roachboy

since we are saying what we dont like....

as i wrote before, there is no agreement about which game we are playing here, so an interaction can unfold easily in which each player thinks something different is happening from every other. so it follows that it is fine that one can say in general "information is good" and also "there is too much information"--but what you cant do is pretend that everyone is playing the same game (see above)...but that's not the thing tha bugs me.

there is a recurrent tic that folk seem to enjoy--when they are confronted with a lot of information, they act as though they are persecuted by it, like it is the imago of some Disapproving Mother or some such. it isn't exactly a logical fallacy--its more a neurotic ritual that is mostly about defending one's right to not know things, to not look, to not read---which of course, each of us has (in the way that such "rights' are had--being negative rights, one simply takes them)--but in terms that turn what i can only interpret as some kind of twinge of Guilt or some such back onto the person who posted the information.

if you dont want to read, then dont bloody read.
you dont need to justify it--its just a choice you can make. so you make it. i do it all the time. you do it all the time.
so what's with the hyperbole?
and what's with the idea that posting information--particularly alot of it--is a malevolent act, something only a Persecuting Other would do?

shesus' post above is not a particularly egregious example--i merely take it as an occaison to point something out.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite