A reminder note from a Christian that Asians don’t belong here »« My 3rd of the Unholy Trinity

Ra-Men – Being progressive

I’m doing a new podcast. Mark Nebo of BeSecular co-hosts the show, and he acts as producer as well.  He wanted a title that had my name in it.  My sense of humor came up with the Ra-Men.

I want to do something different. Anybody can bitch about any situation and every solution anyone ever proposes. But just to be progressive, I want to talk to people who are not only proposing solutions instead, but who are actually implementing them; Even if we don’t yet know that it won’t work, so long as there is still reason to believe that it *might* work. Think politics, economics, technology, environmental issues, social issues, civil rights abuses, reforms or responses to oppression, opposition to certain legislation, moral obligations for the sake of humanity or the spotted owl, the advancement of science, education, or the distribution of drinking water, etc. Whatever. Any suggestions? Who do you see trying to do something to fix things that might actually make a difference?

Comments

  1. says

    I’m not trying go partisan, even if it’s in another country, but Canada around 10 years ago was poised to decriminalize marijuana until Stephen Harper became Prime Minister, and squashed the legislation. Now the new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Justin Trudeau has stated he plans to run with Marijuana legalization as part of his platform. This has turned into one of the strongest attacks they have on the leader, and despite it not being near time for an election some are already calling the move Trudeau’s death knell.
    I personally (and I’m backed up by studies and evidence) think his move is very progressive and in line with working models that will reduce incarceration rates, as well as create a new taxable cash cow. It will also not hinder so many looking for jobs with criminal convictions for such a petty crime.
    I’m not sure if this is the progressivism you were looking for, but I figured I’d give it a try.

    • Narf says

      Err, how is that going partisan? Both conservatives and liberals are for pot smoking. The conservatives just like to pretend they’re not.

  2. Deborah Welch says

    I am very impressed with Paul who does the Quranify Me podcast. He is a Veteran with a passion for women’s rights and anyone else who faces oppression. His podcast aims to show you just what the Quran says, without some “scholar” putting a spin on it, showing Islam for exactly what it is. He also highlights stories of people who have escaped Islam and the hardships they face and have yet to face.

    I started listening with the idea that only the Muslim extremists were a threat and that they were probably just twisting what the faith is about. After listening to what the Quran actually says, I now know differently. Paul is trying to change that perception one tortuous verse at a time. I know I never would have bothered to read the damn thing on my own, and Paul’s podcast is what it took for me to pay attention and understand. With the way Islam is going, I think everyone should see just what that religion is based on.

  3. Narf says

    You left the quotes off of ‘sense of humor’. :-D

    I’ll try to come up with something, for show suggestions. Let us know when you get things up and running. You’re the reason I started listening to Dogma Debate, and your departure is the reason I stopped paying as much attention to them. I keep meaning to pull up the show and see how things are going, but I haven’t been as motivated to, without you in the mix.

  4. corwyn says

    I could use some help spreading the word about something I created which helps reduce energy use in houses, namely interior storm windows. I provide instructions on my website, so that anyone can make them for themselves (and make and sell kits for those who don’t feel up to the task, and complete windows for those in my area (shipping being difficult)).

    Is this the sort of thing you are looking for?

  5. says

    I must clarify. I intend to interview activists, and such-like, and that might include inverters and politicians, but I won’t be doing any endorsements of products, services, or candidates.

    • Narf says

      As a stop-gap, you could interview some other YouTubers or something. See if you could get a hold of Logicked or something. He’s one of my favorites, along with a few others, like Steve Shives and you. Martymer81 would also probably make for an interesting interviewee.

      People like that … sort of count as activists.

  6. Baud Bits says

    I would think a fruitful area might be healthcare. As a UK citizen I am continually amazed at the politically driven popular reaction to affordable healthcare in the US. People in the UK moan about costs and waste in the NHS [we spend 17% GDP on healthcare – near twice the amount.

    Women’s healthcare naturally evolves from this argument and the Christian fundamentalist noise on abortion appears to be growing recently.

  7. corwyn says

    I would be happy to leave out any mention of the commercial aspects of what I do. The interior storm windows are a simple effective thing that most people can do for themselves, and I would like to see them more widespread. The reason I offer kits at all, is that some people aren’t able to do the wood cutting and drilling by themselves, and it simplifies the acquisition of materials.

    Anyway, I understand if this isn’t the sort of thing you are looking for.

  8. EnlightenmentLiberal says

    @AronRa
    (Is that the proper capitalization? Lol.)

    I just sent an email 2 days ago concerning the Ra-Men show. I hope you got it.

    As for people who I would like to see be on, and keeping with the new energy technology “theme” of episode 2, how about Tom Blees, author of Prescription for the Planet?
    http://www.prescriptionfortheplanet.com/
    He has some great ideas, and some ideas so obscure I’ve never even heard of them before. Not sure how legit he is on some of those obscure points, but it’s fascinating stuff.

    I’d love to see Kirk Sorensen on too (of LFTR fame). However, I would warn that he seems to be a standard Christian Republican, so if you could focus on energy, it might be ok. Or maybe you would just take up the hour on everything else which you disagree on, lol.

    • EnlightenmentLiberal says

      PS: That came off as overly harsh on Kirk. He seems like a good guy mostly, and he gives a good talk, where he seems legitimately concerned about solving many problems of the world. If you can get cheap energy, he says (rightly) that you can stop many wars, you can get more fresh water from sea water (which stops some more wars), you can improve the environment, you can stop global warming. He even seems to think that some of the radioactive isotopes that he will produce will be amazingly useful in medicine (ex: specific radioactive isotopes can be used together with designer molecules to target cancers).

      But he is still a staunch Republican… so yea. Lol.

  9. Tim Mitchell says

    You could look at the website of a group called FIRIS (Fairness in Religions in Schools) in Australia that’s been working hard to get rid of weekly christian scripture lessons (usually referred to as either CRE or SRI) in Primary Schools. They have exposed the dirt behind the evengelical groups like ACCESS Ministries, Gener8 Ministries and Scripture Union that accredit the so-call teachers. They’ve worked with the Victorian Department of Education to tighten the rules around Christian Religious Education and new guidelines have been issued. Due to this opt-in rates have been plummeting and many schools have dropped the program completely, but there is still much work to be done. Have a look at: http://religionsinschool.com
    Cheers,
    T

  10. Brony says

    I want to talk to people who are not only proposing solutions instead, but who are actually implementing them; Even if we don’t yet know that it won’t work, so long as there is still reason to believe that it *might* work.

    Well it’s weird and complex and hard to describe well (maybe because I have not had the opportunity to do so very often) but I try to internalize my knowledge of neurobiology, psychology, and sociology as much as possible in terms of how I interact with people.
    One aspect of this is understanding what I am in all those different frames including an evolutionary frame. That last one is a controversial frame, but the biggest problem with evolutionary psychology is when evolutionary psychologists try to apply their experience onto other people. I am allowed to self-objectify, describe myself and display myself in certain ways and if others find that useful in understanding themselves they will take that and use it for themselves. I might even have a natural skill in this area,
    “Speeded processing of grammar and tool knowledge in Tourette’s syndrome.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17493643
    This is inferential and hypothetical, but I have historical reasons for thinking that this is worth trying out. And it also is not a claim to “mutant super powers” (though I have been rhetorically tempted) because I can also see how my life experience has shaped any abilities I may have in this area.

    Think politics, economics, technology, environmental issues, social issues, civil rights abuses, reforms or responses to oppression, opposition to certain legislation, moral obligations for the sake of humanity or the spotted owl, the advancement of science, education, or the distribution of drinking water, etc. Whatever.

    I think that trying to strip “true universals” out of what I read on human nature and allowing others to let me know if I am right by using what I say and display has benefits in just about every human behavioral realm. At every point in the process skepticism and rationality can be applied I’m always open to anyone challenging what I do or say wherever I am on FTB.

    • EnlightenmentLiberal says

      @Brony
      What you wrote is pretty dense, opaque, and IMHO overly hard to follow, but I think I followed most of it. The question I have to ask is – what does this have to do with the rest of the thread and the piece of text you quoted? I see no relation whatsoever.

  11. Brony says

    Sorry. I’ll be happy to expand any of it if you can point to any sections. I meant it when I said that It’s a little hard to describe cause I don’t get the chance very often so I’m not quite the best at it. I guess the simplest way of saying it is that i have had a unique experience that has let me convey things about brain science on a personal level that lets me share things with others in a useful way.

    I was diagnosed with ADHD and TS five years ago. The process of learning about it at every level that I have been able to wrap my brain around comes with fringe benefits. I get an increasing general understanding of human behavior, and I get to learn where I have enhancements and drawbacks. The second one is like a personalized list cheat sheet of “most important human flaws”, and “most important human advantages”. The quotes indicate details that would be specific to me and could be different or similar for other people in different ways.

    I additionally think I get an inferential understanding of behavior as it relates to how I am different from everyone on “average”, and what we know about how people seem to be divided into various cognitive types (the “average” between me and autism, ocd, and various other things) The quotes are all doing the same thing as above, and the details of any inferences get hashed out by conversations with people from each group where I let them increase the accuracy of my perspective. This sort of knowledge can sometimes be like having “cheat codes” that functionally work like knowing how logical fallacies work in arguments.

    Since everything up there sounds like it could be far-fetched I’ve been hesitant to be so direct about it until recently because the places where inheritance and experience have given me advantages have been more intuitive and used without awareness (and thus risky to be casual about) until I had the chance to do all that reading and talking with people, and the drawbacks were tied up in unconscious defense mechanisms like happen with many people. But I would be happy to explain anything farther because I realize how weird this sounds.

    • Narf says

      I was diagnosed with ADHD and TS five years ago.

      TS? Tourette’s Syndrome? I’m not familiar with that particular acronym, and that’s the best I’m coming up with.

    • Narf says

      Ah, cool. I thought so. OCD, ADD, ADHD, and the like are all common enough. I’ve just never seen anyone abbreviate Tourrett’s, before.

      What sort of manifestation do you have? Most people automatically think of coprolalia, because of the media portrayal … no thanks to freaking South Park. I’m aware that there are many other ways it displays itself, though.

    • EnlightenmentLiberal says

      @Brony
      I’m still not sure why you’re posting it here. Does it have a connection to anything else in the thread? Or are you randomly dumping here? It feels like there’s a connection which I’m missing which you intended to communicate.

  12. Brony says

    Well that is one of the things about TS that became interesting to me when I found out I had it, the disconnect between stereotype and reality is vast. Most people with various cognitive disorders* complain about the difference between the condition and the public perception of the condition, but while I am biased it seems to me that the differences in TS are more stark. The stereotype of the person that can’t stop cussing is maybe ~10% of affected persons (and there are subtypes but they have not been named because they can’t rationally separate them well enough yet). In general, from talking to others with it I see TS as the experience of emotions that trigger impulses, urges, reactions, and other things that might be system one** related as being turned up in “volume”, and often having the logic of the signal corrupted (intensity, good/bad direction…). It’s not just a motor thing although we do all seem to have some tics. The associated OCDs, ADHD, personality disorders and more are all driven by extra intense and often corrupted impulse signals as we tend to respond to them in more intense fashion as a group.

    In my case the effects were hidden by a military/conservative protestant upbringing in terms of “twitchy hyper kid” (with associated bullying), but I had tons of physical tics (arm thrusts, finger clenches, spine twists, squinting, jaw clenches…), and some that might qualify not as “verbal”, but related (puffing air through the nose). I got into more detail with a parent of a kid with TS here on FTB if you are interested. (there are a couple of exchanges but this is the main one).
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2014/08/as-the-stag-calms-down/comment-page-1/#comment-2584460
    I’ve since learned to “shape” the OCD aspect into more strict personal rules of conduct that have been very useful. Since TS has to do with the systems that govern parts of habitual, rule-based learning being set to more of a “hair-trigger”, knowledge of the science behind the condition has been invaluable in terms of figuring out best ways to live, and I guess that is part of the progressive angle (which I should have made more explicit). I’ve spent a lot of time interacting in a society that is frankly abysmally ignorant on matters of brain science (especially institutionally), and that science is really benefiting me. The demonic storm in my head is not really so scary anymore and there are even cognitive enhancements that let me know where I am gifted, as well as places where I am flawed and need to create rational ways of dealing with them.

    Also I was fine with the episode of south park. It was about Cartman and his need to use others as a tool for his own benefit and the portrays of people with TS were people that I can see existing.

    *I can explain, but I do not believe that TS, ADHD, Autism, OCD, Schizophrenia and others are actually disorders but are extreme ends of how human minds are normally shaped by inheritance and experience. These “archetypal” mental modes tend to blend into “normal”.

    ** See Dual Process theory.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory

  13. says

    “I want to talk to people who are not only proposing solutions instead, but who are actually implementing them [ . . . ]. Think politics, economics, technology, environmental issues, social issues, civil rights abuses, reforms or responses to oppression, [ . . . ]. Who do you see trying to do something to fix things that might actually make a difference?”

    Well, how about Peter Joseph from The Zeitgeist Movement? (www.thezeitgeistmovement.com)

    Or Jaques Fresco and Roxanne Meadows from The Venus Project? (www.thevenusproject.com)

    Or Marshall Rosenberg founder of the Center For Nonviolent Communication? (www.cnvc.org)

    Or Douglas Mallette from Cybernated Farm Systems? (www.cyberfarmsystems.com)

    Or Bill James from J-pods? (www.jpods.com)

    Or Daryl Oster from Evacuated Tube Transport Technologies (aka: ET3)? (www.et3.com)

    I could go on . . . . ;-) Love your show.

    • EnlightenmentLiberal says

      Ugg. That list…

      I saw an interview from long back about the guy who started the Venus Project. His heart is in the right place, but he has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about in terms of engineering, political science, and economic science. It’s “pie in the sky” pipedreams with no grounding in reality.

      I checked out the Zeitgeist Movement. More of the same seemingly.

      I bet the rest of your organizations have the same problems.

      The other big problem I have with those groups is that they are all anarchists with absolutely zero understanding of how the world works politically. Take this bit from the Zeitgeist Movement mission statement.

      This “Natural Law/Resource-Based Economy” (NLRBE) is about taking a direct technical approach to social management as opposed to a monetary or even political one.

      “Political”. They use that word, but I think they do not know what it means. Any form of government is politics. Further, any involuntary or voluntary social group involves politics. That’s simply what the word means. You cannot remove politics from society. It’s nonsensical. The only way to remove politics is to remove society itself, aka be a bunch of anarchists, which is apparently the aim of all of these movements.

      It was said that if people were angels, then there would be no need of government. Well, people are not angels, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that, and that’s why we will forever need a government and police.

      Perhaps these groups recognize that, but they want to do away with voting? What the fuck? It reminds me very much of Plato’s Republic, where we are supposed to get these wise philosopher-kings who rule justly overly the idiot proletariat. I’m sorry – no. There will be voting as long as there is the human species in a statement of freedom. It is unavoidable.

      If you want to accomplish the goals of these organizations, start a little smaller, and with ideas grounded in reality.

      If you want to change the US for the better, figure out a way to get the following done:
      * Reform the US election system to avoid a 2-party state, such as by changing elections to instant-runoff, or like the Israeli Knesset, etc.
      * Pass stupidly high progressive income taxes, capital gains taxes, etc. Like in the area of 90%+ for the filthy rich.
      * Pass even stupidly higher estate taxes for the filthy rich. Like in the area of 99%+ for the filthy rich.

      In terms of helping problems of poverty, do:
      * Favor conventional nuclear power. It’s the safest, least CO2 producing, environmentally cleanest, chepest, and otherwise all around best form of power production. (Or about tied with competitors.)
      * Favor research into newer nuclear technologies, especially the IFR and LFTR, and any other safe cheap breeder reactor.
      * Favor research into synthetic gasoline from CO2 pulled from the atmosphere (or equivalently with CO2 pulled from solution in ocean water).

      This will give us energy independence and energy security, which helps prevent wars. This can help us do large-scale water desalination, which helps prevent war. This can raise people out of poverty in the rest of the world, which will lower birth rates, which will help stop overpopulation. This mass of cheap energy can help us get to a society where there is no hunger, with good free national health care, free education, etc.

      All of that will also stop global warming, and even help reverse it. We can pull CO2 from the air, so not only can we effectively stop all manmade CO2 release (around 5% or 10% of current levels), we can even reverse it and pull CO2 out of the air (or water). All we need is the energy to do so.

      Then, support some other laws.
      * Support fixing loopholes in laws governing the work week, fair working hours, overtime pay, etc.
      * Help me figure out how we can have so much more production capacity, but still have about the same material wealth as 50 years ago, but with the same working week. Pass government regulation to fix the problems. With increased automation, we should be able to work less. As we need to work less, then pass further government regulations to decrease the work week.

      I’d post a bazillion links, but then I’d be caught in moderation. As an example of something extremely farfetched, but at least based in reality, let me share this:
      Prescription For The Planet
      Tom Blees
      http://thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/P4TP4U.pdf

      • Narf says

        You cannot remove politics from society. It’s nonsensical. The only way to remove politics is to remove society itself, aka be a bunch of anarchists, which is apparently the aim of all of these movements.

        So, basically, they’re the most extremist form of anarcho-capitalist Libertarian? Yes, because setting up that sort of society will make our world a better place …

      • says

        Wow. There’s as much rambling on this page as there is close-mindedness (or to be generous, just plain laziness). EL here seems to have all the answers already, so there’s no point in trying to rebut all of his incorrect assumptions and misunderstandings. The others of you who have not already invested in the status quo are welcome to check out the links above and come to your own conclusions AFTER seriously looking into the train of thought with an open mind. If your only tool is a hammer, then all of your problems must only be some form of nail. There are FAR more tools out there than most people realize, but obviously this is not the place for that discussion.
        “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”
        Best regards.

        • EnlightenmentLiberal says

          @Jamie Edmonds
          I engaged your points, and made arguments why your points are wrong. You then complained that someone disagreed with you, and then merely asserted without any reason whatsoever that I am close-minded and will refuse to change my mind. Rather than running away the moment your beliefs are challenged, and randomly accusing others of being dogmatic and close-minded, you could try to defend your points with reasoned arguments and evidence. In fact, your behavior is what one would expect from someone who is close-minded and dogmatic – running away at the first sign that someone disagrees.

          Simply having opinions doesn’t make me close-minded any more than you having your own opinions makes you close-minded. (But running away at the first sign of challenge does seem to indicate that you are close-minded.)

          Srsly.

    • Narf says

      Yeah, if you use more than one link in a post, it trips the moderation, even if you’ve already been taken out of moderation in general. It’s a weird, annoying feature of the management system of FTB. I guess as far as quirks go, I’ve seen far worse, though.
      Aron or Lilandra will push it through in a bit.

      I just noticed that Ra-Men is up and running, by the way. I thought it was still in the planning stages. There are three episodes posted on Aron’s YouTube channel. That’s how I watched/listened to them.

  14. Brony says

    @ EnlightenmentLiberal says
    While we are waiting for my comment that is in moderation let me say something that I should have mentioned at the outset. I can have problems with context if the topic is one that I am not experiences in conveying or am somewhat nervous about.

    The reason that I see what I do (as I am trying to describe it) as being progressive is because I have had the unique opportunity to gain intimate access to the reality of brain science on an intimate level that few get to and I want to be able to use that for others. And I live in a world with that is profoundly ignorant on issues having to do with what humans are like on universal levels, and on the levels in which we actually are different in significant ways that transcend things like culture, race, and other differences that we usually fight about.

    I tend to meet people all the time that benefit from little things that I know that make really confusing things about why people do what they do a little bit more sensible. I also tend to see people promoting things that are profoundly contradictory to what we are and why we do what we do and it gets harder and harder to not speak up because it might be disruptive, or I might bother someone that is currently benefiting from how things are now. It’s a small thing in lots of ways but it is how I try to implement solutions.

    I guess the people that I like the most are the ones manage to make an effective routine out of persuasion and rhetorically countering the things we are concerned about (that we like and dislike) in comment sections on sites, on the bus, on Facebook, and other places where regular basic communication is happening. I sometimes wish we had an organized group of progressives that just focused on “best methods” (including morals and ethics) for conveying, defending, and justifying what we believe in a more meta sense, and organized “on the ground” efforts to counter things like harassment campaigns and other sorts of dishonest and cruel means of changing society (or reinforcing it). For example quite a few of the people dealing with culture war issues related to the situation involving Ferguson in the longer threads about it at PZ’s lately would probably have really interesting things to say about their experiences and I would consider real-world examples of people that have lots of experience at that level interesting.

    But that is not meant to take away from people doing other things at a higher organizational level. I’m going to definitely check out the offerings in the other comments.

  15. Brony says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal
    I guess it summarizes as “I value people that can effectively act like the things progressives believe are true when social contrasts can create political and social conflicts, and I value people that can do the same when it comes to successfully using their perspective to enhance the lives of others.”

    I guess I mucked it up. If you are curious about the rest of it you can email me at mudge80 at the gee-mail thingy (I’m not really sensitive about talking about TS), I think I ended up distracting with it instead of it being an example.

    • EnlightenmentLiberal says

      @brony
      Are you a native English speaker? You really should work on your communication skills. It takes me minutes to read even one of your sentences.

      Example. Let me go through what it takes to try and understand what you wrote:

      >I value people

      Sure.

      >I value people that can effectively act like the things progressives believe are true

      Ok. That’s pretty verbose. That seems to be “I like progressive people”.

      >[I like progressive people] when social contrasts can create political and social conflicts,

      Ok. Not exactly sure what you’re getting at here. I suspect you mean something like:

      >I like progressive people who fight for progressive policies

      Continuing on:

      >[I like progressive people who fight up for progressive policies] and I value people that can do the same when it comes to successfully using their perspective to enhance the lives of others.

      So, in total, it seems you’re saying:

      >I like progressive people who fight for progressive policies and make the world a better place.

      Yes. I can agree to that.

      So, compare and contrast:

      Before:
      >I value people that can effectively act like the things progressives believe are true when social contrasts can create political and social conflicts, and I value people that can do the same when it comes to successfully using their perspective to enhance the lives of others.

      After:
      >I like progressive people who fight for progressive policies and make the world a better place.

      Why can’t you just write that!?!?!

  16. Brony says

    @EnlightenmentLiberal
    I apologize, but language and I have a complicated relationship (family history of different disorders related to language and communication). I am a native speaker but can sometimes run into situations where my ability to express what I am trying to breaks down. For some reason this one is giving me more trouble than many and I am not sure why. I’m normally a lot better than this at this point in my life. I’ll look at what you have written and try to figure out where I screwed up.

    Why can’t you just write that!?!?!

    Because it’s not that simple. When people fight to make the world a better place they individually run into different sets of problems on an individual functional level as they push against society. The various logical fallacies that you see in creationists are an example. You don’t just get told by another evolution supporter that “X is wrong because it’s a fallacy”. A beginner needs to know what a fallacy is and needs to see examples dissected so that they get used to the concept. With enough experience a person sees underlying patterns in fallacious behavior and even finds new ones. Similar with different cognitive biases irrationally and illogically expressed.

    As I watch people fighting in various social arenas I notice that there are patterns in the BS that they have to put up with and a discussion of the comparisons and contrasts of the patterns between the different groups of progressives fighting different causes would be fascinating and useful. People concerned with gender, sex, religion, race, economic and other issues encounter many types of “scripts” like the “Not all X” script that has similar form, but context specific expression. I think such a functional discussion on social and political conflict could reveal many interesting and unexpected insights in how to be a better advocate on a personal level.

    Sorry about the confusion.

    • EnlightenmentLiberal says

      Ok. Again, not to be mean. I just see rambling, and little to no relation to the topic of the thread. I do not understand what you are trying to communicate, if anything.

      • Narf says

        I imagine it’s something like me, in voice-mail. On paper/screen, when I have editorial ability, I’m fine. In person, when I’m interacting directly with someone, I’m fine.

        As soon as the voice-mail beep happens, though, I just freaking ramble. All of the information I wanted to tell someone is there, but if I didn’t have 30 seconds or so of preparation, when I’m aware of the fact that I’m going to have to leave a voice-mail rather than talk directly to the person, I hit my points at random and forget which ones I’ve already hit, half way through the message. The end result is usually 3 or 4 minutes of stuff which could have been condensed into two texts.

        How many read-throughs do you do, after completing the initial stream of consciousness, Brony? If you made a few, you might come off a little more coherently.

  17. Brony says

    @ EnlightenmentLiberal
    It’s alright. I’m not waving at the cognitive stuff as a defense either (it’s just relevant in an explanatory sense). I actually am interested when I confuse someone and I don’t see your comments as unreasonable (though others might be more sensitive based on their experiences). The reasons end up being useful in terms of my own personal development.

    @ Narf

    How many read-throughs do you do, after completing the initial stream of consciousness, Brony? If you made a few, you might come off a little more coherently.

    I have a routine that can break down in odd context sensitive ways that I am still figuring out. Sometimes I need it and sometimes I don’t. I’ve been needing it more lately because life has been more stressful in lots of ways and I got a little lazy because I’ve been more active around FTB lately and forgot that “new social environment” like a blog I don’t normally post on is a significant variable. The variables are otherwise still somewhat fuzzy and I have to be more intellectual about the process than most folks.

    In increasing order of suspicion of needing fixed.
    *Type it in a document.
    *Look at it again in a couple of hours.
    *Sleep on it and look at it again.
    *Have someone else look at it.

    Then post.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>