Dear Primer
As the intrepid DJB said, welcome to FV. And I must say, your comments have been like a jolt of coffee this fine morning.
Rom started a sub-column on a main one, if I may say, and then Ted and the rest registered their comments in Rom’s precious digital space.
Alright, uncle. Yours was the MAIN column, and mine just a sub-column. It wasn’t a reaction to your post, but a subordinate one – an inferior post. Which would make this post even more inferior to your SUPERIOR post because it’s what? thrice removed now? And since you mentioned it, that TED and the rest should register their comments in my precious digital space, I should prolly warn all commenters to comment on the MAIN post, not on the reaction subordinate post. :D
I don’t mind Rom’s rather protectionist attitude as blogger of Filipino Voices whenever they hear another voice vents a differing worldview.
Protectionist? And I would be protecting what exactly? More to the point, what do I have that I should protect against you? Why would I be threatened by your world view? I think, Primer, that you mistake disagreement for protectionism – an overly defensive way of looking of things and to be truthful, far more protectionist in tendency.
Clearly, Rom missed the whole point of my article, Anti-climactic US presidency. She created a kind of bandwagon effect when in her own article about somebody else’s article, other bloggers sided with her point of view.
And the point was … ? Going by the title itself, were you trying to point out that the Obama presidency would be disappointing in light of the impressive run-up to it? Because that’s what anticlimactic means. Well, if that was what you were going for, then you failed. Because we don’t know yet what the Obama presidency will be like. In fact, from the way he’s handled the transition, I’d say he’s already warming up to what may be a presidency as exciting as his campaign. Sure, people have disagreed with his choices – saying that they do not reflect the reformist tenor of his campaign, but ironically those in disagreement seem to be coming mostly from the conservatives who are, themselves, not particularly famous for being reformists. Tryin to be more Popish than the Pope, maybe? But that was prolly not the point you were trying to make.
And your point was … ? That Americans need to pressure Obama into revealing the ‘truth’ about his citizenship without recourse to pure legalese? If that was your point, then I think pointing out first, the absurdity of ignoring the law, and second, pointing out that the issue you are trying to fan into high flame has all but been resolved (apologies to the commenter Ted), should be considered responsive.
And about other blogger’s siding with me … that really burns, doesn’t it? :D
One thing characterized all the patronizing bloggers of Rom – they tend to feed me with comments that are ad hominem, not really to rebut certain points raised any more than attack or kill the messenger.
One jcc even calls it recycled garbage and a waste of digital space after merely saying albeit dogmatically that the issue hinted in my article has been settled.
As a ,matter of first principles, bloggers are not responsible for the comments made on their posts. Just ask Ellen and the noted blogger. Having said that, calling you assertions a waste of time do not exactly qualify as an ad hominem.
The closest thing to an ad hominem would prolly be my assertion that your post was calculated to drive home – albeit by a tortuously – a message that was relevant to the Philippine situation. Except that I took pains to show that your assertions held no water before I speculated about your intentions. So, I wasn’t using my observations on your motives as a prop for my argument. If you will, my observations about your motivations was icing on the cake.
Although to be fair – after reading your Karlpopper comments – I must say that I am now of the opinion that I was wrong about your motivations. The degree of subtlety needed to make that circuitous attack just isn’t there in Karlpopper. Oops. Was that an ad hominem? LOL!
I will be wasting my time if I have to deal with the comments individually since nothing has really been refuted. Rom’s style of writing can really mean to simply impress readers and I will leave her article without need to comment on it. In any case, this is what the so-called blogosphere is all about.
Heh. And yet your comment ran longer than many others. So much for not wasting time, eh? As for nothing having been refuted – errr… yeah. You said that citizenship would be an issue. I said it wasn’t. I pointed to results on testing of Obama’s birth-cert which showed the thing to be genuine; I argued that the law being cited by those claiming Obama’s ineligibilty didn’t apply to him; I showed that the US Constitution actually doesn’t care what nationality your parents are because of the jus soli doctrine. Right. None of that refutes your assertion. And yeah. That isn’t impressive either.
the rest of the pack,
thanks for your comments but i think that we tend to lower the bar here if we as much as allow bloggers to simply say whatever their nervous state dictates.
but then again, maybe something is culture bound.
The pack? Is that us? That would make me the bitch, wouldn’t it? LOL!
If you have something against “allowing bloggers to simply say whatever their nervous state dictates,” then you’re not getting the “so-called blogosphere.” If you’re going to cavalierly dismiss critical posts as an artefact of culture – were you thinking of ‘the crab mentality’ or something? – then you’re not getting the “so-called blogosphere.” And if you don’t think that you have been a beneficiary of the bar being lowered, then you must be some sort of small-person who still thinks that your computer monitor is a newspaper where space has to be parsimoniously distributed. It isn’t. The web is like a wide-open frontier where there is space for everyone. FV most especially because of its policy of letting anyone post. Witness yourself.
And one last thing, dear Primer. This?
It bears watching how Obama can clear his way out of the noose.
is racist.
Love,
Rom
[December 22, 2008]
