Ok, Xeno, thank you for this explanation. I tend to be a morning person and enjoy posting a lot in the morning. It could be that I have too much energy then. I'll see if I can slow down. And I do truly have the goal to post 10 or less per day.
What I write always makes logical sense to me. But I once did some sophisticated career testing and scored high in something called "diagnostic thinking." It means that I make connections and leap to conclusions. Maybe I could figure out ways to fill in the gaps better. But then I'm rushing... Thanks again for the feedback. ________________________________ From: "anartax...@yahoo.com" <anartax...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 4:09 PM Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC I just want to wade through less. I do not read all of Turq's posts, for example when he is talking about TV shows. I don't read all your posts. I do not read all of Judy's posts. I do not read all of anyone's posts. But everybody at one time or another says something valuable. The other day Judy made a complimentary post about you, I did not expect that, but I thought her analysis was 'correct' (that is in quote's because my analysis is sometimes wrong - in Judy's eyes, perhaps almost always 'wrong'). If there is less time and space in which to say or do something, I think people become a little more focused to make what they say or do tell. Unless they are total basket cases, that means a certain amount of frivolity and laxity drops off, and their communication becomes more concentrated. You can still tell people to go to hell. And, by the way, telling someone to go to hell is not an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is when you tell someone they are, say, evil, and then use that portrayal to attempt to disprove something they said on the basis of that characterisation. Buck was upset over ad hominem attacks, but a lot of what goes on here is simply a hatchet job. Now as for you, I think many of the comments you make are very freely associative, but they do not seem to me to have an underlying logic. As an example of someone who is a master at free association there is Robin Williams. But underlying what he associates, there is a distinct logic that makes those associations hang together, which is why he can be so funny. I think you need to write what you want to say, but do not post immediately. Let it sit a while, and then read it again and see if it really holds together. Judy often thinks what I say does not hang together, but I think this is because she does not understand how intuitive thinking fits together - it is that 'state of consciousness' thing. Judy uses a very linear logic, something I used to be able to do long ago, but it seems that nit picking kind of thinking has mostly vanished; it feels as if thinking that way to me now takes so much energy it is not worth it to pursue except in special circumstances. What Judy says when looked at rather narrowly often hangs together very well, which is why she is so annoying to so many of us, but that carte blanche approach is not always appropriate when trying to understand human beings or to try to get them to understand you. (Note: If Judy wants to maintain her mock integrity, she best not reply to me directly, if the desire to respond to this post in any way arises, lest she commit her lie doubled over. Trying to interject into a discussion by making a 'comment', is nonetheless, entering a discussion. I have handed any apology I might have made to her over to Zeus, who will respectfully keep them hidden for all eternity. I, on the other hand can reply to anything she writes whatsoever, for if the truth could be distilled out of what I say, it would be a meager return indeed. Judy can of course respond by responding to you, were you to continue this discussion by making additional comments, and by happenstance what I write was re-quoted by you. But she cannot respond to ANYTHING I say if she wants to remain simply at her already sullied level of disingenuity, and sink not even further.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com> SHARE wrote: Xeno, I agree that it's good to have rules of procedure with in person conversations. Otherwise one would have to wear ear plugs, take them out when favorite speakers speak, etc.Very vexing. But online?! Scroll on! Don't open the email! Or if you can't help yourself and open the email or post, skim. IMHO, this is the best way to preserve freedom of thought for everyone. Even my personal nemeses: the flat headed three and a half liners! ________________________________ From: "anartaxius@..." <anartaxius@...> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 8:28 AM Subject: RE: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC Well, that does have a logic to it. You would not be prevented from posting air-headed one liners, there would be just fewer you could post in any given month. Would you waste time buying a brand of breakfast cereal when every box was only 1/8th full? The web is pretty thin on original content. Supposedly about 3/4th of the content is copied from other parts of the web. And much of the rest is kind of empty as far as ideas as to how to figure out what life is. In government forums, even in rather rowdy governments, there are rules of procedure, giving each speaker a certain amount of time to present their points, and then they have to stop and let someone respond. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com> SHARE wrote: Share wrote: But Xeno, I think you want to censor too! You want to censor airheaded one liners. Airheaded one liners maybe want to censor too. Is this the solution? We each get to pick one kind of posting offense and censor that? In my experience, all censors think that they have the worthy goal of more orderliness. What I'm saying is that we either have freedom of content AND form or we don't have freedom of curiosity, inquiry and growth. I suspect Xeno is defining "airheaded one-liners" as those that contribute nothing to curiosity, inquiry, or growth.
