Monday, June 13, 2005

More Readers Hate Me

People, I really am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you have to meet me half-way. I received three more comments—I don’t have proof but the timing leads me to conclude they are the same person—on the “Anonymous Responder” controversy of last week. Here are the three comments, and then I will attempt to explain what the sky is above us:

I am a different anonymus. Why care about gender or name? Respond to people, their issues and opinions. You just don't have to be responsible for making them seem coherant. Plus, if people wanted to be nameless but still specific the could use "other."

Anyway, I disagree with you comment on women. But that's niether here nor there.

Likewise, I disagree with your view on men.

Also, I think your evidence for stating that "anonymus" is a woman is poor.

Okay, I’m going to go through this slowly, as clearly not all of you have managed to kick your paint-thinner habit. Originally (and feel free to scroll down and read this yourself), “Anonymous” asked what Callipygian meant. Ignoring the fact they she was too lazy or unwilling to look up said word herself, all I asked was that this person send me an email, and I would answer her personally, as I did not want to tell the whole world (or I already would have).

Instead I got a scolding response by presumably the same person, and at this point decided to have a little fun. I posted the scolding reply, and began to use forensics to try to figure out something about the person. I concluded it must be a woman.

So, to answer the first question of this latest responder, I don’t really care about the gender or name, but in this case I wasn’t going to answer to everyone, and wanted to know who it was. Rebuffed at my attempt, I did a tongue-in-cheek analysis. I wasn’t attempting to provide evidence on the level of a criminal trial, but merely have fun with it all. Nevertheless, I stand by my assertion. In your heart of hearts, every single one of you thinks the original responder was a woman. Men rarely get that pissy unless there is a scoring problem in their fantasy sports league.

Here’s the bigger problem: This second nameless responder says he/she disagrees with my conclusions and proof. With all due respect, so what? I don’t even know who you are. What does the claim that you disagree mean to me? If you were Stephen Hawking I MIGHT care that you disagreed. For anyone else, it’s the same standard: back up what you say with reasons, evidence, and logic. Even my poking fun at the comment—though not meant to be taken completely seriously—offered an evidentiary argument.

Look what Dominique did. She responded with a rebuttal that it must have been a man, because of their propensity to not ask for directions. Now, on the face of it, that argument is absurd. Using that analogy, it would be more likely for a man to pretend to already know what the word meant than ask someone. But I didn’t give her a lot of grief, because I felt there was a good chance she was also being tongue-in-cheek and just adding to the mix, and because-absurd argument or not—at least she had a reason to back up her opinion!

You want to say “I disagree with your comment on women” or “I disagree with your view on men.” Alert the media. Want to impress me? Have something to say, and back it up. In a bigger sense, you’re right: overall it doesn’t matter what the name or gender is (although I dislike people posting anonymously, afraid of reprisal, but since I set up the system I’ll live it for now). It does matter, however, when you write inanities without a moment’s thought.

Look, people: I really want you all to respond, and I’m happy at what I’ve gotten. But you must understand that here at the Hyperion Institute we have standards, and if you bring your weak stuff it’s gonna get knocked back at you.

Learn it. Live it, and hide your women and children if necessary.


Anonymous said...

Ok, time to put an end to the insanity. I don't know the rest of you, but my posting of the question on the definition of callipygian was merely designed as an inobtrusive way of letting a friend of mine know that his efforts were not going unnoticed. For this to have turned into a three ring circus over which gender is more likely to be lazy or prideful is a little immature don't you think? I started, and will continue reading the column and responding to the posts because I think Hyperion is a very talented writer and I find his thought process intriguing. Responding is an enjoyable mental exercise for me also and I think he is completely correct in lambasting those who's only responses come as defensive rebuttal, or outright slander. If you have something better to do, do it, if you don't then show him the respect he deserves. The original Anonymous

Anonymous said...

I agree with you for the most part. But did I say anything slanderous? I just said I disagreed. If you don't care, then don't care about it. Just because I speak doesn't mean you have to respond. I also think people missed the joke of my use of the anonymus... ah well.

Anyway H, here is me responding to you in no particular flow:

I didn't know you were trying to be tongue in cheek. I apologize. I still don't think it was a woman. That is a gross exaggeration and your proof is poor. I offered my opinion because you have seemed desperate for them. I didn't get in depth because what you said wasn't very deep and it was just a passing comment on my part. If you want a more in depth reply from me then do some research yourself, instead of just casting out sterotypes. Why is Stephen Hawkins opinion more important than mine? He doesn't take the time to read what you write. All I am saying is that the evidence for you claims is poor. Which I believe makes us both hypocrites. Except that it seemed to me that you were passing a broad issue of statement and "fact", whereas I was giving a personal opinion. Why would I want to impress you? Do you want to impress me? I didn't think so. By the way, I don't post as anonymus because I am afirad of reprisal.

Take it easy