Some are quite interesting, if they prompt you to think about some aspect of yourself that you hadn’t considered before. I’m not defending this particular one because it reminds me of some of those dreadful things they make you do at work, but I don’t think they’re all bad.

That’s me. On the bloody fence again. *sigh*

kate’s comments are very intelligent. I’m going to go and look at her blog too.

I like caite’s comment too.

especially the stringy bits. get stuck in the teeth.

(somebody had no do the non-carefully-considered response at some point)

I’d suggest that most people writing weblogs which offer an opening into their soul have felt that delicate state at some point, and this finds them both the muse to write with and use, and sometimes perhaps their own worst enemy, in the “post” and “delete” buttons.

I like 1am. 2am is also nice, as is 3am. It’s nice and quiet and productive!

Reading my previous comment back, I think I need grammatical reconditioning, possibly in a camp in Siberia.

I apologise for tainting these hallowed pages with such nonsensical constructions.

So there.

On a serious note, this is a ridiculous use of the of work of Luft and Ingham, which frankly wasn’t very useful in the first place. The objective is to discover the three elements of your personality; the “arena” (the you everyone knows), your “facade” (stuff you know about but we don’t) and your “blind spot” (the stuff we know about you but you don’t know about yourself).

In theory there is also an “unknown” catergory; those things about your personality that neither you nor anybody else has any idea about, which has unknown potential to effect everything. Seriously.

This is mostly used to help people in their jobs. For example, the nature of one’s facade and blind spot could be very important if you are manager struggling with a workforce. You may work hard to disguise your sensitive fluffy nature (your facade) but not realise you come across like a tyrant (your blind-spot).

However, naturally these things are of dubious use. They require people to attempt to be objective about something which is inherrently subjective and to be honest under conditions of imperfect confidentiality. Though an on-line blog-related version opens it right up to any passing troll or sycophant, and defeats the object in an entirely different way.

So that was the answer to your first question. To the others I am way too polite to say.

I’m also really really glad that I am not a blogger.

It sounds very complicated.

ps. How many Annie’s are there commenting here?

I had a look at it myself but couldn’t find many words that applied to me — where was ‘slatternly’? ‘Cantankerous’? ‘Fickle’?

And: what Kate said. I’m going to go and read her blog now..

I am not proud of my comment.

Sorry.

I mean I won’t have a guilty conscience but a deep longing…

Kate — What an intelligent comment, all the more so for being left at a quarter to one in the morning. A fragile state of mind, yes — this describes most bloggers, does it not?

Annie — please let ‘vulgar, vacuous and panicky’ be the words you thought of as applicable to An Unreliable Witness. Please. I could use them for a review, then.

Gordon — I bet you’re nibbling one tomorrow, albeit with a guilty conscience.

Thanks andre.

I’ll never look at a stick of celery the same way again.