Media Madness . . .aka m & m's

Edan wrote:
Regarding point 2, I'm not quite sure how to read the bit "not every "no" not a good idea", but Alex was not the only person saying no. In fact he originally left it up to me to make the decision, although I chose not to without consulting the others involved, and although I initially said no, Alex encouraged me to consider further (which I did).

You cannot see the whole of the conversations that were had in deciding why to say no, so I think it prudent perhaps not to comment on what is essentially a situation without context. The decision was not, however, made because of paranoia but in fact out of respect for the friendships we have made and would like to develop.

I didn't catch that 2 people versus one said no; because, my focus was not, nor at any point, on how many people said no as that is not relevant to the OP or to the re-write.

My focus was/is on the wisdom of the philosophy Alex put forth regarding "mantle".

So "not" every no is not a good idea means

Just because coverage may be available does not make it a good idea. There may be more gain than loss when saying no to coverage.

Where Althea asked if paranoia and cameras were a concern, I read it as a legitimate survey question appropriate to the topic.

My apologies, I have found it quite hard to follow your thoughts so I misunderstood.

Edan wrote: My apologies, I have found it quite hard to follow your thoughts so I misunderstood.

. . . and I write in different styles, and with varying qualities.

it is always appreciated when you ask. Namaste

I did a post last week which could have gone in here, it might be of interest Mareeka in your quest to look at the ism



PS: Feel free to PM me if you wanted to adjust the wording of your OP.

Adder wrote: I did a post last week which could have gone in here, it might be of interest Mareeka in your quest to look at the ism

Warning: Spoiler!

Adder wrote: I just use it to represent a swathe of paths, an ism - a movement, like a herd... it all depends on the point of view that determines the [strike]fidelity[/strike] granularity of what it represents. Specifically an individuals 'path' focuses on the ground underneath that individual, while a group of paths cannot have that level of similarity/detail, so instead represents a general direction and therefore might be better called a 'way'.

So to me, the most useful associations are Jediism is the Jedi way, and the Jediist walks the Jedi path - these are the same people (anyone who is a Jedi), just different levels of focus.

If a (hypothetical) person wanted to abuse the terms to seed confusion and division, then we only need to look at Social Identity Theory to understand the technique is used to elevate themselves as centres of gravity in a new social groups - tearing down others to elevate themselves and forming closed circles of base emotions to bond people and chain them with what is basically fear of losing that new self identity. But groups as a concept can also be a great thing if they respect other groups and work productively with porous boundaries and respect and transparency - I think the difference is one is cultish and the other are leaders. Indeed one is not very Jedi and the other represents Jedi very well. Practise makes perfect though so if intentions are good lets work together even if its to work apart sometimes

PS: Feel free to PM me if you wanted to adjust the wording of your OP.

Thank You. I remember your post and your discernment Jedism and Jedist. I did rewrite the OP earlier today. Perhaps, you have not seen it. Please scroll up.

I know nothing of the social theory you referenced. It sounds like a fallacious argument of sorts . . lol. . that is neither here nor there.