Dear Judy, Thank you for replying, and thank you, too, for your restraint. My criticism was harsh and I'm normally reluctant to express criticism so baldy. But even though my remarks were made with a broad brush, so to speak, I don't believe that my perception is overly skewed or my primary point incorrect.
It is obvious to me that you are a person not only of intelligence and wit, but also of integrity and character. I'm sure that I have missed fine posts of yours and valuable insights that you have shared in posts that I avoided because it's been my policy for several months to pass over yours, and Barry's, and Sparaig's, and Shemp's, as well as a few others. You all are part of a group that had previously traded barbs and tirades on a.m.t. for a long while and then started doing the same here. But though I have avoided that demographic on FFL for a while now, it wasn't always so. I used to read all the posts -- everyone's. Now I read few, because, as it has been pointed out many times by others and even enumerated by some, the majority of posts on FFL are made by the same group. And, in my experience, those posts by that group follow the same disturbing cycle. The theme and tone is always the same, the topic doesn't really matter. You feel strongly about speaking out against unfairness and dishonesty and I don't disagree with that sentiment. It is true that many people engage in argument in what could be said to be an intellectually dishonest fashion. I'm used to it. In my line of work, where the metric of how well I make my own argument and how I respond to my opponent's argument, is measured in the months and years my clients spend either in custody or in liberty, I have to consider what I say and what I don't and how it is conveyed very particularly. I'm always considering the final outcome. What it is that I want to achieve. And my question to you is: what do you want to achieve by fighting against the unfairness and dishonestly you find in the posts of the few individuals on FFL that you so often engage? For them to become less unfair and dishonest? (Have you detected any progress on that front?) Do you want those of us who also monitor FFL to be aware of their dishonesty and unfairness? Do you think we can't make our own evaluations or come to our own conclusions? Is your fight here on FFL against unfairness and dishonestly more of a reflexive reaction to the personalities that you have concluded are synonomous with unfairness and dishonesty? That is my candid conclusion. And I don't think that it is a misperception. It is confirmed by the many different remarks made by several others on this forum at different times when this same issue of the incessant bickering in which you are a major contributor has arisen. Rick Archer, Peter Sutphen, Tom Traynor, Sal, and others whom I cannot recall right now; people I consistently enjoy for their insight, their humor, their flexibility. They have all, at one time or another, posted on this same issue and expressed the same or similar perspective. I admire your strength and willingness to stand up against public opinion; you would be a formidable opponent. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the bulk of your argument is just that -- argument. It serves no purpose, advances no real cause, and only serves to distance yourself from a community that would truly benefit and enjoy your participation should you project a less immoderate stance. It's just a world. We're all just a bunch of naked monkeys trying to figure out why we're here and where we came from. Just give these guys some love. That's all anyone really wants. My apologies for being so harsh before. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mark, there's a significant amount of > misrepresentation in your descriptions-- > inadvertent, I'm sure, but your perception > of what's going on is seriously skewed. > > I doubt you're interested in hearing further, > so I'll just point out one thing: You say, > "It is my habit to avoid these endless threads > where virtually everyone else is either flat > wrong, avoiding the 'real' issue, or stupidly > (if not maliciously) committed the heinous > crime of non sequitur." > > In fact, such exchanges occur with only a few > people here, all of whom I consider to be > consistently dishonest in the way they argue. > It's not a matter of "I'm right, you're wrong." > It's an issue of fairness and honesty. > > The Republicans got into office on the basis > of unfairness and dishonesty, because voters > were unable to see through it, and the media > chose not to assist them. It took six years > for this to sink in, and incalculable damage > was the result. > > I have become convinced that unfairness and > dishonesty are the primary causes of trouble > in the world. I can't do much about it on > the larger scale, but yes, I do have a > compulsion to fight it where I can. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" > <reavismarek@> wrote: > > > > It is simply amazing that you all, but most particularly you, Judy, > > persist in these compulsive, predictable, and tiresome grade school > > volleys of "I'm right, you're wrong." It is an insult to your > > intelligence. > > > > I fully understand that this post itself, is a meaningless addendum > > to the endless bile and boilerplate of dispute that seems to > provide > > some meaning to your life, and that no change is to be expected; > but > > as someone who is a professional arguer, it is astounding to me > that > > you continue in this pathetic behavior, where the only recompence > > is . . .? It does seem to me to be an addiction. > > > > It is my habit to avoid these endless threads where virtually > > everyone else is either flat wrong, avoiding the "real" issue, or > > stupidly (if not maliciously) committed the heinous crime of non > > sequitur. Occasionally, however, I get caught up in one, as I have > > this time, and I finally felt compelled to comment. > > > > I'll return to my policy of avoiding these posts, but will, of > > course, respond to any post regarding this one since it is > > unsolicited criticism. FFL was better before this. > > > > -Marek >
