Rule clarification

[byu71]

dammit '71. I was trying to see if he could figure that one out on his own. Now we will never know.

Sorry, it is a character flaw. I constantly am wanting to prove how smart I am. Especially in this group of really smart people.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Sorry, it is a character flaw. I constantly am wanting to prove how smart I am. Especially in this group of really smart people.

You are a smart guy. You have nothing to prove to anyone, especially me

[byu71]

You are a smart guy. You have nothing to prove to anyone, especially me

This is a good example of how if a person (me) whines properly, they get a nice pat on the back.

[UtahDan]

I started reading the first post but then I got intensely bored, fell asleep and woke up in a massive puddle of drool that is not easy to get out of the keyboard. Can someone summarize the thread?

[Coach McGuirk]

I started reading the first post but then I got intensely bored, fell asleep and woke up in a massive puddle of drool that is not easy to get out of the keyboard. Can someone summarize?

you just did.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

I started reading the first post but then I got intensely bored, fell asleep and woke up in a massive puddle of drool that is not easy to get out of the keyboard. Can someone summarize the thread?

I didn't even see this post until now because I was on my phone all day never scrolled down this far, in my defense I was pulling a trailer with a tractor on it.

I would say DDD summed up the thread nicely in post #10. Interestingly Lingo responded to pretty much every response except that one. Perhaps it hit to close to home.

[UtahDan]

Which makes you something other than moderate and it leaves little room for the Harry Reids to fully participate.

How, precisely, has anyone been prevented from participating fully?

[SeattleUte]

FTR, I am a nonconformist and do not hide behind anonymity of the message board.

[tooblue]

How, precisely, has anyone been prevented from participating fully?

Forgive me for not making a good faith effort to answering your question but I don't think you will respond to my comments in a thoughtful manner.

[UtahDan]

Forgive me for not making a good faith effort to answering your question but I don't think you will respond to my comments in a thoughtful manner.

In other words, no one has been prevented from participating fully.

[tooblue]

In other words, no one has been prevented from participating fully.

Exactly. We must all conform and be conciliatory and a lack of response is deemed to be a vote confidence in favor of presented assertion.

Thank you Seat ... er Dan for that reminder.

[UtahDan]

Exactly. We must all conform and be conciliatory and a lack of response is deemed to be a vote confidence in favor of presented assertion.

Thank you Seat ... er Dan for that reminder.

Silence does, in fact, imply consent under circumstances where a response is called for and none is given. But perhaps I'm preventing you from participating fully and this prevents you from telling me how you are being prevented from participating fully. Admittedly, that is a conundrum.

[tooblue]

Silence does, in fact, imply consent under circumstances where a response is called for and none is given. But perhaps I'm preventing you from participating fully and this prevents you from telling me how you are being prevented from participating fully. Admittedly, that is a conundrum.

As I said previously: "forgive me for not making a good faith effort to answer your question but I don't think you will respond to my comments in a thoughtful manner." In my experience you often prefer to answer by stating that we are talking past one another or we have completely different thought process ... in other words, at best, dialogue is of no value to you, or, at worst, it's a veiled insinuation that you consider me mentally unstable (crazy in the common vernacular).

What's more I am participating, so we are not talking about me are we!

[UtahDan]

As I said previously: "forgive me for not making a good faith effort to answer your question but I don't think you will respond to my comments in a thoughtful manner." In my experience you often prefer to answer by stating that we are talking past one another or we have completely different thought process ... in other words, at best, dialogue is of no value to you, or, at worst, it's a veiled insinuation that you consider me mentally unstable (crazy in the common vernacular).

What's more I am participating, so we are not talking about me are we!

I did tell you, in a PM, that I felt like we were talking past each other. That is true. But that was because when I asked you a question you answered with an abstract exposition on a topic that was only tangentially related to the question. Rather than try to focus you back on the question, it seemed simpler to acknowledge that it wasn't worth the effort when you wanted to talk about something else. So, I don't know if that is something I "often" do, but I did do it once.

How you leap from there to me thinking you are mentally unstable I can't say.

I am glad to hear that you are participating fully, however, because it confirms that no one is preventing you. This leads me to think that perhaps you meant that some people choose not to participate fully, since clearly you were able to make that choice.

[tooblue]

I did tell you, in a PM, that I felt like we were talking past each other. That is true. But that was because when I asked you a question you answered with an abstract exposition on a topic that was only tangentially related to the question. Rather than try to focus you back on the question, it seemed simpler to acknowledge that it wasn't worth the effort when you wanted to talk about something else. So, I don't know if that is something I "often" do, but I did do it once.

How you leap from there to me thinking you are mentally unstable I can't say.

I am glad to hear that you are participating fully, however, because it confirms that no one is preventing you. This leads me to think that perhaps you meant that some people choose not to participate fully, since clearly you were able to make that choice.

To comprehend something by its parts is the game of lawyers. I am not a lawyer. I answered your question directly. It was abstract but not tangential, especially in context to the discussion as started by LA. Others in the thread chose to fully comprehend my response. You chose not to respond because my answer did not suit your criteria for discourse.

I participate but not fully -- like the silent majority of this site.