Tag: blogging

Question for bloggers (and blog readers)

At what point in the process of meeting new people do you drop the “I have a blog” or “I’m a blogger” bombshell? Obviously we all blog for attention. Right.

I’m a little self-conscious these days because sometimes people talk to me about my blog(s), in front of people I’ve just met, or people who don’t know I blog, and those people respond in one of a few ways, none good, some will say “why didn’t you tell me you had a blog” or “I can’t believe you have a blog. You nerdo loser”… or then I just feel the need to go into sales pitch mode about why people should read my blog, or some sort of justification about why I blog, or that falsely humble “oh that old thing…” Although, like in the parable of the sower (awesome analogy for blogging) there are some people who become regular readers, who even comment some times, and I like that.

And if I just casually mention my blog(s), in conversation (usually in the form of “did you see on my blog” to somebody I know reads it, or “you should see this awesome thing I found and posted on my blog” to somebody I want to read it) in front of somebody who knows I have a blog and falls into that latter category (the “you nerdo loser” one) then they mock more.

Bloggers: how do you navigate those heady waters? Non-bloggers: how much do you want bloggers talking about their blogs in the real world? We all want people to read what we write right? And we all want to read interesting stuff online right? Why can’t we all just get along.

March 2, 2011

For Mitch, my brother-in-law…

My brother-in-law Mitch takes great pride in not reading this blog. He’s only interested in “real” websites by “qualified” people. Or something. I think he knows it’s awesome and addictive and he deliberately avoids it. This might be more like it.

Sadly, he’ll read this because his name is in the title.

Via Gary’s blog.

February 21, 2011

In which the author considers the types of videos he shares from YouTube

For a moment, just a fleeting second, on Tuesday, I had a pang of conscience. I post a lot of videos here that I loosely categorise as “Christians doing stupid stuff and posting it on the Internet”… I was wondering why it is I post such videos. The other sites that do it seem to do it because they don’t like Christianity very much. But that’s not me. I love Christianity. I love the church. I love broken and stupid people trying to serve God with their gifts. And yet. I watch a video like this:

And I think “I just need to post that” – I didn’t post that video on Tuesday, and I only post it now, because it illustrates a point. Stripped of context that video is really dumb. In context, it’s an instructional video for a holiday kids club (judging by the title) that I assume has been uploaded to YouTube to cut down on pointless time in leaders meetings. A nobel aim. One that should be applauded (there are “private video” settings on YouTube though – which are probably more suitable for this sort of thing).

There are Christian videos online, and there are videos from “Christian Culture”… and there are those that just brilliantly highlight what is wrong with some of the parasites that have attached themselves to Christian culture…

Others just contain laughably bad theology.

So, I felt a little guilty about laughing at brothers and sisters in Christ. I thought “people laughed at Noah when he was building an ark, just because something looks stupid doesn’t mean it is.”

Then. I read this post on the Dilbert Blog by Scott Adams called the mockability test. And it kind of summed up why I think we need to call out Christians when they do ridiculous stuff. And lets face it. If God hadn’t directly said to Noah “build an ark I’m going to flood this place” – it would have been pretty ridiculous to build a massive ark and start collecting pairs of animals (I might be looking at you, creation museum builders).

Here’s a snapshot from the Dilbert article:

“I have a theory that some sort of mockability test would work like a lie detector in situations where confirmation bias is obscuring an underlying truth. In other words, if you believed that hard work often leads to success, and yet I could easily make jokes about it, that would be a contradiction, or a failure of the mockability test. And it would tell you that confirmation bias was clouding your perceptions. To put it in simpler terms, if a humorist can easily mock a given proposition, then the proposition is probably false, even if your own confirmation bias tells you otherwise.”

What I really want, when I post these videos, is for any of my readers who are interested in seeing the gospel being spread to their neighbours to take stock – and make sure that everybody in any of their flocks, spheres of influence, or family, avoids doing stuff that makes Christians a laughing stock.

The cards are stacked against us as it is with our counter-cultural gospel without us building extra obstacles onto our culture. You know the type of obstacle I’m talking about. The type that makes it look like being a Christian requires twirling flags around and speaking in tongues, or being completely off your face (though I’d put those people in the “calling out heretics” category not in the “hey this is slightly wacky” category), or just looking like an idiot. And I want non-Christian readers to go “yeah, those people are on the fringe of Christianity and converting doesn’t mean I have to have a lobotomy”…

So that’s why I’m going to keep posting videos of Christians doing dumb stuff on the internet. Because family members do dumb stuff all the time – and it’s loving to call them out on it in the hope that they’ll stop. It’s tough love.

What do you think? Should we be mocking videos of Christians, or people calling themselves Christians, doing stupid stuff? Are there reasons I haven’t considered for, or against, my argument?

February 11, 2011

Thrilling News

Dear readers,

Thank you for your patience with my excruciating number of exam related posts in the last two weeks. My fellow students like it, and it helps me to clarify my thoughts.

You will be glad to know that other than a couple of Greek posts I might make in the next day or two, the exam related content is over and done with for another nine months.

I now return you to the regular irregularity that is st-eutychus.com.

Regards,

Nathan

November 16, 2010

Flattery from Spammers

Every now and then I dip into my spam folder just to get some warm fuzzies. Spammers say much nicer things than the rest of you commenters.1

“I find myself com­ing back to your web-site only because you have lots of awe­some insights and also you hap­pen to be at this a while, which is very impres­sive and tells me you know your stuff.”

“You cer­tainly have some agree­able opin­ions and views. Your blog pro­vides a fresh look at the subject.”

“nice a day St. Euty­chus , i look your blog , be a nice blog and use­ful. Good for every­one. best review for View all posts in Sport and par­ent­ing con­tent. i going to often to read and review your website.”

“howdy St. Euty­chus , i look your blog , that a nice blog and use­ful. Great for every­one. a lot of Con­scious­ness and Cof­fee con­tent. i will often to read and review your website.”

“good molly St. Euty­chus , i read your blog , be a nice blog and per­fect. Great for every­one. use­ful View all posts in Con­scious­ness and t shirts con­tent. i going to often to read and com­ment your website.”

“This is a good blog mes­sage, I will keep the post in my mind. If you can add more video and pic­tures can be much bet­ter. Because they help much clear under­stand­ing. :) thanks Firneis.”

“Greet­ings, this is a gen­uinely absorb­ing web blog and I have cher­ished study­ing many of the con­tent and posts con­tained on the web site, keep up the out­stand­ing work and desire to read a good deal more stim­u­lat­ing arti­cles in the future.”

“Very enlight­en­ing and ben­e­fi­cial to some­one whose been out of the cir­cuit for a long time.

– Lora”

So there you have it. Some people do think my blog is pretty awesome after all.2

1 Please note, this is not a passive aggressive plea for warm fuzzy comments.
2 Ok, that one might have been. You can leave them on this post.

November 8, 2010

Impending milestone

Sometime this week I’ll hit 4,000 posts. This is cause for celebration. What should I do?

Also, please, dear readers, help me to choose a winner from my “make me a Mexican” challenge. The winner will receive a prize, a real prize. Of real value.

October 8, 2010

An online pulpit? Ministry and social media

A couple of conversations online in the last two days, and a couple in the real world, have caused me to think about the pastoral implications of being part of the oversharing generation.

I have many politically motivated friends on Facebook who happen to be in vocational ministry. Conventional ministry, from the generation above mine, is that ministers shouldn’t be endorsing any particular political view (I think Peter Jensen articulated this best in his ABC interview a few weeks back).

People in ministry are in positions of influence. There’s something about the pastoral or discipleship relationship that inherently imbues strongly held personal opinions with a possibly unhelpful significance. We’re not good at splitting our personal convictions from our theology – partly because most of our personal convictions flow from our theological presuppositions (which are also personal convictions, but hopefully biblically based).

Anybody in this sort of relationship needs to maintain a detached objectivity and the ability to put forward views with nuance. But we also need to be able to speak of our convictions on non-essential issues without being slammed or defriended.

So the question I’m grappling with is as I move towards holding more “influence” as a vocational minister is how do I do that and remain a person of conviction who is prepared to put forward views on controversial issues like politics or education.

I have a real problem with people equating what Christians in ministry say online – either in their Facebook statuses or their blogs – with a “thus sayeth the Lord” statement on reality. We need a diversity of voices speaking on complex issues in order to nut out an appropriate position. I’ve spoken to people who’ve suggested it’s inappropriate for anybody in ministry to critique non-essential decisions of those they are pastoring because it’s not pastorally sensitive – but how do we critique the prevailing consensus, if we believe it’s wrong, without speaking our mind. So, for example, if your church has a culture of advocating for one particular method of educating children. If there are parents who look down their noses at other parents who don’t send their children to a particular brand of school (this is a purely hypothetical situation), then how do we put forward our views without causing some offense? How do we do it right? How do we maintain our humanity? We don’t want to be the “toe the party line” drones who are dominating our political landscape too afraid to say anything that might lose votes.

I don’t think a blog is the pulpit, but it is a pulpit. It’s a bit like Tony Abbott calling on people to only trust his carefully worded statements rather than his off the cuff responses. Sermons are tightly prepared exegesis aimed to teach people the word of God. Posts on a blog are opinion pieces that are hopefully not contrary to sound exegesis – but I don’t think the burden of responsibility is the same. We should be careful with how we use our tongues, and our keyboards, and should steer clear of slander, malice, dishonesty and gossip. But to suggest that we can’t speak out on issues that we feel strongly about by equating blogging with being a called and appointed “teacher” is a little wrongheaded, and opens up a can of worms. Should I, for instance, read a woman’s blog if blogging is teaching?

Conversely, I think we need to be really careful to present our personal views with appropriate nuance. When we speak out in favour of a particular methodology, or political party, we need to frame it somehow as personal opinion in an issue of liberty. And I think blogs are a terrible forum for this. Controversy is inherent to the medium. Controversial posts get more hits, more comments, and are more fun to write. Controversial posts are also a much better corrective against opposing views. They make people think, they prompt discussion. But controversy is often not pastorally sensitive (though I reckon Jesus, Peter, and Paul were all pretty controversial). It annoys me when people post such controversial ideas when I disagree with their fundamental views. I get a bit narky.

Here are some thoughts around this subject, in list form.

  1. We all need to be careful to frame our views appropriately on issues of liberty.
  2. We need to be prepared to participate in discussions in a loving manner when we agree and when we disagree in order for discussions not to be bogged down in player-hating.
  3. We must recognise the limits of the medium – both in terms of non-verbal communication, and in terms of the form and function of blogs as dialogues primarily based on personal opinion not produced primarily as ministry, but rather as personal reflection and possibly the pursuit of wisdom (unless somebody deliberately sets out to have a ministry blog – but even then the medium needs to be taken into account). We interpret based on medium everywhere else. Peer reviewed journal articles are interpreted differently to the opinion column of a tabloid newspaper though both are ostensibly written communication.
  4. We need to frame our disagreements in love and with a desire to be reaching the same goal. A more nuanced view (because most of us start on extremes, most of the time).
  5. We need to be encouraging people to speak their minds on issues as part of the online conversation, and we need to be prepared to speak the truth with love if we think they’re wrong.
  6. Any outcome  that leads to those in ministry, who are hopefully generally well thought out theologically (and hopefully more broadly), being too scared to voice their opinions is less than ideal.
  7. People in ministry need to be sensitive to those reading their thoughts and not create unnecessary obstacles.

August 24, 2010

Confessions #5: Sometimes I post here rather than commenting elsewhere

I think blogging time, in my schedule, is a fungible thing. That’s a cool word I just learned. Basically, I have an allocated amount of time for “blogging” and I have to spread that time between writing, reading and commenting.

So sometimes I write lots of posts here and neglect the “community” aspect of blogging. Times like yesterday. Yesterday my blogging comrade and e-friend Ben mentioned a really significant moment. A momentous moment. He sold his house. Without having to go to auction. Which he had expressed concern about. What a relief that must have been for him, and his family. But here’s little old me. Blogging about pointless stuff like Jesus themed thongs. So caught up in my own world that I didn’t comment on his post. Nor did I take the obligatory Monday Quiz.

And now, a day afterwards, I feel guilty because I’ve missed the commenting boat. Other people, who have commented, clearly love Ben more. The only way I can possibly rectify the situation is by trumping a comment with a link. That’s how blog love works. The blug1 beats the comment. It’s like a game of scissors rock paper. The Blug beats the comment. The comment beats the read. And the read must therefore beat the blug – because there’s no point blugging if people aren’t reading.

1A portmanteau2 of blog and plug.
2The strategic mashing together of two words to form one concept. Like Venn diagramming words.

August 10, 2010

One among millions: Blogging infographics

It’s surprising how many of these apply…

May 27, 2010

XKCD on blogging

I like you readers. XKCD says I have to… they are a little cynical though, they think I want to make money out of blogging.
The Alt/title text of the image says: “I’m looking to virally monetize your eyeballs by selling them for transplants.”
Blogging

I’m not out to make any dollars from blogging. In fact, it costs me money. But you can buy this shirt:

Or some coffee.

May 19, 2010

Filtering the feeds

Some people (well, Dave Bailey who now has his own blog) have complained about their feed readers being overpowered by my posts. To help I’ve decided to point you all in the direction of the following options – you can, if you like, subscribe just to the feeds of individual categories – or you can subscribe to this feed I’ve just created using RSS mix that excludes the Curiosities, Coffee, and Sport categories and just has the serious stuff about my life, college, Christianity, tips for communication and any “cultural” insights I might come across.

Here’s the new megafeed.
Lucky you. Here are the links to the feeds for individual categories:

RSS Consciousness
RSS Curiosities
RSS Communication
RSS Culture
RSS Christianity
RSS College
RSS Sport
RSS Coffee

March 5, 2010

How to write a post that links to other posts

Sometimes I read links to awesome posts about cool stuff where the person does such a good job of describing the content at the other end that I don’t feel the need to click through. This is probably a bad thing. A few weeks back Kottke linked to a post about how to write an incendiary blog post. His post was good. I shared it via google reader, and thought nothing further of it.

Then Amy linked to the same post and I read the original. It’s funny. You should read it – and make sure you check out the comments too…

This sentence claims that there are many people who do not agree with the thesis of the blog post as expressed in the previous sentence. This sentence speculates as to the mental and ethical character of the people mentioned in the previous sentence. This sentence contains a link to the most egregiously ill-argued, intemperate, hateful and ridiculous example of such people the author could find. This sentence is a three-word refutation of the post linked in the previous sentence, the first of which three words is “Um.” This sentence implies that the linked post is in fact typical of those who disagree with the thesis of the blog post. This sentence contains expressions of outrage and disbelief largely expressed in Internet acronyms. This sentence contains a link to an Internet video featuring a cat playing a piano.

Here’s my favourite comment…

“This comment is by a trolling Jehova’s Witness who is filled with brotherly love for all the other commenters, but knows without meeting any of them that they all deserve to burn in hell forever. Fortunately, anyone willing to read this far is already jaded from way too much time spent reading comments.”

The moral to this story (other than that you should read both Amy’s blog and Kottke.org) is that you should always click through to interesting links.

February 27, 2010

3,000

About five posts ago I hit the 3,000 mark. This is my 3,005th post. I have 6,009 comments. That’s a pretty consistent two comment per post ratio. Thanks for taking part commenters. Lurkers – you get nothing.

February 3, 2010

Gold star design

Well. Not really. Though I do like the everything old is new again white look I’ve got going on now… if you’re a feed reader and haven’t checked it out – swing by.

You might also notice (though probably not – I never look there) that my sidebar (over on the far right now has a little thing called “Starred”. At the moment it just features posts I’ve personally given five stars. But you can join the fun.

All my posts have a star rating feature. Vote down my five starred ones and start giving out actual stars to good posts and those posts in the sidebar will change. We’re all about reader interaction here at St. Eutychus.

While I’m on the subject of reader interaction – if anybody wants to supply some guest posts about anything that loosely meets the categories already existing – just let me know. Perhaps you’re a professional animator and you’d like to talk about drawing, perhaps you’re a person who designs cool stuff you think is worthy of featuring in the Curiosities column, perhaps you’d like to review books or you’ve found cool stuff around the web, perhaps you’re theologically minded and want to write some great arguments criticising atheism (or another batch of great articles), perhaps you’re my little sister and you already have an account and could post funny puns whenever you want…

Also, while I’m just shamelessly self promoting and writing a post with almost no purpose… are you on my blogroll? Am I on yours? If you’re not on mine and I read you (or I should) tell me. If I am on yours – check to see if it’s going to the old nathanintownsville address – that no longer works.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled fodder.

January 13, 2010

How online content works

I’d love to be at the top of this pyramid. But generally sit somewhere between the second and 4th.

It’s ironic that in creating this diagram the author no doubt fell victim to those at the bottom of the pile. Read the original post for a description of the types of people operating online.

This is the author’s description of the “Aggregator” which aptly describes both himself and myself…

The third tier are people with an interest in a subject but with no real insight of their own. The kind of people who retweet the aggregators or make a list of “10 Great Resources” from stuff they’ve read in the papers that week. You’re looking at the kind of content that is read just by a small circle of people.

I class my own blog in that kind of sphere – I could probably give you the names of 50% of my daily visitors and I don’t really write anything of consequence there. But! The people who come there have a laugh and remember it. There are a lot of these blogs out there, and they touch each other in unexpected ways. You might not get relevant links from a site like this, but the ripples can spread quite widely. These people are probably also susceptible to a little flattery or cash

This is a similar idea, in many ways, to the “five types of blogger” I came up with last year.

January 11, 2010