Communicating in the electronic age is fascinating.  And for an old fogey such as I it is often a test as well as an enlightenment.  I preserve my quietude by aligning with what I believe – and hope – are not catastrophic alterations to my existing context. One mustn’t disturb the drying canvass. It is reminiscent of how I felt when translating to computers from fill-in-the-blanks printed precedents in my law practice.  I recall thinking at the time that there was no need (or, by implication, any value) having to go to all the trouble and expense of buying a computer and learning how to do that!  Ha!  That didn’t last long!  Thereafter I was buying new updated models of computers yearly or more frequently as the industry commensurately propelled its endless improvements.  In addition I subscribed to technological software advancement on the market for the law profession.  Unknowingly I was among the first to conform to the new business model. Lawyers can be so intractable!  It proved to be an ineffable leap from memory typewriters and fax machines to computers and email.  And with what unprecedented speed it unfolded! Before long I was burning years of handwritten diaries, casting aside leather-bound binders of typewritten pages and opting instead for the cleanliness, convenience, presentation and accuracy of computers both at home and at the office.

I won’t pretend to “get” many of the latest television ads for technical devices or the esoteric meaning behind much of the associated jargon but I especially enjoy engaging my niggardly ambition for discovery of new technology by acquainting myself with whatever is “free” on the internet. I know nothing is free, there’s always a catch, but there are nonetheless boundaries within which one may usefully experiment and learn. It is as regularly a springboard to legitimate commercial relationship but at the outset the scrutiny is casual and noncommittal. It at least lacks the lascivious overtone of certain other less noble attractions – though I am uncertain the curiosity is any less egotistical.

My initial investigation of the wide world of free technology began with blogs on Google. I experimented with alternate blog sites including one from WordPress that I quickly abandoned when I realized the unwitting “price” I paid was ungovernable advertising. Otherwise I added independent copies of “books” I had written and saved on my home computer. And finally I graduated to a moderately paid web site with an annual fee for hosting and my domain preservation.

Google LLC is an American multinational technology companythat specializes in Internet-related services and products, which include a search engine, online advertising technologies, cloud computing, software, and hardware. It is considered one of the Big Five American information technology companies, alongside Amazon, Apple, Meta and Microsoft.

Google.com is the most visited website worldwide.

The wealth of information available on the internet means that most of what is there has no more realistic appeal than the dusty volumes in a library. To impose communication of one’s private compilations on others indiscriminately is hardly desirable or tolerable. In those instances where communication is related directly to financial gain there is inevitably requisite and bilateral choice. Otherwise the limitations applicable to the popular social media apply. Consider for example Facebook, Twitter or YouTub in which one may readily adopt or block communication with others. Between these two limits exists the capacity to subscribe (with limitations) to what is otherwise available by paid subscription only.

As I have transferred my putative “audience” from those whom I choose to those who are interested, this broad extension has precipitated a certain dilution of what I communicate.  Most notably I avoid identification of others by name where there might be some critical import as a result. The consequence of identification need not be either good or bad particularly since most people prefer not to proclaim publicly their private details whatever they are. Predominantly I restrict my reference to others in my life to what I have done or what I may think as a result of that association. This I believe is both understandable and bearable because otherwise it would be difficult if not impossible to relate human affairs authentically and meaningfully.

For those of us engaged in open expression of thought (which I believe normally coincides with the wish or hope for communion with others) the object of discussion must of necessity be entertaining.  What constitutes amusement is seldom complicated. Yet writing about life’s sometimes mundane events is not by that token alone easy.  It demands abruptness and bluntness surpassing the putative simplicity of the topic at hand. It’s not unlike the observation sometimes related, “If you know what you’re saying you can say it in plain language.” The imperatives are knowledge and frankness, neither to be diminished.