Monday, August 21, 2006

Making Money on the Internet: The Blog Business, And The Power of Word Writers

In another thread, it has come to my attention that some may not understand how this blog business works.

I imagine that the vast majority of site owners are quite aware of this, but for the benefit of any would-be contributors to those sites, just in case you need to hear it, I wish to make a few things very clear.

Whether we are blessed with the gift of word writing, or whether we simply have an opinion and a desire to express it, we who write are in the driver's seat here. We have our choice of literally millions of internet sites on which to cast our words.

We can start our own sites. We can cross-post to a handful, a dozen, scores of them. That is entirely up to us. It is we who have that choice, that power. If we feel that we have something of value to say, we have the responsibility to say it on any public website we choose.

The pursuit of the site owner's financial or political interests is his own concern, not ours.

It is the prerogative of every site owner to keep his site "private," to decree who may publish there and who may not, or to open it up to the public for our comments. Whether he, or we, are American or not is irrelevant. Here on the internets, we are the public.

It is we who decide on which public websites we will express our views, share our sonnets, shyly offer our short stories and novels, proclaim our essays, holler our haikus!

He or she who wishes to run a site on which many people contribute do not have such power. We are the ones with the desirable goods, they are the humble petitioners who hope to be chosen to receive them.

While we, as noted, can freely post our work to as many websites as we choose, the only power the site owner has is to close his site to the public, or to "ban" specific users, to REDUCE the number of contributors to his or her site, and in so doing, risk his website being "banned" by yet more contributors and potential contributors.

In some cases, new contributors may arrive to replace the departed ones, however there is no guarantee that they will be any more pleasing to the site owner than those s/he lost.

On the subject of commercial websites, it is certainly no sin to wish to have one. Many, many people dream of running a website that generates for them so much revenue that they do not need to do any other work in order to meet, even exceed their expenses. This is, however, not an easy thing to do, and if this is what one aspires to, one's best bet is something having to do with online gambling or images, still or moving, of unclothed human beings engaging in sexual activity.

Or one can try one's hand at something like the enterprise recommended by no less than Dick Cheney himself: people who spend half the week scouring local flea markets for things like antique postcards which they then spend the other half hopefully waiting in line at the post office to ship out all they have succeeded in selling at a profit on eBay, or people who make children's swimming trunks printed with popular cartoon characters, which they then sell on eBay and preferably also an Amazon shop.

A website whose only "product" consists of the work of an indefinite and constantly changing number of individuals expressing their opinions on issues of the day, which one hopes will attract so much traffic that corporations will wish to purchase advertisements is a very poor choice.

However, if such a website is one's goal, one would do well to remember that the absolutely only thing one has to offer these corporations has nothing whatsoever to do with which opinions are expressed on that website, and everything to do with just how much traffic is attracted, because therein lie "page views," and "page views" are the path to "clickthroughs," and "clickthroughs" bring the possibility that someone may purchase the sponsor's product.

I should hasten to add that, in the case of the BooMan Tribune site, when it was quite new, in a thread discussing the site's future, I made mention of message content vis a vis sponsors. I was referring to arrangements more like those that some sites may make with politicians, where the sponsor simply "likes" the site and wishes to give the owner some money.

However since that time, I have been apprised that such arrangements are not as common as those which do depend on very quantitative data regarding the traffic, clickthroughs, etc.

And this may have been the case at the time of my former comment, and I was just unaware of it!

You will note that this is all a very iffy business, and if you will speak with people who have studied the science, if you wish to call it one, of page views and clickthroughs and purchases, you will find that a great many page views indeed are required before the likelihood of even one clickthrough, and in turn a great many clickthroughs are required before the likelihood of a purchase, so as you can see, one's site traffic is rather key.

Controversy, regardless of where the site owner, or the sponsor stands on whatever the controversy is, is more likely to increase traffic than the consistent presentation of one point of view.

It does not matter how important the site owner, or again, even the advertiser, may feel about the importance of unity, or staying on message, or where owner or sponsor fall along that four inch balance beam that passes for a political spectrum in the US.

What matters is how many people visit the site. And as anyone with knowledge of the subject will tell you, the phenomenon of ratio of clickthroughs and page views has nothing to do with where the viewer falls either.

Such a website may feature a written work that many people disagree with. Very few of the site's visitors will consciously NOT click a sponsor's link because the website has featured the written work.

A certain number of people who are interested in purchasing cellular telephones will click a link advertising such phones no matter where they see it, and while the crucial question of just how many and just how many dollars that means for the site owner, will be predicted differently according to every expert and every study, all agree that the number of page views necessary is large.

Thus, any website owner whose only value to advertisers consists of his traffic will not be acting in his own best interest by attempting to decrease the level of controversy, of "division," of "disruption" on his site. On the contrary, such things are his best friend, and his only hope of success.

As I said, such websites are not considered the best bet for someone who wishes to make money.

The case of kos is not unlike the case of the person who sold a domain name to altavista for some large amount of money a few years ago and in the wake of the sale sprang up a cottage industry of people buying up domain names in hopes of selling them for large sums to huge corporations. The vast majority of these individuals were disappointed with their investment, and wish they had purchased google stock instead. Or even just taken a nice vacation with the money they sunk into all those domain names.

If one hopes to receive money from politicians and political parties or organizations themselves, that is quite a different story, and if that is the case, the would-be money recipient's job is even more difficult, and his chances of success even slighter.

Like the corporations, the political sponsor is also interested in high traffic and page views, but since he or she will also be interested in having the website reflect a particular point of view, controversy will be counter-productive, and as we have explained, controversy is the single most likely factor in driving traffic to the site.

Political organizations frequently employ "ghost bloggers," or "virals," either paid or volunteer, for no other purpose than to give the appearance of increased traffic and increased popularity of a specific politician and/or political view. And it is quite amusing, on occasion, to watch them debate each other. One never knows if they are aware that their opponent is also "working."

Corporations, large and small also employ this strategy, it is a step up from the "spam" posts one sees these days on blogs and message boards. It is a product that is today routinely offered by public relations firms to their clients.

So it is into a most complicated and difficult to navigate stew that the aspiring recipient of political cash dives. His product must be a neatly herded horde of cats, and he might be better off using the Democratic Underground combination model of minimizing controversy by legislating permitted message content and allowed external links to such absurd lengths that posting anything there bears more resemblance to a text-based role playing game than anything remotely related to an exchange of ideas and information.

In addition to that, DU also depends heavily on "user contributions," offering "subscribers" access to a wide array of non-political forums, which has the added advantage of attracting the desired class of participant and establishing "community," all of this, they hope, will somehow result in a bloc of politically on-message and docile deliverables that will be deemed by politicians and political organizations, worthy of cash for the owner's wallet.

I have rambled on about this longer than even I intended, and if you are still reading, I thank you for your patience, and as a reward, I will offer, for what it is worth, my opinion that those readers and thinkers with their controversy and comment-provoking messages are an asset to any website on which they deign to participate.

And especially within the context of the American blogosphere, which "speaks with one voice," any political website that hopes to make money on traffic would do well to cultivate those readers and thinkers, because it is they who are more likely to diverge a bit from that one voice, thus creating all that controversy and division and disruption, and thus providing an increase in page views, an increase in clickthroughs, and thus increasing the chance that some small sum may find its way into the site owner's hand.

There is perhaps no better illustration of this than catnip, an especially good example for me to use, as she disagrees with me on a wide variety of topics, and naturally so, as she is significantly to my "right," yet even her writings have spurred that controversy, and her own blog immediately developed quite a remarkable bit of traffic of its own, and should she wish to do so, I imagine that any number of corporations would be interested in discussing some sort of mutually beneficial arrangement!

I cannot conclude without pointing out that while I neither judge nor fault those who seek to "make money on the internet," my own personal preference, and highest regard, are reserved for those who establish websites simply for the purpose of free and open exchange of ideas, without motives of personal gain, financial or political, for those who cherish the illusion that there is a difference.

59 comments:

Anonymous said...

I sincerely believe that if there really was a way to effectivly herd cats, I'd have found it by now, since I've been working at it for a lifetime, with absoutely NO lasting sucesses to show for it.

I can only see it as the worlds loss, for certainly my ideas and perceptions, and my top notch communication and ldeadership skills were far superior to most others, as was my far sighted vision for what was the best direction for a herd of cats to GO!

But tiume and time again, my efforts were sabotaged by renegade cats who absolutley refused to stay in the lines I had drawn for them. Harrumph. Ungrateful felines, the lot of them! Hee I was, devoting my whole life to them, and did I get any respect from them? Any sooperating? Any support? HELL NO! They just peed in my hibiscus plants!

Finally, I came to understand that I was clearly born before my time. Someday, this world of unruly cats will evolve enough to truly appreciate such as me, and happily line up in designatd rows.

Meanwhile, my own pesky cat is trying to see how much of this keyboard she can cover with her furry bulk, because she has deemed it time for breakfast. I must go now, or else I shall pay dearly for my incompetence.

canberra boy said...

scribe, you may already have seen this beautiful EDS commercial about herding cats: I go back to it every few months for another look. Warning: large download.

Anonymous said...

Soon we will have cable access and I can enjoy these things. Thants for the offering..I'll save for later viewing!

canberra boy said...

Ductape, while what you say about the link between traffic and click-throughs is true, the argument that controversy = greater traffic = greater advertising revenue only applies to certain forms of advertising such as google ads and possibly other syndicated advertising.

What I think dKos and BooTrib want most is display advertising booked and paid for because of the nature of the site and the audience. In the case of these two sites, that is likely to be from 'liberal' political candidates, activist organisations and a small range of commercial enterprises such as (you guessed it) bookshops. I don't have the data, but understand that this form of advertising pays many times the amount you'd hope to get from google ads. While audience size for this advertising is also important, this type of advertiser is much more likely to be offended by content: I think this is what the argument about damage to BT finances has been about.

I should say that I don't believe Booman is out to make his fortune, but rather to cover his costs and maybe make a living so that he can continue to be a political activist. And it's clear to me that he has put his principles about political positions ahead of appealing to advertisers. I think where he has qualms about your work is that he considers that it will discredit him and his site politically. Please understand, gentle terrorist, that this is my interpretation of Booman's views rather than a reflection of my views.

Anonymous said...

The main differences I see between Kos's and Boo, is illustrated by what you interpret here. I really don't see Boo engaged in any personal quest for personal fame or fortune via Bootrib. Or for inclusion in any good ol/young boys club, for the sake of belonging to the strongest "pack". Nor do I see him as under the total thrall of corporate worship and servitude.

I know it took a hell of a lot of principled courage to allow the influx and aftermath of the pie wars to play itself out, as he did, and to actually read and HEAR the messages expressed by women who came over here. That required him to separate himself out even further from the progressive "pack mentality", and as he said, he learned, A lot. And his site grew as a result of his choices then.

I also can relate to wanting to be free to work full time in the area where ones passions and skills lie, and this does take a certain amount to green. As someone who has waited a lifetime to be able to write full time, but had to curtail all of that in order to work at profession that made mincemeat out of me, I know what the cost of this is.

If I had millions, I'd look for poeple with intact principles, who only needed enough to live on in order to pursure those principles full time, and I'd be subsidizing as many as I could.

As for mistakes made, well, sure he makes mistakes, how the hell else do we ever learn anything? Has he pissed me off at times, by taking positions I think are SO off base?! You betcha.

However, more I observe all of these dynamics, the more I think this is, to a large degree, a matter of trying to serve too many goals at once, with no clear communication on an ongoing basis, regarding what the PRIMARY goals of a site ARE, to the diarists and commenters, who are always coming and going, so may have no way to KNOW if they weren;t around in the beginning.

Thus, each writes from thier OWN perceptions of the main purposes of the site are , which are BOUND to differ wildly.

If diarist A is operating under the perception that an open site's PRIMARY goal is totally open, no holds barred expression of political opinion, then thats the focus they will be writing from. No holds barred.

Whereas Diarist B, who may have the understanding that the site exists PRIMARILY to align political allys to effect the outcome of an election, for purposes of unseating and replacing an out of control political party, he or she would autimatically write with that purpose in mind, and probably naturally avoid material that could be used to sabotage that shared purpose.

In order for folks to EVER work together effectively, there has to be a clearly understood SHARED MISSION, one that all involved know, andhave willingly signed on to.

I don't see that happening on these large community blogs, who seem to be trying to be everything to everybody all at once, thus insuring ongoing conflict that will absorb a LOT of the avaialbe positive eenergies of all concerned, and inevitably cause huge turnover of contributers.

If I am onto something here, then maybe NOBODY is "all wrong" or "all right" about any of this. Maybe its not even really aobut any of the personalities involved, or what they write, as much as it's about flaws in the struture of what people are trying to build?

(Well, with the caveat that viscious personal attacks never serve any good purpose anywhere.)

Anyway, fascinating stuff.

Anonymous said...

Nanette-

My point about ductape is not really that I think he was discrediting the site. It's more that he wouldn't care if he did. It's not a lot more complicated than that. I didn't censor him, remember?

But if you want to know why his diary at MLW caused such a stir, it is because people sense that that kind of sentiment (that we are all Hizbollah) is so easily exploited by the other side that it is dangerous to the community.

At BT, it seemed to be a slightly different concern. It seemed to just be rank offense that was being taken by former and current military families.

As far as I know a total of three people got offended. Sally quit early on. MWAC was a new member who left as soon as the controversy died down. Tracy was a special case because we've known her situation all along, and we were put in a strange place in trying to deal with her anger.

I don't see how the actions of three members, only two of which we knew anything about, amounts to some kind of xenophobic or nationalistic outpouring or widespread dismissal of peace activists.

All three of them appear to have quit the site.

So, I just don't understand why this side of the argument is harboring this grievance. Your side won. The pro-military people were driven out.

I keep hearing it said, "but Tracy said something mean to so and so".

That's true. She also quit the site.

You said the following:

The resulting display of nationalism and xenophobia in that diary was truly appalling and freaky. People were all but chanting "USA! USA!" (I think a couple actually did, can't remember), and some were inviting him to go back where he came from, while others were insistent on knowing where that was, and all that.

If anyone cares to check the thread, I doubt you will find anyone doing that except the three people I have mentioned.

It makes no sense to me that the site, sans the offending parties, can be contrued as any of the things you suggest.

As for ductape's new post where he suggest that controversy is good for traffic, it is quite amusing since his actions have done more to kill off traffic at BT than anything else.

I remember the first time I became aware of ducky's 'you can't reason with Americans' diary. I got an email that said 'ductape is trying to help your pageviews again'.

I read it and laughed. Sure enough, that diary was going to generate a ton of pageviews. For a short time. Followed by the exodus of half the people that participated in it.

Is it all ductape's fault? No. But he quickly swore of BT and then caused a similar problem at MLW. Was that all his fault? No. But you get the point. He doesn't care.

catnip said...

As I wrote yesterday, I contacted MSOC to ask how she deals with the ad revenue situation on her site and any relationship that might have to controversial topics being discussed there.

She sent me the following response and gave me permission to post it here. (I did point her to the previous thread that sparked this discussion, so she's well aware of the context of my query.)

This is how she replied and I thank her for doing so quickly:

I have no idea if it[sic] ['We are all Hezbollah' and writings like that] a detriment to my ad revenue; but if it is, so be it. I am not about to censor or even SUGGEST content posted by people at MLW on the basis of my own financial situation as per advertisers. If advertisers aren't willing to come to MLW, then so be it. MLW is not a living for me; its ad revenue is negligible at best, and even if it BECAME my living, I hope to god I would NEVER try to steer content because of advertisers.

I don't know if that's a usable quote, but you're welcome to it.

Here's a more pithy one: I don't care if the content of MLW attracts or repels ad revenue; that's not why MLW exists.

love,
MSOC


Good to know and I hope that puts to rest any further suggestion that ad revenue or controversial ideas are a concern for her.

catnip said...

Whatever happened to all of this back in the glory days at BT?

Anonymous said...

I see something here at this site that is truly whacked:

DTF makes rabid offensive generalizations that provoke and offend others and then gets portrayed as some kind of victim.

Tracy was insulted to the very roots of her being, had a public emotional meltdown and that makes her a bad person? What about the person who provoked her? Is DTF guiltless? O, but the argument is, he was just expressing his free speech and is entitled to do so...

From my by-stander's POV, DTF punched Tracy in the gut and then she repeatedly slapped him in the face. That's what happens when you piss people off. No one should be surprised by her response or expect something different.

And how this situation evolves into a complicated meta blame game that involves Martin is beyond me. What the fuck did he do to deserve responsibility for DTF's actions and Tracy's reactions?

And I can't help looking at how the situation was twisted in regard to SusanHu. DTF was offended by a friggin' cartoon, for goodness sake, and along with Catnip and ManEgee hounded that poor sensitive soul until she withdrew from BooTrib, never to return. Why is it okay for DTF to be offended and hound Susan but it's not okay for Tracy to be offended and hound DTF? And what was Susan doing except expressing her right to free speech?

You can't have free speech -- the right to provoke others -- for yourself and not tolerate it from others. You can't expect other people to be tolerant and swallow their insults when you don't. DTF has more of a double-standard going than Martin does.

And this snide essay on how foolish Martin is to hope to pay his expenses for providing us all a forum for the "free" expression of our ideas and opinions... Why the fuck shouldn't he be supported instead of denigrated for providing a forum where people can be nice or nasty to each other. He'd prefer people to be nice but it's not his fault when people turn nasty.

You all expected him to step in and ban Tracy but the only way he could have done that fairly was to ban DTF at the same time. After all, DTF started it and don't tell me he wasn't being a prick. Calling ALL US soldiers cold-blooded murderers IS a personal attack to someone who is married to one.

Me, I'm married to a Vietnam Vet but I'm old enough not to care what DTF thinks -- he can have his opinion. And I'm free to have mine: DTF is a pompous, hypocritical asshole.

catnip said...

And I can't help looking at how the situation was twisted in regard to SusanHu. DTF was offended by a friggin' cartoon, for goodness sake, and along with Catnip and ManEgee hounded that poor sensitive soul until she withdrew from BooTrib, never to return.

Why don't you contact Booman and ask him to tell you why Susan left BT? He told me via e-mail when I inquired and, believe me, it wasn't about me, DTF or ManEegee. (Although, since Booman is pissed off at me, he may decide to disagree with me just out of spite. I do have copies of the e-mails in which he told me what happened though. The spat involved Booman and Susan - no one else.)

If posting a diary with an opposing opinion is considered "hounding" then I'd submit to you that such "hounding" occurs on a daily basis on virtually millions of blogs.

supersoling said...

It should be pointed out that Tracy's attacks were'nt reserved only for DTF and anyone who might have ever said anything nice about him, which appears to include her, per the link above. Damnit Janet was the recipient of Tracy's final outburst, and that had nothing to do with DTF. Show me please where Damnit Janet punched Tracy in the guts and why she deserved what she got from Tracy.

Anonymous said...

Susan left the site for personal reasons. People may wish to know the details, but I am not at liberty to disclose them. And there is a certain degree to which even I am uncertain about her motives.

Given all the things that were going on in her life at the time, it isn't easy to point to just one thing. The cartoon controversy was a symptom and not a cause of what led her to leave.

But she did not leave because of the cartoons or her treatment. She was unable to write and did not write for months afterwards.

catnip is correct that is had nothing to do with her, although it is typical of her to suggest I would lie about it out of antipathy for her.

Maybe some of you are getting a better idea of why I feel the way I do about her.

catnip said...

I wish we didn't have to rehash these thing over and over and over but you're right, Nanette, the fact that what happened in the background was kept hidden has caused some major problems. I understand the need to keep some issues private but silence can be a killer.

I am considering posting the real reason I left BT here but the fact that I will most likely be viciously attacked by some revisionist historians if I do so is holding me back. I've had enough of being a target and if I were to blemish Susan's reputation, "that poor sensitive soul" according to sjct, I fear I would initiate a firestorm that would carry on for months on end.

That's what many have refused to understand in all of this: I chose to protect her reputation. By doing so, I've made her a martyr and have left myself open to hatred and scorn. I should have just been upfront about it at the time.

I'm not sure what to do now.

Anonymous said...

Catnip: I don't have to ask BooMan why Susan left. I asked her. And, yes, there were lots of reasons -- her health mainly. But, one of them was certainly the reaction to the cartoon and the way it kept being brought up by you and DTF among others.

Nanette: I didn't even know the cartoon was supposed to be the "founder of Islam" until DTF said it was. I thought it was Ali Baba. I had no idea the Prophet was fat! A Muslim with a bomb in his turbin shouldn't be any more offensive -- given the facts of current events -- than Uncle Sam with devil horns and rockets in his fists. Both of true portrayals of current events.

Super: Look, I said Tracy had a meltdown. She went crazy, no doubt, and she's responsible for letting what a pompous gasbag writes get to her. She's responsible for going ballistic on bystanders and spewing venom on peaceniks. She lost her mind. Couldn't we all just step back and feel a little sorry for someone who lost control instead of villifying her?

And shouldn't we hold DTF responsible for triggering her?

DTF: Links? har. You are the king of passive-agressive, aren't you?

When you stated that ALL US soldiers are cold-blooded murderers, that was a punch in the gut to Tracy who is married to one. It was a punch in the gut to SallyCat who used to be one. It was an insult to everyone who has served in the US armed forces and all the people related to them.

Let me see some links to support your statement. Show me how the US military is worse by far than any other military in history. War is hell, old man, SOME soldiers do terrible things and always have. One country's soldiers are no more or less murderous than other's are. It's a stupid statement meant to PROVOKE, OFFEND AND TRIGGER meltdowns in weak-minded people. Just like ALL AMERICANS would kill their first-born if Bush asked them to -- stupid, harsh rhetoric intended to stir up heated responses instead of a civil discussion. You're a verbal bomb thrower, DTF, and it's silly of you to pretend you aren't.

Anonymous said...

Why don't you just say that you two had an argument and leave it at that?

What is your compulsion to air dirty laundry?

I'll even stipulate that you were treated badly and had ample justification for resigning under the circumstances.

I'd hope you would stipulate that I did my damnest to arbitrate it and ultimately failed.

Is that enough to keep you from taking private emails and making them public?

If you feel the need to do that you will be justifiably vilified.

catnip said...

Catnip: I don't have to ask BooMan why Susan left. I asked her. And, yes, there were lots of reasons -- her health mainly. But, one of them was certainly the reaction to the cartoon and the way it kept being brought up by you and DTF among others.

sjct,

Booman just contradicted your version of events:

But she did not leave because of the cartoons or her treatment. She was unable to write and did not write for months afterwards.

His last statement, however, is untrue since she's been busily posting on Larry Johnson's blog since March as SusanUnPC. (see her bio - same person)

catnip said...

Perhaps Booman has forgotten that I will no longer reply to his comments since he considers me to be a "dumbass" and "poison".

Anonymous said...

you're right she started posting at noquarter a lot earlier than I realized.

spiderleaf said...

Yes, I was the most vocal critic in that diary. I definitely don't agree with everything Ductape writes and don't mind saying so. But I also understand his rhetorical style and can appreciate it. I also know he doesn't consider all Americans evil monsters... just the majority. So I can share a blog with him and yet agree that BooMan should be allowed to meek out a meager existence providing a forum for us to post our views.

I wish Susan hadn't left, but I'm glad she's found a calmer place to do what she does best.

sjct, I do indeed feel sorry for Tracy having a meltdown, but as the unwarranted target of a lot of her agression & lies I don't feel I should just stand by and take it. That's pretty much my bottom line.

Boo, not sure if you saw it, but I posted a reply to you in the last thread that was at 164 the last time I checked.

spiderleaf said...

And just to be clear, the evil monsters part was snark.

Don Durito said...

Truth of the matter is that we have no way of knowing what triggered Tracy's meltdown - we do not know what might have been happening in her life outside of blogtopia. It could be that DTF, Janet, et al were merely in the way at the time the meltdown started. The blaming of DTF for "causing" her meltdown thus seems like one hell of a rush to judgment.

catnip said...

You know - I have PTSD and I can be triggered by a sound, a smell, a colour, a tv show, Michelle Malkin...on and on it goes. I can't blame those things for triggering me. I can only acknowledge the source and decide how to appropriately process and deal with my reaction.

As for Tracy (who does not have PTSD that I know of), she - like everyone - is capable of being triggered into an emotional reaction by a myriad number of things as well. Sometimes people who are triggered can't really quite process what set them off, so unless they are able to do so for themselves (which I have come to learn how to do in order to control my emotions) it would behoove anyone to explain what might trigger someone else.

catnip said...

I sincerely believe that if there really was a way to effectivly herd cats, I'd have found it by now

I can herd cats. I am "catnip" after all. The problem is what to do with the drooling little furballs once I've attracted them. That's when they become quite unruly.

Janet said...

I can only speak for myself. So here goes.

I did not punch anyone in the gut. In fact, I never even argued or fought back with Tracy. I, several times, even acknowledged that she was in pain. I tried to reach out to her many times. My diaries did not change. My stance on the war did not change. In a year's time I did grow and become more focused but the labels I've been given in a hijacked diary of mine about supporting War Resisters and Lt. Watada... they don't fit me so I refuse to wear them or think on them too much. It hurt terribly at first because they came from someone who was in so much pain and someone who was once a friend an ally... But having grown up in an abusive home as a child... I try not carry the baggage of other's issues.

Booman has been very supportive when it comes to extremely personal diaries of mine. Autism and the rape diary that started an avalanche of stories and letters to the Rape District of Kansas. We disagree about the draft, about some aspects of the military. Doesn't mean he's my enemy or that I'm mad at him - just that we disgree on a few things. He much to share and knows about things that I just don't have the time to delve into.

I love you all independantly and abundantly - and for splendidly different reasons.

catnip said...

DTF wrote:

Furthermore, on the BooMan site, I inappropriately expressed that my feelings were hurt by content the site's administrators chose to feature on the first page. That was wrong, and I should not have done it. What content the site owner wishes to have on his site is not my business, and how it might make me feel is mine, and not the site owner's concern or problem.

I disagree. Afaic, if someone posts something on the internets, it's fair game for criticism (reality-based, rational criticism). If that is spurred by one's feelings, as I wrote above, it is up to the critic to respond appropriately (which you did), not irrationally in a screaming banshee kind of way, however. And it is then up to the site owner or author to respond in kind if they choose to do so. It's when feelings become extreme in their expression that problems are sown and reason is lost.

catnip said...

Janet,

I'm unclear on the timeline of Tracy's "meltdown" but it seemed she still shared many of your opinions when she wrote this May diary. What happened after that point to change her opinion is beyond me.

Janet said...

Feelings... long time ago I was hospitalized for anorexia and drug abuse - basically it was a safer place to stay than in my childhood home. A nurse said something to me that I still carry with me after all these years...

"Your feelings can't hurt, only your reactions to them can."

I'm very passionate and run by emotions and empathy for the most part. (an internal flaw of a Scorpio :D) but I choose to not allow my feelings to verbally assassinate another or ... myself.

Janet said...

Catnip, OMFG!!! baby killer!!! I dunno either.

Sometimes when my dad would come home in a complete rage, he'd accuse us of doing things HE had done himself. It's called projection.

I remember one time he beat me with a hoola hoop my mom had just bought me. He was in a tirade because Mom was spending too much of his money on frivolous stuff. He'd break it on me... then she'd run out and buy another. He'd break it on me... this went on for several trips. Finally the MPs showed up. Nothing was done of course... but it turns out my dad had spent alot of money at the base club...

Misdirected rage. That's all I can chalk it up to.

catnip said...

Okay. That makes sense now. Thanks, Monsieur Ductape.

Don Durito said...

Your side won.

Nobody won a goddamn thing, Martin. Opportunities for dialog and/or understanding were lost. Bridges were burned. That's about the extent of it.

Whatever triggered Tracy's meltdown, and God knows what that might have been - none of us is sufficiently omniscient on that one - her tantrum affected a broad number of folks. It was pathetic. Nothing victorious in that.

catnip said...

I've won some pretty interesting names. Why, just tonite I was reminded of the fact that sybil once called my style "word-explosion writing" and labeled my cartoon diary a "self righteous attack diary" - a label which I embraced in all its glory as far as some of my other writings were concerned.

Reading the comments to my post on my place back then, I see things sure haven't progressed much, have they? That's putting it mildly.

Same old shit. New wrapping paper. Still stinks. (That was crude - it's late - oh well).

But really, what has been done since then to change anything at BT? Damned if I know. And perhaps I just shouldn't concern myself with it anymore, especially when I continue to experience so much animosity over it.

What's the point? I'm tired of fighting old wars - especially with people who will most likely consider me some sort of terrorist dumbass enemy til kingdom come and who continue to attempt to write revisionist history. I mean - really - it's all in print over there (except for Tracy's stuff and we all know what that consisted of). So, what is the point, exactly? I don't know.

I should probably just leave it to you who actually still participate there to figure it out. I've tried to contribute my 2 cents worth about how a blog community would function better, but will that make any difference? I doubt it. Plus ca change... as they say. Although, in this case, nothing really has changed and I don't see a new reality happening any time soon.

You can only bang your head against a wall so many times before it actually starts to really hurt. (That was a metaphor. I am not feeling 'hurt' - just tired).

Anonymous said...

ductape-

you are absolutely right. I am known for tailoring my message to please advertisers and censoring my members for the same purpose. I am also known as an unfliching advocate for American Exceptionalism in all its imperialistic glory and as a staunch defender of Israel, right or wrong.

You have beautifully summarized my body of work. Thank you.

It's probably not worth the kinetic energy to write it, but all I wanted to point out is that you don't give a rat's ass about electing progressive/Democrats, you could care less if something you write would show up in the national press as an example of how all the BT members are terrorist sympathizers that hate America, etc. And my point wasn't that you have no right to post that under the rules of the site, but that someone that gave a shit about the mission of the site might take care to make their points in a less inflammatory manner. And if you post that stuff you will cause damage to any community site that has a mission to work in a synergistic manner with Democrats.

So, it is about you. It's about why what you write will predictably drive a wedge within communities where some people are more interested in a completely anything goes free exchange of ideas, and people that are more activist orientated and want to use the community to achieve specific goals.

And it won't matter what the rules of the site are, so long as the mission is the same.

That is probably why MLW reacted in such a hostile manner, even though MSOC, like me, doesn't ban any language provided it isn't just Rove's talking points.

catnip said...

Since I no longer visit your website, I would have to disagree with your contention that it is all about me, though I am naturally flattered that you would ascribe to me such great and magical powers as to suggest that it ever was.

'Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!

Bullwinkle: Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.

Rocky: Again?? That trick never works.

Bullwinkle: This time for sure.

Lion: ROARRRR!!

Rocky: Wrong hat!

Bullwinkle: I take a size seven and a half.

Janet said...

Today I am trying to raise money...

My full diary and plea for help at MyLeftWing

Thanks :)

catnip said...

O/T:

Techie question: how do you change the settings so that when you click on a link in a comment a new page pops up? Is there some 'target _blank' option to be added somewhere in the template?

canberra boy said...

Janet, I don't post at MLW, so I'm indicating here that I'll e-mail you for details and send something.

Unknown said...

Janet,

I guess you forgot about the disagreement that we had about defining that Lt. Watada was breaking the law and it looks like you also forgot about claiming that the UCMJ is outdated and quaint though my husband would tell you that you're nuts and he would be happy to explain how and why every single code exists and what purpose it serves and what would happen if that code were removed. I live as a military spouse right now among many other military spouses, their children and their soldiers. We deal with intense stress, all of us right this minute......and going to jail for many many years instead of deploying does not make anything less stressful for any of us either. Trying to rewrite facts in your diaries so that it fits with your personal rhetoric grates on me a bit, and when soldier perception means so much these days because it is life and death for them I have no patience for it Janet. None at all! I don't have to worry about such things so long as I stick to DKos and do whatever work I do out of there. There are a lot of other military voices there and they aren't partial to letting people make up their own facts to suit their diaries and what they want other people to believe. I'm safe there in the midst of a lot of daily stress that probably isn't going to be diminishing much any time soon. I was overly attached to the Bootrib community because I blogged there about my Uncle's suicide and I went to Crawford blogging there. Those were big moments in my life and very defining for me. I'm just not interested though in making facts up concerning the military for a diary and I don't want to be a part of a blog community that desires such things and nurtures and grows such things because without all the facts that we have on hand in the real world we only end up looking like fools and marginalized when it comes to making a real political impact. I didn't attack peacenicks......I attacked peacenicks that lie and distort the truth. I have protested myself and I have plans for future protesting so it isn't protesting for peace that I take issue with. I read here tonight that you are thinking about writing a diary about losing friendships and lies and I hope I'm not considered this huge friend that you lost. As I have processed things further my husband pointed out...and it is true...that a real friendship requires more real life experience and caring about each other and cyberspace can be very make believe sometimes. I would consider you an acquaintance that I happen to know a bit about and who knows a bit about me, but I wouldn't consider us as having a great friendship that was lost or anything along those lines.

catnip said...

Yes, dkos is military cheerleading heaven, isn't it? And facts are incredibly important to you Tracy, aren't they?

(I had some surfing time to kill while I'm watching the Daily Show. I don't actually archive your comments for future reference, although I did bookmark this for reference because it comes in handy so often - most especially when you trash Janet by beating the same dead horse over and over with her.)

When we show up en masse when they jail a soldier refusing to do duty in Iraq and we all demand to be jailed with him we will all heal together and end the craziness at once! If your soldiers thought they could trust you to stand up for them the same way they stand up for you, you all would be the most powerful nonviolent military force this planet has ever seen!
Tracy, May 2006


Exactly how long are you going to hold these stressful grudges, Tracy? You want peace in your life? Be it.

supersoling said...

I don't have a problem with Tracy posting here. The whole reason for this blog is for meta. There's no rules about who can or cannot post here. In fact, if I were her, I'd want to answer to what's been written here since so much of it has been about what happened with her at BT.

I've been thinking the last couple of days that a lot of what is written here is petty. More of it not though. I still have trouble seeing this medium as a legitimate means of interaction and communication. But as long as the potential is there for the internet to really effect change in politics or to help facilitate faster and wider communication for organizing anti-war efforts, then I think it's important to pick apart the problems that are encountered between people and between competing ideologies.

A lot of the nastiness though, I really could do without. I have a hard time envisioning most of us talking to each other face to face the way we do here. I think that a lot of consideration for the opposite opinion is thrown out the window when we aren't able to see a person's eyes and how their emotions play out on their faces. Something that DID influence my early opinions of Tracy, because we did spend a good amount of time together.

Unknown said...

Catnip,

Daily Kos isn't military cheerleading heaven for God's sake, how ridiculous....but throwing that up there certainly fits in well with your daily rhetoric. There does seem to be someone around there most of the time though who will point out distorted rhetoric, and there are enough soldiers there who understand how important full truth is where matters of the military are concerned when our soldiers are involved in a War. A war that was founded on a very large assortment of lies and distortions. People every where are hurt, angry, upset, and dead and joining the liars to attempt to Champion our own causes will help no one in the end and only discredit us. nlinstpaul, thank you for pointing out that Janet is doing her best as many of us are. I was very poor in dealing with the Lt. Watada issues as they took place so soon after the DTF episodes. I was too attached to the "idea" of the Booman community. It had meant something to me in the past but at that point the community wasn't the same anymore considering who had left and I wouldn't accept the change. I kept attempting to woo people back and have things be the way they had once been. I'm not sure that online communities are well suited for strong emotional ties anymore. It isn't a "home" that I seek and feel I have at DKos, it is a place to continue working from where I can do that with some credibility as a military family member. It is very unlikely that I will ever again have the situation that was created on post here with the people my husband works with as long as I stick to DKos or other such sites that have a larger pool of military voices on them and that demand more accuracy in what we put out there. It is true that Janet has worked hard to make an impact on the Iraq War situation.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Family Man said...

Super I always stay out of these things, but I think you bring up excellent points. I’ve seen a lot of anger and nastiness from all sides and just one thought keeps hitting me.

If we all want peace in the world, how can we work toward that, when we can’t work together to facilitate peace on a blog.

Obviously I have no answer to this, but I would say when anger hits you, stop and think first before jumping in with both feet.

supersoling said...

I deleted the post at 7:30 because it was a double of Tracy's latest post above.

supersoling said...

FM,
many of us have legitimate differences in how to go about bringing an end to this war. Unfortunately, some of those differences are so far apart that we can't all work together, even when our goal in the end might me the same.

That Tracy acknowledges Janet's efforts above is encouraging and I wish, like you, that we could just keep it as simple as that. But each of us have to do what we can do, even if it means being estranged from people who are basically on the same side.

catnip said...

super wrote:

But as long as the potential is there for the internet to really effect change in politics or to help facilitate faster and wider communication for organizing anti-war efforts, then I think it's important to pick apart the problems that are encountered between people and between competing ideologies.

There comes a time when that picking apart has to stop because it detracts from the larger goal. There has to come a time where people simply agree to disagree with others opinions/perspectives for the good of the cause. There comes a time when personal hurts have to be dealt with by the person who holds those feelings so they can refocus on the political aspect of the fight everyone is in together. These circular firing squads serve no one. When one or two people keep opening up old wounds because they refuse to heal themselves, the political fight is threatened.

People have left BT. The site is calm. The "shit disturbers" have left the building. It does however, behoove everyone who is still there to take a rational look at effective community building - without involving personalities.

And the site's goals and rules must be crystal clear and must be enforced - not months after things have gone off the rail but immediately. If that means posting a reminder that everybody needs to write in ways that will not offend the advertisers or create controversy in national newspapers, then that should be done where everyone can see it every day. If that means reminding trusted users to troll rate comments that fit the troll definition, that must be done as well. Otherwise, why have a rating system at all? Just to pat each other on the back?

Doesn't everybody know all of this by now? What's stopping people from moving forward? "Feelings"? Well, process them and get on with it. Bush doesn't care about your feelings, I can assure you. What the Republicans do care about however is the potential and real power of the blogs. Why squander that on fighting with each other long after it's obvious that that personal wars are pointless?

Why does that reality have to go on and on, day in and day out on community blogs? They should be treated like committees with an impartial chairperson whose role is to enforce the rules of order to get the committee work done. Instead they devolve into 4th grade schoolyard brawls where the teacher just looks the other way because they have too many other things on their mind because they're underpaid and overworked.

There's an American election approaching quickly. But, if it's more important to slam those you're supposed to be working with to change things, keep at it. Just don't complain when the Democrats lose again.

/end 'o lecture

Janet said...

Call me a liar. I don't care. Call me names and scream at me. I don't care. Tracy, I am not your enemy and I will not engage with you. As to the friend I lost... not everything is about or for you. Be well and be safe.

For others though, I'd like to explian.. reexplain: I said the UMCJ was "quaint" and I have since then tried to explain that I was using the same snark as the White House calling the Geneva Convention's quaint. Plus the military uses the UMCJ when it SUITS them. They don't look at it when female troops are being harrassed, raped... etc.

I have things to do today... be well everyone.

While children die today and soldiers carry on without an agenda or proper tools.. people can attempt to tear others apart.

Janet said...

Plus I think a few people forget that they aren't the only ones with loved ones in Iraq. But it's a moot point who has whom in a war arena, who is in the military, whose retired, who was a "hippy"... it's all moot. We ALL have a right to live our lives according to our way...

I have every right to say I want to stop the killing. I have every right to support Lt. Watada and Veterans for Peace.

I did not change from the last time many of you met me in DC. I have grown, but I haven't changed. I have become more focused, but I didn't roll over and become a different person. I still want peace. I still want "Bring them home NOW".

I can only hope that the verbal assaults will cease because I think many here have more important things to attend to. Like their families, their friends and for peace and for ALL our children.

Anonymous said...

I just discovered this site & read throguh all the posts/comments yesterday. Just wanted to say thank you to spiderleaf for noticing this:

Okay, here's why I think it was a purge.

He started with Arcturus a while ago. He has in recent months gone WAY to the centre in his posts and the stupid "american exceptionalism" crap ad nauseum.


I must admit I naively treated the site for what I wanted it to be: a community forum that presented a wide-range of views. While I never expected Booman to agree with my POV, I was more than a little surprised by both his childishness ('I'm right; you're wrong, end of discussion' -- only to then post a whole friggin' Paen to Exceptionalism the next day) & the red-baiting. I often learn more from talking with someone I don't agree with -- or at least sharpen my own points & perceptions from the exchange. Abuse masquerading as "debate" doesn't do much but irritate though, & life's too short to be irritable all the time. It's a bit disingenouous for Martin to bitch now about people not being prioritized to electing his so-called "progressive" democrats when the site's FAQ invites participation from progressive non-partisans. Just don't have too progressive a world-view, or wander too far off from mainstream liberalism, huh?

Don Durito said...

Hi Arcturus! Glad you found this place.

Yeah, I think I've made the same mistake as you did, and have had my own run-ins with Martin that I think are fairly similar to what you experienced around mid-to-late July. As I found out, not being an American exceptionalist is apparently a "privileged" position - one not to be discussed but rather merely dismissed. So it goes. That dismissiveness isn't so much a reflection of the site's owner as it is a reflection of the general Zeitgeist of the Democrat party.

Once one goes outside the bpunds of what is considered politically correct among what passes for leftist forums, discussion is not even a possibility. Just the way it is.

catnip said...

Just don't have too progressive a world-view, or wander too far off from mainstream liberalism, huh?

This is a tad off topic but after I'd read the article in the NYT yesterday about Hillary's challenger, Tasini, I wandered over to dkos to see how much support he might have there since he obviously exemplifies so-called "progressive" values. I only read one diary by NYCee on the topic but the conversation seemd to be (paraphrased) "well, Hillary isn't Lieberman and she might run for pres in '08 and I'd never vote for her but we don't know this Tasini guy and he doesn't have any money to run a good campaign and, not only that, some of his views are bullshit" (or variations thereof - despite the fact that NYCee had linked to how liberal his positions are).

Anyway, I don't know what the majority think of Tasini over there but it would surprise me (althought it shouldn't, really) if they don't back Tasini since the site has been so overwhlemingly anti-Hillary all this time.

I'll add one thing: there's a difference between "mainstream liberalism" and "mainstream Democrats". Very few Democrats are liberals. You can count them on your toes. As for progressive politics on the left, I still don't even know what that means in the US, but it sure isn't about liberalism, imho - not my brand of it anyway. There's the right-wing and the lesser right-wing and the "kooks" like Nader - who is definitely a real liberal. And you know how much he's loved at the mainstream Dem blogs.

Anonymous said...

catnip: What happens in progressive politics in the US is largely outside the electoral realm. Which alone speaks volumes.

In my private lexicon, "liberal" is generally a perhorative.

Tassini? I'd be shocked if the Kossacks et al support him; most seem to hope he'll go away quietly. Remember his words on Israel after the invasion of Lebanon?

catnip said...

Remember his words on Israel after the invasion of Lebanon?

This principled stand? Or did he say something else that I missed (which is highly likely since I didn't even know about this guy until Tuesday.)

catnip said...

Ah, yes, I remember that. Good times. Good times. ;)

catnip said...

Start a fan club? ;)

Janet said...

Oh my gawsh... that just added to an idea of mine that's been simmering in the dark recesses of my grey matter that some would call a brain.

We should all make our own "Wanted Posters" of ourselves :)

Janet said...

http://www.targetofopportunity.com/codepink.htm

and this group is not being monitered by the "NSA"

This site is full of lies ... they are probably the same that send us death and rape threats via the email.

catnip said...

Janet,
Whoever runs that site is truly delusional. Has Codepink tried to get it removed?

Anonymous said...

What was incorrect or inaccurate on the site? I did see a lot of what could be considered irritating, but I did not see anything that would constitute a lie.

Anonymous said...

It seems that you would try and stand up against what you do not like to hear. So much for tolerance. You never did say that anything was actually wrong or inaccurate with that website. You just did not like what it had to say. As for the question "Has Codepink tried to get it removed?", they probably have because they do not like anyone challenging their beliefs. That in itself proves that their Marxist beliefs cannot stand up on their own. They never can. The fact that you want someone to try to remove that website proves that you do not respect the rights of others to have different opinions. It seems that you believe that only you should have the right to speak and give your opinion. Thank God that this website is there to counter your beliefs and tell the truth about what Codepink really is.

And who cares if the NSA is monitoring that website. It seems that you would want the government monitoring that website, but not website that you care about. You speak ill about the government monitoring activities, yet you want the NSA to be monitoring this website, but not any website that you are affiliated with. You are a hipocrate!