I do wonder about some people.
Last week's post at Brazzil has generated a long (by most posts' standards) thread - although not much about the actual content of the post. From what I can tell there's been some observations of political views (including about the US presidential election - sorry where did I make any reference to it?) before it degenerated into a slanging match between suitably anonymous 'guests'.
As for comment about my post, two stand out:
1. 'who the Fuck is this Gay Burton, is it Guy? gee I missed. Anyways your
article is full of shit.'
2. 'AND HERE IS THE MORONIC CONCLUSION'... Nevertheless, don't be too
surprised if something is worked out which will satisfy all
sides. WHAT A PUTZ'
For these two 'guests', who conveniently withheld their names, the following responses might be made:
1. Besides the point about my name (which I think alludes to the
prejudices of the person in question), it's not entirely clear why they
have that opinion of the article.
2. The poster feels free to make his own conclusion without offering an
alternative. Furthermore, it completely overlooks the concept of the jeito, which is the way by which resolution of competing interests might be brought about (da Matta is particular good on this)
There are those who may feel that I shouldn't have bothered to respond given that they have nothing to offer than waste the electricity bill by posting abuse.
In fact I did give some thought to whether it was worth the time efforts. But it reminded me of a post made by Bloggerheads which criticised the blocking up of debate and dialogue on MPs' and PPCs' blogs.
It's extremely regrettable since I'm sure Rodney (who manages Brazzil) was keen to expand debate on issues and introduced the comment option. But a small minority seem determined to indulge in abuse and unjustified attacks without offering any useful contribution, giving the wider blogging community a bad name.