I’m not having a go at anybody in particular here, but making a point.
I tweeted what I thought was an amusing comment from someone I don’t always find myself in thorough agreement with, Roads Minister Tim Pallas:
A couple of people re-tweeted it, with this one adding a comment.
RT… @danielbowen Tim Pallas: “I will never, ever, wear lycra in public” http://j.mp/9Z9zlB #vicvotes WTF is wrong with Lycra?! FO Tim
You know, I think before you blast someone’s comment (apart from the fact that it was clearly meant to be taken in jest), you might want to read the context by following the link provided. Here’s the full paragraph:
While some people look good in lycra, It is perhaps appropriate here that I reiterate my pledge to the Victorian people that I will never, ever, wear lycra in public.
So in fact Pallas didn’t say anything was wrong with lycra. He just made a funny, self-deprecating comment that he shouldn’t wear it.
Foolishly I decided to point this out to the Tweeter:
Maybe you should read the full quote?
…and got this response back:
I did and the issue isn’t even worth answering. It just gives credence to the doped on the other side.
Does that actually make any sense? I’m seeing words there, but I can’t comprehend the meaning.
I didn’t bother taking it any further.
But my point is that while I love using Twitter, the brevity of messages shouldn’t be an excuse for wilfully ignoring context, nor blasting away with both barrels when you make an assumption as a result of that lack of context, particularly when the link to all the information is merely a click away.