Wasn't in response to you.

Who was it in response to?

Karl, bebe, I'm so happy to see you. Even if a kerfuffle had to bring you out.

bicyclops, thank you.

I would like to reiterate a position that a lot of people have taken: that we do not slap down newbies willy-nilly. A lot of people have delurked and fit in just fine without a belly-flop in the guac. Some people have delurked straight into the guac, some people have hung about for a bit and tripped over the guac, and some people have set up the damned party and still managed to get guac all over their dress recently.

Yes, we as a group are less able to understand people we do not know, and yes, I think the burden of fitting in lies mostly on the new person. And yes, I think we could all benefit from taking a moment to think every time we post. But it ain't always gonna happen.

The incident that seems to have set this off is one of about 5 that has occured over the life of this board. Considering the number of people out there on the vast Interweb and the culture of this board (I'm including the culture as it was in The Good Old Days), I think it's a pretty good ratio.

Ah, good to see that it was just my late-night crack smoking.

If you don't bring enough to share with the entire group....

If you don't bring enough to share with the entire group....

See, I don't think of this so much as monkey-grooming as lemur-grooming.

Hey, are you implying that we crack-smokers are somehow less evolved? Huh? Wanna take this outside?

Wanna take this outside?

Is that in the Hard Day's Night sense, or the George Michael sense?

Hey, are you implying that we crack-smokers are somehow less evolved? Huh?

Nah. That's actually a minor hotbutton issue for me, because it gets applied to monotremes too. That a species has been around for longer doesn't mean that it's less evolved. If it's still around, then it's sufficiently well adapted to its environment and all that.

Lemurs are (IIRC) less intelligent than monkeys, though evolution is just as likely to make a population less intelligent than more. (Big spicy brains are expensive. If they're not pulling their weight, then they're just zombie magnets.)

Anyway. This is all obviously an inappropriate response and bringing the tone down, I just had to defend my beloved echidnas millipede-totin' lemurs.

bt, I have a hard time with the notion that lemurs are -ever- inappropriate.

eta: juliana, you're a sweetheart. Congratulations on your engagement.

t /natter

bt, I have a hard time with the notion that lemurs are -ever- inappropriate.

Even when they're bogarting the millipede?

Rejecting my overt statement regarding my tone was a pretty darn good example of what I was arguing in the first place - that a few posters are becoming very aggressive, and effectively bullying other posters - newbies, soft-spoken posters, and oldbies alike.

I bolded the parts of that sentence that seem to draw a conclusion -- please tell me if I'm misinterpreting your words, Rafmun -- that rejecting your statement (abut your tone) was an example of a few posters aggressively bullying other posters.

I, in no way, re-worded or re-ordered that statement -- I quoted your actual words. And what they say is that rejecting your statement is an example of bullying.

That is a mistaken assumption. Rejecting anyone's statements (opinions, declarations, screeds) is not bullying. It is merely not agreeing with that person's statement.

A failure to agree with you does not constitute bullying.

Rejecting my overt statement regarding my tone was a pretty darn good example of what I was arguing in the first place - that a few posters are becoming very aggressive, and effectively bullying other posters - newbies, soft-spoken posters, and oldbies alike.

You know what? You can't convey tone by an overt statement indicating that is the tone in which your words should be understood.

This is very true. There is no way I could preface a post with "Please know my intended tone is welcoming and friendly," and follow it up with insults and threats.

there still remain more than a few long-termers who stood up and said 'me too' to at least some of what I observed, and others who added much of their own concerns and observations. What of them? Surely they're not arrogant and patronizing too for feeling similarly, are they?

Well, this goes back to tone. The content isn't arrogant and rude; it's the manner in which it's written. The "long-termers" who agreed with you did not express themselves with the same condescending, lecturing attitude you did, and therefore did not come across as patronizing.

Rafmun, you make me feel pretty unwelcome. What should we do about you?

Perhaps you could start by addressing these repeat offenders by name, it appears cowardly that you don't.

Yes, this. I don't doubt for a second I'm in the Evil Mean Cabal(TM) (say my name! say it! say my name, bitch!), and I wish you'd just come out with it and say who exactly is being so bullying towards others.

And if not, you could cite some examples (i.e., "in the F2F thread, many people expressed a preference for a hotel with a pool, but Steph was so insistent that we choose one without a pool that eventually everyone gave up and capitulated to her") so we get an idea of what you mean.

Because what seems "bullying" to one person might not seem so to another. And it isn't surprising in a board this size that there would be differing perceptions of such.

and went, for lack of a more clinical term - starkers.

You got naked?

(Big spicy brains are expensive. If they're not pulling their weight, then they're just zombie magnets.)

I think this is my new motto for life.

And thanks for pulling me up on the less-evolved thing. I know better, and I went for the cheap joke -- to make up for it, I can only offer these less-intelligent-than-monkeys cute-heads.