One of the pitfalls I've found about blogging is that, while it is my personal journal, sometimes readers tend to misunderstand that. If I write an article, they will always assume that it is about them, or about a current event related to blogging.

And usually they're right. It may not be a direct connection, but there is a connection, nonetheless. But every so often something occurs in my life that piles up continually. And then something happens online, the "straw that broke the camel's back", as it were, and I blog about the subject. Sure, the two are related, but the synchronicity of events happening in real life and online that coincide usually is what precipitates the discussion.

It was/is no different with the recent conflict. While I was not asked to make a choice, I felt as if some individuals were asking that I make a choice implicitly. It reminded me of bigger real life events, where I HAVE been asked to make just such a choice, and, frankly, reminded me just how sick I am of it all. And I blogged to that effect. Because of that blog, I was accused of taking sides by announcing so publicly that I wasn't taking sides, despite the fact that only one sentence in the article referred to the online conflict, and I, in fact, spent more time dealing with the real life conflict.

I don't think I was ambiguous or unclear in the content of my article. In fact, one comment on the thread reinforces that opinion. I was stating a frustration with conflicts between individuals I considered friends. I was, as I have always done, stating what was on my mind at the time.

I don't have the luxury of being able to post blogs at 4 AM. I have to post what is on my mind during my limited time online. Sometimes it doesn't get the editing attention that it deserves, and sometimes it is admittedly ill timed. But when it is so it is because I can't sit on the idea for four hours and report. And because when I arrive at the library tomorrow I will have most likely forgotten it.