[LUconn]

Your blog is nice, I think. But don't make it what it's not. There's no "conversation" going on there. There's only 3 comments to any of the stories and they're all on the same story. and 1 of them is from you, the other 2 from someone here. Rome wasn't built in a day so maybe you'll develop a following eventually, somehow, but it's a very 1 sided format.

[RubberMallet]

Your last few comments should highlight my point that a more intellectual conversation about Liberty University is wanting. Hence, the need for a blog like ours.

you are right the conversation is quite interesting over there....

*chirp chirp*

[Liberty Freelance]

I don't know how we got off on the wrong foot. And I don't know what you all are acting so threatened about. Are you the founders of the Flames Fans? Do you think that patting each other on the back with elementary put-downs will suppress any competition? I already explained that we're a different style of forum. We're not in competition. So what else is it that has caused you to react so negatively to our blog? I'm a little taken aback that there's not one person on here who has found a reason to defend the blog. It's just a blog. About Liberty. What about that gives rise to such a negative reaction? One sarcastic post about a ski slope? Because there are plenty of straight news stories that should be taken into consideration before you form your opinion.

Anyway, you're right. A conversation is not going on over there--yet. That's because we haven't posted any essays yet. (And we started about one week ago.) We've just posted news stories. But we plan to post essays and get alumni and students involved, so everyone's voice can be heard. Why is your first reaction to mock that? What's so divisive about a blog reporting news and opinions about Liberty?

[Hold My Own]

FF is notorious for not being nice to new people...I dont really recall you saying much to make anyone over here mad

[LUconn]

I don't think anyone feels threatened. They're just all jerks.


But, ski-slope mocking is normally a telltale sign of an LU basher. You don't appear to be one but that's what set off the frenzy. Same thing would have happened if you mentioned the trees that were killed for the monogram.

[RubberMallet]

you'll have to excuse me, i tend to believe most bloggers are self important nitwits who speak about the "dialog" that traverses their blog, and "their audience", and refer to themselves as "us, we, or our"

its just what i'm used to.....

[Liberty Freelance]

Thanks for clearing that up, guys. So the method here is to intimidate new users for no apparent reason. And RubberMallett just has a problem with plural pronouns. We can work with that.

We're not anti-Liberty. We love Liberty. But we also strongly disagree with many of their archaic rules and hope they get abolished. But if someone has a strong defense of a rule, or any other issue at Liberty, we will gladly post it and respond to it. Our minds are open to persuasion.

We've recently discovered that the Champion is censored by the administration, which seriously diminishes its status as a student newspaper. That is, it's not a legitimate student newspaper. It's a mouthpiece of the administration. That's sad. So we're trying to fill a void. There's no check on the administration through any student voice. So we want to create a setting in which people can discuss ideas about Liberty, and no one's point of view is suppressed even if we disagree with it. Our philosophy is that the basic, ancient principle of free speech supplies the framework in which truth inevitably bubbles up. And we want all points of view on the table and discussed. We strive to take the ideas on their merits and not attack anyone or make them feel unwelcome because their views are in the minority. Indeed, we generally respect people who stand up for unpopular ideas.

So just because we have strong opinions, you shouldn't be afraid we're just there to tear down Liberty. We're not. If for no other reason, for our professional futures, we want the place to continue to improve. Many of you have made clear that you're uncomfortable joining in with such an enterprise, and some of you are opposed to articulating your opposition in a rational, well-reasoned essay that we will post. But maybe when we get some more readers, you'll feel comfortable enough to join some of our discussions. I hope you do.

Meanwhile, I plan to post over here about Liberty sports and whatever else I find interesting after I explore the site. So, about that Brolin Floyd transfer . . .

[Liberty Freelance]

Sorry about switching tense there at the end. We forgot that two of us were typing . . .

[LUconn]

You're like the borg. I assume you are posting from here:
Your queen can use "I".


No but seriously, were you (plural) ever students? It's fairly well known that The Champion is censored to a degree. And there's no real student "check" on the administration, other than with their wallets, by design. Well I guess we have permission to burn the place down in certain circumstances. But that's about it. Don't even ask what power the SGA has. I guess you view this as a bad thing. When thinking about most of the students that I came across over 4 years, I count LU's lucky stars

And again from an early note, there are just certain terms and subjects that trigger the thought from everyone here "not another one of these guys". "Archaic rules" definitely made my eyes roll to that effect.

[Liberty Freelance]

Yes. Both of graduated from Liberty during this decade.

Why would "archaic rules" cause you to roll your eyes? Do you disagree?

Our purpose is not to sugar coat our own opinions. We think that slashing a good portion of the Liberty Way is long overdue. There' s no way around it. But our opinions should be challenged with counterarguments rather than dismissed, and vice versa. We will gladly post all opposing points of view, as I outlined in my latest post that I put up a few minutes ago. We don't disguise our opinions, and we don't expect anyone else to, even though other opinions will inevitably clash with ours at times. That's life. We have a healthy respect for legitimate discussion and argumentation, but little patience for shouting matches or dismissive attitudes.

[Kolzilla41]

Yes. Both of graduated from Liberty during this decade.

Why would "archaic rules" cause you to roll your eyes? Do you disagree?

Our purpose is not to sugar coat our own opinions. We think that slashing a good portion of the Liberty Way is long overdue. There' s no way around it. But our opinions should be challenged with counterarguments rather than dismissed, and vice versa. We will gladly post all opposing points of view, as I outlined in my latest post that I put up a few minutes ago. We don't disguise our opinions, and we don't expect anyone else to, even though other opinions will inevitably clash with ours at times. That's life. We have a healthy respect for legitimate discussion and argumentation, but little patience for shouting matches or dismissive attitudes.

I can say this with much certainty NO ONE CARES!

[phoenix]

The problem I see is that you're trying to effect change and make your voices heard in a way that almost completely ensures that you won't be heard and change won't happen. You ask people to submit well thought out essays to your blog -- that's not how blogs work. You write, your readers comment (you do have those active, so I figured you'd know what they were all about). Don't allow anonymous comments, either (that won't always fix SPAM problems, but it will cut down on trolls). If your readers are providing all your content, why don't they start their own blogs?

And you're better off having a few really substantial posts than having a bunch of things that are basically a one-paragraph summary of a newspaper article. When people show up and read that, they wonder why they bother (as I mentioned in my last post on this thread, they're better off using Google Alerts and an RSS reader).

Finally, if you're really interested in effecting change and being heard, you really should have some clue about how many people hit the site. If nobody is reading the blog, then your message isn't getting out. It's not about competition - it's about blogging so that your voice is heard. This message board is filled with your target audience -- current and former students of Liberty University. Unfortunately, you've managed to alienate many of us because of your condescending attitude toward message boards. Yeah, we tend to be harsh toward newcomers (didn't happen to me personally, but I've seen it happen), but it's nothing compared to how people will react to you on your blog. If you don't have a thick skin, then my best advice would be to close the website down and find another hobby.

[Liberty Freelance]

Thanks for the tips. Readers won't provide all of our content. We provide that option so that no one can cry, "You're anti-Liberty!" Plus, it will enrich the discussion. It's an aspect that readers may take advantage of, but is unlikely to be the blog's engine. It will also shut up a lot of critics. For instance, this thread comprises about 95% critics. Yet when I posed the challenge to post any criticisms, everyone ignored it. Or many people ducked the issue by asserting that "no one cares" about our blog, or they can just post here. That might be the case. But it skirts the issue. If you can't rationally defend your criticism, which no one but the last poster has done (and I've taken all your advice into account in how we will proceed with the blog), then your weak position will be exposed--regardless of whether you snidely shroud yourself in self-satisfaction. In other words, the option for readers to post forces them to put up or shut up.

In a nutshell, we're trying to avoid senseless grunts, like the one flamerbob just belched.

This thread should allay your concern about whether we have "thick skin." We've stuck around and turned a childish cut-down competition into a legitimate discussion. Meanwhile, you've apparently gotten offended, or think other readers have, about our off-the-cuff remark about message boards. Our point was that message boards serve a different purpose. And from my experience on here so far, I'm happy to leave that purpose to you guys. Our skin's plenty "thick" enough for the benign snorts we've deflected on here. The blog's not shutting down. But thanks for the stern lecture.

[Kolzilla41]

Thanks for the tips. Readers won't provide all of our content. We provide that option so that no one can cry, "You're anti-Liberty!" Plus, it will enrich the discussion. It's an aspect that readers may take advantage of, but is unlikely to be the blog's engine. It will also shut up a lot of critics. For instance, this thread comprises about 95% critics. Yet when I posed the challenge to post any criticisms, everyone ignored it. Or many people ducked the issue by asserting that "no one cares" about our blog, or they can just post here. That might be the case. But it skirts the issue. If you can't rationally defend your criticism, which no one but the last poster has done (and I've taken all your advice into account in how we will proceed with the blog), then your weak position will be exposed--regardless of whether you snidely shroud yourself in self-satisfaction. In other words, the option for readers to post forces them to put up or shut up.

In a nutshell, we're trying to avoid senseless grunts, like the one flamerbob just belched.

This thread should allay your concern about whether we have "thick skin." We've stuck around and turned a childish cut-down competition into a legitimate discussion. Meanwhile, you've apparently gotten offended, or think other readers have, about our off-the-cuff remark about message boards. Our point was that message boards serve a different purpose. And from my experience on here so far, I'm happy to leave that purpose to you guys. Our skin's plenty "thick" enough for the benign snorts we've deflected on here. The blog's not shutting down. But thanks for the stern lecture.

Seriously, go on your blog and post and quit wasting my texts with this thread update.

[Kolzilla41]

Or better yet have 1971 write a blurb using the majesty of emoticons

[LUconn]

you get a text every time a thread updates? That's a lot of texts.

[Kolzilla41]

you get a text every time a thread updates? That's a lot of texts.

I stated the wrong medium, its email which then goes to my BB

[RubberMallet]

But thanks for the stern lecture.

yeah pheonix dude, "they" know what they are doing..

[El Scorcho]

It's still going to get blocked.

[flames1971]

Or better yet have 1971 write a blurb using the majesty of emoticons

Thanks so much

[phoenix]

It's still going to get blocked.

I hope not. I figure one of two things will happen -- they'll either vanish completely because they get no readership and thus become irrelevant, or they'll actually become another place where people can discuss concerns about Liberty without getting labeled as "anti-Liberty" or "anti-Falwell" or something like that.

I'm hoping they're going to have some sort of vetting process for reader submissions, so that they can make sure that every argument on the blog is more than just ad hominem attacks and that everyone is actually researching what they're talking about. Otherwise, it's going to degenerate really quickly into something that nobody wants to admit to reading or writing.

I don't like the fact that LU students can't see things like that blog -- reminds me too much of The Student Voice at PCC (check the link for that saga). Rather than ignoring criticism, the administration should be willing to engage critics (as long as they're not foaming at the mouth tools or something). Students know what's going on, and most are able to get around campus-wide restrictions on web sites anyway. Blocking a site makes more people want to know what's there, and keeps people wondering what the admin is trying to hide.

[phoenix]

In a nutshell, we're trying to avoid senseless grunts, like the one flamerbob just belched.

(sorry for the double post, but I had to add this)

And in one sentence, you rendered the rest of a well-thought-out post void, and become what you're trying to criticize. Ad hominem isn't good from either side of a debate, guys.

And if you think that was a "stern lecture" you've obviously never had one.

[Liberty Freelance]

Good point. You'd think common sense would prevail and the students would be able to decide for themselves which websites they should visit and which ideas they should be exposed to. It's a little condescending that the administration thinks they're a more competent filter than the students. But as you pointed out, it wouldn't hurt us any if we get banned. We exist just as much for alumni as for students. And banning a website just makes students more curious. In our society, students can, fortunately, get on any website they want. They could just go to Panera Bread or a friend's house.

[Sly Fox]

Dude, I see you working. And I feel your passion. But if you re-read this thread there is a ton of great feedback you are dismissing in order to justify your position. As someone with over two decades of journalism experience I encourage you to invest the time to go back.

And if you really want dialogue, this is the place. You'd probably have much more success simply sharing your opinions on your blog and then linking it here where we see more traffic in a day that you'll likely ever encounter in several months if you are fortunate. This board is set up to accomplish the very goals you espouse.

[El Scorcho]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing