The Problem

The problem with being quasi–political, quasi–intellectual, quasi–odd, and quasi–funny is that nobody is ever satisfied. If I write “poop,” 50% of my fans are disappointed, and 25% accuse me of cheapening honest discourse and making my ‘side’ seem stupid. If I write “Bush just opened up a wildlife reserve like a tin can, and he supports people that support torture,” then 50% of my fans are bored and 25% accuse me of propaganda. If I write “Ethics is learned through ostention. ‘Right’ is non-existant except by observation,” then 25% of my audience is lost, 25% is not amused, and 25% doesn’t care. If I write “people who say that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush have obviously never had two in the bush 😉” then 25% of my fans look too far into it, 25% get only half of the joke, and 25% don’t get any of it.

What do I do in response? Do I make each type of post slightly different? It’s what I do with my paper. The serious articles are headlined in red, the non in blue. Then I print in black and white… *sigh*
What do I do?
Cry myself to sleep nights, that’s what.

Note: 83% of percentages are made up.

The problem with being quasi–political, quasi–intellectual, quasi–odd, and quasi–funny is that nobody is ever satisfied. If I write “poop,” 50% of my fans are disappointed, and 25% accuse me of cheapening honest discourse and making my ‘side’ seem stupid. If I write “Bush just opened up a wildlife reserve like a tin can, and he…