Second time at least, and I haven't always had the "catchup" excuse, nyder. (Less than 900 messages behind, now!) Certainly got "ragged" somewhat previously for it, to which my inward reaction to said commentators was bisyllabic and only quasi-printable. Those whose lives are too fun-packed and jolly to bother posting anything remotely on-topic to the Digest be grateful that others do, and that it hasn't reached the dire state of say, the Pendragon list. (Dire indeed. I'm almost tempted to repost my last message _there_ to _here_ -- I'd be almost certain to get a better response.) Those not feeling suitably grateful can now fork off to the Weakly.
The good ship V. S. Klyfix steams in, noting that while:
> a good portion of the discussion [on the Digest] is interesting, much
> is [...] overly authoritative when it's no more really than opinions.
One _could_ say that, couldn't one? Perhaps "authoritative" isn't so much the word as "declamatory", "faux-definitive", or maybe even "authoritarian", to say nothing of "full of it". ;-) I'd speculate as to the reasons for this, but people with glass egos ought not to psychoanalyse in public...
This is a Known Vice of the Digest, and is unhelpful in several respects: it's confusing, as it's not always at all evident which, if any, Authority really exists for something; it gets the back up of the target (who then responds in kind, with a double 'elping of bile on top for extra flavour), whilst sending innocent bystanders to sleep in the midst of 10K of parry/riposte/dodge/counter-riposte.
Worst of all, it leads to tedious, Glorantha-free, preachy (and not entirely unhypocritical) messages like this one, for which I crave your collective indulgence.
All the best,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail