“Men who explain things”

Don’t want to start a gender fracas here, but Rebecca Solnit rings a bell that chimes with my own experience. “Every woman knows what it’s like to be patronized by a guy who won’t let facts get in the way.”

“So? I hear you’ve written a couple of books.”

I replied, “Several, actually.”

He said, in the way you encourage your friend’s 7-year-old to describe flute practice, “And what are they about?”

Or, in my case, “Have any of them been published?”

He cut me off soon after I mentioned Muybridge. “And have you heard about the very important Muybridge book that came out this year?”

… Mr. Very Important was going on smugly about this book I should have known when Sallie interrupted him to say, “That’s her book.” Or tried to interrupt him anyway.

But he just continued on his way. She had to say, “That’s her book” three or four times before he finally took it in.

In my totally subjective experience, men are also the ones who say, “Anybody can write a novel.” And: “Your book — what was it called again? — you want to know how I would have improved it?” Which is the sure lead-in to, “My novel would be about Kilimanjaro and war and existentialism — sort of Hemingway meets Immanuel Kant… but deeper.”

But women don’t get off the hook. They’re the ones who say, “You write violent crime fiction where women die. Is something wrong with you?” And, “Why do you like the idea of murdering other women?” And, “No, seriously, are you emotionally disturbed?”

Go on. Have at me.

(Via Bookslut, who links to the story with this awesome comment: “Last year a man corrected my grammar five minutes after the sex was over. I did not sleep with him ever again.” Damn, that’s standing up for grammar and for yourself. Represent, girl.)

29 responses to ““Men who explain things”

  1. Men who can explain everything are infuriating.

  2. are these the same men who refuse to stop and ask for directions?? Just wondering……

  3. Checking for grammar errors in a manuscript is probably last thing I’ll be doing after having sex. 😛

  4. Who said anything about a Manuscript? Ahh. Man-u-script. Now it makes sense.

  5. Well, there is a very simple explanation for women feeling that way…

  6. Thanks for that link, Meg. It’s been too long since I’ve read such a refreshingly feminist discourse.

  7. Men and women are both very rude depending on their educations as children. Where and when and how and with whom they grew up. What their objectives and beliefs are, and so on. Just like women.

    To your interpretations of what was insinuated by his questions:
    First, what would be the problem with asking you, how many of them are published? What, that is not an okay question? You are the one who responded by saying… several, actually. So, what is the problem? Are they published, or aren’t they? What, now he is the devil because he asked you a completely straight-foward question?

    I would say that your experience is just as subjective as you described it, totally. I, for one, have argued multiple times that not any one at all can write a novel but, instead that few people seem to have what it takes. Gender is, in my opinion, an insult to the question.
    Is this not just… pathetic?
    We are on the internet talking about how men or women are lower or higher on some scale…

    Men always say? Men…? What do you speak chinese lady? Have you forgotten that you do not know a single thing about most of the rest of the world? –How do I know that? SImple, why would you be so stereotypically negating men everywhere by hiding behind your ‘in my totally subjective experience’ comment: men always say…?
    What do men always say? What, have you developed your own corpus that records every word from every man’s mouth and there are able to so perfectly generalize what we do and do not say? I think not! And that you would say it, in my opinion, says a lot about you!

    Also, you are saying, “go on, have at me” but this is merely an implicit presupposition. Perhaps this guy had a problem with you, personally. Why does it at all have to be about all men and all women? It is so bombastic to say… this guy does not believe I am a good writer, so… now all men are responsible. WHAT?

    The last paragraph, the one about the woman never sleeping with the man again BECAUSE he corrected her… what is that meant to say?
    Fine, dont sleep with him again, your grammar is wrong, it is wrong. Worse things happen in the world. No more sex? OKay, no more sex. Ciao!

    Dont you all feel like you never grew up? Of course, you have kant and lock and les autres langues, but at the substance… we are still the same thing.
    The comment I talk about is like saying… ‘you correct me, so I now I leave! What is this, baby talk?
    Grow up!
    Men women men women men women? At least form some reputable grounds upon which to speak if you are going to bring up an idea so fantastic as men versus women.

  8. Also, you say… you do not want. And but, the conjunction, is your only contrast? So what, you do not want to attack men, but you will? –okay.

    Further, what is the purpose of entitling your ‘being condescened by all men’ conversation with ” Men who explain things”? What, men are not suppose to use language to communicate knowledge they themselves hold valuable or worthy of expression? What is any different about men in place of women who explain things?

    ” women who explain things “. That is a cowardice title, in my opinion, because instead of actually predicating an opinion, you ask us to presume what you’re saying with your subject’s complement alone. Why isolate men who explain ‘things’ unless to SAY something?

    Lastly, an equally true fact about women! ( just like all people everywhere… ) “Every man knows what it’s like to be patronized by a lady who won’t let facts get in the way.”

  9. Advice:

    Haendel, Le Messie: “ALLELUIA”

    Just listen, and marvel. Marvel at the curious expression, alleluia. Appreciate and marvel the more! — I think this is what we are ‘supposed to be’ doing.

    But, dont quote me on this one!
    ciao ladies

  10. Polisny, you have done a beautiful illustration of, “Men who explain things.” I think polisny has set some kind of blog record, at least for this blog, anyway. And now I won’t worry my pretty little head about it anymore…:)

  11. You were worried about my explaining, but stopped worrying because you told me I explained?
    Further, you in no way provided even a singular reason as to why explaining as a man was anything at all other than itself. Lastly, you nominated all your ratiocinative excellence under a group of listening women…
    well,
    how about that… !

    However, I was kinda hoping for a logical, relative, sound response.
    Better luck next time!

  12. My goodness, but you are an angry guy. Who are you trying to impress? Ease up, before you pop an artery or something.
    Somehow it makes me think of Shakespeare:
    “It is a tale
    Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
    Signifying nothing.”

  13. yawn….

  14. Monita, thank you for your comments. I think my point has been made. People’s anger or William’s writings–well, although these are interesting topics, they don’t actually serve us here.

    You see, I came to a blog that explicitly conforms to a fixed, general pattern and lacks individual distinguishing qualities. This stereotype against men is truely pathetic, Monita. So as you come here to tell me of my idiocy and, sadder for yourself still, to appeal to your group of silent watchers, you have only magnified your own problem(s). Men and women are the same (and any group who tries to condescend the other is wrong to do so). Men are not trying to change that, and although you may manipulate common knowledge and logic in your head or amongst a very small group of women, maybe so as to believe something that is untrue; well, I would actually like to help you. Unfortunately though, you are only here to attack me. Simply because I am a man.
    That is the problem, Monita. And, again, it is your problem.
    I did not tell a tale, and so even your own comparison, although meant to hurt me, is itself illogical. Men do not tell tales, in modern English, they tell stories.–Though I will thank you nonetheless for comparing me to one of the most famous writers in the history of man, how nice of you.

    While I have stated clearly that the author of this post is a coward for telling us that all women know what it is like to be patronized, you have done nothing to reverse that sentence or defend it. A coward for this sentence and for several others, no one has seemingly bothered to tell me of the clear and obvious way in which I am wrong… or as I stand for men, how we are wrong.
    If this sentence of hers is true, then it is also true of all men about women. Too, while she said men say that anyone can publish a book and, although I in a very simple and clearly worded way debunked that attempt, your comments, nor anyone else’s have in any way changed the fact that the sentence is illogical and really, pointlessly general while also lacking common sense.

    Later, she pointed to an example of sex and grammar…though, despite my comments, you nor any of those who chose to comment above, have at all defended or made sense out of that example. The author also put MANuscript, like it is men everywhere who one day just came up with this specific word so as to illustrate their own importance against that of women. First, this must be just… a joke! Have none of you ever heard of etymology? Of Latin? You are supposed to be the writer here… and yet more than using any part of your brain at all… you are only using your mouth. Second, What in the world would men ever do without women? So, if there were ever a group of men who were mad at women… or an individual who just went crazy against women, well… that group or that one would quite stupidly being killing their only future. Seperating themselves from [themselves]

    So, until you can stop insulting me, and take a few moments to explain to me that in fact, maybe the author is just fed up with sex, or men, or both, or herself, or the world of human beings… or whatever so as to mention clearly that these claims are but broadly extravagant, then really all you do is make clear your own wrongs.

    And, Monita, one last thing here… generally when you insult other people…yes, I know… it is strange to think that they might be offended, but… sometimes they get offended. So, maybe it is best if you do not insult people, this way… they will not get offended? All you have to do is think about it. Why are you insulting other people? And, then it should be clear that if it is too hard to apologize, then, at least, maintain the common civility of refraining from such disrespectful speech.
    Take care

  15. That’s five minutes of my life I will never get back! Cheers Polisny.

  16. Think it’s time for me to step in.

    Polisny, you sound personally offended by this post. But I think you’ve misread it, and missed much of the context.

    Please reread the post. The incident described in italics is taken from a Los Angeles Times article. The author is Rebecca Solnit. It didn’t happen to me. So your suggestion that the guy “had a problem with me” is both incorrect and irrelevant.

    Nowhere do I write that “men always say” such things. I do write that when I’ve been condescended to in such a manner, it’s been by men. You’ve misquoted me to broaden the meaning of my words far beyond what they actually say. I don’t say all men are jerks. I don’t hate men. I’m a big fan of humanity in general, and many, many men in particular. I’m married to an excellent guy. I have wonderful sons. And if you’d read anything on the blog beyond this one post, you’d see that plenty of men comment here, fairly happily, I’d say.

    My point, and the point of the L.A. Times article, is that at some moment in our lives, most women run up against a man who condescends to us BECAUSE he is a man and we are women. I wish it were not so. I want men and women to treat each other respectfully, as equals. But it doesn’t always happen. And to assert that condescension never happens, or that I’m ridiculous to remark upon this phenomenon, is to ignore women’s experience and the history of the world. Read the entire L.A. Times article. It mentions plenty of facts.

    I also think you’ve entirely missed the context of Rebecca Solnit’s article, and of my remarks. Tone and presumption can turn a seemingly straightforward question into a put-down. Words that look harmless on the page can be incredibly insulting when spoken with a sneer. It’s not “a straightforward question” when a man is in a position of power over a woman, or when he presumes that because the person he is addressing is female, he knows more than she does.

    Perhaps I should have given more context. If I’m speaking to someone and say, “I write,” it’s absolutely not an insult for them to say, “And have you published?” Pure curiosity. But — as happened to me — if I am speaking as a professional, on a panel at a high school Career Day, where a male panelist addresses every other male panelist with professional respect, but turns to me and says, “So, you write crime novels. Have any of these little books ever been published?” I take offense, and draw the conclusion that he’s a sexist.

    You say: “Lastly, an equally true fact about women! ( just like all people everywhere… ) ‘Every man knows what it’s like to be patronized by a lady who won’t let facts get in the way.'”

    Buddy, I’m sure you’re right. But it’s disengenuous to claim that there’s no such thing as a male sense of superiority over women, or that it has never had consequence. This is a world in which for millennia, by law and custom and brute strength, men have lorded it over women. In many parts of the planet, they still do today. Even in the year 2008, in western society, some men have a sense of superiority over women. So please don’t tell me I know nothing of the world.

    You’ve also missed the context in other places. Yes, my allusion to man-u-script was a joke. So was BookSlut’s remark about sex and grammar.

    Finally, if you want commenters here to refrain from disrespectful speech, start with yourself. You call me a coward. You call me pathetic. You call me a child. You say I don’t know a thing about the world. You tell me to grow up.

    This blog is my online house. Engage me on the issues. But don’t call me names.

  17. WOW! Meg, you are so HOT when you are angry! ;@)

  18. You tell em meg!

  19. Well well. I am happy that you finally responded. Also, very happy to hear that you do not make it a habit to share with the world that we men are somehow trying to put you all down.

    First, as I take this moment of mine to respond, I would like to say that if any one here is not happy with my comments, do not read them. I have in no way spoken in a way that was unfair to the context and, when I said that you are a coward Meg, I said it for a reason and explained why I said it. If you cannot remember, I suggest rereading my comments above. Also, since you did not say these things, as you full know, then you know I was not calling you a coward, dont you? So, where is the confusion there? Thanks.

    Next, on your post title, it says ” MEN WHO EXPLAIN THINGS”

    So, I am not sure if you have forgotten, or if you have overlooked, maybe you have not taken the time to think about it, but each of these POSTS are placed in a large and long list of other peoples’ posts.

    Yeah?

    In reading these titles, we the viewers have the option of clicking on any one we choose so as to read or simply explore what the topic is about in further detail.

    In clicking on this post, again, entitled : “MEN WHO EXPLAIN THINGS” we do not see anywhere on this post the fact of this conversation being someone else’s. You, of course, made a reference to a woman’s name by saying that her experience chimed some image or memory in your mind or experiences; however, you did not in any way show that this was not your conversation. Done and Done.

    Now, if you want other people to understand that this is not your conversation, or that it is an excerpt from THE TIMES, maybe you should post the words, EXCERPT FROM NEWSPAPER, this way people do not have to go searching around the Internet so as to learn that what you were saying was in fact from an excerpt. And, before you or any other people who are reading go on to tell me how wrong I still am, I’d like to point out again, that on this page, there is no reference that states this article to be that which is not your opinion but, that of someone else’s.

    At the end of the excerpt, you put in parenthesis by way of BOOKSLUT who links TO the story with some awsome comments. This does not at all tell us that the story has not been recorded from your own life, but only that a person ( I rightfully assume to be called the name as we see it ) has commented on it.

    SO, yes… you are very right in your understanding Meg; I am very, very offended at your post. Please, take some time to point out to people that your post is one that has been [ recorded from The Times] and not one that is of your own words or thoughts. Clearly, you can see the difference it makes after all this!? Had I known that it was about some feminist somewhere and not about your personal views on humanity, obviously this would have affected my views on the piece. –Thanks!

    Next, you say ” Please reread the post. The incident described in italics is taken from a Los Angeles Times article. The author is Rebecca Solnit. It didn’t happen to me. So your suggestion that the guy “had a problem with me” is both incorrect and irrelevant. ”

    As I quote this, the first thing I point out to you is that Maybe you should reread the post?… For I do so, Meg, again… with the very easy to understand piece of evidence that says: there is no reference to this being from The Times. And, now a reasonable response, how are we supposed to know that Italics are not representative of what you and the man said to one another versus being representative of information from a … lets see here, news report, or newspaper, or book, or magazine… etc? That is the point, we cannot see this. Or, if not to waste your time, maybe you should reread the text yourself?

    From that same quote: “Please reread the post. The incident described in italics is taken from a Los Angeles Times article. The author is Rebecca Solnit. It didn’t happen to me. So your suggestion that the guy “had a problem with me” is both incorrect and irrelevant. ”

    My suggestion is a subordinate of your post, Meg. A post that did not, I stress the negative once more, clearly mark or make easy to see its being an expert or text from someone else’s life. To finish on this particular comment, I would like to say that if you do not wish for people to address in a perfectly normal way a perfectly absurd set of statements, you might consider modifying those statements with the correct titles. This would at least help how people address you in your… house, as you say.

    Next up: ” Nowhere do I write that “men always say” such things. I do write that when I’ve been condescended to in such a manner, it’s been by men. You’ve misquoted me to broaden the meaning of my words far beyond what they actually say.”
    Yes, you did say that [men always say]. The problem you may not have understood as you wrote that which I quoted just above, is that because you did not Tell Us that the text was from The Times, nor any other newspaper or person, we simply could not have known this. Seems simple enough. While you yourself may not have said this in that you typed it out and meant it, well then… if this is the fact, make sure that we can see this. On my posts, I put up clearly what the post is about, who wrote it, and I even place a comment to ask people to tell me what they think even if it is negative. I do not place posts–as most people rightly do not, I think–that are from other sources, though are not delineated as being so.

    Next on that same quote: ” I do write that when I’ve been condescended to in such a manner, it’s been by men. You’ve misquoted me to broaden the meaning of my words far beyond what they actually say.”
    I did not wrongly amplify anything that was itself not first improperly communicated. I did not misquote you SO AS to do anything. I took what was printed in front of me, read it, and responded. If you want people to have all the pertinent information about a topic, such as who, what, where, when why, how… and so fourth, maybe just print all of it at the same time and in the same place? Of course, you probably just did not see it from this angle. Not a big deal, really.

    The next comment seems pretty right to me, except the end.

    “I don’t say all men are jerks. I don’t hate men. I’m a big fan of humanity in general, and many, many men in particular. I’m married to an excellent guy. I have wonderful sons. And if you’d read anything on the blog beyond this one post, you’d see that plenty of men comment here, fairly happily, I’d say. ”

    Well, I am happy for you. It is good to see that you do not hate men, and that instead, you embrace them just as they do you. About the reading beyond the post, well… that is where you are wrong. If you wanted me to understand that this was not from you, why not just say it? How do I know that I need to go on to the rest of your life so as to understand that in fact… it was just something from The L.A. Times? No, if you want me to see it, put it here just like the rest the world would. When people write articles in Newspapers, they do so with all such information right there where people who care, can see it. Not in far-away editions and releases of books or magazines. What would be the point?

    You also said that you thought I misunderstood the rest of the article. I could not disagree with you more.

    I quote your next paragraph and respond accordingly:

    “I also think you’ve entirely missed the context of Rebecca Solnit’s article, and of my remarks. Tone and presumption can turn a seemingly straigtforward question into a put-down. Words that look harmless on the page can be incredibly insulting when spoken with a sneer. It’s not “a straightforward question” when a man is in a position of power over a woman, or when he presumes that because the person he is addressing is female, he knows more than she does. ”

    Intonation, a person’s inner character manifest by the expressions on their face, innuendos slighted, pauses or stressings of consontants in words, choice of words, etc.. are all perfectly understandable hyperbolic devices, yes. But, because her point was percieved as your own, of course then your words are largely inappropriate in application and expression, for the point you and the author were trying to make was easily missed in that there was no comment in the post to say that the man had in any way done what you just wrote. If it were a comment that was meant insultingly by this man, why not attach that information just as you did other pieces of information? In your post, there is no evidence that the man’s question was any thing other thing then which it was, printed text as literal meaning. If we are to guess of the person’s obnoxious behaviour, well… we would really have to if we were to understand, for you did not point out that this was the fact. Nor did the author. Obviously, Meg, I never said that a put-down is a straightfoward question, now did I? I never said anything remotely like this, and so your potency is pretty much out the window now.

    Your next comment says that if I reject or ignore the condescension of men to women, that this is to ignore the history of the world. Yes, but I did not.
    Also, it is a very real piece of information to say that men have also been condescended by women. I would like to just repeat what you said here, in that if you do not agree, well, this is to ignore the history of the world. So, unless you speak Chinese, unless you speak Japenese, or unless you have been to every tribe and society in every part of the world, time-undone; again, Unless you have, then it would seem a funny thing to say that it is women who are being and have always and only been condescended. If you were to say that it is MEN who condscend women, you would be stereotypically generalizing and would then be wrong.
    Just as women, as I would like point out for a zillionth time, men have also been condescended by women. Just because that woman was a woman, and the man a man. Seems right enough to say to me, does it not to you? If you do not believe me, I merely point you in the direction of all the facts in most libraries, you can start where you like if the L.A. Times does not do it for you.

    Here you say : “Perhaps I should have given more context. If I’m speaking to someone and say, “I write,” it’s absolutely not an insult for them to say, “And have you published?” Pure curiosity. But — as happened to me — if I am speaking as a professional, on a panel at a high school Career Day, where a male panelist addresses every other male panelist with professional respect, but turns to me and says, “So, you write crime novels. Have any of these little books ever been published?” I take offense, and draw the conclusion that he’s a sexist. ”

    I would say to you that maybe you should have given just a bit more details to where and who had this converation. Again, how do we know that we need to go searching if to presuppose that it was not you who had the conversation? This is simply funny.
    As for sexist men, yes… I agree, it is a really sad thing and a pretty ridiculous one. I am not sexist, and I absolutely love women. I feel sorry for people who hate, period. It takes a lot of energy out of us, and is often significant of a misunderstanding. Why I commented on your post in this way, Meg, was because you the poster did not, for any number of possible reasons, post the pertinent information that would have allowed me to see, just as any other reader, that the excerpt was actually from the Times, and not from you yourself. Had I known this, why in the world would I have addressed YOU? My sentence, “there is no title to tell us”, is not a claim, but it is a fact. Reread if you do not believe me. If I have missed this piece of information, I did so naturally and after numerous references, which in my opinion, would sooner speak about the text versus the readers.

    “”Buddy, I’m sure you’re right. But it’s disengenuous to claim that there’s no such thing as a male sense of superiority over women, or that it has never had consequence. This is a world in which for millennia, by law and custom and brute strength, men have lorded it over women. In many parts of the planet, they still do today. Even in the year 2008, in western society, some men have a sense of superiority over women. So please don’t tell me I know nothing of the world. “”

    Listen, lady… since you are in the mood to call me buddy… I did not tell you that men have not condscended women. I told you that women and men do this to each other! That is it. Done. Over, no more.
    If you do not get this, I do not know how to say it more clearly without simply repeating. What more is there? Also, you say that there is a sense of male superiority over women. But this is false. YOu do not know men everywhere, nor women. That is just fact. And a mighty simple one at that.

    If you were to tell me, which you did not, that Some men are much physically stronger than several women; and that this sometimes changes how they treat women, well I would agree with you Only to a certain extent. I would also say that several women seem kinder than men, and are closer to what many people would call beautiful. And, that this sometimes affects how they treat men…again, to a certain extent. Notice, however, that I do not say every man ever and every woman ever. Notice also that I say to a certain extent. So, as you bring up new and interesting topics about men and women, you do so quite generally and in a way that asks me to assume that you are merely leaving out such modifications.
    In my opinion, we all know very little about the entirity of our world. My pointing it out here was to make you realize that in fact, you in no way know the entire population today, nor of any day. To say men have a sense of superiority over women… suggests that you do. For certainly, there are many women who are much stronger physically than many men. And, in given contexts, men will in no way have this sense you so uniformly speak of. Therefore, I was right to say that. If you do not wish to be interpreted in such a way, maybe place more accurate modifications over such stereotypes?

    If you were joking, such would have been much easier to see if you had simply made it distinct from the rest of your post in…yes… a joking manner. However, you can see clearly that your post does not show the proper information, and thus of course people are going to read and later misunderstand what you yourself apparently take for granted. What to do? Simple, just add in there that it is an excerpt from the times and that you yourself did not write that. Like this, people will not come to your site thinking that it is something you said. Italics are not enough to tell us that it was from the L.A. times.

    And, you are wrong to think that I called you a coward. I did not. I called the person who said that “men condescend women” [in my very subjective experience] a coward. I explained why. Go reread if you do not get it. If you did not say this, then… logically Meg, I did not call you that. I did not call you names, I pointed out a trait that was subject to a line of actions in a person. This person was not you, so… obviously I was not meaning you. Seems evident enough.

    Take care

  20. The simple fact is, Meg, that your ‘stepping in’ is really a suggestion that you do not understand the error of leaving out information that would allow us to understand where the text is from and who said it.

    Italics do not mean: from la times. I am not sure who told you this, but you might want to check out their usage if you think this is how they function.

    If I had seen that you said all men are less than women, of course I would be offended.
    If you do not want people to misinterpret what you write or copy… maybe you should add the correct information along with the post itself. How in the world would I know that I have to go digging through your life if to understand that the post was not from you personally? YOu did not include this information anywhere along the places where it should have been. When people pick up news articles, they do so knowing where they come from and who says what.
    Maybe you should follow that custom?

    I did not call you names, I think you misunderstood.
    take care

  21. And p.s. I did not amplify anything that was itself not erroneously communicated; nor did I amplify anything with an intention of harm.

    In place of my going over your excerpt once more ( as I look funnily now at your ‘advice’), You yourself might want to go scanning it again if it is only at this point that you realize its in no way being delineated by its proper origins and context. Where is that you keep the titles and pertinent information for such articles, in your closet? If that is the case, at least then put on this post that this is where you keep them. In this way, those who cause yawns and waste other’s time (people like myself, of course), can at least see that and know how to read and take in your perfectly non-stereotypical approach to men putting down all women everywhere.

    thanks

  22. Polisny, I’ll explain one time, and then I’m done.

    In the body of the post, in the first paragraph of text, there’s an underlined sentence in quotes. That is the link to the L.A. Times article. The italicized text set off and indented in two sections below it are excerpts from that article.

    This is a standard method of linking and quoting from other source material on blogs. I’m sorry you’re not familiar with it. Perhaps this is why you became confused. You can find major newspaper sites and all major blogs using this method (see, e.g., Andrew Sullivan, Instapundit, Huffingtonpost.com, CommentIsFree, New York Times, etc.)

    Granted, it’s not set up as a bibliography would be in a reference text. I haven’t used APA, MLA, or Chicago Style Manual styles. I don’t footnote. I don’t know any blog that does. But this method of linking has become a blog standard, and if you’re going to comment extensively on blogs, it will be helpful to know that.

    As for your claim that you’re not insulting me… who ya kidding?

    On the other hand, I fully agree with you that we should all listen to and appreciate the Hallelujah chorus. In fact, I think I’ll go put on some Handel, and tell you good bye.

  23. I am glad to see that you are saying you placed a link to the la times or wherever that goes, as you also placed a person’s supposed name below it that was its own link.

    The simple problem has not changed. Here, where we are reading this as an article, we cannot see that it is article. No, not all sites and blogs do this. If you are making a reference to an article, you need to tell people. YOu did not. you said that someone rings a bell by saying and merely put up a quote from that person, perhaps to show that it was what she said, perhaps to do anything. But, this is not as simple and customary as would have been FROM LA TIMES

    now, if you still dont get it, well… sorry to tell you that,
    thannks again
    and yeah, enjoy my reference, I am happy to see that you know who it is
    ciao

  24. Here, I went to a random link on WORDNET.COM, just so we dont get confused with the consums you seem to so perfectly have a hold of.

    The link:

    http://waynepark.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/against-the-black-church/

    In this link, I found that the first outside reference was clearly marked in words, as the person said where the remark came from and who it was from…BEFORE the information was shared and, to top it off… he also highlighted that person’s remarks in color.

    Now, this is exactly the opposite of your apparently erudite undrestanding of the blogs on the interent as you attempt to lay down the customs of the land. You say, the custom on L.A. Times, I believe it was, as well as countless others, is to share articles but not tell people that they are articles?
    Well, the first webpage I go to outside your own, out of a miracle, it would seem, clearly tells us where their excerpt is from and who it is by, not to mention one more time, that same person colors it so that there is no confusion.
    You did not do this.
    You did not mention any news article
    You did not mention it being from a different person
    you did not mention anything other than the title of the article ( not that it was an article)
    and a person who related to you by her quote.
    How are we supposed to know that the link is not a mere reference of authenticity?
    I.E. you will probably save a lot of people a lot of time if you just tell them where the text comes from and from who.

    Seems as though… I am done.
    good luck!

  25. OOps, wordpress.com, my bad. Not wordnet, wordpress.

  26. Here is another example that was right on the first page of WordPress.com which clearly, again, opposes your claim to how blogs entitle and inform their public of news articles or the like:

    So, basically this shows you that putting up a link that is mere words is not a way of telling us that is from a specific place, unless those words say that it is from that place. In your quote that is also a link, it is not of the L.A. times, but instead about a woman’s sentence. The first thing a lot of people are going to think (depending on what they often do), is that the link goes directly to the person’s actually saying that. As well, this is not a way in which we attach where entire articles come from, but instead, how we attach links to what people actually said. It is called a citing. Online guides use them all the time.

    Please, if you are going to put up future posts, and those posts are about news articles, change your approach to doing so, for this has been a very confusing one.
    all the best,
    and here is that post:

    Here are some personals ads I found on Craigslist tonight. Went here on purpose knowing I would find gold! These are aboslutely, 100% authentic. My notes are in italics. Enjoy.

    Breakfast in Bed? (Yuck!!! – I don’t want to see ANYONE at 5:00am, let alone a stranger.)

    Consider getting to know me over breakfast in bed? I know this sounds completely out of the ordinary and you probably are thinking “OK I know where this is going”, but hold on. Seriously, breakfast in bed with a stranger. We set the boundaries, determine the proper attire for our breakfast in bed date and then order the food. I love the early morning hours so would like to do this between 5:00 and 7:00 am (I suppose I have just lost most of you). I want to sit side by side, pillow behind our backs, trays on our laps, fresh brewed coffee aroma swirling through the air, toast and jelly, perhaps eggs and bacon, OJ and some giggly laughter. After breakfast we get up and head off to meet the day.

    Are you adventourous enough to join me?

    Ugly, but Got Money!!! (Seriously? Has to be a joke. Either way it’s hysterical.)

    Just to let you know, Single WM with a good job, house and things like that. There is only one big, really big problem – I am sooooo ugly, people i know tell me that I am pretty, then add laughing, pretty ugly. What am I to do with all this money I have but no one to spend it on? Guess it just a problem, but a good problem, to have if you are really, really ugly and have lots of money!

    Walk and a Movie? (This guy has never slept with a human.)

    I’m looking for someone interested in going for a walk today and catching a movie. Nothing serious, but just an attempt at human interaction. I would prefer someone with nice manners, who is witty, semi-dorky and enjoys conversation.

    Perhaps we could even see a movie. If you’re interested send me a photo so I may verify that you’re a real person (this city is full of spambots and weirdos) and I will do so in return.

  27. Meg: Well said, and well done. I find it interesting that, to my knowledge, apparently no one else on this blog has had difficulty distinguishing which are the links and quotes, until now. Perhaps it is a server problem that does not clearly show links and italics.
    And by the way, polisny, I could see no italics or quotation marks on your post, so was hard to tell where Craigslist quotes ended and your commentary (invitations?) began. See, it happens to the best of us! 🙂

  28. Actually Monita, I tried to copy the same format as was seen on her page, unfortunately though the format was not carried over. Though, I did provide a link there and clearly explained that it was from another page here on wordpress.com
    The point of doing that, I might remind you as you seeming selectively read, was to demonstrate to the unable-to-speak author that the approach to blogs was much different than she the expert so attempted. Those two expamples clearly proved her wrong. But of course… I am just an idiot to go to all this trouble, because in fact, there are many more interesting topics to talk about now that we find out the who and where the problem essentially came from.

    What I said to her and to you was completely valid. The problem is that the author does not want to take responsibility for her error. The link at the top of this page does not in any way tell us that it goes to the L.A. Times but, instead appears as if it is merely a citation link. Of course, I am sure it is a link to the Times, but this is not the point. There are several blue-marked texts (links) throughout this page. The point has been clearly said, and nothing the author has, or apparently will ever talk about again… can change that. I suggested to her to change her approach, however it seems to be meaningless to the author now, so… not much I can do.

    Also, I find it funny to think that you would speak for all people here. It is not because my comments talk about this as a problem that others have not been confused in reading.

    Too, your comments seem, instead of maturely approaching a problem with clear intent on solving or at least suggesting, merely insulting and aggravating. I find this to be self-evident, and thus will not add in any shoulds about it.

    What I did not stress enough, I think, was that I never insulted the author here but, on account of her own miscommunication at the top of the page–which of course is not to be addressed as she seemingly barred reason–I hypothetically and after a condition that was clearly rejected by the author, proposed what I would have maintained had she stated such to be the case.
    Since she rejected her saying these things, and later explaining to me that in fact the link at the top of the page was one to the L.A. Times ( like it should have said), obviously my comments do not apply.
    Its like saying, IF you say this, THEN my opinion will be.
    Funnily, though… no one seems to get that simple conditional.
    No biggy.
    once again,

    ciao ladies!

  29. I came here looking for commentary on Solinet’s article.

    polisny illustrates both her point and yours so glaringly it’s almost not funny.

    Almost.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s