| | Jason, thank you for saying in Post 7 everything that came to my mind as I read Phil's post, in particular,
I am in agreement with Phil's post and I sanctioned it but I have hesitated in making the same comments myself because I have yet to contribute ANY articles to SOLO and until I do I don't have any grounds for complaining that I am not receiving a better quality of free content.
Complaining about the quality of writing on a free website (and, in fact, devoting a lot of time to submitting such complaints, day-in and day-out), when you have contributed almost nothing yourself by way of articles, smacks of hypocrisy and Monday-morning quarterbacking.
Writing does not come easy to some of SOLO's submitters, but they are to be commended for taking the time to try something that isn't necessarily their forté, so that they can participate in this community and help to build SOLO. Sometimes even my editing can't fix everything, and their final article may have weaknesses, which SOLO's more skilled writers may of course see fit to point out in the article's Comments thread. For them to do so, when they have submitted no articles themselves, is shameful.
Editing is a service that I provide to SOLO's writers, free of charge, while trying to earn a math degree, work another part-time job, and get a Wall Street gig for after I finish college. I make many tradeoffs for this position, including sleep, social life, and intellectual development (Chris Sciabarra just sent me copies of the books in his trilogy, but I doubt I'll get a chance to read them any time in the next six months here). That may give you some idea of how I feel when I make a post asking for more work, only to see the discussion once again turned to hand-wringing and speculation as to why some of SOLO's better writers have gone, and why it's all our fault.
This announcement was essentially a commitment on my part to spend more time to provide SOLO writers with a public forum, and to help those whose prose needs a little improvement. Here was a great example of the benevolence you're always carrying on about -- and claiming that SOLO lacks -- staring you in the face, and what did you do, Phil? You opportunistically used it as a chance to once again criticize The Management, and me, by extension. And, as always, you inserted a well-crafted little Catch 22 phrase into your criticisms: if we agree with them, we're in the wrong, and if we don't agree, well, we're just evading the responsibility of an honest reexamination of our policies, so we're in the wrong again. Bravo. (It brings to mind the old trap question: "Have you stopped beating your wife?")
Posted to another thread, your comments could be taken as well-meaning suggestions for improvement of the site. Here, on this thread, where I am asking SOLO's members for contributions, they're an ugly little snipe job that deserves to be thrown back in your face. It's almost like you're telling potential submitters: watch out, this website is waning, you might want to hold off on submitting anything for the moment. I'm just wondering when you're going to start selling contracts on the date of SOLO's demise over on Tradesports.
I'm not saying that helpful suggestions won't improve the site, Phil. I don't disagree that SOLO has lost some excellent writers these past months. But at a certain level, you're starting to look a lot like the guy who stands aside and criticizes a line of relief workers building a sandbag wall, telling one he needs to pile them in a certain way, telling another not to toss them so quickly, and endlessly carrying on and on about how it could all run so much better, when really the best contribution he could make would be to join the line and start chucking sandbags himself. The "SOLO or POMO" thread was a textbook case of this pattern of yours. You made a post complaining about the lack of reasoned arguments, and then sat back to wait for someone else to actually do the heavy-lifting of making them. Contrast this with your posts on the price gouging thread, where well-reasoned posts by you, Adam Reed, Andy Postema, and others, allowed the thread to continue and find new insights even as other posters were doing little more than hurling mud at one another. We don't live in three dimensions here in cyberspace ... verbal brawls and cool-headed exchanges can take place side-by-side, and often do, for those who are willing to participate in them. But I suppose that, as Linz puts it in his characteristically colorful manner, there will always be those "sundry sanctimonious tut-tutters [who] flutter down from their lofty heights, well above any suggestion of a fray, and unctuate about how terrible it is that folk are squabbling, and that there is—horreurs!—acrimony on the board." Well, when SOLO gets back into its groove, they will surely deserve none of the credit.
The ruminations on the demise of SOLO are obviously overwrought, given that these past few weeks have seen many interesting articles and discussions on issues like price gouging, the Brandens, addiction, the Fed, etc. To those writers and submitters, skilled and novice alike, who have made it happen, I offer my thanks, and my humble request that you continue your fine contributions to our site, our community, and our movement.
-Andrew
|
|
