With reference to ‘baiting’ and ‘playing games’

Or blog etiquette?

My last post referred to a comment of mine on one blog, that was then made the subject of a post on another person’s blog (Tricia’s).

Just to summarise, I pointed out that police officer is a more appropriate generic term than policeman/men. In fact I didn’t even realise people still said policeman, fireman, postman etc.

A little history lesson

In olden days, many women did not work, and when they did, they didn’t work in the police force, the fire brigade or deliver mail. The people doing these jobs were—men. Hence the terminology.

And, when women did start doing these jobs, against all odds, the language clumsily pointed out they were a woman, eg a woman police constable (WPC).

WPC is no longer appropriate. (Phew, thought I had better check!)

My immediate response would be, a) why is their gender important and b) we don’t have man police constable (MPC or, as one wag said on the police forum, MCP).

And, to quote from the forum:

Ok, just imagine addressing some of your colleagues as “Black Police Constable”, “Gay Police Constable” or “Jewish Police Constable.”

Now see how inappropriate it is?

Here is the police forum.

It’s an interesting read, I only read the first page, but even in one page there are a range of opinions and ‘really funny’ comments. Assuming you find sexist jokes about making tea, looking after kids, and escort services funny.

The sensible comment above regarding, black, gay, Jewish, reinforces my point that women still face an uphill battle against discrimination compared with other minority groups. A number of commenters could not see the problem in pointing out that an officer is a woman.

Any police constable is a police officer first and foremost in their work environment. Pointing out their gender in their title is irrelevant and inappropriate and implies, by not doing the same for men, that a male police officer is the norm, and the default.

Similarly, by referring to a male nurse, one is still presupposing that nurses are normally women. In fact last year in hospital, men and women seemed pretty equally balanced, my ‘main’ nurse was male.

But by highlighting someone’s gender in a job we continue to reinforce the idea that one sex is automatically the ‘right’ one for the job, and that we expect to see them in that role. Because, by virtue of their gender, we stereotype women and men into different roles and affect their chances of being successful in gaining jobs and having successful careers in those fields.

If you don’t believe me, try reading this article on why sexist language matters. It is absolutely spot-on. Hell, it even picks up on my bugbear of ‘you guys’ and it’s written by an American. Or at least, someone who was teaching in North Carolina. It’s also more than eight years old. It’s a short and easy read.

Note. I have given two references here. One to the police forum, and another to AlterNet. This is important, and the crux of my post.


On my past post, I linked back to Tricia and InsanityBytes regarding their relevant posts about language/sexism/feminism.

As far as I am aware most of us do this when we refer to an external source that we are writing about. It gives the reader the chance to read further material and make up their mind independently. It is also being upfront that you are referring to another blog post and not tattling behind the poster’s back. Up to them whether they even choose to visit, let alone read or comment.

Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a single person who refers to another blog post, website, whether it’s a restaurant, a news article, or an academic publication, whatever, who doesn’t link back. It also takes time to do so.

Which brings me onto three very different examples.

  1. When I was at university, I learned to make sure I listed my source materials. They were divided into primary and secondary sources, eg Tacitus, Suetonius, Plutarch, Machiavelli, and Rousseau were primary. Text books were secondary. An essay without significant primary sources would be poorly rated.
  2. When I was a newspaper journalist, we used court sheets, council papers and took verbatim shorthand notes at both. When we interviewed people, we used direct quotes or put it into reported speech. Again, a story is unsubstantiated without a source.
  3. When I was writing board papers, I would quote and reference government documents, legislation, and peer-reviewed articles in journals.

Why would I not do the same on blog posts?

And yet, Tricia complained elsewhere that I only linked back to ‘bait’ her.

I had a similar experience over on Rough Seas blog where myself and Insanity Bytes were mentioned with much disdain on a recent post. I took the bait and made a comment which was very restrained and respectful, …


Oh and you’re not fooling anyone by saying you don’t play games. No one links to another blogger without hoping for some type of response.

Some might do. I don’t. I link back for all the reasons cited above.

Here, should you choose, are the links. 😉 Merely if you suffer from insomnia.


Tricia’s comments and my replies on Colorstorm’s

My original post, ie the last one

Tricia’s post I referenced

InsanityBytes post I referenced


About roughseasinthemed

I write about my life as an English person living in Spain and Gibraltar, on Roughseas, subjects range from politics and current developments in Gib to book reviews, cooking and getting on with life. My views and thoughts on a variety of topics - depending on my mood of the day - can be found over on Clouds. A few pix are over on Everypic - although it is not a photoblog. And of course my dog had his own blog, but most of you knew that anyway. Pippadogblog etc
This entry was posted in blogging, feminism, gender-specific language, journalism, Sexism, writing and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

80 Responses to With reference to ‘baiting’ and ‘playing games’

  1. makagutu says:

    Why would she think it is being baited. I link back to the posts so no one says I am making the BS up.
    Two, I link to give them a chance to respond if they feel they have been misrepresented or think they were misunderstood.
    Three, so it doesn’t appear like I am talking behind their back.
    And on the main issue of this post, I am your student. How do you think professions like architecture, engineering, law, medicine ended up being gender neutral?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Conspiracy theory. Don’t you know? Evil atheists and all that. I don’t know. Sounds like a mix of paranoia, and … doubt?

      You were one of the ones I thought of when I wrote about friends who also provide numerous links. And I invariably read yours. Your posts make sense without, but I totally agree with your rationale, it’s the same as mine. And everyone I know provides copious sources and links. If we make an argument, we should be able to stand our ground if someone questions our case. And if we are wrong, or slightly less than correct as Arch put it (I paraphrase his words), then we apologise and learn.

      As for the language, I thought I would try and explain further why it is no longer appropriate. If you didn’t read the AlterNet post, it’s a good and sensible read.

      Liked by 1 person

      • makagutu says:

        It is such a good read. For a moment I thought it was written by you.

        I know, evil atheists. I think the theists enjoy hearing amens and whenever I link back to their posts, their traffic increases for a few days and they get comments they seem unable to deal with.

        And everyone who thinks they are being baited, I now have a good reason to link back.

        Liked by 1 person

        • I thought it was written by me!

          If it wasn’t for atheists, the traffic on theist blogs would consist of nothing more than Amen! brother and sister! I don’t think they have much else to say. Aside from say, the banter on our blogs (I mean any non theist blog there, not just yours and mine), people add interesting points for discussion. I learn a lot from my fave atheist blogs.

          Evil, evil, atheist. You will only serve to fuel their paranoia. You will burn in hell. You do know this don’t you? Although as JZ is wont to point out, all the zealots will fry even faster in heaven.


          • makagutu says:

            I shared it with some friends of mine.
            This sexist language has been going on for a long time. You have the Abrahamic god making a woman from man. Strange thing what we observe is women being the life givers- generally. Men donate sperm and their work kinda stops from there on. What your blog does is to raise our awareness to these issues.
            If there is a hell, it is already air conditioned. All the brights ended up there.


          • That’s interesting that you shared it. I thought it was clearly written, but I’m coming at it from years of that thinking. Out of the blue, it could be seen as whacky.

            Well except he didn’t did he? I mean the bible has artificial insemination/in vitro fertilisation/cloning looking like the dark ages. Want a new person? Sure. Pick a rib out of someone’s body? Or send a holy spirit/angel/whatever to impregnate a virgin. We sure are slow off the mark scientifically.

            I think women have the hard time concerning reproduction. One reason it didn’t interest me. Periods are bad enough. But one of the big issues regarding any form of gender equality is bodily autonomy for women. The other one is economic independence. Without either, women are dependent on men.

            Noooo! I hate air conditioning. Rather I think, the clever ones have developed a fine natural ventilation system, added some nice hot saunas, jacuzzis and other fine places to relax and chat.


          • makagutu says:

            OK. No air conditioning. Assuming da devil is in charge of the place, I think they would have humored him/ her to put out the fire. There is no point punishing your buddies.


          • And brought the ice-cold beers?


          • makagutu says:

            I have a feeling they will have a beer dispenser


          • Cold. And more than 5%. We’ve had this conversation before!!


  2. By the Clouds you are a hundred times more patient than I roughseas, and there’s no indication in your writing and responses to other people’s comments that you are trashing the house around you and using swear words that would make even Hariod blush. Because that’s where I’d be in your shoes. But we are all different, and I do not have your talent (nor mak’s, nor Ark’s…nor almost anyone now I come to think of it *laughs*), for concise debate that cuts through the all the bullshit and gets to the hard facts, regardless of how well or not such facts will be received. I applaud you. And agree with almost everything you write too. Now, now…that’s not a bait.


    – sonmi laughing upon the Cloud

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Ruth says:

    I link back to sources for the same reasons you do. But about this ‘baiting’ business: I think it is only appropriate if one is going to quote part or all of a blog post or comment that it be linked and the person made aware so that if they wish to rebut they may. It’s quite impolite to talk about people behind their backs and not give them the opportunity to defend their position. Only a person with little or no defense, with little or no support for their position would object to such. It’s funny how it suddenly becomes ‘baiting’ when you’re having your ass handed to you in debate.


    • I think however you are going to refer to someone it is courteous to give a link. I’ll admit years back I didn’t but nor did I name. However, on Tricia’s post referring to my comment she didn’t let me know she’d referred to me, merely linked back to the original blog where the exchange happened. And I’m going to keep reading that and ever see it? So I was being talked about behind my back.

      Yet, when, I linked, I’m baiting? Doesn’t hold water.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. When I am speaking about another blog or post I always link back. This post was respectful so don’t worry, be happy. 🙂 Keep writing..

    Here’ a little blog you wrote,
    I like to read it note for note,
    So don’t worry, be happy….

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Pingback: Sexist language, baiting, and playing games | See, there's this thing called biology...

  6. Tricia says:

    I never stated I had a problem with linking to other blogs, it serves a very necessary purpose and helps expand the variety of opinions. Whether you do it out of admiration for a post, to link to references, to provide an opposing view or to just let them know you are mentioning them in comments, it’s all very reasonable and I do it too. Where I didn’t, but now realize I should have, was when I mentioned you in my comments on ColorStorm’s most recent post. Much apologies for that.

    I don’t even have a problem with posts written intentionally to inflame as they can be quite fun when done right when and help propel a discussion forward. A link to the blogger being slammed in those cases is always an invitation for a response, as I felt yours was. Who cares if it’s a game? Just be honest about it and it goes down much easier.

    Ok, time to exit the viper pit while still unscathed. 😉


    • Tricia.

      If you want to engage in an intelligent discussion, that’s fine, but do not accuse me of being a liar, because you have no evidence. At all.

      And, drop the feeble attempt at sarcasm. It’s not something Americans are very good at.


    • makagutu says:

      Have you left the viper pit completely or you will be lurking to see if you have been torn to pieces?
      Your claim here that you’ve no issues with pingbacks is backpedaling. So which is it?


      • I think the claim now is that ping backs are valid, but it’s reasonable to criticise them for being attention seeking?

        What do you reckon Mak? Do I seek attention? Did Tricia get 91 comments using a comment of mine when she is normally lucky to get twenty?

        She is still calling me a liar, and I will not accept that.

        Liked by 1 person

        • makagutu says:

          You seeking attention, that would be a first one.
          I haven’t bothered with her post. I saw her comments on CS blog, the madhouse.
          I think you have politely asked her to stop calling you a liar. Maybe you should type it slowly, she may understand


          • Ironically on IB’s post where she pings back to this (above) she is complaining that I haven’t commented on her blog. Now that is definitely attention seeking/baiting/playing games. Trouble is, it isn’t going to work.

            At least Tricia has the courtesy to visit my blog to insult me which is more than IB does.

            And, as I am not a Christian, what I type holds no veracity or credibility.

            Liked by 1 person

          • makagutu says:

            Haha. Who says one must respond to all ping backs? And unless IB has slandered you where you need to respond, her posts are not worth the time it takes to read them.


          • Defamation is an interesting one. It’s written by the way do that is usually regarded as libel. Not slander. However, I doubt a case of libel would stick, although I haven’t analysed her post in depth having more interest in mopping the floor, partly because one of the defences against libel is personal opinion.

            And of course one doesn’t respond to all ping backs. IB is the classic example of that as she never responded to mine. But as I say, mopping the floor holds more interest.

            Liked by 1 person

          • makagutu says:

            I agree Kate, mopping the floor is a better use of time that reading IB’s posts


          • However, I will postpone the last part of the floor to read yours 🙂


          • makagutu says:

            You flatter me dearie.


  7. disperser says:

    Not good at sarcasm? That cuts. Deeply cuts.

    I did read the article you linked (and his link was dead).

    Not sure I would go as far as he does. Sure, language matters, but other factors play a role as well. Mind you, I’m not making excuses for behaviors or attitudes. I’m less sure than he is (and possibly, you are) that changing language usage would amount to real change in perception and behavior. It may drive certain opinions underground (much like it did for race), but would not alter the fundamental underlying problems we as a species are still struggling with.

    On the other hand, the term “you guys” is not something I would use in formal situations, a workplace setting, or even a social situation with people I don’t know. When I do use it, I can certainly say it has no effect on how I view male-female roles, abilities, social station, etc.

    The women I deal with on a regular basis would definitively not alter their perception of themselves nor judge my attitude toward women on the basis of those two words.

    There is a certain amount of colloquialism that comes into play in all languages.

    I suppose I could take umbrage on the fact most hurricanes until recently were given strictly female names (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutnames_history.shtml). Or, perhaps, be envious of ships being referred to in the feminine. I can trace back the why of it, but, at least for me, I would find it strange referring to a ship as “he” (he lists in a frightful way). Countries are sometimes referred in the feminine (Ah, Brittain; how far she has fallen), but not all are so.

    There certainly is the basis for thinking some words are used in the derogatory. Having moved in the US in 1966, I quickly became familiar with the term “wop” (one of the earliest jokes I heard in English was “Have you heard of Italian tires? When dego flat, dego wop, wop, wop!”).

    It’s, however, a little harder maintaining words are responsible for the self-image of the intended target. I, for one, thought the joke was a clever use of words, but the words themselves had no power to shape how I felt about myself. At best, they said something about the people who used them. I don’t think the majority of Italian immigrants were scarred or held back because of them. That I know of.

    That’s not to say that words, when delivered a certain way, or uttered with a certain tone, do not have the power to rile, to offend, to hurt, but I think the words themselves are only a part of it, and in many cases, only a small part.

    I see the bigger problem in concentrating on the words as if that will help solve attitudes, behaviors, self-doubt, etc.

    I say that because changing the acceptance of words, or non-acceptance of words, does little, in my opinion, to changing the acceptance or non-acceptance of behavior.

    I could be wrong. I would not be surprised if I were; there are guy-friends who think I am more of a chick, or chick-like, than manly-like.


    • I did read the article you linked (and his link was dead).

      Not sure I would go as far as he does. Sure, language matters, but other factors play a role as well. Mind you, I’m not making excuses for behaviors or attitudes. I’m less sure than he is (and possibly, you are) that changing language usage would amount to real change in perception and behavior. It may drive certain opinions underground (much like it did for race), but would not alter the fundamental underlying problems we as a species are still struggling with.

      If that was sarcasm, it merely looks like inaccuracy. Normally Sherryl is a woman’s name.

      And to address the point you are making, sure, you will never eliminate discrimination totally. It’s like health promotion programmes, you will achieve some 70/80/85% success rate for non-smoking, uptake of cervical screening, whatever, but there is a hard core whose behaviour you will never change.

      Most women don’t take umbrage because most women are not feminists.

      There was a lot of derogatory language in Sydney on the dockyards back in the 80s too, pretty much on the same lines. It’s still around now, both in Spain and Gibraltar ie guiri/wog. It’s really just anyone who doesn’t come from my barrio.

      Words may not influence you as an individual, you may for example, not succumb to advertising, but others do. You may, perhaps by virtue of your profession, be more critical and analytical. However, that doesn’t negate the fact that there are plenty of studies out there that do demonstrate the power of linguistics on society rather than on Emilio J D’Alise as an individual.


      • disperser says:

        Uh-Oh . . . you spelled out my full name; that can’t be good.

        And yes, that was a mistake about the name. I seldom pay attention to names, so perhaps I am sexist, after all . . . or, what I think is the more likely scenario, I assumed it based the way she referred to women in the third person. Or, a combination of both. Bottom line, I should have read the name.

        You are correct that I am less susceptible to advertising and the words of others (but probably not fully immune), but I draw on a lot of experience in matters of gender, sexual orientation, and race. First-hand experience.

        Perhaps there is a measurable effect on people who grow up with the “modified” language, but in some ways “you guys” is a problem because of English. In Italian, for instance, I would use the generic (gender neutral) “voi”, as in “voi siete troppo studiati”.

        In fact, translating that back to English, the generic “you” is used, but many would be justly confused as to the singular versus the plural intent of the phrase without reading and understanding the original . . . hence the addition of something else (by habit and informal familiar speak, “guys” in my case).

        That said, I would be suspect of anyone claiming the availability of gender-specific names and gender-neutral names in the Italian language has made Italians less sexist than English-speakers.

        I know . . . I don’t have studies to back me up.


        • I’ll change that to Disperser if you want, but it is pretty much available on your blog 😀

          Interesting assumption. In fact you didn’t need to read the name, you could have easily worked around it with he or she, s/he, the writer, they (but you probably don’t like that), but you do provide an excellent example of using the masculine default 🙂

          No. There are plenty of alternatives for you guys. You all, everyone, people, whatever, depending on context.

          Italian is no different to any other Latin language in terms of you singular and plural. Yet, in Spanish, you have a word like vecina (neighbour) which covers m/f yet many of our neighbours change it to vecinos when referring to men or a mixed group. Hmm.


          • Totty says:

            Mmmm…modern usage again maybe, as the Real Academia only lists vecina/o as an adjective, so I assume the feminine ending is a contraction of persona vecina…


          • I was just going on Collins. Vecina, nm and nf.


            The other one that always fascinates me is electricista. Now that never changes endings.


          • Totty says:

            Same difference I think…persona electricista…and electricidad itself is feminine. Almacenista, periodista, taxista….something to do with “substantives”? Anyway, duty calls, J is stretching his brain watching Pointless, and I need to rummage in the fridge/pantry as I have nothing planned for our evening meal.


          • Hasta luego.

            Oh and I think I forgot to thank you for your previous explanation of Spanish voting rights.

            I’m about to cook too. We eat bean slop in Spain, but grad Brotish here, so curry it will be.


          • disperser says:

            Well, they are doing it wrong . . . or maybe it’s not like Italian.

            Vicino >> male neighbor (also, “close by” depending on context)
            Vicina >> female neighbor
            Vicini >> multiple neighbors, either all males or of mixed gender (typically the latter)
            Vicine >> multiple female neighbors

            Another example:
            Idiota (can mean male or female idiot) and idioti (a group of either all male or a group of mixed gender) and idiote (a group of all female idiots).

            Whereas here we trend toward “police officer” (which to many would still have a male connotation), in Italian one would use poliziotto or poliziotta, carabiniere or carabiniera, soldato or soldata. Soldati is a plural, and could mean all males or of mixed gender.

            I’ve been away for a while, so I assume there may be generic terms that cannot be adapted to that system.

            As for “working around”, I believe I am diligent and conscientious when writing opinion pieces, conversing with people I don’t know, or formal writing.

            When chatting in a situation of familiarity I am more likely to get sloppy. There are also, to my mind, differences in connotation with the choice of words.

            This is, of course, a personal bias, but not one of gender.

            For example, “You people” appears to me as distancing oneself from those one addresses. I am more apt to choose specific words for different effects, as in “You people are assholes” versus “You guys are my friends”. I am unlikely to say “You people are my friends” as it does not sound right to my ear.

            I would never say “You all are my friends” and especially “Everyone is my friend” . . . Not sure how I would use “whatever”.


  8. Hmmm. My citings and reference for you Roughseas:



  9. Totty says:

    I followed your links and read most of the guff, but when I came upon Tricia’s, to my eyes, incorrect usage of the reflexive pronoun, I beat a hasty retreat, realising I was in danger of having my perceptions and behaviour changed by exposure to too much of the Murriken Godbotherin School of Linguistics, Power to your elbow, Kate.


    • Hehehe, Proper word usage.. then stay away from my blog. English is my fourth language I might melt your mind. /smirk


      • Totty says:

        I’m married to a bluddy furriner, so with over 50 years exposure to his improper use of the English language, my mind has developed a special ceramic blanket that allows it to shake of simple grammatical mistakes…it is the mistakes wrapped in sanctimonious “I’m a believer so I must be right” bullshit that I try to avoid.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Tottenham! Er, that’s predictive text for you. Try again. Tatty! Nope. Totty! Yes. Got there.
      How are you both, given old age and all that?

      Speaking of incorrect language, if you read Tricia’s post, she referred to ‘ petit middle aged woman’ so if we’re going to split hairs, it should be petite and middle-aged is hyphenated. Or perhaps Tricia was avoiding a gender specific adjective? Which I think is a different discussion altogether. For example, I would say my hair was blonde when I was younger. Maybe it’s just because I got O-level French.

      I digress. Guff is a fine intellectual word to describe the Murriken School. I was reading someone’s book a while back, and his next book was due to be called ‘Godbothering’ I think he’s having second thoughts though.

      Thank you. It’s the old adage about speaking out isn’t it. Trouble is, the graduates from the school have verbal diarrhoea, most of them post daily.


      • Totty says:

        Fair to middling on my part, thank you for asking, but not so good for J who is going through a bad patch. Sorry I don’t comment much these days, but I do always read with interest.


        • Plenty of people read without commenting. It’s nice to know you are still around as you seemed to give up your own blogs years ago now. Hope he comes out of the bad patch muy pronto. Fingers crossed for him, and you too.


          • Totty says:

            Blogging seemed to take up a lot of time that I would rather spend doing the things I used to blog about, so these days I just post the photographs on Instagram (@tottyteabag) when I feel the urge. I still use FB, running a Group that focuses on local issues, lets residents know what’s happening in the town, gives them a place to say what they think about decisions made in the Ayuntamiento, and has enough of the local councillors on the members list to prompt a response by tagging them when the need arises. We have an eclectic mix of nationalities and political persuasions so it gives me an interest and allows me a modicum of interaction I would not otherwise get.

            Liked by 1 person

          • With new smart phones I don’t mind blogging. I go, surf, after a good set of waves come in answer blog stuff while I stuff my face and then back to surfing. /nod

            Blog on the go, on the bus, in traffic, or when I can’t be surfing or playing vball or something fun outside. Yeah Hawaii and always being bikini weather!


          • Totty says:

            I care for an ailing octogenarian and not much happens around here these days that would attract many readers, unless they have a deep seated interest in hands-on geriatrics, complicated polychrome crochet or this month’s Big Event; the successful fledging of the offspring of a group of escaped Lovebirds that have taken up residence in my pine trees.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Never got into Instagram. I like piccies but I want some words with them. Instagram seems like a ginormous photoblog. Similar but different to Pinterest. And there is something else gaining ground the name of which escapes me.

            Groups is about the best use for FB. Only reason I rejoined was compulsively forced to for book reviewing. Haven’t got a single friend to my name 🙂 so none of that personal drivel crap ie ‘just enjoying a latte in Starbucks’.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Totty says:

            Leonora rides again? I use Goodreads for ideas on what to read next, but never leave a review. Remiss of me maybe, but I would only recommend a book to someone I knew well enough to know their taste.


          • Actually not Leonora. I went ignito as Kate 😀

            I’m on GR as Roughseas I think. I just tend to read randomly. I recommend on the lines of ‘if you like this sort of book it’s worth a read’ eg my last but one post on Roughseas, Artisan’s Star.


  10. EllaDee says:

    Blog etiquette. And common sense. Also useful to link to anything referencing another blogger or an item that might not be common knowledge to some readers.
    Sometimes I think I link too much, then I’ll get a comment from someone along the lines of I had to look up X…
    Your blog, you do as you please. No-one’s making anyone interact with you. It’s a free world.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Copyright Laws

    When you write a blog post about a topic you found via another blog or website, you should attribute your source with a link. Give credit where credit is due. Bloggers who publish content on the public Internet are bound by copyright laws. You don’t want to be accused of plagiarizing another person’s work, so it’s imperative that you always publish original content on your blog and properly cite your sources.

    A gray area of copyright law, called fair use, affects bloggers. Under fair use, publishers can republish another person’s content to add commentary or for educational purposes. However, the safest course of action for a blogger is to only republish snippets from other sources along with a link to that source. Also, add your own opinion to the snippet, so the vast majority of content on your blog is original.

    Following this guideline will help you stay out of legal trouble and ensure your search engine rankings are not negatively affected, because sites that simply republish content from other sites are often penalized or banned from search engine results.


    Liked by 3 people

  12. Pingback: “Do Not Link” and Why I Use It | Amusing Nonsense

  13. Of course you link back. That’s the way it’s done. (Some have more formal writing backgrounds than other)
    Baiting? Oh, please.
    Sarcasm. We try.
    Some succeed. Others just think they do (and their audience is just too polite to mention a poor effort…)


    • Well, virtually everyone I know does for the reasons outlined above.

      I don’t bait because I rarely bite anyway. Why would I expect others to do so?

      Some succeed. Some are useless. Some are exceptionally clever. You could argue that lack of tone of voice, body language and facial expressions make it harder over the Internet.

      Oscar Wilde had no internet. He managed perfectly well. The one about a poor worker blaming their tools comes to mind. It isn’t the internet’s fault if someone can’t write.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Your place is much more fun than mine right now.
        Always liked that tool remark – along with use the right tool to do the job.
        You bait? Never.
        Real debate is foreign to so many.
        Those that wish to be offended easily are. (Odd how the ones who appear to be “wronged”/make great show of being the “victim” are frequently the most are skilled in manipulating and baiting skills themselves…but would never do so. No, that would be so artless.)
        Spot on about the sarcasm.
        Of course there are always some who are so busy being right they are oblivious. Needing a bit more seasoning perhaps.


        • Different views, people, places? Fun is relative.
          Well living with someone who started his craft apprenticeship 44 years ago, I’ve heard it a few times. My father (engineer) probably came out with it too. And yes, right tool too.
          I joke, tease, laugh. I have no need to bait. Silly. And people who think so have an over-inflated sense of their own self-importance.
          Debait? I think it’s a lost skill. Plus it needs logic and rational thinking. They seem to be lost too. Let me know if you find any somewhere.
          Victims are the new black, methinks,
          My mother loved sarcasm, not that she used it a lot, but I grew up with the concept. I never subscribed to ‘the lowest form of wit’ belief.
          I don’t think seasoning works with blancmange.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Interesting what you said about your mom and sarcasm – witty remarks were so common then. Same at our house – and seems like everyone’s then. It was fashionable. Is it a generational thing? Possibly of an era as sarcasm, irony, wit, reading on different levels partly depends on background knowledge, education, and a sense of play with language/ideas. Takes a bit of work from both parties? A great deal of fun in any case.
            Sad some Miss out.
            Being the victim is the latest fad.(Along with championing another who might be a victim and you can get applause for “supporting” them and being a “good person”) Rather tiring. Yawn.
            Baited. Hook. Line. Sinker. Flounder.


I appreciate any comments you leave, so long as they are relatively polite. And thanks for reading.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s