--- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > > At the kind of cocktail parties I prefer, most > > of the guests value honesty--both intellectual > > and factual. > > That makes five ma'am. Your designated driver will now take > you home.
Ah, yes, Rick Archer, fairness personified. Gratuitously announces I'm at my posting limit so he can insinuate that I'm inebriated, knowing I won't be able to respond until the next day. And how could anyone think Rick was hypocritical? I mean, he's *never* suggested there was anything wrong with baiting, now, has he? Thanks for helping me out here, Rick. I just knew I could count on you. (He'll claim that, oh, he was only joshing and that I shouldn't have taken it seriously. But I'm talking about the impulse behind it.) --- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > I would rather have no posting limit, and have everyone > magically behave themselves, sort of like what Montana > tried to do with the speed limit (http://www.us- > highways.com/montana/mtspeed.htm), but the real world > doesn't seem to work that way. No, but if you cracked down on the gratuitous trashers and slammers and baiters (now including yourself), you most likely wouldn't need a posting limit. ------------------------------------------------------- --- In [email protected], "lurkernomore20002000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Turq: > Given Judy's attempts today to start and prolong > > > arguments with Marek and Lurk, of all people, > > > > Judy: > Pretty funny, given that it was Marek and Lurk > > who tried to start arguments with *me*, not the > > reverse. But typical of the up-is-downism that > > seems to have taken over here lately. > > lurk: > Strange. For me, what passes as generally polite conversation is > construed as wanting to start an argument. Actually, neither you nor I was trying to start, let alone prolong, an argument, but what you wrote really wasn't "polite conversation" either. Here it is again: > > This > > lady is a powerful writer, and what a mind. But I just > > can't help but feel she has this tremendous blind spot > > that prevents her from seeing things in clear light. I > > mean the moniker, "Defender of the Faith" seems > > appropiate. > > Lurk, I think you've lost the context here. What > I wrote that you quote wasn't about "defending the > faith." That's it. That's all I said. I think Barry's upset that you also complimented my writing skills (for which thanks), so he had to find some reason to attack me and decided to pretend I had tried to start an argument with you. > But here IS a kind of > mean spirited comment. I was thinking today that "talking" with > Judy is kind of like having a specimen in a laboratory. You just > kind of prod it here, or poke it there, and it is always > surprising what comes out. Really, I like Judy. I respect her. > But I am thrilled to have her output cut back to five posts. I > mean, I think this place is a hell of alot more fun. Yup, this is definitely mean-spirited, the accompanying professions of liking and respect notwithstanding. To insult someone, and then say something positive, doesn't really do anything to mitigate the insult. But it does make one wonder how sincere the positive part is. Again, I'm convinced that the most effective way to get this forum under control is to crack down on the mean-spirited comments and pokes and insults and jibes and baiting and attacks and trashing. I think we ought to try that first, and see how much difference it makes. If there are still too many posts, then we can go back to limiting them. What will really make FFL more fun is eliminating the poisonous atmosphere that has been allowed to develop--and even encouraged in some quarters.
