--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Preach on, Brother.  I agree with everything said below.  And do feel
> like much of FFL has been hijacked and taken to an entirely different
> tone and tenor from what it used to be.  
And this latter group are responsible for over half
> the entire postings.

Compared to two years ago, there are now 2-10 times the number posts,
compared on monthly basis, than then. So half of the new postings are
to your liking. Lets assume you enjoyed 100% of posts two years ago
(hard to believe).  So you now have 1-5 times as many "good" posts, in
your view. So your gripe and grief has nothing to do with the quantity
     of good posts, but apparently that you now have to schroll a bit
more. Poor Baby! :) You could simple choose e-mail subscriptions and
use filters for your undesirables -- though you may miss a lot.

> There are several people
> whose posts I consistently open because I know that there will be
> something of value in what they write.  Conversely, there are a
> half-a-dozen or maybe a little more, whose posts I almost always 
> skip  because they are consistently carping on someone else's post 
> (from the same half dozen).  

One person's carping is anothers "insightful critique". I believe the
  FFL population contains a wider range of views and backgrounds
compared to two years ago. This is a good thing, IMO. A wider range of
views will naturally bring out a wider range of critiques.  Again, 
this is a good thing, IMO. 

A good critic of the facts, sourcing, logic or style of any post can
be excellent  feedback -- to the poster and indirectly for all
readers.  It can, and does, IMO, raise the averall quality of posts in
the longrun.

A more diverse group and set of posts will also bring out a wider
range of styles of criticism (criticism as in "film, food, literature
or design 'criticism'". Over the years, some are more refined, some
cruder. Though "crude" to some may be simply a missing of context. If
you read thread selectively, and suddenly read an (intended) satire of
a prior post, you may think it is totally bizzarre, out of placeB and
rude. But that may be your "lack" -- you don't get the references and
allusions. It may be a quite insightful critique of a prior post --
but due to your limited vision and reading, it appears "crude".

Also, if you "peg" aka sterotype someone as "crude" often it will
become a self-fulfilling prophecy. You will find "evidence" of
crudeness everywhere. But if read from a "fresh-field", you may find
humor and/or reasonable criticism.

> Bummer.  

Bummerness is structured in consciousness.

So I can't sympathize with your plight too much. You have as many,
perhaps many times more "quality" posts now, compared to the past, and
your missing of seeing  quality in "bad" posters may be due to your
own shortcomings.


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to