I was standing in a grocery store line when somebody tapped me on the shoulder and asked if I was who she thought I was, a writer.
Time was, being a writer entailed a person to certain perks like a free beer, or like a better table in a restaurant, or like a free ticket to a ball game or a concert.
Then along came the great anonymous Internet, causing writers and others in the public's squinty and angry eye to think over the situation and size up the questioner before deciding whether or not they wanted to admit or take credit for what they were.
The one asking if I was who she thought was a woman.
Plenty of people were around.
So I said yeah, I wrote stuff.
She said that she was "Bikini Surfer," and grinned.
That Internet tag had come with an illustration of someone resembling Sandra Dee operating a laptop. This responder was a big supporter of weaponry of all types and she favored animals over people.
The woman in the grocery store line was around 60 years of age and full-bodied. Her tone was soft and pleasant, almost the opposite of the Internet responses.
This one, then, is about horse race Internet responders.
It's pretty much always the mean season when it comes to Internet responses. Even people who seem hard to dislike, the Clooneys of the world, are often attacked. Good news seldom sells. It's the same with reader reaction.
Horse race followers and responders come to the table with plenty of emotion. That's because money is at risk on gambles. If your horse can't win, then there's always Plan B, which is to hope somebody else's horse loses by a bigger margin, so that you can at least celebrate by losing by less than a picker.
The angry nature of some Internet responses causes the targets, the actors and politicians and mothers of eight and singers and horse race writers and horse race pickers, to simply quit reading. And that's too bad because some public figures and pickers really deserve to be blasted.
What does a responder hope that his or her message will prompt?
That the target will read the words and resign? That the public figure will see the light and begin thinking and performing as suggested by the responder? That the boss will read the responses and fire the one being criticized?
Here's what usually happens with differences of opinion.
Nothing.
Most high ratings are based on disliking somebody intensely, which you might think would run contrary to most advertising theory: Do you actually think that a reader or a viewer who is really angry would buy something you're hawking? But sometimes even high negative ratings are prized possessions.
At least horse racing is unique when it comes to reader response.
There's a common sense rule that dictates who gets to say what and who will read or respond to what.
This sport is largely about picking winners.
Unless you say what you think before a race, you're disqualified from further comment.
Races are much harder to pick before they're run.