Here's something to think about--
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/busin … ref=slogin
The only thing I wonder is how many people threw themselves off a building after seeing those two ad campaigns mentioned in the article? I certainly feel like it every time I hear "I'm loving it."
It's great to be part of a supportive network, anyone know one?
Only joking, I'm lovin it!
I find it amusing that Ralph is talking about hub etiquette since the very first comments I ever got when I made my first Hub were four in a row from him, repeatedly maligning tattoos and piercings and lecturing me about how the "older generation" found them to be repulsive and ugly.
I feel sorry that Paul wound up having to apologize for his father's behavior, but it was nice that he did.
Ha! Ha! I don't recall saying that tatoos are "repulsive and ugly." I did point out that many older people in ordinary jobs are prejudiced against tatoos. And I recommended "keep 'em small" and "put 'em where the sun don't shine." As I recall you didn't allow my comments to appear. I stand by my comments--big, visible tatoos can be an impediment to getting certain kinds of jobs--in law firms, hospitals, etc. At least that's true in the midwest, if not in California. Tatoos may be helpful and almost mandatory in other types of jobs. I'm quite sure I didn't direct any disparaging remarks toward you, personally. My recollection is that I disagreed politely with your tatoo recommendations. And there was absolutely no reason for Paul to "apologise for my behavior!" Everybody knows he's a wuss! :-)
I read somewhere that former Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary and currently a fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institute, George Shultz got a Princeton Tiger tatooed on his butt when he was in the Marines. He managed to succeed admirably despite the tatoo. Small ones that are well done are fine. But they can be overdone for careers in many professions.
Funny indeed. He's never really been the nicest towards me.
I do agree that disagreements in hub comments is fair game, but I think there's a way about it that's not rude.
Whitney, my recollection is that you were the one, or perhaps Helenathegreat, who started applying the term "ignorant" to my comments disagreeing with you. I don't recall making any ad hominem remarks toward you apart from pointing out that you misspelled a word or something AFTER you had accused me of being ignorant. Why don't you go back and review your posts. I think you'll find that I disagreed strongly with your comments about pit bulls. But I don't recall anything of the type referred to in the link above that starts this topic.
You may have received an apology, but it wasn't from me. Since you brought it up, I think it's fair to post what the comments were so people can make their own judgement:
"Big tatoos that show aren't a good idea if you expect ever to have a conventional career. The older generation is very prejudiced against tatoos, not to mention body piercing."
"Here's a little advice from someone probably old enough to be your grandfather: If you think someday you may apply for a humdrum job get small tatoos and put them where they don't show when you're dressed for job interviews. The older generation is quite prejudiced against tatoos."
"Ps. We are even more turned off by body piercing."
There does seem to be a fair lack of true courtesy in the forums, but I would hardly say Ralph Deeds is the cause of that.
I have tattoos and never once has Mr. Deeds in any way shape or form come off as insulting or negative. If he has an opinion on them that differs from mine, he is welcome to it as I am not a self-assigned thought police.
Have to admit, I'm too old to like the body piercing. Seeing a nose ring or lip ring on someone makes me think of pigs on platters at Viking feasts. To me, those kind of face piercings look like some form of self-mutilation. I'm not fond of the burnings thing the kids do now either, burning scars for 'body beautification' seems less than beautiful to me.
However I recognize that it's just my opinion and I don't care who does what to their appearance as long as it doesn't affect me. I might voice my opinion, as now, in some discussion where it's directly topical, but other than that, I doubt many would know or care about my opinion on pretty much any matter.
As to anyone stepping in and apologizing for Mr. Deeds, I would hope that is completely untrue. Ralph is a gentleman and a hero and a revolutionary in his heart. For as long as I've known him, there is nothing about Ralph Deeds that should be apologized for.
Ralph, you are and remain a gentleman and a scholar, to me.
Oh and on the topic of groups of people attacking one lone and they think vulnerable individual online, which I see now is the main topic.
You'd think anyone would be ashamed to be part of trying to make someone else's life miserable simply for the entertainment value or for little power rushes to assuage their own malformed ids or egos.
The Megan Meier's suicide should be a real heads up that cyberharassment on the internet is no nicer than a group of psychos bullying someone in person.
Unenforceable laws are being passed to deal with cyberharassment but what it really takes to stop that stuff up is for the community it appears in to discourage it and to ostracize those who take part in it.
I'm fine with people posting comments like Ralph's on my hubs, disagreeing with what I've presented or expressing an opinion I might not share. The only comments I've really had that bothered me were personal attacks, or the one hubber who decided to perform some sort of online exorcism on me in the comments section of one of my diet reviews...
The article states that they had no way of knowing if those blog posts contributed to the suicide. Perhaps they should check in their archives as well for maligning newspaper articles, because all the arguments they used for the blogs can be also said for online newspapers. After all Archive.org crawls all of these sites and makes a back-up. Their articles are there in perpetuity as well.
The Myspace case is different. It was a social networking site instead of a news/opinion piece site. There was direct interaction in the MySpace case. The author of this particular article was pushing it to find a connection, and it showed. No proof. Nothing to go off. In a way just as bad as the blogs that they are making the accusation against.
As for HubPages, by comparison with many other sites I've been at this site isn't hostile in the least.
by Tessa Schlesinger12 months ago
I was quite stunned a week or more ago when someone made a statement on one of my hubs that she had commented twice and I had snubbed her by not replying. Her comment had been particularly flattering, and probably...
by starme776 years ago
this guy just totally chewed me out on my angel story hub , I know there are threads about comments being rudly made on hubs , but this one is ridiculous to me , its like 3 paragraphs long and makes no sense and gee wiz...
by Dawn Michael6 years ago
just because they don’t agree with you? Pcunix took one of my hubs commented on it then proceeded to write his own hub on it and posted a forum on it just because he did not agree with me? Then throughout...
by Tina7 years ago
So I will post a few links to my hubs for you to look over. (Please??) Would like some commentary on my writng style and if the hub is interesting enough. Seems as though I have an acceptable hub score...
by TIMETRAVELER24 years ago
It is one thing to disagree, another thing to judge the views of another as being good, bad, wrong, etc. What do you think?
by Tessa Schlesinger11 months ago
Rip it to pieces! Tell me what needs to change! Thanks. http://hubpages.com/politics/Why-govern … -privatize
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.