Let me see how well I can illustrate a point using two of your posts in this thread
Not only have you stated this opinion three times in two posts regardless of the fact that nobody has responded to it, you've also gone about doing so with no regard for logic. It does not follow logically that because someone has more posts they'll have a higher percentage off spam and nonsense.
Not only have you made this point four times in two posts, you've once again failed to recognise the point. It does not reflect well on the community if you are spamming useless crap in threads, and a moderator certainly should absolutely never be contributing to the derailing of a thread. This is a prime example of why you should not be assisting in the administration of this forum. You adopt a "I'm not the only one doing it" attitude, which once again misses the point - you're supposed to have risen above such poor behaviour, you are a representative of this forum and visitors to the board (myself included) will respond very negatively to seeing such a free-flowing stream of crap pouring from a super moderators mouth.
I could go on, but I think the point has been well demonstrated.
(June 9, 2009 at 2:21 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I'll just say if there are other 'fluff posters' too - they will still have a lot less than me of course, simply because I have so many posts.
(June 9, 2009 at 5:04 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: there's bound to be more 'fluff posts' simply because I have so many posts.
(June 9, 2009 at 5:04 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: When someone has almost 3000 posts it's easier to find more 'fluff posts' simply because there are more posts!
Not only have you stated this opinion three times in two posts regardless of the fact that nobody has responded to it, you've also gone about doing so with no regard for logic. It does not follow logically that because someone has more posts they'll have a higher percentage off spam and nonsense.
(June 9, 2009 at 2:21 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I generally only fluff post when I'm responding to other fluff posts....I generally try not to start them.
(June 9, 2009 at 5:04 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: And I believe that my posts are basically always on topic...except when I'm replying to something off-topic because the thread has already died or whatever.
(June 9, 2009 at 5:04 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I only reply off-topic when it's already drifted too much anyway.
(June 9, 2009 at 5:04 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: A lot of my 'lol posts' are in response to comments that are as much as 'fluff post' themselves. It still conveys a point rather than ignoring, and it doesn't drift the topic any more than it already has by the previous 'fluff post'.
Not only have you made this point four times in two posts, you've once again failed to recognise the point. It does not reflect well on the community if you are spamming useless crap in threads, and a moderator certainly should absolutely never be contributing to the derailing of a thread. This is a prime example of why you should not be assisting in the administration of this forum. You adopt a "I'm not the only one doing it" attitude, which once again misses the point - you're supposed to have risen above such poor behaviour, you are a representative of this forum and visitors to the board (myself included) will respond very negatively to seeing such a free-flowing stream of crap pouring from a super moderators mouth.
I could go on, but I think the point has been well demonstrated.
