We're sorry. We know we have been a tad lax lately at blogging. The truth is that our readership appeared to drop off pretty drastically after Dano's injury and the subsequent posting hiatus; maybe it was just a drop in participation. We are trying to get back into a regular schedule, now.
On that note, however, there is something we want to address: For this blog to be successful, we need for visitors to actually comment on our posts, not just read them. Why, you ask? Because blog traffic for the purposes of 1) getting listed and spread by blog catalog services, 2) being noticed by news organizations who scan blog activity to locate bloggers of interest to highlight, and 3) appearing more relevant to education providers (whom we would like to appeal to so they will incorporate our blog in argument and persuasion curricula) is determined by the volume of comments by visitors, not just the number of site visitors.
We have been told by a number of non-commenting visitors that they enjoy reading our posts, but don't want to participate because they "feel unqualified" to comment. "I'm too stupid." "You guys are so serious." "I don't have the time or energy to research my own opinion." Etcetera.
For those of you that feel these ways, let us say this: We don't ask that everyone who comments first researches the issues presented. That's what we do. Those who do comment are only asked to give citations for any "factual" assertion made that is (or may be) debatable. This request is made for two reasons. First, we are trying to preclude the possibility that our blog project turns into a parade of opinion rants like so many blogs are. Second, research helps nearly everyone learn more about the issues than they knew already, which adds to the overall quality and value of the dialog between participants.
That said, there is nothing wrong with simply saying, "this is just my opinion, but...," or with simply writing "I enjoyed the post. It makes me think more about the subject." We also welcome any valid criticisms of our site design, our posts, our skills, our logic, or our content. One of the great thrills of debate is the opportunity to defend or even modify one's opinion or point of view.
Those of you who have commented regularly are very much appreciated. We also appreciate those of you that visit regularly, but don't leave comments. It's just that we really wish you would. We'd love to be able to consider our efforts worthwhile in the final analysis.
One more thing...we are now going to accept guest post submissions from those of you that have a substantive and contentious point of view on a socially important issue, and wish to have your position discussed. Any submissions of this kind should be emailed to danojohns@aol.com for publishing consideration. In the event that one is selected for a weekly debate topic, either Dano or Reed will take a different point of view to foster the debate.
Finally, we owe another apology to those of you who have been expecting our posts on the previously advertised topic of government subsidized healthcare. It turns out that it was too consuming a topic for our modest time availability. So, despite that we think it is a great topic, we will not be tackling the subsidized healthcare issue at this time. This week's topic, instead, will regard U.S. campaign finance issues--the source of heated disagreement between John McCain and Barack Obama during this year's presidential campaign. Our posts should be up in two or three days.
Posts
Trump a Dancing Fool
12 hours ago
7 comments:
Glad you guys are back!
Your going to have to do a lot better job to get #2 up and running and personally I don't want to see you guys corupting education. It's corupt enough already.
Let me explain why I say what I said. Too many times I have read the blog where it was obvious one or the other didn't believe what they were writing. You argued against your own point within your blog subject.
That proves you really didn't study the topic well enough and that your extremely biased on some subjects because it shows through when you argue a point you don't really believe.
We don't need anymore of that in our education system.
Now, don't get upset. First if you can't take criticizm then you don't need to be writing a blog anyway. Second, if you can improve the writing by staying on topic you are assigned without showing your own bias then ok. (Your grammer etc is ok, so by "writing" I mean staying on topic.)
I will give the benifit of the doubt since there have only been a few subjects so far.
What I am saying is true, both writers have done it and one was so blatent about it for a paragraph I wasn't sure which side I was reading.
So since I don't really know you guys (someone told me about your site) I hope you are not offended and can take some constructive critique.
Ditto that Anonymous. I noticed it too.
Hint: When you pick a subject, avoid the counter point thoughts that pop into your head while writing.
Anonymous, I don't understand your comments about Dano and Reed corrupting education. I think that though these posts are educational, or can be, I'm not sure that's the main aim of this blog.
But I could be wrong.
Anonymous and Steve,
Reed and I are both capable of accepting constructive criticism, so I don't think either of us would be offended in the face of it. That said, if you want to criticize in a constructive way, you need to give concrete examples of what you are referring to. Show me, for instance, any place in one of my posts where I contradict my own point in context. As importantly, identify for me an example of where I drifted off point, as you allege. I have been criticized previously for contradicting myself in posts, and have defended my positions with some clarity. I would be more than happy to respond to any explicit criticism when an example of my "mistake" is identified. I'm certain Reed would as well. In the event the criticism is justified, either of us will be happy to concede the point. At the risk of sounding like my feelings are easily hurt, I have to say that general, non-specific, and baseless accusations serve no constructive purpose, and are getting tiresome.
I confess that as a lifelong academic and also a professional editor for many years, I find it implausible that my writing is as poor as anonymous suggests. It is particularly distressing to be chided by someone who misspells easy words like "corrupt" ("corupt")and uses a word like "your" (for "you are") and the non-word "grammer" for "grammar."
Yes, indeed, the education system you were exposed to was corrupt, or else you were incapable of learning or simply didn't apply yourself.
As to identifying opposing points of view within a post, this is a common tool of persuasive writing and of rhetoric that assists an audience in understanding that the author or speaker has considered the opposing position. In my experience having written hundreds of legal briefs and many dozens of scholarly post-graduate research papers (all of which require logical persuasion), this device has been useful, and even required. If either of you has an educational background that taught you something to the contrary, I'd like to know about it--particularly because you seem so certain of your opinions. For what it's worth, my first undergraduate college major was English education, with emphasis on composition. Where did you guys learn your writing skills?
Finally, there is no way you can know what either of us believes with regard to our posts. Suggesting that you "know" we are biased or writing something we don't believe, indicates a personal knowledge of our most private intellectual processes. You most certainly DON'T know our positions on these subjects; even we don't often know our own positions prior to doing our research. And as far as our research goes, you can suggest that we don't do enough, but each of us spends days researching each subject (both or all viewpoints) before we write. Do you think we do this because we're being paid? Think again.
Having said all of the above, let me challenge you both with this: show me evidence of a debate blog on the Internet that is executed in a more appropriate manner (one that is not "corrupting" of education, perhaps). Remember, it needs to be one with empirical evidence cited for alleged facts. For an encore, point me toward one where the authors argue points assigned at random, and do a better job of hiding "biases" than we do. I shall await your enlightening responses with palpable anticipation.
Thanks for the comments.
i
Deb,
Thanks for your continued support!
To Anonymous and Steve,
Please remember what the format of the blog is, and why we do it the way we do. It is not a "blow-hard" opinion page where we stridently defend ourselves against all comers. Instead, we are debating topics by offering historical and factual data to back up the arguments that we make, dictated not by our personal beliefs or opinions, but a flip of the coin.
So we count on the readers to determine whether either or both of us make a valid argument, but we are not here to change minds. I would suggest that, if you are looking for a format that is consistently presenting an argument with which you agree, please check out cable news.
By the way, Anonymous, please offer an example of the complaint you raise in your second paragraph. I'd like to discuss it with you, but I can't read your mind, and frankly have no desire to.
Post a Comment