| You Can Read The Wall Comments Without Joining | |
|
Posted by: |
steven_stuart 12:54 am UTC 12/19/10 |
| In reply to: | So you want the long version - Steven 12:34 pm UTC 12/15/10 |
| I may be wrong but I don't think you need to join Facebook in order to read Jim's "wall". I think you have to join and become a "friend" in order to post comments on the "wall". Its possible that some people can set their "wall" so that only a "friend" can read them. I'm not sure. I requested Jim's "friendship" before I read his "wall". However, I was just reading Mark Alexander's "wall" and I am not a "friend" of his (not that I wouldn't want to be - hehehehee). I am new to Facebook and I find that it takes a while to get used to it. What are your reasons for disliking it? Just wondering. > Haha, no, you have obviously no idea. > > Regarding Facebook: > > I am a man with ideals and I prefer living my life staying > true to my ideals. I dislike the construct that is > Facebook and I despise opportunism, which is why I have > never joined Facebook in the past and do not wish to in > the future. > > Now Jim letting out info on Facebook only puts me in a > position in which I have to choose between either > staying true to my views and ideals or stay > informed about Jim's activities. > As far as I am aware one has to become a member of > Facebook in order to be able to follow the things posted > there. So unless I betray my ideals, I have to forgo > information about Jim. > -- The moment I became aware of that, it made me feel a > certain unhappiness, and that spontaneous emotion is the > content of my post. Period. > > > As for me supposedly moaning about the kind of info > provided: > > Since I am not a member of Facebook I do not know what > kind of info Jim is currently sharing, so I can obviously > not moan about it not being what I wanted to hear because > I did not even hear it. > > Apart from that: Staying informed about Jim is a > matter of being patient over many years, putting together > tiny snippets of info and reading between the lines of > message board rants et cetera. > I have never expressed that there was something wrong with > that, on the contrary. > > I have tried to keep informed about Jim's activities and > creations for many years now -- I started with scanning > obscure record stores, LP cases and strange music > encyclopaedia (there was a time before the internet era, > you know), continued with spending my then ridiculous > savings on the annual Rockman Philharmonic membership fee, > reading a zillion (and generating some ;) ...) posts as a > member of the jim@gospel mailing list and following the > message board from when it was brand-new up until today. > I have never participated in any "it's about time Jim > provides us with this or owes us that" action, because I > do not believe Jim owes us anything or we deserve > something from him just because we happen to like (or > sometimes dislike) the music or lyrics he writes. > > Sometimes I feel that being a Steinfan involved much more > challenge and "adventure" and therefore more fun and > appreciation before everyone started to get > everything served right to their seat just by clicking on > it on some websites and nagging about how the message > board's background colour prevents Jim from selling > records to spoilt victims of consumerism. > > It had definitely more to do with being a community and > generously helping each other with rare info and lost > treasures, then and I enjoyed it. > > > Anyway, I am definitely not bitching and moaning, but I > can still be unhappy about being faced with the choice > between two similarly unattractive options. > > > The end. > > | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | So you want the long version - Steven 12:34 pm UTC 12/15/10 |
| Next: | re: So you want the long version - The_wolf_with_the_red_roses 01:05 pm UTC 12/15/10 |
| Thread: | |