Back on the Blog Horse
I was reminded recently by a friend that I occasionally speak some truths, and that these should not be limited to the ramblings of drunken pub talks and animated hand gestures, as much fun as these are.
In order to increase my chances of surviving yet another blog reboot, I have decided to impose a structure to my writing that will appeal to my cognitive meanderings and technical nature, a buttress to my otherwise conciseness.
The idea is quite simple, I make a statement (usually a question) and then analyse and expand that statement. It’s like differentiation in Math, only with thoughts, and slightly less geeky.
This was prompted by a rummage through a drive with old university work on it, where I found an essay I had written about the perils of abundant communication (more on this later). The revelation was that I am better suited to answering questions, so the solution is to ask myself the questions and expand upon the statements and somehow it will all miraculously make sense.
This is the plan anyway.
So for this article, I have chosen a question that I set myself back in the early 2000’s before I had even heard of Facebook. In this I, while drawing wildly subjective conclusions (you’ve been warned), discuss the adverse affect of the volume and frequency of communication as it was happening at that time.
This of course is quite relevant as we all get used to Google+, I’ll weigh in on that beauty some other time.
So I present it here in it’s original form, with the original gramatical errors and the caveat that we were all angry opinionated youths once. Some of the statements I make here are so unsupported it’s funny, which is why I don’t feel so bad sharing them. There are also some interesting points in there as well, both retrospectively and in context.
It’s worth reading just for the conclusion.
Expression: The proliferation of communication channels is having an adverse affect on the quality of communication broadcast.
Expansion: short essay (PDF)
