By: TGE
There's a certain level of maturity a person ought to expect coming to
such a
well known place like this. Recently though, there's been a decline in
quality to these articles. Any evidence that the authour actually put
some
thought into what they were writing would've been nice. Is it asking
too
much to come up with some sort of original spin a some topic every is
tired
of hearing about? Well, is it?
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that lately some articles have
degraded to
a bitter sarcastic cry--too bad though that it's really one without any
basis.
Sadly, it's become too trite. Don't you think years of empty
television have
bred countless ignorant people? I certainly don't think so. I know
so--and
they seem to be increasing in the "community".
Instead of just plain out complaining about some aspect, why not try to
put
some consideration into a possible solution. Then, before mouthing
off, see
whether what you're saying makes sense! For example, a person may
suggest
airing just a subtitled version of a certain show leaving everything
unchanged as the solution to everything. Is this person showing
evidence of
thinking on their own or is he or she just spewing back something seen
a few
minutes ago? Well, let's take a look.
A lot of questions come from this example:
Would it be marketable to the N. American audience?
How will censors and other powerful people like Rev. Jerry Falwell
react and
what will be the effect? For God's sake, he attacked a Teletubby!
What about those slow readers or people who can see that well? How big
is
this market?
How will the companies in charge benefit?
After asking all of these questions, it doesn't seem like a worthy
solution.
If the person's still insisting that it's a perfect solution, do you
really
expect me to take this him seriously? Why would I respect *your* ideas
when
you're just repeating everything someone else has said? Why eat a
plain tofu
burger when you can have a tofu burger with fries? Am I being regular?
You
ought to deal with these questions everyday. Sure, a person has a
right to
agree (and a right to metamucil). But when you're trying to prove a
point
already argued about, it's like trying to draw blood from a stone; it's
like
trying to sell an air conditioner to the Inuit; it's like watching
Millionaire. It's a total waste of time!
Other things to consider:
How is having a totally sarcastic tone for no reason other than to
complain
about an established issue supposed to make others respect my ideas?
There's
a fine line between sharp wit and bitter old hag syndrome. You decide
where
you stand.
How will complaining about how stupid something is and only providing
an
equally stupid remark help prove my point? Remember, Forrest says:
"stupid
is as stupid does."
Am I repeating myself making me look like I'm just filling up space?
Am I
really just trying to take up space? Am I repeating myself? Am I
really?
Repeating myself?
Am I getting a bit too sentimental to be thinking straight? If you're
dog
died, you lost your favourite pencil, and one of your toenails are
falling off,
but a certain show made you feel on top of the world, I'd really rather
not
hear about it.
Humour is wonderful. Sarcasm is useful and witty when used in the
right
context. For God's sake though, know when what you're writing is a
waste of
space. Imagine that you're the surfer. Would you value these ideas or
would
you think that this person is being a bitter immature child? If you
would
think the latter, it may be time to do a rewrite or cancel your hopes
of
going into advertising--or politics for that matter (no soggy cigars
for you).
There. I've said it, now leave me alone!
Comments on this article can be sent to: TGE.
