I will speak my piece on the current issue and be done with it from there as nothing is to be gained by dwelling on it.
My opinion is that, by and large, this topic teeters in and out of attacks on the various persons involved and is carried out by all members to varying degrees of severity, some of whom make a consistent point to mock or make light of those other persons or the motions they put forward. Alternatively, others say what they have to say then completely vanish for days, weeks, months at a time without any added explanation. Owing to this we can develop a running record of who participants are and their beliefs, as well as their habits, throughout the topic; if we
really wish it, we can even return to earlier posts made by then here to feel their character out.
However, my assessment is not going to go through all of these hoops and perform such tricks just to vindicate or invalidate a number of claims made about who does what. I have neither the time not interest to do this. So do take this strictly as opinion from my perception rather than facts, which I by nature prefer.
Our topic's owner has a habit of prodding its members to evoke and elicit a reaction, this is true. Yet what I bring question to is if this is always in general good spirits, just to drum up argument or discussion, or at times a means of getting a jab on whilst using the cover of a joke. In several cases I myself have wondered if something was aimed at me to draw my ire intentionally, but rather than accuse them of that, because I could not outright prove that was the ongoing intent, I have either ignored it or spoke my mind. This is not the same for everyone in that people will of course take everything in their own way; he might not
mean to develop a record of prodding that person, but when he does make that inevitable jab at them, that person has seen nothing short of building attacks on their character until they are hit by a strong sour note.
I make it no secret I do not approve of character attacks, though I absolutely
will question a person's character and challenge them on it, so this comes to an unusual place for me. I cannot say one way or the other if my experience is valid as the standard or the exception. Judging from the reaction of several persons here, by their word, the perception - which is indeed everything - is that the host has gone
too far. It is difficult to decipher that which is in play and jest from that which is meant to mock. I believe the only fair response to this is to make it a request that the approach is at minimum drawn back...
... and that the escalation transpiring to actual overt attacks on person, not argument, are altogether dropped. It has become now, to my eyes, a conflict of personalities where each is after the other. Who started it is no longer relevant as neither side wants to relent and it is questionable if this was the goal at all. Accounting for this, my opinion is that people be direct when they feel someone is attacking their person, going so far to say something like; "Was that meant for me or meant for what I said?" and "If you have no point to argue, don't bother commenting at all."
Granted such a request is not likely to take place, people will continue to be who they are by and large, but I think it at least possible to say enough is enough. Several members think that the words are aimed squarely at them rather than what they have to say and it has since escalated beyond that accusation to
being a reality.
To be fair,
@Dynamo Frokane,
@Kratesis, as well as anyone else, is that the issue should be dropped and not allowed to fester. No less, to
@Dynamo Frokane in particular, I believe, emphasize believe, that you could be understood that way and subsequently challenged on it; it being that your personification here can be viewed as a rogue and troublemaker who uses humor as a weapon and a shield.
So goes this cat's opinion. I haven't anything else to say until we return to actual discussion.
