I have noticed a trend present in the comments section of blog postings across the blogosphere. Blog commenters spend a great deal of time discussing what is NOT said, instead of constructively evaluating what IS said. Based on the paradigm shift that Web 2.0 blogs have on the typical reader/writer roles, the reader gets the chance to be the writer when he/she makes comments on an article, thus the original writer becomes a reader of these comments. This allows the reader to publicly inject opinion into the original author’s work, a task that comes with a burdening responsibility to maintain the agenda and flow of the article.
The reader is basically changing contextual details of the content in a way that alters the direction of the content for other readers. The reader/commenter must be aware of their core responsibility to maintain article relevance, focusing first on comprehending what IS written before getting excessively outspoken about has NOT yet been addressed. It is human nature even in spoken conversation to interject with alternative theories before the speaker has a chance to rest the point. As with spoken conversation, sometimes a reader doesn’t even attempt to relate to the writer’s point of view, but instead funnels the information through his/her own life experiences… thus completely missing the writer’s objective.
Certainly there are times when it is important for the reader to interject with alternative information, specifically if he/she feels that the writer is misrepresenting fact or deliberately ignoring crucial details in order to derive a false conclusion. But it seems to me that quite often supplementary information in blog comments stray away from the writer’s key objective. Before one introduces supplementary content into the work of another, two questions should be asked: Is this added content relevant to what is already written? Is the content I am adding purposely excluded from the original article for a creditable reason?
You graduated from college, landed a good job, and have been diligently saving money for awhile now. Your car is getting old and pretty soon you are going to need a new one, but you also have the desire to be a homeowner. Should you buy a new house or a new car first? This question is actually extremely difficult to answer. It truly depends on the immediate financial circumstances of the individual involved.
I heard someone mutter the latter yesterday morning and it got me to thinking… Does the general popularity of these phrases have anything to do with a society-wide deficiency of aspirations and lack of motivation? Each phrase by itself seems innocent enough, but when placed next to one another it draws a bigger, darker picture depicting an endless cycle of empty progress.
We just purchased a brand new car (Honda Accord Coupe EX-L) on a credit card. You think we’re crazy? Think again. We instantly saved ourselves about $500 by paying with plastic. Sure, there are a million reasons why this might sound like a bad idea in regards to long term debt. However, if you have the cash to back it up, a credit card is the smart way to pay for a new car.
The optional risk associated with free choice is the greatest catch-22 in life. When presented with the choice, do you try something new or do you accept the proverbial zone of comfort for which you are already well acquainted? So many of us complain about the boring cycle of repetition present in our weekly routines, yet we choose no clear course for correction. Why? The reason is simple. The very source of our boredom also provides a solid foundation of unadulterated comfort. We are comforable with our current surroundings. Steering off the known track is risky, and we are terrified of what might happen if we do.