[adam]

Luke's right. His panties are definitely not in a knot, because I know firsthand he goes commando.

I think people can post as informatively or not as they'd like. Seriously, I have no problem with seeing the name of a movie and the comment wow. I've got a google search window a freaking inch away.

If someone wants to make posts like this, they bear the consequences. The consequences are that i make an interpretation on the post based on what I know of the poster. If someone whose taste I respect did a similar post, I'd follow the link. If it's someone who I think is a twat, I won't. If it's someone I don't know, it rather depends on my mood. Simple, innit? No harm, no foul. If someone repeatedly makes posts that everybody thinks are uninteresting, they'll stop replying, and the poster will probably figure out on his own that there's an issue he needs to address if he wants to be an active part of the community.

No hostility towards KoS, I don't want to escalate any bad mood here, but I think you're flat out wrong about people deliberately misinterpreting Stimpee. As a moderator, all his posts carry the weight of his authority, and if he doesn't like that, he doesn't need to be a moderator, or he should make another account for his opinion pieces. He's been throwing a lot of criticism around about people's posting habits, and, with his ability to merge threads and all that, backing up his criticism. He's posted in a thread of mine that he sort of kind of thought it should be deleted just because it was a joke - (True Romance 2) I thought it was a good (well, mediocre, fine) joke though. Granted, he didn't delete the thread.

He also has been openly scornful of people not using the search engine to find threads, and in some of these cases these were older threads by several months. That's a different idea of what dirty should be than I have. He wants a concise source of useful information and opinion; I expect more of an open dialogue type of feel that free posting encourages. Usually, when new threads are started on old topics, if previously interested parties are still kicking about, they link to the old threads anyway. It seems to sort itself out to me without the need of an authoritive hand.

Stimpee, whether he likes it or not, cannot separate his dirty member voice from his dirty moderator voice. Even if he explicitly stated he was presenting his view as a dirty member, in a particular post, I still think it would be questionable whether or not that should be taken at face value. Not saying he's dishonest, but I'm saying the situation makes it more complicated than his stated or chosen intent.