But to some, particularly women, this is unacceptable.

See, I don’t flirt and I don’t respond to flirting. I’m just not interested in that sort of thing online. In a nutshell, I don’t understand it.

So how does that translate to my conversations with young people being so obviously a case of “grooming”, “abusive dependency”, “inadequate personality” or “intellectual deficiency”?

These women are spreading so many lies about me that the hopeful males they attract are adding their own brand of vitriol with pictures and trolling and violations of the privacy of young people they don’t even know.

Why is it that these women – and so many many like them – all translate everything males do online as being sex-based or sexually motivated?

Am I looking to get my rocks off when I’m playing Vanguard???

Some just don’t like mature discussions.

Rage writing is easy. It can be powerful and empowering for the writer. But it is also inward looking. Writing outwards, in the way that Kathy does, requires more bravery. It requires looking towards the horizon, not focusing on a target. It means putting your ideas and your credibility on the line — but it should never, in a civil society, mean putting your life on the line.

Thanks for your perspective on the debate, Tara.

I also agree with Steven, making a distinction between rage and anger, that anger can be used as a positive force. However, I feel the world needs more models on how to appropriately channel anger into positive action. I believe it was Ghandi who said something along the lines of “everything I accomplished began because I was angry.” There’s a model for you.

And these are opinions let’s remember. We’re not changing the fundamental, scientific laws of the Universe while we message our words on our little blogs. We’re expressing our thoughts, emotions and positions. Looking at it from a “right” or “wrong” position seems to be a flawed model to go by. I may disagree with Kathy on occasion. I may disagree with you but this doesn’t make you “wrong” or me “right.” Indeed, there’s really no way to tell. “Right” and “best” may be two of the more misguided words in the English language.

But what happened to Kathy, regardless of the legal “was it a death threat or not”, was cruelty. These people’s words and actions were cruel. Just because someone laughs and applauds when you beat another down doesn’t justify and cleanse your actions of spite and venom.

I feel people need to listen to each other more. It really doesn’t take a lot of time or effort. Listen to each other. Listening is not accepting. It’s just taking it in and letting it go. I guess I’ve never really understand why people get angry at others opinions. It’s not like I have to accept and effectuate every opinion and position someone utters.

I sorta see people who attack and beat others down as that long blonde haired Graduate in the bar scene from Good Will Hunting. The jerk who kept reciting other scholar’s opinions to make himself look good at the expense of Will’s friend. Until Will put him in his place by pointing out that he hadn’t formed an opinion of his own. The Graduates identity was enmeshed with other people’s thoughts and ideas. He hadn’t figured out the world on his own terms yet so lacked an ability to allow mystery to simply be. He had to vigorously defend via attacking another because he was unsure of who he was. He was translating the world he lived in, not transforming the world.

Stand naked and be okay with it. There’s nothing to fight with closed fists and harsh words and cruelty is never an appropriate response though, unfortunately, it is always justifiable given someone’s model of the world.

Anyway, guess because I haven’t commented here in a long while I felt at liberty to begin writing a dissertation in your comments. My apologies Tara. Keep up your fine work and wonderful thoughts. Cheers.

What showed up instead, en masse, was a lot of ego-underbelly. The dark side of narcissism. Disowned, projected content, with that fabulous mob-mentality willingness to point the finger….

Or maybe it’s for reasons that seem completely valid to them (else they wouldn’t think that way), and seem crazy to you? Personally I like Kathy and think she’s one of the shining stars in the blogosphere.

But that doesn’t mean that I think something is ‘wrong’ with anyone that disgrees with her. I also think Doc Searls is a super nice guy, and smart to boot, but I disagree with many of his ideas on marketing.

My point is, if someone disagrees with Kathy’s approach, that doesn’t mean there’s anything ‘wrong’ with them (or Kathy), just that not everyone agrees with her approach. And recall that Kathy herself has said that if everyone agrees with you, you probably aren’t a very good writer.

First of all,

“What is there not to agree with?”

If you were talking about a post of mine I’d take issue with this. A blogger no one ever disagrees with is a failed blogger – a blogger with nothing to say. Any strong idea is worth a debate and we should welcome debate. It’s an opportunity to test our opinions and ideas, to flesh them out and refine them, and to learn.

“The world doesn’t need more rage.”

I respectfully suggest that anger (against injustice) provided the impetus for at least some of the books you list as your favourites, and many other important works and actions. I think anger has its place if it’s tempered with some intelligence and applied logic. Was MLK wrong to get angry about racism? Where would we be without that anger?

Who decides what’s positive and what isn’t? Is questioning something an act of negativity?

There are a great many circumstances where being “upbeat” is just not appropriate. And, if you’re trying too hard to be upbeat, doesn’t that damage your objectivity? (These are general points, not a view about Kathy Sierra. I am not familiar with her work and therefore have formed no opinion on it.)

Of course rage – even legitimate rage – can be misused or misdirected. I still believe you should rethink some of the stuff you’ve posted about Locke, Herrell et al. They’re human beings too. No one deserves to be tried in the media.

Best, Steven