I wonder?

And you wonder why he has enemies on these forums.

 

No kidding.

Perhaps there's another nickname for Richard that might be more, umm... descriptive.

 

I would paraphrase the post as:

It's true that the post is about people receiving threats, and it's also true that Rich's role in that post was peripheral and complimentary. I see no implication that Rich has received personal threats and I can't imagine how JoAnn could know one way or the other.

So if we assume not even that posters know what they are talking about, but only that they wish to appear that they know what they're talking about, Rich's interpretation fails.

So it seems to me that Rich's reply is not directed at JoAnn, but at a poster who does not, in fact, exist, one whose post would be quite different from the actual one.

 

You see, since English is a second language for me (C++ is my primary language ) I'm afraid I often fall prey to the traps of ambiguity. In this case, while perhaps I wasn't perfectly clear, my intent was only to compliment Rich for braving the digital world without a nom de plume. So, being skewered with such biting repartee as "that poster" I could only think of the sense of justice Ceasar's (ex) wife must have felt by Brutus' betrayal.

 

Now where's that red pen... Thank you professor -- that's exactly what I meant.

 

And THAT did not convey what I felt at all! I actually felt more like Ceasar, but I was trying to be cute and fit in all the Ceasar references that had been quoted in this thread. My bad!

 

I regret my comment, take full blame, and apologize.

But when I made it clear that I was not included in whatever bunch of victims being described, that should have been the end of it.

Take over the forum, JoAnn. It could do worse than you.

As for "plscott," keep on defending the undefensible. Everyone needs a hobby.

Finally, for this forum:

I don't care what Chip is into. I like the arguments that others have made regarding the separation between this board and his other company, that we see similar relationships elsewhere. (I'm staying in a Sheraton tomorrow night--I wonder if they have porn on pay-per-view?)

But I don't care to make the very interesting distinction Tom Head has. (Bad porn vs. tolerable porn.) However, feeding the trolls and idiots elsewhere by this is wrong. Because I fight against them so strongly, I am their frequent target--and usually without any provocation. (Look how many threads on their board either start or devolve to bashing me, but I don't post there.)

Also, I don't have any professional use for this board. I don't work in DL, nor do I work for any school. Currently, I'm not even teaching as an adjunct. But if I were, I don't think my high profile and Chip's other business would be compatible. I can't count on the ignorant to make the distinction some here have made (eloquently). And the ignorant are the most vocal, and they always win. So....

Given that I'm always tired of suffering fools at Jamesville, I certainly don't want to bring more of that on. Additionally, some of that has gotten louder around here lately. Sounds like a good time to take a lower profile.

Again, I really am persuaded by the arguments put forth by some folks regarding the separation between one business and another. I'm convinced that if I was a moderator, I'd stop being one because of the owner's other interests. Too close. I continue to debate whether or not that is also true for a prominent poster. But I'm convinced that either the "prominent" or the "poster" part has to go. Guess I'll think about it for a while.

(Truly, sorry to JoAnn about the comment. Not about the emotion behind it, but about using that word. I thought about it, but not long enough.)

 

Like you haven't written some biting comments about me before?

(Again, as I have in another post, I apologize for using that word. It was wrong.)

 

I have my hobby and you have yours. I will continue to say what is on my mind and point out bad and hypocritical behavior just as I am sure you will continue to do what you do.