Non-inclusiveness in the global world

I just saw Gan's post on how some people would put something on platforms such as FB and MSN and yet be cryptic, shrug and say that they don't want to talk about it. I supposed she might have been referring to me in that entry.

Ah..JY and I ignored her question on FB and I shrugged and didn't want to explain last night. JY did the honours because I have just finished telling Lun about David's tragedy a day ago and I didn't want to talk about it anymore.

In fact telling Lun about it resulted in us both feeling very sad and I had to shut some part of myself so that I could relate the incident in a cold, clinical and detached way so as not to lose control in the Japanese restaurant.

I didn't think I would be able to have that much control to relate it again.

So why did JY and I use FB then. She wasn't on MSN that time. We did call each other to see what each other had but it got too difficult. Talking about it was hard, silence on the phone was equally unbearable when it feels as though we should say something and each had nothing to say. Hanging up on each other wasn't an option either when closure should always be gently introduced.

Maybe FB was right because it provided us with a platform where we could communicate with each other and yet not have to face each other directly. I don't think it was our top priority to announce to 400-over people that something was going on. Besides how do you explain death and pain like that without demeaning the tragedy itself?

Ah yes..perhaps most would think that because posting things on public platforms are not private, they should be inclusive.

But you can no more include the world than you can exclude yourself.

Sadness and grief has always been something private. We put on smiles for the world even if we feel our heart burdened with many a failings, many a regret, many a sadness.

Maybe questions aren't replied because not everything has to be inclusive and sadness isn't for everybody.