When Mark Maynard suggested "the gang" keep a blog about our move out west, I wrote about the things on my mind and maybe the noteworthy events of the day. I don't think that formula has ever changed, except in the beginning, moving was always on my mind, so that was fitting to the blog's assumed topic, and the noteworthy actions usually had to do with packing, or preparing, which again, was fitting...

And I guess, sitting here now writing this, I'm starting to remember that right from the beginning there we're those who were out to spotlight the risk of our decision. We were all scared, all of us well aware of the uncertainty, but I always try to remember: who gets anywhere in life dwelling on those emotions?

Anyways: skip to present day, we all stuck our necks out, we all managed to land on our feet. Now the things on my mind have nothing to do with 'moving', and the events of my day are incredibly routine. Anything that has to do with my attempts in the world of film usually never make on this blog because I don't like to write about those things, I hate saying, "I'm trying to do this...", opposed to, "I've done this". I feels too awkward. Actually, even after I've done something, I often don't like to bring it up, for example: the bike trip, in everyday conversations with people I'm not incredibly close with, I never bring it up, I talk like it never happened. It's just too awkward. So... what's left to talk about?

Work? How exciting. Everyday errands? Maybe if something out of the ordinary happens. Well, what about things that weight on my mind: politics, environment, the "crafted" news...? Most of these topics bring nothing but harsh commenting. I guess in the beginning when Mark suggested the blog, I always imagined it would someday take a shape similar to his. Seems he can say anything he thinks, feels, does, wants, whatever, and no one says anything that brings the site down. Never. At the same time, I can't write about taking a shit on the clock without a hail storm of criticism.

So I sit here, logged into blogger, staring at the screen wondering if it's too controversial to mention an article on Ocean Dead Zones and how...

"Humankind is engaged in a gigantic global experiment as a result of the inefficient and often excessive use of fertilisers, the discharge of untreated sewage, and the ever-rising emissions from vehicles and factories. Unless urgent action is taken to tackle the sources of the problem, it is likely to escalate rapidly."

There was a time when I would have never thought mentioning this would push anyone's buttons, but over time I've found myself backing out of more and more post to avoid unintentionally starting anything.

Of course this strange form of oppression has slowly but surely faded my interest and excitement in the blog... which I don't like. I feel like I'm being pressured out of my own club. Which I guess brings me to this question:

"Do I write what the masses want to hear to keep the seats filled? Or do I write what I am thinking regardless"?

And when I put it like that... I have to go with the "fuck 'em" answer. Not because I want to start a verbal riot... What I do want is to have the kind of audience that doesn't comment unless it's a) funny, b) related to the topic, or c) something that doesn't make them sound like they want to punch me in the face. Is that too much to ask for? I don't know... I hate the idea of censoring people, but it gets so out of hand, and then it just makes me want to not write, and then that makes me want to write about anything because, dammit, I should be able to... and now I'm back where I started...

"Mark, if you're reading this, how do you do it"?