Blogging, as they say, is the 21st century way of expressing himself in cyberspace through the old fashioned way of diaries whereas the principal difference is that there are hundreds of millions of potential readers throughout the world unlike the latter that is solely dedicated to one reader, the writer himself.
With this in mind, one can safely assume that expressing yourself has in some way a therapeutic benefit to the blogger. In its truest sense, the blogger has unlimited power to unleash all his/her feelings, whether it’s all about his/her good experiences in life or all of his/her angst that may or may not consume his/her consciousness. By sharing his/her burden he/she alleviates the feelings of despondency and has somehow shared those feelings for the whole world to sympathize; it also cuts in both ways if the experience that the blogger is writing is in a different perspective, like a positive one.
I’m writing this blog in response to the comment I received two days ago via email. The reader felt that why I didn’t mentioned the person I’m referring to in my blog entitled 2008 because somehow, in a way, she was left in the dark. Also, she pointed out it would be perfectly okay if the world would know who is my number one fan in the office thathas caused quite a turmoil in my private life, and I have the right to tell what I really feel inside. Yes, I agree with you. Absolutely. I guess the constitution also stated that in the first amendment, something like we have the right of expression. However, there’s something that also negates that right which is found, if I’m not mistaken, in the second amendment: anyone who feels violated in terms of his dignity through libel and/or slander has every right to file a lawsuit against the violator. Now, that portion sucks, don’t you think?
I’m no lawyer. So please try to bear with me if I hadn’t written that passage right, but I do know that’s what it says in order to protect your fellow man from infringes such as invasion of privacy and to protect his integrity from malicious intent. Another thing, it will cause you a lot trying to defend what you’ve said or written is accurate and that is not a good idea because as you know, the law here doesn’t seem to be operating properly if you know what I mean. Personally, there is a deeper reason why I don’t mention names in my blog. Something more than what the law states in the constitution. You see, aside from the fact that this blog has the potential to be read by millions across the globe, it also has the chance of being immortal. Yes, immortal because it can stay here on your website for hundreds of years unless that website closes or if your account was suddenly closed by the website hosts either because you have violated something or if you have decided to close your own account. But the fact remains that your blog has the potential to stay there as long as it takes no matter what. Given with this reason at this magnitude, you can safely draw that it is perfectly useless that what happened or what that particular person did to you five hundred years ago be remembered. I mean, does anyone of you want to remember this specific person and be associated with you in case someone stumbled upon your blog whether you became popular or not? Is it worth remembering the negative things forever? Personally, I don’t because you’re giving them the chance of being popular and be remembered through the ages no matter how brief you may have mentioned them, and more importantly they are not worth it. That’s why I made it a point that if I’m going to drop names I’ll be dropping good ones seeing they deserve to be remembered forever.
I would like to end this blog and leave you with something to think about. I believe this quote by Bud Gardner explains poignantly and succinctly and is more than enough to what I’m driving at:
“When you speak, your words echo only across the room or down the hall. But when you write, your words echo down the ages.”
First posted on Friendster.com last April 26, 2008 (http://imgb-greatworks.blog.friendster.com/)