Going back to Zach Hample, the guy who collects baseballs (see my entry from two days ago): apparently a fellow ball-collector has written a nasty comment on his blog suggesting that his method of collecting baseballs isn't legitimate. I guess purists view only balls caught in the stand, like from a home run or long fly-ball, as legitimately caught balls.
By criticizing him so harshly, what the commenter is saying, essentially, is that people can't call themselves "ballhawks" unless they've met certain ballhawk requirements. Be that as it may, I'm siding with Zach Hemple because his response is so gracious you can't help but be on his side.
Now, back to "our" world. I guess the thing that struck me is how far-reaching peer-policing can be. We've all been peer-policed before.
- You call yourself a writer?
- You call that a recipe?
- You call this a blog?
- You call yourself a Muslim?
- You call yourself Malaysian?
I don't mind being peer-policied. In most cases, I try to follow through. I'm amenable to other people's ideas, really.
09 May, 2006
Peer policing
Newer Post
Older Post
Home
4 comments:
I guess there are idiots everywhere - people who think we are not good enough ust because WE don't do things THEIR way *grin*
Well, I'm torn on this issue. On the one hand, it's important to uphold ourselves to certain standards whenever we do something. For instance, let's say I'm writing a novel. I can't write a piece of crap and then say, "Look, it's my book and if you don't like it you're an idiot." On the other hand, how should I know what standard to follow?
Hello? Hello? Just wanted to see what the world outside my gin joint was like.
Can somebody please peer-police the above fellow?
Post a Comment