I loathe confrontation. In fact, I can turn into a blithering idiot when challenged to explain myself, even when secure and grounded in the topic. The problem is that I’m no shrinking violet. Last year I wrote a post about a particularly onerous kerfuffle that was apparently triggered by my actions. Because that’s what happens in my life – I open my mouth, or in this case, put my fingers to the keyboard, and a frenzy ensues.
I don’t post every week, even though it was my original intention, because I don’t want to write boring blogs or rant blogs, and I don’t want to fill up inboxes with my not-so-unique perspective on things. But when a juicy thing catches me, stirs me up, enlightens me, I want to write about it, share it. Therein lies the rub: if it’s juicy, it’s likely contentious to someone. But, in order for a blog post to be more than a teaching moment, there has to be personal context.
The blogosphere seems to thrive on contention, and provocation; bloggers love to get a good discussion going, and I should too. But I don’t like confrontation. (I know, I already said that.) 
The other day I posted a blog about my subjective response to a particular process. There was backlash – privately, not in the blog comments – that accused me of breaching “sacrosanct” “confidentiality”. I went back and read my blog from the point of view of someone who had submitted to the process, and asked myself if I thought the blog was referring to me, how would I react? Hurt? Possibly. But I’d sure as hell go check my submission. If I believed my submission was impeccable, then I’d think that she was talking about other people. The other thing is, the post explored the notion of subjectivity and the judging process. My opinion is my opinion. That’s why we have a batch of judges – not just one. Breach of confidentiality? I think not. There were judges. They were tough. Some people didn’t make the grade. This is not a secret.
