|
BURNINGBIRD
|
|
a node at the edge
|
|
June 29, 2002
 Speaking of Courtesy
The Happy Tutor has written a longish weblog posting regarding my earlier posting, The Lost Art of Courtesy. Happy writes: I wonder, though, BB, are courteous blogs "scaleable"? If we want to reach an audience of 10-20 personable losers, and we all constantly comment on each other's posts, then it would be cozy, but closed. Let's say that 400-4,000 people read a blog, could the author possibly be "courteous" to all, going to their blog, and exchanging bland comments and notes? Sigh. I never know with Happy Tutor postings whether he's agreeing with me, or disagreeing with me. Should I respond to the Happy Tutor persona, who disagrees with agreement, compliments that which is to be despised? Or should I respond to the person behind the Happy Tutor persona, who has real opinions and real thoughts. If I'm in a playful mood, I'll usually respond directly to Happy, and fun is had by all. However, when I'm in a more thoughtful or somber mood, I find the persona to be irritating. Are blogs online simply to be overheard? Or are they an extraordinarily exhibitionistic way to maintain a small social network? If you want to exchange pleasantries with a few friends, why not use email or a listserv? Why post personal conversations where millions could read and where every banal remark will be permanently archived in Google or the Wayback Machine? Why not keep a paper diary and circulate it by snail mail to your friends, and have them do the same? Weblogging - Open door communities, with no borders or boundaries. Does this scale? Who gives a shit. Now, Happy - you want more, knock at my door, and as password give your name and true opinion, and we'll talk.
Posted by Bb at June 29, 2002 05:49 PM Trackback Count (0) Comments
I love this line "Are blogs online to be overheard?". Cool. Definitely great line. I like it. I just love it. Wow. Look at me jumping up and down. OK, seriously. As bloggers start giving up this notinon of how truly significant they are and stop living in denial that somehow every post they write should by commented on, linked to, daypopped and written about in Wired.com we'll start having an explosion of Reneissance. I truly believe this. I see Fishrush.com Kent. I consider him a genius. This guy is incredible. He really doesn't give a shit if you link to him or not. Well, hold on. I am putting words in his fishjaw thingi here. Let's just say that he doesn't care (I should ask him). Anyway my point is that we, the human beings are suckers for attention. That's all. It's a malady, incurable disease. Some say it's good for you to have lots of attention. I say it's neither good nor bad. It's just attention, it's not like we are running out of attention and everybody should have acquired at least 5 tons of it by the time they are 28 or 34 or they will be malattentioned for the rest of their life. Anyway. I actually don't have a real commment here. Just stopping by to say hello and hope you enjoy St Louis. Posted by: Marek J on June 29, 2002 06:42 PMAh, thanks Marek. I think. Posted by: Bb aka Shelley aka Weblog Bosswoman on June 29, 2002 07:42 PMOK, the truth is that I like you a lot, and enjoy reading your material. The Happy Tutor's remarks, as usual, were out of line. You put Tutor in his place, and I love you for it. Now, can I stop being so truthful? God, what punishment. I wouldn't go through this for anyone but you, BB. Posted by: P. B . Cubeta on June 29, 2002 10:12 PM'Fession is good for the soul, P.B. Now, you can go back to your evil ways. Posted by: Bb aka Shelley aka Weblog Bosswoman on June 29, 2002 11:35 PMIf we don't receive a response to our broadcast or noone visits our blog, what does the 'non-response' indicate? Steven Hawking phrased the question slightly different: "Why have we not been visited?" He then goes on to consider the following: 1. The probability of life appearing is very low. 2. The probability of life is reasonable but the probability of intelligence is low. 3. The probability of evolving to our present state is reasonable, but then civilization destroys itself. 4. There is other intelligent life in the galaxy, but it has not bothered to come here. Brian C. Warnock encountered an experience somewhat similar to the above while posting to a Perl list. I think he identified the following: 1. The post is correct, well-written information that needs no follow-up commentary. There's nothing more to say except "Yeah, what he said." 2. The post is complete and utter nonsense, and no one wants to waste the energy or bandwidth to even point this out. 3. No one read the post, for whatever reason. 4. No one understood the post, but won't ask for clarification, for whatever reason. 5. No one cares about the post, for whatever reason. Someone used the term "Warnock's Dilemma", a term that I found appealing and hastily wrote about some time ago here: http://fishrush.tripod.com/warnocksdilemma.shtml Posted by: fishrush on June 30, 2002 01:34 PMAs we seek clear expression, authentic voice, and beautiful or at least functional style, some of us would like feedback from those who wander through. Some of us could care less. I wonder what b!X has to say about this thread? Posted by: fp on June 30, 2002 10:10 PMFrank, I'm unsure if you're joking or not, but regardless - who gives a shit about what this person has to say? Posted by: Bb aka Shelley aka Weblog Bosswoman on July 1, 2002 06:32 AMhmmm... ummm.... that is... is there some lack of respect there or just a reflection of the unspellable one's voice? I did have my tongue in my cheek on that last post since I thought he'd probably respond with "who gives a rat's ass" or something similar. So was your "who gives a shit from the heart or from the humor zone I wonder? sign me, I like Elaine, but am not overly fond of B!x. And he would probably respond with "Who cares", to which I would reply "Right. Who cares". Posted by: Bb aka Shelley aka Weblog Bosswoman on July 1, 2002 03:42 PMI get it. But I have a sense of the guy as bang-on right and true. I've seen him be irascible and less-than-nice (sounds like a good name for a SKA band Less Than Nice) but I usually have a hard time disagreeing with what he says. And even when I do, I see where he's coming from. Posted by: fp on July 1, 2002 09:03 PMThat's cool, Frank. And I do agree with many of his opinions - his weblog just isn't my style. Tastes differ. Posted by: Bb aka Shelley aka Weblog Bosswoman on July 2, 2002 12:26 PMPost a comment
|