. Jake .:
It's an interesting thread topic, anyway, and I'm glad you brought it up as it seems it is always good to address interpersonal dynamics in groups, so thanks!
Well, I'm glad it's interesting. I didn't really mean for it to be about interpersonal dynamics although it seems to be turning out that way. I really tried to write a post that was clear and relevant about the way the forum is set-up and managed. I'm surprised by the fingerwagging I'm getting from several.
Now, 'more subtle and insidious' than trolling is quite the loaded phrase-- it came off as a bit passive aggressive to me to be honest, but of course I have no idea whether that's accurate or not.
Then why mention it? It seems like a change of subject. Do you feel like my posting style is more important than the subject of the thread? I really want to know. Nic thought trolling was a loaded phrase. Here's the Wikipedia definition of trolling: In Internet slang, a troll (pron.: /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response
or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion." Some of that applies to what I'm describing, but the uglier side doesn't. So, I asked for a better suggestion. Maybe you chaffe at the word insidious: "Proceeding in a gradual, subtle way, but with harmful effects: "the insidious effects of stress". That sounds pretty good to me.
Honestly, my reply to Nic was meant to be ironic. I thought it strange that I had a comment, which was basically a reply to Daniel's
epic rant, and people are disconcerted by my small contribution, not the rant. ("Disconcerted..." "Contribution..." I chose those words carefully, hoping I wouldn't have to explain, defend, or recant them.) Nobody is offended by Daniel's beautiful outrage. I feel a bit like the footman who is punished for the prince's faux pas. So, yes. I replied somewhat ironically to Nic, who scolded me slightly for using Daniel's phrase, while lauding Daniel's message (whic message seems more or less in line with mine, I think.)
It's also been submitted that my comments should be kinder. Please re-read my posts. Then re-read this:
...it could be a public service to the aging, dogmatic, tech-illiterate dogma-loving boomers who clearly can't seem to find a safe home for their religious views and so prowl around sites like this one trying to feel better about themselves by picking off the newbies as best they can, offering the comfort of The Supremacy of Things that are Really, Really Old over the more practical Whatever Works approach that I prefer
I tolerate their subversive and derisive ploys as some do have some good, if dogmatically limited and hyper-doctrinal, practical wisdom mixed in with their archaic and needlessly restrictive blindness, and am perhaps too tolerant of their intolerance for things practical regardless of source, but I do often wonder if my tolerance of their intolerance just allows them to fill the place up with the calcified bullshit that so rankles my pragmatic sensibilities...
So, I'm baffled. Actually, I have spent many hours re-reading past posts to understand how I've miscommunicated or come across unpleasantly. I've often f'ed up. But this is silly. Perhaps I've been labled as troublesome. Sorry, guys. I'm really trying. (Feel free to PM me if you want to respond w/o publicizing drama.) Anyway, the topic here is not that crucial, although you will find a pattern if you look for it. People will find their way somehow.