 |
| Trekearth, Greenich |
The power of positive linking, the joy of commenting...or not.
It has been very encouraging the past year with gaining new readers, commenters, and links. I have been gaining more than losing and so the Lord is helping my blogs to progress. Thank you to all my readers, commenters and links with this site and satire and theology.
A blogger can remain primarily within his or her own denomination or group and write a very good blog. I have stated this before, but I will state it again, unless one is quite well-known in his or her field in which he or she is blogging, he or she needs to network with others on-line, or risk basically writing an on-line journal that only a few persons ever read. As it is, even with a very modest roughly 50 unique blog links between my two blogs, it is still difficult to write articles that receive significant attention. Some desire only to have a small blog and that is not wrong.
These are some of my thoughts:
Blog trolls should not be tolerated, and I apologized for involving readers with my latest troll's comments and then deleting all the related troll incident comments. I allowed the blog troll's comments from a person that likely knows me in person and is a Facebook friend. I allowed the comments in order to easily counter the primarily false things stated about me, which were presented in the form of a personal attack. This type of controversy is good for blog traffic as satire and theology had its best day of traffic so far, but I think the negative environment overall puts me in a bad mood and creates unnecessary speculation concerning the troll on the blog. From now on I will likely deal with a troll's comments without publishing a personal attack.
Taking blog trolls out of consideration, on my blogs and related links, we primarily debate issues in a good spirit. On my blogs there have recently been discussions concerning my PhD topic of free will and determinism, and also the topic of singleness. These topics are controversial and have been discussed on both of my blogs as one can see if one searches through the archives. Please remember, I am not trying to offend anyone, but please be open-minded and not overly defensive. If you disagree with me, that is fine and state your case if you desire. There is no point in us ignoring each other, or arguing on and on concerning issues of disagreement when we usually agree and can offer each other much needed blog support. We can state our case and disagree on secondary issues as Christians, agreeing on essentials in Christ. As for my non-Christian links, I will never attempt to force my theological views on anyone, and we can simply agree to disagree on the topic of Christianity and feel free to challenge me respectfully, and once again there is no point ignoring each other, or in arguing on and on, as we can state our case in one or maybe two discussions and move on.
Pragmatically, too much disagreement and debating makes blogging too much of a chore and is too time consuming. As a Christian in a type of ministry, I present my case to Christians and non-Christians and leave it for persons to ponder on. At the same time, I can ponder on the points of others and may change my mind in the future.
If we write-off a blog because we have a significant disagreement with it, although we usually are in agreement, we are hurting our own networking blog cause, and it is very tough to find readers, commenters, and links as already noted.
In my mind, thekingpin68 is a more important blog than satire and theology, however, about half of my readers appear to disagree, including two of my former pastors. Some find thekingpin68 too academic, and others find satire and theology too ridiculous and/or too hard-hitting. The traffic for both blogs is basically identical and satire and theology receives a few more comments and thekingpin68 has a few more links. For those of you that only like one blog that is fine, but I offer my other blog as a link. I have no intention of setting up the program with Blogger that lists blogs and the most recent article, although thank you to those of you that have my blogs listed that way. As long as one of my blogs is listed as a permanent link on your blog I will link you back, provided your blog is not anti-Christian or very objectionable in my view. Many do not use the actual names of my blog in linking me and that is fine. I am stating that I do not have to be on your main links list, but I would like to visible in order to willingly link you back. I am not really concerned if I am in one's featured top list or whatever. The two blogs really feature the same controversial worldview, and both are presented respectfully. I will link with respectful Reformed Christians, non-Reformed Christians and non-Christians under the guidelines I just mentioned.
In regard to comments, I already spend twenty hours or so on blogging per week. I refuse to 'reinvent the wheel' and therefore unapologetically at times do cut and paste previously posted material and will place it in comments. I do not have the time and energy to retype out assertions, arguments and information over and over again and will have even less time to do this as a professor, and when I am looking for work as a professor. It is quite time consuming researching and writing my own blog postings on thekingpin68 and satire and theology, plus commenting for my blog links, and commenting on newly found blogs that I might wish to link with in the future. Thanks for understanding.
Here are some more terms:
With social research methods and statistics:
Validity: A concern with the integrity of the conclusions that come from a piece of research. It usually refers to measurement validity. Bryman (1999: 545). Measurement validity is the degree to which a measure of a concept truly reflects the concept. Bryman (1999: 541).
Within philosophy:
Validity: In its primary meaning it is whether arguments are valid or invalid according to whether conclusion follows the premises. Premises and conclusions themselves are not valid or invalid, but are true or false. Blackburn (1999: 389). From my reading, an argument is considered valid as long as it does not have a true premise and false conclusion. A valid argument can have a true premise and true conclusion, false premise and false conclusion and a false premise and true conclusion. An argument can have more than one premise.
So, one can have these valid combinations:
tt
ff
ft
But not
tf
This is stated in The Elements of Reasoning written by David A. Conway and Ronald Munson on page 34.
Premise: Bloggers can blog primarily within their own group.
Premise: Bloggers can primarily avoid web networking.
Conclusion: This will likely result in a small blog.
I am not stating a small blog is necessarily bad, or that a large blog is necessarily good.
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
BRYMAN, ALAN (2004) Social Research Methods, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.
Thank you!
http://satireandtheology.blogspot.com/2008/07/happy-little-
semiautomatic-assault.html
Jeff Jenkins sent me this photo of me and an unnamed woman. I do not know who she is but she seems to want to have priority in the photo.
