(Chris catches up on the backlog)
As people do, people keep blogs. As people do, people make comments in blogs. As people do, people may not agree with things said in blogs, especially when they're comments about them.
This recently happened to me - someone made some comments about me in their blog, which I found quite insulting, to say the least. I tried to respond pointing out why I thought their comments were wrong an unfounded (basically telling my side of the story), and said that I would have rather that person come and speak to me about their problem instead of me having to find out about them on some blog somewhere. The reply I got to that was that it was pretty rich of me to say that, as they were sure the people that I comment on would like the same treatment.
And I do make comments about other people. I do bitch and moan about the way they affect me.
Initially I accepted this as a fair call, but something wasn't sitting right with me about it, and it got me thinking: am I the pot calling the kettle black? I mean, I try to practice what I preach, to keep free of hypocrisy as much as possible. But sometimes I feel that my actions probably do seem hypocritical unless you know my reasoning behind them. Sometimes you don't fully understand it yourself, unless you're called out on it.
So I've had a think about it. There are two fundamental differences about the two situations: the people I make comments on (the ones being referred to anyway) are not my friends; and the people I make comments on already know how I feel about them (at least, I've tried to make it clear and resolve these issues on any number of occasions). I think that they pretty much speak for themselves, expect that differences between people and definitions will probably lead to some differences in interpretation and reaction, but that's to be expected (and encouraged!).
I think that a lot of the problems between what I do and what people interpret about me stem from the fact that I tend to think in abstract ideals, and act in accordance with those ideals. That is, I rarely think about specifics, but am focusing on the meaning and ideas behind the specifics and how they're applied. This doesn't come across very well though, and because of the complexity of the issues has led to confusion and even conflict on the odd occasion.
And this leads to the core of the issue. I'm certainly not free of hypocrisy myself (I don't think that anyone can be no matter how hard they try). The difference is that people will make reasonable allowances to themselves in each situation that (as long as they're genuine) their actions are not hypocritical. Without knowing those reasons it would appear to other people that the actions are hypocritical when in fact their not. That is, don't take things at face value, because there's usually something else going on that you don't know about.
Now, am I still the pot calling the kettle black? On the original issue, I think it's a resounding "No". But by expecting that person to talk to me instead of blogging about it? Perhaps. After all, that person may have had their own reasons for not discussing it with me first - I don't know. And if that's the case, then that's fine.
At the end of the day, I can't complain. Blogging is just another way for us to express ourselves. I think the difference is what we get out of it. I do ramble to a certain extent, however I try to form some sort of structure and meaning from it (for me, if not for other people), and I'll stick by what I say until discussion makes me feel/think otherwise. I feel my comments are quite justified, and nothing to date has changed any of that. Regardless, there are no set rules to blogging, and only sketchy guidelines at best. Probably the only guideline that I write to is that you can't choose your audience (okay, technically you *can*, but I've chosen not to), so you have to be prepared for anyone to read it, and how they're going to react to it. Anything that I write here has that in mind.