Comments

  • O-K?

    Stupid

    regarded as unintelligent: regarded as showing a lack of intelligence, perception, or common sense

    - silly: irritatingly silly or time-wasting

    - adds emphasis: used to express anger, annoyance, or frustration

    Encarta World English Dictionary

    I'm not angry, annoyed, or frustrated, at least I don't think I am?

    It is an intelligent, perceptive, and common sense arguement, at least I think it is?

    It maybe silly, but not irritating silly or a waste of time, at least I don't think it is?

    But hey! Maybe I just needed your brilliant superior Opinion, to enlighten me, so that I may see the error of my ways.

    U-MM Not.

    This was fun, and funny, if only for me.

    Newspapers are trying innovative ways to transition into the new age of communication, my idea may or may not have merit; but that will not be determine by what the Victoria Advocate decides.

    I'm all over the internet, popping in and out, with new innovative ideas to help people. I don't do this lightly, it's people's lives that are affected by whether I'm wrong or right, if they give serious consideration to what I say.

    I have remained silent for too long.

    I feel like that lady that was once head of the derivatives market, going against Alan Greenspan; some days. But like her I will offer my analysis, with good intent, for as long as I can.

    Maybe posterity will vindicate my innovative apporaches to current problems.

    October 21, 2009 at 10:52 a.m.
  • Being one who has frequently read and participated in the online forums in the past, I have a couple of thoughts I would like to share. At times, I believe some people decide to post something in a online forum naively believing that what they have to say will not be challenged. When it is challenged, even in a respectful manner, the novice generally takes offense. It's akin to someone running for public office appearing before the Advocate editorial board unprepared to answer your questions. You yourself exploit a candidates weakness by your questions and it is your duty to do so. I ask you if those who read and share online do not bear the same responsobility to challenge something they believe is false, misleading, bigoted, or otherwise perceived as being offensive to common sense? Do we not have the right, even the obligation and duty to shine the light?

    Additionally, their seems to be some topics that a few readers believe to be sacrosicnct and immune to criticism. At the time it occurred, reporting on the Mai Lai massacre by the media was condemned by a great many people but it turned out the reporting was true and accurate. Should the media have shown timidity and fear and not reported it? If you censor or throttle people who post online simply for saying what they believe to be a truth then you make a mine field out of being a part of the online community. Would it not be better to advertise and warn people that what someone posts online may be challenged, debated, or rebutted? Maybe if would be better to just tell people they are stepping into the ring of public debate when the post in here?

    October 21, 2009 at 9:29 a.m.
  • I'm sorry, I'm typing from a fastfood place, eating a burger. I guess you shouldn't type will you chew or gulp down a soda.

    I won't mention other places that I'm, sometimes blogging from, he he.

    Sometimes I'm in a less than hospitable neighborhood in a car. Don't worry, I won't end up blogging from the trunk of a car; belonging to a guy nicknamed "hammer".

    I have blogged from a place, where a women would take my dollar with her teeth. Ironically, the dollar covered her body a bit more than her next article of clothing.

    Really, you guys should seriously consider reporting on stuff the way I talk about stuff, it's the life.

    My idea is funny isn't it?

    October 21, 2009 at 8:49 a.m.
  • Uh? I may have an "idea", that might clear up credibility and financing concerns.

    Why not offer bloggers the opportunity to post on an exclusive paid blogger forum. You could promote it as a higher quality blog section to readers.

    It would be something akin to what YouTube is doing with users. If a user qualifies, they are paid for "specific content postings"; not everything post, just what brings in a certain amount of viewers.

    They receive only a very small portion of ad revenue generated. You could set standard and guidelines to encourage responsible blogging.

    People would rather post in this area because of the possibility of earning revenue. Advertisers would get more exposure because of higher caliber content. Readers would focus more on reading these blogs because of the expectation of reading something of higher quality.

    The one thing you should consider is, a delay in posting to review content, insuring the accuracy and valibility. If done right, the cost would be negated through both an increase in ad spots and fee to advertisers.

    Basically, you want everyone in Victoria talking about your Varsity blog spot, like they talk about Oprah and other things. You want local blogger celebrities, because that translates in greater both a desire for better quality and advertising.

    Superstar! lol.

    October 21, 2009 at 8:41 a.m.
  • roberttx:
    No they shouldn't. Maybe I'm missing your point, so, please clarify.

    October 21, 2009 at 4:08 a.m.
  • they should start charging for online content, to totally just kill off this website

    October 21, 2009 at 12:12 a.m.