Last shift for STS-97 (probably)

It ain't over 'til it's over.
      - Yogi Berra

And Yogi wasn't blowing any smoke, either, although realistically, the chances of the mission extending by an additional day are pretty slim.

I'm in the "back room" just off the control room for the station. Things are pretty slow right now, reflecting the state of affairs during the previous shift. All the work by the STS-97 crew is pretty much done, and they'll be leaving behind a much better-equipped station when they undock later today. I've seen a lot of "space video" over the years, but the footage from this flight has been pretty impressive, even by my standards.

While thinking of Yogi and of things being "over" and "not over," I note that CNN continues to flash an endless stream of Flori-duh related idiocy at me, leading me to make a prediction. (Actually, a pair of predictions, though only one of them will come true.)

These are:

(a) if Bush wins, he will be dogged by the press regarding the "legitimacy" of his presidency (this, in addition to the minute scrutiny that any Administration must be the subject of);

(b) if Gore wins, no such question will arise (as part of what I fear will be a "free ride" from the mainstream media).

You heard it here first.

In other action, I finally sat down in the time between everything else that's going on and put together the JavaScript-based code and graphics for my freelance-related web site. So, now that the spiffy part is done, I should really sit down and write the words.

But that'll have to wait until after this flight.

Back to work...the PRP is calling on loop 18.

Cheers...

Public statements vs private introspection

chocolei writes (discussing something called the "LJ awards"):

I think it might just be me...
but it desecrates the whole introspection process.
Like putting price tags on who has the most valuable thoughts.
Judging people's souls, measuring their passions and weighing their emotions.
[...]
The best journals I've read are those where I felt the person was writing for himself. Like watching a person who didn't know he was being watched. An honest journal, unaffected. Without pretense.

This post is the elaboration of my comment to her post, and addresses the question: Can one reconcile public statements with private, introspective understanding?

As I noted in my comment, public statements are public, regardless of whether they are the result of private introspection or are commissioned by an editor for hard cash.

Furthermore, there is a mechanism for entering private and semi-private messages here on LJ, so posting something in public is prima facie evidence that what the poster wrote was written - to some degree or other - to be read by others. In other words, if you post something in public, you cannot but know that you are being "watched."

There are LJers out there who routinely post one-line messages that summarize their diet, the status of their computers, love life, grades, bowel movements, and so on. And while I would defend the right of such folk to post such messages, I reserve the right to consider such posts drivel, and to wonder what might possess anyone to decide to share with the rest of the world - in a single, separate post - the fact that, for example, they've just finished eating a banana?

If something is to be read by others, I believe it is worth the effort to make what is written worth reading by others. Do I, therefore, think that every post here ought to be researched, proofread, spellchecked, footnoted, edited, reviewed, and translated into the working languages of the United Nations? Hell, no!

But I know I like to read posts that engage me, and I like to think the same is true for others.

I'm not sure that some kind of "award for excellence" here on LJ would be that detrimental. There is already an informal mechanism at work at LJ for communicating opinion, and that consists in examining the posts of the other friends of one's own friends. Formalizing the mechanism may make the search easier.

What might the effects of such an award be? Well there are three basic outcomes that I can see:

(a) A lot of people will ignore the award, in which case there is no harm done, and none of these folks will feel as if they have "sold out."

(b) Folks who "naturally" write entertaining or thought-provoking things will be more widely known to us all, resulting in a more satisfying LJ experience.

(c) An award incentive may spur some folks to write things that - while not necessarily indicative of their innermost feelings - might well turn out to be entertaining or thought-provoking. While some of these folks might feel pressured to "perform" instead of "introspect," that, in the final analysis, sounds like a personal problem to me. Others may feel pressured to plaigarize the work of others to win points; that, too, sounds like a personal problem.

In the final analysis, what is "honest" about a public post is the fact that the writer chose to post it in public, not whether the poster felt "watched" or whether what was written is pretentious. I love this community because of the ability to "watch" so many different minds at work, utterly honest by virtue of allowing me to do so.

And thanks to chocolei for a most thought-provoking post.

Cheers...