. That would seem to indicate that the process turns on and off. That, in turn, might enable some insight into how to cultivate this process on a geologic scale.
Perhaps the melting of polar ice caps will result in the creation of new shallow seas which will turn this process back on. That solution is likely to be rather slow from a human perspective, but that might not matter---in the long run. Nomad should be able to amplify and/or correct this comment. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
Yeah - that never happens in diaries... I know he's a provacateur, and you all have issues with him, but I am actually feeling a little sorry for ValentinD. Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
I hope it is largely demonstrating that people can be at absolute apparent odds with each others arguments and views but without all civility breaking down. Ad astra per aspera
Why would anyone be sorry about myself? The only thing that bothers me are angry or annoyed reactions. I thought I'd post the ideology stuff on my diary, so if no one wants to talk about it, no one will comment, and I won't come off as a provocateur. :) Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
Funny, I too could swear I read some poster (not In Wales) refer to you as a "she"... not that it matters, except for the language (you should all learn a proper a-sexist language like Hungarian, dammit ;-)) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Anyway - no sense in beating dead horses. If people can't see the connection between perceived lack of diverse content and the repeated concerns expressed by those who try to post diverse content by now - I can't help them. Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
If X is a prick, call him a prick. But don't moan that he's censoring you. The site is not more his than yours, and not less.
I'm not expecting you to notice anti-French bias. Don't expect me to notice anti-poemless or anti-woowoo or anti-whatever bias. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
If people can't see the connection between perceived lack of diverse content and the repeated concerns expressed by those who try to post diverse content by now - I can't help them.
Are you not suggesting that the "concerns expressed by those who try to post diverse content" are ignored?
Thus my question? By whom? How?
I suppose that given how much I praise technocratic elites, I should not be surprised to be blamed for being The Man. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I will repeat myself: If people can't see the connection between perceived lack of diverse content and the repeated concerns expressed by those who try to post diverse content by now - I can't help them.
I have no idea what you are talking about now. I've not thought anyone a "prick" (except Rahm Emanuel, and I did call him that.) And aside from Rahm, who is my elected representative, so I feel entitled, I do not think I will join you in advocating name-calling. I am not a fan of that method.
I've also not claimed anyone is censoring me.
Others have claimed they feel the preference for self-censorship in light of the way their diaries have been received. I was acknowledging that several people here have said as much. You explicitly asked for more content. Yet absence better explanation, you appear unwilling to acknowledge that some long-time members prefer self-censorship, or to seriously advocate a more tolerant atmosphere. It's your prerogative - I frankly don't care. I write what I want anyway. But you asked for more content. It's kinda of like trying to talk to a wall. The message does not appear to be getting through to you. I can't figure out why. And of course, it is not just you. In fact, it is a whole culture. But it is your post I am responding to.
I'm not expecting you to notice anti-French bias. Don't expect me to notice anti-poemless or anti-woowoo or anti-whatever bias.
Anti-poemless bias?!!! Where?!!! I'll smoke the bastards out!
Oh. Wait. No one has mentioned any anti-poemless bias. You just made that up. I believe the technical jargon for that is "strawman." Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
