"We Shape Our Tools And Then Our Tools Shape Us."

"We shape our tools and then our tools shape us."
- Marshall McLuhan


Funny thing, how humans are. I like watching how the tools people shape, in turn shape them. The how and how fast they...we...are reshaped by the trappings, incisions and sculptings of our own instruments and devices. It's organic. It's fascinating. Correction: I love watching it.

Sometimes the reshaping unfolds with such organic poetry in motion, drawing us in with stealth and charm, we don't see it coming and, too soon, we can't look away. It's not always poetic, however. And, I imagine, that'd depend on the kind of poetry you're into. It's not always in motion - I'm thinking rhythmic. But, it is always organic.

Our new tools shape us and compel us to take on new norms. And, especially when these tools are tools of communication, and space abounds to interact with other humans, the new norms and unwritten rules grow quickly.

The premise upon which these norms and rules are built is simple - simple and strong and timeless. They are borne of, and rely on, the distinctiveness and predictability of the human condition. We need to belong; to be a part of something or someone. We need to feel we matter. We need to know that what we do has value - and so on.

Enter, Social Media. Specifically, those spaces that give users opportunities to vote/like/fav others' posts/images and what not. I imagine that's, like, all of them, right? I'm here, and on Twitter. Two platforms. That's about as much input from folks in cyberspace I choose to allow in my sphere. I've popped over to Instagram to check out pics when a few tweeps share an IG link - and I care. I'm no longer on FB - too psychologically demanding. (We've talked about that, yes?) Even comment sections in online newspapers allow readers to rate the quality/value of their fellow readers' thoughts. At every turn, if you wish to express an opinion or share a thought, you may expect to be rated/judged/marked.

Some rely on this. Some - it would seem - live for the sort of adulation showered upon them in these open spaces. The struggle for validation is real. It is such a waste of the person one is, but, it does happen.

What fascinates me, though, is that the rules are made up and applied as we go along - and how. We start using the tool and we institute our own rules - unknown to anyone else - regarding how we're going to "do this thing." Soon, as interactions and fans/friends/followers multiply; as we note their own rules and interact accordingly, something begins to happen. A general consensus and understanding begins to take shape about how we interact and why we now interact the way we do. A quick example is the fav/star button on Twitter. In the beginning, it was used primarily for that. You hit the star if the tweet was a favorite. Over time, people began to fav tweets for many reasons. I now do it for three reasons: I want to read it later. (It's easier to find in your favs than to go hunting it down in your tweep's, or, worse, some stranger's timeline.) I want to acknowledge someone who's mentioned/tagged me, but I don't want to have a convo. I want to end a convo with a tweep but without words. So, again with the acknowledgement bit. Oh, four. I actually like the tweet. Heh heh.

Look, there's no Twitter commandment that says thou shalt not steal tweets. Yet, people copy others' tweets and tweet them as if they were their own all the time. And if someone repeatedly does that, persons will not like it and they are likely to unfollow or block that user. Why? For the same reason you'd not want to associate with a thief, or someone who plagiarizes, in real life. It may be an online space, but associations and interactions are real and moving - for the most part. The bots and spammers get no love whatsoever. We get in. We pick up on little cues and norms. We figure out what's what, perhaps with some guidance along the way. Pretty soon, we find our comfort zone in how we want to "do this thing." Who people are in real life is what they come to the online space with if they are genuine in their interactions. Just give 'em time. It'll all come out in the wash. That's why the norms are so easily established. And the new norms - unique to that particular online space - arise partly because "the medium is the message" (McLuhan) and also because...humans.

What's also interesting is how some folks, over time, move away from their, well, their "original persona" as followers and such, grow. After all, one is now popular and has influence. Some go the route of commenting in a more, 'ow you saay, responsible manner. Others, not so much. It is true that these spaces can and do entice us to assume a different persona from the one we started out with, especially when we're chasing popularity. Who's to say which are the true colors?

I just recalled a lil quote by President George "Dubya" Bush during an interview after he'd left the presidency: "If you chase popularity, you're chasing a moment. You're chasing a poof of air." Thought I'd share it. You're welcome. :-)


The Quiet Zone
Several months ago, GO Transit introduced the Quiet Zone on the top floor of every coach of all their trains during rush hour. Now, prior to this designated Quiet Zone, any car of most GO trains were near deathly quiet. Well, I understand there was one line that had folks talking loudly in the evenings. Looks like people complained. GO did a pilot project with that particular line. And the rest is what we have here.

Before the Quiet Zone, on the Lakeshore West in the mornings - and evenings, come to think of it - you could hear a pin drop. There was the occasional conversation but these were few and far between and in hushed tones. The majority of commuters were plugged in or reading or catching a snooze.

Then came the Quiet Zone. Signs went up. The Customer Service Ambassadors (CSA) included it in their welcome announcements. All was mostly well with the world. That is, until a newbie or two, oblivious to the signs and announcements, would start talking. I'd sit in amusement as I watched other passengers squirm or give the person the look. As a matter of fact, I've even seen folks who could no longer contain their angst triggered by someone having a quiet phone conversation, get up from their seat, or turn around in their seat, and direct the talker's attention to the sign. Or, say to the transgressor, "This is the Quiet Zone, you can't be talking on the phone." Yeah. That happened.

Fact is, the sign in the QZ says short telephone conversations are okay; use your ear piece to listen to music and make sure it's not loud enough for anyone else to hear. That sort of thing. But, you know, now we have become accustomed to the Zone being deathly quiet. The least bit of interruption of the silence, and folks will get up and leave the Zone. I kid you not. I have seen that happen, too.

GO Transit created the Quiet Zone tool for the comfort of passengers, when most of the passengers were already comfortable and accommodating of a bit of ambient noise. Now, passengers have been programmed to expect Bose headphones quiet and many are now easily irritated when they hear a pin drop.

Because...humans.



Claudia
www.cyopro.com
www.twitter.com/cyopro

A Twistraining Order and Other T'ings

I am a human woman with a Twitter account. I am not a bot. (Had to spell that out? Who would've thunk it?) I know what I do on Twitter and my purpose for using the tool - to help me "use it all up." (See blog descriptor.) And, as I always say, with over seven billion people on the planet, we're bound to bump into someone else at some point. Kinda translates to the millions on Twitter - bound to bump into someone and rub them the wrong way now and again. Tweeps aren't like the friends I've had since High School or those I'd met up to when I did the MA in Communication - without the 's'. Tweeps are folks I pay a visit to on Twitter and enjoy a quick chat with. And, oh! The wit of some. For others, it's how warm they come across.

So, Communications - with the 's'. I'm "into Communications" as I've heard it. I dig it. Been close to twenty years, now - still loving it and still learning. (Hence my beating myself up the other day about my previous post and how I had skirted an issue instead of speaking directly to it. A narrative shouldn't leave you with a sense of, "You'd have had to be there." And, I think a couple of the paragraphs came off like that. Sorry. Again.) I like to see how relationships take shape - people to people/business to people/government to people; how messages are sent and received and how the medium itself, being a part of the message, plays a role in the dynamics. I enjoy communications from the strategic to the tactical; from corporate to government - Jamaica, USA and Canada; from the head to the heart and offline and online. And, I've found there's always room for making communications better to achieve stated objectives. I love being a part of making it better. And, after my hit over the head other day, even more so now I maintain my resolve to "say what I mean; mean what I say - and write responsibly."

The Twistraining Order 

I have a small Twitter account so it's easy to spot when the number of followers changes. So, imagine my surprise - no, make that, shock - as I made my way into the weekend on Friday afternoon. I was actually on Twitter at the time and noticed when the number of followers and those I'm following both went down by one. If someone unfollows you, the follower number goes down. If they block you, then they are, also, blocking you from following (read: having anything to do with) them. The long and the short? It felt so much like a Restraining Order. But, as most things in Twitterverse take on the root, it felt like a Twistraining Order. I have absolutely no idea who did it. I've never signed up for any of those follow/unfollow reports - I don't care about that. What I do know is that the blocking felt like someone had joined me in a room full of people and, after hearing what I had to say a few times, got a Twistraining Order. And, they don't even know me (was what I was thinking). At that thought, I literally laughed out loud! Well, guess they'd seen and heard enough and made an informed decision. I did not see it coming, though. 'Cause, as I tweeted yesterday, I'm one of the nicest tweeps (see what I mean?) in that space. :-)

I am not under the illusion that everyone who follows will stay. I've lost many followers along the way. And I have unfollowed. It wasn't about the unfollow. It was about the go-away-and-stay-away-ness of the thing that I did not see coming.

I'd experienced a block before. But, I had seen that one coming. I had disagreed, rather diplomatically, with a position. The tweep had said stteo: That person is kind because he gives food to the poor in front of all those cameras. My reply was no, real kindness is when he gives when no one is looking. (Totally off the original topic. I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm simply making a point.) So, when I was unfollowed. I wasn't too surprised. As I tried sending a tweet "@" that person sometime after, I realized that the tweet wouldn't take; it wasn't being posted. That was when, dear folks, I discovered what it was to be blocked.

Why did the one on Friday bother me? It must've been the human being and the communications in me - the two that I must've digested at lunch earlier in the day. Seriously, though. It did irk me - after the laughs. For, as I have mentioned in this blog before, the medium is an online space in which we interact. But we take our personalities and human tendencies and wants and needs and what-nots that we exhibit offline, to that online space. (It's not completely accurate to say "that we exhibit in real life", for the online interactions do take place as a part of real life.) And, I imagine that in offline interactions, if you're in a room full of people and someone you'd met a few minutes ago suddenly snubbed you, it'd irk a bit. There are those among us, I guess, that would shrug and go, "Riiight. Whatever." For others, that would come after subsequent out-of-the-blue snubs, I guess. For that initial one, though, default mode would be introspection. We'd stop for a second and go, "Wait...what? Did I do something to offend?" That sort of thing. (Saw the analogy about "room full of people" in this story after I'd written this bit.) Story offers up some musings about interactions on Twitter, too.

My initial reaction is what it is. And I know why it is so. I feel. And, I put feelings into words. It's what I do, and I'm good at it. (Monk) Yes, there are those feelings I just can't seem to put into words - mostly those borne out of an awesome wonder and delight - or forlornness. But, for others, there are words. And, I put a lot of effort into communicating clearly and respectfully. Sometimes, yes, I gotta draw the line and do what needs to be done to get a message across. I have blocked a couple of people over four years but, it was after certain exchanges and I'm sure they saw it coming.

OTHER TWITTER T'INGS

"We shape our tools and then our tools shape us"

As I mentioned yesterday, too, it does come back to Marshall McLuhan's "we shape our tools and then our tools shape us." I really like watching the dynamics on Twitter - even when it lends itself to making me question whether I've communicated in an untoward way. The folks behind Twitter and Facebook and the like must know a thing or two about the human psyche and behaviour and what structures and sub-structures enable or drive certain human behaviour and shape interactions. Fascinating, really.

As with any online tools these days, after we've started using them, we get what I could coin post-conceived ideas of how the tool "should" work. The tool has been conceived, prototype done and it's in full production mode. And, it's working well. Intuitively, though, we come to expect that it "should" be able to do this and that. For example, I suggested to @Twitter the other day to enable me to do a search of my own Timeline. There's the archive that can be downloaded, but, what I'm after is a quick search while on Twitter. Lazy much? Naah. We use and we ask for more and we talk to each other and try to bear in mind that we're just there trying to make the best of the tool.

How do you do Twitter?

This is not a concern about Twitter's health. How you do Twitter is totally up to you. I don't know that there's a standard way to use Twitter. You do it for you - unless you're doing it for, or representing, someone else or a brand. That's another story. One may be guided in what to and what not to expect. But, the same way everyone lives their lives offline (you sneaky English language), again, that will likely carry over. You learn from the mistakes of others  - no temper tantrum; try not to start a fight, for e.g. - and learn quickly from your own. We use the medium in our own way and, depending on what you wish to get out of it, there are tonnes of tweets, blogs, and books that provide guidance. Common sense and courtesy have been working for me in my Twitter communications. My reactions, and ways of interaction, may not be popular, but, they are mine. I own them, I like them and I am at peace with them. There are millions of Twitter users and I'm pretty sure some of them are of like mind, anyway.

The medium brings out the best and the worst in us; it puts on display the best and the worst of us. And, it can do this in one scroll of the thumb - Syria, cute puppy, earthquake, racism, soccer results...  It is an enabler and driver of things human. The id, ego and super ego are on display. Closet philosophers and thinkers - maybe not the deep ones - are there aplenty. I like to pause and listen/watch how others regard the medium -  what they're saying about Twitter, while on Twitter. For example, I follow @elevenpr who provides media training and occasionally takes a look at Twitter analytics - watching the movement on Twitter as users respond to a current issue. Another tweep I met, well, how I understand it, he sorta does what Twitter does to generate TTs (Trending Topics) and a whole lot more techie stuff. Nerd. Sweet nerd, though. ;-)

It's a place for human beings and for human doings. And many of those who are doing, inspire. Yes, I'm there for the wit (oh my goodness, there's this guy!!! @jrehling and @whirledrecord) and for the inspiration. Of course, my sis, @MizDurie, I have for that and for great company when I'd rather be alone - "Ok, I'll come with you." (It's a Monk thing.) The wit and inspiraton, I believe, help me in some way to use up all of me - to the last drop.

Subliminal and not-so-hidden messages

I tweeted the other day: "How do you "earn" a subtweet? Tweet something. You're welcome." For, as we read each others minds...thoughts...as we read each other's thoughts on Twitter, we are bound to come across something we don't agree with. That might trigger your own thought about a subject and, unwittingly or not, you express it. "Subtweet" does have a rather negative connotation, though. Think passive aggressive or confrontational without the direct confrontation. It is regarded as a subtweet when it is in response or reaction to what someone said, but without tagging (using the person's '@' handle). I did not understand what a subtweet was, until a fav tweep, @grammakaye from Green Bay, Wisconsin, used the term about two years ago. I asked her what she meant by it and she explained. I then offered that it was like a term we'd use in Jamaica, that you "throw wud" at somebody. She agreed. Subtweeting is not my thing. Done it fewer than five times since using Twitter - and one of them was directed at George Zimmerman: "There's free and then there's "free". #DefineFree." (In related news: Just this weekend, the Jamaica Observer published a letter I'd written about a damning subtext embedded in an MP's recent tweet.)

Then there are favs or stars. When someone 'stars' your tweets, over and over and over, it may be seen as "hitting on" you. Kinda like a Twitter crush, if you will. (Some may take it offline. Who knows?) I don't know that there was a manual on this but it's one of those understandings that has appropriated itself into general acceptance among Twitter users.) A similar thing goes for the RT (retweet). If you find someone repeatedly RTing your tweets, they're likely trying to get your attention. They're also sending a message to their own followers that...they like you? For, of course, your tweets then end up on their TL (Timeline). A lot. In that vein, you can understand how it may make you feel a tad awkward when someone goes all the way back in your TL and RTs and favs - from months ago. And they keep doing it. What does that sound like to you? It sounds like stalking to me. Ditto if they keep tagging you with mundane tweets. Be prepared to block and/or report to Twitter. Came across this guide to Twitter lingo. (For now?) Some of these "messages" you just get in your gut. Then, once in a while, you'll see someone tweet/write about it and you go, "Oh! So, I wasn't too far off, then." Yep. People are people wherever you go.

Companies are on Twitter, too

"Companies are people, too." Hm. Wrote that. Googled it -  and found this website. So, on Twitter, there's no "my people will call your people." There's a direct reaching out and engaging. You could say that companies on Twitter are re-sized to take on a smaller and more personable feel. My guess is that they are not afforded the luxury of blocking - unless, for a most excellent and defensible reason. (Yet to hear of that happening.) Whatever rant is directed at them, they just suck it up and carry out issues management as best they can for all looking on to see. A fire lit in the Twitterverse spreads faster than any wildfire on earth. That's why it's important for companies, once they wet their feet in social media (especially a real-time space such as Twitter), to engage. Make people come to know that the company will respond to them - and keep its word. It's less likely that someone will stay mad at a company that talks to them on Twitter; one that is seen to be doing its best to address a problem in short order. People looking on at the exchange are reasonable and will take sides accordingly.  As a company, let them take yours.

I came across a quote by C.S. Lewis last night and tweeted it. It made me smile, for, I found it after I'd stated my resolve last weekend  on Twitter and in my journal. It says: “Child, to say the very thing you really mean, the whole of it, nothing more or less or other than what you really mean; that's the whole art and joy of words.” 

Amen.

Claudia

www.cyopro.com

www.twitter.com/cyopro 

"Invention is the mother of necessity"

I just saw the notice: Blogger is getting a new look in April.  I learnt today that, come March 30, Facebook's Timeline will be mandatory.  When did these tools we opted to use begin to mildly frustrate us as their purveyors push what they think is better?  We could opt out - or could we?  Well, we could, but, we have grown an extra limb or two or three.   Getting through our days without the Twitter limb or - for some - the Facebook limb, seems like a crazy, far-fetched idea.  When the creators of these limbs twist our arms to get us to move in their direction, quite frankly, it doesn't take much effort on their part.  It's pretty much get with it or get out of the way!

You may know of my love and appreciation for Marshall McLuhan's quotes:  "The medium is the message/massage"; "We shape our tools and then our tools shape us" and, a more recent fave, "Invention is the mother of necessity"!  So, there you have it, folks!  Let's just take that all in for a moment, shall we?  (Tangent:  I do like that part of the Bio that says: "He was learning in spite of his professors, but he would become a professor of English in spite of himself."  Not too keen on the "training of perception" idea, though.  I think it bothers me... or intrigues me...?  Not yet sure which. I would have to explore whether my appreciation for these quotes is incongruous with that idea... I dunno.  And now is not the time to ponder this.)   Moving on.

We have indeed shaped our tools and, in turn, have been shaped by them.  Our priorities have changed; our preferences for the way we interact have been re-defined.  There is a tool for every mood; a tool for every kind of message.  The medium that we use helps to shape the (kind of) message we wish to send.  Sometimes you'd rather not call, just text - because, well, you know.  The invention of gadgets and electronic tools galore have birthed the (desperate) need for accessories we had no clue we sooo needed before they came on stream.  We have a gazillion ways to talk and interact with each other, but more and more of which have little to do with the original - face to face.  Not in a Skype or other video chat way, either, but, in the way where we can reach out and touch each other; hug; hold.   Question: If we had an opportunity to get together with all our followers, LinkedIn contacts or Facebook friends, for example, would we?  Or, ok, we might have placed them in categories based on shared interests.  Even then, would we want to be in the presence of all these people of like interests?  I imagine the answer depends quite a bit on our personality but, whatever it is, we gotta give thought to the possibility that, at any given time, there are people with whom we would want to be in touch with physically and there are those we don't.  Also, that there is a time when it's convenient to connect and a time when it is not. And, there is a tool, a medium, for every preference. 

More than anything, however, all this repeatedly brings home to me the distinction between what really matters and what doesn't.  What.  People close to me matter to me.  A lot.  However, a few offline contacts/friends have come to matter, too.  And the joy (the what) that they bring to my life is invaluable - even if just for a season.  So, while we *cough* I *cough* bond with a new PlayBook (thanks for helping me choose @MizDurie), discover new ways to connect online and indulge in reading on the go, I've come to accept a few things:  (1) The fast pace and accoutrements of technology will be around for a while.  (2) The occasional mild frustration is bearable when compared with the thought of a severed limb.  (3) There is peace in creating at my own pace and (4) It's important that I remain grounded and book face time!


Updated: 2012-03-28 at 4:28PM with link to story on FB's Timeline.


Claudia
www.cyopro.com
www.twitter.com/cyopro

"The Medium is the Message" for Twitter, too!

Several years ago, a professor of mine told our class: “The last word on anything hasn’t been said.” That stuck. Clearly. Occasionally, I think of that sage statement and tell myself that that would explain the plethora of views on any given topic – on any given Sunday.

Enter mine, about Facebook and Twitter. (I'm thinking, I might have a two-parter on my hands.) Now, before the yawns and ho-hums, bear with me as I explore what must be a like-dislike interest I have in both. They are both social networking sites – no argument there. But, as one top tweet observed, funny how social networking sites seem to make us more anti-social. So, we talk to each other but we don’t really talk; and sometimes - especially with Twitter, it's not necessarily to each other. It’s more like ‘at each other’. I’ve found, given my recentish immersion into Twitter – and I know it’s not too soon to tell – that quite a lot of tweets from individuals are spurts of opinions/observations/comments about a topic. Once in a while, there’s a tweet to (or @) someone, in a reply. Sometimes it's sharing via ReTweet. The majority, though, are those that betray…no, let’s use exhibit a kind of random stream of consciousness that makes its way into a 140-character post. I've noticed that many companies/organizations tweet, too. That should give an indication that the facility is relied upon as a communications and marketing tool.

(Now, at this juncture, some would begin to wonder whether they should take any of what I’m saying with a grain of salt. I say yes, indeed! At worst, shrug it off and move on to the next topic of interest and the myriad tweets. At best, trust, but verify. Much of this is from my own observation, anyway, and has little to do with my MA in Communication. Perhaps the desire to look more closely through my often-preferred trope of metaphor, has indeed been touched by formal training.)

So, here's the thing, as another top tweet pointed out about Twitter, people are constantly talking to strangers. It’s not so much the novelty of that idea, it’s the fact that the strangers are from all over! (Have I heard of satellite radio? Yes. But, think about it. Isn't it imaginable that the rate of subscription to SatRad eats the dust of Twitter's subscription rate? I'm sure of it.)

To proceed, the idea of novelty is lost when one thinks about an on-air announcer/broadcaster, getting into the minds, hearts and homes of, well, strangers, over a period of time. That's been done. People tune in, they listen, if they like what they hear, they tune in another time - "rinse wash repeat". So, the announcer would be the poster, the listeners the followers, whatever he/she says, the tweets. Sooo, it's alike in that sense.

The points of departure then? For one, the followers get to keep a copy of what was broadcast and, if they “called in”/tweeted in response, they keep a copy of that too. Another is that these updates come in from several sources (all whom you follow) all within seconds. Try getting that done even by SatRad. Maybe I’m slow on the uptake here, but, I haven’t yet learnt of any broadcaster that gives up-to-the-second news/bulletins which the listeners get just a few seconds after and keeps this up 24/7. So, joined by mutual interests and hashtags (#), the broadcaster enters the mind, hearts and homes of those who’ve opted to tune in. This is an important point, because, unlike an on-air feed that you are inevitably tuned into (unless you’re plugged into your hand-held or something) when you’re at a store or the hairdresser or wherever, the broadcast/posts are by choice.

Would it be fair to surmise, then, (and I'm on to another idea here) that every single solitary tweet that you receive is borne out of the decision to be fed by that poster? If so, then it lends itself to the crux of the next question: Is there an underlying messiah complex that begins to take form after one acquires a certain number of followers? Just asking. I honestly wouldn't know - unless I did some research - as about half of my current eight followers are family, and, of the rest, I'm pretty sure two are marketers.

But, how does having a large following impact an individual, or the subsequent postings of that individual, who was (or would otherwise be) not-as-well-known? Does it even? Is that why some tweets come off as "wisdom from the oh so wise one"? Because there are followers who are (probably) hanging on every word? Do they? Sometimes I tweet stuff that would make my sis go, "Okaaaay. Right." Other times, "That's so true." Hmm. Without fail, we write/share from our different frames of reference, experiences and what not. Sometimes, though, you can tell the ones that are overreaching...

Maybe I'm over-thinking it, for, to be honest, I don't read every single tweet from those I follow. Still, even the term "follower", lends itself to this leader-follower duality, so I really can't be that far off base. That duality is certainly touched by the medium of choice (Twitter) and, according to Marshall McLuhan is the message: "The medium is the message" because it is the "medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action."

So, the fact that I tweet or I'm on Twitter, or however else it's articulated, communicates an intrinsic message in and of itself. (Not tweeting? Well, I never! I don't speak to people who don't tweet!) There is also an intuitive understanding of how the participants should (or should not) associate and interact with each other.

McLuhan was right on the ball, too, when he coined, "Invention is mother of necessity." So many things are now needed - online social networking etiquette; policies; leglislation. Read, just today, an article refering to Thompson Reuters and its decision to ban anonymous comments citing "legal risk" etc.

I shall continue this like-dislike interest, I imagine. My take at this point? If it's working for you, keep it going. Define working? Meets your needs and/or the purposes for which you indulge.

If not, don't take a trip to where the guilt is if you wish to hop off this train. Leave - guilt-free - the microcosm that is Twitter and join the other billions of people on the planet for whom satisfaction to express observations and communicate with others is derived through dozens of other non-Twitter ways.

Next up, why I was on Facebook but not on Facebook.

Her space :-) Happy Birthday to my niece. All of two today!!! You are my sunshine... la la la la la.

AND HOW DID THAT MAKE ME FEEL?
Several years ago while living in the USA, I took a trip to visit a friend in New York City. (New York, New York - city so nice they named it twice:-) Anyway, we decided to do some last stop shopping - on the way out (she was gonna find her way back home). I parked about two blocks away from the store, fed the meter for an hour, and we were off. After about forty-five minutes, I noticed the time and beckoned to my friend...oh yes! My lil sis was there as well. So, I beckoned to them both that we'd have to finish up 'cause the cashier lines weren't all that short. My friend decided to stay on a while and so sis and I practically high-tailed it out of there! It was now a mad rush trying to beat the meter. All I could think about was getting a ticket and how much I didn't want to get a ticket! It was about two minutes to expiration and by this time we were running down the sidewalk, past the stores that had set up 'sidewalk sales' when, the next thing I knew, I bounced right into her!

She was a little girl, no more than five, could be six. And there she stood with her ice-cream cone ice-creamless! She looked down at it, then up at her mom who was walking just ahead. She'd stopped and turned when I'd stopped and flashed me a look like I was something horrible. I apologised to her profusely and sincerely but briefly. I still couldn't get the pending expiration out of my mind - no ticket under my windscreen wiper, please! And I hurried off.

We made it before the expiration but I felt like crap. And every time since then that I remember how I knocked off a little girl's ice-cream from her cone, that feeling comes over me. Of course there were more mature, less selfish actions I could have taken in that moment. But I didn't. What I did do, however, was learn one of my life's biggest lessons. In a moment when I knowingly offend someone, I try to do the right and selfless thing. Even if it feels difficult.

For I absolutely detest that other feeling.


Claudia
www.cyopro.com
www.twitter.com/cyopro

"Invention is the mother of necessities."

So says the Mc man (Marshall McLuhan, that is). Of course, I simply shake my head in sombre agreement as I battle it out with the Norton Utilities 14 I just installed on my laptop.

Not funny. It won't even load.

There goes my night... I imagine I may very well be at this 'til the wee hours of morning.

Toodles!


Claudia
www.cyopro.com
www.twitter.com/cyopro

Yesterday

Yesterday was the day of the memorial service held in honour of Michael Jackson. The service was held at the Staples Center in "The City of Angels", Califor-ni-a, but attended by millions around the world - thanks to the Internet and a host of insatiable media.

"Communal sorrow is moving," a New York Times writer scripted in a column yesterday. Nicely put.

The "This is It" tour that never was, seemed to have metamorphosed into a last staging. Even though others performed and spoke, in death, Michael was still the star of the event. As huge as he was, he remains dead. His music, however, will live in the hearts of millions for generations to come.

I hope that it serves to inspire others to do and give their very best. That's what I'll miss most - for a while, I imagine - his being around giving of his best in his performance.

Marshall McLuhan said the medium is the message/massage. There is definitely, in many quarters, a not-so-latent loathing of, or disgust with, the cruel, scathing (especially USA) media that gave him hell for the past 20 or so years, and in recent days somehow seemed bent on having a ratings feeding frenzy at the late entertainer's and family's expense? Ugh! What would you expect from a hog but a grunt? The way they were carrying on, you'd never believe it was the same set of media houses. Still, the message of the masses was too great to ignore. They refused to collectively hear or speak anything that would detract from the man, his music and his message. The media simply had to hitch a ride on the bandwagon - if they knew what was good for them.

Apparently, they did.


Claudia
www.cyopro.com
www.twitter.com/cyopro