rufus’s posterous

You write a blog post and post it. Someone comes onto your blog and has an alternative point of view. But, instead of engaging this commenter in a logical argument, you lash out at him, belittling his point of view and then using sarcastic remarks in subsequent comments. Is that smart?

This happened recently to me. (I won't mention the blog because that would result in more traffic.) When I first read the author's post, I thought it was insightful, but lacking in a couple of key areas. After reading the author's immature response to my observations, I now think the author is a bit immature, perhaps even an idiot. I won't be back to his blog -- not because I got my feeling hurt -- but because there is probably not much else I can learn from someone who does not have the skills to engage in an argument without resorting to ridicule and sarcasm.

Attacking a commenter might get you some momentary traffic, but is probably unwise in the long run. A blog works best when there are contributing points of view that are different from yours. If all you want is your friends and family agreeing with you, that is probably ok on a personal journal. But, I suspect many authors want their ideas challenged by the readers who find holes in their arguments.

Any dissenting opinions? If you agree with me, please don't post a comment. But, if you have an alternative point of view, please share it.

Originally published at: DogWalkBlog.com

There has been a rush with the social media consultant groups and evangelists about how to define this thing called "social media." Chris Brogan defined it as cafe-shaped conversation. And many people jumped on that metaphor. Sophie Macalister defines Tiwtter "as more like hanging out in the break room than actual productive work."

Hubspot got a bit lively when they published a video and blog post about not measuring ROI on social media. That got a lot of comments, many which attempted to define social media so it can be measured.

It seems like everyone is struggling to define this thing called Social Media and how it correctly fits into how business will be conducted. While social media may be better defined as the elephant in the room with five blind men, a perfect metaphor popped into my head this morning when I sent someone a link to MildFire and their response was, "How do you find this stuff?!?"

The real answer was I grabbed it off a Twitter stream as I was sitting and zoning between tasks. But, the answer I heard coming out of my mouth was: "It's like this huge asteroid belt that flies by my desk all day long.. something catches my eye and I reach and grab it. Sometimes it is a shiny rock, sometimes it is a nugget of gold."

So, the definitive metaphor -- at least for Twitter -- is it is an asteroid belt.

As for MildFire, I'm not sure yet if they are a nugget of gold or a shiny rock, so they go into the drawer until I have time to asses their value.

Originally published at: DogWalkBlog.com

Last Saturday, Mark Lilla, a professor of humanities at Columbia University, wrote an article in the WSJ titled The Perils of 'Populist Chic', What the rise of Sarah Palin and populism means for the conservative intellectual tradition. It was well-thought out and objectively argued. In short, it explains why presidential candidates need to go bowling and drinking beer, why smart girls get teased in math class and why nobody like a know-it-all. Kinda.

Anyway, I tell you this so that you are intriqued enough to read the article and draw your own conclusions, but also to introduce Mr. Peter Noel Murray, Ph.D who wrote a letter to the editor, saying, among other things:

Prof. Lilla proves that highly educated minds can be small and prejudiced when he describes Gov. Sarah Palin as "ignorant" and "provincial." What this Columbia professor really means is that she isn't Ivy League educated and isn't from New York City.

Well, I'm just a mutt that grew up in the Frogtown area of St. Paul and graduated with a BA in English from the public university, the University of Minnesota and even I think Sarah Palin is ignorant and provincial. Moreover, I think she is rather stupid in that she does not show a capacity to learn as evidenced by her more recent interviews (still reading the keywords off the notecards!) Furthermore, she exhibits distain for others around her and appears incapable of empathy. 

But mostly, she is stupid. No, really she is.

The president should be really smart, almost geeky smart. The fact that we have a smart president-elect who is also a great orator and empath is a giant plus. Let's stop "mocking him" through sneers, jokes and sarcastic asides. After all, he did what Sarah Palin and John McCain could not.