Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Of Comments and Intense Reactions

Hello bloggers! The official explanation for my short absence is in the next entry. In this one, I'm going to be doing something that I should have done earlier: Explain and present the new comment format I'm testing out. Many of you have reacted and commented about the new form, and I believe where I fell short on was the lack of a short tutorial on how to use it. It really is simple and very much like our old form, except it allows us to thread comments (more on this later).

So, please don't let the name of the comment plugin fool you, IntenseDebate is just a name, it's not what really goes on. Before you dismiss it as a gimicky thing, please let me defend it and its purpose. If you all have given it an honest try and still don't like it, i will gladly revert back to the default Blogger comment format.

Let me take you now through the simple process of leaving comments using this new format. Clicking on the same "comments" link at the bottom of each entry takes you to the entry's standalone page, like this one for the "The Village...III" for example. At the bottom of the existing comments, you'll find the form to leave your own.


After writing your comment, you have the option to leave your name or stay anonymous by leaving it blank. You DON'T have to sign up for an IntenseDebate account, though I would recommend it so you can track the comments you've made and refer back to them easily if the need arises. Click on the "Submit Comment" button when you're done.




Now, here is where I think some people are getting confused. IntenseDebate will now display your comment and it will look like it already got posted. This is just temporary and for your eyes only (based on your IP address). Actually, this comment will still be awaiting moderation (like in the old style of commenting) and will be posted publicly for all to see after I approve it. Some of you might have seen this and thought that I am not moderating comments anymore, don't worry that I still am.

With regards to threading comments, this is a way of responding to specific comments without having to quote it like in the old method. It allows us to easily follow a conversation between two bloggers, or allow any of you or me to respond to specific questions directed at you or myself. Here is how you do it:

Each comment will have a "Post Reply" link below it.


You click that and a standard comment entry form will appear. You can leave a reply just like posting a regular comment, and it will now appear under the comment you are responding to after I approve it. It will look like this:



A quick update:

Thanks to p.e. for asking, you can sort the comments as well, for those who want to see the latest activity or sort by date (default).





As for the html formatting our more internet savvy bloggers have utilized, they are still active.

IntenseDebate supports the following simple HTML tags:

<a>, <b>, <i>, <u>, <em>, <p>, <blockquote>, <br>, <strong>, <strike>, <img>

The most commonly used ones are the BOLD (<b>) and ITALIC (<i>) tags. You use them by enclosing the word or text you want formatted with the tags, for ex:

<b>your text here</b> will display as:

your text here

So there, I hope you all can give it an honest try, I do believe it will be helpful in keeping track of comments in the blog, especially as we interact with each other all the time nowadays. I noticed how many reactions the baiting commenter dan droff sasholder elicited with his sarcastic ways, and it helps to respond to such using threaded comments, hehe.

Comments (43)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Nifty tutorial, CD. Thanks.
My own intense reaction is that I like this new format better, simply because it is more organized. On the other hand, some bloggers may already feel much comfortable with the old comment format, as in: if it ain't broke, why fix it. I can go either way. So my intense suggestion is to do a little poll to find out. Let us also invite here an intensely deep comment from bro Dan Droff, and hopefully this time we can understand what he's saying. (biro lang bro ha)
3 replies · active 857 weeks ago
Anonymous's avatar

Anonymous · 863 weeks ago

Thanks, CD. I was about to ask - as I write this - if the comments can be 'previewed' but then right now we can already do it. However, we may not preview those we will have highlighted using HTML. Yest?
2 replies · active 863 weeks ago
Jing Custodio's avatar

Jing Custodio · 863 weeks ago

most of the forums from other websites have this format. one can easily reply to a particular entry and readers will not get lost on the whole thread so much. now we will also know if there are readers reacting to our own entries and answer back if necessary.
1 reply · active 863 weeks ago
This type of comment posting reminds me of the way Wordpress does it.

The "downside" is, yes, there's no preview. But the preview is required in the old style because the input box does not expand as you type. With this style of comment posting, the box obviously expands as we put in more text. So, you get a preview as you type; thus, completely eliminating the need for a preview.

The upside is, one can immediately post a comment without having to load a new page. The latter is advantageous to those who have slow connections (such as dial up and WeRoam, sorry to say), or those that view the posts through the phone (Globe users pay by KB downloaded, expensive to keep on downloading pages).

I'll cast my vote on this type of comment posting. Keep up CD!

The Round-Eyed Toddler
Well, that made things simpler. Thanks, CD!
TruthShallSetYouFree's avatar

TruthShallSetYouFree · 863 weeks ago

i've noticed that news today on the dailies and radio program speaks of property management harrassing homeowners. It seems the property management outfit of one senator (presidentiable) is doing a Remarville. Although it's good news to me that the justice sector and the SEC is going thru some housecleaning. Paving the way for clear conscience, no strings attached ruling and enforcement of law.

Which reminds me, aren't we suppose to bring to court these CFC wannabes!
Sometimes it's the once-in-a-while comment that gets our attention, "us" here being the regular bloggers (yung mga suki na ng IDOTRCFC) and the regular observers (mas marami pa sila compared with those who post, I guess). The comments by dan droff would be the latest example, but lots of one-time posters (including but not limited to our friends in the "Sister Company") have passed by and posted something that would either affirm us or irk us.

The thing about them is that the people behind those posts disappear immediately. Mga one or two posts lang, usually just to reply to the first response, then that's it. The whole thing would keep on running until it's out of hand, and if the post was rather nasty or confusing to begin with, someone would end up posting a fuming, unchristian reply. All the while the commenter responsible for the controversy would have moved on, satisfied that we've given him/her undeserved attention (tipong "sige nga, anong masasabi mo sa sinabi ko?"), satisfied that we've fallen for the trap.

And there I see the problem: by dwelling on the once-in-a-while comment, we bloggers actually do give credit to those who do not deserve it, particularly to the offending commenter. Since he/she has already moved on, we'll just be rubbing salt on our ourselves, trying to trump each other into saying "Aha! I've won the Best Comment of the Day Award!" Sure, we learn something along the way, but does it justify the fact that tayo-tayo na lang ang nag-uusap, wala na yung pinapatamaan natin?

I say let those one-time commenters come and go. Let them post their views and opinions. But let us not focus on the wrong they've said. We can, if it's needed, reply properly, without SHOUTING or emphasizing things like this or even this. We should not even hurl invectives here! But as much as possible, let's not get overboard, let's not give too many replies. If their intent is good, then they would find time to say something else, and then they'll become regulars like you and me. If their intent is bad, then let's not give them the satisfaction of being in the spotlight. The spotlight belongs to God, the Church, and CFC, in that order.

Kumbaga sa hangin, nawala na't lumipas na, pero nagrereklamo pa rin tayo sa lamig na binigay nito. We should learn to stop talking about the wind once it's gone; it's destructive and unhealthy.
3 replies · active 863 weeks ago
CFC in Anaheim's avatar

CFC in Anaheim · 863 weeks ago

I vote Yes to this type of posting and threading comments.
pistolshrimp's avatar

pistolshrimp · 863 weeks ago

this is good. God is love!
patanong please: if there's 500 comments, and someone replied to to the 1st comment and another replied on the 50th and still another replied on the 101st, akong lurker/browser lang, makikita ko ba ng madali yung 3 bagong replies?
2 replies · active 862 weeks ago
testing
1 reply · active 863 weeks ago
brothers & sisters, more and more comments are in bisaya. please provide translations. this blog is also read world-wide. i have difficulty understanding the comments even in the phils as i am not visayan. thanks
4294967295 replies · active 862 weeks ago
Has anybody here read Dr. David Hawkins' book Power vs Force? It discusses the results of a 20+ year study based on the findings of the research in Kinesiology (the study of muscles and their movements). Kinesiology research had shown that there is measureable strengthening or weakening of muscles depending on physical or mental stimuli. Moreover the strengthening occurs when the stimuli is positive and weakening occurs when it is negative. In other words thinking negative thoughts literally weakens us while positive thoughts strengthen us. The study also shows that this phenomenon occurs even if the study subject does not have in-depth knowledge regarding the stimuli. When subjects were asked whether a statement was true or false the muscular response was the same even though they didn't know anything about the statement. The study results suggest that there is something in people that seems to automatically "know" when something is positive or negative and the body responds in the same way.

There is a simple experiment. Have someone stand in front of you with his right arm hanging relaxed at his side. Ask him to raise his left arm parallel to the floor, elbow straight. Ask him to resist as you try to push his left arm from the wrist downwards. Try to gauge how strong the muscular resistance is. This is the neutral "strength". Then give him a negative statement and let him think about it for a few seconds. Then push down on his wrist as before. Gauge the relative strenght of resistance. Do the same thing with a positive thought and gauge the resistance.

I've tried this experiment with my daughter. When I was thinking about how much I love her, my daughter, the resistance was stronger. When I was thinking about the accusations that FAP continues to make against GK, it was easier for her to push down on my arm.

Dr. Hawkins, after conducting millions of calibrations, writes in his book that, using an arbitrary scale of 1-1,000, he has mapped the relative strengths of specific emotions and states of mind. Shame calibrated at 20, guilt at 30, fear at 100, and anger at 150. His calibrations shows a critical threshold of 200. Courage calibrated at 200, acceptance at 350, joy at 540 and peace at 600. Enlightenment calibrated at 700 and above. His calibrations show that the positive values calibrated from 200 upwards while the negative values calibrated all below 200.

The interesting thing about this study is that, Dr. Hawkins talks about discovering what he calls the counterbalancing effect. It seems that individuals calibrating 200 and above counterbalances the negativitiy of people who are below 200. One individual at level 300 counterbalances 90,000 individuals below level 200 while someone at level 500 counterbalances 750,000 people who are below 200. One person at level 1,000 counterbalances the negativity of the whole world. 12 individuals at level 700 is equal to one individual at level 1,000.

Has science finally found a way to validate what Scriptures have been teaching for 2 thousand years? Is level 1000 science's way of confirming Jesus as saviour of the world? And what's with the 12 individuals at level 700? Is science saying that the Lord had a specific reason for selecting 12 apostles? And what about us? I am intrigued by the possibility of using the results of Dr. Hawkins study as a way to "calibrate" my path to spirituality. In a way, it becomes easier to imagine my purpose. To do the Lord's work, I must raise myself above level 200. Because then, I can begin to counterbalance someone else, I can contribute to saving the world. Imagine being at level 300 and counterbalancing 90,000 souls! Better yet, evangelize some of them and help them to go over 200. Imagine the effect if every CFC calibrates at over 200? Wouldn't that be truly changing the face of the earth?

- TE
1 reply · active 862 weeks ago
it looks like puro nga mga inday at indoy ang mga mahilig mag-comment sa blog na ire...
ab_Iliad,
That link provides an interesting challenge to Dr. Hawkin's study. Hat tip to you bro.
I believe the whole point to TE's comment though, is not to espouse Dr. Hawkins methodology in calibrating spirituality, but to point out that our positive outlook centered on Jesus our Savior conquers all the mortal negative forces within ourselves (because of Christ's power that we allow to work in us). Looking back to the Scriptures, I am always awed at that time that St. Peter spoke boldly at Pentecost that resulted in 4000 people being converted! It can only be the power of the Holy Spirit that calibrates us to renew the face of the earth. Yes, me must raise ourselves to calibrate beyond our own limitations, and it can only be through Jesus our Savior,as TE concludes.
Hi guys, what I find interesting in these lines of inquiry is the attempt to validate the intuitive. I mean, take for example what we say in many of our prayers. "Lord, I lift up to You..." Intuitively, we all look up everytime we pray. We intuitively associate a higher place to what we consider holy. In the same way we associate a higher place to what we deem good, better or best. A deeper spirituality is often called higher spirituality. Our ingrained way of thinking implies levels of "high". There is always something better than good and best is higher still. We even have what we call the best of the best. I find the idea of calibrating in levels (the numbers do not matter, they just make structuring easier) interesting, because it has the potential to trace a path of progression of what was, for me, intuitive and intangible. Have you ever wondered how far you are on the path of spirituality after all the teachings and years of walking the talk? We have heard brothers and sisters talk about "spiritual maturity". How would we know if we have reached such maturity? What constitutes such maturity? What do I have to learn to get there? There are no college credits and diplomas for this. We lack the milestones that are easily understandable. What is the decision making process in choosing a new household head? Chapter head? Area Head? Personally, what indicators do you use in gauging your level of spirituality?

Intuitively we know that to follow the Lord closer, we have to somehow raise ourselves not only beyond our limitations but in our awareness of Jesus' presence in our lives as well. What tells me that I'm on the path, that my development is in the right direction and not backwards? Some of these questions have ready answers. We have all experienced how forgiveness feels, how uplifting that was. We have all experienced that fellowship, that oneness with the Spirit when we went through our own baptism in the Holy Spirit. Such emotional states are powerful energy states. We all consider them higher states than that of pride or apathy. Again intuitively.

The other reason I have for finding the idea of calibration in levels interesting is that our human experience tells us that any statement can be true depending on the context. One person hears an old song and he remembers an old teenage romance. Another person hears the same song and he relives the most sorrowful moments of his life. Both reactions would be true but only in their own contexts. This context could also be a certain level of spiritual awareness. Frank insists his title is Servant General. He obviously takes this seriously. Others see this choice of a title as something else and laugh about it. Both see their own truths, but again, valid only in their own contexts. Some in CFC see Frank's departure as a loss while those in FFL see it as a gain. Again, their truths are only valid within their contexts.

As we grow in spritual awareness, our truths change because the spiritual context we are in changed. For example, we were all once judgmental. As we grew spiritually, we stopped making negative judgments and started focusing only on positive judgments. Then we stopped judging people and starting judging only actions and things. Hate the sin but love the sinner was the teaching. Later, we realized that positive judgments were still judgments and we begin to learn how to let that go as well. What is beyond judgment? Do you see how the spiritual outlook changes as we go up the path? At the end of it all, these things would probably lose their meanings. For example, in heaven where perfection reigns, forgiveness would not exist because there would be no need for it.

Here's another example. Many of us are in the level where we are aware that we are separate from each other. Each of us is seen as a separate entity. Say that's level 1. The truth within the context of level 1 would be: we are separate from each other. As we read scripture, though, we learn that Jesus teaches a oneness. He is the vine and we are the branches. He literally tells his disciples that He is one with the Father and through Him we are one with the Father. He teaches that doing something to someone is the same as doing it to Him, alluding to a oneness with that someone. The Lord teaches us that we are one. We are therefore not separate from each other. This is obviously a higher spiritual level than level 1. In CFC, we have talks that discuss the concept of the Sonship, which we are all a part of. Again, another level. I can imagine another higher level in which we not only understand the concept of oneness but experience it as well. How does it feel to, not believe but, know that we are all connected to each other?

Where am I in this progression of levels? I feel that being able to give some answer to that is very beneficial. You don't really think that the path to spiritual fulfllment in the Lord should be one with uncertainty and without the benefit of feedback, do you?

- TE
neokid in the house's avatar

neokid in the house · 860 weeks ago

oist! have you read the newspaper ad today at the Philippine Star? bakit sex education ang survey?
Dear all,

The following link takes you to the song "One Family", written by Central Europe Coordinator, Bro Joe Aquilina for the Euro Conference in Milan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4anX_jDgUU

- TE
BugoyBoy-Canada's avatar

BugoyBoy-Canada · 857 weeks ago

CD are you still out there? Just hope nothing bad has happened to you. I'm just concered because there have been no new blog postings from you in more than a month. Take care.

Post a new comment

Comments by