Is this thing on?

So, it came out in class last week that I may not be embracing the true nature of blogging. I admitted to certain amounts of review before posting. This goes against the impromptu-ity of blogging. I'm learning to post-on-impulse more. A post can be a throw-up of sorts. Toss out an idea, a thought. It doesn't have to be a well-thought out essay. My original idea for this post (and perhaps even having an original idea is its first flaw) was to type without correction. No going back. That didn't happen. I have corrected many a typo already.

This gets into the realm of the psychological. I, as a person, spend a bit of effort on my own presentation. I wouldn't say I'm fastidious, by any stretch, but I like to put out a good product. I have been known to think (or even say) that I pride myself on my attention to detail and my crack proofreading skills. Putting up a hurried post without proper review is akin to running out the door without looking at my hair. (And just for the record, I have certainly done that. On several occasions.) I guess I'll have to post without regret a bit more, too.

How do our own psyches or personalities influence the presentation of our blogs?

Colin mentioned that my writing did sound a bit fussed over and not as casual as the blogosphere dictates it should be. Or should it? Are there rules of writing a blog? I know we are trying to classify, define, understand blogs. But with the youth of the medium, can we even have hard and fast regulations? I say this not to be defensive, but purely to question. I happily admit my own limitations. And, so, I'll try to not think so much. And, I'll try to post more. Who reads this thing anyway?