GENIUS FORUMS

Can't say I blame her:

Waffle

The video you linked to won't play for me, but what does it have to do with Marsha?

Nature has nothing against 12 year old groms and 46 year old psycho retards.

Nature doesn't make succinctness and enlightenment the greatest thing ever created. Nature makes the ability to value, and to decide whether understanding Nature is valuable or not.

Nature creates the means for wiping out the enlightened, as well as the means for the puerile and stupid to blossom into the enlightened.

Why should I complain if people babble? Is it not glorious?


-

Great, I was able to see the video today.

I never imagined Noam as a mild-manered man.

Curious to know why you posted this thread, Dan.

Because I basically agree with Marsha's intended point: that the board has become very waffly and lacking in fire and energy - i.e. of a philosophic type, not an emotional type.

Kelly,

I think there was supposed to be a comment from Marsha with the video, but I never found it. I did find one that she made under another one of the Chomsky interview videos. Dan may have just posted the wrong video.

Or, I could be 100% wrong and he posted this video for another reason.

.

Dan,

Where did she say that? Had not read your post when I posted mine.

Dan Rowden wrote:Because I basically agree with Marsha's intended point: that the board has become very waffly and lacking in fire and energy - i.e. of a philosophic type, not an emotional type.

Yes, I noticed the same thing. This downturn occurred initially with Marsha's departure and was exacerbated by whatever the heck was going on at FP that ended up here--thanks to your connections over there it seems, Dan!

Marsha's fire and energy became conspicuously less when she realised David wasn't an easy schmooze, back in 1997. I'm not sure Marsha was ever interested in philosophy. Her biography seemed promising, but turned into a mild flirtation.

Marsha didn't get the kicks out of the Genius Forum that her ego needed.

That is why she wrote countless times that she was "over" the forum, and would be leaving ... maybe. Once she announced her wish to disassociate from the Genius forum, and have her biography removed, she followed through.

I wonder if she is dissatisfied with her decision, or if Dan is.

My computer and connection are too slow to view videos, but I wonder what Dan means by "waffly." I would normally take it to mean that people here go back and forth on their positions on certain issues. I don't think we are really seeing that.

One thing we are seeing is a slow parade of newbies with ill-formed or simply alternate ideas being talked down (and eventually quitting) mostly by David, and also by Dan, Trevor, and others.

We are also seeing an increase in socializing. Socializing is fine when confined to certain threads in Worldly Matters, but it is tending to creep into the main forum and dilute the discussions. This has been combining with recent dramas carrying over from several other boards.

Some socializing is, of course, good; it is great to let off steam and establish personal repartee. However, I sometimes get the impression that there are a number of posters for whom socialization is the main reason for being here; in other words they are bascially not interested in the subject of Enlightenment.

Dan wrote:

Because I basically agree with Marsha's intended point: that the board has become very waffly and lacking in fire and energy - i.e. of a philosophic type, not an emotional type.

I agree with Kelly Jones completely on this one.

Marsha is not an adequate judge of what philosophic passion is! She became indignant and irrationally defensive whenever someone slightly poked her out of her comfort zone.

Marsha was the master at slinging dry, callous insults at people that lacked any depth of judgment. She enjoyed dishing out insults that she didn’t fully understand the implications of herself, because when faced with those very criticisms, she’d become irrational.

I remember countless times Quinn brought this emotionalism to her attention, and each time she defended, not acknowledging it through circumvention.

Dan, I’m surprised that you believe Marsha has the potential to be an ample judge of anything, she judges this forum negatively because some of the posters like Quinn, myself, and many others hurt her ego deeply by bringing her own flaws to her attention. That is the essence of philosophic passion.

When Marsha left, it was around the same time that a few new posters like myself, Cory and others arrived. So in addition to Quinn’s criticisms, sometimes she faced the judgment of countless newbies taking a slash at her weaknesses, and she couldn’t handle it, she lacked the strength to overcome her emotionalism.

And in regards to her comment that the forum has become waffly, it is just a dishonest cope-out on her part used to degrade the forum as something drastically below her, and by doing this she never has to face the truth of her own emotionalism. Basically, Marsha had a blast at Genius forum when she had a false image of herself as being one of the strongest posters here.

I remember one of Quinn’s criticisms of her emotionalism, where she responded by saying something like: “David, I can’t believe this is coming from you.” In other words, she is saying “David, you are suppose to be non-threatening, and supportive ally to the superior image I have of myself”

So the false image she had of herself was the driving force behind this ‘passion’ she speaks of, which wasn’t passion at all, but rather energy derived from a lie.

So ironically, it was philosophic passion and energy that drove her to leave, and now she uses the lie of lack of philosophic passion and energy to explain why she is superior to this forum, and will not return.

And by the way, all this Marsha nostigia is getting mightly irksome.

Some socializing is, of course, good; it is great to let off steam and establish personal repartee. However, I sometimes get the impression that there are a number of posters for whom socialization is the main reason for being here; in other words they are bascially not interested in the subject of Enlightenment.

I hope you're not talking about me, Carl.

My main reason for being here is not socialization. If I wanted that, there are thousands of better boards, including some where I hanged out recently.

Just felt the need to clarify.

.

Marsha,

This is a crock. If you have something to say, come here and say it yourself. Quit using Dan as your puppet.
.

Kelly wrote:

I wonder if she is dissatisfied with her decision, or if Dan is.

Good question. Personally, I don't think Marsha is disappointed with it. I imagine Dan probably asked her what her thoughts were.

Dan Rowden wrote:Because I basically agree with Marsha's intended point: that the board has become very waffly and lacking in fire and energy - i.e. of a philosophic type, not an emotional type.

I've seen your contributions on Genius news, Dan. You seemed so much more active then. Perhaps you are lacking in philosophical fire and energy these days, and that might partly explain the sagging of the forum. Also - isn't there a much higher quantity of subscribers on here than there was in the past? If you go back to the oldest threads on this this forum, it was rare for thread to go over 1 page. Nowadays, it's becoming common for a thread to progress over a page. And so it's congruent that the higher quanity should dilute the quality.

Kelly wrote: I wonder if she is dissatisfied with her decision, or if Dan is.

Leyla wrote: Personally, I don't think Marsha is disappointed with it.

Marsha was an excessive lover of music, and it was clear that she held a great deal of bitterness, hate and scorn toward this place before she left, even making a post (giving us a youtube link to a Syd Barret cover) about how this place doesnt value music - as if not excessively valuing music were a crime.

I don't think Dan's idea of philosophical 'fire and energy' has much to do with Marsha's attachment to Music.

Shahrazad wrote:Dan,

Where did she say that? Had not read your post when I posted mine.

Oh, sorry, I should have pointed out that she emailed that vid to me. She also said that she didn't think many people "got it". I agree with that too :)

Kelly Jones wrote:I wonder if she is dissatisfied with her decision, or if Dan is.

I think Marsha has a feeling of connection to Genius that is hard for her to break so she continues to follow the action. I guess it's understandable given she started with us almost from day one. It's not like she's going to find this kind of discussion just anywhere - more's the pity.

Ryan R wrote:Dan, I’m surprised that you believe Marsha has the potential to be an ample judge of anything, she judges this forum negatively because some of the posters like Quinn, myself, and many others hurt her ego deeply by bringing her own flaws to her attention. That is the essence of philosophic passion.

We've been bringing out her flaws since 1997. It's hardly anything new for her. I think she needed the break from Genius but there was nothing new in the flaw parading dynamic. Marsha always gave as good as she got.

I posted her vid because I happen to agree with her view about the board. She does get things right now and then, you know.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Marsha,

This is a crock. If you have something to say, come here and say it yourself. Quit using Dan as your puppet.

See, this is one of the dynamics that is irritating me about the board. All this defensiveness and body politik. Marsha posted that to me in an email. I decided to pass it on (after asking permission to do so) because I agreed with the point being made. Anyone with a problem with the intended point should take it up with me, since I'm really the one making it. And besides that, people who don't post here and only read are entitled to an opinion about the place. I'm not a Catholic but I'm entitled to an opinion about the Church (oh, hang on, I guess I sort of am a Catholic).

Being defensive about a board is a really bad sign. I've seen it happen at other places and I can tell you the mentality underlying it is bad, bad, bad. Either one agrees with a criticism levelled at it or not. It's a really simple thing.

The opinion itself was not made clear from the beginning. What was made clear from the beginning was that Marsha had an opinion that you were posting. You did state that you agreed with it, but this thread was not presented as (what eventually got clarified as) an opinion that there is less philosophical gusto than there used to be - it was presented as Marsha has an opinion.

I am certainly not being defensive about the board. I even posted that the reason for one of my threads was because the topics had been sucking, and I was trying to improve that. It didn't work, but at least I tried to improve things rather than just point out that the topics sucked.
.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:Because I basically agree with Marsha's intended point: that the board has become very waffly and lacking in fire and energy - i.e. of a philosophic type, not an emotional type.

I've seen your contributions on Genius news, Dan. You seemed so much more active then. Perhaps you are lacking in philosophical fire and energy these days, and that might partly explain the sagging of the forum.

Oh, I entirely agree. I don't for a second divorce myself from the observation. Something definitely blew out my pilot light and I'm having a hard time getting it lit again. I don't know where that breeze is coming from, but it's a bastard. Trouble is, with all that leaking gas if I do get it lit there might be a few singed eyebrows around the place.

Also - isn't there a much higher quantity of subscribers on here than there was in the past?

That's debatable. There's a core of posters who are certainly dedicated and give their keyboards a hell of a workout, but the place lacks a certain "edge" that is indicative of the fire that a person needs to make progress spiritually. But, having said that, I will accept that I may be projecting my own lack of vigour.

If you go back to the oldest threads on this this forum, it was rare for thread to go over 1 page. Nowadays, it's becoming common for a thread to progress over a page. And so it's congruent that the higher quanity should dilute the quality.

I think this is part of the problem. Too many posters don't appreciate the value of brevity and being succinct. This doesn't necessarily mean that the content of their posts is false - or that sometimes detailed explanantion isn't necessary -it's more that points can get lost in words. Their impact is diluted. It's just something to consider.

Actually, regarding the multi-page threads, much of the time several topics get covered in one thread. People do not start a new thread when the topic changes often enough.
.

Dan wrote:

Too many posters don't appreciate the value of brevity and being succinct.

You might need to make stricter rules for some of the posters here that get carried away with their frequency of their posts, and the length of their posts.

You may want to limit the number of posts for some users that lack clarity and cant control themselves.

It alot like taking care of children Dan, if you give a child all her crayons at once, next thing you know she's got one up her nose, and she's eating another one, and lost another down her pants. And the end result is that she's so overwhelmed by the abundance of colors that she's unable to draw one fairly decent picture.

Ryan R wrote:Dan wrote:

Too many posters don't appreciate the value of brevity and being succinct.

You might need to make stricter rules for some of the posters here that get carried away with their frequency of their posts, and the length of their posts.

Nah, I hate rules. I'd prefer for people to look at how they communicate and make their own judgements. My intention here is nothing more significant than to passingly make the point.

You may want to limit the number of posts for some users that lack clarity and cant control themselves.

That would cause more problems than it would solve. Plus the last thing I want is to adopt a more "administrative" attitude to the place. Yuck.

It alot like taking care of children Dan, if you give a child all her crayons at once, next thing you know she's got one up her nose, and she's eating another one, and lost another down her pants. And the end result is that she's so overwhelmed by the abundance of colors that she's unable to draw one fairly decent picture.

Well, that was a funny picture, but I'm not going to start treating people like children. Things aren't that bad.