Poster for Museum Exhibit

Apparently Squarespace has the latest must-have feature for bloggers.  You can leave a reference (rather than a comment) on a squarespace enabled blog.  This is the blog where I first noticed the feature.  Check it out!

Leave a Reference

On the comment form, you’ll notice this option:  My response is on my own website.  Clicking the link opens a form where you can input such information as:

1. Article Title
2. Article Url
3. Article Excerpt (optional)
4. Site Name
5. Site Url (optional)
6. Author Name

The input button then reads:  Create Reference

What is a Reference?

References are listed after the article and above the other comments.  They are preceded by this statement (which also suggests different ways this option might be used):

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.

In short, you can write a post on your own site and link your post to an article on another site.

The Benefit to Blog Owners

Site owners can link to responses on other sites AND ALSO link to source articles.

1. Reference sites consulted when writing an article.
2. Create a bibliography of your own writings.
3. Link to other related content (yours OR someone else’s).

An Example

Where Can I get This?

Again “apparently” you can only get this on Squarespace.  I say *apparently* because I don’t have a squarespace blog.  Squarespace charges for their software.  I don’t generally pay for what I can get free elsewhere.  And squarespace hosts the blogs that use their web software:  I have my own webhost.

Blogger and Wordpress Plugins

From my research I conclude that this option is not available for Blogger or Wordpress blogs (yet).  Damn!  I want it! I expect someone will create a similar wordpress plugin within 3 months.  And blogger will follow with a widget within a year.  In the meantime, you might create something similar with a form builder plugin like Cforms (for WordPress).

Comment Luv

The closest I can find for Wordpress is Comment Luv.  With this option, your comment will contain a link to your latest post.  But the blog where you leave your comment must be enabled.  And, your latest post might not even be a direct reference to the article where you leave your comment.  Plus, you can’t leave an excerpt!

Most importantly, seems to do little good to add comment luv to your own site since you are offering links to other people’s sites though you aren’t necessarily getting links back from those sites.

In Conclusion

• Leave a reference is a neat option.
• It is cutting edge.
• And it seems very useful.
• You can only get it at squarespace.
• You may be able to design something similar.
• Or you can wait for WordPress to come out with a plugin.
• Comment Luv doesn’t compare.

[for teaching responsibility -- in response to this post]

Fix Them

Not like we do dogs!  Rather, fix their attention on a task.

Break Them

Not like we do [dogs or] horses!  Rather, give them a break when they wander off task.

Take Them In

Not in the sense of “tricking” them…

Set Them Up

… so, NOT like teaching a dog a trick.

(Rather ACCEPT them — take them into your lives — and GIVE them the resources they need to succeed at each step of their progress — set them up, in a business for example).

Put Them Down

Not like we do [dogs or] horses [...] NOR by using negative feedback (DON’T PUNISH!).  Rather, we stop supporting them at some point (putting them down gently).

PS

[left as a comment on the linked article]

“Domestication” comes to mean “ownership” (specifically, ownership of ones own domicile… or home). So, seeing as how you’re trying to get them to take care of YOUR home (before finally kicking them out)… the process ends with them either owning your home (your death) or your buying them their own first home. Either way, you lose and they win: It’s punishment for your sin (fornication).

Addendum

1. Fix Them
2. Break Them
3. Take Them In
4. Set Them Up
5. Put Them Down

Notes

Fixation:  Transference -> Counter-transference -> CROSS transference (crucifixion / blame / guilt) ->  Cross Fixation (or transfixion … as to see but be unable to stop the process of ones own death).  Thus, “fixation” (a person remains attached to a persona or symbol appropriate to an earlier stage of development).  Or “fixation” (ability of the eye to focus on one point). So, finally, as in “to fix” (a problem… in this case through hypnotic regression).

The PROBLEM is understood in terms of having (a dog, for instance) “fixed” — that is, in terms of “phallus” (vs fallacy) and should be accomplished without demasculinizing.

Thus is “domestication” (ownership) rather than “domesticating” (the process by which wild animals and plants are brought under human control and are bred to possess special characteristics that enhance their usefulness for human exploitation).

Ownership: Defines property entitlement in terms of being responsible for said property.  Also in the sense of “to own up” (to one’s responsibility FOR).  But, further, it conveys the idea of “sense of self” (ie. self-ownership).

As applied to character:  Neither in the sense of ownership (that is not in the sense of “having complete legal control of the status of something”).  Nor as in responsibility (”obligation; duty; burden”).  So not that which determines “character” (”moral and ethical actions”).  But in the sense of  HAVING a character (or “a characteristic property that defines the apparent individual nature of something”)… that is, regarding personality.

So finally, I’d like to apologize for saying that parents are being punished (for the sin of fornication, even… ouch!) or for implying that they somehow owe anything to their children.  While the psycho-dynamics DO involve mating (transference and counter-transference); which I see as a result of (or which results IN) sexual confusion (or simply “sex”); AND regression (or, manifestly, childhood… as in “to have children”… which is the physical counterpart to the psychological mechanism suggested); nonetheless, I don’t believe in “sin” (in a religious sense) nor “punishment” (as might relate all of this to “eternal damnation” or hopelessness).  Instead, I do have “hope” that this can all be worked through (thus, I present a psychological model for doing so rather than merely giving up).

I know better than to disagree. However, I disagree. “Unoriginal” content may, in fact, provide value to the reader. On the other hand, it’s a good “standard”. On the third hand, STANDARDS are not laws; rather, they provide (usually unreachable) goals toward which people should strive. This is all to say, you are not providing standards, you are providing excuses for deleting blogs. And you are wrong to delete blogs (no excuses). While it isn’t necessarily wrong to encourage people to bring their blogs up to YOUR (arbitrary) standards. Nonetheless, this move is not “encouraging”. Rather, you are playing “judge, jury, and EXECUTIONER”. In fact, this is “illegal” (not *in the spirit* of the law). For example discriminating against foreign speakers (or, as in a previous case, against religions and charities): Such may be considered HATE CRIMES. Though perhaps this isn’t an ACTUAL crime; nonetheless, it IS a form of “hate”.

Unoriginal Content?

Do we have need of Andy Warhol’s Campbell Soup Cans when we have Campbell’s Soup? The medium is the message.

A Blogging Network?

As an (old fashioned) “blogging” network: You can promote only low-tech blogs if you want. But advances in blogging software will continue to outdo your definitions of what an acceptable “blog” is. Seems you are limiting your definition to journaling and to only one format (all posts on one page, newest first). Wordpress (for example) has improved that format. Now, there are blogs with aggregators, blogs with static posts, blogs with intro pages, blogs with magazine-style front-covers, photo blogs, blogs with ads, bloggers who accept paid postings, and bloggers who post all sorts of content other than personal diaries. Wake up!

Reserves the Right?

As I’ve said: You are looking at content when the answer is more artistic than that (the MEDIUM is the message). ALL websites ran on blogging software are “blogs”. And the appeal of them goes way beyond content. There’s a big difference in the message different blogs present depending on the way those blogs use design and technology to repackage even “unoriginal” content. So, you can “reserve” the right to remove whatever site suits your fancy. But that doesn’t make it right.

Illegal Files?

BTW: The internet isn’t capitalistic. Rather, it’s a free “nation”. And, as of now, capitalists are losing. Movies are still available for free online. And people still download them. You can choose to support the losing side of the battle if you want. The internet will be around long after the profiteers are gone.

Acceptable Content?

A blog is defined by a community of users. The different personalities of the visitors help make each blogging community special and different from other sites. The comments people leave, their special perspectiveve on the topics chosen (even if aggregated from some other place)… as well as the personality of the blog author all play a part in making each site “original”. The author, regardless, chooses the focus, the design, the topics to be included, and what content is appropriate (with feedback). Plus there’s regular posting, editing, and site upgrades on the backend . And all of this is more important than the “standards” you’ve chosen to make an issue of. It is just WRONG for you to decide what comprises “acceptable” format or content! And you’ve stepped WAY over the line refusing access to people of other ethnicities and religious beliefs (yes, this might end you up in a lawsuit that you won’t win whether fitting your definition of “legal” or not).

Value?

How can you judge the “value” of these sites: Sites with artwork. Sites with fiction. Even sites that attempt to define what constitutes a “good” blog. Will you apply your own “standards” to these blogs as well?

Specifically…

“[W]here did we say we were deleting any of the following? “blogs with static posts, blogs with intro pages … blogs with ads, bloggers who accept paid postings, and bloggers who post all sorts of content other than personal diaries.”

That pretty much sums up your genocide program except you presume to know how old the “static” posts should be, how many posts should be on the front page… and even how the site redirects from a front page to sub pages (as well as which sub-page it should redirect to). Re-read what Graham posted above.

A Troll

Hitler had rules, too.

My Idea…

My idea is to let the internet police itself. If people don’t want to visit “splogs”, fine. If they don’t then those formats won’t survive. My complaint is when self-righteous power-hungry people presume to know what constitutes a “blog”. Your record is splotchy on this. Your excuses are lame. And your tactics are inappropriate. You use force. You create rules. You delete blogs instead of helping bloggers reach your “standards”. And, in the end, you resort to statements like “we have stated our rule… and our rule stands” (which is a blatant example of what should NOT survive on the internet the counter-example being open discussion and reasonable debate).

An Aside

“I think Google can be quite a powerful tool when you know how to use it correctly.”

So what about a site run by an author who “knows how to use” Google? If the author skillfully chooses the topic, edits the content, and packages the results in a way that even those people who DON’T know how to use Google can benefit from the information… would that constitute a website which provides “value” or would that violate EC “standards”? Then, when the author shares his personality, and a community of users evolve — each leaving a piece of himself or herself behind in the form of comments and suggestions… wouldn’t that then constitute an “original” site or, rather, does that fit EC’s definition of “unoriginal”?

Entrecard Infrastructure

That’s the real problem? Your “infrastructure” (network, system)? You can’t afford a successful business? Who are you fooling, us or yourselves? If you don’t upgrade to new servers (your own, if you don’t have them), and regularly, then YOU will fail. Splogs will either survive, or not. But you aren’t powerful enough to make or break them, in spite of your self-aggrandizement. In the meantime, you abuse your authority to make yourselves look important, make lame excuses for your behavior, and otherwise operate like a fly-by-night organization. 1. You can’t discriminate, period. 2. It is wrong to mass delete blogs for no reason and without warning, and 3. You are not an expert on what constitutes proper blog format and content (In fact, Entrecard is NOT a “blogging community”: It is an advertisement widget community)! These are all forms of self-destructive behavior. And you will not survive such bad business practices for long.

Democracy?

Are your users playing hall monitor? But YOU set up the reporting process in the first place! And what’s democratic about setting rules? A broad “guideline” would suffice (short): Websites should be in good repair, regularly updated, and contain “useful” information (still, the word “useful” is troublesome). Then, a WARNING would be appropriate. Short: Your site doesn’t meet our guidelines: Make sure your links point to a valid address (or Update your posts more regularly, or Add more content, etc). Finally (three warnings are the general rule): We thank you for your continued support but regretfully inform you that your site is not appropriate for our network: Please remove our widget from your website. Speaking for “splog farm operators”: Perhaps you aren’t looking beyond the content (or, more specifically, you aren’t looking AT the content)? Nonetheless, there are sites with content that I disapprove of… and I don’t visit those sites.

(from Updated Quality Standards for Entrecard)

“What I’ve Learned” is a title.  Titles are important to a post.  They should be descriptive.  And they should be easy to understand!  But a title isn’t enough…

Headings

See how a heading breaks up the content of a post?  Your eyes go directly to a heading when you first look at a post.  You see the headings and you understand at a glance that:

• Headings are like titles for individual sections.
• Headings divide the content into manageable parts.

Note:  The above is easy to read because it is set apart using an unordered list.  And, this is a note.  You should immediately realize that something important is written here.  It is in bold text!

Lists

First I like to introduce a list with some text.  Then I like to start a list with a partial statement followed by a colon.  The following is an ordered list.  An ordered list:

1. Uses numbers to define a sequence.
2. Makes a statement about the order in which something occurs.
3. Shows how many of a thing there are in a list of things.

Notes

An explanatory note can also be useful.  Usually they are put at the end of a post.  They might explain something about the post or they may be about the author.  They may be used to thank someone who was helpful.  Or they may cite references.  Explanatory notes are generally in italics.

It’s the Freebie Reporter, a website dedicated to bring you daily freebies,coupons,hot deals and much more.Save hundreds of dollars monthly and get tons of cool stuff just by joining our comunity (says Haspel, an author on the site).

I remember freebies: I used to go through, literally, thousands of free offers. Most were cheap. Many were mail-ins. And that was 10 years, or so, ago. Before giving away things online was a big marketing ploy.

Plus, my friend would mail me “free” offers. He needed me to sign up on a webiste and give his name so he could collect HIS freebie.

So, I have mixed feelings about freebie sites. Especially directories. But this is a blog. And the webmaster goes through the trouble of finding the best freebies available. Then he writes reviews. Even includes pictures!

The first freebie I saw was “Kindness Cards”:

Description: Taking the tool of human kindness one step further, they’ve introduced the “Kindness Card.” This card enables you to present a tangible reminder of kindness to its recipient.

So, I thought I’d return the sentiment. Here’s my good deed for the day. But I hope he’ll thank me for my kindness. In fact, there’s this site he could sign up to, give my name, and ….

It was the first time I’d ever been to Ohio (I kept saying “Round on both ends and high in the middle”. LOL).

I was reminded of my trip again yesterday when, coming home from church with my priest and a fellow parishioner, I had commented on the “funny” name of the predominant river thereabouts: I liked the “Williewonka” river, said I (the real name is Monongahela. I couldn’t pronounce it — nor spell it … thanks Google). Is that near the Oompaloompa Mountains, said my church friend?

We had a good laugh!

Father Alexis had prompted these memories by asking me if I was “looking forward to my next visit to the monastery”. Odd, he didn’t say “looking forward to becoming a monk”. THAT’s RIGHT! Stay tooned for more musings about that tentative decision (My friends aren’t in favor of it. Ha).

Anyway, today I checked out the Cleveland Ohio Real Estate market. Well, I was also motivated by a contest listed in this Cleveland Ohio Real Estate Blog. A fun diversion. Gave me an opportunity to post about the lakes, rivers, hills, and forested areas I saw on my monastic journeys.

A movie directed by Francis Ford Coppola.

The hero is writing his “life’s work”. He becomes too old to finish. He is struck by lightning on his way (somewhere) with an envelope containing (something). And he becomes young again.

Another chance to finish his life’s work?

He meets a girl who looks like someone he loved when he was young: This lady experiences “soul migration” and regression. She speaks in ancient languages.

Another chance to finish his life’s work?

There are inferences that the scholar “knows things” (about time, language … “origins” / the meaning of life). But there is only ONE (total) revelation: You can’t finish your life’s work because you don’t believe in Nuclear Holocaust (something of the sort).

In the end he says that when he sees his friends again he will tell them “that thing that they all want to know” (not specified).

…

I’ve seen movies that purport to reveal great truths. Those movies fall flat because the revelations they make are not very revealing. This movie doesn’t reveal truths of that sort but nonetheless shows the mindset and tribulations of people who (at least claim to) know great things.

There are HINTS of paranoia, loves lost, sacrifices made; strange paradoxes (body doubles, visual incongruities, time warps); and great “evils” (Hitler, mad scientists, Nuclear bombs). But none of these are resolved to my satisfaction.

So, the movie leaves one with this “final” thought: Though there are suggestions that somehow love (or some other sort of gender confusion / identity crisis) might resolve “everything”; nonetheless, life is morbid. We psychotically BELIEVE in love, genius, greatness, and eternal youth as we EXPERIENCE bloody-red roses, Hitler, hallucinations, and finally death.

Romantic? Maybe not. But a lesson in really GOOD movie making.

Just to share. I found this post interesting:

We went to Butovo today. Just to mention some information we were given. It now appears the shootings there continued until the early 1950s. Some of those who did the shooting are still alive. One man is insane; he says nothing but repeats over and over again, ‘they turned on the lights and we fired’. It seems the guards said to the prisoners, ‘do you believe that the Soviet system will last for ever?’ The reply was, ‘no – it is punishment for our sins but it will not last’. They were then shot. At first, the shootings took place in a large brick hut. The smell of blood became too strong. The executioners could not get rid of this smell from their bodies and in some cases, their wives left them. So the shootings then took place in the open. For some executioners, the stress became too much and they said they could not carry on. They were shot. Prisoners arrived in vans marked ‘bread’. They were shot at night. In the morning a bulldozer flattened the place killing any who were still alive and slightly covered the bodies with earth.

I found this news story about Butovo:

Butovsky Poligon is a symbol of a much larger, bloodier conflict in Russian society, that between the Bolsheviks and the Russian Orthodox Church. One thousand of those killed here are known to have died for their Orthodox faith. Over 320 have been canonized as “new martyrs” of the church – bishops, monks, nuns and lay people who were victims of the Soviet regime.

It’s hard to describe the influence martyrdom has on the Orthodox Church. My Priest often makes “political” statements (regarding our president, or the war in the middle east, for instance) based on his perception of religious persecution. That perception, in turn, is biased by the fact that even the youngest children in the church are regularly read to from books detailing the brutal tortures which occurred in The Lives of the Saints. An example:

Then they tore holy virgin’s eyes out with hooks, but she bravely endured everything, praying for her tormentors that the Lord would open their spiritual eyes.

Seeing her completely healed of all her wounds, they stripped her and beat her, and slashed her body with razors. A wondrous fragrance then filled the air. Then she was stretched out on the ground and beaten for so long that the servants had to be replaced several times.

She was hung up and scraped with iron claws, and her breasts were cut off.

On the following day, they took St Tatiana to the circus and loosed a hungry lion on her.

They threw Tatiana into a fire….

The judge then condemned the valiant sufferer to be beheaded with a sword.

Father Alexis bemoans: I hope that I might do the same some day! But, in the church’s favor, it doesn’t promote voluntary martyrdom and has even “forgiven” those who denounce Christ under duress.

I said to Fr. Alexis: If someone held a gun to me and told me to say that one plus one equals three; they could make me say it but a gun could never convince me the “truth” of the statement.

Yea, still, he said, we’re supposed to put our beliefs into action …

Rome will never rise again! Another church member yelled angrily.