Comments about Comments (here)
WIRED magazine has a piece in its current issue [9/2013] by Mat Honan about the comments sections of web-pages (and blogs).
No Place For Conversation [Page 120]:
… a comments section is a necessary component of a web page [or blog] … that notion is is a relic of an era predating social media … But it persists with zombie determination. We’ve bought into the fallacy of comments so completely that they remain nearly universal – and universally terrible.
… “everyone who runs a commenting system ends up killing themselves or shooting up a post office.” [Digg CEO Andrew McLaughlin].
That’s how I feel sometimes here, as comments come pouring across.
Yesterday [8/19], in a back-and-forth about Jose Caravaca’s Distortion Theory, commenters [Bruce Duensing and Paul Kimball] were responding to my ripostes immediately – and I mean immediately! – after they were applied to the blog section.
That means, as I see it, that what I was saying wasn’t digested or even read carefully.
The commenters had their points of view and no matter what I had to say meant little or nothing to them. (It seemed that way, anyhow.)
In the “discussion” Bruce Duensing wanted to convince me that “cellular intelligence” was equivalent to mature, human intelligence.
He wrote (about Caravaca’s external agent):
… it has cellular intelligence; Cellular intelligence has learning strategies.
Apparently Bruce didn’t read what Caravaca wrote or Bruce has an agenda that precludes the ideas that Jose proposes.
And that is, Jose’s “external agent” is an interaction between a UFO witness and that UFO witnesses unconscious mind, with pronounced oneiric (dream-like) references.
Bruce’s stipulation that the “interaction” has cellular intelligence fails to note that the Caravaca interaction is rather sophisticated.
It’s not instinctive nor is it primitive, as Darwin noted in his theory, and current studies that Bruce suggests I rev my brain up on:
“You need to read up on self organising systems, systems theory etc.”
The problem here?
Bruce’s comments, often germane and brilliant, in an abstruse way, take us away from the gist of the initial posting.
He is not alone in that.
Commenters do that all the time at Kevin Randle’s blog. Kevin can’t keep his visitors on track no matter how hard he presses them to keep to the point of his posting.
We have visitors here who would take us far afield with nonsense that has nothing to do with anything. Kurt Peters is the greatest offender and many of his comments do not appear online here, although now and then he gets off a good rejoinder.
My psychological buddy, Tim Hebert, also is easily distracted; something in a comment will take him away from the topic to a place that is interesting but not germane.
(He gets back on track fast however.)
Paul Kimball provides links to music, art, and other cultural materials that seem pertinent to him, and should be to those reading along in our comment sections.
Those links are gratuitous offerings that supplement his thought processes, and they are mostly edifying. But they do tend to disrupt the flow of the comments by others, as Blogger tends to insert comments randomly, one not following another where it should.
Insertions coming fast fall in where they shouldn’t and one’s train of thought is botched by them.
Music links are nice, but I eschew them because they are intellectually misplaced; that is, they are an interruption that, while pleasant, interferes with what is part of a consecutive stream of thought.
Links to materials that are jokey – Kurt’s ploy – don’t get a listing here. They are even more disruptive than a musical interlude.
Don’t get me wrong. I appreciate the attention my obtuse ramblings get. But I’d like to stay on course with my thoughts or hypotheses.
I know that others have points of views that are better or more intelligently oriented but those views are best expressed at their venues and I try to make it a point to send visitors here to those venues, but not in the course of a debate in situ here.
Bruce would take us to his blog and views if I let him. But that would be defeating the purpose of posting here – to present my views and those whose comments resonate with my views.
This blog is based upon my concept of “theoretical ufology” – conjectures about the UFO phenomenon.
We have a slew of other blogs all over the internet, as some of you know: blogs about media and journalism, blogs about fringe manifestations, blogs about art and music and political theory and historical applications, and psychology, along with (recently) neurological science.
The comments at those blogs are not moderated, as those commenting are civilized and smart. They are not distracted by peripheral references nor do the comments have a personal sling; they are civilized and smart, as I’ve said.
We get about 1000 hits at this blog each day, not a big number but a decent clientele.
(It actually goes up to about 6000 when Anthony Bragalia posts something.)
Obviously, comments come from a few, and I appreciate that.
So don’t take this as serious opprobrium, just a nod to keep me from going to the local post office and shooting it up.