As a regular reader of both of your posts it seems to me that your different posting styles are a reflection of your different careers. You have each developed different filters. I would never make a good editor but I enjoy having one work over my creative work. Likewise it talks a lot of creative expression to generate new thought and some of it works and some doesn't. This is also an important quality in software development where living in the world of "winging it" is the only way to muddle through to solutions. As an entertainer I have a preference for humorously philosophical posts as Richard pointed out from under his bridge. "You blows what you is" as Louis Armstrong said.
I would rather hear the exchange on any topic by two excellent writers than a post filled with the wholeness of emptiness emptying into the emptiness of wholeness, any day. A lot of the coolest stuff posted here was done in the context of "negative" exchanges. That is why I am against anyone deciding on a post's value based on the criteria of its "negative" content. I think upping the limits to 10 would allow more breathing room but I am enjoying the restrictions of 5 now so I can go either way. (the phrase "enjoying the restrictions" in no way implies that I have leopard fur lined handcuffs in my bedside table drawer) I know the email readers have different issues, but reading this forum on the Web allows me to treat this site just like I do Drudge. I pick and choose, and enjoy having more to pick and choose from rather than less. Although both of you guys get lots of flack for your interactions here, I enjoy reading both of your posts and appreciate your taking the time to share detailed thoughts on this public forum. --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > P.S.: And even if he *hadn't* given the lie to this > > > protestation by claiming his latest attack on me was > > > "true" (even though it wasn't)... > > > > Judy, this is *not* an attack, merely a suggestion. > > > > It seems to me that an intelligent person who wanted > > to "give the lie" to the suggestion that she does > > nothing on this forum except reply to Other People's > > Posts and quote Other People's Ideas might do so by > > ...uh...posting something that was *not* a reply to > > someone else's post, and that displayed some original > > thought, thus demonstrating that she *does* have > > something to say. > > As I've already pointed out, it's absurd to suggest > that somehow a reply to someone else's post cannot > "display original thought." > > As you know, many of my replies do just that. And > most of them do not just "quote Other People's Ideas." > > I vastly prefer conversation to tooting my own horn. > Your mileage obviously varies. > > And don't get me started on what I think of the > quality of the "original thought" in your posts. > > > You have two more posts left today in which to do so. > > Or, you could reply angrily to this post and prove > > my point. Your call. > > "Prove your point"? But you don't have a point > to prove. As you just got done saying: > > > I DON'T KNOW THE "TRUTH." I DON'T EVEN > > BELIEVE THERE IS SUCH A THING. THE ONLY > > THING I HAVE IS THE OCCASIONAL SHORT- > > LIVED OPINION. YOU CAN HAVE A DIFFERENT > > ONE, AND IT'S NO SWEAT OFF MY BALLS. YOUR > > OPINION IS JUST AS "GOOD" AND JUST AS > > "VALID" AS MINE, AND *NEITHER* OF THEM > > HAS ANYTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH "TRUTH." > > > > There. That's settled. :-) >
