Getting soft...

[jay]

Feh. Once upon a time, I frequented Usenet and local mailing lists, was involved in various discussions, and knew how to defend myself. Ideas were filtered several times before posting. Weaknesses were studied, anticipating possible challenges or lines-of-attack. Nits that could be seized on by net.nuisances were carefully combed out, especially spelling. Statements were personally qualified to avoid generalizations, sometimes redundantly-so in the same sentence.

Then came LJ... and I've gotten soft, and sloppy. Not on my toes, not as careful about attack-angles or spelling (or missing clauses!). After all, the folks on one's LJ reader list are called friends, and they tend to be a bit more sympathetic, supportive and are self-selected.

But on Usenet and broad mailing lists, it's still harsh out there... not only are the random readers not my friends, they may be overtly hostile, looking for opportunities to throw scorn and snideness in my direction. I've re-learned this the hard way over the past week or so. If I'm going to spend significant time and energy in those forums, I have to get back in my older, harder mindset.

Comments

[hopeforyou.livejournal.com]

I don't understand why you have to be careful about attack-angles. Spelling and grammar, maybe...I've seen nit-picking about that online many times. But attack-angles?

I've managed to have plenty of informative and useful exchanges on a variety of fora (including sf-bay poly) without having to play devil's advocate without informing others and without having to constantly defend myself from others.

All I did was speak from the first person, and be myself. If you ask a direct question, you can get a direct answer.

Some people will flame other people no matter what you do -- you can choose to ignore them, and follow a more productive thread. There's no need to defend those whom can hang themselves with their own words. If you have acted honourably, other people will think they are jerks -- even if they stand back and do not respond to them to tell them such.

However, if you go about writing with the mindset that others are hostile and choose to communicate in an indirect fashion, I think the result is that others genuinely think that your indirectness and line of obtuse questioning really represents who you are and that you expect others to be hostile to you. So they respond based on that.

I don't think you've gotten soft and sloppy on LJ. If anything, I've seen more of who you are here than I ever did on sf-bay poly and I don't think that's a bad thing. Good and bad and neutral, features and flaws. It's all here.

I expose myself daily to scorn and ridicule here, and sometimes I've had it hurled at me here. Here I tend to listen to others more than on huge mailing lists, though, because it really *is* about me here and not about a wider audience. I view whatever I've heard here as something to think about personally and to see what I can learn from it, even if it hurts.

Outside of here, people on Usenet or elsewhere know less about who I am, so I give their opinions less weight. The most weight I give to those who live with me and know me well, even if sometimes what they have to say hurts. Sometimes the truth hurts, but out of that is an opportunity for healing and growth.