So I recently made a post (the one just before this one) that received an overwhelmingly-negative response, both online and off. Kinda makes me stop and think.
First, I really need to know -- are people seriously offended, or just a little grossed out? Neither was my objective, despite the post obviously being at some degree of risk for both. I draw the line for "tasteful" posting somewhere between the two.
I'd also like to reiterate my amazement at the original... incident. I saw an iconic, non-trivial structure perfectly represented entirely by chance. I mean no disrespect when I compare this to seeing Jesus in a slice of French toast (hrm, can't find link anymore), only in this case the imagery was unmistakably clear. To say I was astonished would almost be an understatement.
If I wanted to share this sentiment, do I really have to sanitize the original context to the point where I gloss over it completely? Are we capable of appreciating something amazing even if it's in an unpleasant context?
Yes, I'm being grossly unfair with that last question -- of course the answer is, naturally, yes and no, depending on the situation. What I really want to do, then, is figure out two things -- did I really cross the line, and where, precisely, does it lie?
Summary:
- I don't regret the post.
- I may think twice about similar posts in the future, depending on...
- Tell me, honestly, what you think!
9 comments:
Shouldn't it be "RFC" rather than "RFFC"?
I thought DNA in Brown was TMI, but quite in-character. So much so that I could see you making a regular series, "Wednesday Poop-blogging" the way others do "Friday Cat-blogging".
Nitpick: I wouldn't characterize it as a perfect DNA representation. For perfection, you'd need relatively narrow bands (presumably very different types of food that somehow avoided mixing during digestion) representing the various nucleotides. As a practical matter, though, you came as close to perfect DNA representation as is likely to be practical.
If you're concerned about offending readers, you could always put a [Poop] tag in the post title to warn them off.
Just so you know... No, I wasn't seriously offended, and not even grossed out. Mostly, I was surprised, but also humored by it all. I come from a time when toilets weren't even allowed to be shown on TV (not that I cared). However, I'm used to this kind of talk in the family, just not in a public forum. Don't let me slow down your blogging, please!
I was grossed out a little, but not offended at all, because I knew it wasn't gratuitous gross-ness but genuine sharing of excitement over a really weird phenomenon. I was definitely amused :) (Plus I was really glad that I wasn't eating breakfast when i read that post.)
Even so, please keep on posting even if you have to be a little gross in the process -- I always enjoy reading what you have to say!
I was grossed out a bit. However there are very few axes that actually offend me, and this is not one of them (nor does it have a large inner product with any vectors along such axes).
By no means do I think you should not post similar stuff because I fundamentally believe you should post whatever you want regardless of what the reaction is.
At the same time, it's not what I am interested in reading. (And it does seem to me that you have far better talks on which to post.)
talks -> topics
Not offended here. Just unexpected/disgusting, but I can deal with that. I just may be vocal about it. :) If I do ignore the disgusting aspects and move on to the technical ones, there's many issues with making it a perfect DNA representation, but I agree with Justin in that it's likely to be as close as practically possible.
Just WARN us! I WAS eating breakfast at the time...:S
hope all is well,
Cheryl
PS - I won't be truly impressed until I hear about you seeing Karl Rove... doing the MC Rove dance....
Wow, thanks guys. It's hard to tell tone of voice in writing especially, but I suspect I'm also just a bit overly self-conscious right now (for fair reason... still waiting to hear back re: grad school, and just submitted my the abstract for my first talk-proper ever.)
Some sort of gross-out warning is almost certainly a good idea in the future, though just a tag might be insufficient (don't they appear *after* the post?).
Justin - Many acronyms have a silent "F", usually preceding the final letter. Consider the acronym for "read the manual", with which you are likely familiar. Mike^2 was already giving me grief, saying I stole Scott Kurtz's "Blog your Log" idea.
Justin + Zif - Yeah, I said DNA in the title, but in the post I said it was a perfect double-helix, which I *think* just refers to the pair of spirals. Correct me if I'm wrong!
CatDancing - Heh. Rob is currently living at home, 'nuff said.
Lidarose - I'm glad I didn't destroy a perfectly good breakfast. I like breakfast.
Mason - I can never tell when I should use "axes" versus "axis". Any good pneumonics for that? Yes, this is response for the sake of response at this point, I just want to acknowledge/appreciate comments (since I expressly requested them!)
Zif - And I certainly don't mind you being vocal. If I do get the wrong idea, it'll get worked out somehow or another. It's not like we don't talk from time to time.
Cheryl - Sorry about your breakfast! On the other hand, you just earned a genuine "LOL" for that one, not to mention conjuring some impressive imagery of your own (or is it my own, since it's in my head now?).
axis = singular
axes = plural (more than one axis; as opposed to, say, an 'axis of evil' consisting of multiple countries)
Post a Comment