Woodruff wrote:
No...you made a statement, and then provided supporting information for that perspective. You even stated "the innate truth of hooks' words" (or something to that effect).
So now I'm quite confused. What exactly was your position regarding "the ones having fun on the site are the ones that are being asked to leave", because I thought you were disagreeing with me when I read your post, but your response here seems to indicate that you weren't disagreeing with me.
i think you are scanning too many posts Wood!
My response was more complex than either agreeing or disagreeing with you. My post shifted the focus from it being a huge misconception to a mild one; agreeing with you in a way but reducing its gravity so to lead to the next concept. Adapting it to a related one but without staying locked to the original. you will see in the next sentence i state that 'Some' or even 'Many' of the permanently banned deserved to be so, so i was moving from a blanket and obviously flawed assessment that 'all people having fun were permanently banned' onto a flavour that those who had fun were likely to be banned... or a prevailing feeling that fun was at risk.
Though, as i say it is still a mild misconception, it is still more likely for the mischievous in the present atmosphere, thus it has a certain validity even as an exaggerated and flawed analogy in the first instance from Hook..
Anyway, what i really was amazed at was that you picked-up on this minuscule and largely minor point in my a long and, what i had thought to be interesting in its alternative approach, post. you picked up on a point where i was at worst toning down the import of your position and certainly not disagreeing, when i'd written an allegorical friggin thesis on the integral dynamics of the pecking-order and forum food-chain on CC. .. heheh the thought 'i don't know why i bother!?' came to mind at your post (i of course said it to myself wryly as your summing-up is not wholly my raison d'etre.
