Thank you for your thoughts.
Often, when I see a blog that's loaded with daily posts, I am sometimes left with the impression that the blogger either has no life or has some type of graphomania. Usually reading those sites quickly turns into occasional skimming, as the pattern of posts appears more repetitive than enlightening... sort of like listening to a friend who keeps calling on the phone... even when there's really not much to talk about... On reflection, I'm rarely a repeat customer at these sites.
But a lively discussion about a new finding is always fun...
I am glad you are sleeping better; I had
bad sleep for years, and after I got medical treatment, my family life got much better; I'm much less irritable, etc.
I think there *are* really interesting web sites and blogs around, but they are harder to find among all the millions out there. I think it's a matter of finding some new starting places! I tend
to look at my old bookmarks out of laziness.
Just browsing around flickr is an eye opener! I can't imagine where people find the time/energy for the creativity I see there. And that's not to mention all the arts/crafts sites,and so on.
I'm Weblogging much as you are, and have been from the beginning, except that I haven't even gotten real Weblog software and thus don't have comments. And it seems to be about equal parts political news and science news these days, almost no weird and quirky sites, though some of my friends still point them out.
I do a lot of the talking about my life stuff, but not on YAWL: that goes on my LiveJournal, as do the more essayish bits.
Maybe it has to do with an idiotic leftist content that you provide. Maybe it has to do with your overwhelming paranoia. Maybe we just don't have the time to read pages and pages and pages of garbage by you, someone we don't know. If it's not good, its not fun, it's not relevant, it's not interesting, it's not original, it's not touching, then it's not worth to read. Ever thought about it?
On her livejournal, Suzette Elgin Hayden, a linguist, is discussing the malaise or despair or other emotional weather metaphor that she perceives has come over a lot of people. The comments are also worth reading.
Anon -- first off, thank you for your opinion, but you do not seem to be a very close reader of the post to which you are responding! You seem to be answering a question I wasn't even asking, which is why I don't have more readers. Read my post again, and see if you make another stab at understanding whether that is important to me.
But, more important, why in the world are you reading FmH? I'd suggest you stop, for your own welfare! Otherwise, what does it say about your life that you visit a site that is "idiotic", "garbage", "not fun", "not interesting", "not original", "not touching", not worthwhile?
Sorry you do not seem receptive to what is offered here. Ah, maybe I understand what FmH does for you! You need a place to vent your spleen! ...in which case you are welcome to get yer rocks off by coming here. And, in the process, thanks for being a perfect illustration of the futility of dialogue with rightward-twisted wingnuts whose discourse consists only of namecalling.
Kai -- thanks for the pointer.
Eliot Gelwan:
I don't read your idiotic rants. Unfortunately, this garbage overwhelms Medlogs.com with asinine political content of yours. And you betcha, I did complain about it to Jacob Reider. On some days, Medlogs.com looks like left-idiot's-rants.com. I would suggest that for the sake of respecting other people's work (in this case, Jacob's), you delist your garbage off Medlogs.com. Then, some of us will ever see it again.
Thanks, The "Other" Medical Blogger
...never see it again.
Yes, anon, and your friends in Washngton should stop the liberal media from publishing things with which they disagree too.
By the way, exactly why are you hiding behind an anonymous log-on?
The point is that Medlogs.com is for medical blog posts, be it medicine, nursing, medical ethics or health care politics. Not leftist's barking at the world, about everything in site. It's not about you, its about Medlogs.com.
In terms of my friends. Didn't we see the explosion of blogs precisely under the Bush administration? Has at least one blog, one liberal media outlet been closed by my friends in Washington, you idiot? I need an example.
Ah, but still hiding the insults behind anonymity. What character! what courage! And how typical.
Jim:
There are plenty on left and right hiding behind anonymity.It has nothing to do with political stance. On the other hand, the issues raised are quite valid ones: what is the reason for dumping political garbage on Medlogs.com? I believe that Eliot has to delist his blog from a medical news aggregator. That's all. Otherwise he can talk and express his opinions all he wants.
For your information, I think that weblogs are vetted for inclusion on Medlogs.com. If I remember correctly, mine was deemed appropriate. I have written to their sysop to ask that, in case I am wrong. I'll be glad to post his reply in this comment thread, if he permits me.
And one of us is mistaken about the basic rationale behid Medlogs.com. As I understand it, it is an aggregator of posts by medical bloggers, not simply medical blog posts. Are you the arbitor of who is a sufficiently "medical" blogger? In any case, it is clear your reaction is one of not tolerating political opinion different than your own, calling names and hounding the messengers of contrary viewpoints, a time-honored reactionary tactic. Are you hunting down the posters of every nonmedical post on medlogs.com, or only those which offend your viewpoint? Other readers can form their own conclusions: http://www.medlogs.com/
I have written the sysop of Medlogs to see if he feels I violate the spirit of his site, offering to delist myself if he asks me to. Since you hide behind the anon log-on, it should be no sweat for you to admit that you are wrong, if it turns out you are, about the spirit or the intent of Medlogs. Would you do that?
Besides, your claim that it is your upset at my Medlogs posts is disingenuous and just plain silly. Your original comment was not a complaint about my syndication on Medlogs, which was not even mentioned until I responded and you became defensive. It was an intolerant rant and a personal attack on me because you do not like my political slant. It is dishonest of you to claim other motives.
Next point -- this "idiot" was referring to the reactionaries' efforts to have the New York Times prosecuted for treason after publishing news of the administration's secret program to track terrorists' money transfers. I never said anything about shutting down any liberal blogs. Sorry you are so literal, it was what we "idiots" call an analogy. Here is the analogy: anon:Fmh=Bush:"freedom of the press". It's a mindset thing, get it? Or put it this way: I'm glad my wife isn't a covert CIA operative, or you would probably 'out' her.
Finally, your claim that your anonymity is okay because "plenty" do it is just pitiful. Your conduct in this discussion stands on its own merits. So does mine, but I sign my name to it.
If I knew who you were, I would love to read your "medical blog" sometime. It would show me how it is really done!
I am as guilty as you are of this, but the discussion has been diverted from an interesting topic to a fruitless pissing contest. I won't participate in it anymore; unless your next comment takes the thread in a more constructive direction, please don't respond at all. As I said, I will post the results of my correspondence with the Medlogs.com sysop as a followup here.
If I may attempt to move the discussion back on topic, it is interesting to me that weblogs are plainly an evolving media form-- and that amoung the changes we are seeing are longer posts, posts that more closely resemble essays, and less frequent posting by some.
I'd have to say that FMH is one of the sites that got me interested in starting to write in this form. One of my goals starting out was to write something every day, in part to improve my writting. I also think of my site as something of a notebook-- a place to keep ideas or references that I may want to return to.
A big change that I've seen since the form first appeared is what I'm doing right now. Comments changed the rules in a fundimental way. At one time this comment would have appeared on my site, with a link back to Eliot. Others who wished to joint the conversation would have done likewise, and in that way anyone participating could have been introduced to new sites. The effect of this was to broaden the number of sites visited. I don't see that happening as much these days.
I also think that, although I enjoy the fact that comments left by my readers are tangible proof that someone is reading my stuff, they have also contributed to a certain decline in civility. Or, perhaps they are merely evidence that civility is in decline.
Anyway, I find that I am good with looking in on FMH two or three times a week. When there is new material, I'm glad to see it.
Eliot:
I could care less who writes specific blog. I think any medical student's writings about ethics of medicine or histology or medical humor should be on Medlogs.com, and not some attending's discussions about the latest fishing experiences. It is not a matter of who, but rather what is being published. Your continuous and unrelenting rants about politics put you outside of what one should expect to see on Medlogs.com, in my opinion. Occasional post on off medical topic is OK. Continuous garbage is not. The bottom line is that in reality, you are not in a medical blogging sphere.
On different topics.
As a matter of fact, I believe that NYTimes has every right to publish anything it wants to: be it government secrets, or made-up lies. The blame is with the government for not protecting the secrets and with the leaker. I do respect yours and NYTimes's first amendment right.
In terms of anonymity, Atrios been anonymous for years. He made his points and people wanted to read him. Again, it is not who but rather what is being published.
I'll submit my case to Reider again. I think any person who wants to learn more about medical weblogs or to follow them, who goes to Medlogs.com, is unnecesarily exposed to too much political rants, emanating primarily from your site.
Medblogger.
Bill - great point about the decline in discussions distributed among different weblogs with links from one to the next or (although you don't mention it) "trackbacks", a concept that never really took off. But one reason commenting systems have taken over that function is, obviously, they allow readers who are not themselves webloggers to participate in the discussion. The weblogging world was really clique-based in its first few years; bloggers talked back and forth to bloggers and other readers were just bystanders. (By the way, unlike the ridiculous exchange above, no one could attack anyone else anonymously in those days either!) In that sense, it is a welcome change.
Eliot:
One more point. There is nothing "disingenuous and just plain silly" about this exchange. As I have stated before, I did complain to Reider probably a week ago. And the only reason I came to your site is because your stuff regularly overwhelms Medlogs.com with topics unrelated to medicine.
I made my points. Thanks.
Eliot, at least now I know about
medlogs.com! Even if you can't post new
writing very often, maybe you can add
sites like that to your link list?
Eliot,
I think it's striking this boob thinks you've overwhelmed him when your post was precisely about the lessening frequency of your postings.
His freaked out Gorns' cloacal personality is so characteristic of his type there has got to be a psychiatric definition!
I suggest he try this website,
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/
or some other actually political website so he can understand the difference.
(Coincidentally, I've just read this,
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/s...ally-
10918.html
which describes the psychopath has having a learning disability --I think a form of this probably applies to social conservatives.)
Eliot:
Sorry I can't join in the fun between you and your anonymous "Medblogger" critic (who, among the many other things he or she doesn't understand, really doesn't grok the significant difference between being anonymous and pseudonymous), but I did want to thank you for this post which was helpful to me in my continuing effort to figure out why blogging has become less rewarding to me, while at the same time continuing to be a compulsion.
I'm still struggling with my thoughts, a nascent few of which I've posted on unfutz, but you've helped, so thanks, (again).
Great post Eliot.
Ed - one way I avoid worrying about the originality quotient (and something I encourage TheGuy with too - as his weblog writing has fallen off even more than mine) is to note that I (and he, and probably you) have readers who don't read any other blogs (or read very few). So to them, it's fresh or new. *shrug*
I think for anyone with an academic or, especially, scientific background, the compulsion to break new ground or find some new take or analytical point to make is hard to shake. But, it's really not required in this medium. Another point: sometimes people need to hear an idea several times, in several different ways, before it sinks in. (In science... (and especially math - where I started a long time ago), the idea is that it should be good enough to say it (argue it, prove it) once.. and there, it's done! Sometimes I think part of my frustration with the world comes from thinking that assumption applies, when it doesn't.
Anyway, that's all just an aside... really good perspective as usual, Eliot.
Thanks, Medley. About the business of things being good enough to be said only once -- in academic fields, your audience follows the literature closely enough so that that works. They got it the first time. The same cannot be said to be true of a weblog's audience, unless it is a very very technical/specific weblog. So, I agree, there is a place for unoriginality (FmH being a prime example!).
Eliot thanks for all; it matters to me not one wit if you post everyday or every week, I still come often and read, and if not your blogroll is a great entry into further intellectual stimulation.
Just one complaint, you took American Samzidat off the blog list. Why come? hmmm?
Eliot, obviously Anon is unable to reveal his secret identity because it would endanger his super powers as, Silverback of the Senate!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...6052301380.html
signed, Mr. Gadzooks
Dropping American Samizdat was inadvertent. Fixed now. Ever think of syndicating it on medlogs.com [grin]?
bored by the back-and-forth, and thus returning to the original topic...
I was interested by his list of reasons why daily posts aren't important, and I agree that the personalities I like and/or the places that generate value (i.e., by commentary and knowledge, not just links, or by links to places nobody else finds) are worth visiting at whatever interval. on the other hand, more news-driven sites need more frequent posts to remain valuable, and I find I grow impatient with, say, local blogs that go mysteriously off line for a week here or there without warning.
however, I'd like to speak up for the underconsidered number of dedicated blog readers (including some bloggers) who *will not* read RSS feeds. I don't like the loss of context and voice that comes with exerpted posts, nor the mixing of blogs that I read in different moods or for different reasons. thus, my reading will always be dependent on "checking in" rather than passively finding out when new material is available. as a result, it's possible that a long enough (unannounced) gap could push a blog off my radar for a serious stretch...
another penny for the pond.
Not Anonymous
478889 44cf95be0b
An excellent resource. Thanks for taking this on. the global scope www chrysler com la gloria fito
Commenting by HaloScan
