Doesn't Want to Hear It
Hey Everyone,
Well it looks like someone doesn't want to hear it.
Let me explain.
You see I have a gmail account. If you don't know what that is, or how much better it is than any of the other major accounts (and I have at least two each of yahoo and hotmail)... than you need to go find out. It will more than be worth time, trust me. Anyway, one great feature on gmail is the RSS feeder that give you clips of news feeds, blog feeds and such. Essentially, you get a clip from some source you may be interested in. Well, one of those clips the other day dealt with the great new feature that gmail is bringing, i.e. Google chat, right inside the gmail account. (Quick aside, this is great cause you never have to load anything to the computer it is ready to go... works great so far).
Anyway, the web clip was from this google blogger (the official one for gmail) about Chat + email. One thing the blog has is a "links to this page" part. Well, this one blog was at the top. So the title interested me enough to read it. I have provided the link. So naturally I read the post. You'll see it's a big rant about "choice" or lack thereof. How she doesn't want to deal with all the people in her contact list. The post itself is titled "Google + Chat = Invasion of Privacy". To make a long story shorter, what you need to know, is that like every other Instant messager, Google Talk can be switched off and not used. So if you don't want to deal with it, you never need to.
So naturally I commented on her blog about first finding out about the features before complaining. Specifically she can not use it if she so hates it. I was curious as to her responce, if she gave any. For a while she didn't.
Then she posted about Abortion. A contraversial topic at the best of times. Specifically she talked about "spin". She quotes a New York Times article:
"There are fewer abortions in America than at any point in the last three decades."
And continues, "Whoever wrote that line was a master. It's masterful spin." Pointing out that without "context" that doesn't mean a whole lot. At first I would agree, in fact I think I did. But her initial meaningfulness was... err... halted. It seemed she never bothered to really think about it. How do I know? Well...
I think at this point it would be easier to just quote the paragraph in question.
"Of course, this information is meaningless. Fewer abortions. Does this mean there are fewer women seeking abortions who are actually getting them? Is the number of pregnancies down correspondingly, or up? How about the number of abortions performed on Americans outside America, have those gone down? Or up? What about women who 'decide' to have babies because it's too late to perform an abortion safely, maybe because they were stonewalled, or denied the morning-after pill?"
Without going into it point by point, or debating abortion itself (that isn't the issue here). I have quite a few problems with this whole thing... but the biggest problem is her obvious lack of thought. The morning-after pill hasn't been around that long. Never mind 30 years ago. So it is irrelavant that women are being denied it now, women didn't have that option in the early nineties, never mind 30 years ago.
So back to the original point of this post. I of course commented that although she appeared well thought out at first glance... she wasn't really. Just a little bit of thought, and her post could have been at least enlightening. Instead it was a thoughless rant. (I didn't say that last part). I was interested to see how she would respond.
I figured she might either clarify, rebutt, respond, or ignore. She choose to remove the comment section. It's too bad really. I somewhat liked her writing style.
So, Rachel, if you happen to be reading this, turn on the comment section. After all, of what are you afraid?
I'm not decided as to whether or not I care enough to email her.
The Author
Well it looks like someone doesn't want to hear it.
Let me explain.
You see I have a gmail account. If you don't know what that is, or how much better it is than any of the other major accounts (and I have at least two each of yahoo and hotmail)... than you need to go find out. It will more than be worth time, trust me. Anyway, one great feature on gmail is the RSS feeder that give you clips of news feeds, blog feeds and such. Essentially, you get a clip from some source you may be interested in. Well, one of those clips the other day dealt with the great new feature that gmail is bringing, i.e. Google chat, right inside the gmail account. (Quick aside, this is great cause you never have to load anything to the computer it is ready to go... works great so far).
Anyway, the web clip was from this google blogger (the official one for gmail) about Chat + email. One thing the blog has is a "links to this page" part. Well, this one blog was at the top. So the title interested me enough to read it. I have provided the link. So naturally I read the post. You'll see it's a big rant about "choice" or lack thereof. How she doesn't want to deal with all the people in her contact list. The post itself is titled "Google + Chat = Invasion of Privacy". To make a long story shorter, what you need to know, is that like every other Instant messager, Google Talk can be switched off and not used. So if you don't want to deal with it, you never need to.
So naturally I commented on her blog about first finding out about the features before complaining. Specifically she can not use it if she so hates it. I was curious as to her responce, if she gave any. For a while she didn't.
Then she posted about Abortion. A contraversial topic at the best of times. Specifically she talked about "spin". She quotes a New York Times article:
"There are fewer abortions in America than at any point in the last three decades."
And continues, "Whoever wrote that line was a master. It's masterful spin." Pointing out that without "context" that doesn't mean a whole lot. At first I would agree, in fact I think I did. But her initial meaningfulness was... err... halted. It seemed she never bothered to really think about it. How do I know? Well...
I think at this point it would be easier to just quote the paragraph in question.
"Of course, this information is meaningless. Fewer abortions. Does this mean there are fewer women seeking abortions who are actually getting them? Is the number of pregnancies down correspondingly, or up? How about the number of abortions performed on Americans outside America, have those gone down? Or up? What about women who 'decide' to have babies because it's too late to perform an abortion safely, maybe because they were stonewalled, or denied the morning-after pill?"
Without going into it point by point, or debating abortion itself (that isn't the issue here). I have quite a few problems with this whole thing... but the biggest problem is her obvious lack of thought. The morning-after pill hasn't been around that long. Never mind 30 years ago. So it is irrelavant that women are being denied it now, women didn't have that option in the early nineties, never mind 30 years ago.
So back to the original point of this post. I of course commented that although she appeared well thought out at first glance... she wasn't really. Just a little bit of thought, and her post could have been at least enlightening. Instead it was a thoughless rant. (I didn't say that last part). I was interested to see how she would respond.
I figured she might either clarify, rebutt, respond, or ignore. She choose to remove the comment section. It's too bad really. I somewhat liked her writing style.
So, Rachel, if you happen to be reading this, turn on the comment section. After all, of what are you afraid?
I'm not decided as to whether or not I care enough to email her.
The Author
posted by Selam at 9:47 p.m.
10 Comments:
Hi Selam, I just saw this.
I turned comments off because I decided that I didn't want to put myself in the position of publicly correcting the record when someone posted negatively and erroneously on the blog. I started it as a repository for my thoughts and I just don't want to police a comments section. As for your assessment, here's my response: I am not quoting from a random NYTimes article. I'm quoting from Bush's 2006 State of the Union address, as it says in the post's title. The NYT link is to a transcript of that address, which includes that line. The post is my analysis of that line in the speech, and why it is misleading. It was not about the abortion debate itself, but the presentation of a loaded statistic. For more information see this article, a few paragraphs down: http://www.alternet.org/rights/32369/
As for Google Chat, if you read the post I have no quarrel with the service itself, just for Google's decision to spring it on users without the option to opt-in. I use it, I like it, but I would have rather had the option of whether or not to do so. Google should not be able to impose a positive burden of action on its clients to reject a service that has not been solicited.
I would have welcomed an email to discuss any of this. But instead, you chose to post critically and vaguely insultingly in a forum that I provided. It's my right whether to provide it, and my decision not to. Of course, you are always welcome to drop me a line.
Best,
Rachel
HI Rachel,
Thanks for responding. I first like to thank you for responding. As I said, I do enjoy your style of writing. Which is why I even bothered to respond to begin with (I wouldn't waste my time of some crap). Perhaps I was a little harsh in my phrasing, my apologies if I offended you. It is your blog, so whatever you do with it is obviously your perogative... who am I to say. But I thought, that it could have been so much better if it was a little better. I'm not saying I'm an expert on anything in particular, but reading them I thought that perhaps a little more, and and it would be so much more.
I am not email you, mostly because, I don't want to harass you (or for you to think that I am). So, next time (if there is one), I will be a little more diplomatic.
Just a note on your choice of blogging styles. You have, as I said earlier, a nice style of writing... it is very engaging. Responce demaning almost. However for that reason, it makes it a style very condusive to blogging; in that it seems to invite comments. Perhaps if you edited some comments (or trashed) those that were mean spirited, or didn't meet the atmosphere of your blog, it would make your blog one were people can read a story in with an interesting spin. It's just my idea, not that it is good (or even on this side of intelligent)... but maybe one worth considering.
As for me, you know my blog, you can always respond angrily if I annoy/anger you.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home