What's wrong with this picture?

[taylorky]

RE: What's wrong with Granny?

 

LOL @lucky:D

[Doug69]

>Yeah. How DARE someone actually CARE about the online

>community they participate in, and have made friends in. I

>mean, REALLY!

 

Oh, OK, Deej. I know that you see this forum as an "online community" in which we all participate, in which we have friends, and about which we care so deeply. That's why you routinely run around telling anyone who asks questions about what happened in this community to "go fuck themselves" and tell them that if they don't like it, they should leave. I know that you embody the community spirit, try so hard to ensure that this forum is a community in every sense of the word, and I deeply regret not having taken your profound and very, very genuine commuinity concerns into account before writing my community-disregarding post.

 

Reading your message in this thread is quite like living in a town where some short, balding, insecure cop stands on the corner every day screaming obsceneties and rude instructions to the residents for no reason, and telling them to "go fuck yourself!" and "if you don't like it, there's the complaint box!" - pointing to the sewer - every time a resident asks him a question about one of his actions, but then one day, out of the blue, this scowling, angry, rude cop suddenly walks up to a crowd of protestors outside of City Hall and begins lecturing them in a syrupy, oh-so-soft-and-genuine tone about the Virtues of Citizenship and chiding them for protesting the Mayor's actions because "after all, this is a community, and we need to be nice and kind to each other."

 

Do you think this policeman would generate more wild, scornful laughter or more vomit? Close call.

 

And, by the way, you missed completely the point of the post: trying to have exterminated and eliminated everyone with whom you disagree, or everyone whose views you dislike, is not a Virture of Community. Such conduct does not build communities. Rather, that behavior is extremely self-indulgent, self-centered, self-regarding, and petty - it is designed to ensure that the place someone is in has nothing in it other than people just like them and has nobody in it who is unpleasant to them in any way. That type of mindset destroys communities, and does not build them. In fact, that sounds like a pseudo-exclusive tea party for wrinkled, crabby, purse-lipped Victorian grandmothers who can't stomach anyone who deviates from their rigid and cuntish Code of Proper Societal Behavior, rather than a "community."

 

Aren't types like you constantly yapping about the Virtues of "Diversity"? I believe so. It always sounds so good in the abstract to parade yourself around as a believer in it, but when it comes to actually, y'know, wanting people around who are different than you and who think differently, then, suddenly, the virtues of "diversity" are nowhere to be found, and in their place comes a campaign to eradicate anyone who is unlike you.

 

Guess what, deej: The people who write inane, boring, cliched short smile-face posts and those who can't keep their sad little fingers off the ALERT button are JUST AS DISLIKED by the people whom they target for ALERT as they dislike the people they target. The only difference is that one group (the targets of the alerts) don't try to vaporize from the forum anyone and everyone they dislike. They understand that a vibrant forum - or, as you so sensitively call it - an "online community", will necessarily have in it people you like, people you don't like, and people who fall in the middle, and that those who are TRULY believe in the virtues of "community" will tolerate and even value this actual diversity.

 

By rather stark contrast, those who want to form PTA cliques - and recruit the Hall Monitors into their cliques -- and then demand that those they dislike and those who are different than them be removed and vaporized are those who are community-destroying.

 

Most people here who read posts they dislike are able to do so without screaming HELP! and demanding that the offending posts be removed. It's not because those people are too cool to "care" about their "online communities." It's because no "community" of any value can exist if the people in it try to eliminate everyone they dislike who or who is different.

 

Apparently, there is a small number of people here who don't have the internal constitution to read a post on an Internet message board without pleading for deletion, and want the forum to consist only of themselves and a handful of surly, rude, angry hall monitors who help them. I suppose you could say that, strictly speaking, if the forum were comprised of nothing but individuals who behaved this way, it would be a "community," but I can't imagine anyone saying that a "community" filled with such petty self-concern and a weakness-driven need to be around only those exactly like them is a "commuinty" that would have any value or worth.

[Doug69]

>(but the visual I added is cute)

 

HOW DID YOU FIND THAT? That's EXACTLY what that device looked like - except the women I saw did not have them hanging from elegant pearl necklaces, but instead, from these horrible cheap strings tied around their necks which were marred by these hideious food stains from the clumps of food that routinely fell out of their toothless mouths into which the nurses had impatiently shoved mounds of their dinner. Isn't it bizarre how people are born into a helpless infancy, and then return to that exact state before they die?

 

Nursing homes are scary nightmeres - especially ones that are really hospices with people in them who are more dead than alive. Some of the women in the one I saw developed Alzheimer's and lost their minds but gained this super physical strength in its place, and they rapidly zipped around in their wheelchairs screaming really scary psychotic rants at everyone who walked by. The pervasive smell of rotting dying people flavored by stained adult diapers is even worse than the images you see. I believe that you get sent to such a place for eternity when you are consigned to hell.

 

Thanks for letting me share.

[Barry]

Very well written Doug. I don't agree with everything you said but well written.

 

Barry

[woodlawn]

>>Yeah. How DARE someone actually CARE about the online

>>community they participate in, and have made friends in. I

>>mean, REALLY!

 

>Oh, OK, Deej. I know that you see this forum as an "online

>community" in which we all participate, in which we have

>friends, and about which we care so deeply. That's why you

>routinely run around telling anyone who asks questions about

>what happened in this community to "go fuck themselves" and

>tell them that if they don't like it, they should leave.

 

Oh, is that why he does it? Because of his "community spirit"? I wondered about that. Thanks for solving the mystery.

 

 

>Reading your message in this thread is quite like living in a

>town where some short, balding, insecure cop stands on the

>corner every day screaming obsceneties and rude instructions

>to the residents for no reason, and telling them to "go fuck

>yourself!" and "if you don't like it, there's the complaint

>box!" - pointing to the sewer - every time a resident asks him

>a question about one of his actions, but then one day, out of

>the blue, this scowling, angry, rude cop suddenly walks up to

>a crowd of protestors outside of City Hall and begins

>lecturing them in a syrupy, oh-so-soft-and-genuine tone about

>the Virtues of Citizenship and chiding them for protesting the

>Mayor's actions because "after all, this is a community, and

>we need to be nice and kind to each other."

 

What can I say? You have really summed him up. Perfect.

 

>Most people here who read posts they dislike are able to do so

>without screaming HELP! and demanding that the offending posts

>be removed. It's not because those people are too cool to

>"care" about their "online communities." It's because no

>"community" of any value can exist if the people in it try to

>eliminate everyone they dislike who or who is different.

>

>Apparently, there is a small number of people here who don't

>have the internal constitution to read a post on an Internet

>message board without pleading for deletion, and want the

>forum to consist only of themselves and a handful of surly,

>rude, angry hall monitors who help them. I suppose you could

>say that, strictly speaking, if the forum were comprised of

>nothing but individuals who behaved this way, it would be a

>"community," but I can't imagine anyone saying that a

>"community" filled with such petty self-concern and a

>weakness-driven need to be around only those exactly like them

>is a "commuinty" that would have any value or worth.

 

Doug, old boy, you have surpassed yourself. In the world of angry rhetoric, you are a giant surrounded by midgets. Kudos!

[mercury40]

>Nursing homes are scary nightmeres - especially ones that are

>really hospices with people in them who are more dead than

>alive. Some of the women in the one I saw developed

>Alzheimer's and lost their minds but gained this super

>physical strength in its place, and they rapidly zipped around

>in their wheelchairs screaming really scary psychotic rants at

>everyone who walked by. The pervasive smell of rotting dying

>people flavored by stained adult diapers is even worse than

>the images you see. I believe that you get sent to such a

>place for eternity when you are consigned to hell.

 

I don't think I'd call this reply "very well written". This is SICK and HURTFUL. I feel sorry for anyone who has lost a loved one to Alzheimer's and has to read this crap.

[+ Lucky]

"Doug, old boy, you have surpassed yourself. In the world of angry rhetoric, you are a giant surrounded by midgets. Kudos!"

 

So true, but why does he bother? (And where does he get the time for all of his lengthy and detailed posts and numerous rebuttals?

[ValleyDwellerNorth]

Hello mercury40,

 

Though I like Doug I am not the president of the local chapter of his fan club (I am the secretary of the Greenland chapter) nor does he help out with my new car payments so I get nothing for supporting him here with this post.

 

Except for him alluding to the fact that being in a nursing home and having Alzheimer's is a pre-hell punishment for really bad people his description was right on the money.

 

Reading what Doug wrote may make you feel uncomfortable, sad and troubled. However, such is life. Every day isn't Hallmark. He spoke about the truths on nursing homes, Alzheimer's and hospices. It isn't a pretty picture.

 

Unless you, or your aged loved one, is wealthy most if us have to settle for the Howard Johnson's version of a nursing home. There are great nursing homes out there but you have to have the money.

 

Doug gave us hard cold reality.

 

So mercury40, in my own opinion, his post was well written. I am not here to persuade you otherwise. I just hope you don't have to deal with the very true reality Doug portrayed because it is out there.

 

VDN

 

>I don't think I'd call this reply "very well written". This is

>SICK and HURTFUL. I feel sorry for anyone who has lost a loved

>one to Alzheimer's and has to read this crap.

>

[ValleyDwellerNorth]

>>(but the visual I added is cute)

>

>HOW DID YOU FIND THAT?

 

Well Doug, let's just say I am handy with a Net search!

 

http://seniorsafety.com/

 

Also, I had to wear one of these when I worked at a Stewart's Convenient Shop in my college days. It was directly linked to the police in case we were getting robbed. I was dared by other co-workers to press the button. I did mostly anything when dared because I use to think I was Madonna. I tried it once and the police came 15 minutes later! I shared my outrage with my boss. He fired me. LOL.

 

VDN

[phage]

>And, by the way, you missed completely the point of the post:

>trying to have exterminated and eliminated everyone with whom

>you disagree, or everyone whose views you dislike, is not a

>Virture of Community. Such conduct does not build

>communities.

 

On the contrary, it builds some very nice communities. They just happen to be gated.

 

>Apparently, there is a small number of people here who don't

>have the internal constitution to read a post on an Internet

>message board without pleading for deletion, and want the

>forum to consist only of themselves and a handful of surly,

>rude, angry hall monitors who help them.

 

After your rather pithy characterization of an “Alert Queen,” I am not eager to admit this, but for the first time in my tenure on this board, I hit that alert button a couple of weeks ago. The only reason I’m bothering to admit it is because I think you believe that it is limited just to that group of guys who only want to have inane chatter and giggle about sex like a bunch of schoolgirls.

 

Only the site administrators know the true volume and mix of alerts coming in, but you know me and you know that I rarely giggle. I like debate. I like argument. I like savage deconstruction when it is well written. However, I don’t believe that anything goes no matter how extreme. There are other people here and they have just as much right to enjoy the interaction as the extremists. You may say, “Be a man. Be tough.” But insisting that everyone else adopt your view is just as self-indulgent as you claim the more sensitive types to be.

 

In this particular case, I responded to a particularly vile post directed at Devon that didn’t have a single sentence that was addressing any point or making any point other than Hawk hated Devon. It was the kind of irrational foaming at the mouth that was obviously going to become Hawk’s response to anything that Devon posted.

 

It didn’t have a damn thing to do with me. I certainly could have just moved on and dismissed it as Devon’s problem, but call me a lilylivered, limp-wristed old lady, I just don’t think it is right to kick someone when they are down. There was endless debate about Devon’s situation, but no matter what you believe happened, I don’t see how anyone could interpret it as anything other than a low point in Devon’s life.

 

He ventures back to the board, which whether you agree with or respect that decision, is a part of his life. He was seeking some normalcy and trying to address the recent controversy, but was met with someone telling him he is a short-dicked, aging #### who should just give up on life.

 

I pushed the alert button because it was obvious that Hawk was going to follow him around the board and spew that garbage every time Devon made a comment. I know there are some people who think that Devon deserves that kind of treatment because he opened his life up to public scrutiny and provided the fodder for the cannons of the nasty people who will use that information against him, but NO ONE deserves that kind of treatment.

 

I don’t know what I expected from pushing the alert button. I didn’t ask them to do anything except read the post. I hoped they would ask Hawk to give it a rest and it sounds like that is what happened. Did I want him to be put in a time out or banned? No. I’m sure that my single alert meant little, but it sounds like it may have acted as a “vote” the way deej described.

 

Will I ever hit the alert button again? Probably not since I’m always going to have the little-old-lady mental picture that you have created. Am I tore up about this vacation/banishment controversy? Not really. Life is full of lines – even in cyberspace – and if you choose to step over those lines, stuff happens.

[giovoni]

<Probably not since I’m always going to have the little-old-lady mental picture that you have created.>

 

Scary. That's giving someone a hell of a lot more power over your actions than I would imagine one could have through an internet message board. It's true that Doug has an unmatched talent for making fun of things he doesn't like but I can't imagine it makes anything better to ignore what you think is right because of his rhetorical wrath.

 

"Deserve Victory"

[phage]

The little-old-lady image is nothing more than a way to summarize the whole concept and has nothing to do with power or ignoring what I think is right. It has everything to do with keeping an open mind and having the ability to adjust what I think is right based on new information and other points of view.

[Doug69]

>Oh, is that why he does it? Because of his "community

>spirit"? I wondered about that. Thanks for solving the

>mystery.

 

And one can't help - can one, Woodlawn? - but again note the irony that deej's defense of the ALERT button - that it's just about people in a community trying to get rid of offensive behavior so that they can have a good, clean, enjoyable community for themselves and their families - is EXACTLY THE RATIONALE used by those who want to outlaw prostitution and who are consequently so viciously ridiculed by the pro-prostitution crowd here.

 

I mean, read deej's post in its entirety - insert some paeans to children - and tell me that it's not EXACTLY what people would say when asked why they care about criminalizing prostitution:

 

___________________________

 

Yeah. How DARE someone actually CARE about the online community they participate in, and have made friends in (and have to raise their children in!). I mean, REALLY!

 

The NERVE!

 

They actually hope it prospers (and is a suitable community for their children). This MUST be stopped!

 

Thank God you're immune to the whole caring thing.

_______________________________

 

How bewildering that people like him think it's perfectly proper and normal and understandable to want to eradicate and exclude people who write upsetting posts on an Internet Board on the ground that doing so is necessary to preseve one's community and to allow it to be an enjoyable place to be.

 

But OTHER people who invoke this same exact rationale to justify excluding from THEIR communities behaviors that they find upsetting and offensive (such as prostitution), are irrational, religiously-crazed fascists who can't keep their sick, buddinsky noses out of other people's business.

 

How does a person come to be someone who embraces a certain rationale when they want to use it to serve their own interests, but then attacks and demeans that exact same rationale when used by others to advance their interests?

[Doug69]

>So true, but why does he bother? (And where does he get the

>time for all of his lengthy and detailed posts and numerous

>rebuttals?

 

Lucky, you really shouldn't assume that just because it takes you X minutes to complete a certain task, that's how long it takes others to complete that task, too. In fact, based on your posts, I'd recommend (X ÷ 20) as the formula you should use when trying to figure out how long it takes somoene to do something relative to how long it takes you to do it.

 

And since that's a lot for you to digest, I will leave to the side the absurdity of being lectured on spending too much time posting here by the person who has, by far, posted the most number of posts in the history of this forum - well over 4,000 and, despite a melodramatic (and sadly rescinded) announcement of a permanent hiatus, still counting.

[Doug69]

>Except for him alluding to the fact that being in a nursing

>home and having Alzheimer's is a pre-hell punishment for

>really bad people. . .

 

Thanks for the defense, but this - what you summarized above - is not what I meant, although I can see how it was unclear. I wasn't saying that those in nursing homes are being punished as bad people. As I said, I saw one because I visited my grandmother 2 years ago who was in one. I was saying that nursing homes are so purely scary and awful and torturous that the worst level of hell must replicate it. I can't imagine much that's worse than that.

[Doug69]

>After your rather pithy characterization of an “Alert Queen,”

>I am not eager to admit this, but for the first time in my

>tenure on this board, I hit that alert button a couple of

>weeks ago.

 

Don't you feel better for having come out of the closet and confessing that you are an Alert-Button-Pusher? Some people spend their whole lives hiding this and it producers awful double lives of deceit and misery. I think you're to be commended for choosing to proclaim who you are.

 

>In this particular case, I responded to a particularly vile

>post directed at Devon that didn’t have a single sentence that

>was addressing any point or making any point other than Hawk

>hated Devon. It was the kind of irrational foaming at the

>mouth that was obviously going to become Hawk’s response to

>anything that Devon posted.

 

You probably already realized this, but the difference that we have here is exactly the same as the one we have with regard to the efforts to suppress and punish "hate speech". You think some "hate speech" is so offensive that it can justifiably be banned and punished. I think - along with the Founding Fathers, who are good company - that it's far better to allow all speech to be voiced because it's way more dangerous to allow some "authority" to deem certain speech so "hateful" or "offensive" that it can be punished. That's exactly what we're discussing here.

 

I like Devon a lot and have defended him from some of the attacks against him here, including those by VaHawk and Woodlawn. I hated reading the posts which used his personal troubles against him on this Board. I hope for a full recovery for Devon from all aspects of his plight.

 

BUT, I knew - as I'm sure you did, and I KNOW Devon did - that when he came back here, the people who disliked him would use his widely known problems against him. That's just how this Board - and, for that matter, the world - works. Devon is a big boy and if hearing those things would really have damaged him, my guess is he wouldn't have come back here for awhile. To the contrary, as soon as he got here, he tracked down Woodlawn and VaHawk and began responding to them in rather adversarial ways - exactly the people he knew would be most likely to say those things to him.

 

The bottom line is I don't really trust myself - or anyone else - to sit here and decide which posts or posters should be deleted and which ones should be allowed based on how much I like or dislike them. No matter how much I hated the posts by VaHawk or Woodlawn to Devon, I would never try to have them suppressed. I'm sure I've written posts - and I know you have - that have been just as hated by VaHawk as the ones written by him have been hated by you. Why is your hatred of his posts more valuable or accurate than his hatred of yours?

 

All of the words spilled over this topic every time it's raised always obscures the simple, unavoidable and dispositive fact: if you really are bothered by someone here or something that they write, just don't read it. Why isn't that ever an acceptable solution?

[+ deej]

Yeah, you're right Doug. Every community has rude, obnoxious drunks who piss people off and then get in their SUV's and kill or maim innocent bystanders and we should just tolerate them. Wife-beaters are, after all, just misunderstood.

 

Good point.

[+ Lucky]

Doug, I was just checking to see if you still read my posts. Your patronage is warmly appreciated!

[Doug69]

>Yeah, you're right Doug. Every community has rude, obnoxious

>drunks who piss people off and then get in their SUV's and

>kill or maim innocent bystanders and we should just tolerate

>them. Wife-beaters are, after all, just misunderstood. Good point.

 

Yeah, you're right, deej. Anonymous posters who say mean and offensive things to other anonymous posters on an escorting Internet Board are exactly the same as people who slaughter innocent bystanders while driving drunk, and the rationale for punishing both groups of people - the mean posters and the murderous drunk drivers - is exactly the same.

 

Brilliant point.

[BewareofNick]

>All of the words spilled over this topic every time it's

>raised always obscures the simple, unavoidable and dispositive

>fact: if you really are bothered by someone here or something

>that they write, just don't read it. Why isn't that ever an

>acceptable solution?

 

That is indeed the question.

 

When Ethan posted here, this place was never ever boring. Yes, Ethan had a bad habit of going off the deep end, but i echoed that sentiment. If you don't like Ethan's posts, why are you reading them? No one is forcing you to. No one has a gun to your head.

 

When ad rian/AuntieS/Axebahia posted here, I read some of his stuff, but when it drifted off into anti-Jew/anti-Israel drivel, I just stopped reading it. I found a lot of what he posted offensive, but never felt as though I should engage in any effort to silence his voice.

 

And much as I loathe Doug and his devil's advocacy ( not to mention all the Bushit), this message center is more interesting with him then without him.

 

Kind of reminds me of a scene in "Private Parts", the Howard Stern biopic. When asked about Stern's listeners, the numbers guy told Pig Vomit that the average Stern fan listened to his show for like an hour each day because they couldn't wait to hear what he had to say next. He also said that the average Stern hater listed to the show for 2 1/2 hours each day. Why? To hear what he was going to say next.

 

I say leave the alert button for something that could cause Hooboy legal problems. Other than that, if you press the alert button because something got your panties in a twist, you are, as the Governator put it, a girlie-man.

[phage]

>Don't you feel better for having come out of the closet and

>confessing that you are an Alert-Button-Pusher?

 

Hello. My name is phage and I’m an ABP. (Just trying it on for size.)

 

>You probably already realized this, but the difference that we

>have here is exactly the same as the one we have with regard

>to the efforts to suppress and punish "hate speech". You

>think some "hate speech" is so offensive that it can

>justifiably be banned and punished.

 

I definitely caught the parallel. I’ve listened to the arguments and certainly understand them. It has tempered my views, but not changed my core belief that the greater good is served by having lines that can’t be stepped over.

 

BTW, I’m showing my second-tier education here, is there a term for – other than the tired ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ – someone who believes in a fixed, literal interpretation of the Constitution versus someone who believes there is room for a changing interpretation? A Constitutional Fundamentalist?

 

>To the contrary, as soon as he got here, he tracked down

>Woodlawn and VaHawk and began responding to them in rather

>adversarial ways - exactly the people he knew would be most

>likely to say those things to him.

 

Point extremely well taken.

 

>Why is your hatred of his

>posts more valuable or accurate than his hatred of yours?

 

Perhaps I’m more of a conformist than being a whoremonger would otherwise suggest. I’m okay with understanding where a line is and operating within those boundaries. I’m also okay with there being consequences if I choose to cross that line.

 

It’s never happened so I can’t be certain, but I’m pretty sure that if I got busted in a prostitution sting, I would be annoyed by the inconvenience of it all but not outraged by some perceived injustice. I know where the line is, I choose to cross it, and that may have consequences.

 

Same thing with the alert function. I have a pretty good idea where the line is. If I choose to cross it and a post gets zapped, or I get an email warning me that I’m crossing it too often and my ID may get zapped, I would choose a course of action and live with the consequences.

 

>if you really are bothered by someone here or something

>that they write, just don't read it. Why isn't that ever an

>acceptable solution?

 

In almost all cases it is. Aren’t you really asking , “Why isn’t that ALWAYS an acceptable solution?”

 

Some situations are simply too egregious for the site management to tolerate, and even though I don’t know a single one of them, I can empathize. Maybe because I do something very similar for a living, I can easily put myself in their place. There would be a limit to what I would allow myself to be associated with.

[+ deej]

>Brilliant point.

 

And you made it masterfully.

[woodlawn]

>How does a person come to be someone who embraces a certain

>rationale when they want to use it to serve their own

>interests, but then attacks and demeans that exact same

>rationale when used by others to advance their interests?

 

Easy. One simply has to be born a member of the human race.

[woodlawn]

> You may say, “Be a man.

>Be tough.” But insisting that everyone else adopt your view is

>just as self-indulgent as you claim the more sensitive types

>to be.

 

That's not what Doug is insisting. He (and I) simply wish to point out that many of the posts of the Kumbaya crowd are just as offensive to the rest of us as they claim our posts are to them. The real difference between the two groups is that we don't insist their posts be deleted or their access revoked. We may mock them or we may ignore them, but we don't try to get them banned.

 

 

>I pushed the alert button because it was obvious that Hawk was

>going to follow him around the board and spew that garbage

>every time Devon made a comment. I know there are some people

>who think that Devon deserves that kind of treatment because

>he opened his life up to public scrutiny and provided the

>fodder for the cannons of the nasty people who will use that

>information against him . . .

 

Not me. I think he deserves that kind of treatment because he has meted it out to others on several occasions. There have been plenty of times when he has jumped into a discussion I was having with someone else and unleashed a barrage of insults even though I had said nothing about him or to him. So you will understand that I have little sympathy for him when he is on the receiving end of the same thing.

 

I don't give a rat's patootie about Devon's welfare. But if I did, one piece of advice I would give him is that if he is in a particularly fragile emotional state he should not spend his time on a message board where he has earned the ill will of a number of frequent posters.

[phage]

>That's not what Doug is insisting. He (and I) simply wish to

>point out that many of the posts of the Kumbaya crowd are just

>as offensive to the rest of us as they claim our posts are to

>them. The real difference between the two groups is that we

>don't insist their posts be deleted or their access revoked.

>We may mock them or we may ignore them, but we don't try to

>get them banned.

 

I understand the point you are both making. I assume you are not talking about being offended by trite, giggly, inane posts, because as annoying as those may be, they don’t violate the rules. I too have seen one of the Camp Fire Girls turn into a filthy mouthed spawn of Satan, wish someone a horrible death, and then have the audacity to lecture someone else about etiquette just days later. The hypocrisy is not lost on me.

 

However, my comment went back to Doug’s first post in this thread. After finding out that he was the King of Alerts (all bow to the King), he was comparing those people’s behavior to “a scared 90-year-old woman” and suggesting they have psychological problem.

 

I don’t really understand why people get so upset about a message board, (Which is why I so sheepishly admitted using the alert function myself.) but we all know that it happens ALL the time. If someone dismisses those people as dysfunctional old ladies, don’t you think that is insisting that their views on the relative importance of an internet message board, are the only correct views?