Sunday, December 06, 2009

Let's talk about Dawg one more time.


Grrrrr. Apparently, a number of commenters back here sadly misinterpreted what I meant when I wrote, "They better be paying you for this, John." A whole bunch of folks got all wound up over whether Dawg was being a "scab" by writing for free. Truth be told, that perspective never even occurred to me. What I meant was that Dawg better be getting something out of this, given the drooling, screeching, ignorant trollish dumbassitude he was going to get by way of comments.

And I was right. There's one "IainGFoulds," who apparently has never learned what ellipses are for:

... Oh good, another nihilistic satirist, merely delighted with the sound of his own voice, adding nothing of constructive value to any discussion.

... Thank you, Kelly.

There's "MikeMurphy," who is similarly incapable of addressing what was written:

A real socialist heh. A self admitted zealot. So what else is new. Hopefully you will do better next time other than this self-indulging drivel.

There's the horrifically misnamed "justcommonsense":

Welcome, legend has it that everytime a socialist is actually willing to debate or even listen an angel gets it's wings. Ironic isn't it.

There's the ubiquitous and stunningly retarded "sassylassie":

What does banning the minaret have to do with Free Speech? The Minaret is a sign of Islamic Supremacism and the abuse and subjugation of women's equality. Thus do you think it's okay for the Islamic Supremacist to place a symbol that screams, to me, burning cross and white hoods on their place of worship? Funny Neo Nazis bad but their brothers' in arms the Islamists are good.

I'll never understand the loopy upside down logic of the radical leftwingers, never.

You get the idea -- the standard right-wing discourse that rarely rises above the level of, "Harharhar, stupid leftards and their terrorist-loving lefty leftardness, LOL ROTFL!!!"

It's not clear why anyone with a decent amount of self-respect would subject themselves to that sort of crap, since you have to know it's coming. The only thing that would make it worth it is if you're getting at least a little coin for it. But if you're not even getting that, what's the point?

Why put your best literary foot forward if what you get in return is the rhetorical equivalent of "Hunter", Maria S Nunes, "bocanut" and Patrick Ross? Seriously, why write for free, in exchange for insults from the lowest of the low of the Canadian Idiotsphere?

It would be different if the editorial trogs at the NP at least rode herd on that comments section and trashed anything hopelessly stupid or off-topic. But we all know they won't, which means that whatever value Dawg contributes to the public discourse will almost immediately be swamped under a deluge of dumbassitude. So, again, what's the point? It's like commenting intelligently at Kate McMillan's -- casting pearls before incredibly stupid swine, knowing what you're going to get back will be, well, incredibly stupid and swinish.

If Dawg wants to write for free, that's his call. But why he'd want to write for free and get slagged by really, really stupid people for it is, I have to admit, a bit of a mystery for me.

But it's his call.

66 comments:

Dr.Dawg said...

Hey, CC, no problem with the first (really your second) post on this fascinating topic. It did, after all, give some readers an opportunity for an orgy of self-gratulatory principle-mongering. That's always fun to watch.

But on the commenters thingie: I hope that the readership of the NP hasn't shrunk to a handful of those who actually post comments. After all, the CBC site has ludicrous comments too. But others prefer to read, or watch, or listen.

One positive spin-off from this exercise might be the annoyance that I cause those lost souls, as a virtual cat among very, very soot-stained pigeons.

All good fun. That's why we blog, isn't it?

L-girl said...

It did, after all, give some readers an opportunity for an orgy of self-gratulatory principle-mongering.

Otherwise known as disagreement.

Cherniak_WTF said...

You are quite the pompous windbag with your "orgy of self-gratulatory principle-mongering".


From what I'm gleaming, a narcissistic deluded one at that.

I understood what CC wrote.


It's very simple Dawg, some see you as a person who is cheapening the journalistic profession and helping the overall decline by accepting to write (or more justly, them to repost your blog) for the rag that is the National Post.
You see it as a way of communicating to some blithering idiots.

Cherniak_WTF said...

Otherwise known as disagreement.
Not in Dawg world - you are wrong.


As often is the case, I don't thing that Dawg understands the implications that you were making.


You often here some workers saw "Why should I join the union to work?"... And they will give you valid reasons why they should not. On a much smaller scale, Dawg has show that same attitude. (note the much smaller scale).

My initial shock was that he'd actually let the National Post make money off him. Coupled with the sorry state that content providers are treated and the fact that Dawg advocated workers rights led to my consternation.

Of course Dawg has other principles...

And if you don't like them, he's ready to insult you.

LuLu said...

Of course Dawg has other principles...

And if you don't like them, he's ready to insult you.


And one can be sure that the accusations of "hypocrisy" and "scab" were, of course, nothing but gentle direction on your part.

That's an awfully high horse you and L-girl have managed to perch on, CWTF -- is the rarified air noticeably thinner?

Marky Mark said...

I guess for me some really are attacking Dawg's character and I feel he is the last person who deserves such treatment.

You can look at the facts here in different ways-as a labour issue, as an integrity issue (i.e., he is engaging with an audience some of you think is beneath him), as an ideas issue or as a personal issue.

As a labour issue, it isn't clear to me that he's doing anything wrong when judged by the standards that generally apply in his world. By some of what's been argued here, people shouldn't take part time jobs or agree to freelance because in both cases they are taking full time union jobs away. You also could argue that independent bloggers also are misbehaving because they draw readers away from the MSM, thereby reducing available jobs.

As an integrity issue, it seems to me that DD's willingness to engage in civil debate is an important contribution. The idea of acrimonious separate pods of blogs screaming at each other is more American than Canadian. His contribution is very valuable.

So for me this really is about ideas. He helps to advance debate in a uniquely Canadian way. That a MSM outlet on the other side wants to pick up some of his independently written posts and make them available to a wider audience is not only a good thing as a matter of process but a real honour to him.

The Seer said...

I gotta take the Dawg's side on this. If the Dawg is a scab, so is everyone who ever writes a letter to the editor, which, somewhat glorified, is what an op-ed is.

The Seer said...

OT: Canada is safe from Sarah. Too many Asians. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/06/palins-father-she-left-ha_n_381724.html

Ti-Guy said...

But why he'd want to write for free and get slagged by really, really stupid people for it is, I have to admit, a bit of a mystery for me.

I'm not sure why either. There seems to be an entrenched belief among a certain demographic that if people are insulting them, that proves they're better than most.

All I see are terminal weakness and insufferable moral superiority, which the Right has exploited so well.

Not to say Dawg hasn't lashed out at the "bottom feeders" and plumbed the depths of the swamps in which they "slurp and spawn" but I doubt those instances will be republished by The Post.

Balbulican said...

"But why he'd want to write for free and get slagged by really, really stupid people for it is, I have to admit, a bit of a mystery for me."

That would be - as opposed to blogging?

sooey said...

Sigh. Yes. Because it's not blogging, it's writing free-of-charge for the corporate for-profit media that should have to pay for every word.

Balbulican said...

Sigh. Unless you, as an individual, decide the social return on your investment of time is worth it. You've made it clear that in your case, the answer would be no. In Dawg's case, given his priorities, the answer is yes.

sooey said...

Monetary return. The National Post operates as a for-profit business.

I'm not arguing that writers can't choose to write for free for the corporate media, which is what the National Post is. I'm arguing that we shouldn't. We all hold Dr. Dawg's writing in high regard. I'm surprised at the political divide.

L-girl said...

I had no intentions of slagging Dawg's character. As I've said many times, he's a very talented writer and deserves to be paid for his efforts for a for-profit, commercial enterprise.

"Choice" is a red herring. Of course it's his call. To my knowledge, no one has suggested otherwise. Some of us simply strongly disagree with the choice because we feel it hurts all writers.

If any of your colleagues, in any profession, start working for 50% of their current salaries, giving your employer license to cut everyone's salary by 50%, you might feel the same way.

If the Dawg is a scab, so is everyone who ever writes a letter to the editor, which, somewhat glorified, is what an op-ed is.

An Op-Ed is an assignment. It's 750-1000 words in length, it goes through an editing process, and it's paid work. If you think an Op-Ed is a glorified letter to the editor, try getting one published. You will find they are quite different.

L-girl said...

He helps to advance debate in a uniquely Canadian way. That a MSM outlet on the other side wants to pick up some of his independently written posts and make them available to a wider audience is not only a good thing as a matter of process but a real honour to him.

Yes, yes and yes. And he should be paid for his work. Because writers are not slaves. Because our work is valuable. Because CanWest is a for-profit enterprise, and should distribute their revenue among the people who contribute to their production.

Dr.Dawg said...

An Op-Ed is an assignment. It's 750-1000 words in length, it goes through an editing process, and it's paid work.

Not with the Ottawa Citizen. Trust me on this.

Perhaps if you get a freelance contract, thus undercutting SONG members, some money might come your way. But certainly not unsolicited op-ed pieces any more.

L-girl said...

Why is anyone writing unsolicited Op-Eds? Send a query, pitch an idea, get an assignment.

Cherniak_WTF said...

If any of your colleagues, in any profession, start working for 50% of their current salaries, giving your employer license to cut everyone's salary by 50%, you might feel the same way.
Of course some have different principals.... Hence why I'd figure Dawg would be more sensible to this...

I guess he feels that "his" message is more important...

But given this stance, it will make it easier to criticize whatever union argument for decent wages maybe...

Nurses don't want low-paid orderlies giving needles? Fuck the nurses. And if it leads to less nurses, fuck that also...

Cherniak_WTF said...

That a MSM outlet on the other side wants to pick up some of his independently written posts and make them available to a wider audience is not only a good thing as a matter of process but a real honour to him.
Are we still talking about the National Post?
A quick search on this blog will show to what esteem most think of that biased rag.

Marky Mark said...

Why is anyone writing unsolicited Op-Eds? Send a query, pitch an idea, get an assignment.

"Junk bonds-good for business/good for investors/good for the environment." Who do I make the pitch to?

sooey said...

If the Ottawa Citizen is no longer paying for Op/Ed pieces, and it can certainly afford to, it's because writers are providing it with free content. I didn't have a contract with the Citizen, but I was paid $200 for each piece I submitted, whether it ran or not. I'm not sure why I have to keep repeating that fact, but there it is. Again.

On a personal note, my paid writing for the National Post made it possible for me to make a living for myself at an important time. The money mattered.

My partner today makes his living as a freelance columnist. He is prepared, however, to walk away should he be told to work for less money tomorrow than he is making today. That's just the way it is.

Your accusations of equivalency in terms my freelancing career sans guild membership (which, to confess, I had no idea existed) vs your choice to donate content free of charge are interesting, Dr. Dawg. Speaking of purists.

So, yes, our actions are only separated by a few degrees in the grand scheme of things. You win.

Cherniak_WTF said...

So, yes, our actions are only separated by a few degrees in the grand scheme of things. You win.
Maybe in the short term, but I can assure you that I have lost much respect for Dr.Dawg and his causes...

sooey said...

Heheh - well sure, but you know what they say about winning on the Internet...

"aftiests"

L-girl said...

I keep thinking of this from Katha Pollitt:

Women have learned to describe everything they do, no matter how apparently conformist, submissive, self-destructive or humiliating, as a personal choice that cannot be criticized because personal choice is what feminism is all about.

"It's his call."

L-girl said...

Just FYI: I checked with two acquaintances who have written Op-Eds for the Ottawa Citizen within the past year. Both were paid.

KEvron said...

writers write.

KEvron

LuLu said...

Hi KEv ;-)

Metro said...

One comment:

Dawg isn't helping the Notional Past earn money. That rag hasn't made money in years.

As to the free provision of content: The content was written with no expectation of monetary gain, and is usefully displacing garbage that some winger would happily write for free anyway. So I see that as win-win.

And as far as I can tell, nothing on earth is going to make newspapers pay for online content until they move to a paying model.

Dr.Dawg said...

I have just sent a note to the editor on the strength of L-girl's comment. Will keep y'all posted.

L-girl said...

I'm glad! Good luck.

KEvron said...

howdy, lu²,

KEvron

Dr.Dawg said...

I guess I had been uncharacteristically shy. A freelance agreement is being mailed out.

Marky Mark said...

You probably should now split it between L-girl, sooey and CWTF...

Dr.Dawg said...

Something about "cold dead fingers" comes to mind.

L-girl said...

I guess I had been uncharacteristically shy. A freelance agreement is being mailed out.

I'm so pleased!

When talking about the freelance writing biz, I always give two rules to live by: 1, if no money is offered, always ask for money, and 2, if money is offered, always ask for more.

Nicely done, Dawg. Best of luck.

magnolia_2000 said...

l-girl is a busy body who tries to run everyone's business with here fake moralism. she has stuck her nose in my business before. she will never be a real canadian and thus has no business in our business. somebody give her a map back to the peace bridge.

L-girl said...

*sigh*

As you can see, I have a personal troll who follows me around the internets. But don't worry, he had been neutered and declawed.

redsock said...

... and he has been following her around for close to four years!

Since she has comment moderation on her blog -- though for years that has not stopped him from leaving very long screeds that get trashed unread -- he gets excited at the news that she is posting somewhere else, because he knows he is likely to get his comment(s) through.

(In the link above, L writes: "During one marathon eight-hour session, Mags invented eight different names, and posted at nearly two dozen blogs." What L did not say is that the eight hours of near-constant posting were from 10 PM to 6 AM.)

magnolia_2000 said...

speaking of neutered i see your emasculated partner who also is a failed writer ( lgirl and redsox are both secretaries ) has tried to change the subject by attacking me. the bottom line is youre a busy body who tries to run other people's business and the people on this blog and others dont need me to tell them that. you do just fine all by yourself.

magnolia_2000 said...

also just so you guys know l-girl will go to various blogs and argue with herself using a different name. she did this on commonills.com until they called her out on it. on her blog almost 95% of the comments are her and her partner. this is how they communicate. its really rather sad.

LuLu said...

its really rather sad.

Wow. Just ... wow.

The cognitive dissonance embodied in those four short words is almost deafening.

Now be a dear, mags, and run along -- the grown-ups are trying to talk.

KEvron said...

"The cognitive dissonance embodied in those four short words is almost deafening."

irony so thick, you could eat it with a spoon.

hey, come to think of it, i've been trolling this blog for nearly four years, and nobody's even bothered to notice.

KEvron

L-girl said...

Self-awareness not one of his strong suits, apparently.

Little does he know, we're actually all one person, commenting under all different names - on every blog in the world! Part of our evil plot to fill the blogosphere with simulated debate!!! BWAAHAHAHAHA

magnolia_2000 said...

commonills ON l-girl

magnolia_2000 said...

its alot to read i know but they researched her well. here's my favourite post about laura/lgirl. they said it way before i started saying it....

August 31, 2008 2:51 AM
Sarah said...

She's not Canadian. As a Canadian citizen born and raised in Toronto, I want to make it clear that she's not Canadian. She still does not have citizenship. She sounds like a kook and I want to be sure everyone knows she's not Canadian. And with comments like that, I think Canada should think twice before granting her citizenship. I will be sharing my concerns officially.

August 31, 2008 4:45 PM
Ronald said...
Kaiminker needs to be deported. She is not a citizen and she is embarrassing the country.

September 1, 2008 12:18 AM
Sonia said...
Seconding that Kaminker needs to be deported and Marcia this is a great post. Thank you.

September 1, 2008 5:17 AM
Anonymous said...
I'm trying to find Polly's Brew to read the email from a fellow Canadian about LK. No luck. Help?

That woman LK irritates me to the nth degree. I'm Canadian and cannot stand her. She's not doing Canada any favours with her false claims about wanting to understand. I would like to know why any Canadian reads her because all she does is throw back-handed insults about Canada around and feigns innocence. Worse than that, she speaks for us! As if she is some authority on Canada because she knows how to read Wiki. Give me a freaking break.

liberal supporter said...

So, "magnolia_2000", we are supposed to simply accept your assertions? The link you provided has many more assertions, but no actual evidence. Plus it seems irrelevant.

If "L-girl" is such a bad person, she will reveal her true colours soon enough. Your blathering doesn't really do that, especially since you have a hidden profile and no apparent blog.

Your quoting of material advocating interfering with someone else's real world life, such as "Sarah" wanting to share her "concerns" officially, is a blatant attempt at intimidation. Repeated harassment of this nature is called criminal harassment, a.k.a. stalking.

This is the kind of crap usually seen in the far right blogs that are regularly lampooned here. Go read some of them, they are all about getting columnists fired that they don't like, wishing death on officials, and publishing private identities of bloggers to allow co-ordinated goon attacks on such people's livelihoods, privacy and sometimes physical persons.

Do you really want to be like that?

magnolia_2000 said...

just to make clear the link is to another progressive site that has had problems with her and there are 66 comments discussing her and none of them have anything to do with me. this is left-winger v. left-winger. i'm merely an observor. she calls me a troll so i guess that means she also has 66 other trolls at commonill.com.

redsock said...

l-girl will go to various blogs and argue with herself using a different name

Here is mags last July pretending to be me (note the period added at the end of the name) and then he waits a few hours before coming back to agree with himself. Judging from the time of the posts, this was probably during his all-night posting fit.

redsock said...

Here he is posting under four names in one thread: magnolia_2000, I-girl, redsock. and superpoodlemo.

magnolia_2000 said...

OMG! how pathetic can you get alan. you know that was not me. notice how neither one of you will explain away the complaints about you guys at commonills.com. please explain. are they all trolls too? there have been multiple blogs at commonills.com talking about the two of you. do i have to dredge all of them up to make people see i'm not the one that has a problem with you two. your problems come from the people who know you best and have worked with you inside the activist circles of the progressive movement in both canada and the states. you can try to deflect all this away by attacking me, go ahead i'm used to it. i'm just a gal trying to make it in this world. i love blogs and wmtc.ca is my favourite because of the hypocrisy. i could write a book about how she is unwilling to commit any type of sacrifice to support her believes but thats another day. just please be warned that when you see l-girl pop up on your blog youre about to get a lecture or worse. and of course as someone earlier said what she knows about canada she got from wiki.

redsock said...

The Common Ills kooks threatened to release reams and reams of embarrassing, career-ruining information about L back in August 2008 (check their archives for how kooky they are), but oddly kept postponing this huge data dump for weeks and weeks and weeks before doing -- nothing.

I remember begging them (via email and blog comments) to PLEASE unlock the damaging evidence, PLEASE ruin us, but alas ...

I'll address whatever they got when they upload the evidence to the web, as they promised. I wonder why they balked at ruining a person they apparently hate so much. Hmmmmm ... maybe they're just a bunch of insane people?

(If anyone cares, the bizarre CI story is here, here and here. And at CI, of course.)

And this thread has been taken off-topic long enough. Cheers.

magnolia_2000 said...

alan i think you left out the part where laura outed one of the common ills women as having cancer and her children found out through wmtc.ca AFTER laura was asked not to publicly release this woman's health tragedy.

yes folks this is how a pair of children learned of their mother's cancer...on l-girls blog after she was asked not to release that info. classy, eh?

redsock said...

I'm sorry. I know I said that was it. But I was reading the comments in the 3rd "here" post. Hilarious!

(I had forgotten that CI threatened to file a lawsuit against us and accused L of writing "more than a dozen unpublished letters about them to the New York Times"!!!)

redsock said...

That is a lie. CI made that up out of thin air. Not that anyone reading this gives a shit, but L's post is still up as is every single word of every email conversation with CI (see the links above). Naturally, CI never provided a shred of evidence for its nutty claim.

So nice try. But if you happen to see anyone from CI, please tell them we would still like to be sued. It's not too late. We're at the same Mississauga address as in 2008. Thank you.

magnolia_2000 said...

and the blabbing about the women's cancer? alan?

redsock said...

1. Show me L's cancer post; or

2. Show me CI posting L's cancer post.

***

Actually I'm going to do #1 myself! Buried in the nearly 2,000-word email (which can be read in its entirety here), CI's Dona states: "And C.I. was undergoing medical tests that week as well."

That's it.

magnolia_2000 said...

and by making that email public when you had no right to her kids saw that she was having medical tests and knew that must mean her cancer was back which it was.

redsock said...

Talk to Dona. She wrote the email. When she sent it, it was no longer private. And Common Ills agrees.

CI's policy states that all emails received are not covered by any privacy rule. "This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can ... whine, 'E-mails are supposed to be private.' E-mail ... will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting."

redsock said...

So: having your doctor run a test of any kind = you having cancer.

Thank you, Dr. Mags. Did you get your diploma from Frist University?

L-girl said...

Do you really want to be like that?

Liberal Supporter, he already is. Follow the link above to my story on The Mark (in an earlier comment by Redsock, who is my partner). Mags has been cyber-stalking me for several years.

magnolia_2000 said...

l-girl's definition of cyberstalking..she can post her opinions all over the internet and do so several times daily year on end but anyone who disagrees with her or responds to her hateful posts is cyberstalking. please.

magnolia_2000 said...

as much as i disagree with many of l-girl's politics i always enjoy our debates. she has said many nasty things about me but we're tough out here and can take the rough and tumble of political debate. keep dishing it out l-girl and redsox i can take it.

L-girl said...

PS If anyone is still reading this thread, Mags and I don't debate. He spews hate into moderated comments and I reject them. The end.

Marky Mark said...

Impossible to follow the back and forth really-but one thing that is out there that I suppose is damaging, which you may or may not have responded to, is the suggestion that you used the l-girl name to comment on your own post.

L-girl said...

Marky Mark, there is no back-and-forth. It's unfortunate that Magnolia is trying to make it seem that there was.

The folks at CI attack anyone who responds to anything they write. I have been one of their many targets, along with many other peace activists similarly attacked.

In one of my pieces for Common Dreams, I got involved in a discussion with a commenter. I always use my internet name L-girl, which is readily connected to my real name, Laura Kaminker. I make no effort to disguise my real identity (unlike all the people from Common Ills).

As part of their attack on me, CI said I was trying to comment on my own writing while concealing my identity. I was not.

You can go back and read the piece, if you like. It's linked on the wmtc sidebar under "more of my writing". If I was trying to conceal my identity, would I link to the piece, with a byline that uses my real name, on my blog where I post as L-girl?

By the way, Magnolia has nothing to do with Common Ills. He's nothing but a virulent troll, using this year-old incident to bad-mouth me.

I'm sorry that this discussion took place here. It shouldn't have, and it's ridiculous.

henrylow said...

There's a movement to radically change California government, by getting rid of career politicians and chopping their salaries in half. A group known as Citizens for California Reform wants to make the California legislature a part time time job, just like it was until 1966.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com