Consider it ignored.
I filled out the survey. Is it wrong of me to be supremely irritated by the fact that the final page talks about gaining "a better understanding of how American’s think about religion and politics"?
Seriously. Apostrophe abuse -- I had to write the P.I. I can't ever let that go. Why to so many people find it so difficult to remember a rule that is so simple? Aarrgh!!
It's not wrong. But everyone makes mortifying errors once in a blue moon. Let us assume that it is a mortifying error, rather than ignorance.
I really wish fucking blogger weren't so fucked up the last couple days.
Uh, oh. I read this post and comment, then read the next post about not reading comments on it. Now, I want to participate in the survey, but I'm going to have this apostrophe abuse bee in my bonnet the whole time.
Really, that just depresses me. I mean, I sorted your links by authority and went through nine pages and my link to you hasn't shown up. It's like I have no authority whatsoever. Not cool. I have a student coming in 10 minutes though, so the time is ripe for a gratuitous exercise in the authority I "don't have." I'll show her. She'll pay for how Technorati indexes Kevin Kamberg's site.
Scott, don't take it out on your students.
I'm trying to set up a goddamn RSS feed so that Technorati will tell me when people link me (and therefore it will be easier to trace trol attacks). But the damn Technorati RSS thing seems not to work with bloglines? And plus blogger's down, so I can't remove this post and/or republish the index to put the Trati link (and handy search box) in my template....
Sorry Ryan, but for the purposes of not messing up the survey results for the poor grad student, I felt I had to delete your comment.
You'll be happy to know I didn't take anything out on anyone. Helps that her article was damn brilliant and she hasn't really needed any assistance from me in like seven weeks.
As for something at Technorati not working, that stuns me into silence. How could that happen? Oh, wait, the sun is shining, or it isn't, but either way, Technorati's Technorati. Right now my account page lists 679 links from 278 sites; click on that link and you'll see that I have links from 437 individual sites. Now I'm not good at math, but really, I'm not that bad at it. Oh, and have you ever tried pinging it? It recognizes, what, one out of every thirty or so attempts? (And sometimes when it does, it does for a minute--says it received a ping 2 minutes ago--but when you go back later that same day, it says you haven't pinged it in three weeks. It's a great idea, but it has some real problems with the implementation. (And all this Technorati'ing is only about half vanity; the other half's trying to do research for my article and the panel.)
Rarely has the "Bitch!" button been so appropriate. (For me, at least.)
Research? WTF is that?
So when will we get to talk about the Thing we can't talk about?
I'm not a social scientist or expert on survey research, but I did once have a telephone survey job at a place called Marketfacts, Inc. Ok, not an impressive credential.
It is with humility I say that I always thought self-selection was a bad thing in a survey, and that you're supposed to get a random sample. Am I wrong?
It depends on the kind of survey.
Re. talking about "the thing," well, the actual survey is going on for three more weeks. I don't want to mess up the woman's results. OTOH, after all, I *do* owe you all the right to talk about stuff. How 'bout I leave the link up live for a couple of days and we all play nice, and then I'll disable the link and open up a thread for us to discuss it?
Or, you know, I could turn comment moderation back on..... 
When I want to post something I don't want people to see, I roll the year back to 2002 before hitting 'post.' That's where I keep all the ignorables.
I tried that, JP. Stupid technorati wouldn't pick it up, I guess it only scans the front page or something dumb like that. Anyway, it's provided everyone a nice li'l open thread, we can pretend this is Eschaton or something.
Hey biotchphd, why *did* you turn comments unmoderated again?
:o
"Biotch"? Excuse me?
I turned them back on just as I said in the post: I was dealing with trolls, I decided to use the opportunity to take a break and rethink some of what I was writing, I did so, and when I was ready and sure the trolls were gone, I turned moderation off again. Simple as that.
Hello. Thanks to everyone who took my survey.
I'm sorry to be such a pain in the ass with my request to limit discussion. I would like to prevent people from reading things that might bias their survey responses. It is very difficult to impose any control over the survey environment for web surveys.
With a student sample this is easy. I take away all the cell phones and stick each person in their own quiet little cubby. The best I can do for this kind of survey is to ask that the discussion be postponed for a few days.
I will ask Dr. B to pull the survey link on Wednesday and open a discussion. In the interim, I would be happy to answer any burning questions or consider any criticisms via email.
Also, my advisor thanks CafeSiren for pointing out my mortifying error
See everyone? Would that we could all be so gracious.
I actually like the survey...and if I could comment on it, I would say nice things.
But, until the link is pulled, I will only say that...
Survey was interesting.
However, I'm just wondering if all the readers of this blog won't bias the results--we're mostly (all?) liberal and not very religious.
Are some conservative bloggers also promoting the survey on their blogs?
Hello. The survey is being posted on conserative blogs as well.
Thank you all for your restraint.
Piss Poor Prof, I'm with you. I found the survey very interesting and look forward to seeing the results someday.
D, not all of us here are "liberal and not very religious". I know I for one am a "centrist" or moderate - stuck somewhere smack in the middle between liberal and conservative ideals plus I do believe in God, though more in a spiritual way rather than a religious way; that is, I don't think God cares if we go to church as much as he/she/it wants us to lead decent lives. Plus, I don't see God as a being-type as much as I do an energy force thingy.
Anyway, I hear your point that alot of readers here may lean left, but surely not all. There's lot of us middle-of-the-roaders (and maybe even some conservatives?) that like this blog too because it makes us think about things with an open mind and challenges status quo beliefs (like what purpose do surnames serve).
"However, I'm just wondering if all the readers of this blog won't bias the results--we're mostly (all?) liberal and not very religious."
There are likely far more conservative readers than you suspect--they've just learned over time to keep their comments to themselves.
Because, you know, even conservatives can appreciate good writing. And some conservatives don't believe that liberals have earned a monopoly on feminist allegiance.
I look forward to threads discussing the survey.
"D, not all of us here are "liberal and not very religious"--TD
As I typed the words above I was wondering if you'd reply to this, TD, since I know you're said before that you're a moderate (plus you've only become pro-choice after "meeting" Dr. B, not to mention your comments about last names).
I would argue that you are closer to a liberal than you might think (at least that's the impression I get from your blog comments). A conservative person would think Dr. B is a sinful woman and might not want to read her blog at all (or read it to see what someone who is going right to hell thinks of the world?).
"even conservatives can appreciate good writing. And some conservatives don't believe that liberals have earned a monopoly on feminist allegiance." Equality 7-2521
I know that even conservatives can appreciate good writing
However, liberals have pretty much earned a monopoly on feminist allegiance...I find it hard to imagine a conservative feminist.
Conservative doesn't necessarily equal a fundementalist christian- they're far and few between, but somewhere exists a group of republican bonefide fiscally conservative people who don't give a fuck about religious agendas.
Anyone who accuses me of leaning left is gonna getta smack.
D says "plus you've only become pro-choice after "meeting" Dr. B"
Yep, is true. I came in with a "yeah, but what about a (willing) father's rights" attitude and left with a "it's not the government's place to rule over a woman's body".
D says "I would argue that youare closer to a liberal than you might think (at least that's the impression I get from your blog comments)"
I will say I have found myself drifting left in recent years, but this isn't new. Lots of indepedent "swing voters" in the middle lean slightly more one way than the other for a while, then it will change back slightly the other way for a while, never really drifting too far from center. I think there is something to be said for conservative ideals like tradition and order and competition and supply&demand. But there's also something to be said for liberal ideals like tolerance and community and education. Since alot of these values will always be in conflict with each other, it's hard to sway too far one way or the other. Thus, I hate both extremes to be honest - which is one reason I'm now very embarrased to admit that I had voted for Bush! My bad.
D says "A conservative person would think Dr. B is a sinful woman and might not want to read her blog at all"
Obviously, Dr.B is not a sinful person. She seems very human with very human struggles and delimnas - like all "normal" people do. You're probably correct that the truely extreme conservatives (the hypocit, better-than-thou ones) would probably blindly label her sinful without taking the time to find out more, that, don't worry, she's still a good mommy and wife too, and would be afraid to read her blog at all.
D said: "A conservative person would think Dr. B is a sinful woman and might not want to read her blog at all"
Said person has a bizarre notion of sin, then.
Equality said: "And some conservatives don't believe that liberals have earned a monopoly on feminist allegiance."
Isn't it, by now, conservative to be a feminist? Aren't the people who pass as "conservative" really just a reactionary fundamentalist subculture? To what extent does the news media calling such people "conservative" actually create problems by promoting divisiveness? And why do liberals pander to this labeling?
Equality wrote: "And some conservatives don't believe that liberals have earned a monopoly on feminist allegiance."
No Nym wrote: "Isn't it, by now, conservative to be a feminist? Aren't the people who pass as "conservative" really just a reactionary fundamentalist subculture? To what extent does the news media calling such people "conservative" actually create problems by promoting divisiveness? And why do liberals pander to this labeling?"
No Nym and Equality, in my mind you're both doing what Rove does, which is rewrite the meanings of words to what you what them to be.
While both of you are articulate and persuasive, neither of you is even sufficiently conservative, in the normative meaning of the term, to strive to preserve (conserve) the actual meaning of the term. If conservatives are feminists, and Bush would claim he is one, then neither he nor you mean by that what I (a liberal feminist or radical feminist, take your pick) would mean by that.
If the term conservative, as a political label, supports feminism because the times have changed, then you're suggesting the term means rigid endorsement of whatever happens to be the status quo in any given moment ... and that, as political conservatives, you won't be part of a necessary movement to undo significant portions of the current administration's legacy of contempt for law and the civil populace.
I've yet to meet a conservative who supports the ACLU, which means I've yet to meet a conservative (or a Republican) who actually embraces the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. I've met many self-proclaimed conservatives and Republicans who voted for Bush in 2004 precisely because he was prosecuting an illegal war in illegal ways (for instance, by abandoning the Geneva Conventions as "quaint") and posturing that he was doing otherwise. It's clear to me that conservatives have little care in preserving even the instruments of governance in this country.
The pursuit of security cannot trump all other priorities, such as maintaining a sound economy, or obeying Laws signed by Congress, without abandoning the realm of conservative and becoming dangerously radical (not, as you suggest, reactionary, but fascist).
Gutting environmental protections, slowly crushing the middle class, hollowing out agencies of governance, abandoning habeus corpus, and introducing mass spying on the civil population is radical to the extreme. Conservatives won or stole the last two elections on a platform of "compassionate conservatism" that -- in its effects -- has effectively shattered the idiotic myth that "liberals rule with their heart and Republicans, while pushy and obnoxious, rule with cool but sound analytical judgment."
In fact, conservatives have a reverse Midas touch -- everything they've touched in the past six years has been destroyed by mind-boggling incompetence, criminal negligence, and thugish corporatist self-interest.
I'm sorry, but I'm not in the mood at this point in history to allow Republicans and Conservatives to rewrite the last six years and suggest that Bush failed, not because he wasn't exactly what the conservatives wanted, but because he was too liberal or too radical or too compassionate. No.
Bush's legacy is the true conserative legacy and the only Republican legacy we'll ever have -- fear-based pandering to the worst instincts of a purposely misinformed Republic in the interest of looting that Republic for the benefit of a select few. This is what you get when conservatives rule -- mass deception, nepotism, cronyism, incompetence, criminality.
/ehj2
I took the survey (skipping some of the questions like it said in the first page is ok), and when I submitted the last page, it said 'some questions are missing, please go back' -- I clicked, and it took me back to page 1 again -- erased all record of anything I answered! I gave up and didn't fill it again. Conclusion: next time make it more user friendly... (but otherwise, I do look forward to the conversation about it, it was interesting)
NoNym - The belief that premarital or extramarital sex (even if the spouse agrees) is a "sin" is actually pretty common among those who belong to an organized religion. I wouldn't really say it's a "bizarre notion of sin". I'm sure you don't agree with the idea, but it's pretty well accepted among the different organized religions.
So, ehj2, I guess you aren't a conservative, huh?
"which means I've yet to meet a conservative (or a Republican) who actually embraces the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution".
"Conservatives won or stole the last two elections".
"In fact, conservatives have a reverse Midas touch -- everything they've touched in the past six years has been destroyed by mind-boggling incompetence, criminal negligence, and thugish corporatist self-interest."
I hope the rants felt good. By definition, a conservative--a supporter of the status quo--supports the Bill of Rights, and the rest of the Constitution. What he/she might not support are creative interpretations of it which, for example, results in capital punishment switching from constitutional, to unconstitutional, to constitutional, to constitutional with restrictions in less than a generation.
The 5.7 million people who found jobs in the lat 3.5 years might not think everything has been destroyed.
And, I think, a conservative would challenge your last quoted statement, as well. Conservatives haven't been running things, politicians have. And not just Republicans, as you can see anytime there is a vote in Congress in on anything from the Patriot Act, to the credit card/bankruptcy bill, to hte votes for Roberts for the SC and the latest Senate pork proposal for emergency spending.
It seems to me that one of the requirements for an exchange of views is *not only* that a respondent--say ehj2--refrain from accusations, but *also* that people refrain from overreacting to percieved accusations. Not all strong statements are "rants." No? Otherwise things deteriorate pretty quickly.
That said, the problem with "by definition a conservative supports X" is that there are, in fact, self-declared conservatives at the moment who do *not* support X. It's just not that simple to say, 'by definition" when the defintion being offered doesn't correspond to the way the term is actually being used.
need a loan now need a loan now need a loan now // how to win at keno how to win at keno how to win at keno
cialis soft cialis soft cialis soft. fargo home interest mortgage rate well fargo home interest mortgage rate well fargo home interest mortgage rate well.
runescape moneyrunescape gold wow power levelingdsaf
Commenting by HaloScan
