As a member of the 'lurkers', I took your warm invitation and posted. I'd hoped for discussion (got a bit of sarcasm instead). Perhaps FFL could be moderated a bit more closely. Discussion would be good. Most know good discussion when the're in it.
Thanks for the offer. I'll see how it goes. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Looks to me as if for the next 12 days we have a > chance to find out. > > Judy, in a fit of being (dare I say it?) REEEEEAL > REEEEEAL STOOOOOOOOPID, has bounced herself off > the forum next week. Lawson is probably still out > next week as well. Shemp has been reserved in his > posts and has contributed some interesting and > valuable insights, so he hasn't been an issue in > recent days. Everybody already ignores most of > what Nabby and Willytex and Off say anyway. And > Jim? Well, he's already established in the past > that the enlightened can't count as high as 50, > and if he keeps up his gay-baiting campaign, > he'll be out next week as well. > > So who does that leave? Well, it leaves folks who > occasionally complain (and with some justification) > that FFL is too confrontational and argumentative > and in-your-face for them to participate in fully, > or comfortably. > > Now's your chance, you lurkers. Go for it. If there > are subjects you've always wanted to introduce but > were afraid to because you knew they'd be turned > into arguments within two replies, now's your oppor- > tunity to give voice (or the sound of keyboard > clicking) to them. Those who are already civil and > restrained, like Curtis and Hugo and Marek and > Ruth and Rick, will probably continue to respond > the same way. Even inveterate assholes like myself > might decide to lay low for this blessed period of > time and allow this spiritual forum to actually be > spiritual for a while. Might. I'm not promising > anything, but I'll try. > > So what's out there to discuss that could be better > discussed without someone trying their best to turn > the discussions into arguments? > > And what's out there that doesn't *deserve* to be > discussed that much during these next 12 days? Like > has-been Hillary Clinton, or the other subjects > that people have used to pull Judy's puppet strings > and make her Just Go Away? Well, she's away. There > is no *need* to post things for her to compulsively > react to for the next 12 days. There is no need to > mention her or her name or any of the others' names > as well. We could give pulling their strings as much > of a rest as their absence will give us. > > Or, it could be "business as usual." Your call. >
