No matter. I think this is what it boils down to: You are site's largest contributor (by posting volume).
Obviously you have a lot invested here. I would venture to say that for most people, what they hope to derive from participation here is some entertainment or relaxation value, and some greater insight into things. But for you, at least much of the time, it is about the "win". And I suppose that is understandable, given the investment you make here on a daily and weekly basis. And the fact that no one else here is willing to go to the lenghts to which you go to achieve this end, the prize is often yours, by default. I suspect this situation is not uncommon for internet forums. --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "seventhray1" lurkernomore20002000@ wrote: > > > > This also strikes me as quite odd. To feel that I would need to > > indicate, by name, those people who are apparantly in agreement > > with a position I might have. As Xeno, said, as though this > > "makes the case" for my position? > > So cute that you snipped what I was responding to, Steve. I > bet you actually thought I wouldn't put it back, didn't you? > > [Share wrote:] > > I agree Xeno. I think Judy and I, and Robin and I also, are > > simply too different to ever understand each other. I said > > this to Robin after one of the several upsets. I've recently > > realized it about me and Judy too. I think it's just the way > > life sometimes is. > > My point is really not difficult to grasp in context, so > I'm afraid I have to assume that both you and Xeno are > intentionally misconstruing it. > > > > > > > All it indicates, is that someone is so invested in a position, that > > they must try to indicate public support for that position. > > > > It ignores the fact that there is probably an equal or greater number of > > people who feel differently, but just aren't obsessed with trying to > > assert the "rightness" of their opinon. > > > > But, in this case, Judy feels that it bolsters her position and thereby > > allows her to claim yet another internet forum victory. > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <authfriend@> > > wrote: > > > > > And how about Ann, raunchy, Emily, Alex, and Ravi? That's > > > seven people who are apparently too different from you for > > > you and them to understand each other--about half of the > > > regulars who have had exchanges with you or have defended > > > you. And that half haven't had any arguments with you to > > > begin with, so there's no way to tell whether they would > > > be able to understand you if they did. > > > > > > snip > > > > > Note again that it isn't just Share and me whose "views" > > > diverge and whose "thinking styles are simply not compatible." > > > It's Share versus Robin and Ann and raunchy and Emily and > > > Alex and Ravi and me. Fatuous nonsense, Xeno. > > > > > >
