Ahhh thee cuzzen 'stand uz if we wuzz taalkin' praaper, now wuzz thee?
Another nonsense article, reblogged for absolutely no reason.
The news story itself is garbage - tabloid quality drivel churned out by a "newspaper" owned by the megacorp that runs the Daily Mail, dredging up a has-been celebrity's three year old case of pneumonia and resultant coma, and using context-less quotes from the washup and "a source close to him" to purposefully conflate his smoking habit with his trauma induced linguistic difficulties.
So why exactly did this get posted to BB? It's obvious trash, everything about it is your typical sad-yet-far-too-predictable pulp newstand rubbish. So why are we even giving it the time of day? And why are we presenting it with a headline that reads entirely seriously, taking the content of the WMN "article" at face value and treating it as entirely true and accurate?
I could kinda see Mr. Doctorow posting about this: "Western Morning News Contorts Bizarre Pneumonia Symptom Into Marijuana Usage Side Effect", or similar, with the body of the post railing against the kind of junk "journalism" that produces these absurd non-article and the harm they do with their slipshod conflations of concepts and their purposeful false villification of marijuana...
...but this? What the fuck is this? This is sheer linkbait filth. Mr. Beschizza has nothing to say about the WMN "article", literally pulling his entire "description" of the link from the text of the piece itself.
Did some unscrupulous middle manager at Local World pay for this reblog, or something? Or perhaps more charitably, did they perhaps pay a hacker to compromise Mr. Beschizza's account and slap this up in his name? Or has the radiator wine finally had too deliterious of an effect, perhaps even the culmination of a chronic compounding of effects?
I would ask for double your money back.
Hey man, if you have such a back pocket full of great ideas, go start your own blog. Or get on staff here. Please control yourself from swearing at me or putting words in my mouth when I try to tell you you sound very entitled and your language is pretty insulting.
Hey, Its just my opinion about something i read here. Have a great day!
(glad the moderators pulled the comment I was replying to)
I don't always like or agree with what you say, but by golly I like the cut of your jib.
Open discourse must include both positive and negative (preferably well formed) arguments and agreements.
Postings here are expected* to be a) Wonderful things b) Horrible things that require attention by wonderful people c) Interesting things. When our expectations are not met, it is reasonable to express our disappointment. Perhaps our disappointment is well founded or perhaps it can be lessened by the addition of another's take on the presented subject. Again, open discourse assists and expands our experiences.
Rejecting, refusing, downplaying or asking for self-censor of deserting or disagreeing comments does not further the community. Instead it fosters a community when there only expectation is that some accepted views as defined by the leaders are permitted and the only value to be part of the community is to bolster ideas and opinions only that which have been blessed. That is not the BoingBoing I came for.
@AcerPlatanoides - Disagree openly loudly, but please don't ask others to not-disagree.
- Expected as defined by my own experience. YMMV
I have asked for no such thing. I have asked for someone to disagree without being so disagreeable, and to maybe recognize that we are readers, not shareholders.
it is reasonable to express our disappointment.
only if it is done somewhat reasonably. If we are screeching swearing insulting jerks or misrepresent one anothers positions for cheap rhetorical points, then we will get the conversation we deserve.
This article seems to be (badly) designed to link a coma from pneumonia with him quitting cannabis a year and a half later after having cut his (crazy high) usage down somewhat prior to the coma. The exact same story is repeated on other regional papers owned by Local World, former Daily Mail and General Trust newspapers that they sold to Local World for £53m and a 39% share of the company. A slightly different version with big photographs can be found on the Daily Mail.
It's here because it's a weird story centered around a ridiculous, yet whimsical claim about drugs, one of our favorite subjects. The amusing human (and historical) context--George Michael's eccentricities and the tendentious bullshit of British tabloids--is more obvious to others than to yourself.
I'm sad that you so often post angry, confused walls of text, Glitch. Maybe this is not the place for you?
It sounds like he had a mild stroke.
I don't know how that would be attributed to cannabis use. Anyone else have any idea.
More likely associated with brain hypoxia or whatever put him into a coma (assuming that it wasn't medically induced) for a few weeks.
I'm sorry that anything more than a paragraph is a "confused wall of text" to you. The anger I'll give you, but seriously, TLDR isn't an excuse. I go to lengths to speak coherently and with precise meaning. I don't always succeed, but I put time and thought into my posts, even if I also sometimes put anger into them.
I can at least address your concern about the anger by telling you that I will be working on it. I don't like being angry, and I don't like letting my anger ruin my argumentation, discussion, and rationality. It's stupid and petty, and it needs to change for my and others' benefit. So if I'm too vitriolic? Call me on it. I'm at least willing to make an effort to address concerns regarding my contributions.
I'd appreciate some reciprocation, though. I find your posts, and yours alone, to be highly unprofessional, to cut a lot of corners, to be factually inaccurate or cite dubious sources, and to end up as controversial, muddled, uninformative blurbs devoted to spectacle. At least in my, perhaps worthless, opinion.
Maybe I'm holding you to unfair standards. It's quite possible. But you seem content to not address my concerns in any way except to dismiss them outright. You don't discuss the concerns, you don't use logic to counter them, pointing out flaws in my reasoning - no. You either ignore them entirely, or you tell me to take my readership somewhere else.
If I'm asking too much of you, then I suppose I can always just hold my tongue and choose not to read nor comment on your contributions. I'd see that as a shameful waste of the potential of your position, but I can ultimately live with it if you can.
The point is that you were confused about the post.
Not so fast! What are the odds that these posts of mine were actually just links posted to strange, illucid or manifestly terrible articles at other sites, for Boing Boing readers' amusement? Just as in this very case.
The critical context that everyone else seems to understand is just not there with you. This is fine, but you then fill the space with assumption and ranting and trite appeals to professionalism and journalistic ego instead of just moving on to something you like.
This isn't to ignore you or tell you to leave, just to point out that you have to stop behaving like an angry robot.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.