22 December 2005

This is for all the people who have been saying I ought to have a blog

The father of the World Wide Web starts his own blog.
In 1989 one of the main objectives of the WWW was to be a space for sharing information. It seemed evident that it should be a space in which anyone could be creative, to which anyone could contribute. The first browser was actually a browser/editor, which allowed one to edit any page, and save it back to the web if one had access rights.

Strangely enough, the web took off very much as a publishing medium, in which people edited offline. Bizarely, they were prepared to edit the funny angle brackets of HTML source, and didn't demand a what you see is what you get editor. WWW was soon full of lots of interesting stuff, but not a space for communal design, for discource through communal authorship.

Now in 2005, we have blogs and wikis, and the fact that they are so popular makes me feel I wasn't crazy to think people needed a creative space. In the mean time, I have had the luxury of having a web site which I have write access, and I've used tools like Amaya and Nvu which allow direct editing of web pages. With these, I haven't felt the urge to blog with blogging tools. Effectively my blog has been the Design Issues series of technical articles.

That said, it is nice to have a machine to the administrative work of handling the navigation bars and comment buttons and so on, and it is nice to edit in a mode in which you can to limited damage to the site. So I am going to try this blog thing using blog tools.


Naum, please explain slowly for me. What exactly is the difference between a site like yours, and a blog? Is it because you allow others to post stories?

Blog is a shortened form of "weblog", a chronological diary of postings faciliated by some blogger software platform (possibly client originated instead of on the server, or hosted by a third party web hosting firm). A blog is a web site, though I guess technically, on sites like blogger.com or typepad.com, individual blogs are sort of sub-sites.

Not all web sites are "blogs" though. Some sites feature a "blog" (maybe for recent news or off the cuff remarks by the proprietor) in addition to a store, reference documents, essays, polls, etc.…

Now consider that a blogging framework may be used to post up a web site (some folks have written books this way, with each "posting" being a chapter in a book). Also, there are collaborative blogs (boingboing for instance) where a team of "bloggers" opine or pen their thoughts on news items or post their own original essays.

Around 2002 or so, with the explosion of blogger type tools on the web (fueled by the F/OSS revolution and general spirit of the internet, unstymied by the corporate monarchs who really wish it worked more like TV & magazines), anybody could start a blog - LiveJournal, blogger, TypePad, or if you're adept at the intarweb thingie, you could roll your own or customize/tailor/enhance an existing one (as I've done here with the Nucleus engine).

In summary, AZplace is both (a) a site and (b) a blog. Originally, I started this as a Wiki engine and still have a repository only to serve as my stalled F/OSS wiki creation project (see azplace.net/atitd).
Also, many folks were "blogging" long before the term came into vogue, even if they were just editing raw HTML files on a web server (or uploading them from their local box). Witkowski site (atwitsend.org) still works that way as does the shrill bartcop.com site…
Thank you, sir. To be honest, I prefer your format here. I'm wondering, Naum, and this is a question....if your site were to receive thousands of looks a day, or experience tremendous activity (like Daily KOS, or Malkin, etc...)would you have to change it, or simplify it?
In other words, is this format here on AZPlace specialized for a local access kind of site?
Good questions…

1. We do receive 10K - 15K+ hits a day here, sometimes more than others, depending on what Googlers trickle in (nearly half of "visits" result from a google search on something that pops AZplace up into the top 50 search results).

2. Tremendous activity would be measured in millions of hits per day, then the consequences are (a) increased cost for increase of bandwidth, (b) some application optimizations like caching (where I would minimize the number of database fetches and try to make most of the hits to the site be static requests or a multiserver setup to distribute the load. Otherwise, no difference.
10-15k...congrats, Naum. Thanks for your answers. have a wonderful Christmas.
Blocked from using Wikipedia for 72 hours for comparing an American to a Nazi.

You will all recognize my angry tone.

>>>Well, I was just blocked for 72 hours from using wikipedia, for hate speech
because of this situation:

>>>There is this user, CJK, who is more knowledgable of history than most
Americans. He adds no content to wikipages. Instead he goes around and deletes
whole sections of historical pages that are unfavorable to America. He also
tweeks pages to downplay histrorical American attrocities, the example that got
me frustrated was this:


>>>The subesquent American AGRESSION towards the population decreased
tremendously the materials, men, and morale of many Filipino resistance
fighters, compelling them in one way or another to surrender.

>>>CJK changed it to:

>>>The subesquent American REPRESION towards the population decreased
tremendously the materials, men, and morale of many Filipino resistance
fighters, compelling them in one way or another to surrender.

>>>He had been doing this for days, nit picking articles and changing the tone
of the articles, and deleting whole sections. After the Philippine-American
War revision, I decided to tell him how I felt on his talk page:

CJK, throughout history their have been people like you, extreme ideological
jingoists who will downplay and deny their own country's attrocities. I see you
in the same leagues with Jewish Holocaust Deniers and those who deny the
attrocities of Stalin and the Gulags. These are the attrocities that America
demonizes, and most familar to Americans, but added to the list are less known
attrocities: Japan's attrocities in China, Frances attrocities in Algeria, the
first genocide of Armenians against Turkey, Colonial attrocities, etc. All of
these attrocities have something in common: their are always "little
Eichmann's" like yourself, who deny and downplay these attrocities. As long as
their are people like yourself, their will always be genocide, war crimes, and
crimes against humanity. I have no respect for you and your ilk. None. I cannot
adequately express in words my disgust for you.Travb 05:50, 28 December 2005

>>>CJK responded:

I've learned that its best not to argue with pathological anti-American
propagandists (such as yourself) so rather than giving a meaningful response to
your vicious personal attacks you post, I will simply reserve hope that one day
you will stop your fake "outrage" against the US and live in the real world.
CJK 16:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

>>>My response:

(Change a few words, and your comments show my point):

A hypothetical message from a nationalistic Japanese jingoist to a Japanese
pacifist who criticized the invasion, torture, rape, concentration camps, and
genocide of the Chinese in the 1930's up through World War II. Japan is one of
the first examples that come to mind, but you can insert any aggresive country
which commits war crimes into the following shameful statment:


I've learned that its best not to argue with pathological anti-[Japanese]
propagandists (such as yourself) so rather than giving a meaningful response to
your vicious personal attacks you post, I will simply reserve hope that one day
you will stop your fake "outrage" against [Japan] and live in the real world.

Travb 17:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

>>>A Jew (172) played up his families history and reported me to adminstration:
For those of us whose families were annihilated by the Nazi genocide, no attack
can be more extreme; and when such an attack is lodged for reasons as trivial
as a Wikipedia edit war, the impact of the attack only serves to trivialize the
Holocaust. Although I have had some disputes with CJK myself, I will not feel
comfortable editing Wikipedia today unless TravB is blocked for at least 24
hours for violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks in the most extreme way any
individual can violate it. I urge an administrator to block Travb promptly. 172
17:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The "little Eichmann's" reference is from Ward Churchill's speech about 9/11.
So I am blocked for 72 hours.
Actually, let's not discuss the issue of adding, or deleting an adjective in a Wikipedia passage on the Phillipine War. "Repression, Recession, it's all the same."(Cheech and Chong).

Let's instead discuss exactly why people waste their time on the stupid website-Wikipedia. Let's discusss why the numbskull and ideological retard devised a medium that encourages any Tom, Dick and Harry to change history because they think they know better...it's also abused by assholes (last week's story regarding the JFK assasination, yadda..). I cringe thinking students of all ages are using this shit instead of digging in books with references, and avenues of real discussion and argument.
This has to be the stupidest idea I've ever heard. Wikipedia is an example of why idealists with no grounding in reality should have a straight jacket.

Trav, be blessed you've been banned from the stupid website. You want to know if it was aggression, or repression? Then do as I would, and do as Naum always suggests; get it from a book on the war by someone who knows his shit. And then read other books from historians that offer different perspectives on the subject.

The truth may be hard to accept, Trav, but the fact is the Phillipine War was an example of both aggression and repression. It's important to understand history from the perspective of the participants, as well as from hindsight. Does that make sense?

Our presence in the Phillipines was triggered by a need to stop the advance of European Imperialism in the Far East.
Roosevelt was trying to preserve Europes Balance of Power system of diplomacy, which had prevented the colossal destruction of the Thirty Years War for two centuries. We saw what happened when that system did collapse (WW I,and WWII=app. 70 million dead).
Although I haven't done research on this yet, I suspect that the economic practice of Imperialism and the diplomatic use of Balance of Power created an inevitable schism that finally broke in the 1890s.
The REAL imperialists, mind you, were the Europeans-the architects of the curent Third World, hundreds of millions killed over several centuries and the traumitization and disruption of countless cultures.
This doesn't mean that we were heroes, or saviors in the Phillipines. We Fucked up. We misunderstood the Phillipine leaders; in turn, the Phillipine leaders misunderstood our intentions in the country.
The result was indeed a waste and a tragedy; a lesson in how good diplomacy and communication with the people can prevent violence.
In any case, stay off the stupid Wikipedia site. The world is better off without so many "depending" on such shit for "knowledge and understanding" of the world.
British historians have offered another stupid list entitled worst Britons of the last 100 years: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/...

They nominated one for each century. My big WTF were they thinking is Thomas Becket (died 1171, I believe). Sure, he was a loud mouth. Sure he went from loyalist to pain in the ass, to Henry II. But is that what constitutes
"worst"? Does anyone know what King Henry II had to do after his men killed Thomas Becket in Canterbury Cathedral? He had to grovel barefooted in rags to the doors of the cathedral while getting spit upon, beaten and taunted by the common people.
It seems to me Thomas Becket doesn't EVEN fit the profile of King John, the Ripper, etc.
Now, some blogs are nominating the 10 worst Americans of the last 230 years. Whoa, won't that be a hoot?
Ed Morrisey of Captain's Quarters lists his top ten at http://www.captainsquarters...

1. J Edgar Hoover
2. John Wilkes
3. Benedict Arnold
4. Nathan Bedford Forrest
5. Stephen Douglas
6. Richard Nixon
7. Joseph McCarthy
8. Aaron Burr
9. John Walker Jr.
10.Jimmy Carter

Interesting, but if the Brits would nominate Jack the Ripper, shouldn't John Wayne Gacy be on there, or Jim Jones? How about Charlie Manson?
And how about Timpthy McVeigh? Father Coughlin?
How about the SCOTUS Justices who decided favorably in the Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson Decisions? Especially, if the Chief Justices in both cases voted in support.
Would Jefferson Davis be in there by any chance?
Eh, Jimmy Carter, but not Timothy McVeigh?

Richard Nixon, but not James Earl Ray? Or Jeffrey Dahlmer?

Or Oliver North? (j/k :))

Though, it's inspired me to compose a "worst of/best of" list for Valley radio in 2005…
Right you are, Naum. Though Nixon and Carter have their moments in history, one can't trump the others we pointed out.
Forgive my pessimism, but I doubt there is a "best" in local radio. Only the "worst", with gradients.
LOL, you two ARE radio personalities, I thought so.

"Though, it's inspired me to compose a "worst of/best of" list for Valley radio in 2005…"
Hey Neo, you are welcome to join the debate on the Philippine-American War:


You will notice my same abrasive attitude there, although toned down because I can get booted.

There are many fellow neocons there too, TDC, CJK, and 172, Petral, to name a few, trying to delete any history which does not conform to the "disney version" of history, the same version of history you and mondo seem to perfer.
(Where the idea of "disney version" of history comes from: http://en.wikiquote.org/wik..., my entry.)
Top anything lists are a joke...

Any list which has a value judgement attached to its list, in this case: "Worst"--is going to be a controversial and worthless list.

This list probably shows more about the BBC's ethnoicities, contemporary values of the British in 2005, and contemporary biases than any valid measuring stick of who is "worst".

Stick to lists that can be measured: such as who the richest people in America are:

The 21st century robber barons:

Where do all these savings go, when Wal-Mart hires low wage workers?

Where does the money go when some Wal-mart locations gives its employees food stamp applications when they are hired?

To the Walton family, CEO's and founders of Wal-mart:

Forbes top 400 richest people in America FIVE of the top 10 richest people in America are Wal-Mart family members
The Walton family is as rich as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett combined.

The Nation:
Down and Out in Discount America

California Assemblywoman Sally Lieber....was...tipped off by dissatisfied workers. [H]er office discovered that Wal-Mart was encouraging its workers to apply for public assistance, "in the middle of the worst state budget crisis in history!" California had a $38 billion deficit at the time, and Lieber was enraged that taxpayers would be subsidizing Wal-Mart's low wages, bringing new meaning to the term "corporate welfare."...The Wal-Mart documents--[were] instructions explaining how to apply for food stamps, Medi-Cal (the state's healthcare assistance program) and other forms of welfare....Public assistance is very clearly part of the retailer's cost-cutting strategy. (It's ironic that a company so dependent on the public dole supports so many right-wing politicians who'd like to dismantle the welfare state.)

Full information with links here:

What's fascinating, Trav, is how you continue to fundamentalize the study of history by accusing others of "deleting history to conform to a disney version." You're the Pat Robertson of historical interpretation.
So what is the true version of history? You'll more often than not, find no answer, which makes history in itself fascinating.
I don't pretend to know it all, Trav. Never did. I do like to challenge those who really do believe it, however.

I'll kindly refrain from visiting your discussion. One can't discuss ideas, or argue with another who refuses to see beyond his bias.

Judge me any way you want, Trav. At this point, I'm resigned to your attempts to label me as a war mongering, super patriot with visions of Mickey and a happy-happy joy-joy view of America.

In any case, Trav, Naum, and Mondo, may the New Year bring health and happiness to you. Take care and have a festive weekend.
I'm curious how you think I'm a radio personality. I'm just a a schmuck with a 40 hour/week job. I'm sure I don't have the voice, or the talent needed to be a talk host. It would be fun, but not possible.
I think you are a radio personality from some of your previous posts, I don't know where they are at now. I am just guessing, for fun. Trav

Off to editing my own wikipedia page which I hope to make money on...
Nyet on the radio personality deal, though I've done some work for "radio personalities" and have been a fan of talk radio ever since I was a kid, going way back to the 70's (yes, talk radio existed before Rush Limbaugh and Larry King…)

Add Comment

This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it