Under the scrutiny of the rationality lens

Since I am almost positive no one reads this blog anymore, I might pick it up once again. It's not that I have some great secret I want to keep from the world (this would be a pretty dumb way to "hide" a secret), it's more that I seem to grow weary of the routine and my old blog has become a specific thing. It's like I am hyper aware of what I feel people expect from me, what they'd like to hear, or what they don't want to hear. It seems that there are things we cannot speak of, we dare not bring to light. Again, not because these things are some great secret, but because of fear of people. Fear to hurt people or even for people to completely misunderstand what is being written. Although I assume that happens in all places, maybe starting fresh with the old would help. I am the new old me. Nice to meet you.

First of all, I don't understand why people have seemed to be offended with the things I state. Granted, they are my own opinions and I understand them and their origins, it just seems people are eager to find something that will offend them. Chill out people. Goodness, I hate being scrutinized. Also, if I make a broad statement, please, do not assume it is about you. I know we all have some narcissistic complex, but it is usually good to put that complex under a lens of rationality. When assuming someone is writing about you, it is usually good to ask oneself the following questions:
1. Do I have a close relationship to the writer?
2. Did the writer mention an activity we have done recently, such that we went skating and the writer states "when we skated that punk pushed me". Well, I in fact, pushed you, so that would, in fact, make me a punk. However, this is not true if the action you have engaged with the writer occurred many a moons ago. For example, if one time in Pre-K we skated, and I mention "when we skated that punk pushed me" it is irrational to believe the writer speaks about you. Unless the writer has problems letting go of the past and lost a leg when you pushed him/her that time you skated together, in which case, it is perfectly rational to believe that the writer remembers the incident back in Pre-K.
3. Does the writer openly mention you or something very specific about you? An example of this would be if you are a 6 feet tall attractive blonde skinny woman who stole the writer's husband. If the writer refers to "the giant blonde husband-stealer" then there is probable and rational cause to believe that the writer is speaking about you.
4. Does the writer openly name you? In this case, you are perfectly justified in believing it is you, unless your name is very common and you've never met the writer.

Other than that, statistically speaking, if you are not closely related to the writer and really have no close connection to them, our rationality lens tells us chances of the writer writing about us is highly improbable.

That mentioned, welcome to my new old blog. The writings here will probably not be about you, unless you have a very close relationship to me (in other words, I know I will not offend you), if we have done an activity very recently, if I state something very specific about you, or if I openly name you. Please be courteous and always wear the rationality glasses when reading. :) Thank you.