You're coming across as lecturing to me, personally, on how to show respect.
Well, between you and Mark, this makes an interesting and rather ironic example of some of the dynamic I am talking about.
You asked for my thoughts on how not to appear like you were edition warring. You asked follow up questions, and I then went into depth on those points as well. Somehow, as I am trying to give you solid and complete answers on things you specifically asked about, I am now "lecturing", and that's been taken further - to an implication of being condescending.
So, you tell me - do we have to be careful with how we talk?
That you felt the need to invoke Gygax's and Arneson's names, and tip-toe softly into the question just seems overly sensitive.
Yes. I was presenting a spectrum, from one end to the other. Did it not come across that that was intended to be one of the
extremes of sensitivity, utter crassness at the other end?
I don't see how we are disagreeing, here. That was the far end - the general place to "aim for", not the place I expect everyone to reach and perpetually sit.
I only ever comment on editions that I personally like and love. So I find it odd that anyone would take my comments as any kind of hating on the edition at issue.
The readers do not know that you only comment on what you love. There are tens of thousands of registered posters, and hundreds to thousands of fairly active ones. You cannot at all count on the reader following your personal posting history much to tell what you've said in the past, and to have established your individual personality.
It is all what's there at the moment, in your words and their heads, and they get mixed together. You have no control over what is in their heads. You can only control the mixture with what you're saying at the moment.
Given the nastiness that's in people's heads...