--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "marekreavis" <reavismarek@...> wrote: > > Buck, other than folks in Fairfield, who would have reasons not to have > their names publicized to the TMO religious police as following FFL, do you > "know" of any scholars, academics, politicians, or public personalities who > care about what we jabber about here or are you just speculating about the > otherwise undefined "we would be surprised" category? > > ***
Marek, yes as a matter of fact I am aware there are academics and journalists researching papers, articles, thesis, and books for publication. FF is become of scholarly and journalistic interest with real academics and real journalists finding the story. The FFL archive past and posts in present provides a wealth of information for them to sieve about Fairfield and come up to speed with. And then there are TM'ers of all types away and out in the world who look in and see how the winds are blowing by using FFL to read. Always is interesting to see who contacts me offline via FFL. Either scholarly or journalists the ongoing open format with its critique is the content. By report also evidently the large volume of personal baiting and bickering between a few writers gets in the way of the larger utility of FFL. I hear a lot of frustration with that. Possibly using this dilution in method as a denial of service is a strategy too by some. Yes, FFL as an open forum in result can be thin soup at times for all the baiting between a few writers but FFL evidently has its place also out in the free market of ideas. To some others FFL is a dangerous place and the people who write on it are dangerous for their ideas and critique as such. You should hear how some of the rabid TM true-believers describe one Rick Archer for hosting this very forum, it's with some extremely colorful vitriol. Yes, there seems evident a larger audience more than just the few in number who do write and post. Best Regards, -Buck in FF > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "marekreavis" <reavismarek@> wrote: > > > > > > Buck, who do you believe it is that follows FFL so avidly and who we > > > would be surprised do? > > > > > > *** > > > > Marek, Scholars, journalists, and people inside and outside of Fairfield > > look in here to get a handle on Fairfield when they are looking for > > perspective. They evidently look for criticism that sheds light. There's > > way more readers than writers here. > > It is always interesting to see who privately e-mails from lurking on the > > side, or who comments when uptown over subjects and things posted on FFL. > > Almost always lurkers as an audience deride the bickering between some > > writers on FFL that gets in the way of content. In conversation here in > > town folks often suggest things they would like to have said on FFL though > > they only lurk. You'd be surprised who the audience is both inside > > Fairfield and outside. > > -Buck in FF > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > > > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there some reason people are interested in us? > > > > > > > > > > Not bloody likely. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Mr.Turguoiseb, I would respectfully disagree with your (narrow) > > > > POV on this. > > > > I found the recent discussion of SSRS's instruction on silent awareness > > > > during meditation versus the other brand meditation to be particularly > > > > well drawn out on both sides. It was very interesting. I would > > > > suspect that both interested parties, camps of SSRS-AOL'ers and > > > > MMY-TM'ers, were downloading the proceedings like crazy following > > > > through the discussion that discerned some very interesting spiritual > > > > nuance. It was very interesting indeed and certainly drove readership. > > > > There were some other subjects too during the period which evidently > > > > drove FFL downloads by non-member lurkers. This new 'exceeding > > > > download' error message seems to revolve around periods of content > > > > driven downloads. Unless these were denial of service downloads, we > > > > should expect now that Yahoo in its liquidation would sell FFL as an > > > > asset that actually drives content views. You'd be amazed who all the > > > > audience of this place is. Some writers would be embarrassed if they > > > > realized. > > > > -Buck > > > > > > > > > >
