--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gee, Michael recently made two posts specifically > addressing the criticisms directed at him (and was > criticized for doing so!). That's true, an in his larger expositions, he made indirect references to other peoples posts. Nevertheless, its clear that his style is completely different: He writes long expositions, which you either like or don't, and leaves the rest to the audience. These articles are a coherent whole, which some people, I am sure, forward to others, and he keeps away from the 'picking on' business. That demonstrates some strength, which is often interpreted as arrogance. But I think its effective. <snip> > I've said before: Life is tough enough when everyone > does their absolute darndest to be honest. There is > ZERO excuse for making it more difficult by being > dishonest, and I don't think anybody should be willing > to tolerate it. But there is no way to enforce honesty in a forum, except if it moderated, and that nobody really wants. So there is no other way, then to exit at one point the discussion, and leave it for the reader to decide himself what to think of it. Because I think, it is that you want to be represented correctly in the eyes of OTHERS, the supposed anonymus onlooker. For yourself, you obviously know the truth, your opponent obviously, is intent on misrepresentation or simply incapable of seeing things differently. Why then, don't you take the attitude, that the reader is mature himself, and would look through the game? It is actually personal strength to do so. And its weakness to continue on and on. (Thats true for myself as well of course) Truely speaking, Judy, your reputation would be much better, if you would simply know when to stop, if you simply would get out of an argument, once it gets personal. Because from the pure facts, your posts are always right on. Leave it at that, and don't spoil the good image later on. There is also now the habbit, of not editing old comments out, which makes posts difficult to read, just to not be accused that one would 'erase something being said', but its all in the archives anyway. Before I came back here, I was sometime spending to edit Wikipedia, especially the german version, especially articles on Hinduism. Its a good experience. There is also a diversity of views, there are 'edit-wars', but all in all, there are rules to go by, like one important rule is NPOV that is neutral point of view. That is things have to be always presented without giving personal judgments. You always have to allow representing both sides, positive and negative. I think doing this is a good exercise.(besides its very effective, since lot of people actually read it.) So, Judy, I hope this helps, and I say this from the ground of a fundamental appreciation. ------------------------ 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/
