--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, satvadude108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > This was a fun experiment in seeing how many > > posts she'd waste replying to one post of mine > > (the one in which I redefined "transcendental > > meditation" as if -- as she suggested -- the > > lowercased term had nothing whatsoever to do > > with Transcendental Meditation). It was a > > resounding success. :-) > > > > Yes, I'm evil, but when the entertainment value > > of FFL starts to wane, I'm not above stoking > > the fires a little, *without* getting sucked > > into some long, drawn-out argument. In this > > case, she argued with herself and with other > > people for 20+ posts. As a result, she at this > > point has only five posts left for the week. I > > consider this a form of selfless service for > > those who'd like to post without being constantly > > harassed to argue by someone who has a need to > > argue. > > It is funny you say that, Saturday morning I was reading > some messages on here and was scratching my head > repeatedly. This person posted what read as a kinda angry > response to the moderator going point by point > disagreeing with the rational of the why/wherefore > of posting limits. This was in the early stages of > about 20 posts over 3 hours that seemed rather strained. > Maybe some mental quieting technique would be helpful. > ... say TM? lol The following day post after post seemed > not to be communication and attempt at dialogue, but a > prolonged slam session. Meanwhile, it was as if some of the > other posters who are often interesting, yourself > excluded, were absent.
Yeah, I tend to post all week long. But with moderation. After this one, I still have 24 left for the week. Some of us learned from the posting limits, some didn't. > The distinct thought I had was that > I wished the posting limit was lower or that the individuals > involved would quickly run out. Given the way she started the week, I felt that way as well and, dare I say it, did my best to bring that end about. > I was getting, I'll admit, > mentally kinda obsessive about it. lol Got over it. Went for a run. > Smiled at a pretty girl. Enjoyed the world. Yup. Fortunately, I have dogs to get me out from behind the computer and out into the world. They kinda "enforce" the needed sanity breaks. > I gotta tell ya, > the relative is wayyyyyyyyy underrated. My thoughts exactly. I just got back from walk- ing the aforementioned dogs along the sea at sunset. And it was one of *those* sunsets, the ones that make you want to applaud and shout, "Author!" > lol On my run the > thoought returned that what I was seeing here was neurotic > but perhaps a necessary activity for those involved. I think so, too. I honestly believe that a few of the compulsive trolls/arguers wouldn't have any identity *at all* if they weren't able to cruise the Net looking for people to goad. > I certainly hope it furthers their evolution but recognized that > I never wished to be entangled in that sticky web. I'm on a "Judy diet" myself. I limit myself to the occasional goad, and don't allow myself to get sucked into the inevitable invitations to argue. > I realize > people sometimes get extremely attached to what they write. > For it to become a ruling/consuming passion seems unhealthy. > Whatever. If your posts drew this to a quicker end, thanks. This week I'll have to admit that that was my *intention* in posting a few of the things I did. I was tired of her after the 20 compulsive posts on Saturday, and figured she could be easily suckered into pissing the other 30 away early on, so that we could have a relatively quiet rest of the week without her. The thing is, if history is any indicator, next Saturday she'll still be fuming over this week, and will come back angry as a wet cat and spoiling for a fight, so with any luck *that* will be a "short posting week" for her, too, without any further intervention on my part. Do less, accomplish more...
