The blogging phenom has more than caught on. I have a number of blogs that I check but rarely do I spend a long amount of time at any one. I was thinking about this and which posts I actually read in their entirety. Here's what I think makes a good post:
1. Brevity - If you can't say it concisely, I'm probably not listening.
2. White Space - If I want to read a term paper, I'll go to the library. Use paragraphs, bullet points, make it visually appealing. For the blog world, this is more important than grammar and form (at least for me).
3. Non-Diary Oriented - I don't care about your dentist appointment, unless you're incredibly clever and funny.
4. Good Intro - Just like any other piece of literature, you better catch em quick.
5. Purpose - Have a point, communicate it, and stop.
4 comments:
Some excellent points Allen, especially that of brevity. There is nothing worse than trying to read an essay on a computer screen.
It seems as though, Mr. Cagle, that you were pontificating on the obscurities that can be readily found on the world wide web, which is just another moniker for an information superhighway filled with beautifully written prose and wonderfully enlightening thoughts by those to whom you would otherwise never be exposed. It is truly an immaculent creation and were it not so sullied by the impurities of those not endowed by life of the Creator Himself, would be the greatest gift to mankind since those little things that you stick into a corn cobb (I mean, let's face it, you know what a bear it can be to try to grab a'hold to one of those slippery jokers when it's all buttery). But I digress.
Let me get to my point, which is in reality why I bothered at all to responde to your web-log post which I found at once profound (if you're a cagle), disheartening (if you're a lamey), opportunistic (if you're a sullivan), imperialistic (if you belong to a presbyterian church), confusing (if you're a cagle again), and offensive (if you're one of those that likes the sort of thing you were talking about).
Let me share with you a story about my recent exploits that may shed a little light on where I'm coming from. I was at the dentist the other day to get a check-up that was well overdue. It has probably been about three years since I have even set foot in a dentist office, partly because I was broke and had no insurance and partly because I'm british. Okay, I'm not british but I do have a pretty good british accent when I want to tell a joke or something. Anyway, I was in this dentist office and was sitting in the chair preparing my will to sit through someone with an intimidating-looking ice pick sort of thing digging around under my gums, when the dentist walked in. I have a great time with this fellow talking theology and such yet he always seems to stay away from controversial subjects - such as whether or not the Master's Seminary professors got it right when they did that series of lectures on the emerging church. Anyway, he puts that suction thing in my mouth and then sticks two or three of those pick thingies in there and a couple of fingers and begins to ask me what I think of lordship salvation.
I believe that you wrote what you did out of integrity and for that I do not question you. However, for you to dictate what is appropriate for others in the blogosphere is, well, rather fundamentalist of you. It's like that dentist sticking stuff in my mouth. When I am pontificating on the larger (no, broader) realities of life, I hardly want to be hindered by the thought that some Jr. High pastor somewhere doesn't want to hear what I say. I would rather believe that everyone wants to hear what I say and feel really good about saying the things that I want to say, see.
As for that fellow eating the raw fish above, let's call him smeagol. As for smeagol here, you two probably are close friends and go out together to kill some of God's beautiful creation. Which would explain why you will not give others the time of day and spend a little of your time giving ear to others.
Just a few thoughts that I thought (hey another one) you may find helpful.
Bishop,
I am a bit disappointed that you failed to break rule #2. You successfully violated the other 4. Allow me to respond to a few of your points.
1. I didn't read your paragraph on your dentist appointment.
2. If you had broken rule #2 and not had a paragraph break after your uninteresting story (here I go assuming, I didn't read it) I would have made it no further in your comment.
3. Notice in these 'guidelines' that these are what makes a good post "to me" obviously the most important prepositional phrase in hermeneutics (note: if you don't understand sarcasm, this comment thread isn't for you) - which makes my comments very non-fundamentalist, and much more postmodern, emerging and the like. I mean, the blogosphere is what the blogosphere is to you, right?
4. I really feel terrible that I have given you the impression that I don't care about your dentist appointment, oh wait, now I'm lying.
5. I never said you couldn't or shouldn't post such diary-oriented post, I just said I don't care to read them. Again, repeat after me, a web log is what a web log is to me. (say TO ME a little louder than the other words - that too will make you feel better about yourself).
6. I see killing God's creation as an obedience issue (Genesis 9).
7. All this talk of killing stuff has made me hungry.
Later -
I take it you don't read Pyromaniacs then....
Post a Comment