Very perfect Ann - thanks for including the link. I hate to admit it, but I couldn't make it through this post of Barry's. I will be able to make it through Judy's reply. I had decided to wait for Bob to reply to Barry's knowledge of art and artists, and I was more than happy that he did and that I waited. Now I get to watch a documentary on Van Gogh.
"Students achieving Oneness will move on to Twoness." - Woody Allen ________________________________ From: "awoelfleba...@yahoo.com" <awoelfleba...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 8:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: The Issue of INTENT --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Some, whom many suspect are just pissed off that their posts have been deemed "not worthy" of reading every word of :-), have suggested in the past that one cannot get a true picture of what a poster is "trying to say" from Message View. I disagree, but it might be because of my training in the more occult arts, plus long experience on the Internet since before it was called that, and on FFL itself. I find it difficult to believe that *anyone* here can't figure out what a poster whose stuff they've read for years is "on about" from the first few words of most of their posts. Once you know that, and when you realize that you've seen it all before, why read through all the verbiage again? Sure, they may "do a Robin" and say the same thing over and over again, twenty different ways in one post, but in my experience the "what" they were trying to say was clear in the first few words, so why bother with the rest? More important, I've found that one can get a reliably clear picture of the INTENT of the post just from those first few lines. For example, if a poster is replying to pretty much everything another person writes, even though that person has informed them in the past that they have no intention of *ever* replying to them again (as a couple of people have done with Curtis), the INTENT of such a poster is pretty clear. They're either trying to "get" the person they're replying to, or trying to taunt or insult them into changing their mind and falling into yet another sucker-bait, endless, tarbaby argument-trap. The same is true if the person has a long, long, long, long track record of dumping on another poster on the forum, and chooses to mention their name in the first few lines. You know the instant you see this that it's going to be a "hit post," so why bother to read it, unless you're one of those people who *gets off* reading such stuff. My take on Fairfield Life is that very few people seem to notice the INTENT of people's posts. They get sucked in by the flowery language used, or by other things, and often don't seem to notice that there is often no other conceivable purpose for the post *other* than to dump -- once again -- on someone they've developed an obsessive habit of dumping on. For me, the "deja vu" characteristics of such posts just leap out at me from the first few words of them. I've done experiments in the past -- assessing what the INTENT of certain people's posts are from the first few words and then reading the whole thing to see if my original impression was correct -- and I've found that I was rarely wrong. If you CAN'T do this, I might suggest that there might be something lacking in *your* reading skills, rather than mine. Just sayin'... I took a speed reading course and read 'War and Peace' in twenty minutes. It involves Russia. Woody Allen
