Jo, now that’s funny – take a leaf.

Jo,

Wow touchy!!!

Just for those of you who are interested, the bit that was edited was where I suggested that much of the advice given on these pages came from peoples’ bottoms (only I used the more colourful word beginning with A). I presume it was cut because the editor was concerned that none of you were able to make your own minds up about me, my aims and the content of the discussion thread. Unless of course Jo finds the A word genuinely offensive.

Although I really think it was her attempt to provoke because it really was nothing your granny would blush at. Jo are you an old granny?

Monopoly,

I think you forgot the heading of this forum – Opinionated.

“Have something to get off your chest”.

I think posters are also invited to “ step onto our soapbox and have your say”. Why do you get all shitty when people do? Lighten up, it’s only a bit of fun.

Back to the fun…

You say

“but to blatantly come to the site to attack Steve McKnight without any just cause, other than, because you disagree is purely childishness and disrespectful to say the least!!”

Unless it has escaped you, I have little respect for Steve’s methods, and I’m not sure that I would consider it childish to have a go now and again, it’s how we get balance. Bottom-line here is you plainly just don’t like my approach (albeit a bit of a sledgehammer one), and you can’t think of any other way to respond other than to retort with suppositions about my intellect and purposes.

Whilst we’re having fun, I’m not sure why sarcasm any more or less appropriate than a direct attack. Not to labour this too much, but a dictionary definition of sarcasm is:

sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain

By this definition are you not just as guilty as me?

And the point you really missed is the criticism that you should moderate, not take sides.

Monopoly,

Here is a pretty reasonable definition of the term moderate:

An officer who presides over an assembly to preserve order and regulate the proceedings.

Let’s analyse your two responses to my posts:

You said:

“Such insight!!! Are you speaking from a professional/trained perspective or is this something that you read in a book, and if so, whose theory are you referring????”

I say:

I wonder if sarcasm is the top of the list at moderator school?

You said:

“And judging from that comment MartinW, I see a well-mannered one at that (NOT)!!!”

I say:

Again wonderful sarcasm – especially the “NOT” bit, just in case we did not understand your attempt at humour.

All you have done is proven my point that this site is bias when moderators like you are consistently partisan with your views. Notwithstanding the dubious approach you have to “moderating”.

You do seem to clash with other contributors don’t you, eg your impartial dealings with The Eccentric (NOT)!!!.

I have seen a number of posts that ask the question; what qualifies a person to be a moderator? Obviously nothing.

PS you picked a great name for yourself; Monopoly. Here’s another dictionary definition:

Monopoly – Exclusive control by one group or person.

Status anxiety is perpetuated by an individuals need to be accepted as an equal. In a democratic meritocracy we all have the same chances. If we make it then we can pat ourselves on the back and can be proud of the fact that we did it with our own mettle. Conversely, if we don’t make it then we only have ourselves to blame.

Trouble is this site is not democratic, it’s heavily biased towards followers of Steve and his version of the world, and this little world that you all participate in is one of the worst examples of status and boasting rights.

Hang on, I feel an anxiety attack brought on by my one-star rating. Better go and get some therapy. How about I read another chapter of Steve’s book, or will that make me make me feel worse?

Steve, can I moderate?

I think you find that there is a huge spectrum of motives – sure you will have those with a primary motive of making a wedge and will be unscrupulous, and then you will have the well meaning. However, what they all exploit is ignorance and avarice. But what truly annoys me is that the titles are so glib – “how I made millions and you can do so too with tuppence, an egg-box carton and some stickyback plastic.”

They are designed to appeal to Mr and Mrs average by manipulating their emotions in the full knowledge that in 4 weeks time the book will be gathering dust next to the Ab-rider from Danoz Direct!