When I started to blog the first time, quite a while back i was talked into it by friends. I enjoyed it tremendously. It was a creative group and it became a creative outlet that sparked my own creativity. We were supportive, courteous funny and introduced eachother to eachother as well as things that we might find interesting.
Above all, we respected eachother and our individual artistic expressions including privacy. People were polite courteous and gracious. As happens with anything life happens and some like myself stopped. We kept in touch through other means. Throughout the years there was only one incident were a fellow blogger disagreed with me, it happened to be about science and got personal. I emailed him diplomatically telling him that it was inappropriate. To my surprise he apologized and invited me to do a guestblog on that particular science topic. Ultimately, we realized that we were both right. Friendships were created.
Some of my friends are on other platforms that aren't compatible with this one.
Re-explaining:
Then a series of serious events happened followed by being a fulltime 24/7 caregiver for my father during covid which destroyed every aspect of my life. I am tough, was always the go to person. But this? Sadistic people who neglected and stole from him and by default me? Three companies that he paid for to assist him, who neglected him? I found him sitting in a chair, barely coherent with "sign here" post it notes stuck to his shirt. A 10 page form on the table in front of him. I ran grabbed a few bottles of apple juice and water and brought him back.
Nonstop for months that turned into years due to covid. I did the job of five people at once. The caregiver support group turned out to be some incompetent people who didnt help me navigate the system, but offered trite "must be very difficult" type of counseling.
I stopped writing or painting for myself for the first time in my life. Health issues went unaddressed. This post is not about my father, but that I'm still recovering from it, because I did not get time for bereavment. Grief had to be suppressed so I could function, but i was in shock and traumatized. The first step was my mental and physical health.
Blogging was a part of that. Back to the arts, sharing science and interesting finds, except what initially happened is that I wasn't used to it anymore; grief bubbled up, people did need to understand eventhough I owe no one an explanation. So, I also needed a supportive community. Many came through for me. Thank you.
Privacy:
However, returned to blogging, people's behavior had changed, the toxicity of the internet had rubbed off on some of them. No matter how many times I explained that this is not a personal autobiographical blog; it's even in my profile, I kept having to reexplain it. I don't do day in the life and spouse does not want personal pics or anything beyond hobbies out there.
Our private space is our own. There are laws that protect my privacy and I disclose what I choose. I expect people to respect that.
Thoughts and sharing information about art, commenting, encouraging creativity debate and amicable discussion that follow basic netiquette and the creation of a comfortable supportive space, is what this blog is about, especially now.
The Drama:
I do not TOLERATE abuse or personal attacks. I give people a chance to clarify and apologize if need be. Sometimes I let things go and move on, other times I call people out on their behavior. This is one of those times.
I had a couple of science ideas in draft, ancestry and genome were among them and the "Muggle" post was leading up to the "Ancestry" post. Posted it and as I sometimes do wanted to share the info that was already public.
There's a blogger some of my readers know whom I enjoyed because of his photography. Mr. Photography took offense, started to argue science and left a cryptic verbal comment. Then he threw a hissy fit, removed me from his blogroll. I gave him time to calm down and extended grace.
I was also disappointed that only one person said anything.
He called me condescending and thought that I had written the post for or about him, when I was referring to the journalist of a major paper, which he's not. I was suprised at his self-absorption and the complete disregard about trampling on my emotions. Talk about kicking a dog when theyre down.
I waited for a few days and he basically pulled a juvenile "let me dump my sh..t on you and leave".
I expected more from someone who is supposed to follow the Journalistic Code of Ethics and Standards.
I will continue to fill my life with the things I enjoy and anyone who wishes to come along is more than welcome here.
 |
| People think that grief slowly gets smaller with time In reality, grief stays the same size, but slowly life begins to grow bigger around it |
Most of the exchange is in the Ancestry post.
I rarely question the science or otherwise of anything, I'm just not smart enough. I take things at face value and it matters little if people agree with me or not. Personal opinions are just that, personal and if someone else thinks differently, that's allowed. If someone "picks on" me for anything I usually think at least they're leaving someone else alone, someone who may not be able to shake things off as I can.
ReplyDeleteCodex: knowledge has nothing to do with intelligence. But when people are misinformed bigger problems can happen. Agreeing to disagree is one thing claiming the earth is flat another. But when it gets personal and does harm it's no longer about brushing off. It's the nature of my field to disagree but usually adults don't call each other names.
DeleteI've never commented before on any blog, I read just a few, around the world, but I have been shocked at some of the recent nastiness in comments, especially appertaining to facts, politics, science and just sheer self egotism from commentators. I came here from reading your interesting comments on other blogs I used to read ( have pretty much stopped now, it's too draining and wasteful of my time)
ReplyDeleteI read your views about DNA testing and it echoed my experience, in a small way. I was on Ancestry quite a few years ago, just for research, never put my own details online, I'm a private person. However I received a message on the website, from a 'cousin' wanting lots of information from me. He did tell me which ancestor we shared, he'd done the DNA testing and knew it all. The problem was that I've never taken a DNA test, never posted my details...he couldn't believe I hadn't done the test...how else has Ancestry linked him to me? He soon lost interest, but I realised that Ancestry must have hooked him up to me solely because I have a very unusual surname, ( which he didn't, not being a direct ancestor), I had obviously searched for my surname, ( as had he obviously!) but amongst many others, but some algorithm had linked us, even though we live across the world from each other. I concluded that the DNA results might hit lucky but that many would be relying on the massive amount of personal data Ancestry holds. Put the two together and yes, many results will be startingly 'accurate' especially if your name and work details are also online. I think I put it in the same bracket as visiting a fortune teller... Yes, sometimes they can seem uncannily accurate, but in reality, what they 'see' is there for anyone using intuition and having a knowledge of human nature. Now that intuition has been replaced by massive online data and accurate algorithms.
So, in short I was really interested to read your blog and Dawn's comment after her own experience. As in all interactions whether online or in the real world, hissy fits are better left where they belong...with the one taking the moral high ground. We can all justify being in the right, but all negative emotions destroy the person who feels them, never the person who caused them.
Carry on blogging, there are lots of people who never comment but enjoy reading other peoples' opinions. We're all so different with different lives.
Lee from the U.K
Codex: Hello Lee
DeleteThank you for commenting after all. I was the same. Even when people where "normal", I just viewed it as time consuming.
I can't tell whether people read or just click away so comments is how "I get paid" for my time figuratively speaking.
I like communicating getting different POVs and experiences. It's draining when I read, am laughing and then some jerk interjects which is what I often come across in sm.
Have something to attend to. Will be back. (Wish blogger allowed threads)
Codex@Lee
DeleteI section topics because it's easier and faster for me.
The main point I was trying to make in this post is that it's not possible. It's fact and not point of view. DNA sequencing is in toddler stage. My emphasis is on Genetics, Genome and DNA. I expect very few people to know that. It's sitting in draft because the focus was on getting insulted for it by someone who is so self-aggrandizing that he thought I wrote it for him. Barely know the guy.
Codex@Lee: Well. That's concerning. Too my knowledge (I haven't seen the form. They shouldn't even do it by last name just a number. This guy getting your name from them (if true) would be a very serious privacy breach. I'm glad you debunked it. Some good sleuthing there. Yes it's very much how psychics operate.
DeleteIt's in an upcoming post so I don't want to reiterate here. I'm used to people's indifference to to science or leaving it at agree to disagree. But I have a zero tolerance toward insults.
I do hope you comment in the future. May I ask which field you're in?
Thank you, Lee. Means a lot at the moment.
The veneer of civilization is thin. I haven't personally been insulted on my blog by commenters but I see such on social media...nothing good to say, calling complete strangers liars, going out of their way to be rude instead of just scrolling by. Once you know who with his cultish following trashed 'political correctness' (in other words being polite) it gave people permission to be their worst selves openly. And humans have an unbounded capacity for cruelty.
ReplyDeleteCodex: I left what the blogger said out. But he should really know better. You know him better than me.
DeleteIt's the old if you have nothing good to say don't say anything at all.
We disagree on a few things but it's not important and never an issue. You also make it quite clear in general that you won't put up with it.
It started before that. I blame the internet. But yeah a lot worse since uhm you know...
*sigh*Ellen I want to stay optimistic but it's getting harder.
I'm sorry this happened to you. There is simply no excuse for this behaviour. I usually only lurk, but will make more of an effort to comment.
ReplyDeleteTake care
Lynn in Canada
Codex: You're a reader not a lurker. I appreciate it, truly.
DeleteIf what I'm about to say in any Comment I always consider first, is it an improvement over Silence? If it isn't, then no Commenting is necessary if what I'm about to say isn't an improvement over Silence. I've been fortunate that the vast majority in The Land of Blog have been stellar Dear Readers. With just a little Spam from time to time seeping in, which are probably not even Humans, but Bots and Trolls. Tho' I do see on Social Media the darker side that can and sometimes does show up and it can be hard to be the Target of those types of Drama & A Headache Commenters. As a full time Caregiver myself and have been for Decades, it does exact a Toll that is heavy and often Grief filled in many different ways and Isolating too. To reconnect can be hard, I'm not always doing so effectively and Blogging is a kind of substitute Socialization for me while Caregiving consumes me most of the time. I'm Thankful for the Blog and respectful of other Bloggers Spaces here. What they choose to Share or not Share is personal and really not up to me to question, just enjoy the visits, the Read, and if they provide Visuals, the Photography. I don't think there's a Right or Wrong way to Blog and you can and should Blog about what you want to, regardless of what anyone thinks about it, it's not mandatory that they show up... it's voluntary. So, if they don't like a Post, Be Well and just Be Gone is my outlook about it. No reason to personalize it unless you choose to and perhaps then it's not really about the Post, so much as it's about the Reader who chooses to take an Offense when none was even offered to them personally.
ReplyDeleteCodex: The bots don't bother me, but people who should know better do. I know, you know. Thank you and exactly what you said.
DeleteI'm back! Just a couple of comments which tie in with dna testing and which I've been prompted to add after curiosity took me to another blog which was followed by many comments, mainly verifying to the accuracy of DNA testing, reading them I felt both bemused and amused, so want to make a comment about family history research in general, on the assumption that people who take the DNA testing are doing so because they have already done the research involved in tracing ancestors.
ReplyDeleteOne commentator was told they were descended from the original voyagers on the Mayflower... that's very precise, but by now there must be thousands and thousands of descendants. Another said their mother's side was correct but not their father's.
Most people know their mother, but very few can absolutely know their father.
I'm not being disrespectful here, it's a fact which apparently very few people take into account. For instance,
I used a verified paper trail in tracing my direct line...after 1840 there are official registrations for births, deaths and marriages, but prior to that I used Wills, land and property documents and early Manorial Rolls, to trace my direct line back to 1126. Sounds good? It's interesting, but it can only relate with any accuracy to the family surname, it cannot possibly be accurate with respect to the people, who are the carriers of DNA. Because we do not know our fathers.
For example, my great great grandmother gave her father on her marriage certificate, as required in law. She was correct in naming her widowed mother's husband. However due to his death some time before my grandmother's birth, he most certainly was not her biological father. But I've seen the research of 'cousins' who have simply included this man and his predecessors as their ancestors....
It's my understanding that by the 1980's, DNA testing had been undertaken across the world, except in Polynesia, where it was refused. These studies must have been very basic but are the beginnings of the genealogical DNA industry as we see it today. As you so rightly noted the sheer expense means these tests can only be at best fragmentary and generalised
The late Professor Sykes studied genome frequencing at Oxford University, he chose to study mitochondrial DNA and he had the funding to extract actual DNA from long dead specimens, even so much of his findings have since been found to be inaccurate. So what does that realistically tell us about mass production of DNA results for the likes of Ancestry?
Also, and please correct me here, but I understood that our DNA changes completely over 400 years, so, realistically, even if we had unlimited resources, it would be impossible to claim descent from, say, any figure in history from an earlier date?
Thanks, second writing of this comment, I back spaced on my phone and lost all that I had originally written
Lee
Hello Lee
DeleteQuick note
This is impressive. Haven't thought of the father angle because my brain stopped listening at the
We.cant.do.this yet!!! (nothing to do with you). I explain some of it in an upcoming post too long here. I always comment back sometimes have time constraints.
The oxbridges have tremendous pressure to produce
Codex:
ReplyDelete"Also, and please correct me here, but I understood that our DNA changes completely over 400 years, so, realistically, even if we had unlimited resources, it would be impossible to claim descent from, say, any figure in history from an earlier date?" (Lee)
I'm not sure I understand the question. DNA is similar to what it would have been. It's an instruction manual on what a human being should look like. Two arms 10 fingers etc. There are mutations in the interim. Can you be more specific?
Thank you, I do mean the ever changing mutations of course. .
ReplyDeleteCodex: @Lee?
DeleteI explain it a little in the new post, if you want to continue there. The mutations might be 5% of the genome over time. The focus is to study diseases not ancestry.