I'm here. Are you there?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Praise be!


But seriously.  I should be an Admin.  Because I was nothing but fair and rational when made a mod back in 2005.

That was then; this is now.  I think you'd be fine as an admin.

I gotta ask, though...What was really in the secret mods forum?  I have always operated under the assumption that it was basically a bunch of trash talking, and that certain members that weren't on the mod staff also had access.

[LMNO]

As could be expected, there was a lot of talk about the best way of "helping" (read: meddling), as well as a few discussions of pranks to pull on the board using the mod powers.

And of course, the inevitable "How can we break Roger's iron grip on the rest of the board?"


Also, a fair amount of paranoia, suspicion, and butthurt.


Good times, good times.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

For years, one of the things I liked most about this place was that you could address the argument in whatever way you wanted to, and people would respond to the argument, not to the person. You could be a total dick to the argument. You could make fun of the argument and say that the argument was an ugly retarded baby playing in a sandbox full of poop, and people would still respond to the argument, and not the person.

Somewhere along the line maybe a year and a half ago, that changed, and if someone made an uninformed, circular, or specious argument, and you called it uninformed, circular, or specious, or god forbid used less than the most delicate e-prime with which to pick it apart, or... worst of all... called it wrong, well, then, it became time for the butthurt and martyrdom and taking sides and accusations of personal vendettas and etc. etc.

Or maybe I'm wrong and it was always this way. I don't know.

Ok, I just sort of noticed this.  As I understand it, you desire for people here to make an effort distinguishing between the thing being said, and the person saying it.

The second paragraph appears to offhandedly dismiss the use of e-prime, implying (if I get what you're saying) that we should be smart enough to separate the thought from the poster without using all that semantic jibber-jabber.

You then post several examples of how to phrase sentences in order to clarify whether a person is speaking to the argument, or to the poster.

Which, at least in the way that I try to use it, is functionally the same as using e-prime.

I mean, I get that in theory at least, we should be bipedal enough not to resort to, or respond to, ad hominem attacks, nor should we cling to our ideas as territorialistically as other primates.  But that doesn't always happen.

And it appears to me that the easiest way to avoid this from the get-go is to use semantic jibber-jabber.  It may seem pedantic, but a couple minutes spent refining the delivery saves days of pointless drama.  In my opinion.

Please let me know if I'm off base with this assesment.

You are free to refine your delivery in any way you want.

I will note, however, that while you may choose to use e-prime (thankfully not to the point of obfuscating your actual message) you are also one of the last people to ever go all hooty-hooty and butthurt if someone tells you that something you said is wrong or doesn't make sense. You are typically a good example of someone who responds to the argument and not to the person.

Alongside myself, of course, as I am known and noted for not flying completely off the fucking handle over a misunderstanding.  I am this century's Ralph Waldo Emerson in terms of my composure if not my content.

More people should be like me.  Then everything would be awesome, and we'd never argue again.  Ever.