--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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... [x80;xa0;xa0;x92;xb3;Being falsely accused on
social media has left my life largely unchanged.x80;xa0;xa0;x92;xb4;]




>

Reply via email to