> > >>> doctor_gabby_savy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>So I checked the last 50 or so Technology arttices in the > >>>NYTimes. And the last 50 or so articles in the "Washington" > >>>section. Could't find anything close to what the poster cited. > >>>So I did a search on "anonymous" and seperately on "annoy". > >>>There are no articles in the past week containing these words > >>>that appear to have anything to do with what the poster says > >>>he read. > > >> TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> responded: > >>Well, it took me one...count them, ONE...Google search > >>to find exactly what he was talking about, including > >>several news articles. > >>Anyone with half a brain would have Googled on the name > >>of the law itself. > > > Judy (authfriend) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> then wrote: > > For the record, I couldn't find it on the NYTimes > > site either. I think Michael may have misremembered > > where he saw the piece. > >Michael Dean Goodman wrote: > Dear Judy, > > Thanks for bringing this up in such a reasonable way, compared to > the "hysterical" flaming that others have so easily been nudged > into during the past few days. > > Here are the facts: > > I subscribe to an e-mail newsletter, published weekly by the NY Times, > called "Circuits" - a NY Times digest of technology news. > > I received this week's NY Times "Circuits" digest on 26 Jan 06 - and > that same day I wrote the post about it for this list. I slept on > that post overnight as I usually do, looked at it again the next morn- > ing, edited it a bit to make sure it clearly reflected what I wanted > to say, and posted the info to FFLife the day after I got it from an > official NY Times publication. You can access that NY Times techno- > logy digest by going to the following link (which all needs to be on > one line in case Yahoo breaks it up). You may have to be a NY Times > member to access it - they don't charge anything to sign up.) > > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/26/technology/circuits/26POGUE-EMAIL.html > Huge snip here
> It's fascinating to see how some of the very people on this list who > love to annoy people, to attack people, to argue, to diminish others - > some of the bullies who feel so much need to puff themselves up by > putting others down - feel so threatened by my reference to the new > Federal law that might, even possibly, threaten their style. Look at > how they jumped around, searched for and pounced on any commentator > who wrote an opinion that supports the way they'd like the world to > keep working, and then quoted it as though they've "proved" their > case. Look at how they avoided the obvious, intelligent search > mechanisms that calmer, more balanced people immediately used and > reported here (Google, etc.). By their own "research", they put > "stability" back into their universe; they attack and diminish the > messenger (me); they feel safe; they feel big; they feel in control. snip > P.P.S. > And to the poster who asked if I was implying that I planned to make > use of this new law (to harm FF Life?). > > The answer is: no. > It often amazes me how people read things through the filter of their > own issues. Where would you get even a hint of that from anything I > actually wrote, or from my history here since the very beginning of > this list years ago? If I don't like someone's energy here, I just > simply don't read their stuff (delete key or filter-direct-to-trash), > or if I read it I control myself and don't reply. And if I didn't like > the general tone of the whole group, I could just simply stop reading > the digests for a while, or unsubscribe. (All of these are skills > that, if more widely practiced by some here, would make life more > charming for many.) But if I did that (unsubscribed), how could I > keep my finger (attention) on the pulse of the good and the evil here, > and pass it all along to Santa Clause or whoever is making a list? ;) > snip > Namaste, > > Michael Nicely put, Michael. It seems to me that much of FFL is a different place than it was a few years ago. There are wonderful discussions, good laughs, and such knowledgable people here. But I skip many of the posts these days because they are so hostile - from a subset of people looking to engage each other by jumping on a word's implied meaning, an assumed criticism, the personality or character of someone they've never met, on and on. I'm not sure why they are here on FFL at all. Why not email each other on the side or better yet, just call each other on the phone and work out these "issues" and conflicts between each other, rather than taking up space on FFL? The tone of this kind of stuff is "off," unpleasant, and it feels as if a portion of FFL has been hijacked. And since I am complaining, here's another peeve: people who routinely post 5 or 10 posts in a row. You know who you are. Occasionally getting so excited by a topic that you can't control yourself is fine. But most of these numerous, consecutive posts are so meaningless. It is a guarantee that you will be ignored and go unread. I know I skip these automatically. A suggestion: read the prior posts on a topic - all of them - think for a minute - then collect your thoughts - and post, once. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
