<SNIP> > > What are you trying to accomplish by bashing at each other > onlist? Are you > succeeding?
I stated a principal related to this in a post about a month ago. I stated that the act of postings done by a person is in effect a defensive measure against idea infection. I think I could add to this and state that the effect is strengthened proportionately if it is in response to someone else's posting. If you were to assign a value to the number of postings in a thread made by a person, this would represent a 'defense' value. In this case, J and J are virtually immune to each other, but they have to continue these 'pointless' arguments in order to stave off 'idea infection'. I have never seen one capitulate nor agree on any one major point. Yet, there are those of us, with lesser defensive values, that tend to be swayed (or infected), and thereby will post a biased response to on of the J's. J and J's defensive numbers are so high, they appear to be unswayed but anything anyone else says, including those posts or ideas that tend to support their own position/agenda/evil intentions (;->) Therefore, while we, the little people here, with insignificant defensive values are bothered and annoyed by the J and J rants, it is essential for either to stay 'healthy' =>high defensive values. If you carry on with the analogy, it could be considered a form of exersise. So the question is... are they succeeding? I think one criteria that provides proof, is how annoying it is to us. Annoyance is another form of idea infection. They have to do it, but it is not for our sakes. Nerd From Hell
