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 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
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. 
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?
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.
Much, much worse. At least Liberal is smart to start with.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
Just having a pleasant conversation with Priceguy on habits that irritate us. 
Have a nice day, Liberal.
Well, that’s not quite what I was doing, but never mind.
Isn’t the chain of events painfully obvious?
[list=#][li]guinnog joined[/li][li]guinnog expected his self-evident genius to be immediately recognized[/li][li]such recognition was not forthcoming[/li][li]guinnog tried to demonstrate his genius, realizing that self-evident obviously wasn’t obvious enough[/li][li]recognition still wasn’t forthcoming[/li][li]guinnog lashes out at the board members who are obviously too dull-witted to see his obvious self-evident genius[/li][li]board members lash back, and since they have more experience and greater numbers, guinnog is pounded into slime suitable for feeding aquarium snails[/li][li]roger thornhill tries to defend guinnog, explaining the hostility as a character flaw in some of the board’s members[/li][li]board members lash back, and since they have more experience and greater numbers, roger thornhill is pounded into slime suitable for feeding aquarium snails[/list][/li]
Is that about right?
Fine. Bitching about how much we don’t like roger thornhill.
Personally, I find that a very pleasant way to spend time.
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 wonder what Stanley Fish would make of that.
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?
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.