What you say may not be what you've done (or said)

Having posted on a forum/blog (see last post) this morning, I have come back to find a very active series of exchanges (mine's in there somewhere). It was interesting to note (and worthy of separate comment), that when I posted the board was still a blank canvas, though obviously many had been posting well before me, which can lead to unfortunate disconnects, especially if referring to another post.

I have tended to prefer such the Telegraph version to some other major media, because there is point in contributing beyond venting, as you do have the chance of a credit, and this can be of value. We have had sign-ups to the site as a consequence of my posting to these things in the past.

Now I am thinking of pulling back from these arenas, as explained by this subsequent post I have been moved to add (and may or may not get 'approved' at all, much less 'as is', despite the following: 'telegraph.co.uk does not monitor, approve, endorse or exert editorial control over information posted by users'. Which I had taken to mean what one wrote, so long as it followed guidelines, was what went up. But apparently not):

"It hadn't occurred to me until now that, despite having a few issues to cover and working within a stated limit, what one has contributed even to a Blog/Forum can be edited before sharing. And this of course can seriously affect context. Not to mention shape the direction of the piece in the direction of the media controller's agenda. It can enhance the pros or cons of an issue, or simply keep things bubbling ratings-wise by emphasising the best 'bites'.

This has added to my doubts about the value of such things, but in mitigation here at least I offer a 'big up' (or maybe it should be 'God bless') to the power of the blogging system and its participants. Thanks to some today, I realise I should have been much more concerned with discovering further substance on what the good Bishop may or may not have said, and done or not have done, before so enthusiastically endorsing a piece that was quite harsh on his words and deeds, at least as reported. As we're on a theological roll, to paraphrase Pastor Niemoller , 'First they selectively quoted the Bishops, and I did not speak, yadayada... and now they have selectively quoted me and no one had the time (or inclination) to delve any deeper to find out what I'd really said'.

Otherwise I think most of what I anticipated earlier has been almost all been illustrated in many posts."

Maybe what ended up on board was pithier, and hence my effort benefitedtted from the editorial input, but it was not what I had written. And I think it omitted some key aspects I thought important.

For that, at least I still have my own blog.