Dear friends,
Thanks for your many thoughtful notes on the
other moderation thread. They help.
One of the oddities of web-based discussions is that it's easy to fall under the illusion that what you see is all there is; that is, that the board is a sort of neighborhood watering hole with a dozen regulars cozying up to the bar. And it is that. But it's not
only that. Today (3/4/2017) alone, there are nearly 100 folks who've signed in, many of whom rarely if ever post. (Hi, guys! Welcome to you all!). About 700 unregistered folks also came by.
I'm not concerned so much with whether any particular person posts; I'm mostly concerned that they feel welcome and respected. And that, in return, they welcome and respect other folks. With pretty regular use of the "flag as offensive" button and some private communications from readers suggesting they'd hesitate to post, I thought it was a good time to raise the question. (And to remind folks why I thought I
should raise the question.)
For now, couthy moderation will remain the norm, in full faith that you each deserve a place on Islay.
Where are the folks like the folks of the west?
Canty and couthy and kindly, our best.
There I would hie me and there I would rest
At home with my own folks in Islay.
In related news, I would rather prefer that each member of the community maintain just one identity, at least at a time. As we've been poking around in the database, it appears that one member of the community has posted under two main identities (one appearing after the other was placed in the moderation queue) and then seems to have created two other identities to offer "grassroots support" for their opinions. We'll disable the secondary identities and share a note of concern with the primary.
In unrelated news, I've been thinking about unpaired words. That is, the existence of a word that implies a counter-balancing word really
should exist. If there's "uncouth," why isn't there "couth" (other than in comic routines, the same place we got "gruntled" in the 1930s)? The thing I think I've noticed that is it's mostly the
negative words that survive (feckless, reckless, ruthless). Perhaps it's a profoundly optimistic sign; that kindly, caring, civil behavior is so common that it doesn't require comment, only the rare and regrettable opposites demand a special vocabulary?
Hmmm.
David
Comments
Well, we pretty well had Dex, DH, and SW figured, but evidently there was yet another "mole". This is getting exciting!
Add: Almost forgot MK also, but that one was so obvious.
Very pleased that we're to continue with ruthful moderation. Maurice and I had an interesting exchange a while back- he had commented to the effect that no one ever paid attention to the opposing viewpoints in contentious discussions. I asked him how he could be certain that his opinions had not in fact influenced my perspective to some extent.
He then graciously excluded me from his remark, but I would like to think that many of us tend to soften or moderate our positions when we are presented with cogent argumentation from an opposing viewpoint.
Thanks again for all that you do here-
Take care- OJ
20th Century Fox seems to have sought to redefine the genre or the way they're looking at the genre.
Why is this important? 20th Century Fox has turned into a serious player in the space. Both films were highly successful and were not mere copycats of the other. You had the over the top vulgarity of Deadpool and the extremely serious Logan. You easily could've have ignored the 'Wolverine' aspect of the film and enjoyed it as a tragic drama.
This doesn't complete an investment thesis, but would've been an interesting discussion. In my opinion.
You hit upon the problem: the post, as written, didn't even hint at issues relevant to the board. Given our recent scuffles, I spiked it. You're welcome to reintroduce it with the request to help folks understand why it's coming up.
Cheers,
David