The Weekenders wrote:anniemcu wrote:
hmmm... could it be because you think important things are important, tend to know what you are talking about, say what you mean in a reasonbly articulate manner, and are able to back up your arguments ? ... that makes you hard for a lot of people to take.
.
Hmmmmm.......It COULD but it's NOT.
Fercrynoutloud, read the posts here. It's about getting along, respecting other people and their participation and PARTLY about not filling the Forum with today's political talking points, posed in the form of fake polls. When several long-time posters, who are more likely to agree with Gilder than not, go to pains to qualify exactly what concerns them, resorting to your suspicion that he is a great ideologue and thus resented is unhelpful in the extreme.
My contention is that a kind of negativity is fostered by it, to the point where its no fun for anyone, except maybe Gilder, who enjoys hearing and reading himself opine, apparently, on POLITICAL subjects. Hey, I do my share too, but no one has ever started a thread, and named me and wished I would stop starting threads. Fact is, I don't start that many threads, but a few have gone big over the years.
For post after post, Gilder continues to nail Bush. But the fact is, most everyone on this Forum who posts agrees with him, to SOME degree. So what is the point? Is it all to convince the fraction who might disagree?
I don't see why he bothers. All he has to do is post something negative about Bush, Simon will answer with a refinement, and you will likely amen it. Where is the challenge, fun or interest in that? It's tiresome.
Yes, I am super-imposing my feelings a bit over Murph's, but its only to utterly and completely refute your "suspicion" that Gilder's brilliance bugs Jack. And Jack's post is NOT ONLY about Gilder, but I am once again addressing this specific issue.
Maybe Murph doesn't have a lot of practice articulating his feelings, but it certainly isn't because he resents Gilder for hatin' Bush and the war.....
Cripes, Bloomie... you took my post much more seriously than I did. ... yes, I do believe that *at least part* of the reason Gilder gets so much of a reaction is that he does, indeed make *some* people nervous for exactly the reasons I stated, but I don't by any stretch find him the "great ideologue" or brilliant political guide of my life (that's *my* position,
), and I don't see you as either stupid or scared of him... so don't do the 'In a bunch! In a bunch!" thing with your own drawers. That was not a beatific smile I put at the end of that post, it was just a smile, as in there isn't an emoticon for an ironic/sarcastic smirk.
Personally, although he *occaisionally* gets a bit over the top (like many here, in heated discussion or on a less than stellar day), he generally is well informed and has decent, viable sources. He posts about things that are of very great importance in my world (I'd argue the world at large) and I do largely agree with him. That does not give him a free pass. It just means that I don't resent his posting, just as I don't resent the posting of anybody here that I can think of, though it is obvious that Murphy, and you, do.
If I don't care for the topic, or the poster, I usually just skip that. If I actually disagree or have an opionion or comment that I think will either illuminate, support, counter or entertain, I will continue to post it. Sometimes I'm even guilty of a fly-by posting. Folks have the same freedom to pass by my posts if they so choose.
As I have said, I have a decade of experience with message boards, and this type of post (refering to the original post in this particular thread) is a regular, cyclic thing. The end result is almost always that most decide that the company and discussion is good enough to stay. Some even learn something from it... be it self control, or relaxation and tolerance... and some few people actually leave the board. That is their choice.
My real point is, I will not ask someone to 'shut up' at my table unless they are actually being abusive. This is not *my* table, but it a big table, and I rarely see someone being actually abusive. If you will recall, I *do* say something at those times. I even sometimes totally agree with you, though those are rare enough times that I usually note it.
Oh, and addressing another "point" in the original post... I play whistle a lot, am considered pretty good by those hapless folks who don't know any better, and know that I am nowhere nearly as good as many here. I do in fact frequently sit playing while I read these very boards. For what it's worth, I think that qualifies me as an actual whistle playing, over 1000 post, (though just barely 2 years), member. Murphy is welcome to ignore me to his little ol' heart's content. You as well if you so choose.
eidited to clarify a point
I would boink you on the head with a loaf of bread, but for obvious reasons I can't.
