Blog Format Changes
I've added a category on the sidebar for ongoing discussion threads. This will hold those topics that spur widespread, impassioned, ongoing debate like Brit's brilliant "The Story of the Moral". That way it will be easier for Daily Duck regulars to get at the thread after it scrolls off the bottom of the front page.
Quack on!
Quack on!
posted by Anonymous at 4:06 PM
13 Comments:
Good thinking.
Is it just me though, or is the side bar currently hovering way down the page?
Also, re my avatar appearing in comments, as you asked in the Moral thread: if you edit your blogger profile, you can link to a photo URL.
That seems to do it, though I notice that it's only visible in the page where you write your comment, and not in the main thread.
Brit,
I don't know why the sidebar is doing that. Originally I thought that the staff cartoons were too wide with the addition of Oroborous, so I trimmed it to two pics wide, but it is still acting up. Any clues anyone?
With my AOL browser, (which might be Netscape Navigator), the main page looks as it originally did, before the fourth avatar was added.
So, trimming the width of the avatar entry worked, for those with browsers similar to mine.
It looks ok with Netscape and Mozilla, the problem is with IE. F*&(^^$ Microsoft!
Off topic, but this might amuse you. OJ seems to have really cracked now. On this thread:
http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/2005/10/teaching_id_is.html
I added the comment:
"Nice that The Christian Science Monitor should acknowledge the key point though: evolved means unplanned."
Orrin then doctored my post several times, changing it initially to ..."evolved means developed gradually by intelligent beings".
After deleting my protest at this foul play, he then changed it to the comment as it currently is, added the reply "Precisely!" and closed off the thread!
I suggest this is a foolproof way of winning arguments which more blogs should consider: change any dissenting arguments until you agree with them, and then agree and claim victory. Brilliant!
Orrin has never been rational.
He's sometimes amusing, and occasionally brilliant, but NEVER rational, not even on those topic where I agree with him.
He operates solely by intuition.
He'll get an idea into his head, decide it feels right, and that's all she wrote, no matter how ludicrous.
I've only ever seen him change his mind due to a convincing argument twice, and I've NEVER seen him acknowledge that he's changed his mind.
I once told him he's like one of those people whose long term memory is gone, and new ideas pop into his head without any regard to what he has thought or said previously.
Or more likely he's like Pee Wee Herman from "Pee Wee's Big Adventure" when he crashes his bike, then calmly stands up and tells the bystanders "I meant to do that".
He's a curiosity, all right.
I can stomach pretty much everything OJ throws, except for when he replies with just the word "Bingo!". That's really overstepping the mark....
Oroborous:
I guess OJ would say: "Bingo! I'm anti-rational".
I've seen him take many little backward steps, but never do a U-turn. What has he changed his mind on?
Brit:
Last year he and I went 'round and 'round about Bush vs. McCain during the '00 Republican primaries...
Orrin's position was that Bush's "Compassionate Conservative" rap would have led to a Bush win in a walkover, and that McCain forced Bush to tack right during the primaries, which hurt him in the general election; I think that McCain helped Bush. It's true that Bush had to tack right-ward to counter McCain, but McCain also forced Bush to sharpen his campaign, and connect better with the voters. Before McCain, Bush's strongest challenger - Liddy Dole, now a U.S. Senator from North Carolina - dropped out in '99, due to a wide difference in fundraising between her and Bush, and Bush was kind of coasting, as the "anointed one".
In my opinion, Gore would have chewed up the pre-Mcain-scare Bush, and won the Presidency.
Anyhow, I eventually dropped it, and a few months ago I noticed that Orrin is using my argument re: McCain.
There's a difference between being "anti-rational", and "anti-Rational", and Orrin is both.
We could add a "bash Orrin" thread to the Ongiong Discussions category, but since he has been gracious enough to add the Daily Duck to his blogroll, maybe we should also recognize Orrin's good points? He is very prompt in reply ! Very prolific, he never sleeps! He did finally pay up on the oil bet he lost last year.
Besides, I sense that his spies are lurking about, especially the one they call "The Sensible One".
I don't think that we're bashing Orrin, and as Brit notes, Orrin probably wouldn't feel bashed if he read these comments.
He delights in being perverse.
Why else would he continually use common words in Orrin-centric ways, without warning anyone that the game is afoot ?
That way he can get people who fundamentally agree with him, to argue with him.
I'm sure that's also what's behind some of his more outlandish and stubbornly held ideas...
He's just doing it to rile folks up.
The thing is, it's hard to separate the inciting concepts from those outlandish and stubbornly held ideas that he truly, deeply believes in.
I wasn't kidding when I said that Orrin is irrational - or anti-rational, if you will.
He really does seem to operate exclusively through intuition.
Orrin's great value.
If there are more prolific bloggers anywhere, they must be few in number.
And in the end, it is his blog and he can decide what goes on it and what you can and can't comment about.
But even given that, tinkering with people's posts is a bit off. I asked him to delete the comment mentioned above altogether rather than leave his comment with my name to it - after all, "Brit" has a reputation to protect!
And also given that, we're entitled to proffer an opinion when he's talking utter rubbish.
When you endlessly write nonsense about Darwinism, for example, somewhere down the line you're going to end up with something as mind-bogglingly stupid and unfunny as his concluding remark on this thread.
Post a Comment
<< Home