The reason for the style of my posts is what I like to call the "just hit publish" methodology (all rights reserved :)). It goes something like...
First of all write a lot, and when you write something do not under any circumstance censor yourself. DON'T DO IT. Second of all (actually third), always publish. I haven't got a clue what I'm doing, so there's no way I'd be able to judge what I wrote myself. I need someone else to take a look at it.
Just hit publish...
If it sucks it sucks, if it's awesome it's awesome, and if it's mediocre I'll be deleting it.
I'd rather suck than be mediocre.
If I suck at something at least I might be getting somewhere. I'll learn something if I pay attention, then I'll think a bit, then suck some more, then think, pay attention, etc. But if I'm mediocre I'm probably just doing over and over something that isn't getting me any results. And worse, I might not be learning anything.
Back to the "just hit publish" methodology (all rights re...). I'm not doing this because I lack respect to whoever might stumble on this. I'm doing this because censoring yourself is limiting.
This is the so called "real" "me". This blog is about whatever idea I might have, and I'll be expressing it in the most straightforward way I can. Hopefully it will either be brilliant, or just plain suck. Kill me if it's mediocre.
So if I write something, and I think it's crap, I'll be hitting publish. I just might learn something. Note that there's a difference between crap and mediocre. Mediocre gives you the bored, blank stare of nothingness with a "it's alright" response. Crap, however, gives you the "hm, that's shit. But hey, it's kind of interesting" response.
Are you writing stuff without actually publishing it? Did you ever publish something you thought was crap but turned out to be pretty good?