|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 28, 2019 23:59:22 GMT
If it's really so time consuming, a thankless job that's more of a pain than a pleasure, why not just retire...?  What's really at stake if he were to throw in the towel...? Clearly, he enjoys having the forum conform to his personal vision, but even more, he enjoys being able to control those who challenge him. I'll validate that opinion to some degree, sure. But it is the moderator's job to control, after all. And have you ever seen the trick where someone starts whispering in a room that's erupted in a cacophony? The idea is to get attention by making people interested in what you're saying. This isn't to imply that you've got any interest in a trick or getting people interested, but the repetitive challenges, over time, are more like the cacophony, and people start to tune that out as background noise after a while. This ongoing battle you have with him has filled quite a bit of bandwidth over the years. To what end?
To what end? Every now and again a really good conversation. My goal with reefs is not to do battle, it's ultimately to deeply and unabashedly discuss and compare views. I've said this lots in the past and I'll keep saying it; the best spiritual conversations have divergent viewpoints as their basis. That said, when viewpoints are 'too' divergent, and there is no common ground, it leaves little to talk about. The best platform for good conversation has a degree of commonality but with a difference of some import...those are the convos that promise to offer up some 'meat.' Those are the ones I enjoy the most. Both Reefs and ZD right now, (Satchi too)fit that bill for potential good conversation very well; I share some basic and important commonalities but there are some major divergences in seeing. The makings of a damned good potential conversation with all of them. Satchi is the only one though who does not shy away from direct challenge of his views. Gotta say, I really do appreciate his willingness to go deep into these convos. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Aug 29, 2019 0:01:57 GMT
Yes, over the years, you've consistently found objectivity to be quite odd, and your personalization of the dialogs is quite an objective aspect of your writing (much like this sentence illustrates), as is the intensity and focus of the attention you apply to those dialogs. Just get empirical about it, and count the percentage of dialogs you have that involve the topic of personal realization status, and notice how these tend to be the ones that last the longest, and keep recurring the most frequently. It might seem like an impersonal interest in the existential truth to you as you're engaging in it, but. Is it. Really?  Sure, ultimately revealing one who says they are SR as deluded, and therefore, not actually SR, may indeed, be the end result, a by-product of challenging someone, but to insist that that potential end result is proof that that's my main intent/focus, is screwy.  there it is. Turned up to 11, and quite personalized. 
But, I take responsibility for having provoked it, and it would, of course, be quite hypocritical of me to make any sort of attempt to hook you into the dialog beyond this.  |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Aug 29, 2019 0:09:01 GMT
I'll validate that opinion to some degree, sure. But it is the moderator's job to control, after all. And have you ever seen the trick where someone starts whispering in a room that's erupted in a cacophony? The idea is to get attention by making people interested in what you're saying. This isn't to imply that you've got any interest in a trick or getting people interested, but the repetitive challenges, over time, are more like the cacophony, and people start to tune that out as background noise after a while. This ongoing battle you have with him has filled quite a bit of bandwidth over the years. To what end?
To what end? Every now and again a really good conversation. My goal with reefs is not to do battle, it's ultimately to deeply and unabashedly discuss and compare views. I've said this lots in the past and I'll keep saying it; the best spiritual conversations have divergent viewpoints as their basis. That said, when viewpoints are 'too' divergent, and there is no common ground, it leaves little to talk about. The best platform for good conversation has a degree of commonality but with a difference of some import...those are the convos that promise to offer up some 'meat.' Those are the ones I enjoy the most. Both Reefs and ZD right now, (Satchi too)fit that bill for potential good conversation very well; I share some basic and important commonalities but there are some major divergences in seeing. The makings of a damned good potential conversation with all of them. Satchi is the only one though who does not shy away from direct challenge of his views. Gotta say, I really do appreciate his willingness to go deep into these convos. Well, I wish you the best with that. (** tee hee **)
So by forum stats you're going by visitor views? Thing is, that number goes up linearly with volume of posts. What happens when the food-fights get revv'd is that the ratio of views/posts actually starts going way down. In contrast, sometimes, there can be a spike in views when it's relatively quiet, and all that said, I was referring more to a qualitative measure of what people say they're interested in, and the opinions that get expressed as a result of and at the end of the dialogs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 29, 2019 0:12:37 GMT
Sure, ultimately revealing one who says they are SR as deluded, and therefore, not actually SR, may indeed, be the end result, a by-product of challenging someone, but to insist that that potential end result is proof that that's my main intent/focus, is screwy. there it is. Turned up to 11, and quite personalized. But, I take responsibility for having provoked it, and it would, of course, be quite hypocritical of me to make any sort of attempt to hook you into the dialog beyond this. Not really. I struggled a bit actually with what word to use and hoped you wouldn't take it to heart. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Aug 29, 2019 0:14:18 GMT
I'll validate that opinion to some degree, sure. But it is the moderator's job to control, after all. And have you ever seen the trick where someone starts whispering in a room that's erupted in a cacophony? The idea is to get attention by making people interested in what you're saying. This isn't to imply that you've got any interest in a trick or getting people interested, but the repetitive challenges, over time, are more like the cacophony, and people start to tune that out as background noise after a while. This ongoing battle you have with him has filled quite a bit of bandwidth over the years. To what end?
To what end? Every now and again a really good conversation. My goal with reefs is not to do battle, it's ultimately to deeply and unabashedly discuss and compare views. I've said this lots in the past and I'll keep saying it; the best spiritual conversations have divergent viewpoints as their basis. That said, when viewpoints are 'too' divergent, and there is no common ground, it leaves little to talk about. The best platform for good conversation has a degree of commonality but with a difference of some import...those are the convos that promise to offer up some 'meat.' Those are the ones I enjoy the most. Both Reefs and ZD right now, (Satchi too)fit that bill for potential good conversation very well; I share some basic and important commonalities but there are some major divergences in seeing. The makings of a damned good potential conversation with all of them. Satchi is the only one though who does not shy away from direct challenge of his views. Gotta say, I really do appreciate his willingness to go deep into these convos. As far as reefs and zd go, a dialog takes two sides, and in my opinion, you're not really quite as open as you say, although, of course, it's your mind, so I won't debate that. Now, factually speaking, it seems an objective point that neither reefs nor zd are all that interested in engaging in the dialogs you're offering. Is that true, if so, why do you think that is? |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Aug 29, 2019 0:14:49 GMT
there it is. Turned up to 11, and quite personalized. But, I take responsibility for having provoked it, and it would, of course, be quite hypocritical of me to make any sort of attempt to hook you into the dialog beyond this. Not really. I struggled a bit actually with what word to use and hoped you wouldn't take it to heart. I didn't really, it's ok. Seriously.  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 29, 2019 0:17:33 GMT
The forum view stats actually don't support that assertion. To what end? Every now and again a really good conversation. My goal with reefs is not to do battle, it's ultimately to deeply and unabashedly discuss and compare views. I've said this lots in the past and I'll keep saying it; the best spiritual conversations have divergent viewpoints as their basis. That said, when viewpoints are 'too' divergent, and there is no common ground, it leaves little to talk about. The best platform for good conversation has a degree of commonality but with a difference of some import...those are the convos that promise to offer up some 'meat.' Those are the ones I enjoy the most. Both Reefs and ZD right now, (Satchi too)fit that bill for potential good conversation very well; I share some basic and important commonalities but there are some major divergences in seeing. The makings of a damned good potential conversation with all of them. Satchi is the only one though who does not shy away from direct challenge of his views. Gotta say, I really do appreciate his willingness to go deep into these convos. Well, I wish you the best with that. (** tee hee **) So by forum stats you're going by visitor views? Thing is, that number goes up linearly with volume of posts. What happens when the food-fights get revv'd is that the ratio of views/posts actually starts going way down. In contrast, sometimes, there can be a spike in views when it's relatively quiet, and all that said, I was referring more to a qualitative measure of what people say they're interested in, and the opinions that get expressed as a result of and at the end of the dialogs.
No big surprise, but what folks say they are interested in and what they are actually interested in doesn't always match up in that sense. E touched on this earlier when he spoke about those who are supposedly interested in 'higher level' convos, somehow not being able to steer free of the petta-frog thread that was originally created as an area for those interested in supposedly 'lower end' conversation. A good example of this is those folks who somehow feel the need to enter into a conversation to let all participants know that it's a stupid waste of time..or TMT.....or make some other disparaging remark. I think onehandclapping it was that entered into the now closed thread and felt compelled to comment on how the conversations never change, etc, etc. True disinterest means no posting, no reading. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 29, 2019 0:22:15 GMT
The forum view stats actually don't support that assertion. To what end? Every now and again a really good conversation. My goal with reefs is not to do battle, it's ultimately to deeply and unabashedly discuss and compare views. I've said this lots in the past and I'll keep saying it; the best spiritual conversations have divergent viewpoints as their basis. That said, when viewpoints are 'too' divergent, and there is no common ground, it leaves little to talk about. The best platform for good conversation has a degree of commonality but with a difference of some import...those are the convos that promise to offer up some 'meat.' Those are the ones I enjoy the most. Both Reefs and ZD right now, (Satchi too)fit that bill for potential good conversation very well; I share some basic and important commonalities but there are some major divergences in seeing. The makings of a damned good potential conversation with all of them. Satchi is the only one though who does not shy away from direct challenge of his views. Gotta say, I really do appreciate his willingness to go deep into these convos. As far as reefs and zd go, a dialog takes two sides, and in my opinion, you're not really quite as open as you say, although, of course, it's your mind, so I won't debate that. Now, factually speaking, it seems an objective point that neither reefs nor zd are all that interested in engaging in the dialogs you're offering. Is that true, if so, why do you think that is? I won't back down from any sincerely asked question. Doesn't mean I'll end up in agreement though, if that's what you mean by "open." I welcome challenge, and yes, I also dish it out. Both Reefs and Zd use their supposed disinterest in convos with me when I challenge them, but they continue to speak out against my views indirectly and the times they do use direct address, they rarely respond back when I address that. Both Reefs and ZD avoid challenge of their views....both of them have proven quite capable of dishing it out though. |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Aug 29, 2019 0:35:09 GMT
As far as reefs and zd go, a dialog takes two sides, and in my opinion, you're not really quite as open as you say, although, of course, it's your mind, so I won't debate that. Now, factually speaking, it seems an objective point that neither reefs nor zd are all that interested in engaging in the dialogs you're offering. Is that true, if so, why do you think that is? I won't back down from any sincerely asked question. Doesn't mean I'll end up in agreement though, if that's what you mean by "open." I welcome challenge, and yes, I also dish it out. Both Reefs and Zd use their supposed disinterest in convos with me when I challenge them, but they continue to speak out against my views indirectly and the times they do use direct address, they rarely respond back when I address that. Both Reefs and ZD avoid challenge of their views....both of them have proven quite capable of dishing it out though. What I meant by openness is that sometimes it seems to me you're not really interested in what the other guy is writing for any other reason than to support your position in a debate. This really stood out to me as an example of that at the time. We all do this to one degree or another, but sometimes it leads the dialog to a dead-end.
Now, one of the questions I asked was, essentially, why do you think that they rarely respond back when you address that? Why do you think they're expressing that disinterest?
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 29, 2019 0:47:48 GMT
I won't back down from any sincerely asked question. Doesn't mean I'll end up in agreement though, if that's what you mean by "open." I welcome challenge, and yes, I also dish it out. Both Reefs and Zd use their supposed disinterest in convos with me when I challenge them, but they continue to speak out against my views indirectly and the times they do use direct address, they rarely respond back when I address that. Both Reefs and ZD avoid challenge of their views....both of them have proven quite capable of dishing it out though. What I meant by openness is that sometimes it seems to me you're not really interested in what the other guy is writing for any other reason than to support your position in a debate. This really stood out to me as an example of that at the time. We all do this to one degree or another, but sometimes it leads the dialog to a dead-end. Now, one of the questions I asked was, essentially, why do you think that they rarely respond back when you address that? Why do you think they're expressing that disinterest?
What is clear in that link is that Reefs is engaging in deflection and evasion. I say, They're not really disinterested at all. They're both scared shitless of direct challenge because they both find it very important to maintain the appearance of having it all sewn up. They both continue to make indirect counters. That's not disinterest. |
|
What's really at stake if he were to throw in the towel...? Clearly, he enjoys having the forum conform to his personal vision, but even more, he enjoys being able to control those who challenge him. 
there it is. Turned up to 11, and quite personalized. 
