Why are we getting all personal here? Did Dywyddyr mention birch in his comments? Or Beer w/Straw? Why do you assume he is criticising you?
Uh, okay. I see from James' post that I got a mention somewhere, but, since both posters named in that are on my ignore list I hadn't seen the "problem". The fact that both are on that list should be an indicator of how much impact they have on my time here and, subsequently, also an indicator of whether or not I had them (singly or together) in mind when I made the post in question. (Clue: no, neither poster features on my radar). However, now that it's been drawn to my attention (and looking at this thread before logging in so that I can see the "controversy") the following may be of use for those in the Hard of Understanding sub-group of posters here. 1: birch seems not to understand that the word some (as in my "Some posters should not only...") means "not all...", or, conversely "other posters should be...". A singe, specific (cherry-picked?) example of anything does not refute "some". Although it does seem telling that she chose to classify herself as "a barely literate/ coherent/ rational half-wit" in order to (attempt to) refute my claim. 2: "Well if, Dywyddyr, could make a response entertaining..." is not only not framed as question (e.g. no question mark on the end) but is worded such that interpretation as a question is, at best, peripheral. I.e. it could be followed by "... then anyone could". Or "... I'd be surprised." Etc. Thus the accusation of cowardice is, er, a non sequitur. If you want to call me a coward because YOU are either incapable of posing a question as a question or simply can't be bothered to make yourself clear then be my guest. Water/ duck's backs etc.
Never. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Just seems needless to have a fight about trolling in a thread about fighting about trolling. But then again, I shouldn't have to explain that - since a :dislike: speaks for itself, and can never be misconstrued or ambiguous... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
There's a fine line between provoking a response and prompting a discussion; a trollish post may stimulate a good debate - which is why a moderator's job is not easy.
I'm happy with any flavor. A like is a like is a like. I guess it comes down to this: The follow up action to a Like is to continue as you see fit (whatever you were doing, keep doing it). Like may have nuances, such as 'I think that's witty', or 'I think that's correct' but ultimately it is still approval, and the original poster can proceed without change. The followup actions to a Dislike are myriad. The poster is being told something is wrong with what he wrote, and if he wishes to acknowledge this, he should, in theory (in a good faith debate), change what he is doing. But he does not know what, of many properties, is being disliked. The first thing he'd have to do is ask 'what do you dislike about what I wrote?' You don't ever hear people asking 'what do you like about what I wrote?' IOW, there are far more ways to change something than there are ways to have something remain the same. Heh. Imagine if your GPS operated the way Dislike is being proposed. "Go straight."; "OK, Tom-tom." "Go straight.";"OK, Tom-tom." "Go straight.";"OK, Tom-tom." "Change direction."; "What?? which direction??"
