This blog is a random collection of information, partly in support of my quotations web site. Other topics include wine, military news, economics, history, libertarianism, and other random things which happen to strike my fancy. Backup site is at http://quotulatiousness.blogspot.com/ (if there are no posts showing, hit the backup blog for explanation). Comments have been turned off, as the spam was getting too much to handle. Comments can be emailed to me for posting.

September 08, 2006

QotD: The true essence of blogging

Sadly, I'm willing to bet a fairly hefty sum of money that almost none of the [. . .] bloggers who linked to it originally will link to my attempts to rectify their misunderstanding. Because after all the point of blogging is not to have an interesting discussion; it is to make fun of people who don't agree with us, in the company of like-minded companions who will reinforce our conviction that other opinions are risible. But we'll know, won't we, dear reader. And the important thing, of course, is that we all agree . . .

Jane Galt, Asymmetrical Information, 2006-09-05

Posted by Nicholas at September 8, 2006 12:09 AM
Comments
An excellent and telling observation. Thankfully you and I share the like-mindedness of a wide range of drinks related issues so as to keep our relationship healthy. Posted by: Alan at September 8, 2006 09:15 AM
I disagree! ;-) I mean I do agree with Jane and all about status comparisons being localized (or even parochial) - all that "Think Globally, Act Locally" crap is purely status-behavior of the Global Consiousness Pharaisees, and resources are also localized and unevenly distributed - so too in that respect also are Blog resources, connections, trackbacks, links, and friendships...and few idf any retractions. Anyhow have a nice weekend. :-) Posted by: DirtCrashr at September 8, 2006 12:23 PM
resources are also localized and unevenly distributed - so too in that respect also are Blog resources, connections, trackbacks, links, and friendships...and few idf any retractions.
The assumption seems to be that the ones who read a correction/retraction are not the same group of people who read the original post to which the correction/retraction applies . . . not that that actually excuses the lack of same, of course. Posted by: Nicholas at September 8, 2006 04:41 PM


Visitors since 17 August, 2004