How to Know if Silence Is a Good Thing

Are YOU  surrounded by silence?  How do you know if it is a good thing? Is it a good silence,  the solitary imagined kind,  or another variety?  
Is  silence not often thought to be awkward when  circumstances  result in extended periods of nothing ?    It is not-at-all  surprising that when difficult issues arise, an enigmatic silence ensues which only allows problems to fester. At Incoming Bytes, reflecting on the discomfort  generated by  inappropriate, protracted or untimely silence, --an innocuous  temptation to offer a solution is strong.

Perhaps in the future, if one is offended strongly  by actions, bad manners, rants, statements or comments made by individuals in any form, an official protocol could prove handy.   It may be a  helpful and reasonable public  policy to bravely email them directly and identify the offensive material, changing their minds by gentle persuasion, offering weird jokes,  or simply inferring they are not as bright as they could be.  To sign off with one's real name is optional.   After all, what else is the Internet for?
 
It does seem inherently logical that  it could be  helpful to address individuals directly instead of allowing what are, in fact, negative, poor,  people-handling skills, to take over,  --for instance, screaming loudly down the street whilst throwing eggs at them.   Such spontaneous activities may occur  long before anyone even realizes they are not yet fully clothed in the morning,  thereby offering  a serious and even  unbecoming  spectacle to the casual observer out in the street.

This is unacceptable and offensive in itself.  People in this world  are generally good people;   they may all rant, scream, and express anger, but they are human beings without exception,  and should be encouraged to retain dignity of their persons  whilst watching serious, naked  communicators  tossing eggs at passers-by.
 May I suggest the following process ?  
 Should someone comment negatively or do something inadvertently that  I find  offensive,  I shall immediately email them  personally and express my concerns, using fewer than three foul invectives and fewer than eight pages of text. 

If the  reply I receive several days later includes little but  denial,  an arcuate avoidance of responsibility, includes any more than three foul invectives, or  does not otherwise resolve the issue, a follow-up email shall be  more than justified.   The reader will recall that time is of the essence.

With today’s helpful technology, it becomes a  point of personal pride to have all emails  between dedicated  individuals answered quickly and specifically, rather than operating  within a vague, quasi-organized schedule, particularly while  using a cumbersome, annoying, very snail-like postal service or the unprofessional 'new spelling' of texting.

The occasional exception may be allowed if one’s satellite service is failed due to NASA space-junk impact, visits from loving  mothers-in-law interfere with good governance, or inclement weather is experienced in the duration.

   To contact someone directly by email is inherently more  fair and honest, and will help avoid the perception of an arbitrary application of silence, and thus remain within the  bounds of the fine  art of  communication .
Ask yourself the question once again,   do you prefer silence, or are you just choosing silence by default, -perhaps without intent ? How many fits of silence are the result of the inability to think caused by misplaced  anger and a failed diet, particularly the lack of eggs?

To clear the air is a good thing in the spirit of peace, friendship and cooperation. In the old days, silence was golden, and it can still be a good thing if you  wish to observe it religiously  as such.

In spite of these recent revelations and advances in technology, then, I am proud to add each of you, singularly and collectively, to my email address book.
How to really know if silence is a good thing?   Try not opening your email, and see. 

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

And Here I thought the Silence was my Imagination.....

It never fails to surprise me how human instinct can sense differences in the atmosphere, events,  and social happenings  without really knowing why, or what is happening.
My last two posts discussed the strange  "silence" out in the media  that has raised my own curiosity level to the extreme.  I wondered if it was 'official' silence, or just perceived.
 It turns out there is much  more to come about "silence" .  It seems I am not alone.

I'll refer the reader of Incoming Bytes  to a new article in  "Before it's News"  and encourage all of our readers to think for yourselves...and  pay a lot of attention to the article:
"12 Things That the Mainstream Media is Being Strangely Quiet about Right Now". 
http://members.beforeitsnews.com/story/730/999 The "12 things"  are listed short-listed below for your convenience, but the reader really should read the article in its total form.

1)   The crisis at the Fort Calhoun nuclear facility in Nebraska 
2)   Bombing in Yemen and Pakistan and rumors of the US invasion of Libya
3)   Fukushima in Japan: the nuclear crisis is worsening, far worse than Chernobyl
4)   Christian groups are considered to be a threat to National Security
5)   Flooding in China is the worst in 55 years
6)   The Dodd-Frank Act is closing down Forex gold/silver trading by July 15, 2011
7)    Huge cracks in the earth 3km long have appeared in the earth in Peru, and a huge crack has appeared in Michigan
8)    Arizona wildfire is now over half a million acres 
9)    North Korea has tested a "super  EMP weapon"
10    "Active shooter drills"  are being conducted American public schools without notice
11)   " Emergency preparedness" initiatives for NASA employees and their families are being conducted
12    NO-fly zones--40 of them--have been declared by the FAA in the last week.

What is really  going on here?  Clearly our instincts work overtime even  when our media does not, or is ordered not to.  Why are public officials sanctioning  the media  "SILENCE"?  Are all disasters, events, and threats now on the " information based on need to know" principle? Is  "Big Brother" deciding what we shall or shall not be informed about?

Meantime, back in the fog surrounding the  garden, the beans are growing peacefully, cabbage is doing just fine, the corn is growing in leaps and bounds,  and everything else is sprouting in the finest possible fashion, with nary a news flash.
 
I have to wonder which of these two subjects is more valuable to me as a human being?  Which do I have the most control over?  I ask again, is it better to be uninformed? Big Brother seems to think so.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

The Greater the Event, the Less we Hear ?

Silence is upon us.   Let us properly call that "selective silence".  


Why?  With the media frenzy that usually accompanies major events such as the nuclear disaster at Fukushima,  one might expect to see some expression of continued in the plight of Japan, but no.  The same strange abandonment of other man-made and natural disasters seems to disappear with with the same finesse from the media.  Is it too much to ask to be informed?  Radiation from Fukushima has already crossed North America, but officialdom, like the media, keeps it hushed.   Are we  "to glow before we know"  what is happening?  Is there a  "the greater the event, the less we hear"  edict hidden somewhere in government files?
Germany is  intelligently closing down ALL nuclear plants by 2020.  North America is strangely " silent"  about it  instead,  no such plans HERE.
  We don't have to wonder why. The invoking  of common sense itself would be an earth-shattering event that would have to be silenced.
Does wild game  in North America have to become "polluted and unfit for human consumption"  with Fukushima radiation   like the wild boars ARE ALREADY  today in Germany--from 900 miles away,  --the Chernobyl disaster 25 years ago--before it becomes a "news story" again? 


The Haiti  earthquake disaster may as well have occurred  a hundred years ago;  the "live"  victims may be healed, but they still live in tent cities,  the city, reduced to rubble  is NOT yet rebuilt,  the aid  "disappearing" into the strangling, secret pockets  of the bureaucracy.  Has that story, too, been "worn out" by the media, no longer worth contaminating a news page or computer screen?
Strange silence is emerging over the  Iraq war,   --"winding down", is it?   Or is it in fact really just another very expensive military failure that will be glossed over,  the new government just as corrupt as Saddam himself, with all the facts hidden from the public?
Never mind that war, we have NEW ones. We line them up, one after the other.