Date: 2014-01-30 06:30 am (UTC)From: [personal profile] marahmarie
marahmarie: (M In M Forever) (Default)
It's just that you put such "ranty, crotchety" passion into your POV that I would expect you'd have the requisite research/fact-checking/whatever you want to call it on whatever you mention as though it's fact already lined up. But I'm basing this on how I compose some of my own (admittedly better or at least "more factual") posts: I really do bother to research the damn things either a) before I write them or at least b) before I publish. I'll also eventually fact-check again while re-reading after posting to catch any errors that blew by in my admittedly heightened state(s) of angst.

I guess that's just down to personal preference and my own experience - which is mostly writing about a big online company that screwed people out of their money with a glee that to this day cannot be matched by anyone. I did that for years and from the start I researched and fact-checked just to cover my ass precisely so that when the inevitable company trolls would roll in to call bs and "YOU LIE" I could say, with a clean conscience, "tell me where I lied or did not tell the truth exactly as it is and I will gladly correct that for you". So I guess it's just second-nature to me now.

Blogging about things in general is more casual by nature and does not normally require due diligence. I'll admit that. I don't always do it myself - I leave people to find the truth on their own with some of my posts (but if they do bother to dig, I don't leave them wanting; I'll base what I say on the truth while avoiding specifics that'll just push me into a corner before I've lined up proper resources). So I guess my gripe was you were very specific and when I'm that specific I'll handle it differently or I won't be that specific at all.

I'm not trying to have a tone argument with you or tear you or your post down over tone: I have a tone so ranty and crotchety of my own there are times in calmer moments when I read my own DW that I practically need to cover my ears for what I can hear jumping off my pages at me. I'm simply saying the way I inferred your tone on this post was as misanthropic and it rubbed me the wrong way. I subscribed to you (and that was a long time ago, too) because your tone was something I enjoyed and a tone I used myself long before I ran across your DW. So we had that in common. It's just that this time that tone got twisted into what I felt was a merciless, totally obnoxious, unkind POV and that's when I decided to step back and re-assess.

I don't have the same reaction as you do as a consumer, sorry.
(will be screened)
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

mokie: Earthrise seen from the moon (Default)
mokie

January 2025

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930 31 

Credit

Page generated Monday, 16 June 2025 01:37 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

About dream/reading tags

y-* tags categorize dreams.

For types: beyond the obvious, there are dreamlets (very short dreams), stubs (fragment/outline of a partially-lost dream), gnatter (residual impression of a lost dream).

For characters: there are roles (characters fitting an archetype), symbols (characters as symbols), and sigils (recurring figures with a significance bigger than a single dream's role/symbolism).

x-* tags categorize books.

Material is categorized primarily by structure, style and setting. If searching for a particular genre, look for the defining features of that genre, e.g. x-form:nonfic:bio, x-style:horror, x-setting:dystopian.

Tags