Posted by Mikko on January 29, 2001 at 16:00:40:
In Reply to: Re: Pet Peeves posted by K.B. on January 29, 2001 at 12:05:20:
your messages are theoretical and thought out. I'd be interested in replying if the topic at hand was practical and causing a desire to interact.
I personally have no use for yet-another-explanation-of-the-enneagram. I've seen most of the practical ones (meaning those that can actually applied in real life) and thought about the others. Anyone can come up with a theory, but they all end up looking alike. Personal experience is different.
If you post a smooth message explaining something elaborate from 10 point of views, you won't get a reply. Why would you? Why would a reader think they have anything to add? When I first started posting here, I replied to almost anything I saw. Not so anymore. If I see something totally misinformed or something where people actually need input to shape a thought, then I'll reply. Or if the poster is someone I know. But why would I reply to a well-explained and thought out message? I don't see any reason.
You 'spectrum' messages, for example. I don't see any true practical, concrete everyday use for them. Trying to discuss its validity in a valid way would take a long time and it would require research. Just saying "oh, that's interesting" doesn't do much. So those are the reasons why the 'deep' (I'd personally say 'too deep') messages aren't replied to.
Mikko