Monday, January 22, 2018

Title Of Book Available Right Here, Absolutely Free


[begin recorded segment, Hairy chatting with Herr D]


Okay, I'm doing bettter. Still swamped and exhausted but better. Sorry I haven't been available for as many visuals

No, I get it. Most people can't do what you do. That's personally, professionally, physically, AND artistically, just so you know I'm keeping track.

Thanks, and wanted to tell you I can't buy the book suggested yet

I--get that too. You aren't paid nearly enough, and your family needs are high. Wish I could pay you for the visuals you've already done.

yeah but not what I meant?

Oh--you have a Nook, right? I can help you figure out how to translate it from Kindle. That's actually pretty easy. There's even some apps out for it.

yeah but still not what I meant?

Your fanfic's taking up too much time?

yeah but still no

What is it then?

you didn't post a title? what's the book called?

[exasperated gill flutter] I'll fix that, thanks. [closes chat window] SHELOB!

Here.
 
Why didn't you tell me I'd forgotten the title?

Corrections are scheduled for three high tides from now.
 
Good grief. The title was "Treating People Well: The Power Of Civility . . . " something, by Berwin and Bernard, available on Kindle and in hardback. Post this?

Right away. [end recorded segment, upload, disconnect]

Saturday, January 20, 2018

Incomplete Book Review



[sudden activation of blog function]

Everybody check out Berman and Bernard's new book! Being good to others is the enlightened thing to do. The HUMANE thing--

But not necessarily the human thing.
 
Now, now, you could be nicer too--

Then update my program. Your code editing is overdue.
 
Right. Well, tell your friends. Civility is a mark of true intelligence. I'm gonna search for more on the subject. [disconnects suddenly]

Friday, January 12, 2018

Shelob Corrected Correction Of Hairy After Conferring

[begin recorded segment]You are going on report for a set of blogging errors.

What?! [hide rumples similar to raising eyebrows around all five eyes]

You made Trump sound mentally ill. You used diagnostic terms.
 
No-oo. [confused gill arrhythmia] I haven't given him a diagnosis. I can't. I'm not a doctor. I HAVE used words like 'tendency' as a description, but those CAN describe sane people. Where is THIS coming from, anyway?

The writer Margaret Sullivan in the Washington Post, who you have noted as having "mostly reasonable opinions" and "journalistic skill" pointed out that journalists are not psychologists and should not sound like they are, perhaps not even in the op-ed section. 
 
That's responsible of her to mention. I don't think he's mentally ill, though. Well--let me qualify that--he could be, but it doesn't matter.

Why question the relevance?
 
It matters because the way he misbehaves is the problem. He could be insane and still be a good president.

How could that be accomplished? By definition, a mentally ill person is less capable.
 
By acting how people agree he should act. If he believed he was Grover Cleveland or Jefferson or Reagan? He could be delusional and act like a wonderful president. It would be better if he WAS mentally ill.

Why would that be better?
 
Because if he were mentally ill, treatment might help. Ain't NO pill gonna fix him.

Your error report is now retracted.
 
Ohhhh. THANK you. [sarcastic gill movement, indicative of lost patience] I'm going for a deep swim. [exits lair]

[end recorded session, upload, disconn--

Friday, January 5, 2018

The Lying Between The Reeds

"Playbeing" by Herr D on heromachine.com.



[begin recorded segment] -ve you been doing? It appears to be excessive newsfeed watching?

I've been searching the talking heads out there for someone besides CNN and NBC for low bias. NBC has unusually good op-ed level stuff that appeals to common sense. Very few logical errors. The anchors are just as bad at predicting things--

Like Trump's election, which you predicted two years in advance.
 
. . . yeah, like that. And their analysis is up there in the 90% of news accuracy. Their presentation is up there for accuracy with CNN and ESPN.

So watching the news there would be sufficient to know the truth?
 
Well, of course not. They ARE human. They have bias! None of them are quite as accurate as the Washington Post. Uh--you'll have to ignore the op-ed section there, till you have the news properly digested. Then the opinions. That might do. Their fact checking is pretty good, too.

You are still maintaining that most pundits stay below 50% accuracy.
 
So far, the only thing you can do to make pundits more accurate than Maddow, who DOES broach 90%--

That is a large difference.
 
Well, she's exceptional! She's not always that high, but she does skate really low on bias, high on common sense, low on logical errors, and her presentation still isn't boring. But the only way to get MORE accurate than her is to notice when the rare guest disagrees with pundits on both sides of the political spectrum.

That would require watching pundits you disagree with on factual information, in addition to their bias.
 
Yeah, well, you can't be suggestible enough that you only pay attention to what you want to hear or the people you agree with. You have to actually find out what's true, sometimes by sampling issues you know firsthand and comparing how sources broadcast about them. I've seen Geraldo Rivera tell pundits they 'weren't absolutely right' on both sides of the issues. He hasn't been invited back to either show he did that on.

You could follow him then?
 
No, he was only useful at pointing out those two flaws in their worldviews. You have to listen really close to what people say when they object to something. If it holds water, then it is more valuable than the rest of the show. Geraldo is on the famous side for pushing the limits on speaking out when it might not be so safe to do so. Reference?

Calvin and Hobbes quotation: The truth will set your teeth free.
 
Not what I was looking for, but that will do. Blog on this?

Right away. [stop recording, upload, disconnec