Ed. Comment: After reading the first three comments that arrived, we decided to upgrade this posting to the Nasty Reader tag.
Subject: Comments, Responses, & Sad Backpedaling
January 24, 2016 4:35 am
I am a biologist and I work for the Government. I mention this only to reveal my familiarity with reading disturbing and mysterious things. I have been on your site several times hoping to see something interesting. Tonight I did, though not topically expected. Areas now perfectly clear are:
1) Nothing here of more knowledge or with more information than a public high school text book.
2) That you care.
3)You attempt to deflect this by mockery and wildly unwarranted superiority.
4) That this site does more than babysit its curator’s undernourished egos.
On reading a post , a schoolyard comment from another reader, your curiously condescending and marginalizing reply, the rebuke .. and wait for it…the transparent cowardice of your denial. Perhaps you overlooked a small detail. Tiny detail really..its just that you typed words on the page. Hands in pockets and think words really, really hard next time? Just a thought.
It’s not too late for this to morph into a catalyst for positive change. Love yourself a little more and understand that cruelty is a game played in shallow water. Ultimately you will lose. The rest of us can clearly see your feet.
We do consider this website and our life both to be works in progress and we like to think that we have evolved considerably since we first began writing What’s That Bug? in 1998. From the very beginning, we have maintained that we have no credentials to provide scientific information and we have always strived for our site to be a pop culture site that is accessible to the average person rather than to be a true scientific endeavor targeting intellectual specialists. That there is “nothing here of more knowledge or with more information than a public high school text book” is not a problem in our mind because there is no requirement that the web browsing public possesses a college degree. Many children visit our site and a high school text book would be quite educational. Out of concern for younger readers, we try our best to keep a clean site, so we do not use vulgar language.
We always defer to true experts, so we question your allegations of our “wildly unwarranted superiority.” With that stated, your comment has us a bit confused. There is some praise there, but it is overshadowed by your criticism of our editorial stance. We are well aware that once content enters cyberspace, it gains a life of its own and it is nearly impossible to rescind, so we actually do carefully consider our words prior to hitting the publish button. We are not infallible and we do not apologize for our ego. It can be argued that anyone who enters public life in any way, be it running a blog or running for public office, has an inflated ego.
Your comment seems to refer to a specific posting with “a schoolyard comment from another reader” and our “transparent cowardice” and what you perceive as “cruelty” on our part, but without a real citation to correspond to your criticism on how we have chosen to run our own public site, we can neither justify our stance nor clarify or defend the meaning of what we have written. Clearly your background in biology and your position as a government employee has prepared to to analyze our psyche. In our opinion, your focus on our use of occasional sarcasm vastly overshadows the public service we provide free of charge.
Elise from Facebook Comments.
January 24 at 6:21pm
Love your page, and appreciate that you tried to interpret that sometimes incoherent comment. The poster seems to lack both a sense of humor and a mastery of basic sentence structure. Keep doing what you do.