No Insider content this week, as I was working on my book – including an interview with an executive the other day that ran over two hours and took forever to transcribe – but I did hold a Klawchat because I’m such a nice guy.
My latest game review for Paste covers the five-minute card game 3 Wishes, a very fast-moving with a deck of just 18 cards in a similar vein to Love Letter or Coup.
And now, the links…
- The best longread this week was in New York, which profiled a Sandy Hook victim’s father, who went from conspiracy believer to anti-hoax activist.
- A close second goes to Vanity Fair for its the rise and fall of Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes.
- And third place goes to the New Yorker for an incredible profile of NY Times restaurant critic Pete Wells.
- A writer for Elle describes getting the call that her abusive, sociopathic father is dying. She doesn’t flinch from the painful parts.
- Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo has some thoughts on my former colleague Curt Schilling.
- We’re going to get genetically modified mosquitoes in Florida soon, and Mother Jones answers some questions on their safety and efficacy. An ongoing release in the Caymans is showing promise.
- The “yield gap” between conventional and organic methods of agriculture is only partially true, and it appears that the dichotomy itself is a false one. Some crops fare better under organic methods, some worse. One question this article raised in my mind: What if a farm used truly organic practices, but was willing to use GM seeds to help raise yields in the absence of synthetic N and with minimal pesticide applications?
- Climate change is already leading to coastal flooding in the U.S., and what’s worse, Congressional Republicans have opposed funding for plans to help these areas cope with rising sea levels.
- I tweeted and posted on Instagram a photo of a cigarette ad I found in my dilapidated 1973 paperback copy of To Your Scattered Bodies Go. A reader sent along this NY Times piece on cigarette ads in books, which mentions the same ad I found for Kent cigarettes – including their asbestos filters.
- This New Scientist piece is kind of garbage at the top, taking a single study to proclaim “There is now a sixth taste – and it explains why we love carbs.” No, there’s not definitely a sixth taste, but one study showed that some people identified a separate taste for carbohydrates independent of the five tastes we know exist.
- Buried a bit in this advice column is a great answer to a parent asking about keeping her infant away from anti-vaxers.
- A “global vaccine confidence survey” showed that the French are even dumber than we are on vaccines, with 41% of respondents in the hexagon saying vaccines were unsafe. (They aren’t.)
- Dr. Bob Sears, a California doctor who has recommended delayed vaccinations and has been accused of (but not proven to have been) selling medical exemption letters to parents, is facing disciplinary action from the California medical board. This is extremely unusual, as these boards are often toothless, but this would send a very strong message to other quacks preaching vaccine denial.
- The Harvard Medical School’s Health Blog has a great post arguing that we need to make it harder for parents to refuse to vaccinate their kids. Copout exemptions don’t even force parents to explain their choices to doctors – and hear rational, factual arguments why vaccination is not just smart but necessary.
- Deadspin’s Tim Marchman dyslogizes Phyllis Schlafly, the conservative gadfly who preached hate – of gays, of non-Christians, of immigrants, of minorities – for a half-century. My favorite thing on Twitter this week was folks, myself included, posting Schlafly quotes, without adding any comments, and then being accused of speaking ill of the dead before the body was cold. Those were her words, genius. I didn’t have to make her look bad, because she did that all by herself.
- A new catalyst might allow us to split water for less energy to get at the hydrogen as a fuel source. But did anyone else see this and think of those “run your car on water!” scams?
- Roxanne Jones, who used to work for ESPN (but whom I don’t know), penned a strong op ed for CNN.com saying we need to stop ‘justifying’ men who rape. It doesn’t matter that he was a good kid or had a future or whatever. If you rape, then you are a rapist.
- Charles Pierce starts with a quote from At Swim-Two-Birds in his dissection of that Matt Lauer-led farce this week, including a note on the climate change issue I mentioned above.
- The corruption of Donald Trump – no surprise, given that he’s a fan of dictator Vladimir Putin – has been subsumed by unsubstantiated claims that Hillary Clinton is corrupt. He gave money to the Florida AG, who then dropped an investigation into Trump University; he gave $35,000 to Greg Abbott’s campaign after Abbott did the same as Texas AG. Vox covered the Florida story, yet somehow the New York Times – a left-leaning publication – couldn’t find room on its front page for this?
- It’s probably worth mentioning, with Putin garnering all this praise from Trump (and, one would assume, earning admiration from Trump supporters), that 56 journalists have been killed in Russia since 1992 for reasons related to their work.
- Kurt Eichenwald explains that Trump is lying about why he can’t release his tax returns. His tweetstorm on the Clinton Foundation not only claims that there is no scandal over the Foundation’s efforts, but also laments, hopelessly, the increasing irrelevance of facts in political discourse.
- The Koch Brothers, who give millions to conservative candidates and causes, stand accused by a whistleblower of knowingly polluting an Arkansas town. This is just one side of the story, but the whistleblower claims to have some fairly damning evidence that the mill in question, run by Georgia Pacific, was dumping a lot of carcinogens and other potentially dangerous chemicals into places where they’d end up in groundwater, and that the mill’s operators knew this and tried to mask the dumping.
- Have you seen the Dakota Access Pipeline protest stories? Many seem to focus on the climate-change aspect of the protests, or the use of dogs to fight with protestors, but this is really about Native American sovereignty and a company skirting the rules, doing so with the help of the Army Corps of Engineers until the Obama Administration put a halt to it on Friday.
Thanks so much for these Stick to Baseball posts. Along with the daily Happy Hour Roundup from the Plum Line guys at the Washington Post, this is my favorite online links aggregation. Always good stuff from a trusted source.
I think sending rubber ducks to known conspiracy theorists is a marvelous idea. Not just for Sandy Hook hoaxers, but others as well. Let their paranoia consume them, both from “those rubber ducks are poisoned” to “how did they find me?” standpoints.
The Florida/Texas situations are pretty different. In Florida, the sequence of events–investigation, “donation,” investigation dropped–suggests a pretty clear quid pro quo. In Texas, the sequence was investigation, investigation dropped, donation years later. It’s possible (perhaps even likely) that there were shenanigans, but it’s much harder to assert that with authority.
“The “yield gap” between conventional and organic methods of agriculture is only partially true,”
Try “mostly” instead of “partially.”
By the way, I noticed something on your Twitter feed earlier that made me want to ask you this question….so you’re all about the “religious exemption” undermining a MLB team’s facial hair policy but it’s a no-go when it comes to parents using it as a reason not to vaccinate their children? Just curious. I realize it’s two different things and one’s a workplace rules issue while the other concerns human health, but it does seem a bit strange for you to selectively root for the “religious exemption” card to be played only when it aligns with your ideals.
What is strange about this? You yourself note that these are two completely different issues. Are you implying that we should view facial hair policies in pro sports with the same seriousness as public health?
Did you truly need to ask for a clarification here? Or do you just look for every opportunity to troll?
Religious concerns trump certain other considerations. For example, Sikh chaplains in the U.S. Army are allowed to wear turbans. Quakers are allowed to opt out of the draft. Jews are allowed to miss work on high holy days. There is no question, based on these precedents, that–for example–a hasidic Jew who played for the Yankees would be allowed to retain his peyot. If the Yankees attempted to do otherwise, it would not only be a PR nightmare, it would also be actionable.
On the other hand, there is a very clear line–well-ensconced in America law–that “religious freedom” stops at the point that it does harm to others. I cannot kill someone for wearing eyeglasses to church, and claim Leviticus told me it was ok. I cannot go into the classroom and tell the Muslim students they are going to hell. I cannot go to the local grocery store and start throwing all the meat in the garbage because it’s not kosher.
Last week, you acknowledged a need to (a) be less verbose, and (b) be less offputting. You seem to have followed promise (a); I would suggest that implying hypocrisy (even when presented in a passive-aggressive “just curious” format) is a violation of promise (b).
“You yourself note that these are two completely different issues.”
Yes, but while I’m acknowledging it’s two different scenarios in which it’s being applied – an exemption for workplace rules vs. an exemption for vaccinations – the underlying application is the same, the exercise of religious freedom. It’s all about the angle from which you view the issue.
” Are you implying that we should view facial hair policies in pro sports with the same seriousness as public health?”
Are you implying that we should selectively be either respective or dismissive of an outward exercise of religious freedom simply based on the relative importance of the underlying issue subjective to the judgement call of some in our society?
“Are you implying that we should selectively be either respective or dismissive of an outward exercise of religious freedom simply based on the relative importance of the underlying issue subjective to the judgement call of some in our society?”
Note that when I say you are a terrible writer, I am specifically referring to tortured, virtually unreadable sentences like this one.
“Did you truly need to ask for a clarification here? Or do you just look for every opportunity to troll?”
No, I just find it amusing how quickly some people can run to the defense of an exercise in religious freedom when it supports their cause/agenda and be so readily dismissive of it when it doesn’t.
“On the other hand, there is a very clear line–well-ensconced in America law–that “religious freedom” stops at the point that it does harm to others.”
I understand very clearly about that and many other applications of freedom and how they stop once they are no longer protected once they infringe on others’ rights/freedoms. We covered this on the speech issue, shouting fire in a theater et al. Your example of shooting someone over wearing eyeglasses is correct but a strawman in response to a question of whether conscientious objection – which is a very passive, not proactive, exercise – to being vaccinated is really infringing on the rights of others.
“Last week, you acknowledged a need to (a) be less verbose, and (b) be less offputting.”
Hmm, I’d have to review exactly what I said here, but I can only control my tone, not how it’s received. If you feel offended or “offput” by something I’ve said, that’s more on you than me. I respectfully asked a question, I’m not insulting or swearing at anybody, etc. so my best advice is that if that’s more than you can handle, your best bet is to just ignore me. Because I’m going to ask tough questions, especially to those willing to thrust their opinions out in a public sphere and where I think there might be holes in their line of reasoning.
Well, Mark, you haven’t asked any tough questions; you’ve given us a series of strawmen or otherwise fallacious arguments, and done so in a tone many of us, myself included, find needlessly obnoxious.
My comment on Twitter was that a team’s policy against facial hair would likely fail a legal challenge made by someone citing religious freedom. I didn’t say whether I’d support such a challenge, but that I felt confident it would succeed. If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means, let’s see it. Barring a bona fide occupational requirement for clean-shaven players, however, I don’t believe such a policy would stand.
However, we actually have court rulings that religious freedom does not cover vaccination refusal, as well as laws in three states (WV, MS, CA) that make no allowance for religious exemptions, laws that to date have survived court challenges. Therefore, my statements are entirely consistent.
“Well, Mark, you haven’t asked any tough questions; you’ve given us a series of strawmen or otherwise fallacious arguments”
Common/typical response from you and tells me you’re either a) a little thin-skinned, b) don’t fully understand what those words mean because you throw them around so cavalierly when they’re not necessarily applicable, or c) some combination of both.
That kind of intellectual laziness bores me to death, so since you’re clearly not interested in honest dialogue, I’ll gladly leave you be for awhile. You tell the “Twitter trolls” nobody is making them follow you…well, same apples here – though I hardly consider myself a troll – and I’ll gladly give you the safe space you so desperately desire.
Mark, do you believe that the exercise of religious freedom should be absolute? If not, then where do you draw the line?
Short answer: no. I don’t believe any exercise of freedom, religious or otherwise, is absolute. The line is drawn when that exercise unequivocally inhibits the exercise of core freedoms of someone else. Some people may draw that line at slightly different places depending on what they see as an “unequivocal” infringement on someone else’s rights/freedoms and what exactly “core freedoms” are.
I hear the arguments about how someone not into vaccinating themselves or family members (children) is a threat to the rights of others because of the health concerns, and I understand the line of reasoning to an extent, but I don’t necessarily see it crossing the threshold I outlined above. As a society, we tend to allow people the right to exercise many freedoms – including the freedom to be very stupid – but do not intervene until AFTER it’s clear one person’s stupidity has impacted the health and well-being others instead of pre-emptively over some perceived potential threat.
The argument might be that, “hey, you need to get vaccinated because I have a right to good health, and your heightened risk of contracting XYZ illness/disease for not getting vaccinated is an infringement on MY rights.” But to what end? I’d like to think that I had the right to a safe driving environment when I get on the highway and that practically anybody who demonstrated the slightest bit of a heightened risk of causing an accident would be “screened out” so to speak and never allowed to drive, but we know that’s not the case, and as a result, there are inherent risks when you go out on the road, simply because we as a society do only a minimal job at preventing the most egregious offenders of traffic laws from getting on the highway with a vehicle, prioritizing (I’m assuming) people’s access to personal/mobility transportation over what could be a much more strident protection of people’s safety on the highway. Now obviously if someone oversteps their bounds and causes an accident, the proper authorities step in to try and correct the situation, but it’s done in a reactive, not proactive, manner.
Not sure if that makes sense or not, but that’s where I sit. I tend to prioritize personal freedom unless there’s a direct, causal, unequivocal link between the actions of one and how they may infringe on the rights/freedoms of another.
Mark:
1. Stop hiding behind rhetorical tricks. You started by saying you were “just curious.” Then you shifted to saying that you ask “the hard questions.” At least be honest about your intentions. Similarly, if you act like a jerk–and you do–that is not “on me.” You are not free to act like an ass and then blame my response to that on my being thin-skinned.
2. Maybe you should not criticize others for not understanding what a straw man argument is when you clearly don’t understand the concept yourself. I was illustrating that there are limits to “religious freedom.” One example is that I am not free to act on what Leviticus says, because doing so would harm others. That example is NOT a straw man argument.
3. For someone who claims to be a college professor, your writing is just awful. I mean, really terrible. It may be impolite for me to say that, but it is what it is.
4. Similarly, for someone who claims to be a college professor, you seem to be awfully narrow-minded. You say, “I tend to prioritize personal freedom unless there’s a direct, causal, unequivocal link between the actions of one and how they may infringe on the rights/freedoms of another.” So, what you’re telling us is that you have made a choice as to where you think the line between personal liberty/harm to others is. And yet, when people tell you that their line is somewhere else along the spectrum, you imply that they are hypocrites. Do you REALLY believe that the place where you have drawn the line is the only intellectually honest place for it to be?
5. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, why do you bother coming here and commenting? You clearly dislike Keith, and me, and several of the other commenters. You don’t do anything but hurl invective at people; I’ve yet to see an interesting idea from you. What’s your motivation here?
“Stop hiding behind rhetorical tricks.”
I’m not. If what I say comes across as a “rhetorical trick,” that’s your problem, not mine.
I stopped reading right there because I know it was an unproductive post and would be pointless to respond. I’m not wasting any more time on you, and I suggest you return the favor to me.
You know, for someone who keeps claiming that he’s going to go away, and stop engaging with all of us “intellectually dishonest” people, you keep coming back.
I don’t believe for a second that you stopped reading my post, by the way. You just knew there was no response to my dead-on observation that you’re a lousy writer.
And given your attitude that, “I tell it like it is, and it’s not my problem how people respond,” I find myself increasingly skeptical that you really are a college professor. Such a total lack of sensitivity would be completely untenable in a classroom, at any level.
Mark, what I was trying to get at is that reasonable people can disagree on where to draw that line, which does not seem “a bit strange” to me. From my perspective, parents that choose not to vaccinate their children (for non-medical reasons) are increasing the risk that their children contract serious diseases. This is not categorically different from faith healing, which I believe most reasonable people agree should not be religiously exempted. The added societal benefits (herd immunity, possible complete eradication of certain diseases) certainly don’t detract from the argument for vaccine mandates.
Thanks for boosting the Dakota Access Pipeline story. This story has been seriously unreported by most of the outlets I follow. I don’t know that a spotlight on it will make any difference, but I sure get the impression that the pipeline company would rather this fly under the radar.
Keith wrote: “Climate change is already leading to coastal flooding in the U.S., and what’s worse, Congressional Republicans have opposed funding for plans to help these areas cope with rising sea levels.”
Guess who rolled back reforms which would have increased premiums for federally-subsidized flood insurance. Hint: it wasn’t Republicans.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00019#position
” I find myself increasingly skeptical that you really are a college professor.”
Never said I was a “professor.” I said I “teach at a university.” That can include the rank of professor, associate professor, assistant professor, instructor, or lecturer.
Your other nonsense bores me because you clearly are more interested in flinging debris than having a substantive dialogue. That said, I’m willing to lay down a significant amount of money – as in, everything I own – on a wager that I do what say I do, that is, teach at a university. And I’ll gladly prove it if you’re willing to take the other side of the bet and will honor whatever monetary commitment is agreed upon as a wager.
“Your other nonsense bores me because you clearly are more interested in flinging debris than having a substantive dialogue.”
Pot, meet kettle.
“You know, for someone who keeps claiming that he’s going to go away, and stop engaging with all of us “intellectually dishonest” people, you keep coming back.”
I don’t recall I’ve been saying over and over again that I’m “going away.” I said, specifically to Keith, that I’d “leave (him) alone for awhile.” I may have also made a generic statement that if/when it’s obvious someone is more interested in flinging debris than making a good-faith effort at discussing what’s been brought up, I would steer clear of them. Your assessment of how this is all playing out doesn’t jive with reality, however.
“I don’t believe for a second that you stopped reading my post, by the way.”
I don’t care what you believe. I’m the one who knows the truth, and that’s all that matters. You insulted me right off the bat in your point 1 by claiming I was only into “rhetorical tricks.” You appeared to make 4 more points from there and had quite a bit of material to go with it. Ask yourself why I would bother when your first sentence made clear you had zero respect for my rhetorical style. That would be about as clear a waste of my time as anything.
This is some serious circa 1998 internet squabbling — selective quoting, rhetorical fallacy accusations, the whole bit!
It’s getting dangerously close to time for Godwin’s Law to kick in.
“Note that when I say you are a terrible writer, I am specifically referring to tortured, virtually unreadable sentences like this one.”
I shared my comment with my 13 year old nephew who is in the 8th grade and is a roughly average student. He had no trouble reading and comprehending the question I posed. My inclination is to apologize that a better line of communication hasn’t been established, but if you’re struggling in an area where a typical middle-schooler isn’t, I’m not sure what to tell you.
Wow. You got your 13-year-old nephew involved in your little Internet squabble. Some of us might call that…pathetic.
In my time, I’ve edited over 50 million words that found their way into print, both books and newspapers. Not to mention all the papers I’ve graded. While I know that you like to attack peoples’ reading comprehension, I am confident in my ability to distinguish clear prose from unclear prose. And I stand by my assessment of that godawful sentence.
“Pot, meet kettle.”
Any comment on the wager I suggested? I can be a bit more detailed and propose specifics if you like? While I don’t agree with Keith on many things, he seems like an honest guy overall. I propose we both send him $10,000 via PayPal, so he can hold the pooled money and serve as arbiter in the case. So he holds the $20k and I provide him the details necessary to prove that I am a university instructor (public school with an enrollment of 13-14,000 students, give or take). Once that proof is provided beyond a shadow of a doubt, he then sends $19,750 to the winner and keeps $250 for himself for his troubles. Or we can try another dollar amount you’re comfortable with?
Sure, I’ve got a comment. I said you weren’t a college professor. You admitted you aren’t. So, I’ve already won.
And truth be told, I really was judging you by too lofty a standard. I teach at a public university, as well, and the fact is that a lot of my colleagues are…well, let’s just say that it’s lucky for them that they have their academic jobs, because I’m not clear they could hold down a 9-to-5 at Mickey D’s.
“Wow. You got your 13-year-old nephew involved in your little Internet squabble. Some of us might call that…pathetic.”
“Sure, I’ve got a comment. I said you weren’t a college professor. You admitted you aren’t. So, I’ve already won.”
Let’s recap: somewhere in the discussion (spilling over from another thread) I said I “teach at a university.” You make remarks where you claim, and I quote, “… for someone who claims to be a college professor…” I respond that I never claimed to be a “professor,” only that I taught at a university as originally stated (and the text from this and the other thread support my version of events). You come back and gloat that I admitted I wasn’t a “professor” even though I never claimed to be one in the first place despite you erroneously claiming I did and you somehow claim “victory” as a result. Talk about pathetic.
“I teach at a public university, as well, and the fact is that a lot of my colleagues are…well, let’s just say that it’s lucky for them that they have their academic jobs, because I’m not clear they could hold down a 9-to-5 at Mickey D’s.”
There are certainly a few “duds” in academia, as with any profession. I took this position after spending 9+ years as a market analyst and consultant, regularly working 60+ hour weeks doing economic analysis and modeling. Not only do I teach, I manage my own consulting firm as well. So if your reading comprehension pegs me as someone barely holding down a spot at McDonald’s when I actually balance two full-time, fairly demanding professions, then maybe it really is you and not me who needs to revisit a few things about his/her life.
It’s hilarious that CB has been caught telling a brazen falsehood and is, for some reason, childishly proclaiming “victory” because I acknowledged the falsehood wasn’t true (and was something I never insinuated was true in the first place) and that the owner/author of this blog has done nothing to repudiate such a ridiculous stance. I’m a firm believer that one should be judged by their “intellectual” cronies, meaning you should answer not only for what you do and say but how you respond to those you closely associate with….this is a pretty damning indictment of Keith, if there ever was one.
I read, and sometimes comment, on Keith’s blog. So, yeah, totally fair to describe us as “close associates.”
Anyhow, at this point, I really have no idea what you’re even saying (falsehood?), and I’ve grown too bored with you to bother with the 3-4 readings it takes to figure it out. So, I shall now do what I should have done 10 comments ago: bow out. Congratulations to you, you have beaten me into submission. Perhaps you and your nephew can have a nice celebration.
At least we see Mark doesn’t think Keith is a beaver or else that would have been a damming indictment.
I’ll escort myself out.
To be fair, drawing up a wager and then dragging Keith into this tiff is also rather childish.
“So, yeah, totally fair to describe us as “close associates.””
In the CONTEXT of this blog, yes, you are “close associates” and I stand by that statement even if you’re veritable strangers in the “real world.” Wasn’t that what you and the other guy beat me up for last week or whenever? Not reading properly “in context”?
Mark, your act stopped being funny about 37 posts ago.
It’s really a shame to see that he has managed to hijack the comments section over the last couple of weeks.
“It’s really a shame to see that he has managed to hijack the comments section over the last couple of weeks.”
Why does the blame fall squarely on me? Anybody with a hint of common sense can see that CB has taken a provoking and combative tone.
“To be fair, drawing up a wager and then dragging Keith into this tiff is also rather childish.”
“Mark, your act stopped being funny about 37 posts ago.”
Two commenters go at it on a blog where one is more with the “inside crowd” and the other comes into the fray more as an “outsider.” The “insider” is blatantly obnoxious in responding on behalf of the blog’s author to questions/comments directed at the author by the “outsider.” Then in brazen fashion, the “insider” insinuates the “outsider” made a claim about himself that did not happen. When it was laid out clearly that the “insider” was mistaken in the assessment by the “outsider,” the “insider” then somehow spins this as a “win” so he can do a “victory dance.” Then, to top it off, members of the commentariat who’ve been completely on the periphery up until now, weigh in and make it clear they see the “outsider” as the only problem here.
Yes, folks, what we have here are the classic signs of an echo chamber made up of several petty and unimaginative individuals.
“To be fair, drawing up a wager and then dragging Keith into this tiff is also rather childish.”
Look we can debate what is or isn’t childish with regard to internet dialogue. I’d like to think I refrain from the “silly” unless I get pulled into the mud myself. CB made a point to direct insults at me personally, namely to accuse me of being a “terrible writer” and then to cast doubts regarding the professional credentials I claimed. Grammatical mistakes aside, there’s a bit of subjectivity in what constitutes good versus “terrible” writing, so there’s not much I can do with that one in terms of a response. However, I can definitively prove my credentials as a university instructor if need be, and I’m not going to let an insult questioning that slide without some kind of retort where I offer to prove my chops. I could just say, “No no, I really do what I say I do,” but seriously, what kind of teeth does that comment have? Bottom line: you want to make a bold claim about a stranger, put your money where your mouth is or shut up about it.
The vast majority of internet wagers are toothless. It doesn’t matter if you wager “everything you own” (like in your Sept 12 post at 3:11) or “$10,000” (like in your post from Sept 13 post at 6:02) or any other figure you want. It’s not like people are disbelieving of a claim when the dollar figure is low, say $5, but all the sudden believe it when it is comparatively high, say $1,000. People, and I’ll include myself in this particular situation, just don’t care either way.
These two guys both teach at public universities…..no wonder our educational system is going down the crapper. Can you imagine taking a class from either one of them? One would forever browbeat you for every typo or misstatement that you ever made, while the other would give 200,000 word lectures, ask you about some obscure details, then bet you that he didn’t actually say what you thought he did.
I have kids to send to college soon. I sure as hell hope neither one of these clowns teaches where they decide to go.
I’ll bet you $10,000 that I get kick-ass teaching evals 😉
“People, and I’ll include myself in this particular situation, just don’t care either way.”
I wasn’t worried about impressing or convincing “people” in this instance. One specific person made an errant claim about my professional status. I corrected this person and said to put up or shut up. What’s so hard to understand about that? It wasn’t about putting a big dollar amount to make it more believable. It was about telling someone who attacked me with a petty and childish, “Your writing is too terrible for you to be a (university instructor)” to knock it off with the bullshit.
There was a much simpler solution if you want to prove who you are without attaching dollar figures to silly bets. You could have just posted a link to your CV or resume. Then either CB, or anyone else who wants to know, can either click on it or not.
“…neither one of these clowns ”
I’m just thrilled someone was finally willing to take aim at CB with as much ferocity as I’ve been receiving. I can understand the frustration by some that the thread has been hijacked; my main objection was that I seemed to be taking all the blame when CB clearly deserved some of the heat. This probably could’ve been shortened – and consequently, not “hijacked” – significantly if another observer had, prior to now, just stepped in with a fair assessment laying into both sides rather than keep singling me out as the problem.
Since it’s the thing to do on this thread, I’ll now do my “victory dance” for there being at least one brave soul willing to lay into CB as harshly as I’ve been getting it.
“ask you about some obscure details, then bet you that he didn’t actually say what you thought he did.”
There was nothing “obscure” about how this went down, however. I said in a previous thread I “teach at a university.” CB said he was highly skeptical I was a “college professor” as I supposedly claimed to be. I said I never claimed to be a “professor,” only that I taught. I then reminded CB of the many ranks a teacher at the collegiate level can hold, which he should be fully aware of if he’s in a university system as well.
” You could have just posted a link to your CV or resume. Then either CB, or anyone else who wants to know, can either click on it or not”
Fair enough. I’ll take that into consideration for any future doubts cast over professional status. Thanks.
As a pseud on the interwebs, I don’t give a shit whether or not someone is an instructor/prof/astronaut (for the record, I believe Mark–that still doesn’t mean I give a shit). Incidentally, I am also involved in higher education (Life Sciences Prof.), but the benefit of (pseudo)anonymity is that it helps to level the playing field in terms of appeals to authority and power differential. You have to show your work instead of just saying trust the letters next to the name.
Incidentally, being extremely talented in one field doesn’t preclude someone from being an enormous dumbass in another (see Linus Pauling, Kary Mullis, Ben Carson…)
Good points, and I agree with pretty much everything you said. Also for the record, though you may be aware, I did not make the claim about being a university instructor on the other thread as a way of pulling rank and claiming more expertise on any particular subject than I have. If I remember correctly, it was simply in response to some groaning about my verbosity. My explanation was that I’m used to having to be wordy to deliver instruction via lectures, and as a result, there’s a tendency to “ramble on” and how that may not translate as well into an internet discussion where people prefer you to be more “on point.”
Your students probably would prefer you to be more on point as well. I can’t imagine the tangents you’d take in class if you lectured like you discussed (“discussed”) things here.
…wow.
I’m with you there. Two weeks in a row of Mark flooding Stick to Baseball with thousands of words centered on inconsequential minutia that he’s splintered off from substantial discussion. I’m surprised Keith hasn’t given him the boot yet, especially after the multiple insults.
“…especially after the multiple insults”
Care to catalogue those for us? And/or demonstrate where anything I’ve said – or the tone in delivering it – has been remarkably different from what’s been directed at me.
Either your definition of what counts as an insult is veeeeeeeeeery inclusive or you just assume that because I’ve delivered such a prolific word count and have obviously not become “best buds” with anyone here that there has to be plenty of examples in there.
I challenge you to find anything to rise to the level of a true insult. There’s probably an example or two of a little snark or less-than-sunny disposition in some of the comments, though only after provoked with a snide comment directed my way.
” I’m surprised Keith hasn’t given him the boot yet…”
Best I can tell, Keith is generally pretty expeditious about spotting it and rooting it out, so while I’m quite sure he endorses very little of what I’ve said, I think it’s reasonable to assume I haven’t stepped too far out of line.
Besides, I’ve seen him say a number of times that insulting/degrading/homophobic/bigoted/etc. language will not be tolerated but not be quite as dogmatic about preventing a little bit of long-winded back-and-forth snark and squabbling. Maybe I’m wrong, but if simply being wordy and not demonstrating your most sunny side is that much of a no-no, then I’d appreciate it if he states that clearly as a “rule” of the blog.
Or he is just busy
He’s always busy yet exhibits no hesitation or restraint in expunging people from his Twitter feed or this blog the moment they cross a line.
This is correct. The pro-Trump troll from this summer started dropping profanity and other highly offensive language, at which point I banned him. That’s about what it would take for a full ban. I’ve dropped some readers into moderation (instead of automatic approval) just for being jerks. The hammer is ultimately mine but I’d rather reserve that for the most egregious cases.