Just a passing observation on human nature and the human condition, that provocative original posts often generate more posts in response. Obviously, members don't just want to pat each other on the back -- what one angry former member, quitting Forums, fiercely referred to as (pardon me) a circle jerk. But even some serious questions on the issues and information on pipes and tobacco don't always equal the feedback on challenging, defiant, or negative original posts. Journalism gets flak for not being more positive in its editorial policies, but as we see, people respond to conflict and negativity. One likes to be sunny, but also analytical, hard-nosed, and insightful, if not downright defiant. A short-course on creativity I took, the presenter said that negativity (the plague of creativity) is often more respected and portrays the speaker as more intelligent, as a cultural matter. I kind of get that. Do people get too much credit for breaking the furniture and too little for providing the glue that keeps us in community? Or not. Any refections?
.gif)
