Make that two.
There is a new yahoogroup called You Poor Dear. The purpose is comfort and support without problem solving, debate, or criticism. How will that work? Approximately like this:
You, my dear reader, are a brilliant person. You're good at everything you try, and always persevere through misfortune. You're witty and fun, and a pleasure to be around. If you have any problems right now, which seems unlikely, I'm sure they are nothing for one such as you. If you are in school, you have my sympathy.
If you're objecting that the above is rather meaningless, you're right. I don't have a clue who you are, I just made it all up. How will the list avoid this? Easy. The participants will give out personal information to a public internet forum. This is
Anyway, the group doesn't allow saying mean things anyway, only nice ones. So when people post support it will be
> The more personal information one gives out, the easier it is for the other posters to hurt her/him. (To hurt someone with words, one must know enough about the person to know which words will hurt. Also, giving out personal information tends to lead to being hurt accidentally, if people talk about what one does give out without knowing everything else, like one's sensitivities.)
your new position is something to the effect of *put some FI in your life and some of your life on FI*.
your old advise contradicts your new advise.
maybe not though. could one put some of his life on FI without using personal information?
I clicked on the link. The group doesn't exist as far as I can tell.
Guess it wasn't helpful to anyone.
ppl get **stuck** and get hurt a lot regardless of what they do. in that case, should err on the side of more learning. it's stupid to be protecting your privacy to try to stay safe while you're getting hurt on a daily basis from not knowing enough philosophy, not having enough criticism of your lifestyle errors, etc
> Guess it wasn't helpful to anyone.
i think you're trying to be funny. but, sadly, sometimes groups **are** helpful to some people but are deleted anyway because the owner is a jerk who wants to quit but won't just hand it over to someone who wants it.
sometimes people destroy stuff that others valued and which has basically zero cost to keep it existing.
why should ppl keep stuff for others?
if the owners destroyed it, it's because it was of no benefit for them for it to exist. most likely it was hurting them.
you seem to think others should do what is of benefit to you without them taking benefit themselves.
when keeping stuff is free, and you've implied that it will be kept (b/c there are e.g. permalinks for the public discussion which is free to keep forever, short of e.g. Yahoo Groups shutting down), then it's bad to destroy it. people had a reasonable expectation it wouldn't be destroyed. when you act in an unreasonable and destructive manner, one of the things you destroy is your own reputation (including e.g. the ability to attract people to participate at your yahoo groups in the future).
maybe you think there's a conflict of interest here? there isn't. not destroying yahoo groups provides a win/win in tons of cases. yet sometimes people destroy them instead because they are confused, mistaken, irrational, etc.
anyway, it's bad to invite people to write stuff and have it archived online and then go and delete the archive.