Inhoud blog
  • bert 50
  • mijn vriend Bert werd 50
  • US/EU relationship
  • Proficiat!
  • familie verstraeten is on line
    Zoeken in blog

    Beoordeel dit blog
      Zeer goed
      Goed
      Voldoende
      Nog wat bijwerken
      Nog veel werk aan
     
    familie Verstraeten
    een wetenswaardig kempens verhaal
    05-10-2005
    Klik hier om een link te hebben waarmee u dit artikel later terug kunt lezen.bert 50

    05-10-2005 om 20:56 geschreven door roel

    0 1 2 3 4 5 - Gemiddelde waardering: 1/5 - (1 Stemmen)
    >> Reageer (0)
    Klik hier om een link te hebben waarmee u dit artikel later terug kunt lezen.mijn vriend Bert werd 50

    Mijn vriend Bert zag altijd het leven rustig tegemoet. Hij houdt van de simpele dingen die hun tijdje mogen duren. Op school had hij leren “net” werken dat duidelijk straalde uit o.m. zijn mierengeschrift. Uit pure wanhoop zijn we dan ook maar de cursus gaan volgen, want het duurde langer om zijn nota’s over te schrijven dan ineens de ex cathedra reality soap maar life mee te maken.

     

    Tot mijn grote verbazing viel hij ooi zwaar  uit zijn rol tijdens onze studenten jaren. Op de vraag van de professor of we hem duidelijk konden horen, stond Bert met zijn vriendelijke glimlach rechtop en zei: “ we verstaan U maar het stoort niet.” De zomer daarop moest hij zich in een Trappistenklooster, cursussen vretend, terugtrekken om die lapsus te bekopen.

     

    Als tegen stroom zwemmen zulk een pijn doet, dan maar rustig meedrijven in de steeds maar aanzwellende rivier van het leven. Hier begon Bert weer met het net te werken , zijn tweede reeks netwerk activiteiten. Hij gooide zijn net in het troebele water. In dat net, dat door de Muze van Antwerpen sleepte, viel per ongeluk een Afrokopje in Sint Lutgardisuniform. Om politiek correct te blijven, moet ik toch ook toegeven dat de kans even zo groot is dat Bert in de Muze door een superieure netwerkster werd geheadhunt.

     

    Tijdens mijn wereldomzwervingen verloor ik het paar wat uit het oog, tot er die huwelijksaankondiging kwam. Dat feest heb ik gemist, maar ik herinner me nog altijd de sjofele Indische post officer die  met eeltige hand de nederlandse gelukwenstekst letter voor letter vanuit de Himalaya naar Edegem seinde. De inkomsten hiervan hebben het telegraafkantoor een half jaar verder geholpen.

     

    Toen kwamen de kleine visjes, die nu, helaas, ook van de simpele dingen van het leven schijnen te houden en van hen mag ook alles nog een tijdje duren.

     

    Nu zijn er nog twee betekenissen voor netwerken over.

    Net doen alsof ge werkt, dus”net”werken. Ik begreep van Bert dat hij dat voorrecht niet dikwijls heeft gekend bij het VKW, Vermeiren Kan Werken of bij IBM, Ikke Bert (zo) Moe.

     

    Wat is dan de ultieme betekenis van netwerken ? Hij is dus pas begonnen bij een HR bureau; hij is dus “net” aan het werk, begrijp je hem ?

     

    Netwerken is een deel van zijn leven en wie ooit in Berts net heeft gezwommen weet dat er veel meer inzit dan “werk” in de 4 betekenissen van netwerken.

     

    Ik had ook nog een lijstje opgesteld met de dingen in Bert die me echt irriteren, maar na ruggespraak met mijn vrouw Ilona, houd ik dat bij voor zijn 75ste verjaardag. We houden afspraak tot dan. Ik ben er dan 78 en pas weer vader geworden.

     

    Bert, gefeliciteerd en als aandenken aan vandaag heb ik een kleine haikoe geschreven :

     

    Lommer-eik,

    Streepje water

    Bert 75

    zien we terug later

    05-10-2005 om 20:53 geschreven door roel

    0 1 2 3 4 5 - Gemiddelde waardering: 5/5 - (1 Stemmen)
    >> Reageer (0)
    Klik hier om een link te hebben waarmee u dit artikel later terug kunt lezen.US/EU relationship

    It seems to me that NATO has become very convenient for the EU. The US pays most of the bills (I've read as much as 80%), and the EU gets the protection. Protection from what, we might now ask, as the Soviet empire is no more and, indeed, many of its satellites are now members of the EU. VM's comments suggest that there is a downside for the EU in belonging to NATO. I don't know how the US would feel about disbanding NATO, however, as it wouldn't be paying the bills if it didn't think it was deriving something valuable and important from the relationship. I think it was Huntington who wrote that nations generally act out of self-interest.

    You write that "European identity is based on its social security model and the belief in an international judicial order." The cost of the social security model seem to me to be one of elements behind the recent French and Dutch negative votes. Most everyone wants the system, but the numbers are scary when you consider paying for it on a pan-European basis. The problem with international judicial order is in agreeing upon the fairness with which it is applied. In the day-to-day world it seems that international rules, agreements and even commitments are made to be broken.

    Your comments ". . . the US model of unrestricted capitalism, where the pursuit of happiness is the sole responsibility of every individual" seems inaccurate (capitalism in the US is far from unrestricted, and anyone in the drug industry should immediately recognize) and derogatory. Your assertion that "In EU, after a long social battle, we have arrived at a system based on social basic rights where the fulfillment of the primary needs of the other are the driving force behind the progress of our society" smacks of a certain smugness that I find in much of the EU propaganda. Again, in the nay votes I think we are seeing that many people may nod their heads in general agreement, but when they consider the paying the bill they want to hold back. There are concerns with l'addition.

    When the UN is considered the US is often reluctant to accept its positions. Some of this has to do with the way in which the UN works. For example, if we consider the EU and the US as two roughly equal blocks of population and economy (note the "roughly" - the EU is of course larger), we find that on votes the US has but one, while the EU gets one vote for each of its member countries. The EU may take positions as a block, but it gets to vote those positions overwhelmingly against the US (or along with the US, as the case may be). From the US perspective there is a basic unfairness in the UN model.

    I may be naïve, but I still don't believe that the US wants to dominate the world. I don't believe it wants to conquer and occupy other countries in the manner of the Roman Empire. Land-grabbing by the US ended with the Mexican War in the nineteenth century. I do think the US wants peace and international order that will make for all nations to co-exist and trade and for all people to travel freely. However, the US does not recognize peace at any cost as a ruling concept. It is the interpretation of when peace must be broken that has resulted in so much international consternation.

    For your reading pleasure I'm attaching below a rather long article I read on the CBS news website presenting an interpretation of the recent elections in Europe.

    Thanks again for keeping me updated and educated.  Your material is always welcome.

    Terry

     

    A Constitutional Mess

    June 6, 2005

    This column was written by Christopher Caldwell.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Russian Army chased Napoleon's troops all the way back to Paris in 1814, the occupiers were not just tolerated but welcomed. They were chic. The empress Josephine herself went riding with the young czar. The locals seemed to delight in subjugation, the more undignified, the better. "We women," wrote Mme. Chateaubriand, "would cry 'Off with our heads!' were we to hear our neighbors do so." The French are funny. They will always stand up against usurpation of their rights and liberties by foreigners -- but they do take their time about it.

    Last week, their time came. French voters rejected a proposed "constitutional treaty" for the European Union and sent a shock through the continent. Seventy percent of the country turned out -- roughly triple the usual French showing for an E.U. election -- after the most heated national debate since the Algerian war. They rejected the treaty by a stunning 10-point margin.

    In so doing, they closed the book on a half-century in which France had sought to maintain its dwindling world clout by leading the countries of Europe into a new kind of political union, with its capital in Brussels. "Never separate the grandeur of France from the building of Europe," president François Mitterrand had said in the early 1990s, towards the end of his 14 years in office. "This is our new dimension." By the turn of the millennium, the influential editor of the Nouvel Observateur, Jacques Julliard, could say that "today's French patriots are Europeans." And in 2003, France's foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, made an international media feast of this new doctrine before it was even fully cooked, telling bemused delegates to the United Nations, that they -- and they alone -- had the legitimacy to press for democratic change in Iraq.

    Having unleashed this gospel on the world, the French have now become the first to declare their apostasy. The consequences were both immediate and far-reaching. The Dutch, who share many of the misgivings about the surrendering of sovereignty that the French do, had a referendum three days later. Their worries had been compounded by two recent episodes of political violence -- the assassination of the populist politician Pim Fortuyn in May 2002 and the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh by an Islamist radical in November 2004. The Dutch rejected the constitutional treaty by 62 percent to 38, on a 63 percent turnout. That, too, was roughly triple the country's showing at a typical European election.

    The only part of the 485-page constitution that anyone will henceforth need to remember -- although it is the part that people all over Brussels are now trying to forget -- is Article IV, section 447. That passage stipulates that the constitutional treaty is not valid unless all countries of the E.U. ratify it. There is no putting a brave face on what has happened: The E.U.'s attempt to bind itself constitutionally into an ever closer union has, for the foreseeable future, failed.

    This is not without consequences for the United States. Some of them are good ones. Just last month, flush with his success in the recent British parliamentary elections, anti-Iraq war member of parliament George Galloway gloated over the coming reckoning for the friends of the American alliance. "Most of the commentary that you'll read nowadays," Galloway told Charlie Rose, "is about when, not if, Mr. Blair departs the political stage early, and I think Iraq is the main reason for that. Aznar in Spain has already gone. I predict, you know, that Berlusconi in Italy will be the next to go. One by one, these people who committed this, at best, grotesque blunder, are paying a political price for it."

    But now things look different. German chancellor Gerhard Schröder, the man who opened the European floodgates to anti-Americanism during his 2002 election campaign, has just called early elections after his Social Democratic party was routed in its stronghold of North Rhine-Westphalia for the first time in four decades. Few give him any chance of winning a new term next fall. After investing his all in the constitutional "Yes" campaign, Jacques Chirac appears to be facing the end of his political career. It is true that he nominated the antiwar standard-bearer Dominique de Villepin as his new prime minister last week. But the embarrassing price for Chirac was that he also nominated his arch-rival, Nicolas Sarkozy, the most pro-American (and most popular) politician in the country, as minister of state. The Villepin choice may dig Chirac deeper into a hole. Only a third of voters approve of the choice, according to a poll taken last week by Ipsos. Sixty-four percent of respondents said they wanted a thoroughgoing change in the government, and only 20 percent thought Villepin was the man for that job.

    This does not mean that Galloway had it backwards, and that opponents of the Iraq war will now find it impossible to win office in Europe. It does mean, though, that the anti-Americanism that drove certain politicians' approval ratings through the roof in 2002 and 2003 is of very limited staying power.

    The constitution in question was actually a hybrid document. It was partly a codification of existing treaties and laws. But it folded in a couple of real transfers of sovereignty from nation-states to the European government that were, indeed, constitutional in nature. It would have given Europe a president and a foreign minister, both to be chosen for two-and-a-half-year terms. It would have wrested the right to legislate for the continent from the 25 constituent nation-states and given it to the "Euro-MPs" who sit in the European Parliament in Strasbourg. Once the French and Dutch referenda failed, it quickly became Brussels consensus that it had been a mistake to call the document a constitution. That's true only in retrospect; had the constitutional thingy, whatever you choose to call it, passed, the ability to paint it as a constitution would have been crucial to increasing Brussels' power and prestige. The would-be world statesmen of the next global crisis would no longer risk being derided as "self-styled," or as mere messenger boys for the washed-up politicians who get put out to pasture in Brussels. They would be able to say, "Under the constitutional powers vested in me by the people of the European Union..."

    The proceedings smacked to most voters of politicians trying to pull a fast one on them. On the site etienne.chouard.free.fr, a Marseilles secondary-school teacher with a gift for crystalline prose and a weakness for silly pictographs -- particularly :o) -- convinced his countrymen almost single-handed that this was the case. (One of the revolutionary developments of the past campaign, largely thanks to Etienne Chouard, has been the rise of blogging in France.) "I haven't read the text and I simply don't have the time -- too much work," Chouard wrote late in the campaign. But he warned that the mainstream media were ignoring the main stakes of the constitution. He laid out five of them:

    1. A constitution has to be readable to permit a popular vote; this text is unreadable.

    2. A constitution doesn't impose a political ideology; this text is partisan.

    3. A constitution is revisable; this text is locked in . . .

    4. A constitution protects people from tyranny through separation of powers; this one doesn't have real checks and balances and separation of powers.

    5. A constitution is not handed down by the powerful; it is established by the people themselves, to protect them from arbitrary power, through an independent constitutional assembly elected for the purpose and disbanded afterwards; this text entrenches European institutions designed 50 years ago by the men in power.

    In this light, the answer to the question of why the French and Dutch voted down the European constitution is simple: because they were asked. In the Netherlands, the metaphor on everyone's lips was that of a runaway train. The young PvdA (Labor) party chairman Wouter Bos -- who was placed in an awkward position when his party voted resoundingly against the treaty that he had crisscrossed the country urging them to vote for -- said: "People had the feeling that they were sitting on a runaway train. For the first time they had the chance to jump off. They had no idea how fast the train was going, or where it was headed."

    Jacques Chirac viewed the "No" vote as a sign of resurgent nationalism, and hoped to exploit it. "In this period," he said last week, "we have to rally to the national interest." Similarly, if more subtly, Jean-Marie Colombani, editor of Le Monde, painted the French vote as a reactionary one: an assault on an E.U. that "disrupts habits and forces changes" on largely hidebound societies. But it's not clear that he's correct. In both countries it was the center-right parties (in popular mythology, the forces of complacency) that formed the bulk of the "Yes" vote. In France, roughly three-quarters of the two "conservative" parties -- both Jacques Chirac's UMP and former president Valéry Giscard d'Estaing's UDF -- voted for the treaty. In Holland the market-liberal VVD and the Christian CDA were the constitutional treaty's biggest defenders, backing it by 60 and 77 percent of the vote respectively.

    This leads to a puzzle: If the bastion of support for the E.U. is the center-right, then how has it happened that for so many years the E.U. has been governed from the center-left? The elections showed both countries' center-left parties -- the Socialists in France and Labor in the Netherlands -- to be divided right down the middle on the issue. These are alarming data: They imply that there is no "base" constituency for the policies of the E.U. as they're currently constituted.

    Holland's Christian Union, led by the political prodigy André Rouvoet, led a campaign against the E.U. that was commonsensical, couched in the language of American (even Reaganite) tax revolutionaries, and optimistic. His was the only bourgeois party of the right to oppose the treaty, voting "No" by 86-14 percent. For Rouvoet the key fact was that the Netherlands pays more per capita into the E.U. than any other country. His party's appeal can be understood from a poll taken for the daily De Volkskrant last week. The "No" campaigners had real, concrete issues. Their top two were (1) "The Netherlands pays too much for the E.U.," and (2) "It makes us less in charge in our own country." As for the "Yes" campaign, its top issues were thin air. They were (1) "Transnational politics are best addressed by the E.U.," and (2) "Foster cooperation between member nations." To the barricades, he yawned.

    The uncomfortable news is that, except for the Christian Union in Holland, it was hardline parties of the left and right that carried the torch for "democracy." Calls for Chirac to dissolve parliament came from the Trotskyite postman Olivier Besancenot and the revanchist National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen. They have to be viewed more seriously than they were last month. Rightist extremism is a worry. European leaders have lazily taken to using the epithet "anti-European" to split the difference between calling someone a fascist and patting him on the back. Calling Le Pen and the Austrian Jörg Haider "anti-European" lets you exclude them from the councils of state without insulting extremist voters you'll need in the next election. Now that anti-Europeanism has shown itself the majority ideology in Western European referenda, we must hope potential Le Pen voters understand that politicians were merely speaking tactically. Leftist extremism is a worry, too, because of the left's organizing ability. A train strike was called in France to greet Villepin's arrival in power, and Besancenot has promised further "social mobilizations" in coming weeks. The worry is that the French "No" campaign, come the presidential elections of 2007, will resemble the Resistance in, say, 1948: A great coalition defeats a formidable foe, and only the Communists among them are well-enough organized to reap the benefit.

    The problem at present is that mainstream politicians, national and European, have no credible lines of communication to their publics. The E.U. has taken on so many responsibilities, especially regulatory and economic ones, that the capacity of individual nation-states for full self-government has atrophied. This has spread the E.U.'s so-called "democratic deficit" (the thing that this constitutional plebiscite was meant to fix) to national governments. Consider the Netherlands. There, nearly two-thirds of the voters repudiated the E.U. -- but 85 percent of national legislators were firm (often sanctimonious) supporters of the treaty just a few short weeks ago. This gap is the hot political topic in Europe right now. It will be redressed through national elections across the continent over the next couple of years.

    Until then, Europe will pass through a rocky period in which every article of bien-pensant faith gets renegotiated. On some issues, the new dispensation is already crystal-clear. One is the candidacy of Turkey for admission to the European Union. Turkey has been vying for entry since the early 1960s, and E.U. leaders agreed last winter to open the negotiations that would culminate in full membership in another decade. It won't happen. The huge number of French and Dutch "No" voters who cited Turkey as one of their primary worries about the E.U. -- whether because its cheap labor will threaten Europe's jobs or because its Muslim identity threatens Europe's cultural coherence -- have turned Turkey into a third rail of European politics.

    The outcome is made even more certain by the impending national elections in Germany. Bavarian prime minister Edmund Stoiber, the conservative candidate for chancellor in 2002, urged an end to Turkish accession talks. "The European Union is not capable of accommodating itself to Turkey," he said, "nor is Turkey capable of accommodating itself to the European Union." Ingo Friedrich, one of Stoiber's Christian Democratic allies, went even further last week, recommending an "accession moratorium" not just for Turkey but also for Bulgaria and Romania, whose accession remains only to be formalized. Schröder said on Friday that he was against such reversals. But if he sticks with that position he will forfeit any chance of reelection. Turkish businessmen can read the signals. The Monday after Schröder's Social Democrats were defeated in Germany's populous state of North Rhine-Westphalia, Turkey's stock market lost 5 percent of its value.

    There are a dozen more referenda to come before next spring, and polls show the "Yes" side losing most of them. In fact, Europeans whose countries have already ratified the treaty feel like they've been had, and want to revisit it. A majority of Germans -- who are not permitted binding referenda for reasons having to do with their 20th-century history -- told pollsters at Infratest-Dimap last week that they would like to see the constitutional treaty renegotiated, even though their own legislators ratified it just last month.

    Because of Article IV section 447, future referenda are totally pointless. Yet when Tony Blair sensibly suggested that he cancel his own country's referendum, the European Commission president José Manuel Dur o Barroso warned against "unilateral actions." Indeed, other European politicians are suggesting that Europe simply proceed to enact their favorite parts of the constitutional treaty by any means necessary. Important reforms -- the European Defense Agency (which is up and running already anyway), the two-and-a-half-year presidency, the European Ministry of Foreign Affairs -- can simply be declared not constitutional matters after all, and can be dealt with in the traditional manner by the Brussels bureaucracy. Luxembourg's prime minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, spent much of the spring urging that any country that rejected the constitution submit it to a "re-vote."

    The Spanish prime minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero said after the French defeat, "We must take note of the discontent expressed in this vote, and redouble our efforts to explain that this constitution enshrines the rights and freedoms of Europeans as our social model." In general, there's a Catch-22 here. Europe's political leaders are responding to the referendum debacle with the same lack of accountability for which they've just been censured.

    Dear,
    I attended a speech by Hans Van Mierlo, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Holland, a healthy 70plusser today, who gave interesting insights into the post war EU/US relationship until today.

     

    Next to the US, the EU stands with empty hands. This is disadvantageous for EU and the world. The US is imposing the US democratic model, whereas EU fails to have its own foreign policy. As long as EU remains under the NATO umbrella, its safety is guaranteed, but, at the same time, it can never reach full completion by failure of a common reflex to close the ranks. The extended EU is the largest economy in the world, but NATO has become an addiction.

     

    Already President Kennedy wanted to sign a treaty with Europe, but Europe wanted to have 15 separate treaties instead. The EU has become complacent and shies away from its own responsibility in the world.

    The biggest problem for European foreign policy is the veto right. This reduces every step forward to the level of the least willing partner, usually the UK. Lack in confidence and power are the results. The European identity is based on its social security model and the belief in an international judicial order. This, is the main contribution of EU to the world today.

     

    After the fall of the USSR, the EU style of capitalism with its social restrictions has become the other way, next to the US model of unrestricted capitalism, where the pursuit of happiness is the sole responsibility of every individual. In EU, after a long social battle, we have arrived at a system based on social basic rights where the fulfilment of the primary needs of the other are the driving force behind the progress of our society. The sustainability of our economy in the long run (environment, social choices,…) has become a major concern.

     

    The US model dominates and has created massive wealth. This has caused envy in the muslim world and the developing countries. The EU concept seems more attractive to the Islamic countries and the developing world, but the US is pushing forward its own model relentlessly. Both in EU and the rest of the world, the question is asked whether or not to accept the US model. Do we want it ? Does the world want it? Globalization is making differences between countries and systems less distinct. The US model seems unstoppable. Only a strong EU foreign policy can make the EU model more explicit …

     

    The EU model is based on the notion that everybody has to obey the law. During the cold War, the UN was playing a role of judge by international law as part of the balance of powers. After 1989, a new world order emerged. First by unanimity when the invasion of Kuwait was pushed back. Under the ideal of a world legal order, Saddam was rebuffed (although a few drops of oil have helped)

     

    In 2002, with the Iraq war, the US dominance has destabilised the world order for the first time. The EU were helpless and divided. This has opened the eyes of many countries around the world. As Montesqieu, one of the inspirers of the US constitution, once said : “ every power tends to expand itself. A power which is not opposed will extend its power. Only power can stop power. “

    No other country has more explicitly divided its powers than the US did in its constitution. The so-called TRIAS POLITICA, the division of powers keeps the balance and has led to a pax Americana. The same belief in the trias nationally, is rejected by Bush internationally. This is a serious step backwards for the political world order.

     

    International Law en Order should be based on the UN, the International Court of Justice and the security council. This Law and Order should be enforced by a coalition of the willing. This is basic thinking in the history of civilization.

     

    A convinced political EU can be this counterweight. Not as part of the resistance, but as an influencing power : “to force someone to serve”. To stop unilateral and uncontrolled power. With China and India emerging rapidly, the US will soon cry for such a world order which they have helped to destroy.

     

     

    05-10-2005 om 20:45 geschreven door roel

    0 1 2 3 4 5 - Gemiddelde waardering: 0/5 - (1 Stemmen)
    >> Reageer (0)
    Klik hier om een link te hebben waarmee u dit artikel later terug kunt lezen.Proficiat!
    Proficiat!

    Uw blog is correct aangemaakt en u kan nu onmiddellijk starten! 

    U kan uw blog bekijken op http://blog.SeniorenNet.be/familieverstraeten

    We hebben om te starten ook al een reeks extra's toegevoegd aan uw blog, zodat u dit zelf niet meer hoeft te doen.  Zo is er een archief, gastenboek, zoekfunctie, enz. toegevoegd geworden. U kan ze nu op uw blog zien langs de linker en rechter kant.

    U kan dit zelf helemaal aanpassen.  Surf naar http://blog.SeniorenNet.be/ en log vervolgens daar in met uw gebruikersnaam en wachtwoord. Klik vervolgens op 'personaliseer'.  Daar kan u zien welke functies reeds toegevoegd zijn, ze van volgorde wijzigen, aanpassen, ze verwijderen en nog een hele reeks andere mogelijkheden toevoegen.

    Om berichten toe te voegen, doet u dit als volgt.  Surf naar http://blog.SeniorenNet.be/  en log vervolgens in met uw gebruikersnaam en wachtwoord.  Druk vervolgens op 'Toevoegen'.  U kan nu de titel en het bericht ingeven.

    Om een bericht te verwijderen, zoals dit bericht (dit bericht hoeft hier niet op te blijven staan), klikt u in plaats van op 'Toevoegen' op 'Wijzigen'.  Vervolgens klikt u op de knop 'Verwijderen' die achter dit bericht staat (achter de titel 'Proficiat!').  Nog even bevestigen dat u dit bericht wenst te verwijderen en het bericht is verwijderd.  U kan dit op dezelfde manier in de toekomst berichten wijzigen of verwijderen.

    Er zijn nog een hele reeks extra mogelijkheden en functionaliteiten die u kan gebruiken voor uw blog. Log in op http://blog.SeniorenNet.be/ en geef uw gebruikersnaam en wachtwoord op.  Klik vervolgens op 'Instellingen'.  Daar kan u een hele reeks zaken aanpassen, extra functies toevoegen, enz.

    WAT IS CONCREET DE BEDOELING??
    De bedoeling is dat u op regelmatige basis een bericht toevoegt op uw blog. U kan hierin zetten wat u zelf wenst.
    - Bijvoorbeeld: u heeft een blog gemaakt voor gedichten. Dan kan u bvb. elke dag een gedicht toevoegen op uw blog. U geeft de titel in van het gedicht en daaronder in het bericht het gedicht zelf. Zo kunnen uw bezoekers dagelijks terugkomen om uw laatste nieuw gedicht te lezen. Indien u meerdere gedichten wenst toe te voegen op eenzelfde dag, voegt u deze toe als afzonderlijke berichten, dus niet in één bericht.
    - Bijvoorbeeld: u wil een blog maken over de actualiteit. Dan kan u bvb. dagelijks een bericht plaatsen met uw mening over iets uit de actualiteit. Bvb. over een bepaalde ramp, ongeval, uitspraak, voorval,... U geeft bvb. in de titel het onderwerp waarover u het gaat hebben en in het bericht plaatst u uw mening over dat onderwerp. Zo kan u bvb. meedelen dat de media voor de zoveelste keer het fout heeft, of waarom ze nu dat weer in de actualiteit brengen,... Of u kan ook meer diepgaande artikels plaatsen en meer informatie over een bepaald onderwerp opzoeken en dit op uw blog plaatsen. Indien u over meerdere zaken iets wil zeggen op die dag, plaatst u deze als afzonderlijke berichten, zo is dit het meest duidelijk voor uw bezoekers.
    - Bijvoorbeeld: u wil een blog maken als dagboek. Dagelijks maakt u een bericht aan met wat u er wenst in te plaatsen, zoals u anders in een dagboek zou plaatsen. Dit kan zijn over wat u vandaag hebt gedaan, wat u vandaag heeft gehoord, wat u van plan bent, enz. Maak een titel en typ het bericht. Zo kunnen bezoekers dagelijks naar uw blog komen om uw laatste nieuwe bericht te lezen en mee uw dagboek te lezen.
    - Bijvoorbeeld: u wil een blog maken met plaatselijk nieuws. Met uw eigen blog kan u zo zelfs journalist zijn. U kan op uw blog het plaatselijk nieuws vertellen. Telkens u iets nieuw hebt, plaats u een bericht: u geeft een titel op en typt wat u weet over het nieuws. Dit kan zijn over een feest in de buurt, een verkeersongeval in de streek, een nieuwe baan die men gaat aanleggen, een nieuwe regeling, verkiezingen, een staking, een nieuwe winkel, enz. Afhankelijk van het nieuws plaatst u iedere keer een nieuw bericht. Indien u veel nieuws heeft, kan u zo dagelijks vele berichten plaatsen met wat u te weten bent gekomen over uw regio. Zorg ervoor dat u telkens een nieuw bericht ingeeft per onderwerp, en niet zaken samen plaatst. Indien u wat minder nieuws kan bijeen sprokkelen is uiteraard 1 bericht per dag of 2 berichten per week ook goed. Probeer op een regelmatige basis een berichtje te plaatsen, zo komen uw bezoekers telkens terug.
    - Bijvoorbeeld: u wil een blog maken met een reisverslag. U kan een bericht aanmaken per dag van uw reis. Zo kan u in de titel opgeven over welke dag u het gaat hebben, en in het bericht plaatst u dan het verslag van die dag. Zo komen alle berichten onder elkaar te staan, netjes gescheiden per dag. U kan dus op éénzelfde dag meerdere berichten ingeven van uw reisverslag.
    - Bijvoorbeeld: u wil een blog maken met tips op. Dan maakt u telkens u een tip heeft een nieuw bericht aan. In de titel zet u waarover uw tip zal gaan. In het bericht geeft u dan de hele tip in. Probeer zo op regelmatige basis nieuwe tips toe te voegen, zodat bezoekers telkens terug komen naar uw blog. Probeer bvb. 1 keer per dag, of 2 keer per week een nieuwe tip zo toe te voegen. Indien u heel enthousiast bent, kan u natuurlijk ook meerdere tips op een dag ingeven. Let er dan op dat het meest duidelijk is indien u pér tip een nieuw bericht aanmaakt. Zo kan u dus bvb. wel 20 berichten aanmaken op een dag indien u 20 tips heeft voor uw bezoekers.
    - Bijvoorbeeld: u wil een blog maken dat uw activiteiten weerspiegelt. U bent bvb. actief in een bedrijf, vereniging of organisatie en maakt elke dag wel eens iets mee. Dan kan je al deze belevenissen op uw blog plaatsen. Het komt dan neer op een soort van dagboek. Dan kan u dagelijks, of eventueel meerdere keren per dag, een bericht plaatsen op uw blog om uw belevenissen te vertellen. Geef een titel op dat zeer kort uw belevenis beschrijft en typ daarna alles in wat u maar wenst in het bericht. Zo kunnen bezoekers dagelijks of meermaals per dag terugkomen naar uw blog om uw laatste belevenissen te lezen.
    - Bijvoorbeeld: u wil een blog maken uw hobby. U kan dan op regelmatige basis, bvb. dagelijks, een bericht toevoegen op uw blog over uw hobby. Dit kan gaan dat u vandaag een nieuwe postzegel bij uw verzameling heeft, een nieuwe bierkaart, een grote vis heeft gevangen, enz. Vertel erover en misschien kan je er zelfs een foto bij plaatsen. Zo kunnen anderen die ook dezelfde hobby hebben dagelijks mee lezen. Als u bvb. zeer actief bent in uw hobby, kan u dagelijks uiteraard meerdere berichtjes plaatsen, met bvb. de laatste nieuwtjes. Zo trek je veel bezoekers aan.

    WAT ZIJN DIE "REACTIES"?
    Een bezoeker kan op een bericht van u een reactie plaatsen. Een bezoeker kan dus zelf géén bericht plaatsen op uw blog zelf, wel een reactie. Het verschil is dat de reactie niet komt op de beginpagina, maar enkel bij een bericht hoort. Het is dus zo dat een reactie enkel gaat over een reactie bij een bericht. Indien u bvb. een gedicht heeft geschreven, kan een reactie van een bezoeker zijn dat deze het heel mooi vond. Of bvb. indien u plaatselijk nieuws brengt, kan een reactie van een bezoeker zijn dat deze nog iets meer over de feiten weet (bvb. exacte uur van het ongeval, het juiste locatie van het evenement,...). Of bvb. indien uw blog een dagboek is, kan men reageren op het bericht van die dag, zo kan men meeleven met u, u een vraag stellen, enz. Deze functie kan u uitschakelen via "Instellingen" indien u dit niet graag heeft.

    WAT IS DE "WAARDERING"?
    Een bezoeker kan een bepaald bericht een waardering geven. Dit is om aan te geven of men dit bericht goed vindt of niet. Het kan bvb. gaan over een bericht, hoe goed men dat vond. Het kan ook gaan over een ander bericht, bvb. een tip, die men wel of niet bruikbaar vond. Deze functie kan u uitschakelen via "Instellingen" indien u dit niet graag heeft.


    Het SeniorenNet-team wenst u veel succes met uw gloednieuwe blog!

    Met vriendelijke groeten,
    SeniorenNet-team

    05-10-2005 om 20:14 geschreven door

    0 1 2 3 4 5 - Gemiddelde waardering: 0/5 - ( Stemmen)
    >> Reageer (0)
    Klik hier om een link te hebben waarmee u dit artikel later terug kunt lezen.familie verstraeten is on line
    Hoera!
    Dank zij het seniorennet schuiven we aan aan de werelddis.
    papa verstraeten

    05-10-2005 om 20:14 geschreven door roel

    0 1 2 3 4 5 - Gemiddelde waardering: 2/5 - (3 Stemmen)
    >> Reageer (0)

    Archief per week
  • 03/10-09/10 2005

    E-mail mij

    Druk op onderstaande knop om mij te e-mailen.


    Gastenboek

    Druk op onderstaande knop om een berichtje achter te laten in mijn gastenboek


    Blog als favoriet !


    Blog tegen de regels? Meld het ons!
    Gratis blog op http://blog.seniorennet.be - SeniorenNet Blogs, eenvoudig, gratis en snel jouw eigen blog!