--- In [email protected], Duveyoung <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], grate.swan <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > Hey, how hard would it be to put the "number of words, sentences, > > > paragraphs" also into this report. Turq did me a major kindness the > > > other day and counted my sentences, and I kinda got off on the sheer > > > productivity of the number.....ego, only ego, yeah, but hey, it could be > > > interesting in that we'd measure the folks by a deeper dynamic. If > > > someone posts 50 messages but only produced 500 words, they'd be seen as > > > folks who are satisfied to pepper FFL with blurbification. Those like me > > > would stand out as blabbermouths. Could be some insights about us would > > > be clarified. > > > > Great idea! Its like so hard right now to figure out who runs off at the > > mouth and who doesn't. Now we can have charts and graphs. One more idea > > though, how about a count of the number of insightful and/or original > > points in each post. And then we can have an insight per 100 lines type > > metric. (No, negative numbers will NOT be allowed). >
Edg, Its not all about you. My response was a flippant, quick banter piece -- a response to everyone, about everyone. Actually, per the "quality" part, I was thinking of a number of others, and not you at all. You seem to have some useful insights to share. Per my style of intake however, I often can't make it to the end of your posts. My loss. Your style is a bit Hunter Thompson meets Henry Miller. Both authors whom i like. But while I find some of your pieces beginning to rise up towards their particular genius -- I can't say all of it does it for me. There was a "serious" component to my throw-away line -- in that I am not the first to observe that some posts (of many people) go on and on (including some of mine). And some points are repeated ad nauseum -- this the "quality" jab. I have no interest in smacking or aggrandizing your ego. I am not particularly fond of egos -- I find them rather yucky and I keep my distance. You appear to have some history in your head -- pulling chains and all -- of which I don't share. A different reality. You offered up some "silly analysis" and I (tried) to keep the ball rolling. Sometimes instead of rolling, it falls off the bar top like a bowling ball -- creating a huge thud. Banter is like a spark. Sometimes it catches ablaze, sometimes not. The important thing is that we keep trying. :) > Great Swan, > > I haven't taken the time to search for all your responses to my posts, lazy > here, but could you please inform me why you have taken the time to smack at > my ego? It's not just my latest post that's triggering you, but instead, it > seems my whole history of posting has your chain pulled -- and not in a good > way. > > Yeah, my ego deserves a smack, by why did you elect yourself to be the one > who does it? Seems to me that your ego is, um, thinking highly of its own > opinions too. > > As for my suggestion, sue me, but I like this kind of "silly analysis," and > if my ego finds some sort of rationale for thinking itself "better" than > others' egos, say, because I valued my prolixity over the brevity of other > posters, what the fuck is it to you that I'm indulging in this "egoic sin of > attachment?" Er, are you my guru, my psychologist, my punisher, my teacher, > my WHAT???? Or, are you flogging me publicly for the general instruction and > common weal? > > Are you sorta a Don Quixote tilting at my windmills? Of all the ills of the > world caused by egoic attachment, I'm your target? Why am I so special to > you when the whole world's darkness is founded upon the much more potent > attachments of others in the world? Should I be "honored" to have gotten your > attention when life is awash with far more odious examples of ego? > > Seems to me, since I don't think I've personally attacked you in previous > posts (inform me if I have done so, please)I'm thinking maybe you have an > issue that has little to do with me. > > I do read all of your posts, and do so eagerly. I like how you tick. Get > it? I'm wondering why I like you so much and have agreed with you so much, > yet still, despite that harmony, I've managed only to achieve your disdain. > Can you clear all this up for me? Did I get nasty on your ass in the past > and I'm still being punished for that, or are you, like, dusting the FFL > furniture -- just a little job to keep things tidy here? How do you see > yourself in all this? > > Edg > > > > > > > > >
