Back to self-analysis...
Oct. 12th, 2003 05:26 pmI have been told, three times in not so many weeks, that my style here can be somewhat "smug". Now, I know I have an issue with debate, in that I will as often as not pick a side that isn't mine just to learn how people think and learn, and I know that I often come off as professorial instead of conversational. Okay.
So, what does that mean?
If you could explain it to me, and give advice on what would be "better" (as much as different, I suppose), what would you say?
Anonymous is fine, as I won't be hurt by not knowing who's slamming me. This is about dealing with something that's possibly been at the cause of some other issues offline, and I want to see if it is really related.
Also, someone else noted that I was being ..er... too playful. I guess the best way to clarify that is that I am comfortable, in less serious posts or at times I wish to inject levity, discussing anatomy. Have any of you been offended by such comments? If so, let me know. Anonymous is good, here, too, if you just want to point it out as something that bugged you on the behalf of a friend.
Just doing a status check, here. Have at. Open season on dwivs... :)
So, what does that mean?
If you could explain it to me, and give advice on what would be "better" (as much as different, I suppose), what would you say?
Anonymous is fine, as I won't be hurt by not knowing who's slamming me. This is about dealing with something that's possibly been at the cause of some other issues offline, and I want to see if it is really related.
Also, someone else noted that I was being ..er... too playful. I guess the best way to clarify that is that I am comfortable, in less serious posts or at times I wish to inject levity, discussing anatomy. Have any of you been offended by such comments? If so, let me know. Anonymous is good, here, too, if you just want to point it out as something that bugged you on the behalf of a friend.
Just doing a status check, here. Have at. Open season on dwivs... :)