October 6, 2010

It's NOT All About YOU!

Buona sera. I intensely dislike indulging trolls, drug users, the criminally insane and other lowlifes. Today, I will make an exception of sorts. Lemme 'splain how this works.

This is my Weblog, by the grace of God and the generosity of Google Corporation. I'm willing to entertain some suggestions on content and how I operate the thing, but I do not not consider people's demands. If it makes me a bad man because I don't do things according to your imagined rules, so be it.

I believe in Internet safety and privacy (although nothing is completely secret), and have posted warnings several times on and about Facebook regarding safety and identity theft. We all know that there are nutcases out there, and it seems like common sense to avoid casually using your name, date of birth and other personally identifying items. Some people have said, "I have the courage to use my real name". What, do you want a medal, Zeke? As far as I'm concerned you are (a) taking an unnecessary risk for the sake of your ego, and (b) all I have is your word for it that you are, indeed, using your real name. With the enemies that I have made, I am glad that my own identity and location are pretty well hidden or I might have to make certain people regret attempting violence upon my august person. [Update: People now know that this is Cowboy Bob Sorensen in Kingston, New York and that I have a pistol.]

Oh, look. I can tell people right where I live on that "location" link. OK, I'll pick the location of one of my biggest fans (read: "stalker") and pretend it's my own location. Tee hee.

I get my inspiration from many sources, including interactions with gracious, respectable people, and with jerks that would seriously test my resolve to maintain a Christian attitude if they said some things to my face. Or from events in the news. Or my imagination. Or requests ("Hey, Uncle Bob! Can you write about...?"). Or notions. Or God's leading (yes, I believe that I have been led to write about some things). 

What I do not do is pretend to know some people inside out, heart and soul. If I need to respond to words and actions that are public, then I shall do so. But I do not dignify the ignominious types with publicity any more than I can help it. (Obviously, this does not apply to politicians and other public figures; they make their intentions known.) Why name names when they simply want the attention?

I'm having fun exposing lies and scams, pointing out the folly of the self-appointed guardians of "reason", talking about the cat, writing on whatever else.

I prefer to write about concepts rather than people. There are some concepts that I detest (especially socialism and leftist politics, as well as antagonistic, arrogant atheism or atheism masquerading as agnosticism). There are things of which I am very fond, and like to write positive things.

Unlike some people, I do not create my own reality. (This includes expecting Christians to be perfect. Not realistic, especially when a Christian is supposed to live according to your personal definition.) It is a sign of a sick mind to speak ex cathedra and declare something to be true just because you said so. There are a couple of little things that adult people like to play with. One is "proof", the other is "evidence". Give them a try. Further, to stick to your opinion despite lack of evidence, and especially in the face of evidence to the contrary, is downright matto.

This is a good time to point out the logical fallacy of cum hoc, ergo propter hoc. Most commonly, it's called "cause and effect". I saw a great example of that in the diner the other day. A man walked in and the waitress (who was watching the baseball playoffs) said, "Oh! You just made the Yankees get out!" No, he had nothing to do with it, it was all timing. And yes, she was joking.

I've been hit with "cause and effect" codswallop when someone would say that I stopped frequenting a Weblog "because I was beaten up there" or something equally absurd. (Sorry, Bubbles, I simply lost interest. Did that ever occur to you? It's also an example of "reasoning" with insufficient information.) Another time, someone who detests me blamed me for putting spam on someone's comments, and assumed that it was in my character to do something like that. Daft as a hairbrush, I tell ya.

By the way, I can't prove it, but "cause and effect" can fail when someone might say, "He wrote that in response to me". Hate to burst your bubble, Penelope, but sometimes, I write these articles in advance and then schedule their post date (last week, most of the stuff was written on Sunday). This one is scheduled for early Wednesday morning, but most of it was written on Monday. Do you follow? See how it works?

Yes, I do like to taunt my paranoid, self-absorbed critics, especially He Who Wants Me (upgrade from IE 6, willya, Snookums?) and others, think that I am always writing about them. First, get over yourself!  It's not all about you! I gleaned an inspiration from another Weblog's comments and thought, "Hey, Whozit will think that I'm writing about him, but the idea came from this other place. (Snicker.)"

So, a summary to my mentally disturbed critics: Grow up! Stay out of the deep end where the big boys are playing water polo, and go back to the wading pool, capice? And drop the hate. It clouds your thinking.

Anyway, I hope that reasonable people can learn from this. If nothing else, click the links in the paragraph about privacy and safety. Also, maybe someone can learn a bit about inference and rational thinking — or what not to do, based on my experiences with arrogant trolls. Next time, I'll have something better to discuss.

Subscribe in a reader