My blog is a collection of answers people don’t want to hear to questions they didn’t ask.
SEBASTYNE YOUNG
On my
Purpose page I wrote, "The purpose of this blog is to give me a platform to say what I think while giving everyone else the opportunity to ignore it." I have been blogging since 2005. This blog is actually the 2.0 version of
Charlie's Blog. The first incarnation of the blog was filled with so much atheistic and libertarian idiocy and pornographic filth that it was easier to nuke the thing from orbit than try to salvage anything from it. My conversion to Roman Catholicism and a return to political conservatism made it necessary for me to resort to the nuclear option. I have no regrets on this.
I became a blogger after an accidental career as a messageboard and combox poster. Many of the things I wrote then were as long and as thoughtful as what appears on this blog. I also enjoyed the conversation and banter with the people that replied to those posts and comments. Then, some jerk running the site would delete what I took an hour to write. I know this impulse came more from jealousy than disagreement. The simple fact is that my comments overshadowed the creativity of the original writer of an article. The answer came when a fellow poster recommended that I start a blog. Blogs and blogging were new at the time, so I went for it. I never looked back.
Today, this blog is nothing more than my combox comments on things I read, watch, and hear. The difference is that what I write here can't be deleted. This is my platform. Charlie's Blog is my combox to the world.
I still write comments on things like YouTube videos, but I limit those comments to one or two sentences. That brevity makes it less irritating when my comments get deleted. No, I am not a troll. Trolls receive more toleration than me. What people want from a combox is an amen corner from people who are borderline imbeciles. Stupidity will be tolerated. Common sense will not be tolerated.
When social media came along, I was a natural for that medium. Today, those pits of distraction have the same problems as the comboxes and messageboards. For myself, I hate the addictive nature of social media. The delight is reading responses to what you have written and checking back in again and again. This is pride and vanity, so I eschew social media entirely now.
I used to get that same social media thrill when I had a combox here at the C-Blog. I don't care for an amen corner, but I do love when people disagree with me or challenge my thinking. I have a tremendously thick skin on things, and I get an adrenaline thrill from a contrary comment. I regretted having to shut down the combox after that doxxing incident, but I can't manage a combox at all. Rod Dreher said that you could have a good combox if you managed it well which means being a constant policeman. I don't care to do that. I find that it is easier to close the pool than sit out there being a lifeguard.
My policy now is to respond to things with blog posts instead of combox comments. I write what I think which leads to the being ignored part. When you write a combox comment, you have hijacked that audience for a bit. This is OK if you post forgettable comments. When the comments are unforgettable, you have problems. With a blog post, few people will ever read what you think.
In the real world of flesh and blood, I keep my opinions to myself. I just listen to people and try to take it all in. Once in a blue moon, I will slip and say something. I regret it every single time. I take those opinions that I keep to myself and share them with you, Gentle Reader.
I read other blogs, and those bloggers do the same thing I do. From their electronic soapboxes, they respond to news items and other bloggers. I think it is a good thing. The difference between those bloggers and myself is that I don't post responses to everything I read or hear. They post ten things per day. I publish one post weekly now. I don't think everything needs my commentary.
This is a long and drawn out preface to my thoughts about a recent Walking is Fitness podcast entitled "A Runner's Thoughts About Walking." Dave Paul's podcast is his combox to the world, and this podcast was in response to an article by a woman who took up walking to rehab from a running injury. Dave has this annoying habit of talking about things without giving a link or even a title to the source material. I had to do some googling to find the article. Here is the relevant quotation from that article:
I’ve always found walking boring, slow and, in all honesty, a waste of time. Why walk when you can run and get an adrenaline rush at the same time, and cover the distance twice as fast?
But running can take its toll on the body, which I discovered after completing a 250km ultra-marathon this summer. I tried cutting back on running but by September my physiotherapist advised me to have a "proper rest". This meant no running.
I have already said this before, and I will say it again. Running is stupid. Dave's podcast essentially said this without saying it. Dave Paul is polite to the point of being annoying. He also contradicts himself. In a previous podcast, he cited research that said running was not bad for your knees. In this podcast, he tells how his wife was on crutches with (wait for it) a knee injury from running. This injury was so bad that her doctor told her to not even walk on that knee or risk permanent impairment.
The cure for all running injuries is to stop running. Additionally, those running injuries can lead to crippling conditions where you can't even walk much less run. If your fitness activity puts you on crutches, that is a huge signal that you need to give up that activity for something safer and saner.
Dave Paul knows all of this. He just doesn't come out and say it. He resorts to a sort of telegraphy where he sends the message, but you have to know Morse code to decipher it. I know the code, so I will do the deciphering.
Running is stupid, but runners derive "personal satisfaction" from this fitness activity. This personal satisfaction is vanity. Runners are Type A people. When that runner is a Type A female, it means that she is a bitch.
WebMD says, "The phrase 'Type A' refers to a pattern of behavior and personality associated with high achievement, competitiveness, and impatience, among other characteristics." Any study on Type A characteristics will show why these people are attracted to running and uninterested in walking. Lily Canter said as much when she said that walking was boring, slow, and a waste of time. I appreciate her candor on the matter. She told me everything I already knew about her.
I am not a Type A person. Any Type A characteristics that I may have had developing were destroyed in my accident. This is why I am on the Gentle Path. This is also why I have a hard time fathoming why people continue running when it causes so much injury. They would rather be crippled than give up the pursuit of their vanity.
A Runner's Thoughts About Walking
I stopped running for a month and tried daily walks instead. Here are five things I learned
What Is a Type A Personality?
