On Jul 2, 2009, at 3:10 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
--- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine <salsunsh...@...>
wrote:
shemp, one thing I don't understand...
OK, we all get that you don't think GW
is a reality (or at least that's what you
keep implying, ad nauseum). But why
is it so important to you that others,
particularly others here, agree with you?
If you're secure in your own knowledge,
and that's good enough for you, why do
you constantly seem to need a group
consensus and validation of your opinion?
I am really interested in knowing, because
to me, at least, the constant attempts
at validation and trying to prove others
"wrong" are somewhat fascinating.
Sal, while what you say above about Shemp
is true, IMO it is *also* true about many
other posters here. They "rerun" the same
old arguments more often than a revival
theater reruns "Casablanca." :-)
True, Barry, but yesterday was
Pick On Shemp Day--didn't you
get the notice from Rick? :)
It's almost as if Fairfield Life was for
them a permutation of Maharishi's "Every
question is a perfect opportunity for the
answer we have already prepared" bullshit.
Their version is "Every post is a perfect
opportunity for me to rerun my favorite
attachment/argument, and suck someone
else into it."
You may find it fascinating; I'm finding
it boring after all these years.
Maybe the others haven't done it as much
in a while, because I'm noticing shemp's
barrage lately more than anyone else's. I assume
one of the points of the articles he posts
is to get people to notice them--and yet
when somebody does, he retreats and
refuses to engage in dialogue. OK.
So my new "mindfulness posting" approach
is to:
1. Don't bother to respond to anyone who
has a proven track record of doing this,
and who seems to be doing it again. ( In
many cases this can be extended to "Don't
bother to read their posts, because they
have established a track record of never
writing anything worth reading." )
Right. But I often enjoy shemp's posts,
whether or not I agree with them--and,
in fact, this question of mine has nothing
whatsoever to do with GW or whether his
views on it are "right" or "wrong" as he
tried to make it seem I was implying. I am
simply interested (at this point, at least) in
the methodology--posting very
similar articles over and over, and then
claiming that a) you're not trying to
convince anyone of anything and now b)
you're so concerned about the world-wide
effect of said policies that you
spend much of your spare time and energy
posting on a forum read by, at most,
a few hundred, if that.
2. Try not to do the same thing myself, by
qualifying the things I say as pure opinion,
not some claim of "truth" or "knowledge."
( This is more difficult because those who
*do* claim that the things they believe are
worth arguing about assume that everyone
else is as limited as they are and believes
the same thing. They're so stuck in that
"gotta prove my self right" mindset that
they can't see any other possibility. )
3. Don't bother to say anything unless it
a) needs to be said, b) is fun to rap about,
c) is neat enough to share, or d) is funny.
Those strike me as valid reasons for posting
something. ( Arguing with someone about some-
thing their self believes in just because
they know that self will die soon and they're
terrified of losing it *doesn't* strike me
as a valid reason for posting. )
As with my previous "posting experiments" I'll
probably get bored with this one after a very
short while, but for now it's fun. And it cer-
tainly cuts down on the time I waste on FFL.
Not bothering to read more than the first two
lines of anything posted by the Narcissicism
Quints *alone* cuts my FFL reading time in half. :-)
Good points all.
Sal
