I um "resonate" with a lot of what you say, and you have articulated some things well, though I have my own take on some of the dynamics. Comments below.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Do you think the fact that in recent posts he's > > made a point of telling you how much he likes you > > might have something to do with your positive > > opinion of him? (That's truly not intended as > > snark; I'm just calling your attention to > > something that may not have occurred to you. We're > > all inclined to think well of people who say they > > think well of us, moi included.) I think this can happen -- though I think Curtis has immunized himself fairly well. I appreciated the individual POV, not a herd mentality. "Piling on" may be appropriate sometimes -- but becomes cliche and apparently not richly thought out if its the same posses piling on and up against each other each time. > I'd like to use this for a launching pad for some meta-thoughts I've > had about the dynamic here. > > I was a bit tweaked by Jim's parting shot at the quality of discussion > here. Tweaking and being tweaked can by a bilateral dynamic -- or quite unilateeral -- in that a tweekee may be tweaked by words not intended to tweak (thus not by a tweaker.) And a tweaker, there are card carrying ones here -- can only get someone tweaked if the "tweakee" takes the tweak bait. >I think the best response to not reading what interests you > here is to get writing and stimulate responses that are more > interesting. I suspect that the problem was that for Jim a certain > assumption needed to be in place concerning his enlightenment and many > here were unwilling to start with that assumption. I find people's > internal state irrelevant to any discussion. And when we could go > beyond the assumption that his insight was intrinsically more special > (A charge he refuted explicitly, but then immediately would presume > again. I think it was a blind spot.) I agree with the manifestation at times of Jim's dynamic "You are all ignorant, I am all knowing .. but I am not saying I am better than you." But in the last month or so, Jim seemed to transcend that boundary / blind-spot a bit. And devoid of that, his perspective could at times be fresh and original -- not a cliche TMO or neo-whatever response. YMMV. While not agreeing always, I liked having a new perspective thrown into the ring. ... > But both of them would prefer the all out war that engages them > together to almost any other interaction here I think. I'm just going > by the numbers of posts devoted to it. This may not really represent > an emotional preference. Their joy in enhanced by their lack of > seeing each other in a more 3 dimensional way. They love their anime > co-created world. People who read it and freak out are just dealing > with their own conflict issues IMO. It is optional, but if you choose > to read it, you can often find some really entertaining verbal > sparring from two creative, intelligent ( I am so gay) minds who are > fully engaged in a Tarantino like script that they have honed to a > high art. I usually tune out. But at times, a snippet of argument and counter argument can be an interesting 'sunday paper puzzle" -- both sides' views, taken alone, seems reasonable -- but upon longer gaze, it appears they are not dealing with the same perceptions of reality. And I don't have the time nor inclination to sort things out. So it becomes pretty meaningless to me. So, I move on, ignore almost all posts that start "What Judy/Barry is REALLY saying/feeling/motivated by ...". Does anyone actually read more than 1/100 of these spite-fests? if so WHY? Really. I am sincerely curious. And if no on is reading them, why don't they just take that part of their discourse off-line. It does have a high cost (see later) and low value, to anyone, it appears. I have said, i don't believe that anyone here has demonstrated clear mind-reading skill -- yet some posters seem deluded, IMO, in believing strongly that they do. To me, that huge blind spot carries over to their other writing -- "if they believe such fantastical things as that they can clearly read minds, then some of their other stuff may be infused with such crap too" So, its my habit to often skip more than just range war posts of theirs. And this is not exclusive to Turq and Judy -- we have a number of perenial spiteful range wars raging at times. > > So "should" they see each other in a more friendly way, taking the > time to get to know the good parts of each other in an Ecstasy fueled > rave love fest bringing a spirit of Kumbaya to FFL and through it to > the whole world? HELL NO! Ecstacy-fueled rave? Could be cool. >As long as you guys slug it out I will be > an occasional fan at the match and for those people who find this too > much heat, get the fuck out of the kitchen. As woody allen said "I have trouble with authority figures". > This is not Darfur, this > is two writers who get a kick out of mixing it up online. Nah. Thats not what I see. Its not enjoyment for the most part. But I can't read minds so -- maybe its a rollicking fully stoked, endearing, uplifting, pleasant, friendly, good-natured banter for each of them. I sense animosity, spite, retribution. But, again, I am not a mind reader, so you may be right. But the sky does turns black wen they, and others start uzi-ing there way around the block. > They don't need to change, "Need", no. Potential benefits to being open to, and actually changing, once in a while, "quite a bit much". >FFL doesn't need to get more "anything." Your right. It could however do with less of some things. YMMV > It either servers your needs or it doesn't. The range wars don't affect me, and the value I get from FFL (see earlier post) directly. But indirectly I think it has a huge pervasive effect. A very high cost. High collateral damage. And this is why, IMO, it would be hugely beneficial if they jsut stopped. Or took it off line. What I have seen directly, and infer also (which may be overblown -- or underblown), that a lot of good people, with good insights, experience, history in the TMO and other movements, knowlege and POV's -- simple leave -- usually for good -- when FFL becomes "petty squabble-fest'. I mentioned the "golden days of FFL", (in ap past post today) IMO, around 2003-2004 or so. Many of the people who contributed to that have dropped out -- LB Shriver, Mark Merideth, Vashti, Phil Goldberg, others. In good part, I hear -- but may be wrong -- due to the petty squabble wars that clog the arteries of good and insightful discourse. The range wars poison the well. And new folks dropping by, seemingly good folk with lots to offer, appear to run for the hills after a week or two, here. Sometimes a month or two. Ruth, Micheal are to recent examples - Cliff Rees a while back, and a lot of other seemingly bright and insightful people -- many whose names I would have to look up -- come and just appear to get appalled or grossed out. Some seem to lurk in the shadows -- testing the waters once and again. Like BettyBlue -- she has had some good posts IMO -- but rarely ventures out much here. Maybe its not the range wars, but I think for many that is the reason. Its like living in a gang-infested neighborhood. There are great spots in such. People may say-- "hey this is a GREAT neighborhood and if you don't want to get invoilved in the drive-by shootings and mass gun outs - you cant "just the fuck get out of the kitchen". While that may be true, it misses the larger point that almost no one new is going to move into the hood. No new blood. No infustion of fresh ideas and POVs Thats why I think FFL has an opportunity to get even better. Much better, IMO. > To my surprise it has > been a real pleasure to post and read here for quite some time. The > place rocks IMO. And it rocks because of every person who puts fingers > to keys and contributes more than a complaint that it isn't more > "whatever." > > I am gay for FFL. There, I've said it! Just remember to engage in safe practices. :)
