Commentary on Commentary...
I made a comment on a blog today and I suppose that they have refused to post it due to its…
?what?
I don’t know other than a blatant refusal to view opinions from the other side of the fence. I had no malice or vulgarity in it whatsoever.
Several other commentators were able to have theirs posted and one of them had their racial ‘terminology’ down pat.
However, I did notice that the post had been moved to an archived area on the blog after that colorful post had been made.
So, I won’t try again.
I’ll just do it here.
Here on my little blog, and I’ll make my comments…
Plus a few more.
First of all, I have to say that I do read everything “through”.
Secondly, I was criticized for using a Fox News article and was advised to:
Please be sure to also read the articles of links you provide. Fox news is not a credible news source. You might as well be linking to the tabloids.
The news article that I had provided was an Associated Press story. I simply asked which mainstream media source did that person prefer and commented on the fact that the AP is subscribed to by all the mainstream media organizations (MSM’s). In my ‘original’ comment, I provided several links with the same exact story from CNN, BBC, CBS, and the Dallas Morning News.
I was told that I was missing the point of the original entry. I tried to clarify my comments by copying and pasting the following quote from the original post:
The thing that kills me is the stupidity of Christmas vs. Holiday issue. Who really gives a rat's ass?
What my statement actually said was that I had been following this particular post and its comments. What I wanted to let them know was that “I cared”.
And maybe that is what caused the whole problem in the first place;
the fact that I do care.
(Please see recent posts.)
While the *offended* blog appears to belong to an individual, there is a possibility that a second person has administrative access to it also.
While my second comment on this particular post was not allowed, another comment was made by a different individual who seemed to be privy about its content.
It appears that I have made the second blog (possible) owner quite angry.
Or perhaps a copy of it was e-mailed to a close acquaintance.
Knowing that I will most likely not be allowed to post a second comment; it is here, on my little blog, that I once again will turn.
And just so you don't waste any more of your time, you'll never convince me that blatant commercialism and conspicuous consumption are needed to convey the true meaning of Christmas.
Blatant commercialism is not what I am concerned about. It is the politically correct attitude towards Christmas and the banning of Christmas and any terminology or activities that are associated with it by retailers and others who, in the very recent past, have used these same Christmas terms and participated in these same Christmas activities.
It is the renaming of Christmas Trees and making them Holiday Trees.
It is telling employees that you cannot say “Merry Christmas” in the workplace.
It is the renaming of local parades that have always been called Christmas parades throughout their entire history.
It is the outright denial of the recognition of Christmas and what it stands for. Christmas and the Christmas Season is Christmas and not a Holiday.
Commercialism is a problem, but it has always been driven by the retailer trying to sell their goods. The push for “Christmas Sales” seems to start earlier every year. No longer do retailers wait until Thanksgiving Day to start enticing the customers to do their shopping.
I don’t believe that Christians are driving commercialism.
As far as conspicuous consumption and the true meaning of Christmas, I am not exactly certain who this is in reference to. I, myself, am not part of a large gift giving group of people.
Most years, I am thankful to have the ability to buy gifts for my children. Conspicuous consumption is not in my budget. Conspicuous living isn’t either. My car is 18 years old.
I don’t know about anyone else’s budget or conspicuous consumption, but I do see quite a few expensive $35,000 to $40,000 cars running around town. Lately, I have seen a couple of $100,000+ cars too.
I wonder what kind of car the commenter drives.
While I don’t buy a lot of Christmas presents, I do have need of renewable items to keep my household running and my annual expenditures are, and will continue to be, very carefully distributed between the retailers of my choice.
Retailers will have to meet my criteria to receive any of my money. I have practiced this methodology for several years now. Long before the “big Christmas debate”.
Why you feel your religion is such that it must get its validity from department stores is beyond me.
I do not seek validity for my religion from anyone or anything.
Knowing that the dollar is what keeps these businesses operating is the leverage that Christians have. Christians can choose to spend their money in other establishments. While I may not make such a big difference as an individual, tens of thousands of people can.
Counting to a million always starts with Number One.
And while I do think it's a bad idea to ban Western music in Iran, I'll remind you that we have a much longer history in this country of civic and religious leaders trying to ban our own music, many times citing that the music is "un-Christian".
I think that there may be some confusion here between “un-Christian” and “immoral”.
Morals are required of every member of society no matter what form of religion you do, or do not, practice.
As far as Christians in this country as having a longer history of banning music, well, that is quite debatable. The United States is very young when compared to other countries.
What is interesting is that when Christians stand up and say something or take a stance about an issue, any issue, the hairs stand up on the neck of the opposition and the name calling begins.
But if a Muslim, Islamist, Buddhist, or anyone else that isn’t a Christian, were to do or say the same exact thing… it would be okay because we must be tolerant of them.
For everyone except Christians, “it’s a bad idea”.
I doubt you'll make much of a difference when you cite intolerance in others but then exhibit it yourself.
Because I say that I am Christian, cite my beliefs, and am willing to stand up for what I believe, I am viewed as intolerant.
People with religious affiliations that aren’t Christian can use my same words under a different ‘heading’ and wouldn’t be criticized.
The poster(s) is intolerant of me and others who are like me.
Yet, somehow I believe that the poster(s) would probably be tolerant of jihad (at the very most think it’s a “bad idea”), because Muslims are not talking about un-Christian stuff…
Just un-Muslim stuff.
later…
?what?
I don’t know other than a blatant refusal to view opinions from the other side of the fence. I had no malice or vulgarity in it whatsoever.
Several other commentators were able to have theirs posted and one of them had their racial ‘terminology’ down pat.
However, I did notice that the post had been moved to an archived area on the blog after that colorful post had been made.
So, I won’t try again.
I’ll just do it here.
Here on my little blog, and I’ll make my comments…
Plus a few more.
First of all, I have to say that I do read everything “through”.
Secondly, I was criticized for using a Fox News article and was advised to:
Please be sure to also read the articles of links you provide. Fox news is not a credible news source. You might as well be linking to the tabloids.
The news article that I had provided was an Associated Press story. I simply asked which mainstream media source did that person prefer and commented on the fact that the AP is subscribed to by all the mainstream media organizations (MSM’s). In my ‘original’ comment, I provided several links with the same exact story from CNN, BBC, CBS, and the Dallas Morning News.
I was told that I was missing the point of the original entry. I tried to clarify my comments by copying and pasting the following quote from the original post:
The thing that kills me is the stupidity of Christmas vs. Holiday issue. Who really gives a rat's ass?
What my statement actually said was that I had been following this particular post and its comments. What I wanted to let them know was that “I cared”.
And maybe that is what caused the whole problem in the first place;
the fact that I do care.
(Please see recent posts.)
While the *offended* blog appears to belong to an individual, there is a possibility that a second person has administrative access to it also.
While my second comment on this particular post was not allowed, another comment was made by a different individual who seemed to be privy about its content.
It appears that I have made the second blog (possible) owner quite angry.
Or perhaps a copy of it was e-mailed to a close acquaintance.
Knowing that I will most likely not be allowed to post a second comment; it is here, on my little blog, that I once again will turn.
And just so you don't waste any more of your time, you'll never convince me that blatant commercialism and conspicuous consumption are needed to convey the true meaning of Christmas.
Blatant commercialism is not what I am concerned about. It is the politically correct attitude towards Christmas and the banning of Christmas and any terminology or activities that are associated with it by retailers and others who, in the very recent past, have used these same Christmas terms and participated in these same Christmas activities.
It is the renaming of Christmas Trees and making them Holiday Trees.
It is telling employees that you cannot say “Merry Christmas” in the workplace.
It is the renaming of local parades that have always been called Christmas parades throughout their entire history.
It is the outright denial of the recognition of Christmas and what it stands for. Christmas and the Christmas Season is Christmas and not a Holiday.
Commercialism is a problem, but it has always been driven by the retailer trying to sell their goods. The push for “Christmas Sales” seems to start earlier every year. No longer do retailers wait until Thanksgiving Day to start enticing the customers to do their shopping.
I don’t believe that Christians are driving commercialism.
As far as conspicuous consumption and the true meaning of Christmas, I am not exactly certain who this is in reference to. I, myself, am not part of a large gift giving group of people.
Most years, I am thankful to have the ability to buy gifts for my children. Conspicuous consumption is not in my budget. Conspicuous living isn’t either. My car is 18 years old.
I don’t know about anyone else’s budget or conspicuous consumption, but I do see quite a few expensive $35,000 to $40,000 cars running around town. Lately, I have seen a couple of $100,000+ cars too.
I wonder what kind of car the commenter drives.
While I don’t buy a lot of Christmas presents, I do have need of renewable items to keep my household running and my annual expenditures are, and will continue to be, very carefully distributed between the retailers of my choice.
Retailers will have to meet my criteria to receive any of my money. I have practiced this methodology for several years now. Long before the “big Christmas debate”.
Why you feel your religion is such that it must get its validity from department stores is beyond me.
I do not seek validity for my religion from anyone or anything.
Knowing that the dollar is what keeps these businesses operating is the leverage that Christians have. Christians can choose to spend their money in other establishments. While I may not make such a big difference as an individual, tens of thousands of people can.
Counting to a million always starts with Number One.
And while I do think it's a bad idea to ban Western music in Iran, I'll remind you that we have a much longer history in this country of civic and religious leaders trying to ban our own music, many times citing that the music is "un-Christian".
I think that there may be some confusion here between “un-Christian” and “immoral”.
Morals are required of every member of society no matter what form of religion you do, or do not, practice.
As far as Christians in this country as having a longer history of banning music, well, that is quite debatable. The United States is very young when compared to other countries.
What is interesting is that when Christians stand up and say something or take a stance about an issue, any issue, the hairs stand up on the neck of the opposition and the name calling begins.
But if a Muslim, Islamist, Buddhist, or anyone else that isn’t a Christian, were to do or say the same exact thing… it would be okay because we must be tolerant of them.
For everyone except Christians, “it’s a bad idea”.
I doubt you'll make much of a difference when you cite intolerance in others but then exhibit it yourself.
Because I say that I am Christian, cite my beliefs, and am willing to stand up for what I believe, I am viewed as intolerant.
People with religious affiliations that aren’t Christian can use my same words under a different ‘heading’ and wouldn’t be criticized.
The poster(s) is intolerant of me and others who are like me.
Yet, somehow I believe that the poster(s) would probably be tolerant of jihad (at the very most think it’s a “bad idea”), because Muslims are not talking about un-Christian stuff…
Just un-Muslim stuff.
later…
posted by It's me, T.J. at Wednesday, December 21, 2005
2 Comments:
Hilarious! A little angry and paranoid there, ain't ya, TJ? The spam filter caught you because you put a lot of links into your post. This is what spammers do.
You make a lot of assumptions about us and, not surprisingly, they are all wrong, especially about our views "against" Christians, of which we have many in our family (oh, and we have church-going friends, too. Shhhh! But don't tell anybody...you know, we're such intolerant people, after all.)
Now, if you're talking about pretend Christians or "Christians" or Christian fundamentalists, that's another story. You know these people. They're the ones who go around with a martyr complex as if they were Jesus themselves.
You really have a problem with ignoring key words and context when they don't suit you, TJ.
For example, you say "banning music" to make your argument that it's "quite debatable" but that's not what I said. I said "Western music" and "our own music", both meaning "American" music. How can other countries have a longer history of banning American music than there has been an America?
Look, I'm sorry about your persecution complex and paranoia. It must be hard to live with that. And although you suffer from such afflictions, it's a testament to the will of the human spirit that you can wake up each day and muster the strength to climb on your high horse. You're an inspiration to us all.
BTW, my car is 18-years-old and is about to hit the 260,000 mile mark.
Merry Christmas!
Cindy, I apologize for making your spam filter have a fit.
I am guilty of using a lot of links. I use links as a substitute for a sources cited page.
For example, you say "banning music" to make your argument that it's "quite debatable" but that's not what I said. I said "Western music" and "our own music", both meaning "American" music. How can other countries have a longer history of banning American music than there has been an America
I was using the definition of Western as how it was presented in the AP story. Here is the same story from MSN.
In the AP story the term "Western" is capitalized. While there are several definitions for this term I was viewing it in the same manner as I thought the Iranian president was using it.
In particular, entry 2:b. However, in Iran they could be using the term Western as defined by entry 3. This is something that would be nice to have clarified by someone who would know about the Iranian culture and terminology.
If entry 3 is the definition that is being used, then it most certainly could put the new Iranian law in a whole different light.
Additionally, when someone from overseas speaks of "America", or the "Americas", I also include Canada and Mexico; and South American countries when the plural is being used.
Of course, I think it is better to use north or south with it when used in this context, but there are those who don't.
So Chris, I apologize for not understanding your views on the term "Western".
From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:
western
Main Entry: 1west·ern
Pronunciation: 'wes-t&rn
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English
westerne, from Old English; akin to Old High German westrOni western, Old English west
1 a : coming from the west (a western storm) b : lying toward the west
2 capitalized : of, relating to, or characteristic of a region conventionally designated West: as a : steeped in or stemming from the Greco-Roman traditions b : of or relating to the noncommunist countries of Europe and America c : of or relating to the American West
3 capitalized : of or relating to the Roman Catholic or Protestant segment of Christianity (Western liturgies)
- west·ern·most /-"mOst/ adjective
BTW, my car is 18-years-old and is about to hit the 260,000 mile mark.
Wow! I only have 170,000 miles on mine.
I am really needing a newer vehicle to drive too.
Look, I'm sorry about your persecution complex and paranoia. It must be hard to live with that.
I don't have any problems in those areas so I have no difficulties living with anything that I don't ascribe to. But thank you for your empathy anyway.
You're an inspiration to us all.
Thank you.
I always try to help everyone out that I can.
later...
Post a Comment
<< Home