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
