![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
1. Here’s a kind of funny thing: google “begin optional trim.” It’s kind of comforting to know that, no matter how embarrassing your mistake, a couple of thousand people out there have made it too.
2. Confused RT is confused I clearly misunderstand the expected etiquette of subscribing/granting access. I first approached the issue this way: if you subscribe to me, then I thought the standard countermove was to grant you access. But the notifications seem to assume precisely the opposite: you subscribe to me, so I might want to subscribe to you—and not grant you access, which is a separate step. I want to follow reciprocal norms, but I’m deeply confused about what they might be, so I’ve been reacting almost randomly. Another thing to figure out in May.
3. Another quote for the SPN essay I’m not writing:
Judith Butler, Antigone’s Claim 71 (2000): “Consider that the horror of incest, the moral revulsion it compels in some, is not that far afield from the same horror and revulsion felt toward lesbian and gay sex, and is not unrelated to the intense moral condemnation of voluntary single parenting, or gay parenting, or parenting arrangements with more than two adults involved (practices that can be used as evidence to support a claim to remove a child from the custody of the parent in several states in the United States). These various modes in which the oedipal mandate fails to produce normative family all risk entering into the metonymy of that moralized sexual horror that is perhaps most fundamentally associated with incest.” (And hey, whoa, an intelligible Butler quote!)
4. Property Stories, eds. Gerald Korngold & Andrew P. Morriss: Really strong entrant in the “Stories” series, which collects essays about major cases in specific fields. From detailed factual histories of the cases, often contradicting or enriching the official accounts, most of the pieces draw broader conclusions about right and wrong in property law. I’m now torn between using this and Perspectives on Property Law as a casebook supplement. Sadly, it seems as if only Carol Rose’s piece on Shelly v. Kraemer and Vicki Been’s on Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission, both excellent, are online.
2. Confused RT is confused I clearly misunderstand the expected etiquette of subscribing/granting access. I first approached the issue this way: if you subscribe to me, then I thought the standard countermove was to grant you access. But the notifications seem to assume precisely the opposite: you subscribe to me, so I might want to subscribe to you—and not grant you access, which is a separate step. I want to follow reciprocal norms, but I’m deeply confused about what they might be, so I’ve been reacting almost randomly. Another thing to figure out in May.
3. Another quote for the SPN essay I’m not writing:
Judith Butler, Antigone’s Claim 71 (2000): “Consider that the horror of incest, the moral revulsion it compels in some, is not that far afield from the same horror and revulsion felt toward lesbian and gay sex, and is not unrelated to the intense moral condemnation of voluntary single parenting, or gay parenting, or parenting arrangements with more than two adults involved (practices that can be used as evidence to support a claim to remove a child from the custody of the parent in several states in the United States). These various modes in which the oedipal mandate fails to produce normative family all risk entering into the metonymy of that moralized sexual horror that is perhaps most fundamentally associated with incest.” (And hey, whoa, an intelligible Butler quote!)
4. Property Stories, eds. Gerald Korngold & Andrew P. Morriss: Really strong entrant in the “Stories” series, which collects essays about major cases in specific fields. From detailed factual histories of the cases, often contradicting or enriching the official accounts, most of the pieces draw broader conclusions about right and wrong in property law. I’m now torn between using this and Perspectives on Property Law as a casebook supplement. Sadly, it seems as if only Carol Rose’s piece on Shelly v. Kraemer and Vicki Been’s on Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission, both excellent, are online.
Tags:
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I think I'm coming at it a little differently because I have a recs journal, I tend to assume that the number of people that would actually like 'access' to the behind the scenes rambling is quite small. So I'm not automatically giving reciprocal access to people, even though it makes me feel a bit awkward sometimes:)
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I think it depends on how you use your journal. I think the social assumption behind the notifications is that you might want to read the people who are reading you, but not necessarily grant them access until/unless you know them better. If you lock your posts to keep out specific people, or lock your fic but want people to read it, or, or, or...then it makes sense that you would choose to grant access to people to whom you haven't subscribed. (I'm pre-caffeine, here - does this make sense?)
From:
no subject
From:
reciprocal norms
they subscribe you, you subscribe them.
and if they give you access, you give them access in return.
on the other hand, just like on LJ, not everyone is using their LJ is the same way, so being on equal reciprocal norms is nearly impossible.
I remember in my first 3 LJ years, I didnt have anything in my LJ, but using the flist for reading. and then I started commenting, quite a lot, and people friended me back, and that disturbed me, coz I still would not add anything in my LJ , but I suddenly had access to their flocked entries, which I more often than not, was not interested int.
so....what if you never have any access-only stuff, but others have it quite a lot? from their food, to their haircut, to the lives of their pets... they post 20 times per day? would it work out?
From:
there can be no expected etiquette
"intelligible_butler" is really appealing to me as a username this a.m.
From:
Re: there can be no expected etiquette
From:
Re: there can be no expected etiquette
From:
no subject
From:
no subject