I agree with you. But perhaps we've rehashed the
"basic themes" over so much that all we're left with
is the seemingly endless nitpicking. Who knows. Maybe
we're all exhausted  ;-)

--- anonyff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I really disagree. About 2-3 years ago the
> posts/post-ers on this site
> were far superior to what they have been for some
> time now. 
> I cannot recall the names of all the post-ers from
> that era but I
> always enjoyed reading Doug Hamilton's quotes, Rick
> was a much more
> active poster and his posts usually had much more
> meat to them than
> more recently. Mark Meredith nearly always had
> something insightful to
> offer, Patrick Gillam's posts were always crystal
> clear (not to
> mention always editorially correct). Bob Brigante,
> who used to "snarl"
> a lot always had information packed posts. 
> 
> To me that has been lost in some of the endless
> blather that passes
> for posts on this site more recently.
> 
> 
> 
>  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek
> Reavis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you, I see it entirely differently now.  
> > **
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
> doctor_gabby_savy <no_reply@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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
> 
> 
>     [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


------------------------ 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/
 



Reply via email to