Posting to threads you haven't read

[Zander]

The follwoing posts are quoted from Jack Daniel's ranger thread in the general RPG forum but relate to a meta issue. Rather than pursue the matter there where it would be OT, I've moved it here.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Zander

Although not a pure ranger (he was previoulsy an assassin), you might want to check out the Nasir (sp?) character from the 1980's British TV series Robin of Sherwood. Nasir had ranger skills such as tracking but fought with two scimitars (or with a bow). There was nothing implausible about the character in that regard. In fact, everyone I knew at the time who watched the programme thought Nasir was the coolest character.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by FraserRonald

The one explanation for TWF for Rangers that no one has latched on to is the Saracen character "Nasir" in the BBC "Robin of Sherwood" TV series. He fought with (IIRC) a longsword and scimitar, and as a 'merry man' he was kind of a Ranger.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Zander

No one? Please check out the first page of this thread.

I agree with your point. Or rather, you agree with mine. It's a shame that you failed to give me credit for it. I hope that was a one-off lapse on your behalf and that you don't routinely post to threads you haven't read carefully. I spend a lot of time reading what others have to say before contributing my bit. I would appreciate it if others did too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dinkeldog (moderator)

Whoa there, partner! Take the righteous indignation down a notch, please. There's no loss of life--it's just a message board; we already know you're a wonderful person without you needing to prove it by being acknowledged the sole author of all your incredible, witty ideas.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by FraserRonald

Frankly, I was trying to add a tad of levity (ergo the smilies). I didn't realize footnoting was necessary. It is true, I didn't read each and every post (all three pages of them) before I dropped in my--perhaps misplaced and unwitty--witticism. And, in all honesty, I don't have the time. In very long discussions, I skim, and if there is a point of interest that I note, I respond to it. Considering the length of some posts, and the sheer volume of said posts, I think that is reasonable. Please feel free to take me to task for it.

And to all others, I humbly and unreservedly apologize to Zander for infringing on his intellectual property without correctly crediting said ideas. If I caused anyone mental anguish by my insensitivity, I ask their forgiveness. I sincerely hope it will not happen in the future, but, being human, it probably will. Self-flagellation will commence immediately.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Zander]

Whoa there, partner! Take the righteous indignation down a notch, please. There's no loss of life--it's just a message board; we already know you're a wonderful person without you needing to prove it by being acknowledged the sole author of all your incredible, witty ideas.

I take it you're being sarcastic about my ideas. Allow me to be equally sarcastic by saying: "Thanks."

You really shouldn't rebuke me and, by extension, condone FraserRonald. Imagine what would happen if lots of people did what FraserRonald does. Threads would quickly disintegrate as posters repeated what had already been said. Rather than having discussions, you'd have a series of disconnected uterrances. It would be equivalent to a room full of people each one giving a speech and not paying much attention to what anyone else was saying. Is that really what you want the boards to be like?

 

[Zander]

Originally posted by FraserRonald
Frankly, I was trying to add a tad of levity (ergo the smilies). I didn't realize footnoting was necessary. It is true, I didn't read each and every post (all three pages of them) before I dropped in my--perhaps misplaced and unwitty--witticism. And, in all honesty, I don't have the time. In very long discussions, I skim, and if there is a point of interest that I note, I respond to it. Considering the length of some posts, and the sheer volume of said posts, I think that is reasonable. Please feel free to take me to task for it.

And to all others, I humbly and unreservedly apologize to Zander for infringing on his intellectual property without correctly crediting said ideas. If I caused anyone mental anguish by my insensitivity, I ask their forgiveness. I sincerely hope it will not happen in the future, but, being human, it probably will. Self-flagellation will commence immediately.

If your apology is meant sincerely (and I can't tell if it is), then I accept. It's not a matter of intellectual property rights though. By not reading what others have to say because you "don't have the time", you make a tacit but clear judgement about the value of your time relative to everyone else's. In other words, you implicitly declare yourself to be more important. I hope you can see why someone would take umbrage at that. It's not a question of legality but one of civility.

 

[Piratecat]

Well my friend, if you're asking, I also think you're over-reacting. He didn't read your post; it happens, and it happens a lot, and it's something you'll never be able to change. So just shrug and try not to let it upset you.

At least, that's what I do.

 

[FraserRonald]

Zander, I do apologize because it was never my intention to annoy, bother or otherwise cause any mental anguish of any sort or severity through my post.

Yes, I am egocentric. Do I believe my time is more valuable than anyone else's? To me, yes it is. To everyone else, no it isn't. It is not my intent to flagrantly disregard everyone else's input, however, by skimming I hope to catch those ideas that are of interest to me while not spending time on those ideas and posts that are of equal merit but not of equal interest.

If the moderators ask me to stop posting because of this practice, I will. If an angry virtual mob assails me because of my actions, I will stop.

I am sorry you were offended, honestly. However, considering the tone of the post, my opinion is that your response was overly agressive. You have mentioned civility. In my opinion, a simple "Hey, I mentioned that on the first page!" would have sufficed and would have been "civil." Perhaps if I had a history of such actions, a stern message of length, such as the one you posted, would be warranted. It is my opinion that it was not. I, however, am not the aggreived party. You felt this was a reasonable response. I disagree.

I will, in the future, attempt to be more dilligent. I cannot promise to read each and every post in every thread that interests me. Please feel free to voice your opinion and vent your spleen on this matter.

 

[Zander]

I will, in the future, attempt to be more dilligent. I cannot promise to read each and every post in every thread that interests me. Please feel free to voice your opinion and vent your spleen on this matter.

Can I make a suggestion? When you really can't read a thread thoroughly but want to post to it, preface your contribution with "This may have been mentioned already" or words to that effect. I don't get nearly so riled when posters admit that they may have breached a rule of netiquette.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

[place tongue in cheek]P-cat,

I don't read your posts. As soon as I see that you wrote them, I just plum ignore them. I don't know what you said in your post above. No hard feelings, right? Don't bother answering, I won't read your reply.[/tongue in cheek]

 

[Piratecat]

What? I'm sorry, I was busy ignoring you. La-la-la-la-la.

 

[Sagan Darkside]

Zander- if that bothers you, then wait until someone starts accusing you of saying things you never said in a previous post.

If the issue at hand, in general, was a mistake, then just let it go.

If it was intentional (which I don't think in this case it was), then you could drop them on your ignore list.

SD

 

[Zander]

SD,

I'm sorry but I've lost all respect for you ever since your started posting claims that the Loch Ness monster can't dance the fandango.

 

[jdavis]

This sounds like it should be in the iconic troll thread. Maybe not enough smiley faces were applied to in the post?