Re: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC

2013-10-01 Thread Share Long
Nope, Doc, I figured you were on turq's list. It was Richard I hadn't guessed.





 From: doctordumb...@rocketmail.com doctordumb...@rocketmail.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 9:52 PM
Subject: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC
 


  
The 5th poster was me, Share. I sent Barry a post, given his penchant for 
finding situations that make him unhappy, that I wouldn't be surprised if he 
visited subway stations at random, just for the delicious indignity of being 
jostled, shoved, and having hot liquids spilled on him.

For some reason, he didn't find it funny, as it was my only comment at the 
time, regarding his latest shit fit. But he obviously remembered it.:-) 


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com wrote:


I guess you didn't read my initial response to Barry, Share, in which I listed 
the five people. They were five of the top six posters, minus Barry, who was 
the fourth top poster.


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com wrote:


turq, basically you're saying that you don't enjoy my posts and therefore I 
should stop posting so much! It's lunacy! If I were standing there with a gun 
to your head, yes, you'd have a point. Otherwise I don't see how you are being 
subjected to, forced, dominated by anyone to do wading or anything else with 
regards to the FFL posts. I just don't get it. Also I don't know who the 5th 
person is!





 From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC
 


  
Followup. Since I made this post, the same 5 people
whom I characterized as having nothing interesting
to say and as being so out of control that they 
flood the forum with their garbage have followed up
on my *single* post with a total of *fifteen* posts.

In not one of them did any of them offer to cut down
on their inane post-flooding. In fact, they attempted
to shoot the messenger and avoid any responsibility
for their own actions. I'd say that they made my point
about trying to dominate the forum for me.

The bottom line on this is clear -- these five posters
contributed only slightly less that HALF THE TOTAL
POSTS MADE LAST WEEK. And they'll do it again this
week, and the next, and the week after that. And they 
don't think there's a problem with that, or with forcing
other people to wade through their crap.

I'm simply making the point that the phenomenon of 
people leaving FFL is **NOT** due to Neo, but to a 
few people who simply cannot control their motormouths,
and who feel they have the right to subject other
people to post after post after post after post after
post...whatever they want to post, whenever they want
to post it. 

I'll stop talking about this now, because unlike them
*I* can control myself. 


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@ wrote:
 
  And lastly, as long as one is free to scroll past 
  potentially offensive posts, how can domination 
  occur in any significant way?
 
 Turq's Monday Morning Free Clue To The Clueless
 
 You think free to. Others here think have to.
 
 It's a matter of signal-to-noise ratios. Taking last
 Friday's Post Count as an example, there are more 
 than a few on the forum who would categorize 421 
 of the total 852 posts (49.4%) as noise. 
 
 That is, long experience has taught these people 
 that there is nothing to be gained from reading 
 any of these posts. Fortunately, as you say, we are 
 free to disregard them by scrolling past them.
 
 But this means that in any given week we have to 
 scroll past easily half of all posts on the forum. 
 There comes a time when the desire for the occasional 
 gem of intelligence (signal) simply isn't worth it 
 any more because of the sheer bulk of the other posts 
 (noise). 
 
 Especially because the noise-posters don't seem to 
 be able (or willing) to control themselves. When 
 it's not invective and trolling, it's inanity such 
 as was described so well by s3raphita earlier:
 
  And bear in mind that a lot of the messages are 
  simple thumbs up or thumbs down feedback, such as . . . 
  Outstanding post!
  Ha-ha!
  Thanks for that link
  Did you forget to take your medics today?
  You sir are a complete prat
  YAWN . . . 
 
 Bottom line is that you're going to start seeing a 
 LOT of people bailing from FFL. 
 
 And it WON'T be because of Neo.
 
 That, dear lady, is domination.







RE: Re: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC

2013-10-01 Thread doctordumbass













Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC

2013-09-30 Thread Share Long
But Xeno, I think you want to censor too! You want to censor airheaded one 
liners. Airheaded one liners maybe want to censor too. Is this the solution? We 
each get to pick one kind of posting offense and censor that? In my experience, 
all censors think that they have the worthy goal of more orderliness.


What I'm saying is that we either have freedom of content AND form or we don't 
have freedom of curiosity, inquiry and growth. 

And lastly, as long as one is free to scroll past potentially offensive posts, 
how can domination occur in any significant way?



 From: anartax...@yahoo.com anartax...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 9:55 PM
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 
00:15:03 UTC
 


  
The problem with you being an administrator Buck, is you would suspend people 
for content, not just for posting over a limit, and that would be even more 
effective for destroying what goes on here than what is going on now. I feel 
you would suspend debate for doctrinal reasons. People have genuine 
disagreements over what this enlightenment thing really is, and the reason is 
it is never what people think it is. 

But if you kill people's inquiring in ways that you disagree with, you suspend 
one of the greatest assets in the search for enlightenment, which is curiosity. 
Posting limits can help with moderating extremes in debate, giving a more 
orderly forum, and keeping the blabbermouths and one-liner airheads from 
dominating time and space, but moderating content suppresses the truth that is 
found when you see between opposing values, and notice how they are always 
related, lock step. 

Enlightenment is not about religious values, it is something that is found when 
you pass beyond religious values. By the way Sam Harris's newest book, due 
sometime early next year I believe, is called 'Waking Up: A Guide to 
Spirituality Without Religion'. He is a serious neuroscientist and an eloquent 
spokesman for those intent on finding out what spirituality is from a 
scientific point of view without the sugar glaze of ideology.


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com BUCK wrote:


 If
Rick or Alex would show me how to suspend people from FFL I could
help administrate that too.
-Buck  


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com wrote:


Absolutely not. If you guys want post restrictions, then work it out amongst 
yourselves how you want it enforced. I will continue to have my old Dell laptop 
automatically run any needed post count script, but that's it for me. 


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com wrote:


BUCK WROTE:
Why should Rick Archer host this site any longer for mostly fractious, abusive 
and unpleasant postings by a few people flooding the content with their 
personal animosities.

The average poster, based on last week posts 25 messages, or about 111 a month, 
based on a 30 day month. I myself miss actual discussions. One line comments 
take up time I would rather, and now usually do, spend elsewhere.

This argument about post limits revolves around who might what to handle 
posting limits should that ever resurface, because it has to be handled 
manually.

Suppose, instead of a weekly post count, it were done once a month and everyone 
allowed, say 200 posts. The post count is run at the end of the month, and 
anyone over 200 gets to cool their heels for a whole month. It would not be 
necessary to run it weekly or even every night. Let each person keep their own 
track. Maybe even Alex might be able to handle this.


 

RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC

2013-09-30 Thread authfriend













RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC

2013-09-30 Thread turquoiseb
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote:

 And lastly, as long as one is free to scroll past 
 potentially offensive posts, how can domination 
 occur in any significant way?

Turq's Monday Morning Free Clue To The Clueless

You think free to. Others here think have to.

It's a matter of signal-to-noise ratios. Taking last
Friday's Post Count as an example, there are more 
than a few on the forum who would categorize 421 
of the total 852 posts (49.4%) as noise. 

That is, long experience has taught these people 
that there is nothing to be gained from reading 
any of these posts. Fortunately, as you say, we are 
free to disregard them by scrolling past them.

But this means that in any given week we have to 
scroll past easily half of all posts on the forum. 
There comes a time when the desire for the occasional 
gem of intelligence (signal) simply isn't worth it 
any more because of the sheer bulk of the other posts 
(noise). 

Especially because the noise-posters don't seem to 
be able (or willing) to control themselves. When 
it's not invective and trolling, it's inanity such 
as was described so well by s3raphita earlier:

 And bear in mind that a lot of the messages are 
 simple thumbs up or thumbs down feedback, such as . . . 
 Outstanding post!
 Ha-ha!
 Thanks for that link
 Did you forget to take your medics today?
 You sir are a complete prat
 YAWN . . . 

Bottom line is that you're going to start seeing a 
LOT of people bailing from FFL. 

And it WON'T be because of Neo.

That, dear lady, is domination. 





RE: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC

2013-09-30 Thread anartaxius













RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC

2013-09-30 Thread awoelflebater













RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC

2013-09-30 Thread authfriend













RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC

2013-09-30 Thread authfriend













Re: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC

2013-09-30 Thread Share Long
dear sir turq, I've noticed several different forms of attempted domination 
online. Scrolling past or not opening emails or even simply skimming, are all 
useful techniques for thwarting attempted domination of any kind. And I think a 
lot of people have been bailing from FFL all along. 





 From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 7:32 AM
Subject: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC
 


  
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote:

 And lastly, as long as one is free to scroll past 
 potentially offensive posts, how can domination 
 occur in any significant way?

Turq's Monday Morning Free Clue To The Clueless

You think free to. Others here think have to.

It's a matter of signal-to-noise ratios. Taking last
Friday's Post Count as an example, there are more 
than a few on the forum who would categorize 421 
of the total 852 posts (49.4%) as noise. 

That is, long experience has taught these people 
that there is nothing to be gained from reading 
any of these posts. Fortunately, as you say, we are 
free to disregard them by scrolling past them.

But this means that in any given week we have to 
scroll past easily half of all posts on the forum. 
There comes a time when the desire for the occasional 
gem of intelligence (signal) simply isn't worth it 
any more because of the sheer bulk of the other posts 
(noise). 

Especially because the noise-posters don't seem to 
be able (or willing) to control themselves. When 
it's not invective and trolling, it's inanity such 
as was described so well by s3raphita earlier:

 And bear in mind that a lot of the messages are 
 simple thumbs up or thumbs down feedback, such as . . . 
 Outstanding post!
 Ha-ha!
 Thanks for that link
 Did you forget to take your medics today?
 You sir are a complete prat
 YAWN . . . 

Bottom line is that you're going to start seeing a 
LOT of people bailing from FFL. 

And it WON'T be because of Neo.

That, dear lady, is domination. 


 

Re: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC

2013-09-30 Thread Share Long
Judy, if a poster thinks another poster generally contributes nothing to 
curiosity, inquiry and growth, then I would think one would simply not read the 
posts of that poster.





 From: authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 7:20 AM
Subject: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 
00:15:03 UTC
 


  
Share wrote:

But Xeno, I think you want to censor too! You want to censor airheaded one 
liners. Airheaded one liners maybe want to censor too. Is this the solution? We 
each get to pick one kind of posting offense and censor that? In my experience, 
all censors think that they have the worthy goal of more orderliness.


What I'm saying is that we either have freedom of content AND form or we don't 
have freedom of curiosity, inquiry and growth.

I suspect Xeno is defining airheaded one-liners as those that contribute 
nothing to curiosity, inquiry, or growth.

 

Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC

2013-09-30 Thread Share Long
Xeno, I agree that it's good to have rules of procedure with in person 
conversations. Otherwise one would have to wear ear plugs, take them out when 
favorite speakers speak, etc.Very vexing. But online?! Scroll on! Don't open 
the email! Or if you can't help yourself and open the email or post, skim. 
IMHO, this is the best way to preserve freedom of thought for everyone. Even my 
personal nemeses: the flat headed three and a half liners!





 From: anartax...@yahoo.com anartax...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 8:28 AM
Subject: RE: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 
28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC
 


  
Well, that does have a logic to it. You would not be prevented from posting 
air-headed one liners, there would be just fewer you could post in any given 
month. Would you waste time buying a brand of breakfast cereal when every box 
was only 1/8th full? The web is pretty thin on original content. Supposedly 
about 3/4th of the content is copied from other parts of the web. And much of 
the rest is kind of empty as far as ideas as to how to figure out what life is. 
In government forums, even in rather rowdy governments, there are rules of 
procedure, giving each speaker a certain amount of time to present their 
points, and then they have to stop and let someone respond.

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com SHARE 
wrote:


Share wrote:

But Xeno, I think you want to censor too! You want to censor airheaded one 
liners. Airheaded one liners maybe want to censor too. Is this the solution? We 
each get to pick one kind of posting offense and censor that? In my experience, 
all censors think that they have the worthy goal of more orderliness.


What I'm saying is that we either have freedom of content AND form or we don't 
have freedom of curiosity, inquiry and growth.

I suspect Xeno is defining airheaded one-liners as those that contribute 
nothing to curiosity, inquiry, or growth.

 

RE: Re: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC

2013-09-30 Thread authfriend













RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC

2013-09-30 Thread anartaxius













RE: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC

2013-09-30 Thread authfriend













Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC

2013-09-30 Thread Share Long
Ok, Xeno, thank you for this explanation. I tend to be a morning person and 
enjoy posting a lot in the morning. It could be that I have too much energy 
then. I'll see if I can slow down. And I do truly have the goal to post 10 or 
less per day. 

What I write always makes logical sense to me. But I once did some 
sophisticated career testing and scored high in something called diagnostic 
thinking. It means that I make connections and leap to conclusions. Maybe I 
could figure out ways to fill in the gaps better. But then I'm rushing...

Thanks again for the feedback.





 From: anartax...@yahoo.com anartax...@yahoo.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 4:09 PM
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 
28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC
 


  
I just want to wade through less. I do not read all of Turq's posts, for 
example when he is talking about TV shows. I don't read all your posts. I do 
not read all of Judy's posts. I do not read all of anyone's posts. But 
everybody at one time or another says something valuable. The other day Judy 
made a complimentary post about you, I did not expect that, but I thought her 
analysis was 'correct' (that is in quote's because my analysis is sometimes 
wrong - in Judy's eyes, perhaps almost always 'wrong').

If there is less time and space in which to say or do something, I think people 
become a little more focused to make what they say or do tell. Unless they are 
total basket cases, that means a certain amount of frivolity and laxity drops 
off, and their communication becomes more concentrated. You can still tell 
people to go to hell. And, by the way, telling someone to go to hell is not an 
ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is when you tell someone they are, say, 
evil, and then use that portrayal to attempt to disprove something they said on 
the basis of that characterisation. Buck was upset over ad hominem attacks, but 
a lot of what goes on here is simply a hatchet job. Now as for you, I think 
many of the comments you make are very freely associative, but they do not seem 
to me to have an underlying logic. As an example of someone who is a master at 
free association there is Robin Williams. 

But underlying what he associates, there is a distinct logic that makes those 
associations hang together, which is why he can be so funny. I think you need 
to write what you want to say, but do not post immediately. Let it sit a while, 
and then read it again and see if it really holds together. Judy often thinks 
what I say does not hang together, but I think this is because she does not 
understand how intuitive thinking fits together - it is that 'state of 
consciousness' thing. Judy uses a very linear logic, something I used to be 
able to do long ago, but it seems that nit picking kind of thinking has mostly 
vanished; it feels as if thinking that way to me now takes so much energy it is 
not worth it to pursue except in special circumstances. What Judy says when 
looked at rather narrowly often hangs together very well, which is why she is 
so annoying to so many of us, but that carte blanche approach is not always 
appropriate when trying to understand
 human beings or to try to get them to understand you.

(Note: If Judy wants to maintain her mock integrity, she best not reply to me 
directly, if the desire to respond to this post in any way arises, lest she 
commit her lie doubled over. Trying to interject into a discussion by making a 
'comment', is nonetheless, entering a discussion. I have handed any apology I 
might have made to her over to Zeus, who will respectfully keep them hidden for 
all eternity. I, on the other hand can reply to anything she writes whatsoever, 
for if the truth could be distilled out of what I say, it would be a meager 
return indeed. Judy can of course respond by responding to you, were you to 
continue this discussion by making additional comments, and by happenstance 
what I write was re-quoted by you. But she cannot respond to ANYTHING I say if 
she wants to remain simply at her already sullied level of disingenuity, and 
sink not even further.)





---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com SHARE 
wrote:


Xeno, I agree that it's good to have rules of procedure with in person 
conversations. Otherwise one would have to wear ear plugs, take them out when 
favorite speakers speak, etc.Very vexing. But online?! Scroll on! Don't open 
the email! Or if you can't help yourself and open the email or post, skim. 
IMHO, this is the best way to preserve freedom of thought for everyone. Even my 
personal nemeses: the flat headed three and a half liners!





From: anartaxius@... anartaxius@...
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 8:28 AM
Subject: RE: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 
28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC




Well

RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC

2013-09-30 Thread doctordumbass













RE: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC

2013-09-30 Thread doctordumbass













RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC

2013-09-29 Thread dhamiltony2k5













RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC

2013-09-29 Thread j_alexander_stanley













RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC

2013-09-29 Thread dhamiltony2k5













RE: RE: RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Post Count Sat 28-Sep-13 00:15:03 UTC

2013-09-29 Thread anartaxius