Please visit our new site at http://www.blogintegrity.net/

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

 

The Integrilicious Others

There is apparently another blog like ours, one that comments upon not merely Integrity but Online Integrity. That would be Drawing the Line; they call themselves
a group of (mostly liberal progressive) bloggers who endorse the Online Integrity Statement, and agree to abide by these principles. This group supports the OIS and actively encourages others to do the same. [The] With Online Integrity blog started just today as a result of recent events.
The "recent event" they have in mind would seem to be the Armando affair: "This site was started on June 13, 2006 in response to some changes occuring on the net and within online communities."

OK: all well and good. We here at Online Blogintegrity never really opposed the OI Statement of Principles in and of itself; we had some fun with it, sure, but by and large, you know, we actually abide by it. We've never outed anyone. We've never threatened anyone. We've sung, we've danced, a little seltzer down the pants, and so on... (Armando did at least at one point say that our first post was kinda funny.) But we have no problem with the words or the sentiment. Hell, it never even would have occurred to any of us to "out" anyone even if OI had never existed -- even Ripley would never, ever have done such a thing, and he's a complete bastard.

Our beef all along has been that it is foolish as a purely practical matter to try to cut deals with people you should perfectly well know will try to twist the words into a cloak to disguise as righteous the noxious shit they were always going to pull anyway. I'm not going to rehearse the whole Case Against Tacitus here, though I will if anyone wants. More to the point, recently we've seen a pretty blatant violation of the Sacred Integrity Principles by a certain paste-eating wingnut moron, and the reaction has been, well, jack shit from the signatories of the pledge -- all we've heard is a lot of silly wanking about why they don't need to live up to their own sworn word if it is to their advantage not to do so. So what the hell do the words mean without the will to back them up? What the hell is the point of discussing integrity with people who obviously don't have any, but who are more than willing to use the fact that they signed an online petition to pretend that they do?

So that's the first issue I'd put to the Drawing the Line folks.

The second is that I think Suskind, who seems like a thoughtful, intelligent fellow, reads far too much into OI statement. He says the following "should do a lot of good":
* Violations of these principles should be met with a lack of positive publicity and traffic.

To me this means do not link to what is defamatory, what is not true, what cannot be sourced or backed up, and to what gives support to people and sites who do not respect the dignity and rights of others. Do not link to a person or to material with the intention to aggravate a negative situation and cause more harm. It is a preventative measure to stop the creation of "google bombs" for the far-flung stories that become urban legends, and it stops the personal and baseless attack on persons.
Uh, that's not what it says. If it were what it said, that'd be great, but it isn't.

But if it were: aren't you really just asking the whole right wankosphere to simply pack it in and go home...?

Anyway they seem like nice folks over there, and we should have them over for coffee and lemon squares.

Comments:
Yes, I'd like a strong cup of brewed coffee, Thers, and thanks for the invite.

We are very new.... and we are not a mostly grouped mostly democratic progressives any more..... i didn't know what we were.... but knowing where to draw the line is important..... so that's what we do.... we draw the line.

so i ended today's piece, "And that's where I draw the line."

No, that's not what the last point of the OIS says..... but that's the way I work it. I don't link to shit anymore. I only link to the good stuff.... It's possible to get positive results by using positive means.

I am opposed to opposition research and feeling very negative about negative campaigning.

Didn't know I had such latent seething rage against academic philosophic sociology types until recently, but I expect that to clear like a pesky rash soon.

Thank you again for inviting me, Thers, and now I think I'll have a poke around.
 
who do not respect the dignity and rights of others.

Well, I have to say that's a lot to read into that final bit of their "principles" considering the whole object of the game was to support online anonymity and pseudonymity...hmmm, oh, well, ok. At any rate, how does one "respect the dignity" of the likes of Jeff Goldstein, Michelle Malkin, or, say, David Yeagley? Would calling them pieces of dried up elephant offal be then disrespectful? Would that then make me, as a person who sometimes uses terms such as that to describe,um,these nice folk, not linkable?

I don't like rolling in the mud with the pigs either, but if I want to call an asshole an asshole, well, I guess I'll just be an insignificant microbe forever and ever.

I am now sad.
 
But, but, but...

¿Weethout the google-bombs, how weel the world ever learn about Jeff Goldstein?

¿eh?
 
But, but, but...

¿Weethout the google-bombs, how weel the world ever learn about Jeff Goldstein?

¿eh?
 
¡Maldito blogspotty comment theengy, I bathe myself at joo een a most haughty manner!


(bathe bathe)


so.
 
Gratis,
As I understand it, OI is about respecting anonymity, not about so-called "civility." So call them elephant offal to your heart's content!

Me, I wouldn't insult the elephants that way.
 
NYMary gets it. Summed it up nicely.
 
Apparently, WOI ees all about the "seriousness" of Online Integrity.
I made one leetle comment over there, no meaning to start anytheeng.
I seemply wanted to point out the contradiction of these two statements een hees post:

Thees:

Don't be used by the other side, and don't adopt their tactics.

vs. thees:

First, become one of the signatories of the Online Integrity Statement, and list your blogs and or websites with Online Integrity.

I am fairly certain that I am no the only one who sees a problem, here.

Then I gave a leenk to Chris Bowers post at MyDD where he says he weel no be signing any steenking pledges.


Evidently thees Suskind ees thoughtful enough to read my comment at hees site, and put up the info I leenked to (on Bowers), weethout giving a hat-tip or publishing my comment.

Eet may be that my uniquely rococo writing style, she ees no "serious" enough for hees leetle movement, eh?

so.
 
ahh senor gato,
your comment ess posted on a timed release. and now the group is discussing Chris Bowers.

and my answer to you is over there, but thanks over here.

Problem is we don't know what you know, and what you (plural) know is enough to redraft the whole thing into a form that is what it should be, and a means by which those who flagrantly violate these principles be booted into the ignominious nether world.

about google bombing..... just dunno. what was done to scott ritter is something i was told about only recently, and that as a result of the outing of a.
 
suskind,

por favor excuse me eef my tone was unnecessarily brusque, the heat has a tendency to make those weeth fur cranky thees days, no?

so.

Tambien, I see joo have found thees leetle gem:

"A Member of the Reality Based Community"

I believe that thees phrase was originally meant to be used ironically, the term comes from a Ron Suskind story een the NY Times entitled Without a Doubt". Eet was attributed to a nameless administration offical to refer to anyone outside the Bush cabal.

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

So, een a strange way, "reality-based" ees our "Yankee Doodle", no?

so.
 
senor gato,

i can see that you are in the swing.... or is it the hammock of things..... now Trevino over at Red State has unearthed another scandal through an intercepted email.... i kid you not.

so my group is getting together to delink to OI, and begin hashing out the OIS. must sever relations with Mr. Trevino. can't tread water waiting for OI to become something Integrillicious.

My best to you and yours

M.Suskind
not Ron, no relation
 
I know that we here at Blog-Integrity&trade like to trademark the term Blog-Integrity&trade, but she ees no really trademarked.

Feel free to use eet.

Buena Suerte

so.
 
senor gato negro

please come see the shingle we have hung out for you.... better than a welcome mat i think
 
Si.

so.
 
Excellent post. This was actually what I was looking for, and I am glad that I finally came here! This for sharing and keep up the good work... thanks for this nice article Good post.....Valuable information for all. I will recommend my friends to read this for sure…
wedding dresses
 
Thanks so very much for taking your time to create this very useful and informative site. Every girl has her most beautiful moment in the life just when you wear your own wedding dresses in your wedding.
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?