It would appear…

…that our friend Grey didn’t appreciate my addition to his entry as it seems he has deleted it from SEB’s database without comment. That’s a shame as I spent a couple of hours doing the research and writing it up, but I suppose I should have gone ahead and changed the authorship to my own name considering the major addition I made to it. That would’ve kept him from deleting it as well. Not sure if it’s a case of embarrassment or frustration on his part, but it’s gone now and we’ll just have to learn to live with the loss.

Interestingly enough, Grey hasn’t bothered to remove the unexpanded version from his own blog even after having the truth of it revealed to him. No updated indicating that the events depicted in the email didn’t happen quite the way it’s portrayed therein, no hint that it’s anything other than 100% true. I’m beginning to suspect he’s not much for the truth if it gets in the way of his biases.

88 thoughts on “It would appear…

  1. great, I didn’t even get to see any postings even vaguely related to grey’s OP.

    I know it’s a lot to ask, Les, and I’m not suggesting that you recreate what you already composed, but can you at least give a brief summation to those of us who didn’t get to see your additions?

    I don’t need to see grey’s again.  I went to his site and read it.

  2. Although i by no means sympathize with intent of his post, i did think it a bit odd and over-the-top to see an addendum to his original post.  It didn’t seem very wise and, well, i can see why he took exception to it.  Anyone could have easily anticipated that some level of political fire-fight might ensue.

    Either delete the post out-right, email the author why, or save extra-author corrections, addendums, and whatnot for the comments.

    It seemed an over-use of authority that would’ve been best done in the comments section.

    rob@egoz.org

  3. .rob, you may be confused as to who’s blog this is. Making entries here is a privilege, not a right.

    I say find it and put it back. It was da bomb! Les’ response was so appropriate, pertinent, justified etc.

    Guess this shows how much grey really wants to discuss all aspects of an issue.

  4. Maybe Grey realized how badly he was going to get flak over it and retreated.  I didn’t get to the whole thing, just reading through what was on the index page before it disappeared.  That’s what I get for taking off for a few hours before finishing reading!

  5. Les, I thought your rebuttal was great. I wonder, though: why waste space addressing an obvious chain email, when the poster hasn’t even taken the time to verify it via snopes.com or other simple checks?

  6. The “this-is-my-turf” arguement never struck me as reasoned.  From my perspective, the addendum to his post lacked grace and good political sense.

    Call me crazy and overly liberal, go ahead:  But, i think free expression (within our culture’s normal social confines) is a good, wise idea for this forum in the context of equality.  I, previously, thought it a fantastic development—until i saw the post in question.  I’m dismayed to think its practice here is anything less than free when it doesn’t match an owner’s ideology (or the majority’s) and therefore when such is the case somehow gives moral license to the siteowner to add comments and addendums within the original text beyond the author’s original words. Truth isn’t so weak to need such assistance.

    There’s a place for refutations and comments and questions: Everyone in turn, on equal footing.

    It’s always best to let people speak, without injecting comments, and then speak once the conch shell has been passed the listeners’ way.  It’s a fundamental lesson of forums, be you a visitor or owner.  But, alas, we do seem to live in a less-than-civilised era of forums, especially on the web.

    As to whose turf this is, yes, yes, i know. (Ownership is incredibly important, i know.) I do remember, trust me.  I regularly see his face pearing over my screen as i type my waiting-in-turn-comments.  It often sparks my memory of Honecker or Breshnev’s omnipresent portraits at the market or classroom.  I had hoped the above picture was a portrait of a more authority-restrained and fair character.  I still do.

    Might never makes right.
    It just makes messes (like this situation).

    rob@egoz.org

  7. I regularly see his face pearing over my screen as i type my waiting-in-turn-comments.  It often sparks my memory of Honecker or Breshnev’s omnipresent portraits at the market or classroom.

    Now that’s below the belt, Rob.  Les looks a lot better than Breshnev, and a lot smarter than Honecker.

  8. My original text referred to Castro and Kim Jong-Il, but i decided to use non-living figures.  I have enough enemies here as it is, no reason to add a PRK or Cuban hitsquad to the list.

    Would PolPot and Mao read better ?
    (and i admire HoChiMinh too much to uuse his name)

    ;-]

    rob@egoz.org

  9. rob- not having seen grey’s emended entry here, only what he posted on his own blog, I can’t judge the way Les treated it.  I’m all for free speech and fairness too.  But you have to keep in mind
    1)this is indeed Les’s blog, not a public service; and
    2)grey has a history here of making wild claims with no substantiation, and not responding to questions; and at some point enough is enough.
    Maybe Les made a tactical error in altering grey’s entry itself rather than commenting on it- I don’t know.  But if you read lots of threads here, you can see for yourself that Les is fair and not arbitrary in his control over his creation.  True, he does not suffer fools graciously, but why should he?  If you don’t draw the line somewhere, no serious discussion can take place.

  10. So, .rob, are you saying that grey was justified in pulling his entry?

    The point I’m trying to make is that Les allows others to make guest entries and once they have done so it seems to me the entry should stay, no matter the scope of responses they get to it.
    Pulling it because the editor placed a rebuttal to it seems the height of hypocrisy. His post after all concerned true intent of the “enemy” and some need nothing more than a separation of entry and comment to accept all that the entry contained as absolute and final fact.

    grey makes a habit of presenting half-formed opinion as proven fact and every opinion he has seems to warrant further investigation. In this case we received both point and counterpoint in the same entry. It made for intriguing reading and more of what I come to SEB for.

    Do you come here thinking it is something other than one man’s opinions (or the individual opinions of those who make entries available)?

    grey should put his entry back, if he has the sack to, and then we can rightly discuss in comments whether his entry should have been allowed to sit separate from Les’ editorializing.

    Tomorrow, leave the windows open.

  11. I am conflicted about this.

    To begin with, I wonder what prompted grey to submit the entry in the first place – on second thought, never mind. I’m not sure I want to know the answer.

    To keep with the theme of a personal blog, it is appropriate to unambiguously flag a submission that takes a contrarian view; editorial comments are one way to achieve this.

    On the other hand, I can see Rob’s point. However, it assumes a reasoned debate, a dubious premise in this case.

    Perhaps Les should have rejected the submission, but commented on grey’s blog entry instead… A subtle difference, but it would have observed all niceties, whether such courtesy is justified or not.

    And perhaps it would be appropriate to copy his blog entry and to reconstruct Les’s rebuttal. Then again, perhaps not.

  12. Let me first try and destroy any beliefs that .rob is against the site Owner; I am decidely NOT.  That said, understand that i always, ALWAYS, severely admonish such cras use of power (e.g., by injecting comments and opinions throughout the user’s original text) regardless of where i am, or what site.  It’s a core belief i have.

    I believe that the *free* exchange of ideas will, one day soon, eliminate much of our civilisation’s evils.

    That said, i do GREATLY admire the site Owner’s work, and especially the Owner’s desire to open posts to visitors.  More people should do this.  In short, the Owner has done an excellent, an admirable! job that typifies the Zen-n-MotorCycle level of Quality when it comes to this site.  Really, the Owner has done just that.

    I’m serious when i say the above.

    But, sometimes great leaders, such as the Owner, stumble and fall short of their own ideals—and their audience’s expectations.  Sometimes face flat in the groun.  Such is the case when i read Grey’s hopelessly editorialized-to-death, injected-throughout-with-another’s-opinions post regarding Islam-v-Jesus-in-Prison.  It was ugly.  It was very ugly.  It was WRONG.

    It was a cras use of authority and power.
    Shame on the Owner.

    Yes, i agree, Grey isn’t so much interested in Truth as he is in some Republican-party branded version of christianity.

    NOTE: Grey is an ugly soul—when it comes to the value of Truth and its proper excercise.

    But, i think his (albeit unstated) right to post here free of over-adulteration and over-editorialization was breached.  Actually, for anyone who saw the post, Grey’s original text was often lost in and amongst the Owner’s rather lengthy editorialization and comments.  It was like reading Talmud, minus the beautiful tractate style of layout.  So, not only was it morally bad, but also aesthetically so.

    Maybe the Owner should issue permits-to-post amongst those that meet certain, albeit unstated, criteria.  This might limit the desires to be so brash—and unrestrained—when certain Problem People post on his site.

    One day ownership won’t be a part of any law.

    rob@egoz.org

  13. What Elwed said.

    .rob does make some good points, then again, I know that grey has made it a habit of trying to get under Les’ skin.  Also, this isn’t the first time where Les has made editorial comments to a submission, just the first time that he has done a full blown rebuttal.  I suppose a more delicate approach would have been to post the entry and with a editorial note to read Les’ rebuttal in the very first comment.

    I’m just happy that .rob appears to have returned to earth. wink

  14. But, sometimes great leaders, such as the Owner, stumble and fall short of their own ideals

    If you think that with the phrase “great leader” you’ve inoculated yourself from a trip to the re-education camp, you are oh, so wrong. 

    Perhaps you’ll keep a more civil tongue in your head after a couple of years shivering away your nights on a thin layer of straw… serf!

    (now where’d I put that knout?)

  15. The only thing that come to mind about this in reference to Grey’s deletion of the thread….  the word ‘cowardly’

    If you’re going to run something up the flagpole to see who salutes, you’ld best be prepared for getting the finger as well.

    Kudos to Les for putting in the time & effort to call out a bunch of obvious hate-mongering drivel with intelligent, thought out rebuttal.

  16. Nowiser – LOL!

    I did get a look at how the entry was done, though as I said earlier I’d hoped to read it all today.  It seemed odd to weave the rebuttal in with the original post, but having open-submissions is an emerging standard so there are still things to be worked out.

    Maybe a good compromise would be to post the original as-is, and then post the first comment below it with the rebuttal.  That would keep the distinctiveness of the two thoughts intact.

    (…and also clearly show that using an email forward as a post, isn’t exactly distinctive thought.)  I went to Grey’s site to read the original and it just doesn’t ring true.  Can you picture an accomplished minister of any faith “hanging his head in shame” when confronted with criticism?  I can’t. But maybe I lack imagination, which was clearly used by whoever created the original story.

  17. I did not catch the first piece. But following you link I saw the opinion. This piece was discussed about in urban legends snopes page and the event did not really occur. And the
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/allah.asp

    It is my opinion that religion is merely culture in written and codified form. For example, while there are some Christians against homosexuality there are others who feel Chirstianity is not only not against it but that Jesus gave his blessings and protection.

    Comments relating to Islam seems to have the problem of the inability to separate Arab/Middle East culture and the religion. An example is where some people claim that Islam is against women’s rights. But if you go to South East Asia, Indonesia, the world’s largest Islamic country, had until recent election had a female President (Megawati). She lost because of among other reasons, failure in tackling corruption and improving economic development. The US has yet to have a female leader. Also in Indonesia, one of their religious ruling councils had 7 females in 30 person council. Or in China, they have female religious scholars and leaders too. Let us recall the fit thrown up by some Christians (Catholics) relating to a female religious leader.

  18. That’s funny. I could have sworn the entry was laid out like this:

    > Les stating that he would have something to say about the entry afterward.

    > grey’s entry itself.

    > Les’ rebuttal that included pointing to a source of the source to put it in perspective and hand grey his ass in a sling.*

    I love the way these things become distorted after the fact and in the retelling. It’s my understanding now that grey defeated Islam and as such, we can now bring the boys home from the wrong war.

    * Giving grey’s ass back to him was above and beyond what should be considered fair; Les should have kept it for a trophy. I would have but then you guys would have assumed I kept it for a different reason.

  19. I would have but then you guys would have assumed I kept it for a different reason

    (nowiser, scratching head in befoozlement—)

    “Uh, a fricasee?  A pincushion?  a rather pale and hairy footpillow?”

    (mumbling incoherently to self “no, that doesn’t make any sense at all.  He can’t possibly mean it that way!  That would be just, well, wrong—in so many different ways.  Besides, after about three days, it’s gonna be distinctly aromatic.  nah, that can’t be it.”)

    “I got it!  You could turn it upside down and use it as a fruit bowl!”

  20. Ragman wrote: Maybe Grey realized how badly he was going to get flak over it and retreated.

    What do you mean “was going!?” The first person who replied (I’m sorry I forgot who that was) had already produced anecdotal evidence that there is no global jihad commanded upon all Muslims. That poster mentioned that they had talked to some Sunni Muslim acquaintances who said the exact opposite of the claim made in grey’s “proof” (which we all know is a stupid forwarded email, and should have been written off as a fictional work by its very nature.) My post pointed out that infidel is an English word and the Quranic verse so often quoted to prove that Muslims must kill infidels, does not, in fact, say that. (insert boring discussion of Islamic history, fiqh, tafsir, and Quranic interpretation here.)  I also pointed out that Tariq Ramadan (a scholar hailed as a Muslim Martin Luther) was banned from the US even though Notre Dame wanted him to teach and he most certainly would be willing to sing “God Bless America” like mentioned in the chain letter. Between Les’s rebuttal and the first two posts (mostly Les’s rebuttal), grey had already had his ass handed to him.

  21. Wow, you guys have been busy while I was sleeping. Let me see if I can address some of .rob’s complaints (thank you for the compliments, .rob). Sit back, this is going to be long-winded.

    I’d like to remind folks that when I first set up the option to have folks submit entries I made it clear that this wasn’t going to be the NYT and that I reserved the right to accept or reject submissions based on what I felt was appropriate to SEB. Beyond saying that I’d reject flat out attempts at flame wars or spam, I did say that I would consider whatever was proffered and I wouldn’t edit them beyond simple spelling and/or punctuation. I believe I’ve stuck to that pretty well even in regards to the entry Grey submitted and here’s why.

    There have been roughly half a dozen or so submissions that I’ve just not bothered to approve for one reason or another and there have been two that I have yanked after they were published. The first was “Depopulation Bomb” by Fred Call because he was largely the only person commenting on it and it was a nonsensical mess as a result. The other one was Amy’s “More seasonal abuses of the unbeliever” which I pulled specifically because she wrote me an email requesting that I do so with an explanation on why she wanted me to retract it. I sent a reply to her with a quick discussion of her reasoning and asking if she were sure she wanted it pulled and, when she said yes, I went ahead and removed it. I’m not against removing something someone submitted if they want me to and have good reasons for it.

    By and large I haven’t edited any submissions for the content and this was true in Grey’s submission as well. Other than capitalizing his sentences and proper nouns, it appeared in its entirety as he had submitted it. However, I did add an editor’s note to the start indicating that I was going to include additional content that would rebut the premise of the submission. I also went out of my way to ensure that this additional content was separated on the main page of the site from Grey’s submission and on the comments page by a horizontal rule and a heading indicating that the following would be my addition. I thought these measures were more than enough to insure that there was no confusion on where Grey’s thoughts stopped and mine started. In my opinion I did not “add comments and addendums within the original text beyond the author’s original words” as .rob claims as my comments and addendums were clearly delineated as such and I went out of my way to make certain that was clear to everyone.

    Should I have kept my comments out of the main entry and put them in the “comments” section? Honestly, I don’t see how that makes any real difference. The content would’ve been the same regardless and you’d have to go to the comments page to see them in both situations. If you were to visit only the main page the only addition would’ve been my editor’s note above Grey’s submission and you never would’ve seen my comments unless you made a point of doing so. The same is true of the RSS feeds because I put my comments in the extended text. If I had done as .rob claims I wouldn’t have bothered to make such a clear point of separation and would have just mixed my comments directly into Grey’s submission so that it all showed up on the main index. And I’ve done just that sort of thing when I’ve copied an article from another site in order to write a rebuttal of it.

    Which brings up another point: Would it have been better if I had just rejected Grey’s submission, then gone to his website and cut and pasted his original entry from there into a new entry here with a link back to his and then proceeded to rip it to shreds without separating the content? Based on .rob’s comment and the fact that I’ve done such things before without his complaining about it I’d have to assume he would think that perfectly OK, but I’m not sure I understand why that makes a difference. If it’s purely a matter of who’s name is on the entry then I’ll make a point to change it to my own in the future if I should ever do something like this again because that’d be the only difference between what he’s objecting to and what I’ve done in the past.

    As a point of fact, Grey’s submission was actually less modified than some of the other’s I’ve posted in the past. A couple of submissions were about good topics, but contained a mere handful of sentences without much in the way of content from the news item they were pointing to that would give readers here any idea on why they’d want to check out the link. In those cases I’ve gone ahead and made major changes to the content by adding in material from the link they were pointing to and reformatting the entry so that links weren’t just raw URLs dropped into the entry. You may have even noticed one user in the past thanking me for fleshing it out a bit in his comments to it. I agonized about those changes for quite awhile before making them as I realized I was drastically changing the content that was submitted and mixing my own voice in with the original author’s and I don’t take that lightly at all. I ultimately decided in those cases that the changes I was making were similar to how in a group conversation you’ll help a friend clarify a point he’s trying to make because you understand what he’s trying to say, but he’s having trouble coming up with the right words.

    Additionally, I will admit that it was Grey’s accusation of me having “bias goggles” that prompted me to look more closely at his submission and decide to not only post it, but add my comments onto the end of it. It’s clear from a couple of the comments he’s made recently that he submitted the entry specifically to see if I would post it and was probably hoping I wouldn’t so he could have some basis for claiming that I’m overly biased against opposing viewpoints. When it became obvious that he was demonstrating his own biases by not looking into the veracity of the submission himself before entering it, well, that just made it all the more worthwhile.

    Lastly, I’d like to address the point .rob raised about the entry being “the author’s original words” as there was very little in Grey’s submission that was original. In fact, of the 29 sentences that composed the submission, a grand total of 5 of them were “Grey’s Original Words”™ and they consisted entirely of the following:

    OK, I’m not a big fan of sending or receiving ‘forwards,’ but I got this one very profound forward from a friend today.  It addresses a major part of Islam that is very disturbing.  While reading it, keep in mind that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the United States, especially among minorities.

    This has got to be the most screwed up system of control I’ve ever seen.  Believe or we will kill you in the name of Allah.

    The first paragraph appeared before and the second after the forwarded email. Grey’s total opinions on the content of his submission consists of two points: 1) the email was “profound” and 2) Islam is the “most screwed up” religion.

    [sarcasm mode] Whoa, that’s some heady and insightful commentary there! I’d better not mess with that! [/sarcasm mode]

    For that matter, the email he’s commenting on isn’t even completely that author’s original words as it has been modified (which I mentioned in my rebuttal). Most of my rebuttal was directed at the author of the email itself (and Christians who swallow such prattle without looking into it) rather than Grey, though I did say that it was indicative of the lazy thinking some folks like Grey tend to engage in.

    Obviously I don’t agree that I did anything wrong and, if anything, I think I went out of my way to make sure I did it appropriately. I can see how I probably should have changed the author attribution to myself considering the large amount of original text I tacked onto the end. I could also see the argument that I may as well have chopped Grey’s input from it entirely as my main focus was on the forwarded email more so than Grey’s exhaustive and well-thought out commentary about it.

    But I am willing to listen to more reasoning about why I’m in the wrong here as I’ve been taken to task before when folks thought I stepped over the line. If there’s a consensus that I should avoid doing this sort of thing in the future then I will. If there’s a proper way I should follow that folks think I should undertake then I don’t have a problem with that if it’ll keep folks happy.

    Hey, at least this isn’t nearly as bad as the chastising I took for my (admittedly) nasty Tammy Faye entry awhile back.

  22. hee hee, boy you tickled me there, nowiser and you helped me. I was having a hard time imagining what could be done with someone else’s butt.

    I’m gonna think on that some more. I’m sure something will come to me.

  23. I missed this one. I did read the writing on the ‘unexpanded’ link that Les provided and found it too cutesy in tone, it just sounded like a fable.

    I am assumming based on the comments before me that this little creation is bogus. Although Islam does have it in B&W in the Koran that it is a duty of a muslim to kill infidels. But that is probably off topic and not the point. Sorry.

  24. Double dipping as a couple of comments came in while I was writing this and there was a couple of things I forgot to mention:

    Nowiser, if there is enough interest then I’ll see what I can do to reproduce the entry minus Grey’s huge contribution to it and eliminating any reference so as not to further damage sensitive nature. I have half of it (Grey’s bit and my disclaimer) via the RSS feed at Bloglines, but I’d have to rewrite my rebuttal in it’s entirety at this point. Not impossible, but may not be 100% the same.

    Trotsky, it was your “boring discussion of Islamic history, fiqh, tafsir, and Quranic interpretation” that I’m actually sorry to have lost. I thought your contribution was fantastic and something a lot more people needed to read. The crap I put up I can repeat without too much trouble, but your explanation on the words and what is actually said was rare and informative. I’ve not read the Quran anywhere near as much as I’ve read the Bible so I’m not as easily able to pull supporting references from memory with it. This made your contribution much more valuable in my eyes.

  25. And one more quick follow up I forgot to mention previously:

    babypohemus asks: why waste space addressing an obvious chain email, when the poster hasn’t even taken the time to verify it via snopes.com or other simple checks?

    It’s precisely because they hadn’t check with Snopes.com that I wasted my time on it. I get those sorts of emails a lot and I’ve pissed off more than one relative (usually the more conservative ones) by hitting reply all and discussing the details. It’s my hope that by discussing and dissecting them here on SEB it’ll help put an end to it.

    Plus it’s always fun pointing out how stupid and gullible some people can be.

  26. Witchfire wrote: Trotsky, that would have been me & my anecdotal evidence

    Well, proper credit for being the second person (Les obviously being the first) to trounce all over grey’s “facts” goes to Witchfire.  grin

  27. Uh, I just stumbled across this in another thread.

    grey said

    if you believe everything you read on the internet you’re just as sad as the fool that believes everything t.v. tells him

    hmmmm.  That red light you see blinking in the corner of your vision. . .  that’s your ‘irony meter’ going into overload!

    Ruuuun!!!!

  28. Correct me if i am wrong…
    The post in question was The Most Heavily Editted visitor-post yet seen on this system.

    (By edit i mean comments heavily spread throughout the author’s original posted text.)

    I dunno, maybe i’m wrong…
    But i’d think if a visitor posts a piece, and such a level of edits/addendums are interspersed within the original post’s text, that A) the Owner might alert the user of such heavy additions before actually posting the piece under said visitor’s name, or B) refuse the piece and post the piece under the Owner’s name as they prefer.

    Decorum matters, even when Truth is on our side.

    rob@egoz.org

  29. Correct me if i am wrong…
    The post in question was The Most Heavily Editted visitor-post yet seen on this system.

    (By edit i mean comments heavily spread throughout the author’s original posted text.)

    Not exactly, the entry that appeard on the main page was all grey’s material (plus a small note from Les at the top.) You had to click the “Click to read MORE…” link to see Les’s rebutal. It was, as previously mentioned, all of grey’s material in original form followed by Les’s material in the expanded entry.

  30. I agree with .rob here, although there isn’t an editorial board at SEB except for Les, so more power to him.
    As long as a disclaimer is posted that Les might comment and alter your post for whatever reason, I wouldn’t be offended if my or anyone else’s guest posts were modified.
    In my opinion, I think if Les does this, he should Perhaps just introduce the post, then offer a reubuttal at the end, but not interject throughout.

    As for the issue at hand, two points of interest:
    1. After commenting on Grey’s blog last night I received my first ever “comment spam” at my blog.
    2. Grey’s blog is currently a “404 not found” site.

    Both just mere coincidences?

  31. Coming late to the fray here—I read all the original plus rebuttal and I agree with Les.  He was more than fair in dealing with a submission that was clearly a challenge to Les’s positions (and, as it turns out, a pretty lame one at that).  Maybe for the sake of completeness, Les should have a warning on the submission page that by submitting it, you give him the right to do whatever he wants with it, including completely ripping it to shreds.  Because he has that right.

    Don’t ever make the mistake of thinking that a personal blog is a mandated free speech zone.  It ain’t.  Les doesn’t have to be fair, or nice, or even-handed, or even consistent.  He can be as capricious as he wants.  It’s to his credit that he has enough of a conscience even to try to be somewhat generous in allowing these postings at all.

    And yes, the discussion of the Koran’s etymology was really fascinating.  I would love to see that posted again.

  32. Trotsky, just another vote for a repost of your “boring discussion of Islamic history, fiqh, tafsir, and Quranic interpretation”. I’d be very interested in reading it.

  33. This issue was bound to come up eventually but it was fogged by Grey’s not having written most of it himself.  It had that “If I were writing the script, this how life would be” sound to it that is common to all email chain letters. 

    GM, you’re right – Les has the right to handle submissions any that suits him.

    I wish Grey would enlighten us as to why he pulled it.  You out there, Grey?  Hard to imagine you’re not reading this.

  34. Correct me if i am wrong…
    The post in question was The Most Heavily Editted visitor-post yet seen on this system.

    (By edit i mean comments heavily spread throughout the author’s original posted text.)

    I believe I have already corrected you on that point with my lengthy reply, but I’ll shorten it a bit: You’re wrong.

    My comments were not spread through the author’s original posted text. I had a disclaimer at the top and then it was all Grey’s submission until you got to the extended entry at which point I separated things with a horizontal rule and a heading that said in bold letters: Now for my rebuttal. Or words to that effect.

  35. I was a fascinated with this thread for some reason, but like so many others I missed Grey’s original post. (Seems too that his “bloq” is gone, at least as of this morning when I clicked on the link here.)

    I did some Googling this morning, and it took a while but I found the cache hereif anyone is interested.

  36. Thanks much, Jeff. Now maybe .rob will believe us concerning how it was laid out. I’m still curious how he got that the guest post had
    “comments heavily spread throughout the author’s original posted text.”

    As for why grey’s site is 404, could he be denying inquiries from SEB directly and only SEB?

  37. Sweet! Saved by Google. I had tried to do a Google search to see if it had managed to index the page before it got trashed and it appeared to me that the last time Goggle had stopped by was prior to the entry. It was only up for maybe four hours so I’m amazed Google caught it.

    So should I recreate the entry or not? I can remove the references to Grey if anyone feels it is an issue. Anyone else notice that the comments on that cache are incorrect? They’re from another thread. In fact, the URL attributed by Google is from that other thread and not the entry it’s displaying. A very interesting and odd glitch.

  38. As for why grey’s site is 404, could he be denying inquiries from SEB directly and only SEB?

    Nope, it looks like he took down his own site. Go figure.

  39. I almost didn’t bother to take the time to post a reply because it would be too involved and I don’t really care that much, but I think you people deserve a little something to discuss.  Besides, life would be boring if everyone agreed about everything.  If nobody had the balls to step up and say they have a completely different opinion, or to bring up something nobody would dare say.

    My basic premise with any source is that it can be false or misleading.  I don’t put a lot of stock in any source other than my personal experiences, as I’ve alluded to several times.  I don’t care if it’s TV., the internet, a radio show, or an academic journal, they all subject to bias and misleading information.  I don’t spend half my life parked behind a computer.  When I take the time to swing over to SEB, I quickly browse through to see if something catches my eye.  If I find something interesting, I’ll read it and if I feel like it, I’ll post the first thing that comes to mind.  I don’t really care to take the time to “verify

  40. Double dipping for a moment, I’m told that Grey has taken his blog down before after having his ass handed to him. It seems to be a form of pouting for him.

    Man, if I took SEB down every time I got slammed for something you folks would have a lot more free time on your hands.

  41. Yes, you should reconstruct it and maybe while you’re at it, you can do something about people being able to remove their entries themselves. I just assume that entries become the property of SEB, although not where authorship credit and reprinting for profit may be concerned, if such were to ever be feasible.

    Yeah, I noticed that the comments were from grey’s other entry and wondered how that happened but assumed you would be able to explain it.

  42. It is there for my friends and myself, not for strangers who want to be dicks.

    That brought a smile to my face.

    Grey, if you need advice on access control, I’m willing to help you out – for a small consultancy fee, of course wink

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.