Wow! Defensive, much? I applaud your self control during this *one week*, but 
you're making like it is a long-term trend, which I definitely need to see to 
believe. I know you are feeling all satisfied, having blasted Share lately, and 
don't feel that roiling ball of anger within you, just now. But, given your 
inability to see your emotions until they explode, I guarantee it will happen 
again, just as it did with Curtis. You guys are two peas in a pod.

Alex is spot on here. Get over it.

--- In, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote:
> --- In, "Alex Stanley" <j_alexander_stanley@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > Well, it was originally all about Shemp, Lawson, 
> > and Judy. Shemp is gone and Lawson hardly posts 
> > at all, so it's all about Judy, or more to the 
> > point, Barry's obsession with Judy and his need 
> > to have her controlled. Frankly, I'm tired of 
> > being a pawn in that ego drama. 
> Ahem. Who obsessed on *whom* during this last
> week? I might point out that the person you're
> naming as the obsessor in this scenario neither 
> responded to nor mentioned the people obsessing 
> on *him* the whole week. Now do a quick count on 
> the number of posts they made obsessing on him. 
> So much for their claim that "We only attack 
> him because he attacks us."
> That said, I have no objections to the post 
> count thingy being discontinued if most people
> here want it to be. It's been so pleasant NOT
> interacting with a certain group of people here
> that I will likely continue that approach after
> this experiment is over. They, from their side,
> are free to continue obsessing on me and Share
> and the rest of their "enemies," thus demon-
> strating who and what they are to anyone with
> eyes to see it. Win-win. 
> My larger prediction was, and remains, that 
> whether limited to 50 posts or 200, there really
> aren't a lot of interesting ideas being posted
> on FFL, and most of the ones that are posted and
> argued about are Other People's Ideas. I think
> that's a sad commentary on the philosophy that
> promised them all a boost in their "creative
> intelligence."
> I've been on vacation during this period, and 
> thus free to just write the things I felt like
> writing, on my own schedule. I had fun with that,
> and ignored the small shit, not to mention the
> small assholes from whence that small shit 
> issued. :-) I think that a few of my posts in
> this period were both creative and Not Other 
> People's Ideas, but I'll allow you to make your 
> own assessment of them. I'll probably continue 
> to do the same thing in the future. Consider it 
> my balanced, humble, and above all compassionate 
> attempt to balance out the overwhelming mediocrity 
> of this place.  :-)  :-)  :-)
> People can react to my posts -- and to me -- however
> they want. Or, they could realize the folly of
> believing that they should, let alone that they
> "have to." That's an ego game. If your EGO is
> so affronted by something said here by another
> poster that you feel the need to "get" them and 
> convince others that this is a Bad Person, then I 
> think all you'll accomplish by pursuing that goal 
> is to demonstrate how big your EGO really is. 
> *Especially* if you've claimed that you're all 
> enlightened, and thus don't have one. :-) 
> In other words, I don't care if the posting limits
> are dropped. They've just been a convenient way
> to rub one person's nose into her own tendency to
> obsess, and continually fight imaginary EGO battles,
> often with people who aren't even fighting back. 
> That will continue to happen whether this person
> is able to post 500 times a week, or 5. Those who
> consider her their role model will do the same
> thing. Their call. The rest of us are free to 
> react to that -- or NOT react -- as we see fit.
> So go forth and leave the Robocop duties to some
> other hapless soul if that's what you want to do.
> From my point of view, this experiment is already
> a success. Given the opportunity to post as much
> as they wanted, most people here -- especially the
> small group of people who seem to live for "getting"
> the people they don't like -- really DON'T have
> anything else to say. If they did, they'd have
> taken advantage of this week to say it.
> Just my two centimes...

Reply via email to