catapult magazine

catapult magazine
 

discussion

blog feedback

Default

Norbert
Jan 27 2004
03:06 pm

I just got done reading Anne’s last post. Quite a bit more…jaded? caustic? maybe just aggressive than the last one.
I’m wondering what to say first and I’m wondering what to say at all. Then I started wondering if there would be a possibility of starting a list dedicated to blog responses.
So, Anne. I find myself missing some of our chats, not that any of them at Chri High were as pointed and as meaningful as they would be now. What is your goal for a post like that. Talking about cynicism is easy. Complaining about sarcastic attitudes kind of argues against the argument, though I think that may be your point. What should a valid Christian perspective be? How ought we to change the system. A small rip on the *cino community was probably valid and more than likely needed. But with the integrity of the *cino mission statement in mind, what should an active, practical response be (whether locally or universally)?

Default

mrsanniep
Jan 27 2004
03:46 pm

I was talking more about political discussions in general – both on the internet and in person and in society at large – and acknowledged that I thought cynicism was affecting discussions on *cino as well. It wasn’t primarily about *cino. However, it was a vent in my online journal, brought about by a larger context than *cino.

People are more than welcome to respond to my blog entries via email, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to post them as official discussions, as I don’t relish my thoughts being the topic of scrutiny and debate. If people can’t stand my politics, they needn’t read my blog.

Default

Norbert
Jan 27 2004
03:56 pm

I understood your comments to be reflective of the community as a whole and not just *cino Annie. I thought the blogs were an open invitation for discussion for the community. When did you stope relishing your thoughts being the topic of scrutiny and debate?
=)
I will respect your wishes.
From now on.

Default

mrsanniep
Jan 27 2004
04:47 pm

I guess what it boils down to is that I get into enough disagreements every time (it seems) I bother to post about anything political that I am quite ambivalent about what people might think about my political blog entry. I wrote it to vent and opinionize, but I guess I see how it would provoke response.

That said, being that its origins were ventful in nature, I feel refreshed and ready to move on, not discuss it further. Does that make sense?

Wading through the murky waters of blog protocol,
Stinky who Begot a Small Stinky Who Just Made a Big Stinky in His Pants

Default

laryn
Jan 27 2004
05:57 pm

would it be okay for us to discuss something sparked by your blog? as with any post, there’s no requirement that you (or anybody) respond.

Default

mrsanniep
Jan 27 2004
06:15 pm

Sure!

Default

laryn
Jan 28 2004
07:50 pm

well, then, i’m curious what people think. are we too cynical? my wife was saying today that it seems like culturally, the tendency is to come at everything with the intention of tearing it down, proving it wrong. even the basic job skills list things like “critical thinking”—and the word critical seems to imply an assumption of “wrongness.”

i have to say, if i’m cynical (i’m not sure that i am), i think it’s fairly recent. to use a political example, i was very hopeful when bush was elected—hopeful that he was going to prove all the nay-sayers wrong, be a bridge builder, a uniter, etc., etc., and that the cynics would say, “wow, we were wrong.” well, i guess it’s fair to say that i’m not as hopeful anymore as i was at first. is that cynicism? if so, is it excessive?