Do you not accept that a position where certain posters can impose their judgement on the judgements passed on other posters in order to protect them from judgements - is not only contradictory but will only ensure that constant judgement of each other's worth will become the only game in town?

sorry, but I do not 'accept' the basic premises of that convoluted sentence. I 'think' you mean by 'certain posters', the clones/volunteers, but it is hard to wrap my head around "...impose their judgement on the judgements passed on other posters in order to protect them from judgements...".

are you really suggesting that any poster is in fact forced to open any thread or to respond or cannot ignore posts that are not to their tastes?
...of course not...including you! Why can't YOU ignore 'judgements'??...All I am saying is, that is human nature to react to statements they disagree with. This forum is different than it would be RT, such as at a party. If you hear objectionable comments in a group, you can just quietly move on and the voices fade, but here, the niggling posts remain there, in full view. It IS difficult to ignore or pretend they are not there, when they remain...possibly right next to other posts you need to re-read & refer to. Remember...you are on one side of this, and 27+ others are on the other side--- if YOU stopped, what would they have to say? We are suggesting (well, *I* am, anyway) that ONE person could pretty much end this silliness, rather than hope that 27+ other will en masse get the message and all simultaneously decide to cease responding!

You seem to be obsessed with any degree of 'being judged', even if it is only a spelling correction or a clarification of a thread title. You make the word 'judgement' do excessive work...you stretch its meaning beyond what most folks see in it. Further, judgements are not 'imposed'...they are merely offered....unless you MEAN editing, and that is a management decision. *I* have been edited, and it didn't harm me. I have been 'judged' a few times too...by Martin Gibson..*grin*...and I survived just fine!

I will tell you honestly, Roger...it is VERY difficult to see/comprehend/understand exactly what you are offended by in those sentences with the hypotheticals, subordinate clauses, 'perhapses', and oblique references to past remarks by Max, Joe and others. Your talent for seizing on little remarks...(like Joe's idea of membership for posting BS)...might be useful in a court of law to pin down a witness, but it ignores the import or relevance of what Joe's remark really really means. There is NO sign that Max intends to do that, and IF he did, there seems to be a majority view that it might help! I sure would learn to live with it!


(I did study Philosophy...including the nature of debate and logic and reasoning...and I see continuing and escalating problems in even keeping track of what the precise issues are! You say: " However, I do not see why others should be subjected to it. I also fear that those few posters who are encouraged to set this example are inhibiting other posters by this form od posting." Are you REALLY concerned about 'possible' effects on others? Why not let others defend themselves, if need be? And who is 'encouraging' anyone to 'judge' or 'subject' anyone else to anything?

You make so many, many assumptions about what is being done, and to whom, that trying to respond to you really DOES feel like trying to respond to the old "have you stopped beating your wife yet" line. By the time anyone explains that they were NOT beating their wife, you are suggesting that 'perhaps beating of wives should not be condoned' and making it look like wife beating (judging of other) is not only rampant, but policy!

Well, I had to do this (analyze the inner working of the debate)...but, as I said, I don't expect it to do any good, and I sure can't do it in detail everyday. I will probably just fade back into the woodwork..(literally...as that's what I need to focus on for the next 2 months!) and shrug as this tilting at windmills continues. (Yes..that is very much what it looks like...excessive fervor at a non-danderous and largely contrived enemy.)

...and if that seems like one more 'judgement', I'm sorry....I can only call 'em like I see 'em....

*poof*