doc searls has sometimes explained how he blogs as just answering emails in public.

it has come up in some recent conversations with people i know that they keep up with what i’m up to by reading this site. (which, it frightens me to say, is probably pretty effective. there’s not much that goes on behind the curtains here.)

in conversation, i ask few questions and give short answers. i wonder if blogging has become a sort of conversational crutch for me. by blogging about something, i don’t have to talk about it.

or maybe by blogging about something, i figure out a good answer for the questions that nobody needs to ask because they’ve already read the answer.

» blogging, fads, personal
« september 18, 2005 3:06pmseptember 19, 2005 1:41pm »


Or, blogging gives you an opportunity to talk about things that you know nobody will ask you about. Perhaps people who are adept at twisting conversations around into the things they want to talk about have no need to blog.

» geoff » september 18, 2005 10:55pm

i have long thought that each of us has a tendency to favor one sort of communication (or "medium," to be more fashionable) over another. (yeah, there are people who are comfortable in many, but i suspect most of us have a single favorite form.)

sometimes a particular format helps people think. Judge John Roberts mentioned more than once, during his Senate confirmation hearings, that he sometimes found himself reversing his position on a case because his original position just "wouldn't write"

are there topics that just "won't blog" ?

» albert b » september 19, 2005 11:19am

this entry is closed to new comments.