--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, zarzari_786 <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I find the manner in which a number of people post here > > > > (referring to the form, not the content) quite irritating, > > > > but I rarely complain about it. Everyone's entitled to > > > > their own "style." > > > > > > > > But Buck's "Burma-Shave" approach, in which he responds to > > > > his own posts over and over, quoting everything he's said > > > > each time and then adding a new line or two--often one post > > > > right after another with no time in between--is really > > > > beyond irritating. > > > > > > > > It's insulting because it's manipulative: he wants to > > > > force us to read every word he writes, and we might not > > > > do that if he put it all in a single post. > > > > > > How do you know what he *wants*? Maybe he does, but do you > > > really know his intention? Maybe he just has a sort of > > > creative stroke, so he posts one sentence after the other. > > > > Then he ought to start a post and save it in Notepad or > > whatever and add to it, not posting it until he finishes > > his train of thought. > > Provided he knows when his train of thought finishes. In my > oipinion, he is just having an emotional moment here, right? > This is a topic, which really touches his life essentially. > He has been just challenged by Susan, and myself in opposite > ways. You must understand, that for him, and to many others, > this, living in Fairfield, and being able or unable of doing > the group program is essential to his life there. For others > it may be a mere intellectual exercise, both defenders and > opponents of the group program.
I totally understand, and I'm on his side. > So while I agree, that it is an 'irritating' way of posting, > and while I agree, that with a little more discipline, he > should save his thoughts to a notepad (or the editor of his > choice), and then wait a little till posting it. But the same > can be said of many people here, who seem to need a post for > every link they give, Those irritate me as well, as it happens. > I don't see any malign intent at manipulation here. An intent to manipulate isn't necessarily malign, and I wasn't suggesting malice on his part. He just wants folks to read everything he writes, and he's willing to inconvenience us to make that happen. > I can really understand how unsettling this is to him. He > actually has to appear before a board, they sort of test his > religious convictions, how truthful he is to the movement > etc. etc, its a little bit like the inquisition, don't you > think? I do. > He is still very much for all the TM ideas the group program > to create world peace, he was giving an enhusiastic report, > new to most of us, about the new course. I can really > understand his disappointment, and quite honestly, if the > movement keeps putting off their most faithful adherents, they > are just being stupid, my opinion. I agree. > > He's done this kind of thing before with Sanskrit phrases > > one at a time when there was no question of his having a > > "creative stroke," since he was copying the phrases in order > > from a longer text. It looks like he's using the same > > technique here on his own posts. > > 'It looks like', but it's actually not the same. Here he is > having an idea, then the next and the next, you can see how > his thinking unfolds. Just as you could if it was all in one post. > If he gave a whole vedic chant in this way in the past, he > must have been playful, and maybe it is both annoying, yet > I don't see any malicious intent. Again, not "malicious," just manipulative. > > If he has something different in mind, he's more than > > welcome to explain it. > > If he wants to. But I understand if he doesn't like to be > summoned to another council to judge his actions, just > saying. That's an inappropriate equivalence, IMHO. > > > > But it wastes > > > > our time and wastes space. I read the posts on the Web > > > > site, but I should think those who get them by email > > > > would find this flooding of their inboxes particularly > > > > annoying. > > > > > > Maybe you are not as neutral on the topic, as you want it > > > to look like. Compare this to your defense of Lawson at the > > > time: > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/241921 > > > > Lawson never did what I'm complaining about with Buck. > > Nice try, no cigar. > > A whole box of cigars, indeed, as it both 'wastes our time > and wastes space.' Only if you find the content appealing, > you don't mind. I'm mostly on Buck's side when it comes to content, just as I am on Lawson's. As I went on to say: > > And BTW, it isn't a matter of "neutrality." I agree with > > a lot of what Buck says. I'd just like to be able to read > > it in one go. > > Well, I agree that it's annoying. Yet I don't see malicious > intent, Nor do I. > nor an intent at manipulation. I may be wrong, but so may be > you. True. If he has another explanation, I'd love to hear it. If it made sense, maybe it wouldn't be so annoying. > And I think that it is really a minor thingie, as all you have > to do, is to click at the last post, and viola, you get it all > together as one post, actually easy to read. Or else, you even > see it in the message view, even more easy. Actually it's more difficult to read all three ways than in one longer post. Clicking the last post (at least in Web view) gives you different margins for each addition and a veritable forest of attribution characters >>>. And not every addition shows up in full in message view. Thing is, the continuity gets lost when you have to read it piece by piece. If he wants to make an extended point, he'd be better off posting it all at once. > > > Lawson was notorious for shooting out TM defending one-liners, > > > not always witty, sometimes seemingly witty (if you like, no > > > so for everybody), here is the thread: > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/135627 > > > > I have nothing against one-liners per se, as long as they > > contribute something, which Lawson's usually did. Sometimes > > they were witty, sometimes they were succinct statements of > > a specific point that would have taken me paragraphs to > > express. > > Others thought they were rather non-creative repetitions of > movement slogans, hardly going deep - but I admire if you > have seen something in them, that wasn't actually there on > the surface. Or seen something that was actually there on the surface that others ignored or didn't get. Some were just movement slogans, others were distillations of complex, subtle points. Others were salient points that nobody else had taken account of but that jumped out at you when your attention was called to them. With the TM critics who ragged on Lawson, it's hard to say which they found most irritating: the number of his posts, or the fact that he so often poked holes in their criticisms. Lawson happens to be here again, BTW. Not sure you're aware of that. He pops in from time to time, stays for awhile, then pops out. > I would say, that Buck just posted his own creative and > original thought. More I don't say now any more. > > > > Now the group has a posting limit, to handle cases like this. > > > > Different cases. > > > > > Why not leave at that? > > > > Because, as I said, it's annoying to have to click on post > > after post after post and scroll down to read one sentence > > in each post of what was really one longer post. > > > Yes, it's annoying, but if you would have left it at the first > two paragraphs of your comment, that would have been enough > and really appropriate. I thought I ought to explain why I found it irritating enough to mention when I don't normally complain about posting habits (form-wise). It's exceedingly annoying to feel you're being manipulated into clicking on multiple posts when one would have done the trick. BTW, thanks for not conducting this disagreement in a disrespectful manner. That's all too rare around here.
