Nic: That’s the second time you’ve insulted my blog. If that’s what you really believe then stop commenting. It’s as simple as that. But I’m getting rather tired of your attitude and your lack of respect for me and my blog. I’ve continued publishing your comments so far out of fairness, but it isn’t fair to me — or my commenters, or the purpose of using this blog to facilitate dialogue — to continue giving a voice to someone who holds my opinions in such contempt. So this is your last warning: play nice or you won’t be allowed to play at all.

Nic just happens to be an American/Western white male

You’ve got two out of three there. I’m not “white”.
Not that that would really tell you anything about me, but judging by demographics seems to be the norm around here.

that we might have read them and *gasp* disagreed with the paradigm he recommends!

Disagreement is fine. But ignoring the conclusion based upon that kind of research is tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot when you talk about “feminism”. I don’t have all the answers nor do I claim to have them, but searching for them is always a worth while pursuit. Just remember that if at any time, you disregard a contradictory piece of research against your theory and you don’t change your theories then you aren’t really seeking answers. Then you’re just seeking justification for your views.

Judging from tek’s response, I see that validation of personal views is more the purpose for this blog rather than evaluating any theoretical application or social science discovery.

My bad…

Sounds JUST like NotMichael. If they didn’t/don’t see it happen, it didn’t/doesn’t exist.

Right, just like you, and everyone alive…
A tree falls in a forest. You don’t care, it’s not in your neighborhood and it didn’t kill anyone you knew. That’s just how people work.
Our individual awareness rarely ventures beyond a given time or space.

“Might I support your antithesis by recommending …” The implication being that whoever he’s doing the “recommending” for isn’t as well-read; we haven’t heard of those authors. (Not that we might have read them and *gasp* disagreed with the paradigm he recommends! OH NOES111!!!1)

“It is not that I am not informed or uneducated, it’s just that my life experience tells me otherwise.”

“What I read here contrasts starkly with what I see in the world.”

Mmm hmmm. Sounds JUST like NotMichael. If they didn’t/don’t see it happen, it didn’t/doesn’t exist.

To Tekanji: I really enjoyed the fact that the first part of the last sentence of your post says “Stay in school.”

Reading is Fundamental!

Hee.

Why the hell should bullies and trolls have the protection of no consequence for their actions?

Exactly! All it does it teach them that they can get away with harassing people, which only encourages them to do it more.

If it’s that easy to find out where he works, then he’s reflecting badly upon his company, and his company has the right to know the sort of shit that he’s attaching to their name. Props to ABW for refusing to just let it slide.

I now assume only like-minded individuals can post here?

You know, if that’s what you got from my post then by all means run with it.

From both your posts, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. ABW’s post wasn’t a continuation of the situation; it was a statement of its end and how she concluded things.

Odd. I didn’t hint or assume that the situation was still continuing. I was merely commenting on it and asking your perspective concerning it. And again, there are no accusations.

What you don’t understand, though, is that you are creating a problem every time you post on a thread that isn’t devoted to Privilege 101.

Quoi?

So, I’m a problem if I voice my opinion without adherence to the concept of “privilege”? I certainly don’t have to believe in Jesus Christ to speak or relate with Christians, and I’m certainly not viewed as a problem by them because of my differing beliefs. You might want to be a little more flexible on this one as well.

If you know and understand, then work within that frame. Working within a frame doesn’t mean you agree with it, but it does mean that — at least when you post here — that you are respecting me and my space.

I don’t see how speaking outside the given context is somehow not respecting you and your space. If there’s a miscommunication, I’ll help to resolve it (like earlier when you said I was accusing others) but don’t assume I’m disrespecting you or invading your space. I’ve shown great undue respect so far despite the disposition. However, limiting my thoughts and words for the sake of context would mean limiting the understanding between one another. I now assume only like-minded individuals can post here?

It also shows just how far entitlement goes, in people like Michael. *shudder*

So, I ask, if Nora seems to think that harassment (Arguendo: resistance) “kills blogs”, why does not the opposite happen as in Michaels case? If you harassed Michael, do you think he would stop or continue? And why do you think so?

Because no one is harassing Micheal? The only time that ABW ventured into territory that could be considered his “space” was to inform his company of his actions. Her actions aren’t comparable with him coming onto her space, continuing to try to post after being banned, and then e-mailing her to continue his abuse when he realized he wasn’t being published.

From both your posts, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. ABW’s post wasn’t a continuation of the situation; it was a statement of its end and how she concluded things. It was a statement of her saying that harassment wasn’t going to be tolerated, even if she had to take it to real life to get it to stop. She isn’t rampaging after Micheal and trying to hurt him; she is simply doing what it takes to make him go away and stay away. And, as far as I know, after one last e-mail from him she hasn’t heard from him since, so it appears that it worked.

It is not that I am not informed or uneducated, it’s just that my life experience tells me otherwise. Please don’t talk down to me simply because we don’t see things in the same way.

What you don’t understand, though, is that you are creating a problem every time you post on a thread that isn’t devoted to Privilege 101. You’re ignoring the frame that is being put on the subjects simply because you disagree with it, and therefore you’re forcing me to go back and explain to you the same concepts over and over again because that is the context in which my post is taking place.

If you know and understand, then work within that frame. Working within a frame doesn’t mean you agree with it, but it does mean that — at least when you post here — that you are respecting me and my space. But continually putting your frame onto my conversations translates into you disrupting conversations because your interpretation of what was said has nothing to do with the actual content of the conversation.