Yeah pretty much.

There's certainly something to this. And I try to throw in the "I think" and "IMHO" enough to reinforce that point, but there's still the underlying truism that whatever you post is pretty much your opinion outside of relaying some fact or hearsay.

"Mustafar is a terrible map."
"IMHO, Mustafar is a terrible map."
"I think Mustafar is a terrible map."

They're all the same, and it's annoying as the writer (and eventually distracting to the reader) to tage the latter two on every sentence.

I agree with Nickname: I'm not some wishy-washy feel-goodnick that adds a bunch of qualifiers on his statements to protect someone's hypersensite sensibilities. If I state something, I believe that it is true and will not generally add "IMHO" or "I think." If I state that "Mustafar is a terribel map" clearly I do not believe that somehow I have unravelled a universal truth, despite the fact that I believe that it is, by and large, true. It is my opinion and I loathe when I am forced to explain that fact. Everyone needs to toughen up; why is stating an opinion emphatically so offensive? Do you feel that somehow it invalidates your opinion? I may come across as borish or a flat-out jerk (and I actually hope that I do, because I am), but that doesn't invalidate my arguments. Of course if I follow it up by ignoring or shooting down any conflicting opinions, out-of-hand, then I've crossed the line that shuts down a discussion, and that's a completely different subject.

Really, was my post annoying to read? I think, other then the last sentence, which was strictly a PSA, I used the word 'I' every sentence. I did not find it difficult to word my sentences this way. I put this with simple grammar errors, if I can make the mental shift to spell correctly, then I can make the mental shift to word things exactly how I want them interpreted.

I think this is best illustrated with the excuse 'it is difficult to convey feeling in posts'. I feel if the person took the time to write what they meant, then it is harder to misinterpret their ideas. I think most people know I RARELY use smilies, I do when I know it is possible for one of my posts to be taken seriously or in jest. What I am saying is this: If you think your posts can be taken multiple ways, perhaps you should clarify them... especially if one of the ways is hostile.

Well what can I call people on a completely separate message board without offending you (or anyone in general)? I call my friends "tools" all the time, and they me. I suppose that context doesnt translate well online of course.

As usual, I meant no offense, and shouldnt be taken too seriously

And I try as much as possible to qualify my statements. But I find it silly to have to personally. Everything I post is my opinion. Why should I have to qualify it as such? Can you the reader not be expected to understand that point? Perhaps I am just too used to the academic community where writing the phrase, "I think" is frowned upon But that's just my opinion Did I use enough smilies to prove this post is in jest yet? Perhaps now?

Not at all. I just don't think the I/we qualifier will be enough in general.

Drew tends to use it a lot already, but the confrontational or no-girls-allowed clubhouse tone of his posts remains a magnet for backlash.

But for those who've done a lot of writing, it's just hard to force yourself to do something that's frowned upon everywhere else and been beaten out of you over time.

You know how hard it was to start using stupid smilies?

The worst part about it is that too many people rail against the person, not the position. It's almost impossible these days to have a logical, rational discussion because of the stigma attached to certain usernames (mine included). Even in situations where effort is made to overlook who is saying what, someone else is ready to come along and fan the flame the minute they spot the slightest dissension. It's ridiculous.

Agreed this is the biggest problem. I am often afraid to even make a "sky is falling" post any more when you post something Boris because it brings out the "yea yea" group. It takes all the fun out of making little jabs at people you respect, simply because people dont recognize the relationship.

I just don't think it's that bad. I thought the conversation with Droopy was quite civil.

CotF tried to sneak in a quick jab but it somehow was successfully avoided.

Not until Galbraithe showed up with an obvious chip on his shoulder did things go awry.

The current thread from Drew also seems to be humming along without too much sniping.

CotF is my hero.

Hah!

He's (accidentally?) shown he's got a Light Side deep down so it's a lot easier now to take his posts without reading much into the surface bitterness (for me at least.)

Amazing that he hasn't hit, or doesn't care about the warning limit for so long...