Thank you, I see it entirely differently now. ** --- In [email protected], doctor_gabby_savy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Marek Reavis" <reavismarek@> > wrote: > > > > 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 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/
