But still, it makes me smile, so I’m going to share it:
I don’t know the exact definition of “reach”, but the page views and rank show the same trend. I’ll enjoy it while it lasts.
Hat tip: Henrik.
[post ends here]
At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe.
We are in a new phase of a very old war.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Figures Don’t Lie
Actually, in this case they do. I know this Alexa graph is spurious.
But still, it makes me smile, so I’m going to share it:
I don’t know the exact definition of “reach”, but the page views and rank show the same trend. I’ll enjoy it while it lasts.
Hat tip: Henrik.
[post ends here]
But still, it makes me smile, so I’m going to share it:
I don’t know the exact definition of “reach”, but the page views and rank show the same trend. I’ll enjoy it while it lasts.
Hat tip: Henrik.
[post ends here]
13 comments:
In terms of quality of content there is no contest. LGF loses by a mile.
Charles' downward spiral started when he got acquainted with Öivind Strömmen who successfully used Charles to sell his book about "eurofascism".
It is very likely that Öivind Strömmen's website gained while Charles' LGF went into decline it has never recovered from. Charles has been screwed. I hope he and Öivind enjoy each other's company.
I guess that reminder about the Dan Rather affair a while back showed that LGF is on a terminal decline.
LGF is dead. I don't know why Mr. Johnson decided to kill his own website, but that's what he has done.
Vasa: Strømmen is marginal even in my country, which is tiny. If he got twenty extra readers, he probably doubled his previous numbers.
Reach in Alexia terms is a calculated estimate on how many percent of the Internet users are visiting the site. Based on the samples from browsers that reports back to Alexia and then scaled up with the estimate of the ration of Alexia aware browsers vs total amount of browsers. So the figures should be taken with a grain of salt, but they are nevertheless indicative of trends, which seems rather bad for LGF.
LGF - what's it for? One can not have serious discussions there for two reasons. The first is Charles absurd outlook - calling people "fascist" for crossing some impossible to understand threashold.
The second is that it is not open to comments from normal readers. His arrogant "we may open registration on some Saturday afternoons" or whatever is retarded.
I have no problem with "closed" blogs, that don't allow comments. Or blogs that approve postings, that's fine, too. In fact View from the Right, where Lawrence pulls comments from email is one of my favorite blogs. He does a lot more work by continually serving as editor that way.
Johnson's choice demonstrates fear. It's something I'd expect from liberals. For years Free Republic (the largest Conservative forum I believe) has let anyone register and post. There is some banning, but it takes a whole lot of provocation. In contrast Democratic Underground bans each and every poster who sympathizes with the Republicans.
Johnson is in that vein, someone who can't tolerate dissent.
At this point who would want to be a part of what is essentially a personality cult-cum-blog?
Apparently, not too many people, and a lot fewer than a year ago.
Good riddance to bad trash.
Zeke: Leftists don't believe in the concept of Socratic dialogue, of debating a subject honestly in order to arrive at truth. Truth is already given, and you either accept that or they silence you; one of many things they have in common with Muslims. Unfortunately, they often win by using such bully methods. The "conservatives" have been bending backwards to appease Leftists for generations, and are now, sadly, almost indistinguishable from Leftists.
Charles Johnson was a useful idiot for Strommen and lost a lot of credibility as he also did by banning Fjordman.
The hypocritical hysteria of seeing phantom nazis about everywhere while ignoring the commies right in the room with you whispering in your ear is the trademark of limited intellects.
Go us :) Gates of Vienna and Jihad Watch are way better than LGF any day of the week.
Fjordman:
Leftists don't believe in the concept of Socratic dialogue.
That bears repeating. The ancient Greek philosophers found something crucial here, a reciepe for civil dialogue and logical argumentation. That, if conducted correctly and with access to relevant knowledge, will lead to consensus.
That important process is being forgotten. Amongst Conservatives it's largely respected, but not many are able to scetch out the basic rules of logic that govern the process. Amongst liberals it tends to be ignored, and in the extreme left, it is directly assaulted by various degrees of bullying, denigration and ad hominem attacks. This style of argumentation desires not truth, but the abdication of the opponent from the debate. CJ may apply here.
I wonder if there's a short and clear article somewhere that describes the basic principles of Socratic dialogue?
Makes me smile too, like whenever I remember this ditty:
"a little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants"
The Mary Tyler Moore Show, circa 1973, "Chuckles the Clown" Episode
He kind of got away with disparaging GoV and Brussels Journal, but attacking the great Robert Spencer was a mistake that will be difficult to recover from.
Henrik, there's a wikipedia article on the socratic method which sort of describes how it works.
In my understanding, the key part of the Socratic method seems to be the discovery and exploration of beliefs without a priori refutation of those beliefs. Any refutation comes once a greater understanding of the arguments made by each side has been reached. Each side would spend a great deal of time exploring the other's arguments in order to avoid making fallacious arguments that can be attacked by their interlocutor, and in order to discover contradictions within each side's beliefs that can be used during the deconstruction of their argument.
Or so is my understanding. I could be wrong.
(incidentally, it may just be my english ear, but Strømmen sounds a lot like strawman to me. funny that.)
Charles has also decided that Christians are evil as well. Another of his "crusades" is portraying as "crazies" anyone who believes at all in Creationism by pigeonholing them as supporting "intelligent design".
He's going about it in pretty much the same way he is doing to nationalist movements in EUrabia by calling them all fascists.
I don't know how Charles can call himself a conservative anymore since he has more or less come out against traditional American core values and apparently is against confronting the Jihad at it's heart.
The guy has lost all credibility and frankly has become as insane as KOS, and he's using the same sort of heavy handed techniques the left does.
Add me to the banned at LGF club. Glad to be aboard. In return, I "banned" LGF from my browser in that I deleted the bookmark and don't go there anymore. Methinks others are doing the same hence the site is growing only in irrelevance.
Post a Comment