The comparison of the life of man to a race, though it holdeth not in every point, yet it holdeth so well for this our purpose, that we may thereby both see and remember almost all the passions before mentioned. But this race we must suppose to have no other goal, nor other garland, but being foremost; and in it: To endeavour, is appetite. To be remiss, is sensuality. To consider them behind, is glory. To consider them before, humility. To lose ground with looking back, vain glory. To be holden, hatred. To turn back, repentance. To be in breath, hope. To be weary, despair. To endeavour to overtake the next, emulation. To supplant or overthrow, envy. To resolve to break through a stop foreseen, courage. To break through a sudden stop, anger. To break through with ease, magnanimity. To lose ground by little hindrances, pusillanimity. To fall on the sudden, is disposition to weep. To see another fall, disposition to laugh. To see one out-gone whom we would not, is pity. To see one out-go we would not, is indignation. To hold fast by another, is to love. To carry him on that so holdeth, is charity. To hurt one’s-self for haste, is shame. Continually to be out-gone, is misery. Continually to out-go the next before, is felicity. And to forsake the course, is to die. — Thomas Hobbes
There is much to criticize in the RE.net. But one would hope that we would criticize criminality, venality and intentional transgressions, rather than honest, even if thoughtless, errors. From the former, we want not the correction of the bad behavior, but rather its elimination. For the latter, we can be big enough of spirit to help our brothermen learn to do better where they might have done badly. It is certainly within the bounds of reason to argue that Hobbes was more than unnecessarily dour.
Alas, we have a new candidate for The Cheez-Whiz Prize, a new weblog devoted to derision called “realweenie.” (I won’t link to this for the same reason I’ve stopped linking to Housing Panic.) It’s a Six Apart weblog, which means it doesn’t really qualify as technology, but it’s a “social” site, which mean it does. The social agenda, it would seem, is to make the world safe for high-schoolish exclusion:
The real estate weenie is on a mission, to seek out bad advice for real estate professionals and consumers. With the proliferation of real estate blogs it is getting harder to ignore the weenies, and it is time to recognize them for what they are. They are taking over the internet and now is the time to fight back.
If this is a joke, it’s a poor one.
In any case, I’ve auto-nominated BloodhoundBlog for the site’s “Weenie Roll”:
I think this is a truly ugly idea, so I would appreciate it if you would add BloodhoundBlog to your honor roll at once.
The other day Richard Riccelli pointed out the Groucho Marx quip, “I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.” I would much rather find my name on a blacklist than be thought to be among or even in support of the blacklisters.
Technorati Tags: blogging, real estate, real estate marketing
Teresa Boardman says:
Thanks! this is our first award. The weenie was a joke, and now thanks to you, it is a blog. I wish you would have taken my phone call or answered my email because my work load does not give me time for an additional blog. I am looking for bloggers who want to do the writing for it. Thanks again, and I left a gift for you on the weenie. you have not yet earned your place on the weenie roll but I think you will.
March 14, 2007 — 8:18 pm
Greg Swann says:
As I said to you privately, I don’t think there is anything good about indulging and encouraging the worst in people.
March 14, 2007 — 10:01 pm
jf.sellsius says:
It is interesting that you chose to quote Hobbes, who according to SEP (Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy),”is infamous for having used the social contract method to arrive at the astonishing conclusion that we ought to submit to the authority of an absolute — undivided and unlimited — sovereign power.”
Hobbes might have been a weenie and a cheezwhizer. Who among us has not been as well?
Anyone who knows Teresa knows she would neither do harm nor encourage others to do so. You might reconsider and reholster that whiz can.
March 14, 2007 — 10:37 pm
jf.sellsius says:
It is interesting that you chose to quote Hobbes, who according to SEP (Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy),”is infamous for having used the social contract method to arrive at the astonishing conclusion that we ought to submit to the authority of an absolute — undivided and unlimited — sovereign power.”
Hobbes might have been a weenie and a cheezwhizer.
Anyone who knows Teresa knows she would neither do harm nor encourage others to do so. You might reconsider and reholster that whiz can.
March 14, 2007 — 10:39 pm
Anil says:
“It’s a Six Apart weblog, which means it doesn’t really qualify as technology, but it’s a “social” site, which mean it does.”
Hi… I work with at Six Apart, and am not really familiar with your blog — I was curious what you mean? I think we do a lot of technology work, but I wasn’t clear on this from the context. Clue me in! 🙂
March 14, 2007 — 11:03 pm
Mike Thoman says:
I find this very ironic. The Cheese Whiz and Weenie awards deserve each other.
I’m looking forward to the “Ode to a Weenie” post.
Mike
March 15, 2007 — 9:50 am
Jonathan Greene says:
Man. Greg. Dude.
You know I’m your “peeps” and all, but you might have taken this a bit far. Seriously. It’s just a joke.
I still think you’re smarter than me, however. I read that Hobbes quote three times and still don’t know what in the heck he’s talking about.
March 15, 2007 — 10:28 am
Greg Swann says:
> I read that Hobbes quote three times and still don’t know what in the heck he’s talking about.
The Hobbes quote is the origin of the idea of the Rat Race.
March 15, 2007 — 10:40 am
Jonathan Greene says:
Yeah, I know. I was just making a joke. I can read, I promise.
March 15, 2007 — 11:24 am
apella says:
I love Groucho – Some things just never get old!
As I complain that I will never work for anyone like my boss again and as I complain that I will never hire another employee again like the one I have – I am my boss and I am my own employee so I relate oh so too well with Groucho!
I am wondering is bad publicity as good as good publicity for publicity is still publicity.
For the record I grew up with Weenies, goes great with beans and with a few Weenies in the family too but hay I turned out alright and so put me on that list too because I will be a winner even if it is of the Weenies. Whiz is great too just can’t get enough and even some weenies have cheese in them but as we learned early on as small children don’t ask what the weenie is made of just eat and be happy for what you have.
To each and of their own, and the promotion of the good will prevail in the end, as for me I am not going to ask but just keep reading as I sit on my fence and enjoy because all things hold some humor in some form, Ahhh Groucho my friend. 😀
Keep Up the Good Work.
March 15, 2007 — 11:53 am
Greg Swann says:
> Yeah, I know. I was just making a joke. I can read, I promise.
My apologies. There was a comment last night suggesting that I was quoting Hobbes in praise.
March 15, 2007 — 12:33 pm
Larry Cragun says:
I suppose you, like Donald Trump like publicity, good or bad. It seems to have worked for the short time, as I came back to read about this, my only visit in months. I find your criticism rediculous. Does thou not laugh ever?
March 15, 2007 — 9:51 pm
Greg Swann says:
I don’t laugh at virtue, Larry. I avoid people who do.
This post was excellent, everything I admire in a work of the mind.
March 15, 2007 — 10:04 pm
Ed Kohler says:
A blog is launched with the idea of pointing out examples of what’s wrong with real estate blogging today. And that blog is then pointed out as an example of what’s wrong with real estate blogging today by another blog?
I’m with Mike Thoman on the irony of this situation. You can’t make this stuff up.
March 16, 2007 — 8:01 am
Greg Swann says:
> You can’t make this stuff up.
William F. Buckley once pointed out that pushing an old lady out of the path of an oncoming bus is arguably no different from pushing an old lady into the path of an oncoming bus in the sense that both entail pushing little old ladies around. I’ll be happy to talk to you again when you’re prepared to make critical distinctions.
March 16, 2007 — 8:35 am
Mike Thoman says:
So Greg, are you saying that you ARE blacklisting (just as you award Teresa for), but that yours is admirable, where Teresa’s is deplorable?
Mike
March 16, 2007 — 1:13 pm
Greg Swann says:
> are you saying that you ARE blacklisting
To the contrary, I asked to be added to the blacklist.
I know you’re just trying to score points, as with Larry Cragun and Ed Kohler above, by pretending to be stupid. I don’t care. You disgrace yourself, from my point of view, but your self is yours to disgrace. In no way have you made an argument — nor have they — so you cannot possibly hope to have persuaded any rational mind. Those you have swayed, if any, are no concern of mine.
March 16, 2007 — 1:34 pm
Mike Thoman says:
Well Greg, you’re wrong and right on at least one point each.
Where you’re wrong is that I’m not playing stoopid to score points. I was actually trying to understand your position. Specifically, pushing old ladies around and how that applied to your position on weenies. Perhaps I AM stoopid (not that I think so), but I’m having trouble understanding your actions as justifiable and not hypocritical. The way I see it, you are blacklisting entities with your Cheez Whiz awards, yet criticizing Teresa for the same. Correct me if I am wrong, or please point out the important distinction. That was where my previous question was headed.
Where you are right, is that I indeed had not made an argument. Point conceded. I am not even sure the point of saying that, other than to use it as an opportunity to demean me through roundabout insults. You have not persuaded THIS rational mind. Quite the contrary.
So, to recap, here is the point I WOULD make: It appears you are being hypocritical. You blacklist with your Cheez Whiz awards, which I assume you find justifiable and right, otherwise you would not do it. At the same time, you fault Teresa for blacklisting (quite harshly, if you ask me), even though she claims it was a joke. Again, am I wrong? What’s the distinction from your point of view?
My question before was giving you the benefit of the doubt, because I think for the most part, you are a rational and intelligent man. I’m just trying to understand why you appear to be disgracing yourself, from my point of view.
Mike
March 16, 2007 — 2:08 pm
Greg Swann says:
From the post above:
I classify “realweenie” as being venal and an intentional trangression, not an honest error. Was this distinction was unclear to you on first reading?
I came up with The Cheez-Whiz Prize to ridicule stupid business models, so perhaps I should not have used it here.
I have never blacklisted anyone, nor will I, ever. Bad behavior thrives in darkness. It wilts aways to nothing in the cold, clear light of open discussion.
I’m very busy right now. I may return to this later, because it’s interesting to me — forever, not just now.
March 16, 2007 — 2:59 pm
Jack Boardman says:
Venal? Are you suggesting my wife’s opinions may shaped for a price? That she is corruptible? What could possibly move you to cast such an aspersion? An intentional transgression? Of what, exactly? Who exactly determines transgressions? You? Bad behavior? What behavior has she exhibited that you , the presumptive arbiter of such things have determined as bad?
Teresa can handle herself quite well and certainly is a match for the likes of you. But when I read, in particular,”venal,” I decided to respond. If you knew Teresa, “venal” would not be a term you would use.
March 16, 2007 — 4:47 pm
Greg Swann says:
Here is the unstated moral principle undergirding “realweenie”: It is a moral good for like-minded people to get together to chortle about other people they don’t like.
The issue is not: Are they free to do so? Of course they are.
The question is: Is doing so an act of rectitude? We all know it is not.
We demean ourselves even to pretend the issue is debatable. In any case, I am done debating it.
March 16, 2007 — 7:35 pm
jf.sellsius says:
Greg, if your argument is that any act can be both noble and venal, like pushing, we all see it. However, your argument loses its teeth since there was NEVER a “weenie post” published—no weenie award given—no one was weenied (is that a word?)—hence no one was pushed. So, if no act of weenie pushing took place, how can it be characterized as “venal”. It can’t be. Nonetheless, you have tried and convicted the weenie for venal pushing without a fair trial. Your Cheez Whiz Prize in this instance may warrant a second helping, on itself. Perhaps worse than the criminal, Censorship, is Prejudice, its aider and abetter.
Mike Thoman makes a good case for the hypocrisy. Whiz or Weenie, I can’t tell the difference yet—I need to see the weenie in action first. One big difference you have revealed– you can get whizzed just for thinking bad thoughts.
The issue certainly is debatable as you have tried to do in the comments. We invite you to do so on Sellsius. Upon your decline, Jeff Turner has agreed to be your second.
March 17, 2007 — 6:55 am
jf.sellsius says:
Where are the examples of chortling? Who has been identified as unliked? You are applying moral principles and rendering judgment against absent facts. The argument contra ungirds. Defendant not guilty for lack of evidence.
March 17, 2007 — 8:22 am
Mike Thoman says:
> I classify “realweenie” as being venal and an intentional trangression, not an honest error. Was this distinction was unclear to you on first reading?
Yes, it was. You advanced a guiding principle, rather than a list of accusations or transgressions. It cannot be both, as Teresa has not been criminal by any reasonable standard. Without a clarification, I am left to guess or decide for myself. You did, after all, leave open the possibility of it being a joke (a less serious transgression), at least initially. I was left wondering, if it was possible for it to be a joke, why you didn’t handle it in the manner a thoughtless error deserved.
> Here is the unstated moral principle undergirding “realweenie”: It is a moral good for like-minded people to get together to chortle about other people they don’t like.
Why couldn’t the unstate goal, even principle, be: Bad behavior thrives in darkness. It wilts aways to nothing in the cold, clear light of open discussion. -? Is that an impossibility?
Mike
March 17, 2007 — 8:27 am
jf.sellsius says:
Why have you not posted my 2 most recent comments from this morning?
March 17, 2007 — 12:01 pm
Tim Harris says:
Realtors…Go sell something.
February 18, 2008 — 2:19 pm
laurie mindnich says:
Let the whomevers work it out- I read a perspective altering post at one point by Michael Cook here. Good enough that unsubscribing because egos are imploding is not happening. Beyond that, I feel like an interloper to the conversation, but don’t care.
February 24, 2008 — 4:54 pm