Well, for starters your posts always seem to me to be reasonably polite, which is welcome. I think if posters maintained politeness that would be a really good way forward.
--- In [email protected], doctor_gabby_savy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Premanand Paul Mason" > <premanandpaul@> wrote: > > > > When I first chanced on FFL it seemed 'gentlemanly' if you can excuse > > the non-PC term. Nowadays, it is an alley where one has to beware of > > who might be about. > > If a post is well thought out, insightful and clearly stated, who > cares "who is about"? If a "reviewer" points out some useful points > in their feedback, then good. If they are wrapped up in some personal > bubble out of which they cannot see, then they may not have points > useful to you. Just let the comments go, perhaps. And at a minumum, if > someone is trying to critique your post from inside their own inner > reflective bubble, at least it may give some insight into their world. > > > Although it appears that there are more posts > > nowadays, this is something of anble illusion, since there is now an > > anything-goes mentality > > I find now there is a wider range of posts, a wider range of critiques > and commentaries, a wider range of styles, some refined, some crude. > I don't see all posts and threads have become totaly entropic and > degraded. Some, perhaps a few have. > > >whereas then there seemed to be more self- > > discipline and a higher standard of debate. > > Perhaps. I don't know how far back you go. There has certainly been > some mudslinging and personal attacks in the 2-3 year ago era. As a > percentage of monthly posts, I am not sure the proportion has changed. > > But I ask a combustable question: are flames and personal criticism > necessarily always bad and evil? I view them as inneffective feedback, > but also inconsequential. Others appear to find a bit of mud on the > road and it ruins their day. Maybe they have as much to heal and > resolve within as the mud-droppers. > > Slanging matches might > > have their value but when they become routine they are offensive. > > If it has value sometimes, why is quantity a distinguishing > characteristic? As MR pointed out, he only finds half the posts crude > or offensive (IMO, way to aggressive an estimate). But if half are > such, is that too much for you? You are still left with far more > quality posts than two years ago. > > And sometimes offensiveness is found by occasional and selective > readers who don't get the references and context of a subtle wit, > satire or sarchasim, and only see "offensiveness". > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
