Hmm.. a blog..
I'm not exactly sure what I'm supposed to write, what might be interesting to an unsuspecting reader or what direction I feel my style should pursue.
Perhaps I'm starting this as a means to vent frustrations and concerns about the world at large or simply to opine on life's trivialities. I've tried to preserve my anonymity by subscribing with enigmatic detail but, I suspect, that the odd person I might direct here (as they already host blogs here) will know exactly who I am - so what, if anything, am I hiding from?! I suppose that at least scribing this with a hint of anonymity saves me attracting - and in turn upsetting - anyone who I might offend! I'm digressing already! God help the longevity of this blog!
So. My inaugural blog entry. I've got nothing specific to say at this juncture. The reason I have found myself here is through my addiction to "en-cee's" mutterings and a closet desire to have a promulgatory rant of my own (and possibly litter en-cee's blog with annexed comments by virtue of my registration!).
I hope, in time, to populate this blog with my views and feelings on current affairs with an undoubted scattering of meaningless drivel. I don't promise it will be intellectually-stimulating, interesting or eventful. I suspect it will be very ordinary and uninspiring. The liklihood is that it will serve purely as an exorcism of my opinions and regular or returning subscription by readers out there will be at an absolute minimum!
I'm about to spend my day analysing the dreary realm of law on privacy.. how apt that it's raining outside my office window!
Out.
1 comment:
Hello and welcome to the blogsphere (horrible word). I think your comments are about your anonymity are interesting, both from a legal perspective (that I cannot claim to understand) and from an epistemological perspective (of which I have a greater understanding). It’s a difficult balance to achieve, I suppose, although I’ve set myself some informal rules to follow when blogging (below).
(1) I don’t identify someone not in the ‘public eye’ by name without his or her specific consent. Hence I do refer to incidents in my (not so) private life, but (if negative) I won’t identify someone by name. If people to choose to infer their identity from this, then that is something they have done, and not me, i.e. I try to provide enough information to 'tell the story', but not quite enough to identify someone clearly to the casual reader. I’m not sure what the legal position would actually be here (any advice?) if someone ‘unnamed’ felt offended by something they thought to be about them;
(2) Where I do make comments about goods and services, or folk in the public eye, then I try to ensure that it’s ‘fair comment’. Again, I’m not entirely sure about the law here, but that’s how I see the position. Hence, I feel more than happy critiquing Mr Blair or National Rail as they are both in the public eye, and I base my comments on experiential or documented evidence, although of course the former can be contested;
(3) I choose never to discuss work or any work-related activity on my blog. Partly because of the well-documented cases where employers have taken umbrage at this, and partly because, frankly, I have very little to say on the matter.
I suppose it all boils down to what you choose to write about, and your personal relationship with the subject/object of the discussion. My blog is about my relationship with the world, and so I cannot (and will not) separate the ‘me’ from the ‘understanding’: it’s a world view activated through a set of personal experiences and imaginations, and as such is not firmly ‘objective’ or factual, but is also not quite fictional or illusory.
I think you'll develop your own style quite quickly; indeed, looking back at my (rather badly written) early postings is quite an interesting exercise. And regarding your identity, I can also infer that you're a lawyer or law student simply by the language you use ("promulgatory rant" - yes, I had to look this one up!). Good luck.
Post a Comment