I do think that there is an important difference between pointing at an individual and saying “they’re wrong” and pointing to their actions (i.e. linking to a post) and saying “I don’t agree with this and here’s why”. The former is seen as a personal attack, the latter is about being very clear and addressing an action. I think the latter is the ‘call-out’ from a friend, though I will admit that it did cross my mind to just email my thoughts privately. My decision to post it publicly was based on the fact that this had become such a public discussion already that I wanted to share these thoughts with everyone who had joined in the conversation.

James C’s suggestion of a theme of “People, we don’t think this is very smart. Naomi may be able to do it, but please don’t try this at home.” is certainly one that is much more in keeping with what I personally perceive to be the Men with Pens style. I’ve a number of thoughts around the constraints of style and how it affects a blog as established as Men with Pens, and my reading of Harry’s post in particular, but I don’t want to go down that route here. I’m certainly not about to try and teach Harry or James how to suck eggs!

For clarity, I will just state that I agree that confirming Harry’s post was not a personal attack is not purely about the clarity of message. Communication requires two parties and both need to engage to ensure that the communication is meaningful. I also stand by it being a support to my post.

The question of whether the perception of the post was coloured by people’s expectations of the web is an interesting one, and my thoughts go back again to the style of a blog as well as the tendency for readers to relax into making assumptions (a dangerous but energy-saving tactic of the human mind). This again is something that could go on at length, and again I’m going to cut it short here as I feel that the relevant points have already been made.

I disagree with the relevance of Kelly’s first paragraph, as I don’t think that’s what happened here, but I certainly support any blogger talking about their passion and advising on their speciality.

With regards people misinterpreting the post, for whatever reason, I return to the idea that communication requires two parties. Language (and it sometimes feels like English suffers this in particular) is open to interpretation and misinterpretation, as I’m confident we’ll all agree. This is part of why I wanted to say what I felt was a fair way of trying to deal with a situation like this.

Men with Pens, and Harry individually, I salute you – one human being to another – for putting yourself out into the world and striving (and succeeding) to make a difference.

I guess I didn’t need the holding comment so much but as Kelly posted: you gave and I was compelled to match your generosity!

It took me a week to write the post, so I’m going to have a good think before responding to the points in the comments but it’s fair to say that I’m mostly in agreement with what you’ve all said.

I do a few “I have a friend” posts here and there. Who doesn’t? I disguise my inspirations, hold off a few weeks or months to protect the somewhat innocent, and then I say what’s on my mind, without dragging anyone through the mud.

I totally approve of what Harry did. He wanted to talk about his idea of blog (or life) protocols. He did not want to talk about something that was over and done, he wanted to talk advice to his readers.

Things have gotten all peculiar because too many people who read MWP had already read the post in question and been offended or not, so they got it in their heads that it was a call-out. I just don’t think it was at all, which was why I made no mention of Naomi when commenting. Harry was inspired by a true incident, made it into a post, and I thought he handled not dragging his accidental muse into it with class.

Oh, things get misunderstood, and noses get out of joint once in a while, and everybody will get on with it. But should Harry be inspired by life in the future, I certainly hope he’ll be just as discrete. Links are for love, not for laying down a gauntlet. *Which (IMO) he wasn’t.*

You lay your ideas out very well. I enjoyed reading such a thoughtful take on this flap.

Regards,

Kelly

Having said that, I did a lot of thinking before hitting the publish button on that post I wrote. In fact, I even said to James, “You think this is too harsh?” Make no mistake, we try very hard not to write on sheer impulse.

As James said, we both felt that pointing at someone in the post would have taken away from the point of it all. We don’t hate her. We don’t want to drag her through the mud, that was never the intent.

True, looking back I could have written it differently; maybe made it a little lighter to get my point across. I should have included a link to the original post and I’ll learn from my mistake and not make it again. I’m only human and not a god, unlike some folks I know *glances at James*.

I can’t help but wonder if people viewed this as an attack because being mean and nasty is somewhat of the norm on the web. People get evil with comments and on forums. They check courtesy and civility at the door and forget they’re dealing with actual humans on the other side of the monitor. Respect is a valuable commodity on the web and we seem to encounter it less and less every day.

If that’s all people know and see, maybe they have a hard time distinguishing a genuine differing of opinion from outright snarkiness when they see it.

Anyway, I’m waxing Zen here. Thanks for the call-out!

Second, I’m thrilled. Thank you for thinking with your head like so many other people should do and using critical thinking on the situation. Well done.

Three, my opinion is that pointing to someone and saying, “This action is wrong,” actually deflects criticism away from the action itself and towards the person. Linking to Naomi’s blog would have been viciously stupid and a personal attack on her. I stand by Harry’s decision *not* to do that.

Four, I do agree that if anyone doesn’t want to mention names, it’s a good idea not to hint about them either. It’s all or nothing. I get that. I feel that was a mistake either of us could have corrected. We didn’t see it that way at the time, now we do and the damage is done. So be it and we’ve apologized to Naomi in person.

Fifth, I don’t believe Harry was trying to call *her* out. I believe that Harry was trying to say, “People, we don’t think this is very smart. Naomi may be able to do it, but please don’t try this at home.” He was also a little angry, as was I, and I think our joint ire tainted the post. Alright, done, so what? We get pissed off and emotional like the next person and do stupid things. (Good god, we’re human!) With a track record of pulling one stupid stunt by accident a year out of 365 days, that’s nice stats. Can most people claim the same?

Sixth, the fact that we’ve had to repeatedly state we’re not attacking Naomi is not a measure of our clarity of message alone. It is also a measure of the limitations of individual perception (which is, of course, individual to each individual) and also the level of maturity of people in general.

And Seven, I believe it’s Harry’s right to voice his views, wrong or right as they may be, on our blog. This is our blog and our home. If he wanted to rant, have at it, bro.

Of course, people who rant need to also deal with the consequences, and that’s cool too. He did, we did, and we are.

Cheers!