Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited January 23, 2017, 5:52 pm
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

To All Of Us

Topic closed. 45 replies. Last post 11 years ago by Rip Snorter.

Page 4 of 4
PrintE-mailLink
Avatar
New Mexico
United States
Member #12305
March 10, 2005
2984 Posts
Offline
Posted: July 3, 2006, 3:48 pm - IP Logged

Let me say that what you propose is great.  But let me illustrate how you broke your own rule already.  ducksafloat said: If you don't like a poster, don't read their thread.

So you should not be reading the threads that upset you but obviously you did or you wouldn't have posted.

Don't everyone jump on me for being negative.  I only pointed out how nearly impossible it is to live in never-never-land.  This is my only comment to this thread - and I will restate what I said right at the beginning, what ducksafloat proposes would be great. 

With all due respsect truecritic, I think that there is a big difference in not liking a poster and not reading their threads and not liking what a poster said.

It is impossible to know when a poster you like (and you usually read their threads) is going to say something that will rub you the wrong way until you read their post. On the other hand there may be theads that one may want to totally avoid because of who the poster is, which I believe is the point Patrice was making reference to.

In my opinion, these are two totally different instances... I agree, the purpose of the post is great AND is possible.

Not reading what a person posts might be the result of a lot of factors having nothing to do with liking, or disliking a poster.

Not reading what a poster says has the potential consequence of not learning something worthwhile from that person.  Anytime a person chooses not to read what a poster says, it's a risk weighed against the odds.  Same as buying a lottery ticket.

If there's a strong chance the poster will provide something a person will find helpful, probably the person will be more open to reading the posts despite other factors.

But if the odds are comparable to MM or PB in favor of nothing of substance or worth coming from a poster, the common denominator is lowered in terms of what's required as a motive for not reading the posts.

You and truecritic don't appear to be communicating from similar platforms of perspective and understanding.

J

Not reading what a person posts might be the result of a lot of factors having nothing to do with liking, or disliking a poster.

I agree there very well may be other factors in addition to like/dislike for a poster. That's why I read them all, take what I can use and leave the rest. Again we are talking about a choice, to read or not to read for whatever reason.

 

Not reading what a poster says has the potential consequence of not learning something worthwhile from that person.  Anytime a person chooses not to read what a poster says, it's a risk weighed against the odds.  Same as buying a lottery ticket.

If there's a strong chance the poster will provide something a person will find helpful, probably the person will be more open to reading the posts despite other factors.

But if the odds are comparable to MM or PB in favor of nothing of substance or worth coming from a poster, the common denominator is lowered in terms of what's required as a motive for not reading the posts.

Again, I agree.  It's sort of like cutting off your nose to spite your face; not seeing the forest for the trees, yada yada yada... From my perspective, there is always something to learn no matter the source.

 

You and truecritic don't appear to be communicating from similar platforms of perspective and understanding.

Guess what? I agree once again, truecritic and I had differing opinions on this.

J

From my perspective, there is always something to learn no matter the source.

From my perspective there isn't.

 It's sort of like cutting off your nose to spite your face; not seeing the forest for the trees, yada yada yada...

 The similarity between cutting off your nose to spite your face and not seeing the forest for the trees might suit you well.  It doesn't suit me.

There's a limited number of times I need to examine the forest of someones desire for a Mercedes, of someones distaste for NY lottery, pronouncements about taking it to the bank, abbreviated pronouncements of laughter, litanies of numbers combined with the names of places.

The forest will remain innocent of my axe so's to not risk cutting off your nose.

You may read them with my blessings.

J

Absorb the good, ignore the bad, weigh the ugly.

It's about number behavior.

Egos don't count.

 

Dedicated to the memory of Big Loooser