anyone else care to jump in here? no? well ok then...
first of all, i'll point out the most glaring of your contradictions. and then we'll go from there. but wait, let me get this straight: you're pursuing some sort of revenge or justice or validation (one of the three) because you feel like the veterans here strive to shoot down or criticize "just about any deep thought provoking thread." good so far? ok.
so check it out:
a) i don't even know what you're talking about; what "individual criticisms" in regards to thought-provoking threads? examples please...no one has ever had much success getting away with unsupported accusations around here. ask bluejay, who always--no matter what his position--remembers to include supportive and legitimate documentation and exact quotes.
b) i would call your attention to a three month battle the veterans of AQ waged this past summer against a wave of newbies who posted nothing but the "meaningless yet ... highly controversial posts" you alluded to. why? because these were exactly the sorts of threads we were against. read the "i'm getting fed up" thread again if your memory needs refreshing. so no, there is absolutely no hidden antagonism towards anything intellectual on this board, none that i know of at least. what we veterans prize--in this context--is interesting, well-thought-out, and clearly-worded posts. if one doesn't meet these criteria, and the topic has potetential, we may decide to confront the weaknesses (of the post, not the poster!), in hopes of salvaging the strengths. perhaps this is what you were referring to? i know--for my part--that i've never challenged the right-to-exist of an entire post or thread of yours, only the content. and if that is what you're railing against, then i would suggest pulling down your dictionary yet again to look up the word "hypocrisy." because everyone here is entitled to dissension; and you can't attack the oppression (imagined or not, i might add) of the right to create a thread, while at the same time refusing to accept criticism. free speech is a broad concept, and under its umbrella you get the thorns along with the roses.
c) there should be absolutely no controversy over what kinds of threads are allowed here. creating the new set of rules last month was a painstakingly thorough process, designed to preclude any argument over what is and isn't acceptable. and besides, so far, it hasn't even been put to the test.
what's all this about hierarchies and mob mentalities? if you sense a hierarchy here, it's in your head. i take it you mean something along the lines of "exclusiveness"...in other words, a situation strikingly similar to that of high school, where seniors simply can't hang out with freshman for fear of committing social suicide. not so here, atrex. observe the cases of cal and greg and pequod, members who--because they understood the dynamics of our board and started off strong with their contributions--were immediately welcomed into our "family" and cherished as fellow members. there is no conspiratorial snobbery at work on this board, only individual snobbery, and if you detect that in me--as you do--then confront me with it. you won't get anywhere; i am who i am, but i'd rather you do that than continue to vaguely insinuate that something is rotten in the state of denmark...or AQ as the case may be.
i don't doubt that you seek not to alienate your readers...but you should take care not to alienate yourself, as i believe you are doing by undertaking this misconceived quest of yours. you seem to have a habit of talking around everything you wish to say, and as a result, those who read your posts are inevitably left wondering at your intentions. you mention your personal "POV," and while the communication of this "POV" is certainly protected under the rules of this board, i can't even muster a guess at what it may be.
onward. the next issue is a simple discrepency: you appropriated my response to the wrong statement. "where did [you] say anything about this thread being deleted?" you ask? why, a little later in your post, when you commented: "i'm about to stop, for this thread could very quickly be placed on the endangered species list, should the total length of this post exceed the attention span of the average or veteran AQMB poster/reader." clear enough now? as for the "royal 'we' "...that's easy. i have no idea why you took such a confrontational tone about it, but i simply meant the administration, those of us (technically) able to delete posts or threads.
here's an example of what i mentioned earlier: "Now another comment that I garnered with a little humorous note"...what does that even mean?! is it bad, good? are you mad, or amused? it is sentences like this one that prevent me from understanding your position most of the time. i just can't make sense out of them. the portentous tone is there; i'm pretty sure you mean something and are perhaps even adamant about it, but my comprehension ends there.
anyway, you hit a little bit closer to the mark here, where you single me out for a direct insult or accusation. fine, but i still wish you'd show me exactly how or why you think that i'm the "grand pubar of appropriateness" or whatever the hell you called me (i do, at least, assume that i'm supposed to think it's a negative thing). a side note on this issue: i'm not even here that much anymore. at the most, i post on average about twice a day, and usually in the same thread. how can i wield this enormous judgmental power over "all posts, and threads" if i don't even post in 80% of them?!
again, you allude to my "constant comment[s]" on the value of posts. i fail to recollect such instances, save for the times i've complained about or criticized the initiation or retrieval of the same type of "meaningless" or "controversial" threads you complained about at the beginning of your post. if there are other existing examples of my alleged tyranny, clue me in. furthermore, i'm not sure where or when i've adamantly denied that thread- and post-judging takes place--of course it does, and i'm just as vulnerable as anyone else in this respect--but i'll be willing to review any documentation you can dig up.
sigh. "finally," atrex, you do, in fact, "need to layer on more evidence to prove [and perhaps identify] your point." i, for one, am simply not convinced, and none of your observations were anywhere approaching "damn conclusive." again, if you have a problem with my character, my pretentions, or my language, then that's a personal problem you have with me. it has nothing to do with rights or rules or censorship or anything like that. it's plain and simple dislike. and i suggest you leave it at that, because you have no case. you can't change me. i have just as much right to be myself as you do, and neither one of us is protected against criticism.
~fygmynt
first of all, i'll point out the most glaring of your contradictions. and then we'll go from there. but wait, let me get this straight: you're pursuing some sort of revenge or justice or validation (one of the three) because you feel like the veterans here strive to shoot down or criticize "just about any deep thought provoking thread." good so far? ok.
so check it out:
a) i don't even know what you're talking about; what "individual criticisms" in regards to thought-provoking threads? examples please...no one has ever had much success getting away with unsupported accusations around here. ask bluejay, who always--no matter what his position--remembers to include supportive and legitimate documentation and exact quotes.
b) i would call your attention to a three month battle the veterans of AQ waged this past summer against a wave of newbies who posted nothing but the "meaningless yet ... highly controversial posts" you alluded to. why? because these were exactly the sorts of threads we were against. read the "i'm getting fed up" thread again if your memory needs refreshing. so no, there is absolutely no hidden antagonism towards anything intellectual on this board, none that i know of at least. what we veterans prize--in this context--is interesting, well-thought-out, and clearly-worded posts. if one doesn't meet these criteria, and the topic has potetential, we may decide to confront the weaknesses (of the post, not the poster!), in hopes of salvaging the strengths. perhaps this is what you were referring to? i know--for my part--that i've never challenged the right-to-exist of an entire post or thread of yours, only the content. and if that is what you're railing against, then i would suggest pulling down your dictionary yet again to look up the word "hypocrisy." because everyone here is entitled to dissension; and you can't attack the oppression (imagined or not, i might add) of the right to create a thread, while at the same time refusing to accept criticism. free speech is a broad concept, and under its umbrella you get the thorns along with the roses.
c) there should be absolutely no controversy over what kinds of threads are allowed here. creating the new set of rules last month was a painstakingly thorough process, designed to preclude any argument over what is and isn't acceptable. and besides, so far, it hasn't even been put to the test.
what's all this about hierarchies and mob mentalities? if you sense a hierarchy here, it's in your head. i take it you mean something along the lines of "exclusiveness"...in other words, a situation strikingly similar to that of high school, where seniors simply can't hang out with freshman for fear of committing social suicide. not so here, atrex. observe the cases of cal and greg and pequod, members who--because they understood the dynamics of our board and started off strong with their contributions--were immediately welcomed into our "family" and cherished as fellow members. there is no conspiratorial snobbery at work on this board, only individual snobbery, and if you detect that in me--as you do--then confront me with it. you won't get anywhere; i am who i am, but i'd rather you do that than continue to vaguely insinuate that something is rotten in the state of denmark...or AQ as the case may be.
i don't doubt that you seek not to alienate your readers...but you should take care not to alienate yourself, as i believe you are doing by undertaking this misconceived quest of yours. you seem to have a habit of talking around everything you wish to say, and as a result, those who read your posts are inevitably left wondering at your intentions. you mention your personal "POV," and while the communication of this "POV" is certainly protected under the rules of this board, i can't even muster a guess at what it may be.
onward. the next issue is a simple discrepency: you appropriated my response to the wrong statement. "where did [you] say anything about this thread being deleted?" you ask? why, a little later in your post, when you commented: "i'm about to stop, for this thread could very quickly be placed on the endangered species list, should the total length of this post exceed the attention span of the average or veteran AQMB poster/reader." clear enough now? as for the "royal 'we' "...that's easy. i have no idea why you took such a confrontational tone about it, but i simply meant the administration, those of us (technically) able to delete posts or threads.
here's an example of what i mentioned earlier: "Now another comment that I garnered with a little humorous note"...what does that even mean?! is it bad, good? are you mad, or amused? it is sentences like this one that prevent me from understanding your position most of the time. i just can't make sense out of them. the portentous tone is there; i'm pretty sure you mean something and are perhaps even adamant about it, but my comprehension ends there.
anyway, you hit a little bit closer to the mark here, where you single me out for a direct insult or accusation. fine, but i still wish you'd show me exactly how or why you think that i'm the "grand pubar of appropriateness" or whatever the hell you called me (i do, at least, assume that i'm supposed to think it's a negative thing). a side note on this issue: i'm not even here that much anymore. at the most, i post on average about twice a day, and usually in the same thread. how can i wield this enormous judgmental power over "all posts, and threads" if i don't even post in 80% of them?!
again, you allude to my "constant comment[s]" on the value of posts. i fail to recollect such instances, save for the times i've complained about or criticized the initiation or retrieval of the same type of "meaningless" or "controversial" threads you complained about at the beginning of your post. if there are other existing examples of my alleged tyranny, clue me in. furthermore, i'm not sure where or when i've adamantly denied that thread- and post-judging takes place--of course it does, and i'm just as vulnerable as anyone else in this respect--but i'll be willing to review any documentation you can dig up.
sigh. "finally," atrex, you do, in fact, "need to layer on more evidence to prove [and perhaps identify] your point." i, for one, am simply not convinced, and none of your observations were anywhere approaching "damn conclusive." again, if you have a problem with my character, my pretentions, or my language, then that's a personal problem you have with me. it has nothing to do with rights or rules or censorship or anything like that. it's plain and simple dislike. and i suggest you leave it at that, because you have no case. you can't change me. i have just as much right to be myself as you do, and neither one of us is protected against criticism.
~fygmynt
"type slowly." ~ stephen malkmus
)
Yeah, I know I totally and completely suck for pointing that out. Sorry. Had to do it. And if I'm wrong, I suck even more. 
