Hi rwk,
Well it is commendable of you to come over here and brave a hostile crowd. Yes, you offended me this morning. And I was angry. But your post helps me understand what was going through your head. And understanding it draws some of the anger out. I accept your apology and apologise for my responses.
At the same time, I think snackman added fuel to this fire by allowing your criticism of me and disqualifying my riposte. I'd have had nothing more to say if the playing field was even, either way (delete or retain). I accept his right to manage his board but I will participate only if I perceive moderation that is balanced. I know it is a difficult job. But sometimes I think he misses certain things. He could have nipped this in the bud by acting equitably.
I think you would have understood my post differently if you had seen zen's original post which was deleted. zen suggested titlewave's understanding of Wave was deficient (essentially because he was sceptical) and that he must read posts like this particular one written by weby to catch up (the post isn't there so I am doing the best with my memory).
I was saying essentially zen shouldn't presume people who are sceptical fail to understand Wave's opportunity. Indeed, I think we all know what Wave is trying to achieve. But I felt it was a little presumptuous.to say titlewave lacked understanding because he was expressing his frustration.
"No one needs". The admonition wasn't to weby to stop posting. It was to zen to allow that sceptics like titlewave understand the opportunity too and therefore do not "need" to make up for an imagined deficiency. Of course they may read weby's posts if they wish.
Weby should certainly post his thoughts as should everyone else who wants to. It is not and has never been my position that people should not post their thoughts.
| 