tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3589378.post112170985377250851..comments2023-10-21T05:40:55.660-04:00Comments on man with black hat: David L Alexanderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13871706129906941567noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3589378.post-1122062335776393642005-07-22T15:58:00.000-04:002005-07-22T15:58:00.000-04:00My good man:Thank you for directing me to the essa...My good man:<BR/><BR/>Thank you for directing me to the essay by Father Faber. Rest assured, it brings up a point already well taken. Indeed, I took pains to direct my comments away from the lady in question, who was clearly motivated only by the best of intentions, and toward the larger issue of the witness we bear to the world through the benefit of this medium.<BR/><BR/>Surely a man of your particular vocation can see that such media can be used for good or ill, if it is to be used at all. "Moderation in all things," as the expression goes.<BR/><BR/>For that matter, the lesson posed by the good Father could apply to any of us; first, to the lady who, having second thoughts about her participation in this medium, chose to extend that moral dilemma to others; second, to one such as myself, for taking issue with that extension; and third, to respondents such as you, who appear to take issue with <I>my</I> having taken issue.<BR/><BR/>Or, dare I call it -- "offense"?David L Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13871706129906941567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3589378.post-1122060613499297962005-07-22T15:30:00.000-04:002005-07-22T15:30:00.000-04:00If you're going to take offence at such an innocuo...If you're going to take offence at such an innocuous comment as that, I think you ought to read <A HREF="http://fiatmihi.blogspot.com/2005/07/little-oratorian-wisdom-my-dear.html" REL="nofollow">this</A>.N. Trandemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11051765242510117609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3589378.post-1121805068044035132005-07-19T16:31:00.000-04:002005-07-19T16:31:00.000-04:00Theresa:Thank you for taking the time to reply.I d...Theresa:<BR/><BR/>Thank you for taking the time to reply.<BR/><BR/>I don't have a problem with anything you have said, and I can admire anyone who comes to the defense of a friend. My commentary was concerned with the wording of the comment itself.<BR/><BR/>I can remember the days when I was caught up in my virtual world of e-mail pen pals. It can easily be a substitute for "real life;" that is, personal interaction with others. Then again, I didn't have much interaction with real people in those days anyway. I live in Washington, remember? You know what Harry Truman once said: "If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog."<BR/><BR/>My use of the term "near occasion of sin" was with tongue firmly in cheek. Anyone familiar with my weblog is not surprised to discover a flair for the irreverent. Being a Catholic who is basically a traditionalist at heart (and one of a few in the blogosphere who is old enough to have "been there"), it makes for a great juxtposition.<BR/><BR/>At least I think so. Stay in touch.David L Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13871706129906941567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3589378.post-1121804472471750092005-07-19T16:21:00.000-04:002005-07-19T16:21:00.000-04:00I cannot speak for the Chevalier herself, although...I cannot speak for the Chevalier herself, although I am a close friend, but here in a attempt at rendering the worldview . . .<BR/><BR/>The more actual an activity, the better it is for man as a human person. So instant messaging a friend (qua human communication, not speed or conveniance) is not as good as talking to him on the telephone, which in turn is not as good as talking to him "in real life." This usage of "in real life" does not imply that IMing or phoning occurs in some <I>false</I> life, but that the human persons are separated by electronic or other means, so they do not have a completely human experience of communication.<BR/><BR/>Are IMing, phoning, or blogging necessarily BAD, or occasions of sin? No. (Not any more than talking face-to-face can be!)<BR/><BR/>But blogging can take up a lot of time and energy that either <I>should</I> be directed elsewhere (family or work duties) or <I>could</I> be more profitably spent elsewhere. This is certainly true in my case. I spend time doing inane online surveys when I should be doing spiritual reading, playing with my little sisters, sewing clothing from my piles of material, or preparing for the upcoming schoolyear. Even when I'm posting on something edifying, it is way too easy for me to slip from that into three or four hours of skimming random blogs and searching for stuff on ebay. Yet I think at this point in my life the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.<BR/><BR/>The Chevalier's statement, then, is not made because her fiance is forcing her to give up a beloved hobby, or change who she is. It's also not a condemnation of blogging itself, or bloggers themselves. It is an attempt to focus her energy on persuing her vocation: on beginning her married life with her husband, starting to renovate their house, entering and getting to know a new community in a new town, and whatever else she is planning to do.<BR/><BR/>That's a small, insufficiant explanation, but I hope it helps.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3589378.post-1121784576203833402005-07-19T10:49:00.000-04:002005-07-19T10:49:00.000-04:00I don't have a problem with her decision as applie...I don't have a problem with her decision as applied to herself. My problem is with her choice of words, which suggest that she has made the decision for everyone else.David L Alexanderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13871706129906941567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3589378.post-1121733436555470262005-07-18T20:37:00.000-04:002005-07-18T20:37:00.000-04:00So, "Chevalier" is going to give up blogging due t...So, "Chevalier" is going to give up blogging due to her upcoming marriage? Does she feel that her spouse-to-be actually wants her to stop? Was there a demand for her to cease and desist and spend all her waking hours with him as opposed to remaining true to her spirit?<BR/><BR/>I believe the theorist R. Buckminster Fuller used the term "synergy" to explain that sometimes the sum of the parts is greater than the whole (i.e., 1+1=3,4, or more). What a shame if Chevalier's muse is effectively squelched, whether by design or whim.Mr. Nixterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02110764325012794952noreply@blogger.com