?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Some Peoples' Kids, Eh?

weather: cloudy
outside: 12.7°C
mood: puzzled
I replied to a friend's comment in her journal and went back to the original post. Sometimes, there's interesting conversation in the comments that I would have to actually go back to the original post to see. And I saw this:

Thank you for blocking me from that other entry! Good to know! Have a great day!

Wow. Identification removed to protect the stupid... unless they want to fess to having the sensibilities of a loonfrog.

I knew that sometimes people did get upset at that kind of thing (feelings are feelings, afterall), but I've never seen anyone with the gall to actually be that rude about it.

Girlie, if it makes you feel any better, _I_ was locked out of that one too. O_O Maybe she was filtering you out to plan a nice surprise thing for you. Oh... your friends don't do that for you? ... ... ... Y'know? I'm not surprised.

Seriously though. NO ONE has the right to be upset at being left out of an LJ filter. I'm just glad to see that she's around and she's alive enough to post, even if I can't see the actual post.

Because that is how friends treat each other.

Tags:


Comments

( 19 comments — Leave a comment )
xinit
May. 7th, 2006 12:37 am (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm in favour of protecting the stupid...
bride
May. 7th, 2006 12:49 am (UTC)
I know, but the stupid have enough problems. It's that whole mindfulness and compassion thing.
sapientmusings
May. 7th, 2006 02:14 am (UTC)
I maintain three levels of security on my journal... and no one knows at which they're allowed access (though generally over time as I grow to trust internet friends they eventually get bumped up to mid-level). So I seriously hope no one has felt offended by the fact that I choose to keep a lot of my entries locked up tight...

But really, a journal may be on the internet, but it's still a journal, right? There are some things that shouldn't float around cyberspace (and I've found that once you're on, there's no getting off... until LJ goes bankrupt or something). And there are some things that aren't suitable for some friends (especially new ones) to read.
bride
May. 7th, 2006 02:28 am (UTC)
Exactly. I don't write to filters very much at all. With a very few exceptions, I maintain that if I can't post it public, then I shouldn't be posting it at all. But everyone makes their own choices and I think everyone else needs to respect that.
pixie_bebe
May. 7th, 2006 05:37 am (UTC)
gah! filtering gets so political. i also stopped using filters - things that are protected just eventually leak out anyway when friend circles overlap so much... it's better to just not post at all or make it private.
bride
May. 7th, 2006 05:41 am (UTC)
Totally agree.
incognita
May. 7th, 2006 06:20 am (UTC)
things that are protected just eventually leak out anyway when friend circles overlap so much

OR things "leak out" when an LJ 'friend' is cutting and pasting every word of one's posts into a secret community set up on greatestjournal.com for the sheer purpose of laughing at one behind ones back.

Fun, eh?
pixie_bebe
May. 7th, 2006 06:23 am (UTC)
:( guess that's when you take out the blocker :(
sapientmusings
May. 7th, 2006 09:01 am (UTC)
To counteract the leakage problem I've pretty muched designated each level of my journal's filters as useful for something in particular... kinda like concentric circles of Hell with different sins at different levels XD

Public is basically a quotation depository; low security is stuff like linking to news articles and such; mid-level is making my opinion known or discussing things which may be sensitive to some people (like religion and politics); high-level is the existential angst :-) The more sensitive things get, the fewer people get to read.

It keeps me from having to create four different journals for different purposes... I think HOW you filter is more important than WHO you filter.
pne
May. 7th, 2006 03:26 pm (UTC)
things that are protected just eventually leak out anyway when friend circles overlap so much

Especially if you use "negative filters" (of the "everyone but Chris" or "people who don't know Jeff" type), since some day, you might be tempted to post to two such filters at once, and suddenly Chris reads what you think about him.
bride
May. 7th, 2006 04:55 pm (UTC)
Which is why I would only do negative filters if it were to plan something positive. I've done that for private pass-the-hat campaigns for friends in need, surprise birthdays, chipping in for a farewell gift, etc.

And it also goes back to my personal policy where if I have an issue with someone, they are the first to know. No one else (except maybe my husband) hears anything that they haven't heard from me first.
sertrel
May. 7th, 2006 07:54 am (UTC)
Readers have the right to be hurt by that.

But I think the real offense is openly and publicly complaining about it, with such an attitude of entitlement.
bride
May. 7th, 2006 04:51 pm (UTC)
Readers have the right to be hurt by that.

I'm mixed on that. Sure, we are entitled to our feelings. We're going to feel what we feel and it's up to us to deal and cope.

But in a way, I feel they don't. The post that they were filtered out of, may not have anything to do with them. I have private conversations with my husband all the time, in person and on LJ. I have to wonder about anyone who thinks they have the right to be hurt at that to begin with.
sertrel
May. 7th, 2006 06:02 pm (UTC)
If someone is locked out of one post, but not the followup, I think it's acceptable for there to be a degree of confusion involved, which may manifest in anger like that.

At least for me, anything sensitive enough to filter out is probably something I'd rather talk to people about individually.
sertrel
May. 7th, 2006 06:13 pm (UTC)
Or rather, anything sensitive enough to filter out because it's about persons being filtered out, I'd rather talk to people about individually.
bride
May. 7th, 2006 06:29 pm (UTC)
Oh, definitely.
sertrel
May. 7th, 2006 09:08 pm (UTC)
Thinking over the posts I've filtered, pretty much the only thing I count the filters to block out are non-lj people and spider bots. The real reason I filter is just to isolate those who I think have would something to contribute to the conversation.
yueni
May. 7th, 2006 10:49 pm (UTC)
My journal is filtered up the wazoo, though a good percentage of my posts (90+%) are public. Personally, I don't see what the big deal is about being locked out of a filter. It's not the reader's choice to make whether they're in a filter or not, after all, it's the person doing the posting that is sharing a little bit of themselves with you in their LJ. That being the case, I think that it's their choice if they want you to read it or not. Why be snarky about something not up to you? Don't these people have better things to do than angst about locked posts that they aren't privvy to? I know I do.

If they're your friends, I think that you ought to respect their personal choices. That's what a friendship is all about, I think. Besides, if you're really curious about the post, you could always ask politely instead of leaving some annoyed comment on the poster's LJ. *shrugs*
bride
May. 7th, 2006 11:28 pm (UTC)
Exactly. The lack of maturity is just astounding.
( 19 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

eLouai
bride
The Bride of the First House

Latest Month

March 2015
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031