Todd Lyden

I wasn't going to do this, but as a learning experience on blogging, commenting and just communicating in general, I thought this might be constructive and educational. I've had one dust up with a blogger over on his website(The original comments are now off when the blog was switched, I guess.) My gist of the article and I think the original discussion in that case is that sarcasm and satire online are HARD. Very hard to understand. I think it hurts REAL communication.  Does it stop people from trying? No. But does it mean things get taken wrong, YES. Now, I've had another dust up where I took umbrage with the way a government agency's twitter and blog were portrayed and was able to illustrate so.  I was contacted directly after ending the commentary on the blog post and told that arguing in that forum doesn't make anyone look good.  I'd post comments over there, but after being painted as a nasty troll, a-hole, bully, and someone who pisses all ov...

photo © 2010  Eric Ward  |  more info   (via:  Wylio ) I'm not right and neither are you. Would that make things easier when you are engaged in an argument? I am, admittedly, a debater. I nearly ALWAYS see the other side whether I try to or not. It's just the way my brain functions. The internet and social media is not designed for that. It's like some sort of communal back-pat. I had a  b rushup with another blogger on his site on the issue of listening versus reading on his blog. I wrote about some of the problems with audio  here . I see little difference between reading and listening. I can grant that there might be more opportunity for noticing the subtle nuances in voice, but the reality is: if you don't know your audience, or have to write or speak to the broader masses, there is functionally little difference. More nuance means more opportunity to miss the point. That is why the internet/social media reviles sarcas...