Rainbowsphere

In accordance to my previous post, I happened to find the chance to actually read Andrew’s say on the matter. Intrigued on how Postmortem of Culture/Post Gangrene works and applies to the article, Mike got interested by the matter of how I used the term, and so the discussion in IRC ensued with the topic at hand.

Mike: I don’t understand the Post Gangrene.

It is the deterioration of posts in any way, be it quality, style, even the topic and post body. For example, style is lost when pertaining to a topic, topic is lost when trying to use a good style, etc. This leads to an article/post not being read since it does not hit a certain criterion readers find in the post/article, thus the “gangrene”, or the soon-to-be-imminent “postmortem”. Posts not being read results to a blog not being read, therefore from the post, the gangrene “spreads” throughout the blog body itself, with the blogger either fighting back, or getting ultimately owned, defining the “postmortem” itself on the latter. But of course, if you tend to be random at most times, or have a blogplace that doesn’t necessarily have qualifications, restrictions, or such, then this one doesn’t apply to you. And if you do have qualifications or restrictions, it’s not like you’ll have to encounter such as often as drama sparks in 4chan. That’s why even though I use a good foray of words, I tend to go simple at the most essential of topics, so people would understand, at the very least hopefully, what I’m trying to say.

Mike: I don’t know, I think I’m concise. But I don’t dumb down what I write, I think.

I do dumb down when I need to inject humor. However, humor doesn’t always have the audience laughing, and can sometimes be offensive. See, that’s a problem with freedom of speech: You can tend to hit someone with words, and hurt them, even if you didn’t intend to. And if you do intend to, there’s no other abusive way to do so than in your own turf. That’s how sensitive man is. Or more precisely, that’s how mass media works at the moment.

Beauty of the article isn’t defined solely by the words. That’s where “read between the lines” apply.

That, I can label as a postmortem too, and this aftermath can apply not only to yourself (for hurting others, and possibly yourself in the future, therefore damaging image and popularity, if applicable), and others (hurt by you, and themselves for retaliating, with same implications with the former if applicable). So basically, a post is strengthened by personal means of emotion, which disregards style or whatnot just to be able to get to the point and do the job, which is wrong, unless you’re a bitch, that is. Then again, the net IS kind of a free place after all. To quote about flaming and such, I found this posted on IRC as well:

Carstensen, Gottman, and Levenson (1995) found that “Negative emotional behavior, such as expressed anger, sadness, contempt, and other negative emotions, appears to be the best discriminator.”

That’s defined too commonly that even an idiot can understand that throwing insults at a friend can make the friend a sworn enemy. But seriously, this one’s better and applies if you’ve made an enemy:

Emiya, Hercules and von Einzbern (1999) found that “People die when killed. “

So, how does this apply gangrene/postmortem/whateveryouwanttocallit thing to Andrew’s editorial anyway? Well I’m no pro blogger, and I just started my adventures (AGAIN) just this month (after I revived Rainbowsphere from the ashes, labeled by my first post on the first mark on this month’s calendar), and I haven’t got any serious or special topics to need conventions and such for them. I like my turf. I brand it as my second home, a home in the internet. This is the place that I can be myself, that I can define and identify myself, and that love of one’s own place is enough for me to be able to stick to it.

Criticism is not to define negativity. It’s a way to improve oneself in any way possible.

Again, I tend to be very random, but hey, like I said, this is my place. I don’t need to use it as reference to something, nor do I need to write articles on another space just so I can keep the main blogspace clean, clutter-free, and “on the topic”. I write what comes into my mind as quickly as I perceive the thoughts. I can use a play of words, or keep it simple, and that comes be when it is needed for emphasis or something else. Basically, the blog is a place where you can be free. It’s a place that defines yourself, by you, and by others that watch over you. Who cares about criticism? More than half the concern is how to deliver what you have in your mind, lest you know you’re going to hit someone with the words you throw, or care about the words you’ll get thrown at, and that’s no matter on my part. I’m free, and I’m in no position to deny it to myself, though at times, there’s a need for a limit. That’s where respect comes in, and I give it on high regard whenever possible or needed.

Ultimately, to sum it up, here’s Andrew’s impressive last words:

I want myself and others that feel trapped by it to be free and do whatever the hell they want. Expectations, perceived or otherwise, mean nothing when we do this for fun. Blog in a manner that suits you, that makes you happy. Fuck the rest.