we are still married

[boxofdelights]

A few days ago, Neal asked me, "Is it twenty-five?" I looked around, puzzled. Is what twenty-five? "What year is it, 2011? And it was '86?" Oh! Right! Wedding anniversary! And it was '86. "Happy anniversary," he said, "for what it's worth."

We are still friends and good co-parents, which is what I wanted. And I couldn't have done it without him.

Also just past is my ninth LJ-versary. I plan to keep crossposting, and to keep reading those of you who post there, but, mentally, I've moved out. Dreamwidth is home now.

However I do not have a native understanding of the split between subscription and access filters. I think it is an excellent idea! It just doesn't do anything for the way I use DW. There was a while there when I was subscribing without giving access as a way of saying, "I would like to read your posts without presuming that you want to read my posts." That would work if I were meticulous about noticing and granting access to anyone who subscribed back, but I am not meticulous. So I think from now on I'll unite subscribing and giving access, and hope it does not seem presumptuous.

Comments

[amaebi]

I love you, and am so glad your path is working out for you. See you soon, I hope.

[maize]

I have yet to see any meaningful utility between subscribing and granting access for me, but primarily because (well, aside from that I don't currently post to Dreamwidth at all) I post everything publically. On paper, the main utility seems to be if you post locked posts and want to allow someone to read them but don't care to read that person's journal in return, or if you want to read someone's journal but not allow them to read your locked posts in return. That seems like an uncomfortable social space to me, although I can imagine that someone who is more concerned with security might find the latter useful for people like celebrities who you may wish to follow but who you don't really know well, or people who use individual journals as announcement lists, or companies, or things like that. I'm not actually sure that it grants any more flexibility than LiveJournal's filtering system. Back in the day when you couldn't have reading filters on Dreamwidth, it granted considerably *less* flexibility and utility. I think that's been corrected, so it now seems to me to be about the same. It feels like a presentational thing to me -- the way the feature is worded and presented makes people feel good about it, even if there's not a lot of functional difference.

[wcg]

Congratulations on the anniversary, such as it is. You've got two wonderful children, and that's a definite plus.

[boxofdelights]

Couldn't have done it without him.

[redbird]

I wouldn't call it presumptuous. What I occasionally do is subscribe and read for a bit, then decide whether to give access, if it's someone I don't already know.

I also suspect that the separation is more useful for people who post lots of stuff locked, but without any finer-grained filters; I have things ranging from "people" (that's mostly for reading, to distinguish individual journals from RSS feeds, communities, or people posting in the persona of various space probes and the like) to "lots of people but not my mother" to "trusted friends who have said they are willing to listen to me whinge" down to a filter for just my partners (most of what's in there they also get one-on-one, but this lets me type it out somewhere for my own reference).

[onyxlynx]

Happy anniversary! (I can't believe that '86 was 25 years ago either.)

[hobbitbabe]

Yeah, I ended up feeling the same way about the reading/access.