Or, maybe— —you never again complain about↗ "reasonable standards of intellectual integrity and honesty". Or, more directly: How, Dave, was it not appropriate "topicality" to comment on the general pretense of "glitches in the matrix"? I mean, y'know, since it comes up, for whatever reason, from time to time? This thread rehashes a weird bit having to do with a movie; it must have been a slow news day in Glasgow for the Times to run that story. It's not a conspiracy theory, but a pop culture adaptation of metaphor in not-uncommon psychological, psychiatric, or neurologic phenomena affecting perception and memory. Now, I do fully acknowledge that, in recalling what I told the fake med student two years ago about this same subject, I did, in fact, forget to scrutinize my post according to that most important of editorial criteria, ¿What would Dave think? So, while we are asked if we are witnessing "proof of a 'glitch' in the Matrix", and whether something is a hoax or if we have "slipped into a different dimension", I recall my remarks from the last time this came up, that "Glitches in the Matrix" is a pop-culture extrapolation of a twentieth-century science-fiction film, and in the past, these "glitches" have been attributed to divinity, extraterrestrials, communications satellites, and even a form of lucid dreaming a person could actively invoke and control, but that's not good enough because something about "topicality and a semblance of dialogue", and Dave is unhappy. So, what do you want, Dave? It's one thing to talk about reasonable standards of intellectual integrity and honesty, but this part↗ isn't new↗; you're putting on an example of what happened. Along the way, during our transition from a place for rational discourse, evidence-based argument, and reasonable standards of intellectual integrity and honesty, into a sparsely-attended bacchanal where such notions are disdained and even rejected, the "blog" line is one that comes up frequently enough that I don't remember them all, but sure, you're up there with James R↗, Seattle↗, Foghorn↗, Dumbest Man on Earth↗, and Hipparchia↗, at least. Okay, okay, in fairness, we should note that James R was his own occasion, and the others I linked were clustered in an outburst↗ reacting to a thread about an American Nazi being convicted of federal crimes. As Hipparchia↗ explained, the digression was "a frustrated effort to get … staff members to recognise that there is a problem here and it is not us". The problem, apparently, was that the "style is considered by several of us to be pretentious". And, y'know, maybe. But you'll notice these complaints do not include much toward what would be more appropriate. Should I craft↗ more or less, Dave? Think about it; what we had in that episode was posts that asserted to deliver news, purported to analyze it, and cited sources to "craft" a narrative suggesting the significance of what the news describes. The complaint, at least from Hipparchia on behalf of several, is that such posts "discourage discussion", though we are never told quite how that works. And that's always the problem, Dave. We're never told. We did, however, get a suggestion for a full-blown software solution↗, but as to the problem of stylistics discouraging discussion, it's all non-specific language of meaning left entirely to the reader, a feelgood exercise in proscription. Meanwhile, the blog complaint runs back to the rise of the blogosphere, and had other forms, before that; someone once complained about the number of syllables, which, y'know, okay, whatever. Go look at the explanation video in CC's post↑, and consider the fact that anyone might need it explained to them like that. What would you like me to say about that? Meanwhile, the whole thing is a recent stylization of common symptoms. And it remains unclear what about that point is so exasperatingly violative of your sense of topicality.