Fit, Healthy... and Thin?

Greetings,

Weight-loss seems to be a big topic no matter where we go these days. I can understand the urge to get fit and also the urge to get healthy, the urge to get thin, on the other hand, I don't understand. Being fit and healthy extends and improves your life simply because your body is able to work better. Simply as a result of getting fit and healthy there will be an aspect of weight-loss, but the obsession with weight-loss is not so great. Sure it is advertised for our the female counter-part as fashionable and necessary to be fashionable, but is it really healthy?

In general, the upper scales of fitness require some level of muscle, and muscle is heavy. One of the issues that every person who embarks upon weight-loss in the traditional manner encounters is that they change their diet and exercise and actually put on weight rather than take it off to begin with. This is because muscle is more dense, and thus heavier than fat, as you exercise you build muscle, which is going to make you heavier, but is necessary to burn fat. It is also necessary to move your limbs and other parts of your body. If you do not have some muscle mass you cannot be counted as fit.

Further can you be counted as healthy if your body is not getting the necessary nutrition that it requires? Fad diets and pills do not teach you how to eat properly. They may get you to lose weight, and lose weight fast, but what happens once you are off them? Will the same eating habits return? Yes, changes in diet are often necessary, but this must be combined with exercise, and the exercise must have somewhere to draw its fuel from. This means eating healthy. Often we must train ourselves to eat healthy and then stick to the training, this is a harder and longer process, but it is far more effective in the long run.

What needs to be noted is that we are not all meant to be shaped like super-athletes or supermodels. This is a good thing. There is variety in body shape, and people are not all the same shape, nor will they ever be. Aiming for these images and becoming obsessed with these shapes results in depression and obsession. The most important thing is loving the skin that you are in. This is in two ways, it is accepting what your body-shape is, and also treating it right.

There are ways of measuring what shape we should be and many graphs including the Body Mass Index, or BMI, the question is whether these graphs take into account all body-shapes and peculiarities. It is known that the BMI does not take into account bodies which are carrying large amounts of muscle. So, it is important that your shape is measured properly to get the correct measurements.

Are you happy with your current state of fitness? Are you happy with your current state of health? If you want to do something about these two then you really should. Focussing on aspects like simply losing weight is too focussed as it does not take into account the bigger picture. Losing weight must accompany a bigger picture for it to be a healthy process with a healthy end. Give yourself a realistic goal, give yourself a real reason and it is more likely that you will make it.

Remember, dieting yourself to thinness is not necessarily dieting yourself to health. Thinness is not health. Health is health.

Cheers,

Henry.

Vietnam Veterans: Denied Again

Greetings,

Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Vietnam veterans have been denied the right to march through their state capital as was reported on the local news (https://www.msn.com/en-au/video/sport/vietnam-veterans-denied-permission-to-march-in-brisbane/vp-BBM52OZ). So once again, these men who went to fight in a war because their government told them to. To fight in a war which was unpopular almost across the globe. To fight in a war that many of them still suffer from. The acknowledgement of their service by the public in Brisbane is being denied.

While the march may cause some traffic issues for some and thus be an inconvenience. It may also cost some tax-payer money to close the roads and have the extra police involved to close these roads and ensure that the crowds are controlled. Do these men and women who went to war because they were told to and did their jobs, and served their country not deserve it? They have already paid their dues in blood and anguish, in lost friends and family, and this is not to mention those who would march in the place of someone who did not come back. All of their service should be honoured.

The Vietnam War, or the Vietnam Conflict as some would like us to call it, was one of the most divisive wars in our history. It divided nations between those who supported the act of going to war against communism, against those who opposed the war fighting for another country. We see much of this war from the point of view of the United States and we see much of the division which happened within that country. What we do not see much of is what happened in Australia at the same time. We do not often see or hear of what the Australians did in Vietnam. Is this the reason why our veterans are so easily forgotten? Is this the reason why their march is so easily denied? Because they have not made documentaries and movies to rival their American counterparts? All veterans of all wars should be honoured, regardless of which side they fought on. Their service should be honoured.

How can it be so that such a march can be so easily denied? How many other marches have been denied? How many of the people in the marches which have been given permission have been veterans? Yes, it does make a difference if they are veterans or not. They have served their country and their service needs to be honoured. It is not the glorification of war as some might accuse, it is the acknowledgement of the service. It is the honouring of men and women who did a service to their country. These are men and women who we should be standing up and being proud of. These are men and women who we should be making every effort to ensure that their march goes ahead without a hitch rather than denying them permission. This is about showing respect to these veterans.

The Brisbane City Council simply needs to make sure that this march can happen. It needs to happen. It needs to happen to give due honour to these veterans and respect the service that they have done for this country.

Cheers,

Henry.

The Smoker: A Dying Breed

Greetings,

The following is something that I wrote after having an experience and a chat with some people while in the centre of Brisbane, Queensland. I am not advocating anyone taking up smoking at all, just asking you to have a look at the situation from a different perspective. I have tried to be as objective as possible with regard to this post, but it is a little difficult.

A further note, I sent this to the editor of the Courier Mail for one of the Letters to the Editor not long after I wrote it with no response. Obviously policy does not allow an even-handed or even counter-argument view on a subject as divisive as smoking.

The Smoker: A Dying Breed

The smoker is a breed of human which is dying out, in both senses of the word. They are subject to the threats of cancer, emphysema and other life-threatening diseases and infections. But they are also subject to other hazards, social disgust, legal ramification, and taxation. Likely, while the former are good reasons to “kick the habit”, as has been coined in modern speech; the latter are also likely to force the smoker out of his ever-dwindling breed.

While quitting smoking has been seen, and is, the healthiest alternative, a new breed of smoker has emerged, “the vaper”. These individuals suck on vapours produced from different flavoured fluids. The studies show that this is a healthier alternative, but is it only time until society turns against these individuals as well?

Amongst the smoking breed there are those who take their habit as some sort of stand, often against some authority. Like a quiet form of protest they smoke as a stand for their habit, forgetting the original reason they started. These are what could be called the “hard-core” smokers who will defend their habit as any other might theirs.

The considerate smoker is one who will ensure that they are away from non-smokers, or are in the company of other smokers. They will do their best to ensure that their habit has the least effect on those around them. If in mixed company, they will do their best to ensure their smoke is blown away from non-smokers. They will always ensure that their butts are extinguished properly and also disposed of properly. Yet they are lumped in with those with no consideration.

The inconsiderate smoker lights up where they feel like regardless of the company and regardless of the feelings of others. They have no consideration for the effect their smoke may have on others. They may even be offended if their inconsiderate smoking is pointed out to them and thus will react angrily and with no remorse.

Smokers have been banned from playgrounds, which is sensible so they do not have an effect on the young lungs of children. Smokers have also been banned from bus stops, public transport, public buildings and most covered areas. The considerate smoker would absent themselves from most of these without legislation in place; yet they are chased away and threatened with legal action.

The result of these bans is that we see smokers clustered together like social outcasts. Areas have been designated for smokers and smokers congregate in these areas to smoke. Ironically, some non-smokers will approach these spaces and complain about the smoke. Just as with any group of people, there are also the “radical non-smokers”.

The true bane of the smokers’ existence is both the “radical non-smoker” and the “radical ex-smoker”. Like evangelicals they feel it is their purpose in life to convert or persecute smokers wherever they may be found. They are mortally offended if they can smell smoke on a breeze and will expect the smoker to move regardless of the situation. They will quote evidence of the damage and cost of smoking, even though this is now evident, often in graphic detail, on every pack which is bought. What they do not realise is that they harm their cause taking such a stance.

Nicotine is a drug, pure and simple, and an addictive one at that. Alcohol is also a drug, and a poison, yet smoking products are taxed and legislated against far more strongly, even though it could be proven that the damage caused by alcohol is far more costly.

What is also not known is that some of those smokers are doing it for their health. For some it is a simple and relatively quick form of pain relief when access to other drugs and pain relief are not available. For others it provides a measure of stress relief in situations where other methods are not possible.

Smokers are a dying breed, and they know it. They know the risks of their habit. They are not all the same and they do not all smoke for the same reasons. Unless you have been in the smoker’s shoes you do not know as much as you think. Have some consideration before you speak out against their habit, our “nanny state” may decide that your habit or hobby is too dangerous and anti-social next.

Cheers,

Henry.

Respect not Glorification An Answer to: "What Does Glorifying The ANZAC Myth Say About Our Attitudes To Violent Men Today?"

Greetings,

I am getting a real distaste for the modern historian and their revisionist view of the world and how they want to find fault with everything, especially if some group of people want to find good in it. More to the point how they want to do something that I was told never to do and make emotional pleas to the audience. The subject is also one which strikes a little close to my heart, having servicemen and women in my family, and having a long and endearing respect for all of them.

So, the original article which I am arguing against can be found here: http://junkee.com/what-does-glorifying-the-anzac-myth-say-about-our-attitudes-to-violent-men-today/76563, entitled "What Does Glorifying The ANZAC Myth Say About Our Attitudes To Violent Men Today?" It came up on my Facebook feed and I read it and I just could not stay silent about it. I apologise to those of my friends who have different views with regard to this subject but this is something I feel rather strongly about.

Australians at War

During the First World War, the Australian Imperial Forces went and fought in Gallipoli, Palestine and France, among other places, as a part of our "Imperial duty". Our troops did much the same thing in the Second when they went to the Middle East and beyond. This means, in essence, they went to fight and support someone else due to a feeling of familiar bonds. Those who went to Papua New Guinea and fought along the Kakoda Trail were literally fighting to prevent the Japanese invasion of Australia. I am proud to say that members of my family from both sides served in both World Wars, and I will not be beaten back for having this pride.

Wars are Horrible

The soldier in war commits acts of violence which are not normal in society, then again wars are not a normal state of affairs. Soldiers are trained to kill their opponents, trained to survive on the battlefield, and trained to follow orders. This is what a soldier does, this is his job, and there is no other job like it. In normal circumstances the soldier would be locked up for committing the acts that they do during war, but during war it is what they are expected to do.

Horrible things happen in wars, on both sides, and by both sides. To take a revisionist approach to history and to vilify those who took part does not assist anyone. The amount of civilians killed in wars is tragic, as is the amount of lives lost in general. More to the point, often when a soldier, as a part of a unit, commits these acts they are on the orders of someone who never sees them, but expects the job to get done nonetheless. Most of the men who do follow the orders are ordinary men in extra-ordindary situations. To pick and choose incidents which inflame the emotions to one way or another is not using logic but emotional reasoning, and is bad history. 

The author claims, "the violence required of men in war is airbrushed our of the story of ANZAC," a feat I would claim is near impossible considering it is a war and surrounded by violence. I would think that no one would have any delusions that ANZACs performed acts of violence, as has been stated before, they were soldiers and this was their job. To talk about war and not include violence or even consider it would be foolish in the extreme.

Domestic Violence has a Long History

Domestic violence is a horrible thing, but to attempt to try to link it to the commemoration and service of those who served a nation is wrong. Go have a look up "the rule of thumb" and the date on when this was legal to beat your wife. So beating your wife as a part of law had been around since at least the late 1700's. So what we call domestic violence has been around much longer than when the veterans came back from the First World War and to try and blame it on them is to deny all the previous history of it.

The men who came back from the First World War came back changed. The experiences that they had could have done nothing more than change them. For some, it was a change for the better, for some it was not. There are indeed reports of those who came back and who could not deal with living in a civilian situation, and some of these no doubt were involved in domestic violence. To paint all of the veterans with the same brush is a gross generalisation. 

"Glorification" of the ANZAC Myth

The article talks about "glorifying" the ANZAC Myth, it is not about glorification, it is about honouring those who served. Unless you have served in the military forces in a time of war you have no idea what goes on. There is violence in war, this is undoubted, and the men who have seen war bear the scars of war both physically and also mentally. 

The article asks whether or not the glorification of the ANZAC Myth normalizes violence in our society by holding up the perpetrators of violence to glory. In response to such statements it can be said that the world has been at war, in one way or another, almost constantly since the Second World War, and that even now is in an undeclared, in some instances, state of war. Violence can be found when a person turns on their television, looks on the Internet, reads a book or in many other places. It was not the ANZAC Myth which has "normalized violence" at all. Violence is pervasive throughout modern media and it is this which promotes it more. If all that can be seen in the ANZAC Myth is the promotion of violence of any kind, then the true source of inspiration which keeps the services going every year, which honours the veterans, rather than glorifying war, has not been found by the author. 

The ANZAC Myth has less to do with the glorification of violence and more about the honouring of service. There are key elements which are to be found, which are more important than violence and its glorification. Go talk to a veteran, ask them about their experiences, and it doesn't even have to be a WWII or earlier one either. Ask them about their friends they have lost, what they did, and how it changed them, and decide for yourself whether or not it is glorification when you pay your respects on ANZAC Day or Remembrance Day.

Cheers,

Henry,

The Value of Volunteering: A Response to: "Volunteering doesn't make the world a better place"

Greetings,

I was trolling through Facebook when I came across an article which was posted by a friend of mine. The link to the article is in the Bibliography which you will find at the end of this. The following will address some of the assertions of the author of the article which were made, but will also address and underlying issue which seems to come up again and again, and that is the meaning of "value". I will admit that this article did hit a rather raw nerve because I have done quite a bit of volunteering over my years, but it shows just how much the focus must be toward a fiscal end in every pursuit.

Ms Walsh starts of with addressing her audience with the idea of using their New Year's resolutions to not volunteer. Pointing that volunteering is merely a mechanism for people to make themselves feel good about themselves. Then she questions whether or not it helps at all. In this she points out a simple fact that people who are using volunteering as a mechanism to get some method to feel good about themselves, as "good citizens" or otherwise are not "volunteering" at all but are obligating themselves. This is a theme which flows through the article. When you volunteer, it must be on your own terms because you are interested in doing it not because you expect something out of it.

"A lot of volunteering we do is inefficient. Schools ask that parents bake cakes to be sold to the children of other parents who have baked cakes. Most school events involve sausages on white bread and fizzy drinks, which is not recommended as a healthy diet. ..." (Walsh, 2018)

Many of the "classic" volunteering activities are inefficient and pave the way for other problems which do crop up in the future. This is an argument which will be conceded to the author, however, these are not the only volunteering activities which are out there, they are just the most visible. Volunteering encapsulates many more activities than most people realize, and many people are actually doing unofficial-volunteer or more accurately unrecognized-volunteer work without even realizing it. Coach your children's sports team? Volunteer work. Are you a scout leader? Volunteer work. Officer of a recreational group? Volunteer work.

"Volunteering is not valued. If volunteering was valued we would have a separate resume for it, at parties would ask each other about their volunteering, and hours worked would contribute to superannuation. Volunteering is expected of people who are regarded as having the time to do it, that is, people who do care work at home, looking after their families, primarily women. Because women do care work their labour is not valued. If a job is valued it is rewarded with pay." (Walsh, 2018)

Volunteering work is valued, especially by the organizations who use volunteers, and also by the volunteers themselves, something which will be discussed shortly. Why would it appear on a separate resume? It is work done, so it goes on a normal resume, to put on a separate one is a self-fulfilling argument. At parties people do discuss their volunteer work, most often they do not realize that they are talking about it. In some cases it is deliberately talked about (I sure as hell do). If it contributed to superannuation then it would not be volunteer work, it would defeat the purpose of it. It would simply be work.

Of course then Ms Walsh follows this up with the classic feminist argument, and it fits perfectly into her profile of volunteer work. Who she does not take into account is all of the retirees, male and female, who also do volunteer work, and also the unemployed who are often forced to do it on "work for the dole" schemes. They are not all "people who do care work at home," a lot of them do this work for social reasons. This part of the argument raises the "home work" value argument and uses it to reinforce the idea of volunteer work being done by women and thus needing to be paid work, thus to be valued.

"The volunteering that has greatest impact is done upstream and has a measurable outcome. Volunteering works when the aim is to change a broken system, to change a law or policy. This law or policy would be one that sees a requirement for volunteers, fundraising and charities abandoned, so there will be no expectation that the next generation will keep inefficient systems." (Walsh, 2018)

Clearly the idea of the article is to get people to use the system that we have by paying taxes and writing to politicians. Or if they must volunteer, do so for organizations with political aims of some description, not that this would be surprising considering her previous remarks with regard to the "who volunteers" subject. In her opinion efficient and effective volunteering is the kind that makes changes in the world, but one that is efficient and effective in its volunteering so that the organization which comes behind does not have to clean up the mess behind. Again, this does not take into account other organizations which have volunteers and the reasons why they join.

Volunteer work is useful. For the volunteer most people think it merely provides resume packing. For people who really volunteer (rather being guilted, or forced into it) it provides self-worth. For the people who benefit from the organization in the cases of social welfare organizations, the measure is difficult to calculate. Yet this article would want to change these organizations to ones in which the employees were paid. In most instances, the regular clientele of the services simply could not afford the services.

The biggest problem here is the concept of "value", why does it always have to be attached to the all-mighty dollar? Why is unpaid work under-valued? There are many recreational organizations in which people give their time voluntarily without pay, expecting not to be paid, quite happily, I might add, because it gives them joy to do so. Does not the joy which they get from this work have some "value"? Does not the joy that they give others through doing this work also give "value"? In many cases if these organizations were set up on a commercial basis they could not exist because of the costs of the work put in on a volunteer basis by the people who do the work.

Not all work should be evaluated on the basis of what dollar value is attributed to it. It should be valued on the basis of the joy or "value" of the benefit of the people and what they gain from it. We need to seriously look at what "value" really is in our current world and no longer put a dollar value to it to really understand the "value" of things and especially volunteer work.

Bibliography

Walsh, C. (2018) "Volunteering doesn't make the world a better place", Sydney Morning Herald,
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/volunteering-doesnt-make-the-world-a-better-place-20180104-h0dd25.html

Rights and Responsibilities

Introduction

This post is one that I think needs to be written as it highlights something which needs to be stated and needs to be noted by many people as many people talk about Rights but few of the same people talk about Responsibilities, the other side of those Rights that they claim. I will start very simply with this discussion and then move on to deeper and more significant matters to present arguments which must be made and highlight elements which must be brought to light for all of us to act as real humans and real adults.

"Out on the Town"

So, a group of friends decide to go out and have a night on the town, have a few drinks and generally have a good time. This is their Right as adults. Unless they all decide that they will travel home by public transport this means that one of them will have to be the "designated driver". This is a Responsibility which goes hand in had with the Right which everyone is enjoying. Likewise if they decide to go home by public transport there is planning that needs to be done, that is also a Responsibility that one or all of the members must be involved in. Thus Rights and Responsibilities are interwoven here.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

So now we will go to the other end of the scale of things and have a look at a very important document which states what Rights every person on the planet should have. This document can be found here: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/. This is a most interesting document as within some of the Rights which are stated there are also Responsibilities also present.

The Responsibilities within this document actually start within the Preamble, "that human rights should be protected by the rule of law". Thus within the beginnings of the document it requires as a Responsibility of signatory nations that these Rights are protected by the rule of law. This Responsibility to uphold this document goes even further than that in that it states,

"Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,"

Thus the Preamble reminds the Member States of the United Nations that they have pledged themselves, i.e. promised, to co-operate with the UN to promote these human rights, thus again Responsible for doing so.

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

Article 1, unedited. everyone is Responsible to act toward everyon else in a spirit of brotherhood. It would seem that this Responsibility has gone by the way-side in many situations. This is the first one, admittedly the Responsibility is only implied, but it is present.

Several of the following Articles within the document place a heavy Responsibility upon Member States within the UN with regard to laws made and upholding these laws to ensure that their people are treated fairly. No doubt their are violations which could be cited in several places in several countries. Even several "respectable" nations could be creeping a little close due to Article 9, "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." when considering the current detainment conditions under various terror laws, but this is not the aim of this exercise.

Needless to say, it is a very involved document, where, if looked at closely there are all sorts of Rights detailed, and lots of State Responsibilities implied. However, there are few individual Responsibilities implied or stated within this document, which is a little cause of concern as there must be a balance. It is the lack of this balance, which causes issues

Rights Without Responsibilities

When people are given Rights but not Responsibilities there is an issue as they are given things but not expected to do anything in return for it. This can be seen in many different places. Many of our youths these days are given Rights but not Responsibilities and this leads them to flout their Rights all over the place and cause issues. This can be seen where adults have no power to discipline children or youths in any real fashion.

We often see that an individual will do something wrong but is never expected to take Responsibility for their actions as their are loop-holes through which they can slip. In many instances this is not just children and youths, but adults as well. Taking Responsibility for ones actions is how we grow and learn from our mistakes so that we do not make the same mistake over again.

There are issues which need to be tackled. There are real mental and social issues which impair groups and place them in a position where they will cause problems, but placing them back in the same situation cannot be the way out. Blanket legislation of "youths" or "criminal activity" is also not the way as it places vulnerable individuals in situations where they will not learn, or will only learn how to be more effective at doing the wrong thing. Here, again, is a failure of the teaching of Rights and Responsibilities.

One of the Responsibilities that most needs to be taught is Responsibilities for choices made and the consequences of those choices which go along with them. So often we hear complaints about situations where a person is in a situation where if they had made a different choice they would be in a better situation. More to the point the same person is blaming everyone else for their problems. This is a person cannot take Responsibility for their own choices. It needs to be taught and taught well, along with this is planning ahead to deal with the consequences of the choices made.

Trickle Down Effects

Legislation is devised by politicians to supposedly solve an issue when examined from their position. It is placed into law and then it does not work, no surprise. It is because they do not understand what is happening at the level where their legislation effects. They have the Right to make legislation which affects which ever part of the nation they govern, but they also have the Responsibility to make sure that it is the right legislation so that it will be for the advantage of their constituents.

The budget is too far in deficit, so the politicians use their Right to legislate a cut in spending. Where do they cut the spending? At the top? No, at the bottom. Social welfare programs get attacked. Pensions get attacked. Hospital funding gets attacked. Schools get attacked. Then they wonder why unemployment and crime increases. They also wonder why they all of a sudden become unpopular. It is because they have not been Responsible to all the people who they govern.

Conclusion

The whole thing may sound like the ramblings of some cranky old guy who dreams of a "better past when I was a lad", but there must be some balance between the Rights we give and the Responsibilities we expect of people otherwise things will simply be out of kilter. Responsibilities need to be taught just as the Rights do, and with the same emphasis. Both are important.

I have given a simple example of Rights and Responsibilites with the group going out on the town for a night, and I have given a much more complex example in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What needs to be noted here is that both elements are present in both. What followed are examples of what happens when people forget about their Responsibilities, both to themselves and to others. The effects can be devastating. More to the point, not taking into account to consequences of a choice is also an effect which needs to be noted. Remember, you are Responsible for your choices and the consequences which come with them.

Cheers,

Henry.

Internet Connection: Cloak of Anonymity

Greetings,

All of us have read comments on the internet with regard to many different postings and topics which have taken us aback. The sort of comment when you read it where you wonder if the same thing would be said by the same person if the author and listener were face-to-face. I am talking about short abusive or long tirades about subjects where the thought of using courteous language has gone out the window. It is my greatest suspicion that it is due to the cloak of anonymity, or degrees of it which allow people to do this.

Online many people do not use their real names, in some way this makes them feel that they can divorce themselves from comments made and insults given. Even in some circumstances where the person is using their own name the same can be said. It is my belief that this is due to the simple fact that the two people in the conversation (author and reader) are not in direct contact so the ideas of the use of language and what should and should not be broadcast are left aside. What we say face-to-face, or even in a printed form in many cases, is quite different as compared to the high-speed, high-volume which is found on the internet.

What is most interesting is that there can be a complete change of character and personality of a person when comparing their electronic communications as to speaking to them face-to-face. For the most part the face-to-face contact with the person is quite a bit more personable than the electronic. I would state that this has something to do with consequences, a slip of a word or insult in an electronic medium has less consequence than the same if it was face-to-face. Some would claim that this is an advance in the freedom of speech, I would say that it is a reduction in courtesy and consideration for the audience who may be subject to such communications.

Many people have not met face-to-face, while they have conversed for periods of time across the electronic medium. Meeting face-to-face in many instances actually changes the relationship between the individuals quite a bit. The classic instance of this is the internet love affair where the pair in the relationship finally meet face-to-face and find out the truth. It does not always work, as we all well know. The reverse is also true having met a person in person and then contacting them across an electronic medium is different to having contact with a person whom you have never met in person. In many ways it is because the person is more "real". The voice on the end of a phone/microphone or words on a screen just do not have the same impact.

While I will admit that I have been guilty of some faceless tirades, often I will go back and read the same and wonder why I did it and where all of that came from. Remember, the written word lasts a lot longer than you might suspect, and can be used later on. Many public figures have been caught with regard to this. I would suggest that in such communications if a person sat back, examined the situation from a more neutral standpoint, there might be quite a change as to what was written and the resulting furore which may result. When posting, consider your audience, consider the impression of yourself you are creating, and consider whether you would say the same to the same person face-to-face if you were to ever meet them.

Cheers,

Henry.