Rick_Raff: My purpose was to point out the difference between the external effects of cognitive dissonance and actual hypocrisy, which is conscious misrepresentation. They look nearly identical to an outside observer, but the former is an effect of beholding contradictory ideas while the latter is simply being a "phony". This distinction isn't trivial if your goal is to understand others more clearly. :-)

fool_on_the_hill- Didn't I say that? I mean, sheeesh... I think I covered it from my perspective. You have yours and it's all good. I've said my piece and I'll stand on that. Thank you.

Rick_Raff: People who base their knowledge primarily on the testimony of others are doomed to suffer cognitive dissonance, which is seen by other as hypocrisy. Those who are most obsessed with testimonial epistemology will telegraph their philosophy by compulsively reminding others of their credentials, ad nauseam. The purpose there is to convince themselves and others that the value of any idea depends entirely on "who" happens to be expressing that idea and not on the substance of the idea itself. Reconsider your conclusion #2 from this perspective and see if the puzzle pieces don't fall into place more easily.

Sadly, blogsites are just another tool that we've fallen prey to that allows all of us to dumb each other down. I hear people complain about the media sources being the problem, when infact, the problem lies with YOU and I..it starts and ends right there. The media is the messenger, it's our message that's the problem!

"Have I let some of the comments get to me? Yeah, I have."
-
If you wish to keep your private life free from public criticism, then don't blog about it in a public forum. Simple as that.

westorbust at 8:32 doesn't think minds are changed by the responses and that is probably true for the most part.
I see two other factors.
-The comments made by readers shed a new perspective on the story or subject.
-Many more people read the stories and comments than actually comment. Many of those are independent thinkers, curious onlookers, or not political at all.
As far as the writer jumping in on the comments I think it's a choice. I would jump in with clarification if a point is distorted. I wouldn't engage with a person that asks a baiting question. (aka Trolls)

You are a captive audience of John's blog only by choice.

To comment or not to comment--that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles

by the way my name is David Young

my only complaint with any blog is dont take me to ten links to make your point. If I question you provide it then

'Cause they're waiting for me
They're looking for me
Every single night
They're driving me insane
Those men inside my brain

mistergee1 - you can send other people here messages to their email, it does it anonymously though. They dont actually know your email address, unless your username is your email address. Ive had a few people send me kind words also...lol.

I was using the term loosely, in as much as Eyester's blog is unedited and he rarely, if ever responds to his audience. I thought it was a fairly clear point and a fitting use of the term.

I actually had one person find my e-mail and send me a very nasty chewinng out about my views on things. I was not happy to say the least. only happened once tho. As for fedup you started right away on the walker thing so I guess I must follow suit. Fire Walker.

1. I don't always have the time and to sit down and navigate hundreds of blog posts on news stories, and when I do, the conversation has moved on anyway.
2. The comments section of the gazette is not conducive to conversation, like other sites where you can respond to individual comments and keep of track of conversations. It's kind of a free for all, and in 2012, kind of antiquated.
3. I don't know that anyone gets their mind changed by conversing on news stories, as you can usually see. The people that are interested in middle ground get shouted down and belittled, or don't bother to jump in the fray to begin with.

I just leave my opinons and move on.

emac,
In reference to your Jan. 2, 10:12am post:
What is it about the people that turn on their computers, navigate to the gazettextra website, click on Eyster's on-line blog and then choose to read it that qualifies them as a "captive audience"? I'm afraid you might not have a full grasp on that term.

You didn't know what you were looking for
Till you heard the voices in your ear

Hey, it's me again
Plain to see again
Please, can I see you every day?
I'm a fool again
I fell in love with you again
Please, can I see you every day?

You didn't know what you were looking for
Till you heard the voices in your ear
You didn't know what you were looking for
Till you heard the voices in your ear

Words don't come out right
I try to say it oh, so right
I hope you understand my meaning
Hey, it's me again
I'm so in love with you again
Please, can I see you every day?

You didn't know what you were looking for
Till you heard the voices in your ear
You didn't know what you were looking for
Till you heard the voices in your ear

I remember every word you said (word you said)
I remember voices in my head (in my head)
I remember every word you said (word you said)

(I) Your voices
(Heard your voice) Cool voices
Warm voices
It was just what I needed to

(Words) Cool voices
(Don't seem right) Warm voices
Your voices
It's just what I needed for

(Love) Warm voices
(Is the word) Your voices
Cool voices
It was just what I needed to

(I) Your voices
(Heard your voice) Cool voices
Warm voices
It was just what I needed to
Just what I needed to
Just what I needed.......
You didn't know what you were looking for
Till you heard the voices in your ear
You didn't know what you were looking for
Till you heard the voices in your ear

Some people want to use the term "anonymous blogger or commentator or poster" as though it's a negative thing. But anonymous posting is not a negative thing; it's not a negative thing because it's absent the ego trip of needing to be well-known just for having some opinions.

As for Eyster's caps. No educator worth his salt would accept work from a student who used Ester's so-called "style." A true educator would instruct a student to make his point absent of such sloppiness and absent of telegraphing how weak his writing is by soiling it further with artificial emphasis. A true educator would instruct his student in a manner that would prepare him for the future in the real world.

By the way, Eyster supports a terrorist state that is pledged to murder men, women, children, and babies for the purpose of annihilating the state of Israel.

I wish Mr. Eyster would confine his upper case diarrhea to his own blogs. I stopped reading any of them after he announced he was going to continue violating Internet protocol.

He has always appeared to view his religious and educational careers as positions of authority, rather than positions of responsibility.

NVgrf- Make sure you read my posts carefully. I never belittle other peoples postings. I state my opinion and leave it at that.

Rick_Raff right on Erick, I would like to add, that the socialist left on the blogs will rip both of us apart for voicing our opinions/facts. I would like to print my name, but I don't trust many on here.

A response is warranted when a direct question is asked to the publisher/blogger in my opinion. John is so unbelievably frustrating to read because of two very obvious reasons. 1. The caps are a real irritating component when you consider he is a professor/teacher and breaks rules of syntax which further provokes the commenter.
2. The man is a flaming hypocrite.
Let me explain: John thinks everything is ok unless it’s done by a conservative. John believes only taboos are taboo. John believes everything is getting better despite evidence to the contrary, and you can prove anything with evidence. John, a “minister of Christ”, thinks Jesus was a good man like Buddha and Mohammad and John. John thinks Jesus was a good moral teacher but he thinks some of Jesus morals were really bad. John believes what is selected is average, what’s average is normal and what’s normal is good. John believes Americas should beat their guns into tractors and terrorists and the Chinese and Russians will soon follow our lead. John believes what he thinks is right and good and worthy of publishing and those who comment otherwise are not. John believes there is no absolute truth except for the fact that there is no absolute truth. John believes chance is the father of all flesh and disaster is a rainbow in the sky. John believes that when the rest of us hear bombs blasting and bullets flying and troupes are on rampage and youths are looting and occupying big bank street fronts, that this is but the sound of man worshiping his creator… Who may or may not be John, despite evidence to the contrary. And you can prove anything with evidence.
.
I am Rick Raff, aka Eric Graff, Elkhorn Wisconsin. Comment name made by removal of the first letter of my first and last names, and I approve this comment.
The staff I'm sure will think otherwise.

It doesnt matter, everything is so one sided on this website anyway....anyones attempt to shed light on something or offer a different point of view is deleted if it isnt the sugar coated version that is wanted for the people.

THANKS for the inquiry about CAPS, Steve! You reminded me that I had NOT cited the original explanation to inform readers who started reading WE THE PEOPLE blog after it was launched on July 2, 2009 and a couple times since then. That explanation is on the first WE THE PEOPLE blog - use this link: http://gazettextra.com/weblogs/we-people....

I agree that I always respond to a DIRECT E-MAIL using the gazettextra.com link, Steve.

I never ever post any comment using a pseudonym. My ID is: JWEyster. Here we go... John W. Eyster

Seems to me that you want to be part of a community while the other blogger wants a soap box. Aren't both okay?

Steve, to bad the Gazette could not get permission fron facebook to use the "like" button and to add dislike. That could be better than to comment, so if you want, you can respond to me in private about my polite opinion.

(tHiS cOmMENt wAs eYSTeRiZEd bY sITe sTAFf.)

Sorry, comments have been disabled by the site staff.

my new years resolution is to try to be more polite with those I disagree with. Tell them I disagree but not resort to name calling. I do like the feeedback from the blogger on occasion but it is not always necessary. I do not like Eysters caps but it is his choice.

NVgrf - you have a lot of room to post. You are right up there at the head of the attack team. RETAIN WALKER.

emac said, "I am still not sure why so much effort is spent criticizing others comments." What was that old adage about the pot and the kettle? LOLOLOL

I ignore Eyesore's posts....
.
Otherwise, no comment!

I agree they is no reason to respond to all comments. 70% of the comments are in response to other poster's comments and not the actual blog. I am still not sure why so much effort is spent criticizing others comments. I do appreciate your effort in actually following what is being said in the comment section and not just "preaching" your opinions. As for Mr. Eyster, I believe he is using his blog as a platform to vocalize his radical views on religion and government to a captive audience. My guess is he is not allowed to do so while teaching. In my humble opinion I believe it is a negative reflection on the Gazette in general. Happy New Year to you and keep up the good work.

i DoN'T rEaD EysterS'S StuFF. To ANNOYINg tO ReAD!!!!!
We like to hear back from the bloggers when we comment. I do anyway.

I stopped reading Eyster's blog a long time ago. Also stopped reading Rick Horowitz. Neither of them make much sense to me, and I found myself making similar comments over and over again, for example, trying to get Eyster to stop shouting, or pointing out that Horowitz frequently makes up his entire article out of thin air. I need more meat, more content, otherwise I feel like I've wasted my time reading it.
I agree with Badgerlvr, it's up to the individual blogger to decide whether to comment. It's nice that you have that option! In the old days, there was no two-way communication unless you took the time to compose and mail a "letter to the editor", most of which were not actually published.

Steve: No amount of encouragement or criticism will ever get John Eyster to change his "style" as he calls it. He once compared himself to William Faulkner and said that no one criticized him (Faulkner). I couldn't help but laugh at that one. John's ego has always been somewhat inflated but basically he's got a good heart. Commenting on a response to your blog is your option and only you can decide. Don't let the hate mongers or nay-sayers get to you. Happy New Year!