Or you can write about Elevator Guy: SCORE!
The secret to a succesful website
July 24, 2011 • 7:58 pm
Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
Or, better yet, Elevtor Guy.
That’s definitely a LoL. Reminds me of the joke to the effect that if you’re lost all you have to do is start playing a game of Solitaire and someone will come along and tell you to play the red Jack on the black Queen. I guess just a question of knowing the idiosyncrasies of human psychology in both (or all three) cases …
Heinlein
Thanks – I’ve periodically wondered where I had seen that. As I have read a fair amount of him long ago as a teenager – and even re-read Stranger recently – that would seem to explain it.
Interesting “handle”, user-name, that you have there. Some connection to “Bathless” Groggins perhaps?
You misspelled ‘blog’.
+1
Some people, probably foreigners, spell it VLOG. Boy, those funny accents…(*_*)
Your Elevator Guy reference to getting comments is so true. I wrote an open letter to Dawkins on my blog explaining why I think he should apologize and, as a consequence, have had more comments than ever. Of course it’s the result of some guy claiming that “male privilege is a myth,” followed by much back and forth.
Feel free to join in the discussion. I think most of us got tired arguing with the individual. I know I haven’t the time to respond to him over and over. And sadly, I don’t have the hoards of commenters than can do the arguing for me! Here’s the like if anyone’s interested.
http://warmlittlepond.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/a-letter-to-my-idol-richard-dawkins/
Oh yes, that’s the other secret of a successful website – blogwhoring on an already popular site to pump up your traffic. Nicely done.
+1
I’m not making anyone click my link.
The only time I have gotten more comments before writing about watsongate were mentioning theistic evolution, Kent Hovind, and hosting the Carnival of Evolution. I probably would have gotten even more attention if I had been team watson though.
ROFL, how about a misplaced apostrophe, would that work? Apostrophe’s are always causing trouble. 😉
Greengrocer good
Dawkin’s peeve
Oh dear, that was not an invitation, was it? ;>
NO WAY!
Apparently, the secret for a successful website (aka “blog”) is misspelling a person’s last name so the misspelled name includes a slang term for female genitalia.
That will get one over 1240 comments …
:^)
Iono. I think “dr Coynet” is too much of a stretch.
Let’s not go there; I never approved of that epiphet. When you post on someone’s thread, that doesn’t imply implicit agreement with everything said on that thread!
Dr. Coyne – I didn’t mean to imply that you supported any epithets. My apologies for that.
But it’s amazing that the comment count on that thread is now at 1369 comments. I think it could become the start of Abbie’s version of “the eternal thread” similar to one on PZ’s blog:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paul_Zachary_Myers#The_Eternal_Thread
My observation was just that it’s an effective strategy for getting blog comments (and the total has climbed to 1372 while writing this).
That was so funny. I used to be the worst offender at being a grammar nazi. However, having read over some comments I made on RD.net, I was appalled at my own offending (even writing in one post ‘inexplicitly’ when I meant to write inexplicably – and 3 times in the one post, to boot.) I have, consequently, been roundly embarrassed into being an ex-grammar nazi – thankfully.
The sad thing is that we’ll never know about the elevator guy because he’s been effectively raped. We’ll never know what was really on his mind and he will never come forward.
Yes, because discussing someone’s actions is exactly like raping them.
Idiot.
Dude, you just raped IW!
In seriousness, I do feel bad for EG, but “effectively raped”? Are you for real????
Si EG n’existait pas, il faudrait l’inventer
🙂
Monsieur, (a+b^n)/n = x, donc EG existe, répondez ! (As credible theology as anything that Feser and company can come up with.)
Though, apparently, that is an apocryphal story created because of some animosity towards Diderot.
But you’re probably right – the incident (The Rape of the Lock, er, Elevator, Part Deux) highlights a number of issues related to privilege and rights and stereotypes.
No, of course, it is not exactly like raping them. Although in a figurative sense the idea seems to hold at least some water. While EG is, no doubt, aware of the furor he has created and could step forward if he wished to present his side of the story, it would seem that, given the force and direction of the wind and which quarter it’s coming from, I would think he might feel some apprehension over the possibility of being lynched – figuratively if not literally.
While I certainly haven’t read everything everybody has posted on the subject nor even all of Ms. Watson’s expositions, I have not seen any detailed description of the event. Did he follow her from the bar after having listened to her explicitly post the ban on a particular type of communication (a little questionable in itself)? Or was it a fortuitous meeting and EG had only the vaguest and most incomplete understanding of Ms. Watson’s rigorous protocol for such an event? In the latter case, had they had some lively discussion – between the first and 69th floor – on a variety of other topics followed by the offending offer? Seems to me like a mob being judge, jury and executioner without due process – at least some vague similarities with rape I think.
“While I certainly haven’t read everything everybody has posted on the subject nor even all of Ms. Watson’s expositions, I have not seen any detailed description of the event.”
Ah. Then how very helpful of you to comment on it. Just what the controversy needed; someone who doesn’t know much about it offering his two cents about “figurative rape.”
Well then, as I phrased the question as hypotheticals maybe you can tell me what were the precise circumstances – conversations, detailed events leading up to putative climax. Absent those – from you or anybody else – it looks like everyone else is also only offering their two cents worth. Seems rather thin evidence to be crucifying someone – figuratively of course – or to be promulgating various fatwas on male behaviour.
Are you suggesting that to comment on it with a clear conscience you have to have read everything?
No, the “figurative rape” idea doesn’t hold water.
But like Steersman, I’ve not seen a detailed description of the event, in a Joe Friday “just the facts” kind of way. My current attitude is the same attitude I had when it all first exploded: I can’t pronounce, because I was not there. What’s unreasonable about that?
No, the “figurative rape” idea doesn’t hold water.
Depends on your definition, I think, and which points of correspondence in the analogy you think are most applicable and relevant.
Rape (n):
1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction. (The Rape of the Lock)
3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice.
The “Rush to Judgment” nature of the situation seems not far removed from definition (3).
Well, ok. If we take “figuratively” far enough. But I (admittedly personally) don’t want to stretch the metaphor that far. It belittles the literal meaning of “rape.”
But my main point was to agree with you that much of the condemnation out there is founded on thin evidence.
JS1685:
Well, ok. If we take “figuratively” far enough. … It belittles the literal meaning of “rape.”
But IW did say “effectively raped” which obviously had a figurative meaning. And Ms. Watson was not raped and the apparent suggestion that the contremps was virtually tantamount to such also trades too much on the literal meaning.
But my main point was to agree with you that much of the condemnation out there is founded on thin evidence.
Yes, I understood and appreciated that. Although there’s the more important aspect – as you suggested – of not being hasty about our judgments in these types of situations. I can well sympathize with Ms. Watson and company and there seems to be many males who are not cognizant of the long road that females have had to take in getting the same rights that men have taken for granted for quite some time. However, the other side of the coin is that we’re talking of civil rights in such cases and not undue and unreasonable restrictions on discourse, if not intercourse (“from Latin intercurrere to run between”). Bad karma, I think, to be conflating the two.
“Are you suggesting that to comment on it with a clear conscience you have to have read everything?”
No. I am however suggesting that this:
“…nor even all of Ms. Watson’s expositions, I have not seen any detailed description of the event.”
followed by this:
“Did he follow her from the bar after having listened to her explicitly post the ban on a particular type of communication (a little questionable in itself)? Or was it a fortuitous meeting and EG had only the vaguest and most incomplete understanding of Ms. Watson’s rigorous protocol for such an event? In the latter case, had they had some lively discussion – between the first and 69th floor – on a variety of other topics followed by the offending offer?”
–is a clear admission that he knows absolutely nothing about what happened, yet feels perfectly entitled not merely to comment, but to compare “Guys, don’t do that” to rape.
Had he bothered to read or listen to Ms. Watson’s original posts on the subject, he’d have learned that RW’s “rigorous protocol” was something like “if you’re a stranger, please don’t follow me into an elevator at 4am and then hit on me (having never before said word one to me) after you’ve heard me say I’m exhausted and going to bed. If you do, I will not name you or anything, but I will figuratively rape you by saying, ‘Guys, don’t do that.'”
(Of course, all he did was ignore a woman’s boundaries. BFD. Now, a woman saying that she doesn’t appreciate a man’s behavior–THAT’S figurative rape. Right, boys?)
… is a clear admission that he knows absolutely nothing about what happened, yet feels perfectly entitled not merely to comment, but to compare “Guys, don’t do that” to rape.
I admitted that I didn’t know exactly what happened – only pointed out that the description of the event left a lot to be desired – particularly for a capital case. And I had in fact listened to Ms. Watson’s blog before and on re-listening to it am no wiser – questions as to the details still seem relevant and of some import.
And I wasn’t comparing “Guys, don’t do that” to rape but comparing the virtual crucifixion and lynching of EG and the rest of the foul and nefarious breed with an analogue of rape, i.e. “Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice.” The original point that IW was apparently trying to suggest.
is a clear admission that he knows absolutely nothing about what happened, yet feels perfectly entitled not merely to comment
Yeah, guys, don’t do that, because some woman doesn’t approve.
“Right, boys?”
Angry, sexist, privileged (the privileged view that anything a woman says about this subject is necessarily true and to disagree is to be misogynist or a “gender traitor”) women turn me on … want some coffee?
When you grow up you might understand things a little better, especially if you presently think that what transpired was “discussing”.
What transpired sadly on both sides was “toe the line” or be tarred and feathered. There was precious little useful discussion, although a few nuggets shone through the mud. Hopefully, real discussion and understanding will come once irrationality and wild emotion has shrunk to manageable proportions.
Rest assured that it will not come when such as you fly off the handle at any dissent from the party line and start tossing out gratuitous ad hominem.
Perhaps “the elevator guy” was precisely as he’s been slurred, but we will never know since he will never come forward now that he’s been found guilty and condemned without a fair trial. I’m sorry you see nothing wrong with that because it means that you’re part of a problem in a picture which is significantly bigger than an elevator interior.
There were many sad and abhorrent consequences of that event, not all of them affecting only women. Genderism is not a one-way street. As I said, perhaps when you grow up you might understand that a little better.
I think there’s a larger conversation to be had about
a) the valid use of anecdotes and personal experiences in argument. How and when may we generalize from one encounter to a broad thesis?
b) the ethical use of anecdotes involving other people, nameless or not, especially when the story is disparaging of the actions or attitudes of some third party who has not consented to be revealed in this way. Is there an obligation to offer the benefit of doubt when reporting one side of a non-public encounter? To respect some distinction of private vs public conversation? Or does anything go?
This question is especially pressing in an age of blogs and instant infamy.
Yes that poor unknown elevator guy was found guilty and convicted without a fair trial…Ohhh the humanity!
“Yes that poor unknown elevator guy was found guilty and convicted without a fair trial…Ohhh the humanity!”
I said “larger conversation.” Not smaller.
Most of the web searches leading to my blog have been things like “ape vagina”, “man seals dildo up his ass behind panties”, “does apes has big penises”
I’m pretty sure nowhere in my blog are those words even loosely strung together
Search Barcelona Dildo via Google Images and you’ll get a number of shots of an exceptionally prominent building there that is at the very least the antithesis of Peterhof Palace.
Looks remarkably like the London Gherkin.
It’s an epidemic!
Pssh, I blogged on EG and no one commented. There’s a certain level of nobodiness that’s hard to overcome. 😛
Patrick, try titles like this: “Worldwide hotel coffee consumption declines 20% following Elevator-Gate. Leading coffee makers to sue EG.” That’s the kind of title that might incite commentary. OR,
“Hi, I’m EG, I’ve been away with my boyfriend but I’ve heard there is some talk about me on the internet.”
You see, truth is unimportant, it is provocative headlines that create noise. Unfortunately.
*snortle*
I’ll see your nobodiness and raise you one oblivion. Not only do I receive no comments, I’ll go many, many days in a row with no traffic at all.
😀
Nicely done. 😉
I check it once in a while. You could use some kittehs.
Well, thank you! I’ve just added another post, after a pretty long hiatus.
It doesn’t help my traffic situation, I suppose, that I am swimming UP the musical stream. I sometimes consider the current “classical” music scene and think to myself “what am I doing in this profession?!”
I see what you did there.
But are people ignoring the spelling mistake in the title just to be perverse, or because their spelling is too full of fail to catch it?
I swear there were two “s”es yesterday!
It’s because we don’t read words one letter at a time. Rather, we recognise the general appearances of words or even of whole phrases. This is why correcting proofs is so difficult. It requires us to do something we find unnatural.
That’s true. We musicians do something very similar when sight-reading music: scanning for contour, paying closer attention to notes preceded by accidentals, etc. Our knowledge of theory (musical grammar and syntax) connects the dots. Of course, when really practicing, we pay close attention to everything.
But the punch-line in the comic prompted me to look for errors in the title. I’m certain it was “successful.” Well, pretty sure. 87%. 70%?
“It’s because we don’t read words one letter at a time.”
Apparently true of most people but not of me.
“recognise”
Looks wrong to this American.
We also recognise/ize foreign (to us) spellings for some reason. Well, sometimes we do and sometimes not: the commenter just above you wrote “practicing” as a verb (it’s “practising” in British and Australian spelling), and it was transparent to me the first time I read it.
Go figure.
Well, of course “practicing” or “practising” is spelled the same way whatever part of speech it is. Stupid me. E.g., the gerund in, “I disturbed her practicing when I walked into the room.”
But I guess my point was that the noun “practice” takes a “c” in British/Oz English, while the verb “practise” has an “s”.
It’s ture, hmunas dno’t raed ervey lteter, we tkae the frsit and lsat letetr of ecah wrod and bilud the wrod form taht, eevn if all the leterts in the mdidle are out of odrer! Azamnig ins’t it?!
Waht auobt pallsylelboys ? 🙂
Bollocks.
Why does people’s skepticism go out the window whenever it comes to matters of a language?
Aha! Vindication! Some WEIT readers have clicked my nym, and my site stats page indicates the referring website as: “whyevo….to-a-successful-website/”.
!
JS… It’s an interesting & enjoyable musical site which also led me to realise the significance of 1685 in your nym…
Could you change the links colour from blue ? very difficult to read on a black background if you’re not twelve ! 🙂
Thanks!
There doesn’t seem to be an option for changing the color of hyperlinks. Unfortunately, that was not one of the features I tested before selecting the theme/design.
I agree, it’s not an ideal contrast.
Looks like “mentioning elevator guy” is a winning choice.
Any bets on how many posts and links the comment will generate? 😉
[To at least genuflect in the direction of this thread’s more general theme.]
This post obviously should have been headed: “Teh Elevator Guy”.
Oh dear, I should have realized that this might have started that whole acrimonious debate up again. It was just a JOKE! Anyway, this topic has been thoroughly discussed elsewhere, so I’m asking people not to bring that issue up here.
Yes, please. Don’t bring that trash over here. WEIT is one of the last sane places on the atheist/skeptic blogosphere.
No EG!
Shit, not here too.
Nonono. NOT here! Definitely NOT here. Keep this space clean!
I rest my case….