Interview: Jon Katz Answers 583
Truth or Parody (Score:5, Interesting)
by Duxup (pointandlaugh@hotmail.com)
I'm trying to keep this from sounding like a flame but still ask what I mean here. I should note that I haven't read a lot of Katz. However the few times I have your opinion seems so simple and stark it would seem your almost parodying opinions that you don't believe in. I wonder sometimes if you really believe all the things you write, or if the intent is more to promote discussion?
Katz:
I never write solely for the purpose of being provocative, or simply to push buttons. That would be dishonest. Parodying opinions would be worse, and I dont even know what that means (nor has "simple" or "stark" ever been used to describe my writing). The awful truth is that I believe everything I write quite sincerely, and often too passionately, when I write it. But I never write something with the feeling that it's 100 per cent true or right. I've learned otherwise.
And yes, my job is to promote discussion of issues, that's definitely my major purpose and intent. It's why I'm here. It sure isnt to beef up Freshmeat.
Writing online is challenging. The feedback is so intense, and comes in so many forms, that I often learn new things, change my mind, or alter my opinions, or see new aspects of an issue. It's a privilege for a writer to be here -- if you keep your eyes open, you never stop learning and growing. Or being humbled. And you can't get too lazy or arrogant, or you'll get eaten alive. And boy, do you get read. A lot of writers say this, and its true, but the only real insult for a writer is to be ignored.
When I wrote columns for Rolling Stone and New York Magazine, I got little feedback -- readers had no easy way to reach me -- and my ideas were rarely changed or stretched. Here, I grow and learn every day, about technical things and everything else. I never get or want or expect the last word, and never assume what I write is the only truth.
My columns are the best expression of what I hope is an interesting issue or idea at the time I write it. After that, it goes out into the hive and lives or dies on its own worth. My columns are beginnings of conversations, never the end. And I wish you all could see my e-mail, as I have some of the greatest conversations anybody interested in technology could possibly wish for.
And, as we all know ad nauseum, I get plenty of disagreement. I take responsibility for what I say. I read all criticism, even flames. I don't believe in many aspects of the moderation system. I set my prefs to everything. To me, steering software is the anti-thesis of community. I consider it self-censorship, a Balkanization of ideas, an effort to smother a human problem with software.
If somebody has a comment about my work, I owe them the courtesy of seeing it, however hostile or nice.
But remember that I express opinions more frequently than anybody on Slashdot. That means I will generate more intense feeling than most. The Net is a big place, and everybody has an opinion. Everything one writes in the nature of an opinion ticks somebody off. If you can't handle that, you can't express opinions on a forum like this and ought to go to a newspaper op-ed page, where nobody can ever reach you.
One difference on Slashdot is that disagreement tends to be intensely personalized, more than on other sites. People don't seem comfortable just disagreeing, some have to attack the source of the idea. They challenge motives, attack integrity, ridicule writing style, intelligence, sincerity, almost everything.
Notwithstanding that, writing on Slashdot has been the most successful experience of my media writing life. My columns are linked and distributed all over the world, I am quoted everyplace, asked to write for places, I get about 200 to 300 e-mails a day, and many more people are familiar with my work than at Hotwired or other sites I've written for on the Web. I don't mean this to be self-serving, just to respond to questions about why Im here, and to point out that there are different perspectives on my experience here.
You did ask.
The considerable criticism I get is obvious, and much of it is valuable, thoughtful and worthwhile. But I have never gotten more praise or worked with people I like and respect more. I think this community is the most extraordinary thing I've seen in my life as a media/technology writer, and I am very happy and quite proud to be a part of it.
Preaching to the choir (Score:5,
Interesting)
by Q*bert (Don'tSpamqweaver@vovida.com)
I would like to ask why you choose to air your articles on Slashdot. They are written from a non-technical point of view for a non-technical audience wholly unfamiliar with their subjects: Weblogs, the DVD controversy, the Linux revolution itself. Clearly, the Slashdot audience finds your articles insultingly simplistic. We are already familiar with these issues, often in more detail (technical and historical) than you, and by and large we are annoyed to have our opinions simplified and read back to us.
I have two questions. First, do you agree with me in seeing your posts as popular digests of our culture, intended for a lay audience?
Second, if you do agree, why do you persist in using Slashdot as a forum?
Katz:
Ummmm... no, I don't agree with you. I think the subtext of this message isn't about how dumb I am, but how smart you think you are.
Come on, Q*Bert, think about this. Would I still be here if that was really the view of the "Slashdot audience", whatever that may be? Would you be bothering even to write this question?
I don't mean to be snarky, but I must have been away when you were elected mayor of Slashdot, and spokesperson for the community. How do you know how everyone views my writing? Are you really saying that I should never write about privacy, genetics, open source, culture, books, movies, corporatism, media coverage of technology because you know all there is to know about it, and couldn't possibly learn anything more from any discussion? Sounds like it.
You also are wantonly inaccurate about Slashdot's audience, which is considerably wider than you seem to grasp, with varying levels of technical expertise, and which neither one of us is qualified to speak for. Happily, all kinds of people come through here, from programmers to housewives, and find the site interesting.
I dont write for a lay audience on Slashdot, and I don't have one, so far as I know.
The people who read me are directly involved with technology -- administrators, programmers, developers, students, and many, many highly-technical Linux geeks and nerds. I get mail from programmers, people overseas, from CEO's, government officials, bio-ethicists, geneticists, NSA spooks, and all sorts of teenaged geeks from all kinds of schools, from high school to college.
I'm not here to break news or tell you things. Of course you know a lot about these issues -- that's what makes this community unique. I'm here to promote discussion of things we all -- sometimes even me -- know a lot about. You are dead wrong if you think many members of the "community" don't want to talk about these issues. They do.
Simply, I write here because I love Slashdot, love the audience and the feedback I get, and believe I have the potential of doing good work. I love the bottom-up nature of the site, the intensely participatory nature of the community (I read Freshmeat every day, and marvel at it, understanding hardly anything. It's one of the most interesting places to go on the Web).
I've never discussed it with him, but I believe Rob asked me to write for Slashdot BECAUSE I am clueless in many ways. I'm not a geek, not a technical person, and have no desire to be one. I don't carry a lot of Linux or other baggage ideologically. I'm a writer, a very different thing. I think there's room for one or two here. Operating systems per se are not important to me. I love writing about technology, media, culture and politics. And I believe my record is stong in spotting trends and patterns involving technology-related subjects.
The implications of things like DVD and Open Source aren't static -- they aren't fully grasped at one moment, and then unworthy of further discussion. They are organic, evolving, changing all the time, especially as they move beyond this community and go out and hit the world.
Rob has never told me what to write and what not to write, but we (and Jeff too) communicate all the time. Via Robs grumpy and cryptic e-mail, I've figured out the role he sees for me -- to try to put things in a non-technological context, to try and bring a fresh, non-technical perspective to the things you all are doing here. "Write what it means," he tells me all the time. I trust his instincts.
So I stay here because Im happy, stimulated and welcome. The notion of my being a hated figure is, to me, largely mythical, a Slashdot version of hype. I've made a ton of friends here, and value them very much. I have a Linux laptop which I work often, and while it remains a nightmare and a mystery, I love the fact that I have actually begun to learn more about how computing works.
Ive worked in different media, covered politics and government, studied the history of technology. (I've worked at the Washington Post, Boston Globe, Philadelphia Inquirer, CBS News, Rolling Stone, Wired and Hotwired, and written 10 books), and have been obsessed with technology for years. I'm the sort of clown who will talk for hours about how cars changed the world, but have no interest in learning how the internal combustion engine works.
Whatever you think of me and my work, I have no apologies to make for it, but lots of improvements to work on. I don't think there can be a lot of doubt that people read what I write and talk about.
Ive also been here for nearly two years. I hate to break the news to you, but Im part of the Slashdot community too. So is anybody else who wants to join.
A -real- question (Score:5, Insightful)
by jd
Libertarianism means a lot of different things to different people. Usually, it is meant purely in the context of a hypothetical "Big Government". However, recently, events have shown that duly elected Governments around the world can be dictated to and ordered around by "Big Corporations", who are accountable to no-one, including the market place. Can you pin down, exactly, what your interpretation of Libertarianism is, and how it handles the whole power question, where you have Corporate Law, rather than Government Law?
Katz:
Libertarianism is one of the most interesting political ideas on the Net, or anywhere else, and I would love to pin it down, though there are many different interpretations of it. In recent months, several Libertarians have been e-mailing me, guiding me to websites, and I've enjoyed that. My sense of it as a philosophy is that it values freedom and a minimal involvement of government in people's lives, and celebrates individuals, and their right to make their own choices.
Im skittish about labels and parties. I'm not a political person. I find both liberalism and conservatism suffocatingly narrow and inadequate, and I would never describe myself as being one or the other. I hate the whole idea of a two-party, two -ideology system. If there's a question I have about Libertarianism, it's in trying to define the role government should or shouldn't play in people's lives or social problems. For example, I believe government should have stopped Microsoft much sooner, and should definitely halt the AOL/Time-Warner merger. I think its a responsibility of government to keep the Net and the Web as free and non-commercial as is possible. I don't believe Libertarians would share that view.
But I have to say that my thinking about Libertarianism is a work-in-progress. Maybe the best response is to write about it a bit, and start some discussions.
Politics isn't a strength of mine. But the second part of your question was very interesting because Libertarianism could play an enormous role in the many legal, technological and cultural questions popping up around the new Corporate Internet springing up all around. If I understand them correctly, the Libertarians present a strong political rationale for keeping a space like the Net free from corporate or government interference. If I were a lawyer, Id be busting through walls to take up Net law.
Honest question (Score:5, Interesting)
by swordgeek (spamlist@um......go.com)
One of the biggest and most valid criticisms you (regularly) receive on /. is directed to your writing style. Specifically, you write _long_ articles with _long_ (occasionally run-on) sentences containing questionable grammar. Given that you're a professional (paid!) journalist, do you feel that this affects how seriously your readers take your writing?
Katz:
Well, I barely got through high school and didn't finish college. I'm sure my grammar needs work. But I've written 10 books, almost every one of which was very favorably reviewed by some very tough literary critics. Apart from the books, I've written for the New York Times, GQ, Rolling Stone, Wired, and have gotten very few complaints about my grammar.
Writing is a very personal thing, from the point of view and the writer and the reader. It's subjective. There is no single way to do it. I feel pretty good about my writing, though never satisfied. I dont think I want it to change too much. My Slashdot pieces should be shorter, crisper.
I wish I could change everything I ever wrote, long sentences and otherwise. But I feel even better now that Slashdot is hiring some professional copy editors, which every writer desperately needs. You've definitely had to put up with some raw stuff though. In my early months here, I had no time to proofread my stuff (Slashdot isn't my full-time job) and had all sorts of formatting problems. Some it was sloppy for sure, for which I apologize. Programmers are an especially tough audience, as precision means a lot to them, and they aren't forgiving of sloppiness or mistakes.
Im sure reading me can sometimes be a chore. But I can't say I care tons about grammar. Id rather swing (or not) for my ideas.
Community interest (Score:5, Interesting)
by Signal 11 (signal11@mediaone.net?Subject=Slashdot comment)
It's a rare person indeed who draws such an intense response from the geeks and slashdotters amongst us - I'd like to know why you keep posting and commenting even though so many people are outwardly hostile towards you...
What draws you towards this community?
Katz:
I am very proud to be a rare person, and however you meant it, I thank you.
In some ways, I think I've answered this question in my previous responses. But again, I caution you against myopia, and the tunnel vision that sometimes comes from gauging the reality of the world by Threads there is no single response to me here. Some people are hostile, some people are not. Most people the great majority, I'm sure -- don't say either way, so I dont think either of us really knows for sure.
I'm drawn to the people running the site, the people posting on it, the people reading it, and the overall OS and free software idea, an idea I've been waiting for much of my work life. Also to the astounding often decidedly non-hostile -- response I get to my writing, a dream for any writer. As I've said elsewhere, if the response to my work was overwhelmingly hostile, I wouldn't have any desire to be here.
But I have to say one thing: If I permitted myself to be driven away by hostility toward my ideas, that would be a kind of cowardice I could never live with. It would be a horrible precedent for any writer, and a rebuke to the whole idea of free speech and open discussion.
I also don't buy these generalizations inherent in your very valid question. I don't believe most people on Slashdot hate me. I think it's a wildly exaggerated meme, stemming mostly from some loud and often (but not always) people who don't even have the courage to post under their own names, and for whom flaming is like a contact sport.
If you read through Threads, which I do, the most piercing comments are from smart people who criticize me under their own names. The most hostile comments are often from people who clearly havent read a word Ive written, but who are just rushing to get flames up first. The many interesting and thoughtful criticisms of me theres a whole sub-literature devoted to why I'm a jerk and don't belong here are almost always posted under names and ID's, which I respect and appreciate. And read.
There have been some eloquent, even powerful criticisms of me from people who do post under their own names (Hey, Rogers, Chris). They raise important questions, some of which I agree with and have learned from. People take seriously the idea that a writer is given so free and regular a forum to express himself here, and I take it as a compliment and a challenge.
But believe me, anybody who thinks Ill be chased off by criticism is really smoking something strange. I will never give in to the idea that I should leave because some of my ideas are unpopular among some people. You'd absolutely have to kill me first. In fact, I have just re-upped for at least another year, and plan to devote more of my writing to Slashdot, and reduce or eliminate the writing I do for other places. This is what I very much have wanted.
But to re-cap: I am first and foremost drawn to the open source idea, which I sincerely believe may possibly, though by no means definitely, salvage media and will transform society.
Secondly, I am attracted to and comfortable in this intensely interesting community of bright, idea-loving, idealistic, quarrelsome people -- I feel quite at home here. I respect what you have built, shared and believe in. I have been railing against Microsoftism before most of you were programming, and spent much of my life (unsucessfully) battling monopolistic corporations, even as I have depended on them for my livelihood. I wish I were more technically inclined, so I could participate more directly. But failing that, I am privileged to be writing about technology, media and society for one of the best media and technology sites in the world.
To me, the more rational question under those circumstances is why WOULDN'T I write here?
I also have a very powerful connection with Rob and Jeff, shaped in part by having worked for, (and at times been one) a series of media sleazebags. Rob and Jeff, and in recent months, Robin, are great editors. I trust them, and am grateful for the freedom they give me, the opportunity I have to learn, and the humor and ethics they bring to their and my work. You have to be my age and have my experience, perhaps, to appreciate how rare that is.
A More Civil Net (Score:5, Interesting)
by Skyshadow
Jon -- You seem like a fellow who might have some small amount of experience with the lack of civility which is rampant on the Net. Given that, I have a two-part question:
a) Who do you suppose the main culprits are? Why do you suppose that certain forums (like /.) can be somewhat civil one day and full of trolls and flamers the next? Is it simply a matter of certain people skipping fourth grade classes for the day, the flood of newbies, a popularity thing or just the nature of the beast? This leads into the second part of my question...
b) Do you foresee a circumstance where the Net will ever be a civil place without compromising anonymity and free speach? Or is every net medium which tries to provide these things doomed to go the way of Usenet?
Katz:
To me, this is a truly significant issue, vastly more important than me. The first part is complex. We all know who the culprits are, immature people who will grow up to be great and creative human beings but aren't yet. And ideologues who hate people for having ideas that are different from theirs.
Slashdot is pretty typical for a Web site when it comes to general level of disagreement. Disagreement is one of the great benefits of the Net people who didn't have a voice now do. But Slashdot is abnormal for the way in which discussions are personalized. It often reminds me of what's happened in Washington, where all politics has become ugly and personal, rather than simply bi-partisan or ideologically divergent.
I think a big problem here is the conspiratorial and rebellious roots of Linux (fighting the Death Star) and also the Anonymous Cowards login. AC's can be very valuable, sources of news from corporations and governmnent, etc. But unfortunately, the name is too literal, an abuse of Rob's original idea. The lethal combination of anonymity, adolescent hostility and cowardice destroys any discussion.
In my own case, a number of posters have raised legitimate concerns about my being here, about my occupying this rare pulpit, about my motivations, but even these complaints can't be discussed because AC's simply don't permit any legitimate conversations to take place. It is not possible to have a coherent running conversation in public on Slashdot on any issue, whether you're Jon Katz or anybody else. And I aint the only person who gets roasted here. Go on any topic. The inability to have a coherent or civil public discussion is a major crisis for any group of people who purport to be a community. And it works against promoting the very values many of the people who post here share.
Rob is viscerally unable to silence, censor or exclude anybody, so I don't see that changing. But he's also a programming whiz, so Im eager to see what he comes up with. But youre asking honest questions and you deserve honest answers, and the truth is, AC's have increasingly made Slashdot's Threads a laughingstock on the Web. I know some of you like to think you're laughing at me and people like me, but many of you would be mortified to know how many people come onto Slashdot to laugh at the nightmare that is Threads.
Rob's moderation systems have definitely made this better, and he thinks quite a bit about this issue.
The only way I can perceive civil discussions happening on sites like this is if topics were clearly identified, people were required to post under some form of recognizable ID, and experienced moderators with power kept the conversation on track and kicked out people who attacked ideas or posters personally or strayed off topic.
Personally, I'd offer people absolute freedom to comment on issues, but suspend people who assaulted other people verbally, and if they didn't stop, kick them off the site. There is no excuse or justification for the way they behave. People are responsible for their words as well as their actions.
I think the single biggest regret I have about being on Slashdot isn't that the flames or the silly name-calling, but that nobody but me gets to see some of the most amazing e-mail in the world, not just to me but everybody who writes here -- from bio-ethicists, geneticists, programmers, brilliant geeks and nerds, educators. I've shared much of this mail with Rob and others so they can see it. None of these posters would dream of posting on Threads, and if they did, Slashdot would have the best technology discussions on the planet.
There is a staggering amount of hostility on Slashdot, which transcends disagreement. I think it's embedded deeply in the culture here -- as is intelligence and creativity.
The real casualty of this is that there's nowhere for people to go to have rational and informative discussions about technology privacy, hacking, cracking, copyright, genetics, AI, nano-technology, supercomputing. The only discussions that are possible occur in the places where people know the least mainstream journalism and politics.
Almost all of you have something to contribute about these discussions, but many of you choose not to. Youd rather flame and attack. It's your choice, but it does have consequences, for the site, and for the issues you claim to care about.
These public conversations have to occur, as digital democracy spreads and the Net collides with politics, and computing becomes more universal. But Im afraid the precedent being set here is that they will only occur in restricted environments, because conversations arent really possible in un-restricted ones.
Anti-Katz (Score:5, Interesting)
by Simeon2000 (irSc_addict@PhotmAail.cMom)
I am a Christian. I am a geek. I am not alone. Though we ChristoGeeks (a new demograph I just coined which you may proceed to patronize) tend to be a quiet group here on Slashdot, I felt the need to voice this question.
You seemingly never fail to rail upon religion (more often than not, Christianity) in each of your posts here. I haven't read your book, but more than likely you will do it in there, too. My question is... why? Obviously you are against religion, and seem to view it as a form of mind control/censorship. Did you have a bad experience with Christianity as a young child? Do you think the vocal minority of Christians in the public eye are obnoxious? Or is this simply another way to pander to your audience, who at the time is mainly comprised of anti-Christian Slashdot readers.
Katz:
I love the term ChristoGeeks. I have a great reverence for the Christianity as practiced and taught by Jesus Christ (see below). Were he alive today, I would be in his Church. And I hardly ever write about religion in any context. Its not a regular theme of mine at all.
If Jesus's teachings were followed today, we would live in a wonderful world. I have less affection and respect for contemporary organized religion of all faiths, which have, in my opinion, turned far away from such teaching. I do resent the so-called Christian Right, which intruded itself into American politics more than any other religion and often promotes censorship and a visceral distrust of technology. But I have also criticicized other religions when they do this.
I believe religion has no place in politics, education or technology.
Some -- in fact, almost all -- of the people closest to me in the world are devout Christians, and in the original and wonderful sense of the term. But it's a word that gets tossed around quite a bit by people who have no real right to use it, and who greatly distort the spirit and the teachings of Christ.
I hear from many people who identify themselves as Christians. When I think of Christianity, I think of a faith that at its core, promotes charity, tolerance, generosity, love and peace. Thats not what I see on Washington talk shows, where the so-called "Christian" agenda is often used to push for censorship, attack culture and technology, and force a certain kind of moral values on people who don't necessarily want them. Judaism and the Muslim Faith certainly do this as well, at times, but not nearly in so organized and vocal a way.
I also believe that religion, like all powerful institutions, needs watching and, occasionally, poking. It's not my purpose to give offense. But I have to say what I believe. Religion gets plenty of great press. It can handle a whack or two from me. (If you are interested, my last book, "Running To The Mountain," was inspired by the Trappist Monk and writer Thomas Merton. My ideas about religion are discussed there.) I don't mention it in my new book "Geeks", though.
Re:One reson, BANNER HITS! (Score:2)
If we really wanted to do that, we'd post every frickin' Microsoft article we got. Those generate far more hits than Katz does, and cost nothing. Instead, I grit my teeth ever time I have to post a MS thing.
Thanks for noticing (Score:2)
That said, also keep an eye for the fake hemos, hemos. I loooovvee 31337 trollZ.
Disrespecting "Threads"? (Score:2)
First, my background, if that's important. In 1983 I started participating in messaging communities. In 1986 I started sysopping them. In 1990 I founded my own multi-line, multi-user, Unix-based BBS. In 1991 I net-enabled it, making it the first public-access internet site in Philly. In 1995 I went to work for an ISP. Last year I founded my own internet development firm to continue to feed my love of communications and technology.
OK. Some people don't like message-based electronic communities; a greater number just don't "get" them. Sometimes those people are not intelligent enough to want to involve themselves in the discussion, but more often there is just some stumbling block of mind-set or interest that prevents them from really engaging in the community.
*Those* are the sorts who will laugh at such communities, and they will laugh at them in accordance with how little they understand them. And simply because someone is a technologist, doesn't mean they'll be interested in the communities.
If there are better technology discussions on the planet, and they're online, don't hold back -- tell us where they are. Frankly, with the evolution of the moderation system, I feel pretty confident that I'm not missing out on important discussions, and that I'm able to skip over all the "crud". Laugh at Threads? I doubt anyone who likes this sort of community will laugh; it's about the best possible way to involve this number of people in online discussion.
To take that a step further, anyone who's reading this -- imagine what /. would be without the community aspects. At this point, as a power browser, I figure I can get most of the news that the site serves up (it is, after all, first found elsewhere, as /. doesn't produce original news content, only original opinion content). It's only the community that adds to the value. In most stories, the messages give us all additional facts, fresh views of the stories, and a community reaction to them. Without the discussion, some folks might be inclined to take ZDNet stories seriously, believe MS-funded benchmarks, etc.
Your reaction to peple dismissing the discussion is most unfortunate and to me, and this is just my opinion, it means that you don't really "get" the online community inherent in all these messages. You know, VA Linux cannot own /., Andover cannot own /., even CmdrTaco cannot own /. because /. is not a single entity -- it's made up of all of us. To a great degree, the extent that we care about it is the extent that we post. If we don't care, and we don't post, /. is nothing. To use a different analogy, CmdrTaco built the building, and found people to decorate the walls, but it's the people that visit it and the activity they engage in there that makes the building what it is.
Re:What does this solve? (Score:2)
- Robin
Straight up journalist? (Score:2)
Katz writes:
- to a general audience
- to an _uneducated_ general audience, one that is not necessarily intelligent
- sound bites, which are compressed 'Reader's Digest' style ideas simplified for the masses
- repetitively, to restate the sound bites often enough that even the dumbest viewer will hear them
- without opinion- at least in theory. This is very characteristic of TV journalism. "Whether or not these brave geeks will change the world remains to be seen. One thing is certain- time will tell." TV journalism often pointedly avoids expressing opinion.
None of this implies Jon Katz is intentionally talking down to Slashdot, or mocking us, or treating us like idiots. He is genuinely trying to communicate- the way he learned how. It gets messier when his hysteria and passionate opinions butt heads with the learned need to suppress opinion, and it is then that he behaves like the worst of TV journalism- producing dumbed down hysterical screeds under a cloak of impartiality.It would be better for Jon to learn that this _is_ a new world, and that the rules are different. It's not relevant for him to try so hard to appear like he's not expressing an opinion- that is for TV anchorpeople to do- in the role of web journalist iconoclast, it is more appropriate for Jon to claim his biases out front and express them openly.
He does indeed connect the geek world to mainstream society- and indeed to mainstream media. I wish he would just _accept_ that this is his role- he is awfully prone to enjoy being called up by ABC, BBC and the Associated Press (due to his credentials as former CBS executive producer- why else?), but he insists on being treated as an outlaw web journalist by his peers, by us his Slashdot audience. It doesn't work that way- even before the full story of his position came out, people sensed that he seemed to be slumming, that he apparently was more privileged and was writing for Slashdot like it was some kind of game. That doesn't get you much street cred.
Yet, the reality is this- Jon has repudiated _most_ of the power and Big Media influence he once had, apparently because he got disgusted with it and decided to close the door on that part of his life. He only seems to be slumming- in reality, he's being a searcher, just like his running to the mountain book would suggest, and he _wants_ the street cred, wants a new role he can respect. He no longer wants to suck up to big media (despite appearances)- it's us he wants to be accepted by, but his habits and learned methods are so Big Media that it all comes off wrong and he fails to click with his desired audience. (trust me on this- _everything_ he's ever done that's self-aggrandizing is What One Does if you play the media game well- not doing it is being a media _luser_- Katz is _no_ media luser, he's a BMediaKingpinFH)
Recognizing this, he has no choice but to try to behave like the people abusing him are just ill-behaved children acting out. He doesn't _want_ to go running back to CBS or wherever, and be a TV producer again. He apparently _hated_ that. He _wants_ to find not just a role here, but a community that accepts him. Look at how much he talks about community, how often he swears that he _is_ supported by a vast community in email, that they are the _real_ geeks, not his critics. And it's his own past working against him- his own habits that trip him up and set him against the interests of most slashdot geeks.
It's a tough position Jon Katz is in. If he was to quit with the sound bites, stop writing to general audiences, not answer when called by ABC and BBC and AP, he would gain little and throw away most of the advantages he _does_ have. Yet he seems unwilling to accept these advantages for what they are- he is shamed by them, it seems, he wants to be something much deeper than an ex-TV-producer with good connections and the knack of writing to general audiences.
Well, I'd say this to him: having finally learned enough about you to feel I at last understand you a little better, having tirelessly criticised you under my own name out in the open until I became one of the two names you cited as sort of 'braver flamers/critics', I think you should STAY- but you have _got_ to start using your advantages rightly. Be out-front about it! You're Slashdot's translator for general audiences. You're the guy whose number is called by big media when they want _your_ opinion. You, Jon, have the potential to be a bridge, and rather than turn against all the things you learned in your 'other life', you should embrace them- because they are setting the tone for your writing anyhow, you can't avoid that. You _do_ write sound bites, so write good ones. You _do_ write to an uneducated general audience which doesn't even read Slashdot- so do that and do it well and count on people outside the Slashdot norm coming to see what the fuss is about and finding your articles the only ones that speak to them, that translate and explain what they are seeing. You _do_ have connections: normal people don't just get hired by Wired and Rolling Stone and called up by big media reps (Wired and RS stringers certainly don't get the Beeb asking them what the latest media merger means!). Use those connections. When they ask about geek/techie things, be able to answer them. When big media needs to see a certain side of things (i.e. DeCSS), hint off the record that they need to cover things a certain way or they will appear the tools of corporate influence. You _know_ how to do this stuff.
*g* Luke, it is your destiny! ;)
Pathetic Comments (Score:2)
Fine. I Don't Like You. (Score:2)
Jon Katz writes:
Very well, Jon. Let me add myself to the list of people who don't like you, are not loud, and even have the temerity to put a name behind my words. For that matter, what's wrong with disliking you anonymously?
I am not fond of your verbose style. Your grammar often makes me wince, and your topics, while interesting in and of themselves, come out in your articles as bland rehashes of popular opinion. As a smaller issue, you have yet to fix the problem with your apostrophies, despite numerous suggestions of solutions from a variety of Slashdot readers. This is still primarily a technically oriented forum, and we have problems with people wo purport to write about technologically-related issues without appearing to make any effort to fix their own technical problems.
And yes, I know that I can just filter out all stories posted by you. I don't feel that to be an acceptible solution. I tend to do my filtering based on content, not on author. (Although I always seem to be able to pick out your articles from the style of the introduction on the front page.) However, Slashdot currently has a single columnist: You. To the outside, the implication is that you're the only regular columnist because you're the only person Rob and Hemos always agree with. From the Slashdot community, it's frustrating to see your point of view continually reiterated without any other regulars to provide alternate points of view.
I'm not necessarily advocating getting rid of you (although, were that to happen, I would shed no tears), but I would appreciate a less condescending attitude and, if your articles were, as you put it, "shorter, crisper," I wouldn't mind either. What I would really like is another columnist with a different point of view to offset yours.
Upon reading over my post, I seem to be ranting a bit... Sorry, but Jon's dismissal of his critics as cowardly flamers struck a nerve. Anyone who agrees with me about Katz, anonymous or not, feel free to lend your voice to mine. (Objectors to my views are welcome, too. I suspect I'm opening myself up to a lot of criticism here.)
--Phil (I doubt I would have posted this vehemently if I actually liked Katz. Why do negative feelings always seem to generate more emotion?)
Re:Moderation (Score:2)
Re:Moderation (Score:2)
I disagree about AC's (Score:2)
How much anonymity do you lose by registering an ID? None! If I wanted to make a stupid remark but couldn't do it as an AC, it would take 30 secs to create a new ID (well, that's about how long it took to create this ID a year or so ago). Perhaps it's a convenience thing?
Addendum - moderation ideas (Score:2)
I think that meta-moderation is silly. It's very hard to tell whether a moderation is fair or not when viewing comments out of context. A comment moderated as interesting could well be a duplication of somebody else's and really quite redundant.
Finally, I think that it is okay for deviation off topic, so long as it's not a top-level post - some good discussions can occur. Reading with threading ensures that I don't have to view off-topic discussions if I don't want to.
You have to understand Jon (Score:2)
Secondly, however, I still think your attitude is irresponsible. If you mean the religious right, then say the religious right! As it so happens, I agree with you. But believe it or not, many many Christians don't agree with the religious right's tactics. It is unfair to associate us with them, even by default.
Vagueness is the last refuge of incompetence.
--
Re:10 Katz articles for the price of one! (Score:2)
We must be reading different articles. What I read was that he is nearly content with what he has writen, aware that there are flaws, and aware that he has room to learn to write better.
Perhaps you can point to something that supports you contention that he thinks "he's a better writer" than someone else.
Re:A /. Counterpoint to Katz? (Score:2)
I think his only previous exposure here was when he wrote that Red Hat was more difficult to install than MacOS, and everyone here flamed his inbox to a crisp.
Christian morality is NOT universal (Score:2)
I believe that religion has no place in politics, education, or technology, but the moral ethics taught by Christianity should be present everywhere.
That's a very narrow point of view. There are numerous areas where Christian morality is widely regarded as rooted in the dark ages and totally unacceptable today. The classic example is of course in its attitude to sex and nudity. Most of Europe is rather relaxed in this area nowadays, and as a result Christian moral ethics are about as useful and relevant on European beaches as the Victorian aversion to the sight of a bare female ankle is relevant on the high street.
Sorry, but Christian morality is NOT the static universal that you think it is. It's just a set of value judgements belonging to a place and a time, and like all value judgements, they are not relevant in a different place or a different time.
In particular, the US seems to be stuck in a sex/nudity time warp of its own from which it may not emerge for a small eternity because of the political power of its bible bashers. Well, that's a local hangup. Please don't try to export it to the rest of the world.
To know what Jesus meant ... (Score:2)
That is seriously funny! If you think you know what Jesus meant then you're blissfully unaware of the vast distance in time between then and now, the huge uncertainties in how faithfully the message has survived its passage down the ages, the immensity of the misunderstandings that result from the cultural differences over 2000 years, the sheer imperfection of the documentary record, and the maliciousness and self-serving of the multiple human hands that have transported the alleged words of Jesus across the millenia into the world of today. Alas, digital signatures weren't in common use back then.
No, I'm afraid not, you do not know what Jesus meant either. All you can do is believe in a particular package of values that the frail hand of Man has delivered to you, and have faith that it might at least in part represent what Jesus might have meant so long ago.
Re:Christian morality is NOT universal (Score:2)
Wrong. Speaking as a Brit, the vast majority of people here see themselves as just getting on with what their commonsense tells them is OK. Their only contact with religion is when they hear on the news that yet another Catholic or Protestant has been murdered on the streets of Belfast, and they certainly don't identify with it. If anything, it reinforces the view that religion is a dark force, or at least a misused one.
Religion had its day, but that has long gone with the new generation. Of course, some fans will always remain, just as there are fans of basket weaving and coin rubbing, but you musn't confuse marginal niches with the main direction of a culture.
10 Katz articles for the price of one! (Score:2)
He even went back to his old, tired arguments about how since he's written a bunch of books and articles that means he's a better writer (and therefore person) than anyone who would say otherwise.
In the meantime, recently all my filters seem to have disappeared... I had checked the JonKatz 'ignore' checkbox in my prefs so that I wouldn't have to put up with the irritating blurbs to his articles, but between JonKatz articles being posted by other people and my filter settings disappearing, I'm getting way too much Katz for my liking. It almost seems like a conspiracy to force people to read his stuff. (Yeah, I know, "You don't have to read it." Yes, and I'd rather not waste the bandwidth on downloading his blurbs or on the aggrivation that I get from accidentally reading them.)
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine [nmsu.edu].
Addendum (Score:2)
I recommend reading the Playboy interview. It's actually somewhat insightful, without being incredibly condescending and down-speaking. I wonder if he only talks down to geeks; he sure doesn't patronize the Playboy interviewer like he does to the Slashdot readers.
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine [nmsu.edu].
Addendum to the addendum (Score:2)
- I don't know. I get tons of very nice email. The public message boards of Slashdot tend to be populated by teenagers who resent the fact that I'm not a computer geek. I'm not a programmer, so some resent that, too. But I think my opinions are controversial. In my nine years [of Internet writing], the public posts have tended to be very hostile. But I think it is healthy for me to be challenged. This is what keeps you from being a New York Times op-ed page gasbag. My job is to make people think, to start conversations.
I'd hate to be labelled as a "teenager" by him for saying these things. In fact, although there's definitely a lot of what I'd begrudgingly call teenage angst on Slashdot, I'm sure there's plenty of adults flaming him as well. Myself, I'm 21, for what that's worth, though I've met plenty of 15-year-olds who are more mature than me, and plenty of flaming idiots who are in their 30s.---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine [nmsu.edu].
Re:10 Katz articles for the price of one! (Score:2)
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine [nmsu.edu].
a little introspection... (Score:2)
q*bert.
i've read you in the past on
articles. you write pretty well, and you tend to lay it all out
on the
page. i find that admirable, and above all else i'd give you
thumbs up
just for that.
it seems in many ways that you're trying to do three things with
your
writing on
q*bert used
the phrase "lay people." amusing really. it implies a coven of
technical wizards and a mass of unwashed digital illiterates.
the haves
and the have nots of the information age. simplistic, and yet
there's a
sense that it's true. it comes up a lot here in ireland about
the
information poor, and the widening gap that's leaving some people
out.
how much will you need to learn, and what works will you need to
create
to prove your guru-hood? the fact that you spoke out before
reaching
guru - will that raise the bar for the level you'll need to
maintain?
questions you might want to put to the community.
as an aside, stephen king starts out one of his books that he
penned as
richard bachman by discussing the idea that the beatles had about
touring under a false name to see what it would be like to start
again.
he deemed it impossible, but on the net it seems quite reasonable
that
one could reinvent oneself regularly on the net. maybe something
to
try.
anyway, those three motives. q*bert's comment also seems to
relate to
fitting in, and perhaps if it's really true that geeks fail to
fit in
when young that they would try hard to do so later on - and be
just as
exclusionary as their adversaries before. it was true for me,
though i
try not to exclude people. are you just drawn because of some
unique
quality of the community, or did you yourself not fit in as a
child?
i'm not incredibly keen on "the community" concept. not sure if
it
fits, but i suppose that would be part of understanding. it is
used a
lot, sometimes in a way that seems false, sometimes not. and
perhaps
that too is an element of understanding. and as a writer it
seems
obvious that you would want to explain that to others.
all in all i for one do like the fact that you write for
remember
that people are more likely to pass along negative then positive
feedback - a shame really. i think in some ways you seem to
straddle
the gurus and newbies. holding mirrors up to both. people don't
always
like what they see.
katz.pl (Score:2)
# katz.pl
# $Revision: 0.94 $
for (;;) {
open($dialogue, "</dev/community") or msgrcv(getpeername);
while (<$dialogue>) { listen; reverse @opinion }
while (shift @opinion) {
&examine(values %ENV);
crypt(quotemeta);
s/'/]/g;
s/19\d\d/l9\d\d/g;
s/\b\.(\s)/,$1/g;
write and msgsnd;
accept($hatemail, $flames) or die;
}
read;
}
Jamie McCarthy
What does this solve? (Score:2)
Aside from the people who are interested in what he personally thinks about things, what was the purpose of this interview? I don't think anybody was misguided enough to think that this interview was going to unite everyone under one flag of either hating or loving Katz. Repeatedly in his answers, he pointed out that he's just another member of the slashdot community, just like anybody else that wants to be. I agree with him on that, he is a member of the slashdot community, and though I don't have to like it, I do have to accept it, because I don't think anybody deserves to be thrown out of slashdot.
But still, if he's just another average slashdot joe as he sometimes portrays himself, (the only difference being that his comments have a "moderation" so powerful that they show up on the main page) then what's the effective difference between interviewing him and interviewing some other prolific slashdot poster who has a large crowd of people who both love and hate him? (Just tossing out names, people like Signal 11, Foogle, Bruce Perens, Tom Christiansen, etc)
So, I'm not trying to flame, but I'm honestly curious - aside from quenching the curiosity of a few people who honestly want to know what it's like to be inside Jon Katz's head, what was the purpose of this interview???
(Oh, and what gives with the superscript 1's for the apostrophes?)
Amen (Score:2)
I'm thinking though that Katz has set a record for the longest set of answers to an interview. There might be a longer interview elsewhere where the person got more questions, (like I think the l0pht interview was pretty long) but in general this seems like one of the longer ones.
I could of course be smoking crack on that one though, just that this one "feels" longer. (Whether that's an unintentional indictment of his writing style or not, I don't know)
The fatal error (Score:2)
People may accuse me for being an elitist, but...back in the day, when not only was the signal/noise ratio good, but there still was discernible signal on slashdot, back when people weren't constantly questioning the ethics of the people writing the damn stories because they hadn't been bought and sold 1000 times, and back in the day before the grits pouring, natalie worshipping people who inhabit these parts now, slashdot MIGHT have been worth taking seriously.
Since all of that stuff has long since happened, it's not worth taking seriously.
What I don't understand is this - you're sticking up for Jon Katz against the flamers as if it was hurting YOU personally. It shouldn't. And even if you were Jon Katz, it shouldn't hurt you personally. Remember all of the drawbacks of anonymity, and how AC's are the "emotional" equivalents of script kiddies - they strike out at anything that they can see, hoping that in one out of 1000 people that they'll actually make some headway.
These are just flames, messages posted on a board. If you lose sleep over them, that's when you should worry about whether they're true or not. Just brush them off, and don't feel the need to stick up for Jon Katz since he doesn't feel the need to stick up for himself.
I don't mean this to sound like a flame, but even if it does, I don't particularly care. Because I know that I'm a complete stranger to you, and that since this post isn't presenting any technical knowledge, you should feel very free to completely ingore it and think of me as just some random idiot.
If it makes you any happier, you should. Don't let this stuff get to you. Stick around slashdot long enough, and you'll be tarred and feathered with flames. But they don't have any basis in objective reality - they're just the knee-jerk reactions of some complete stranger that you will NEVER MEET in your entire life.
Re:A /. Counterpoint to Katz? (Score:2)
It's not meant as an insult to writers, but I do think that a certain amount of the old adage: "Those who can, do, those who can't, teach" is true.
My LUG is having that problem right now. A lot of the people in my LUG are absolute perl *wizards* but they're so damn busy coding and making wheelbarrow loads full of money at it that they don't have time to come sit down and TALK about linux.
Maybe it's the same with writers and linux. The people who are the ones that you'd really like to see write a weekly column, (like say, Linus or Alan Cox) are too damn busy doing what it is that put them in that spot of your admiration to enjoy your admiration by actually writing.
Sucks, don't it?
64,000$ Question (Score:2)
Are you paid for these articles? If so, are you freelance or employed by Andover or VA or whatever we're calling them today?
Re:Filtering (Score:2)
Re:Filtering (Score:2)
> like the Jon Katz interviews (CmdrTaco is responsible for those).
It would be correct to say that said filter is fuck-all use then? But then that's the idea. Give the plebs the illusion of choice.
Re:Open Letter to Jon Katz Flamers (Score:2)
Re:Open Letter to Jon Katz Flamers (Score:2)
> personally, but like he said, that doesn't happen in the threads, only
> on e-mail.
If that's the case, the solution is obvious. Why don't you and JK and co. form yourselves a little e-mail list (closed, of course), where you can chatter away to your hearts' content without the gross light of reality intruding?
Preaching (Score:2)
I think it would be much more entertaining and thought-provoking if Rob, Katz, and the others jumped into the forums and broke down the barriers between author and poster. In my mind they're the same thing ... or ought to be.
Re:..just a quick note (Score:2)
;)
Re:10 Katz articles for the price of one! (Score:2)
The one I read said nothing of either of the sorts you assert.
In particular, the one I read said merely that since he's had a bunch of books and articles REVIEWED, with no complaints about his grammar, his grammar must be good enough to do the job asked of it.
I find Jon's conclusions often to be unwarranted, and I'd certainly never hire him as a system administrator (nor would he apply for the job), but I don't think either of your complaints actually apply to the man in any way.
At least, they don't apply to the article to which you posted them.
The problem with Katz... (Score:2)
Secondly, the man has nothing interesting to say. He is a master at filling a page with verbiage, but when one goes back to actually analyse his content, you often realize that he either said very little, or that he said something painfully obvious. The only time he does have anything to say is when he talks about politics, and in that case he trots out a tired anti-corporate, anti-capitalist, leftist dogma. He seems to believe that he can subsitute words for arguments. Even when he has a provocative or interesting opinion, he never manages to actually give evidence for it.
He also seems to view himself as the center of the universe. Half his article talk about his conversations with others, his attempts to install linux, his books, etc. He is clearly in it for the publicity of having thousands of geeks read his stuff and then click a link to buy his book.
Now, Katz has a right to be an incompetent writer writing long-winded, idea-free articles. My problem with him is that he is elevated above the rest of us and allowed to spread his nonsense accross slashdot's front page. He is the only one on Slashdot who does this, and he does a lousy job of it. It is not clear what function he serves.
Moderation (Score:2)
...
Rob's moderation systems have definitely made this better, and he thinks quite a bit about this issue.
Which is it, man? Make up your mind.
Re:Moderation (Score:2)
What gives you a reason to attack me? Are you his lap dog or something?
For the record, this was a sincere question. I realize that both sentences were not next to each other, but I believe each represent opposing points of view. In the first instance, I left out his quote about how "steering software is the anti-thesis of community." I don't feel my quote was out of context and, if anything, the context adds to my interpretation. He is clearly stating his opposition to the existance of moderation software and finds them detrimental to the health of discussion boards.
Later, he begins bashing ACs and flames and suddenly Rob's moderation system seems to be the solution.
So I honestly want to know: Does moderation kill a community or does it save the community? These are diametrically opposite points of view.
Others have commented on *their* opinion that moderation can be useful even if they don't use it or perhaps that they just use it to read high posts first. But that's not the opinion Jon has expressed. He stated that "steering" software was detrimental. While many people have perfectly valid reasons to both love and hate the moderation system at the same time, I do not understand the logic behind Jon's reasoning.
Re:Katz Flames (Score:2)
No, it's not! A paragraph should contain a point or an idea. There is actually a logic to writing. A good writer will make a point in one paragraph and when he finishes, he will start a new paragraph. A writer should not arbitrarily start a new paragraph without finishing his point, which is what Jon does.
> Would you prefer 50-line paragraphs, or 5 line paragraphs?
A writer who spends 50 lines on a single paragraph is almost certainly expressing more than a single idea in that paragraph. Paragraphs should not be arbitrarily long anymore than they should be arbitrarily short. With Jon, I'm always left guessing why he started a new paragraph.
Reading an entire Jon Katz article is hard work. Scanning it can be even harder. When scanning, one usually reads the beginning of a sentence. If the reader is uninterested or he feels the point is sufficiently clear, he can skip ahead. In a Jon Katz article, it is difficult to determine how far to skip. You can't just go to the next paragraph because it is usually part of the same idea and should have been included in the last paragraph.
> This is what you do when you need to present information in a dense, cluttered layout.
Actually, you should start with an outline and try to make your point clearly. Jon writes about lay topics for a lay audience. He's not presenting any extreme depth to his topic. There's no reason for him to write in a disorganized stream of conciousness. He's trying to make a point and it shouldn't be a chore for me to "get it".
The problem with Jon is not that his articles are long, but that they are too long and say too little. He repeats his ideas. He says the same thing in different ways. He rewords his last sentence and says it over.
Sometimes, he repeats an idea in a new paragraph for no reason.
He labors on his topic. He doesn't know when to stop. He feels that his every word is precious and is unwilling to delete any of it. He spends too many words saying too little. He says the same thing in new ways without adding anything. He paraphrases himself. He doesn't present new ideas, he just reiterates his original idea.
Re:Moderation (Score:2)
But he claims not to agree with it at all:
"To me, steering software is the anti-thesis of community."
Hardly... (Score:2)
It is not inappropriate. (Score:2)
Katz is the topic here. That is what, I believe, the particular poster was commenting on originally.
Furthermore, even if Katz is not the topic, and his article is about, say, "geeks", Katz's grammar (not to mention his other "habits") does not suddenly become immaterial. When you consider the fact that :
a) There are limited opportunities for feedback. Email being the only way I can think of.
b) Katz is one of the select few individuals chosen, by the powers that be, to post articles.
c) Katz is an employee and "friend" of the editors--he is entrenched.
d) The powers that be have, in so many words, said "too bad" in numerous emails (the first, and only, line of attack).
e) Katz's highly inflamatory writing, despite his impopularity with many (perhaps even most), might still fatten Slashdot's wallets.
People who dislike Katz may, in fact, be best advised to act much like they have (though I disagree with many particular methods, e.g., "Katz sucks"). I personally believe the best way to handle Katz's position on Slashdot is to post occasionally on Katz's threads, and to try to educate Slashdot Jr's as to how Katz and Slashdot operate. If we users can create some kind of consensus...enough to reach that critical threshold where people just agree to either stop reading slashdot entirely, or just ban Katz, we might prompt the owners to change their approach.
For those who will, inevitably, tell me that I can merely ignore Katz, I say hogwash. Katz does not operate in a vacuum. Or, to borrow and taint a phrase from Martin Buber, "Idiocy anywhere is idiocy everywhere". Though this might prompt many to ring alarmist bells about fascism and the like, it does not make it any less true. Can you honestly tell me, that, when Katz posts an article, it doesn't affect the traffic and the quality of other articles? Can you honestly tell me that the owners don't sit on their asses at the end of the day after posting a Katz article and a few other meaningless articles, and feel satiated (or atleast their wallets fattened)? Tell me, what happens to the quality articles, not to mention the discussion? Katz changes the dynamic of slashdot, it is as simple as that. While some may argue that it is, on the aggregate, for the better, I disagree strongly.
While my only right, when push comes to shove, is to leave slashdot (and maybe even compete against them), I will not do so without a fight. If this is a community, then I take some ownership of it beyond just what I directly hear and what I say. I may not own slashdot, and I might not speak for the community, but it is not much of a community if communication is only one way.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, maybe not (Score:2)
Well, yeah, but. I think I'd just as soon that Katz not jump into the forums. Nothing against him, mind you, just the hordes of lamoids whose IQs seem to drop (and testosterone levels soar) everytime they read something by him.
It's like some sort of weird Pavlovian response. ("Hey, Katz wrote something! Bark! Bark! Bark!") Their posts would be pretty distracting.
Jon, are you reading this? (Score:2)
I was wondering whatever happened to the Brill's Content gig. I don't remember seeing any mention from you or Content that you weren't writing for them, but I can't remember seeing anything from you in there lately either. What's up?
Just as an aside, and as a charter BC subscriber, thank God they got rid of Brill, and I can only hope that the new editor does a better job of keeping her (I think it's a her) biases in check.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Katz's "stark" opinions (Score:2)
I think the reason his opinions sound that way to US are because we see so much of his writing.
Here's a suggestion: Katz, make your pieces a little shorter, and write less often - say, no more than three essays per month. Slashdot, get one or two more authors that like to write about various aspects of technology/society, and have them do the same thing - a couple of essays per month.
That way, we'll get perspectives from more than one person, and we won't read so MUCH of one person's writings.
--
grappler
ChristoGeeks (cool name...) (Score:2)
But He is! All Christians believe this... It seems odd to say that if He were alive today you would be in His church, when the only reason for anyone to be in His church is _because_ he is alive today!
Gerv
Re:ChristoGeeks (cool name...) (Score:2)
How can you say "Christ is in heaven, not alive". His is in Heaven, and alive! This is not even contraversial Christian doctrine.
The bodily (not spiritual, bodily) resurrection of Jesus, the appearance of himself in his old body (remember Doubting Thomas) and the fact that he is alive today are basic qualifications for calling whatever it is you believe "Christianity".
Gerv
What other non-geeks would be good /. essayists? (Score:2)
A question for the crowd: what non-geek commentator(s) would you like to see on slashdot?
--
"But, Mulder, the new millennium doesn't begin until January 2001."
What a surprise, the Katz filter circumvented (Score:2)
For the third time this week, and the fourth time this year already, a Katz article has been posted in such a way to circumvent the Katz filter used by the enormous number of /. readers that find even an article blurb on the front page to be beyond mere annoyance.
If you don't want us to be able to filter out Katz, why do you give us the false hope of the option? To some /. readers, the Katz filter alone is enough reason to get a user account. Is it in Katz's contract that you have to do everything, ethical or otherwise, to get his stuff before the largest number of eyeballs?
Are any other filters being circumvented? Katz is the only thing I filter. Is anyone annoyed about this kind of thing elsewhere in the site?
Re:What a surprise, the Katz filter circumvented (Score:2)
Re:Teenager? (Score:2)
Enabling the filter won't do you _any_ good, because the last four Katz articles have been posted in such a way to ensure that the Katz filter doesn't catch them. Presumably this is a commercially driven decision to derive more banner impressions and possibly sell more of Katz's book on geeks, though the result has actually been to bring hordes of people that don't mind flaming Katz into this thread and making a nuisance of our selves.
Lots of people have said that people like me that have posted messages like this one shouldn't bother to read the article. We are just trying to get through that this failure has been noted. I'm not here to flame Katz, and I don't go into Katz stories that get caught by the filter and flame them. If the filter was being respected, my posts wouldn't be here in the faces of the Katz fans. Katz fans, support the anti-Katz people in this, it will lower the amount of anti-Katz postings in here and make your day better.
Re:Filtering (Score:2)
Eric
PS Everyone *is* out to get you...
Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot. (Score:2)
Try a mirror. You, Paul, are whining about the lack of a "complete Jon Katz filter". I'll continue to state that you ought to have one built in... it's called a brain.
If that doesn't work, try this... /jon katz/i}
foreach $article (<ON_SLASHDOT>) {
next $article if $article =~
(you do realize this a joke, right?)
The guy is hardly my hero. I rarely ever agree with him, but I am reminded of the famous quote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
See, here is the difference... you don't want to read (or even see) Jon Katz articles, but you click on them anyway. Myself, I *choose* to read Jon Katz articles because all of you "I hate Jon Katz" whiners amuse me. Get the difference yet?
Sometimes I wonder why I bother trying to have a coherent and productive conversation with people who feel compelled to use phrases like "bum-boy" to make a point. References to latent homosexuality are not becoming... nor are they accurate.
Re:Filtering (Score:2)
BTW, there is no Jon Katz subject filter, so you'll still get articles like the Jon Katz interviews (CmdrTaco is responsible for those).
Cheers
Eric
Just another Katz article... (Score:2)
However, I do feel compelled to post this time, because there is one thing in this article that I agree with, that the Christian Right is neither.
They try to
- force
people to think their way, and I believe that is a violation of Great Commandment No.2: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Christ was about forgiveness, not comdemnation. Sure, they can memorize the entire Bible, but I wonder if they realize what it truly means.One more thing: Sure, religion can stand poking from Johnny, because no one cares what he says
Then again, what do I know? I'm a cradle Roman Catholic, apparently the lowest form of religious scum around these parts, ranking just below Satanism judging from the comments of certain others on Slashdot...
Katz's flame to Q*Bert (Score:2)
It really shows Katz's true colors.. that he really does believe ONLY HE knows Slashdot's TRUE audience, and because he gets 200-300 emails a day he is the Expert On Everything Slashdot.
I personally thought Q*Bert's post was just as valid and non-flamey as any other post, but Katz jumped all over him for no reason.
Obviously, Katz knows more about us than we do.
Corporations and Governments (Score:2)
Question: "...However, recently, events have shown that duly elected Governments around the world can be dictated to and ordered around by "Big Corporations", who are accountable to no-one, including the market place."
Answer: "...I think its a responsibility of government to keep the Net and the Web as free and non-commercial as is possible. I don't believe Libertarians would share that view...If I understand them correctly, the Libertarians present a strong political rationale for keeping a space like the Net free from corporate or government interference."
No, Jon, you don't understand Libertarians at all, in fact, you barely understand the internet. (Geez! You're promoting your own book right here in the interview. How commercial can you get!) Libertarians are opposed to involuntary interactions between human beings. This places them against governments and criminals. If a corporation commits a crime (theft, fraud, etc), then a libertarian will be against them. Libertarians do NOT believe that money or making money is evil, nor do they believe the size of an organization has anything at all to do with morality.
Commerce, as long as it remains a voluntary interaction between two individuals or groups, is supported by libertarianism. The philosophy finds nothing wrong with commercial concerns.
But the question, and Jon's reply equating freedom with anti-commercialism, assume that commerce is involuntary. But no one is forced to be subscribed to AOL, to buy Time magazine or to watch Tiny Toons. If corporations really had to power to dictate terms to governments, then where are the laws mandating purchases? (I don't consider government mandated monopolies to be commercial concerns) Why isn't Chrysler sending police to my door when I buy a Ford? How come I am not being sued by ABC/CBS/NBC for not owning a television? Why has Redhat not indicted me for running Slackware?
Corporations can only wield government power if the government first gives it to them. It's extremely frustrating to see people attack the symptom and not the disease.
Re:Uh, maybe not (Score:2)
Not that this would be proffesional journalism at all, but I think it'd be very interresting if someone like Roblimo would post an article that unknown to us was actually a Katz article. How many people would we see flaming away then?
Would all these people have the same reaction?
Sorta like the old "switcheroo" back in school where the kid who gets bad scores on essays put the name of some kid who always gets A's on his paper.
Re:Why I like Katz. (Score:2)
The problem with Katz isn't that he is technically clueless (sometimes to an amazing degree, though), and even not that he is quite clueless in general. The problem with Katz is that he cannot think cleanly and/or clearly, and he cannot write. What he posts to Slashdot is confused ramblings full of ridiculous exaggerations and passionate outbursts on silly topics.
It's painful to read Katz because he cannot organize either his thoughs or his writing. It looks like content-free stream-of-consciousness writing from some middle-schooler who thinks that nobody will take him seriously unless he inserts a sufficient number of "unprecedented", "once in a lifetime", "the most important since
Basically, Katz says stupid things and he says them badly.
Kaa
Editors! (Score:2)
Yep, including mistakes using non-ASCII editors to post ASCII text.
As far as I know editors do three different types of things for writers:
Given that you've published real books, I think your editor deserves a hearty thanks. While you often do have interesting things to say, I get the impression your editor does a lot of work before your books hit the presses.
Now you mention that Rob Jeff and Robin are great editors -- I dunno -- I haven't seen too much editing on their part, especially of the first type. They don't seem to catch the non ASCII characters, the run-on sentences, or any of the other mistakes. But then again, they're not really editors... nobody who spels az bad az rob kan be a reel editur.
You say Slashdot is hiring real editors? GREAT! I might actually read everything you write instead of skimming it if someone does a good job of editing it first.
And btw, using as a crutch that you "barely got through high school and didn't finish college" won't cut it. If you're going to call yourself a professional writer, you should expect to be treated as a professional writer. As a professional coder, any code I put out for public consumption will be decent code, even if I'm doing it for free. I'm not going to write uncommented spaghetti code that won't compile and then make the excuse that "I did it for free!"
This is sounding a bit like a flame, but that's not how I mean it. I find the subjects you choose for your articles interesting, and they do tend to promote discussion on Slashdot. But I tend to find them a pain to read, mainly because the writing style seems almost like a "stream of conciousness". I can't bring myself to read it all the way through. If you made sure that they were edited before they would posted I think they would be much better received.
A point about the playboy interview: (Score:2)
The playboy article has a quote from you:
That sure seems to be condescending way to look at the community that is nice enough to provide you with a forum to post your articles. Not to mention a condescending way to look at the New York Times.
I think the problem most people have is with "the frequency with which [you serve] as spokesman for the growing number of people who work and live online". In particular, the frequency with which you claim to represent and understand geeks, while being about as far from a real geek as possible. As you should know, being one who uses the term so frequently, being a geek is about more than just what you know about computers. Being a geek is about interest in technology, wanting to know how things work. Being able to see the beauty in a technical fix... But not only are you not technically sophisticated, you don't seem interested in these things. How can you claim to represent or understand geeks?
And btw, I don't resent you (although you at turns bore, annoy me and occasionally interest me), and I'm certainly no longer a teenager.
I knew this would happen (Score:2)
Step 2. Katz answers the questions about himself.
Step 3.
Anyone see a problem here?
Re:A /. Counterpoint to Katz? (Score:2)
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
Re:What a surprise, the Katz filter circumvented (Score:2)
Re:Open Letter to Jon Katz Flamers (Score:2)
I'd love to discuss some of Jon's points without an attack on him personally, but like he said, that doesn't happen in the threads, only on e-mail. Those discussions used to be here, but the noise got too loud.
Sad really, total freedom is choas, and choas isn't good for coherent discussion. AC's are a particularly determined kind of chaos.
Re:The problem with Katz... (Score:2)
Great point, next time we have an "interview" with someone, let's make sure they don't talk about themselves or what they do.
Re:More moderators. (Score:2)
Re:What a surprise, the Katz filter circumvented (Score:2)
Time to start hacking/looking for another solution I guess, g'day.
Re:Uh, maybe not (Score:2)
Re:Thanks for noticing (Score:2)
Re:More moderators. (Score:2)
You're the problem, dammit!
It's the good ACs that cause the deliemma.
Maybe Rob could roll up a 1/2 point auto-moderator. If an AC post contains any of the
Heres a funny thing. The other day I was reading USAToday (dead tree) about the "DDoS of Y2K". They were quoting
(if that doesn't show you how much geeks rule, what does...)
Re:What a surprise, the Katz filter circumvented (Score:2)
Dave Barry (Score:2)
He is not exactly a geek, yet his writing is often very interesting (hilarious) to geeks. If you don't know about this, go back and read "Read This First!," (it's in the sci.electronics FAQ) his review of Independence Day (pointing out, in a humourous manner, the one part that made geeks everywhere groan loudly), "Dave Barry's Guide to Guys," and many other interesting-to-geeks writings.
He even tackled EULAs. Check out this link [randomhouse.com] for a good geeky laugh.
I'm doubt Slashdot would actually hire him, though... Maybe they can, with all of that IPO money. It would definitely attract readers and he would be a good guy to have "on our side." He's made fun of M$ before, for the same reasons we tend to hate them.
Man, would that ever be cool...
ugh (Score:2)
How can you claim that? You are more arrogant that I ever imagined! So I guess you are the end-all of writers in every community. NSA spooks pull up Katz reviews of movies to find out where technology is headed. You seem to thing that you have an unlimited forum here. Everyone join me in going to your preferences and blocking everythign by Jon Katz. You are abusive of your rights on slashdot and posts things that are definitly not News For Nerds.
Also, How do you claim that you are read by highly technical linux geeks, when you rarely write about anything technical, much less a topic that can be highly technical.
You shouldn't abuse your position. Contrary to what world you have created in your mind, you sir are not a technocrat. You are not respected, your opinions are not well founded or much less explained in any fashion. All you do is sum up stories, dumb them down, then post them on slashdot.
Hell, I could write a perl script that would take the place of you.
Re:Haven is a troll (Score:2)
Re:Open Letter to Jon Katz Flamers (Score:2)
These "Jon Katz is an idiot" and "What horrible grammar!" are flamebait and offtopic, and I will moderate them as such.
-- iCEBaLM
Katz Flames (Score:2)
On his writing style. I really see nothing wrong with it... Katz is far from terse, and that comes from cutting his teeth by writing books and feature articles for magazines. Unlike other print forms (i.e. newspapers), editing for length is not much of a problem. You just slap in another signet and sell some more ads or add in some filler content instead of cutting an article. (Wonder why books often have tons of blank pages at the beginning or end? Filling out the signatures.)
As for the short paragraphs in his usual posts, that's a good thing. Short chunks of information are easier to read on-screen. Would you prefer 50-line paragraphs, or 5 line paragraphs? (Pending screen width, of course.) This is what you do when you need to present information in a dense, cluttered layout.
http://www.alistapart.com/stories/writin g/ [alistapart.com]
http://www.alistapart.com/stories/writi ng2/ [alistapart.com]
Jon Katz is an idiot. And so are you for not providing a valid argument. If you don't like Katz, don't read Katz. I know the filters didn't catch these last few articles, and that's a technical issue, not something to blame Jon about. Regardless, if you see a story about Katz, by Katz, etc. don't read it if you don't want to. All you're doing by posting and pissing and moaning is giving /. a few more page views on a Katz article. It doesn't take that much of an IQ to realise that the more page views Katz gets, the more you'll see of him.
If you want the filters fixed, I'd suggest emailing Rob or Hemos directly so they can directly evaluate the need.
Personal attacks. Interesting that so many people attack Jon for (supposedly) flaming Q*bert while in the same paragraph, they flame Jon on personal grounds. It's also interesting that many of the posts criticizing Jon's writing style are the most ill-edited pieces of drivel in the forums.
----
Re:another "Christogeek" responds (Score:2)
I never did get the issue of cloning, though. First of all, it's not such a big deal. Nobody has created life in the cloning, they're just putting existing components together using a process that much less efficient, far more costly and less likely to succeed. Secondly, why would you want a "clone"? It's not as if they take some skin samples, pop them in a machine, and out walks a perfect duplicate of yourself. The "clone" has to grow up from a baby just like you did, so it would be more like your child than your new twin.
JD
Re:Moderation (Score:2)
Anyway, my view on moderation tend to depend on what I'm after--if I want everything, flames, trolls, and all, I can get it--and frequently do. However, if I want something resembling civility (to steal a phrase) or a quick run-through, I set my threshold higher. I used to run at -1 flat mode, but changed it because I just got tired of lots of crap... and yes, I will admit to kicking back down to -1 just to read good trolls... ;)
I think this would go double if I was actually writing articles here--I'd always have my threshold at -1 when reading threads on my own stuff, and probably higher (0/1) when reading other comments...
-cicatrix
what, no ISO-standard character set? (Score:2)
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.5; Mac_PowerPC), fer shure....
Re:Preaching (Score:2)
--
My theory about the Katz flamers (Score:2)
Now I think I've got it. Here's my theory: these people are nuts. They are stark raving mad. I don't mean that as a figure of speech; I mean that they are suffering from a mental health disorder and are need of professional help.
Are they going to be offended by my theory? Boy, do I hope so, because I fancy the idea that my mere words have made their blood boil with apoplectic rage. What power I have, over complete strangers! In fact, maybe Jon has had a similar notion and has decided to provoke the Kooks just for the sheer sport of it. It sure seems easy to pull their the string, just type a few lines, hit "Submit" and watch them cavort in madness. It's like shooting at their feet and commanding them to dance. Now DANCE, ye Kooks!
Re:Christianity ... Occam's Razor. (Score:2)
Oh, and the Santa Claus thing was really meant as a joke; the real thrust of my idea was the rest of the post.
Re:Christianity ... Occam's Razor. (Score:2)
Re:the problem w/ religion in politics... (Score:2)
Re:religous political figures (Score:2)
Re:another "Christogeek" responds (Score:2)
Re:Fine. I Don't Like You. (Score:2)
They weren't bad
I don't care if you're a geek or not. I wish my mother read Slashdot for some of the good news here
We need a truly free way to start new threads -- that would make a big difference
With some simple A HREF'ing, I can link you to a related subject (as some authors do now) and continue the discussion there
... why does Katz get to be "the editorial voice" of a community that doesn't need representing?
Re: Organised Religion ... (Score:2)
Comfort is not the issue, truth and meaning are (Score:2)
atheism is NOT a religion; it is based on logic and reason; religion is based on faith and presumption
Well, I don't know about atheism being a religion, although it has seemed to be one for some atheists I have known personally. If atheism is not a religion it is most definitely a belief --
When those of us who are theists (those who believe in a personal supernatural being that intervenes in history -- that covers a lot of territory, religiously -- Jews, Christians, and Muslims, Hindus perhaps, I'm not sure) discuss God, we are not talking about Santa Claus, some magical figure that "defies the laws of physics" as you put it. I think you may misunderstand the word "supernatural" as it applies in this kind of a discussion, as opposed to the Blair Witch Project. "Supernatural" is not magical, weird, or necessarily occult: it comes from the Latin meaning above or greater than nature. Or in another way, outside of nature, and therefore, the "laws of physics".
Here's an example from physics. For more than a thousand years, the accepted "laws of physics" were understood to be the body of Greek and Hellenistic theories about the natural world that is often referred to as Aristotelean physics. Based on the experience of phenomena that was available, these theories worked just fine. Much later on, observations from astronomy, coupled with much better mathematical tools, allowed Newton to rework physics completely once again, based on a wider base of experience. And, incidentally, the Newtonian theories still work just fine for the phenomena they were intended. Starting in the 19th century, new phenomena such as radioactivity led theorists such as Planck, Maxwell, Einstein, Bohr, Dirac, et. al. to construct brand new "laws of physics", some of which seemed, and seem nonsense, unless you understand the domain of phenomena they were intended to make sense of. But they are very practical -- the computers that you and I are using depend on a knowledge of quantum mechanics.
To us, God is a person outside the natural world, and is the person who created it. This set of theories or beliefs are what we use to make certain phenomena -- our experence of our own human experience, of values such a truth or beauty or justice, make sense. Can we "prove" the existence of God? Well, to some extent, it is a meaningless question, if you mean can I prove the existence of God the same way I prove the existence of Peoria or Phobos. If God is outside the frame of natural experience in the manner I state above, I can no more "prove" his existence than Einstein could have meaningfully discussed the truth of Special Relativity before such experiments as the Michaelson-Morley demonstration.
In the very same way, you cannot disprove the existence of God either, you can just choose whether or not it makes sense for you to believe that there is a God. The issue is not whether or not religious persons use reason or logic (I would say about the same percentage do as non-religious persons - too few) but the body of experience that religious persons apply logic and reason to in evaluating their beliefs.
Why do I believe? Because when I consider all of my life's experiences, I can make more sense of what I know by believing in God. In making the important decisions of my life, I believe that those decisons made in light of that belief have been good decisions. But comfort has little to do with it. As you move from simple theistic belief to true religion, you move from simple intellectual assent, to a relationship that involves trust, accountability, and cost. I am a Christian, and a Roman Catholic, both by choice. I would be much more comfortable (in some ways) as the agnostic I once was, than having to face up to the responsibilities that result from confronting what I see as the truth.
BTW, I can honor Jon's attitude, even if I don't share it.
Claude
It's a trap! (Score:2)
Note for the humor impaired: buggroff.
Good grief. (Score:2)
While your attempt at pshchoanalyzing someone you have never met was interesting to read, I believe you make many assumptions that you have little reason to.
Katz writes articles that are intended to stimulate discussion... maybe that is not what you view as worthy of some kind of ideal community you seem to think Slashdot is (both of you take this community thing waaay too far), but it is certainly a very legitimate method of writing. Katz is right in saying that the internet is an arena where this style is highly appropriate, and I welcome it, believing it has flourished here on Slashdot (despite the trolls).
I come to Slashdot because I enjoy the discussions, not just the articles (which it seems you do too, if you post and read the threads)... If every writer here only posted when they were "sure they were right", this would certainly not be as vibrant of of what I believe is an incredibly unique site.
No one needs to be accepted here, and I do not believe Katz is striving for that. He is doing something that he loves doing. He writes on topics which are interesting to him (even if he does not know everything about them) and to a lot of people who come here. I think it is easy to entertain the idea that he has learned a lot since coming to Slashdot, as have a great majority of the users. Quit picking this apart (I did not know they had a scientific name for annoying nit-picker, but thank you for providing it).
The idea of never listening to someone again (as in all the "My Katz-filter is not working" cry-babies) because you do not happen to agree with them just seems so assinine to me; You never know where a good idea can come from.
Do you think the "Slashdot Community" could ever accept me!? Oh pretty please.
The trolls have logged in. (Score:2)
While I would not be sad to see them kicked off, I think the best solution for everyone is to increase the moderators.
More moderators. (Score:2)
The last few times I have moderated, I spent 4 out of 5 points moderating down trolls. That is really annoying.
I just think the best solution is doling out more moderation points per moderator, or selecting more moderators... as opposed to any sort of a killfile.
Re:A /. Counterpoint to Katz? (Score:2)
Re:A /. Counterpoint to Katz? (Score:2)
Those writing often seem to be not busy (and perhaps should be) with other things, mainly with what their writing about. A sad little fact leading to some critical errors that I've seen in many articles by "those who teach." One problem I often see is the fact that the writers often do not stop to explain what they're writing about, or if they do they do it poorly or incorrectly. Probably because some of them aren't "those ho can."
I sympathize with your situation in your LUG, I often leave people who ask for my help on their own to learn the hard way rather than interrupt my own projects.
Yep, it sucks.
Particular AC is very dense. (Score:3)
A view, a judgement, an appraisal, a belief ... less strong than positive knowledge. None of these imply any possibility of a correct opinion.
Last I heard, /. was a news/discussion site, incapable of forming an opinion. Getting right down to it, /. is a bunch of perl code on several linux servers running Apache. On a more basic level, /. is nothing more than silicon, metal, plastic, ones and zeros. Machines don't have opinions (please, no ST:TNG references).
And, BTW, I for one don't think he should necessarily go away. I may not agree with him very often, but that is the whole point of opinions!
Eric
Open Letter to Jon Katz Flamers (Score:3)
I read most of Katz's articles, and I dont always agree with what he says, just like I wouldnt always agree with what my mom says, but I dont tell either that they're idiots.
After every article that Jon has a hand in, you always see the same things, "Katz is a moron", "What horrible grammar!", etc. Well I have one thing to say to that.
If you think he is a moron and writes with horrible grammar, stop reading his articles, dont waste hard drive space, bandwidth, and brain cells on reading it and flaming him as it does nobody any good.
I personally have no problem with Jon writing for slashdot, I couldnt care less about his grammar as long as I can understand his view points, and I dont care to read comments about how much of an idiot and how bad his grammar is. I'm sure many people agree with me.
These "Jon has bad grammar" and "Katz is an idiot" comments need to start being moderated down, and even if it costs me karma or lengthens my time between receiving moderator points, I'm going to practice what I preach when I can.
-- iCEBaLM
authors conspicuously absent (Score:4)
They aren't. I am a Slashdot author, and I'm conspicuously present in the public forums. I did the Borgification and Interface article. I have every intention of doing another, heartily encouraged by at least Roblimo who posted the last one- when I have something well-developed enough to say that I'm ready to spend some days writing it, just as if it was for print.
I tend to run long but not, I think, repetitively- basically the only time I feel I have an article is when I have a _lot_ of ground to cover. I disagree strongly with some of Katz's writing principles- I figure, if you are not quite sure you are right, why are you writing anything at all? The world has a way of _editing_ your rightness- unless you are truly pigheaded there's no reason to be wishywashy and pretend you don't have an opinion. If you are off base you _will_ be corrected, and at that point your notion of what is completely right will change. Rightness is not really a destination, it's more of a process- it is time based. I took pains to time-stamp the argumentative essays on airwindows.com [airwindows.com] for just this reason. When I go back and look at my ideas later, some of them will be wrong in the new context.
I feel that to fully interact with a world that is both embracing and hostile, you have to have both humility and selfconfidence- not one or the other, _both_ in large amounts. I figure I do pretty well on those grounds, mostly because I have to. I believe Jon Katz is on the one hand lacking in humility (which is a _very_ easy and obvious criticism to make) but on the other hand, lacking in selfconfidence. This sets him up to try and pull rank and _assert_ a superiority he does not feel and isn't entitled to- which is a large part of why he's not slugging it out in the threads like writers like me.
I can only guess at the reasons for this, but I'd single out Jon's attempts to censor his past from himself- he doesn't honor all parts of his life. He was a very heavyweight media exec, the Executive Producer of the CBS Morning News, and this seems to have horrified him so much that he attempts to call this another, now disdained, life. It is as if that life is not part of him at all.
Unfortunately, you can't do that- I suppose Thomas Merton, Jon's Trappist monk, led a more sheltered life which did not contain elements of shame. This is why Jon would be drawn to him, but it wouldn't equip Merton to be able to teach Jon about coming to terms with all elements of his life- and so he hasn't, and this is a barrier preventing Jon from dealing with us on equal terms.
I realize that I am a _strange_ candidate for bringing further enlightenment, but on other hand I'm one of the two critics Jon named who post under their own names with their own emails handy. I too have had supportive email from intelligent people over this. In retrospect, I'm a little disappointed in myself that I didn't consider the idea that _Jon_ felt inadequate: I know perfectly well how this sort of thing works, and now we have all the clues (former big media job that was repudiated, shame over past 'lives', efforts to behave 'born again' to totally disclaim the former life and not accept it in the slightest way) to see that, as so often happens, Jon's seeming arrogance is compensation. It reads as arrogance, but comes from feelings of inadequacy. Beating on him frankly doesn't help alter this, it perpetuates it, and I'm not surprised Jon resents such beating though he can't articulate it in a way that will help to stop it.
I would suggest,
I, for one, would not continue saying 'no' if that was the question. Jon, people desperately want to resolve the contradictions in your presence here, but they can't until you come to terms with the contradictions within yourself. I'm almost completely sure that a lot of this stems from the whole 'rejection of media trendy' thing you've done to yourself- completely rebelling against what had to be a major part of your life, and desperately searching for something to redeem it, make it like it never happened. How about instead asking if perhaps Slashdotters could accept these parts of you? I see no reason why that wouldn't happen. In effect, you have decided for yourself that being a bigshot executive producer was _so_ bad that nobody can possibly accept you unless you pretend it didn't happen. It would be much healthier and more effective if you quit trying to deny entire parts of your life, and got honest about them. You pontificate a bit much for a writer- but there's a harmony and appropriateness about your pontificating as a writer-ex-bigshot-TV-producer... a friendly one, one that really loves geek culture and wants to further it, help it. That is likeable, more likeable than an incongruously bombastic philosopher-writer...
Be who you are, and I know that many of _my_ objections to your presence, your writing, will tend to fade away. This is because of who _I_ am: I have Asperger's Syndrome, and I do tend to fixate on such incongruities and hammer them into the ground- it's my nature, I have a tough time letting go of such things. It looks to me now that there's a path for you to be in more harmony with Slashdot, but it requires you to quit trying to redefine yourself using Slashdot as a tool- and _accept_ yourself, including the bits that shame you, with slashdot as an environment.
For the first time in a long time I'm genuinely happy I don't filter you, because this is just the sort of insight I needed to get... I might actually start wanting to hear from you if you can grow in this way. The key point is that not being who you are is a barrier: you've been getting defensive, you fight it, you try to be superior to avoid having your barrier broken, avoid the "He's nothing but a 'tired TV producer'!", and in doing so you cut off any chance of real communication- which is your only hope of thriving in the new media, much less as a person among other people.
Be who you are. Slashdot will accept a writer/pontificator/ex-TV-producer. What it will not accept is somebody who insists on being So Much More than an ex-TV-producer. Your efforts to 'rise above' what is only part of your life are separating you from the people whose community you want to belong to...