Time to face up the gracelessness and proscribe newism

[roger thornhill]

One positive effect of the recent attacks on guinnog is to draw attention to a long-standing problem here, the practice of attacking a person purely on the basis of their date of joining this particular Internet discussion board. For those who like their '-isms', you can call it 'newism'.

One of the primary purposes and effects of 'newism' (in common with other forms of prejudice and discrimination, such as racism and sexism) is to protect those at or nearer to the centre of influence and power. A good way to achieve this is by keeping the out group (people who started posting at SDMB after you did, whatever else their experience and knowledge might be) at the centre of attention, much the same way a racist commonly keeps black people at the centre of attention, i.e. where s/he can control them.

I hope members are willing and able to confront this problem and to do whatever is within their power to provide part of the solution to it.

[roger thornhill]

Pls delete 'put' from thread title.

[Frank]

One positive effect of the recent attacks on guinnog is to draw attention to a long-standing problem here, the practice of attacking a person purely on the basis of their date of joining this particular Internet discussion board. For those who like their '-isms', you can call it 'newism'.

If you can cite guinnog being attacked because he is new, please do so. My (peripheral) awareness of him has led to the belief that he is being attacked because people don't agree with him.

(And please note, if the "newism" attacks consist of advising him that he doesn't understand the way things work here, that is not an attack, that is advice.)

[chique]

Jesus H. Christ, are you still whining? Get the fuck OVER it already.

[Bryan Ekers]

If a newbie was polite, nobody would notice or care about his start date, but if a newb insists on being an asshole, well, he's fair game.

Just get his money first, is my philosophy.

[fluiddruid]

What? I can't hear anything. I stopped when I saw that I joined before you. ;)

Seriously, though, my treatment is the same since my post count was under 10. I'm nearly ignored by pretty much everyone nearly all of the time, because I choose not to post anything particularly inflammatory, controversial, offensive, or asinine. Sure, the SDMB has some more well-known posters, but this is by far simply because of the volume of what they write and how they write it, not by start date.

[John Carter of Mars]

Nobody attacked that poster because he's new. He was attacked because he's rude and practices selective reading comprehension.

To follow up on what Chique said: Heed the Eagles:

"Victim of this, victim of that
Your mama's too thin and your daddy's too fat
GET OVER IT!"

[Czarcasm]

Pls delete 'put' from thread title.
Is done.

[roger thornhill]

Is done.Thank you.

To follow up on what Chique said: Heed the Eagles:

"Victim of this, victim of that
Your mama's too thin and your daddy's too fat
GET OVER IT!"I see your Eagles quote and raise you mine (made when they were still relative newbies, so perhaps it won't be accorded quite the same credibility):Where the pretty people play,
hungry for power
to light their neon way
and give them things to doNo doubt this will elicit plenty of "WTF?!s", and "can't he write proper English?", and "obfuscatory and prolix again", and those awful Python quotes.

Perhaps even a non ad hominem comment.

But then, again, perhaps not.......

TYM, if people want to criticise guinnog for what he's written, for the way that he's written it and for the effect that he wants to achieve on the reader, then his date of joining really isn't relevant. Especially, although personally I think this is pretty irrelevant too, since he's been part of the "community" for more than a year, reading threads.

The purpose of the repeated references to his recent joining date is to put him down and to make him lose his rag*. Good for him that he's bigger than his detractors.

* In case you doubt this, consider whether it was necessary for poster after poster to mention (in any way at all) his new status. When it was mentioned for the first time, it became part of the background of the discourse. It is most marked - linguitically - for it to be referred to constantly.

[John Carter of Mars]

No doubt this will elicit plenty of "WTF?!s", and "can't he write proper English?", and "obfuscatory and prolix again"......"

No doubt.

[tomndebb]

I really think you probably meant that we should eschew newism rather than proscribing it. We have enough problems with junior modding, to say nothing of the problems you are trying to create for the Moderators who will now have to add to their job list the task of determining whether a reference to a poster's start date constitutes a violation of the proscription against "newism" or is simply a legitimate coment upon a poster's relative board "age."

[DMC]

One positive effect of the recent attacks on guinnog is to draw attention to a long-standing problem here, the practice of attacking a person purely on the basis of their date of joining this particular Internet discussion board. For those who like their '-isms', you can call it 'newism'.

In SDMB terms, I'm as old as the hills, but I've never had a pitting, been warned by a mod, nor am I even noticed by the vast majority of people here, as my posting frequency varies quite a bit.

There might be an "in crowd" in places like MPSIMS or even Cafe Society (I rarely visit, so I have no clue), but in the forums guinnog seems to be getting grief in (and the ones you yourself get grief in), I know of no such entity. I certainly don't belong to it, and I've been around forever.

Personally, I think you get grief when you earn it here, with few exceptions. Newness doesn't seem to be one of the criteria, as most new people have lurked for a while, and finally sign up when they decide they have something to add to a particular topic. They might then post here and there, but for the most part, they still lurk a lot, posting when it suits them and slowly become old members. On the other hand, occasionally, a new person will find the site, then decide that they either need every question they've ever had answered on their first day, or that they have new arguments that will captivate us all on every topic that has been rehashed a thousand times in Great Debates. These people get noticed, sometimes in a good way, sometimes in a not so good way. Which one it is is usually dependent on them, not their account creation date.

[roger thornhill]

I really think you probably meant that we should eschew newism rather than proscribing it.No. Why should I, Tom? We have enough problems with junior moddingI note you've been around for a long time. You would know about "junior modding" much better than I.

[roger thornhill]

On the other hand, occasionally, a new person will find the site, then decide that they either need every question they've ever had answered on their first day, or that they have new arguments that will captivate us all on every topic that has been rehashed a thousand times in Great Debates. These people get noticed, sometimes in a good way, sometimes in a not so good way.Good points all (I've snipped to the ones I wish to respond to in the interests of reader-friendliness).

I think it's an incorrect assumption to think that every topic has already been treated to the full gamut of arguments, and that any new poster will merely be rehashing something that has already been said. While this is no doubt sometimes the case, there are times when someone with a fresh perspective altogether appears (think Van Gogh in art terms). I would agree that as in the case of Van Gogh it is almost invariably the case that such as person will not be recognised. But, since the SDMB strives to be a community as well as a knowledge resource, and since it strives to treat all people without fear or favour regardless of background, it would be nice to think that we could make a difference in this way, stand out from the crowd, as undoubtedly we do in other ways. That's, after all, why we like it and stick around.

[manx]

No. Why should I, Tom? I note you've been around for a long time. You would know about "junior modding" much better than I.

Well, he's like, a moderator, so yea, he would...

[tomndebb]

I really think you probably meant that we should eschew newism rather than proscribing it. No. Why should I, Tom?Because I do not think that your perception of newism rises to the level of jerkness that is encompassed by trolling, so-called hate speech, plagiarism, and other activities that are explicitly proscribed (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=proscribe&x=12&y=14). The reasons (junior modding and adding to the list of things that posters whine about when they are warned or their "enemies" are not warned) were already provided in my earlier post.

[roger thornhill]

Because I do not think that your perception of newism rises to the level of jerkness that is encompassed by trolling, so-called hate speech, plagiarism, and other activities that are explicitly proscribed (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=proscribe&x=12&y=14). The reasons (junior modding and adding to the list of things that posters whine about when they are warned or their "enemies" are not warned) were already provided in my earlier post.Misunderstanding, then. I was using the word for effect, as is sometimes done in headlines and titles and the like. I reckoned it would be understood that way.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Misunderstanding, then. I was using the word for effect, as is sometimes done in headlines and titles and the like. I reckoned it would be understood that way.
Gosh, don't you know the culture around here? What a newbie mistake! :p

[tdn]

Gosh, don't you know the culture around here? What a newbie mistake! :p
You may joke, but I think you've hit at the heart of roger's misperception.

What newbies don't get are the subtleties of the board that vets have years of experience with. Vets therefore know how to elicit positive responses more intuitively. It simply takes a while to tune to the key of SDMB. And vets tend to have more friends and allies, which may give the newbie the false impression of cronyism.

roger, it sucks, but what are you going to do about it? You can't force experience on a newbie.

[Dunderman]

Still whining about this, are you? Still having trouble wrapping your head around the concept that a newbie may be disliked or attacked for reasons that have nothing to do with his or her join date? Of course, accepting that as fact would require you to confront the possibility that the reason that you're not universally worshipped may actually have something to do with you rather than your join date, and you're not quite ready to do that, are you?

Do you have even one example of someone being bashed because of their join date, for no other reason?

[roger thornhill]

You may joke, but I think you've hit at the heart of roger's misperception.I'm normally more than happy to take the credit whenever some is going around, but in this case I must point out that it was Tom's misperception. He misunderstood my meaning, then, following a process of negotiating meaning, he is enabled to understand the effect I intended as author. As our all readers. That's how communication works, especially written communication.

Happened before, well before the sdmb came about. Will happen again. Not a big deal.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I believe there are legitimate reasons to bring up someone's "board age." For example, if someone who joined this board in May 2005 decides to bring up (for example) my several-years-ago imbroglio with posters at another, feminist messageboard out of the blue, I think it's fair for me to ask them what stake they have in the issue. In my experience, a new poster who's bringing up an old complaint very often has something to hide, is not behaving honestly.

Similarly, if a new poster is criticizing the way the board functions, it's fair to point out that they've not been around long enough to have their criticism carry much weight. I mean, it can stand or fall on its own, of course, but if someone who's been here for six years points out a pattern they've seen, I'm going to take it more seriously than the same complaint coming from someone who's been here six days.

Other than that, I can't really think of times that it's appropriate to bring up board age in a negative sense.

Daniel

[Campion]

roger, I understand where you're coming from. I've noticed that bashing the newbie is the resort of those who don't actually have a logical argument -- instead of addressing the "newbie's" post, the "oldster" says: "well, you haven't been around long, or you'd understand why you're wrong."

Default to critiquing the "newness" of a poster is a tacit admission that you have nothing to contribute on the substance of the post.

"But the newbie's wrong and I can't be bothered to correct every newbie post out there, so I just tell 'em they're wrong!" Just as you don't reply to every post, you don't have to correct every mistake you read on the boards.

On preview, I agree with Left Hand of Dorkness.

And, roger, I still think you're tops. ;)

[Excalibre]

One positive effect of the recent attacks on guinnog is to draw attention to a long-standing problem here, the practice of attacking a person purely on the basis of their date of joining this particular Internet discussion board. For those who like their '-isms', you can call it 'newism'.

One of the primary purposes and effects of 'newism' (in common with other forms of prejudice and discrimination, such as racism and sexism) is to protect those at or nearer to the centre of influence and power. A good way to achieve this is by keeping the out group (people who started posting at SDMB after you did, whatever else their experience and knowledge might be) at the centre of attention, much the same way a racist commonly keeps black people at the centre of attention, i.e. where s/he can control them.

I hope members are willing and able to confront this problem and to do whatever is within their power to provide part of the solution to it.
Why don't you prove your allegations first, you little whiner? Or is your incessant whining unable to stand up to the light of day?

[Excalibre]

I'm normally more than happy to take the credit whenever some is going around, but in this case I must point out that it was Tom's misperception. He misunderstood my meaning, then, following a process of negotiating meaning, he is enabled to understand the effect I intended as author. As our all readers. That's how communication works, especially written communication.

Happened before, well before the sdmb came about. Will happen again. Not a big deal.
Oh, Christ. Now I see that you're a postmodernist whiner. As God is my witness, you're worse than Liberal when it comes to trying to sound smarter than you are in order to intimidate people.

[Dunderman]

As God is my witness, you're worse than Liberal when it comes to trying to sound smarter than you are in order to intimidate people.
Much, much worse. At least Liberal is smart to start with.

[askeptic]

Roger you tool, you cannot provide a single example of guinnog being criticized solely for being new. Why don't you stick to something else you are not good at like reviewing 10 year old movies.

[Excalibre]

Much, much worse. At least Liberal is smart to start with.
But they both do the exact same trick - reciting some completely irrelevant thing from memory (like thornhill's discussion of communication, above, or Lib's proof of the existence of God) and expecting everyone to be so impressed that they stop arguing. It's always something from memory, because the strain of having to apply logic and reasoning on the spot is apparently too much. And it's always in a circumstance where it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[askeptic]

Has anyone ever noticed whether guinog and rogerthornhill are ever on line at the same time? I'm not sayin, I'm just sayin....Hmmmm.

[Miller]

I, too, would like an example of guinnog being attacked for being a newbie, and not for being a whiny little asshole. Almost without exception, whenever I see a posters join date brought up in a pit thread, it is because he's being cut extra slack for not knowing the board's culture. Over all, I find the SDMB to be overwhelmingly welcoming and forgiving to new posters. I'm curious to see if roger can provide significant evidence to the contrary. But I'm not holding my breath.

[Liberal]

But they both do the exact same trick - reciting some completely irrelevant thing from memory (like thornhill's discussion of communication, above, or Lib's proof of the existence of God) and expecting everyone to be so impressed that they stop arguing. It's always something from memory, because the strain of having to apply logic and reasoning on the spot is apparently too much. And it's always in a circumstance where it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.And your present line of finger farting has what to do with newism proscription? (Thank goodness that, after these many years, I may now stop memorizing that question.)

[tomndebb]

I'm not sayin, I'm just sayin....Hmmmm.But just sayin' that is not appropriate on this board,

[askeptic]

But just sayin' that is not appropriate on this board,


Ooops, Sorry. :smack:

And no I am not going to run off and start a pit thread. I fucked up, and I stand corrected. That wasn't so hard.

[Excalibre]

And your present line of finger farting has what to do with newism proscription? (Thank goodness that, after these many years, I may now stop memorizing that question.)
Just having a pleasant conversation with Priceguy on habits that irritate us. :-)

Have a nice day, Liberal.

[Dunderman]

Just having a pleasant conversation with Priceguy on habits that irritate us.
Well, that's not quite what I was doing, but never mind.

[Bryan Ekers]

Isn't the chain of events painfully obvious?

guinnog joined
guinnog expected his self-evident genius to be immediately recognized
such recognition was not forthcoming
guinnog tried to demonstrate his genius, realizing that self-evident obviously wasn't obvious enough
recognition still wasn't forthcoming
guinnog lashes out at the board members who are obviously too dull-witted to see his obvious self-evident genius
board members lash back, and since they have more experience and greater numbers, guinnog is pounded into slime suitable for feeding aquarium snails
roger thornhill tries to defend guinnog, explaining the hostility as a character flaw in some of the board's members
board members lash back, and since they have more experience and greater numbers, roger thornhill is pounded into slime suitable for feeding aquarium snails

Is that about right?

[Excalibre]

Well, that's not quite what I was doing, but never mind.
Fine. Bitching about how much we don't like roger thornhill.

Personally, I find that a very pleasant way to spend time. :)

[roger thornhill]

I'm normally more than happy to take the credit whenever some is going around, but in this case I must point out that it was Tom's misperception. He misunderstood my meaning, then, following a process of negotiating meaning, he is enabled to understand the effect I intended as author. As our all readers. That's how communication works, especially written communication.

Happened before, well before the sdmb came about. Will happen again. Not a big deal.I see that you're a postmodernist whiner.Au contraire, Excalibre, the position I take re writing and reading is the opposite of the postmodernist one. While postmodernism downplays, or decentres, the role of author, I have always maintained that attempting to understand what the writer meant is the first task of the reader. This involves, first and foremost, of course, a careful reading of what has been written, which can be awfully hard work for some people.

The alternatives to careful reading with the aim of understanding what the author has written are many and varied, but two of the most common are the confirmation of preconceived ideas and the opportunity for critical self-display (i.e. for the reader to show off).

On another subject, your name jogged my memory and I couldn't quite think why. The other day, while watching The Office, it all fell into place: David Brent's moving poem 'Excalibur', upon which your screen name is such a clever play. Allow me to quote the poem in your honour:

I froze your tears and made a dagger
And stabbed it in my cock forever
It stays there like Excalibur
Are you my Arthur?
Say you are

Take this cool dark steeled blade
Steal it, sheath it
In your lake
I drown with you to be together
Must you breathe?
Cos I need HeavenI wonder what Stanley Fish would make of that.

Campion, I love you and want you to have my babies.

[Campion]

Campion, I love you and want you to have my babies.How many do you have? I'm not sure if I have room for them -- my place isn't all that big, and I don't have a yard. And why are you giving them away, anyway?
;)

[roger thornhill]

How many do you have? I'm not sure if I have room for them -- my place isn't all that big, and I don't have a yard. And why are you giving them away, anyway?
;)Mmmm, should have anticipated that. Instead, I was anticipating the objection that you were a bloke.

Now, in answer to your question - since I'm always being accused of avoiding current questions - it is both the male of the species's greatest source of pride and also his greatest source of insecurity that HE NEVER KNOWS how many young he has sired. I am sorry that I must take the Socratean route once again (thanks to David Simmons - there's someone you can't accuse of newbeeism! - for the Socratean allusion in a previous thread), but one should never profess to know more than one really does know, you know.

[Campion]

Mmmm, should have anticipated that. Instead, I was anticipating the objection that you were a bloke.I get that a lot around here for some reason. . .

[Zoe]

quote]roger
Campion, I love you and want you to have my babies.[/quote]

You misspelled half.

Campion, this would come to no good -- a mixture of Scottish peerage and newbie, you know...

[Excalibre]

Au contraire, Excalibre, the position I take re writing and reading is the opposite of the postmodernist one. While postmodernism downplays, or decentres, the role of author, I have always maintained that attempting to understand what the writer meant is the first task of the reader. This involves, first and foremost, of course, a careful reading of what has been written, which can be awfully hard work for some people.

The alternatives to careful reading with the aim of understanding what the author has written are many and varied, but two of the most common are the confirmation of preconceived ideas and the opportunity for critical self-display (i.e. for the reader to show off).
See, in this way you demonstrate that my point flew right over your head. (Perhaps you should consult your method for assertaining the author's intentions.) I was attempting to point out the utter irrelevance of your little recital of that model of communication. With this message, you continue to blabber on about things no one cares about because you're under the misapprehension that it makes you look smart.

Needless to say, I'm familiar with postmodernism, being an occasional student of literature and being constantly exposed (albeit unwillingly) to the postmodernist bullshit that infests the social sciences through my main course of study. I just didn't bother to carefully read what you wrote once I figured out that it had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I must say, I find it fascinating that you've given up even trying to demonstrate the veracity of your assertion that we're "newist" here. Have you (saints be praised!) grasped the fact that it is an untenable position?

I for one find myself mistrustful of anyone who presents an opinion as if it were unassailable truth. You say in your OP
One positive effect of the recent attacks on guinnog is to draw attention to a long-standing problem here, the practice of attacking a person purely on the basis of their date of joining this particular Internet discussion board. For those who like their '-isms', you can call it 'newism'.
- in other words, you don't bother to stop and demonstrate your claim. You just make a bare assertion, with the expectation (I suppose) that by snowing folks under with references to philosophers, we'll assume you must be right about it.

One thing I do when I'm presented with a claim is assess whether the claimant has bothered to argue at all to support their case, or whether they're just presenting an opinion as if it were revealed truth. Your opinion is that we exhibit constant "newism" (couldn't you have coined a better term than that?) but you didn't stop to try to demonstrate that it's true. I don't trust people who don't try to argue their point. In fact, it's almost a guiding principle of mine - if someone can't even justify a claim through an argument, putting forth a logical set of reasons to believe them, then chances are very slim that they have anything to say at all.

Once again, this heuristic has been successful.

[Campion]

Campion, this would come to no good -- a mixture of Scottish peerage and newbie, you know...
Not so much with the Scottish peers -- now if you were to say that he's a mutant (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=314978), I'd be interested. ;)

[roger thornhill]

Campion, I love you and want you to have my babies.

You misspelled half.See, I fixed your coding. All this love I feel inside of me just needs an outlet, ya see.

Campion, this would come to no good -- a mixture of Scottish peerage and newbie, you know...But I'm only a sort of newbie according to my latest Number One Fan (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6139812&postcount=18).

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

All this love I feel inside of me just needs an outlet, ya see. Oh, I can help you out! See that set of little holes in the wall (http://www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_SM/0001-0408-1013-2913_SM.jpg) over there? Yes, with that plastic cover around them. Now, if you'll stick your wiener in one of the holes.... :D

[roger thornhill]

exposed (albeit unwillingly) to the postmodernist bullshit that infests the social sciences through my main course of study.Then we probably have far more in common than we have not in common. I just didn't bother to carefully read what you wrote...Sacre bleu! Last time someone tried that one on me - my wife, as I recall - I refused to talk to her for the rest of the evening, and went and read my old school reports which said I was a good writer.You just make a bare assertion, with the expectation (I suppose) that by snowing folks under with references to philosophers, we'll assume you must be right about it. Steady on there. You've cited Liberal! How can I compete with Don Henley and David Brent.Your opinion is that we exhibit constant "newism" (couldn't you have coined a better term than that?)Bloody hell! That's the last straw - I'm getting our domestic helper to fax my school reports over. I spent nearly half an hour thinking of the best neologism for what I wanted to describe, checked it with my wife, who told me it was "brilliant, Roger, absolutely brilliant!" (her exact words - can't get more empirical than that, matey), and even polled a few of the people in the office whose English is half decent. That's what I call a qualitative research programme.

Q.E.D.

The name stays.

[roger thornhill]

Oh, I can help you out! See that set of little holes in the wall (http://www.acclaimimages.com/_gallery/_SM/0001-0408-1013-2913_SM.jpg) over there? Yes, with that plastic cover around them. Now, if you'll stick your wiener in one of the holes.... :DSad thing is, these days it would probably fit in any of the three of them...

[askeptic]

Hey Roger since your back and all, mind showing me a single instance where guinnog was put down simply for being new? My bet is you will wax faux philisophic as usual and ignore this simple and repeated request.

[Excalibre]

Hey Roger since your back and all, mind showing me a single instance where guinnog was put down simply for being new? My bet is you will wax faux philisophic as usual and ignore this simple and repeated request.
You need to even ask? Did you see his reply to my last post?

Ol' rog can see that he's making untenable claims. He won't admit it, but he's sure stopped trying to argue.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Isn't the chain of events painfully obvious?

guinnog joined
guinnog expected his self-evident genius to be immediately recognized
such recognition was not forthcoming
guinnog tried to demonstrate his genius, realizing that self-evident obviously wasn't obvious enough
recognition still wasn't forthcoming
guinnog lashes out at the board members who are obviously too dull-witted to see his obvious self-evident genius
board members lash back, and since they have more experience and greater numbers, guinnog is pounded into slime suitable for feeding aquarium snails
roger thornhill tries to defend guinnog, explaining the hostility as a character flaw in some of the board's members
board members lash back, and since they have more experience and greater numbers, roger thornhill is pounded into slime suitable for feeding aquarium snails

Is that about right?Not to mention that, while guinnog was trying to demonstrate his genius, he said something about being amazed at what was crawling out of the woodwork. Dangerously close to an admission of trolling, that.

[Dangerosa]

He also said he'd been lurking here for a long time and felt he had the culture of the boards nailed.

I feel sorry for people who don't catch on to the culture, get nailed for it, figure out what they did wrong and move on. Sometimes we ARE harder on them than we should be.

I feel no regret over the other two kinds, the ones who when someone says "you are new here, you may not know....." come back with "I've been lurking a long time!" and the type that when informed about our ways don't choose to acknowledge a hundred posters saying "hey, you did bad" with "well, maybe I was the one out of line." guinnog did both.

[roger thornhill]

There are two different things which people seem to be confusing: a) the posting rules/guidelines for each forum here at SDMB, and b) the "culture of the SDMB".

This thread is aimed at showing how ungracious, narrow-minded and pernicious the latter notion is. That people can believe that a board with, over the years, more than 50,000 members from a multitude of places and cultures can have one monolithic, homogeneous culture is very disappointing. This place works best as a place for the sharp clash of deeply held ideas. Regarding the oft-feted community aspect of the board, it is a by-product of the dynamic of people coming together to share opinions on matters of interest to them. As soon as you attempt to obtain friends through a board like this, its potency (both for generating friendships as well as for the exchange of opinions) will falter. I think constant cognizance should be taken of this.

As for a), I have no problem with this at all. Like all social institutions, this place needs rules and rulers (plus plenty of checks and balances so we can keep the rulers in check). Generally, the Admin and Mods do a very good job. Only when they let their personal dislike of another person affect their judgement do they run severe risks of not living up to their job duties. Fortunately, this doesn't happen very often.

[Miller]

This thread is aimed at showing how ungracious, narrow-minded and pernicious the latter notion is.

Congratulations on your utter failure.

[gum]

Congratulations on your utter failure.
I don't agree.

He didn't fail to show us what a helpless, hopeless, sad little brain - bodswood - pardon me, ahem - : Roger Thornhill has.

[Excalibre]

roger, one thing you figure out when you turn into an adult is this: not everyone believes the same things you do, and not everyone sees the world in the same way. Now, you seem to believe it is axiomatic that we are unfriendly to new people, but all the evidence that I've seen points to the contrary. No one else here seems to agree with you either.

You need to either put forth an argument to prove the point you're trying to make, or admit that your point is groundless. I'm not sure why you're confused here - do you understand that you're arguing from premises that most people here don't share? I can only come up with two rational explanations for your continual refusal to actually provide some evidence for your assertions - either you're one of those misunderstood genius types, like lekatt or the Timecube guy, and you think you deserve our wholehearted agreement simply because you are always right, or else you've realized that your argument is unreasonable but you're stubbornly unwilling to acknowledge it. What's the answer, roger? Why do you expect everyone to agree with you when you won't even provide any argument to support your point?


This thread is aimed at showing how ungracious, narrow-minded and pernicious the latter notion is.
Do you intend to show us at some point, then?


Honestly, I don't understand your unwillingness to offer an argument. Are you so arrogant that you feel yourself to be above arguments to support your point? If not, then what?

[gum]

Originally posted by ExcalibreIf not, then what?
Attention whoring?