A Misunderstanding on Twitter—you be the judge!

-
EDIT: The comment system wasn't working for me. Anyway, I posted a reply to a very negative comment, the long one from Amanda. You can read my reply HERE.

Back on May 29th I had a short conversation with a follower on Twitter. I thought the conversation went fine. But it didn't ... apparently. We are each welcome to our opinion and our own interpretation, so I present the actual conversation below. You be the judge. I'll present my response afterwards.















Direct Message Conversation


May 29th, Julia: I am really disappointed that you decided to pass judgement on my writing without bothering to read a single entry first. that was hurtful

Several days later:
June 13th, Me: If I remember correctly it was the subject matter, not the writing itself. But I think this is an old message. I did read an entry.

Julia: The subject is done as far as I am concerned. I stated how I felt about your actions on my blog. Respond there. I have other things to do

What?


Where did I pass judgement? Obviously, she's refering to my tweet about not wanting to read her blog.

But it gets better!

Here is a detailed account from Julia's perspective: ON HER BLOG.

Go read that and then come back for my response.

Did you read it?

OK, now my response...

Why Eye-Witness Accounts Can't Be Trusted


First of all, the intro to her post is excellent.

Let's analyze her post a little, though.

So when one of the 'people' I follow tweeted a promise to 'read yours if you read mine', I, jokingly, responded that I had been reading theirs and asked them if they had taken a look at mine. I wasn't really expecting a response through Twitter.

First of all, my tweet was "Visit exchange: you visit my site. I visit yours." I did not say I would read the blog. I visit blogs all the time. Sometimes I read, sometimes I do not. Just depends.

Less than two minutes later, I got a [@#$%] critique I didn't ask for through a social media forum. The woman assumed that my lack of graphics was a conscious choice (it's not) and proclaimed the subject matter to not be her cup of tea. At the end of that two sentence critique, she added that she would retweet my blog to her followers.

I laughed so hard at this when I first read it. This is why eye-witness testimony cannot be trusted. Two people can see the exact same thing but understand it completely differently. Same thing goes for what we read, especially in the small space of 140 characters.

Let's analyze my "critique."
Yours doesn't look familiar. The lack of graphics is different. More attention to the words. Unfortunately, it's not a subject I would be interested in reading. Will tweet it to my followers, though.

Detailed translation from my point of view: I haven't seen your site before. It doesn't look familiar. Thus, I haven't read it. The lack of graphics is different, but different is not a bad thing. In fact, it's refreshing, allowing you to give more attention to the words. Unfortunately, you write about a subject I would not be interested in reading. I will encourage my followers to check it out, though.

By the way, here's the tweet to my followers.



Back to Julia's blog post:

At this point, I am in shock, as I often am when someone I do not know is unconscionably rude to me. Giving an unasked for criticism of my blog on Twitter struck me as more than a little trashy and, by the amount of time that had passed, I knew damn well that she had not read anything.

I don't think I was rude. And my response wasn't meant to be a "critique." I wasn't judging her work, her profession ... in any way. In fact, there was nothing negative there.

Wait, it gets better. A second later, a mass tweet appears with my description of my blog pasted in it and an invitation to her followers to read if they are into that sort of thing. Have you ever heard the phrase 'damning with faint praise'?

That wasn't meant to be negative either. I'm sorry if it was taken that way. If you are into that sort of thing, I recommend her blog. Straight as that. No strings attached. I damn her in no way.

I promote others all the time. I try to come up with something interesting to catch people's attention. That's all it was.

I sat there for a moment, rendered utterly speechless by the crude and blatant dismissal I have just received before I take several deep breaths and draft a civil response. I state that I find her attitude unfortunate (while thinking it is revoltingly classist and narrow-minded) and add that I enjoy reading about the lives of other people a great deal. She lets me know that she doesn't enjoy reading things with an overtly erotic theme.

I do not enjoy reading about things of a sexual nature. I have that right. You have the right to read what you want. We both have the right to be open and honest about it.

My thought in response is; Lady, have you actually read some of the romance stories you peddle on your site? I have used a few of them as inspiration for work for the purpose of talking to pervs.

This blog does not represent my personal preferences. I promote to a much wider audience. I only draw the line at work that openly protrays itself as erotica. Yes, there are romance books on here, and some of them may extend beyond my personal comfort zone. Hence, I don't read them. They don't necessarily label themselves erotica, so they have been accepted. If there is a book that is mislabeled, I will be happy to take it off ... or at least put a disclaimer. (Notice the disclaimer on all of our reviews.)

In other words, Madam, not only have you failed as a promoter of art in the form of writing, you have failed as a human being.

Many would disagree that I have failed in promoting other's works. And I disagree that I have failed to promote you. This post will be spread througout my network, promoting your work to the right reader. I encourage people to check out your blog ... if they so desire. The writing is good.

And I only have one last thing to say: my name is Mark, and I am a guy.