---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <punditster@...> wrote :
so, sure, you've elected to make this mission one of your life goals. The question might be, what is it taking time from? this of course is unlike Barry who has indicated he writes his posts at lightning speed, never proof reads and spends maybe five or ten minutes a day here. To which I say, really? > On 10/14/2014 8:48 PM, awoelflebater@... mailto:awoelflebater@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: > Towhich I say,"Why and when did he get so lazy and uncaring?" It takes nothing to be sloppy, slapdash and careless. Those kinds of people are a dime a dozen. > To which I say, most of the informants on this list couldn't write a junior high school essay in longhand and get a "C" on it, not to mention "speed-typing" without proofing - on a cheap laptop computer inside a crowded dimly-lit bar or cafe in Amsterdam - after a few beers while at the same time eating a taco with your right hand. The word count of most messages on this list wouldn't even qualify for as a good tweet. It's not about the number of messages the informants post or where or how long it takes them to compose one - it's all about the content. It's the redundant factor that is so disappointing. How many times are they going to post that Fairfield suicide article? Go figure. I would say twice will do it. Half the readers here are like Alzheimer sufferers; everything seems just as good or better the second time round because half of the people have a no-read list of the other half and miss half of what is posted here. That causes scenarios like the double-posted suicide article.
