Re^8: No votes (not an apologist)

My post was talking about new Monks and The Monastery in more general terms. I never said that manoj_speed didn't know how to /msg a user. My point is that experienced Monks often take for granted how confusing things can be here at first (and even more so for those with less experience with the English language).

I am willing to take it on blind faith that the evidence supports one person voting with two different accounts, etc. However, whether the messages sent to those accounts were clear, concise, and easy to understand is another matter. Co-Rion's first post in this thread is not a good indicator -- exactly what is "The reason is jonam resp. ..." supposed to mean??

I decided to comment because experienced Monks are taking the learning curve at The Monastery for granted in this thread. The actions or inactions of manoj_speed are for the most part irrelevant to the point I was making.

Oh, and calling me an "apologist" via the Title is quite beneath you.

Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks

Comment on Re^8: No votes (not an apologist)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^9: No votes (not an apologist) by tye (Sage) on May 01, 2009 at 02:04 UTC
Perhaps "apologist" means something different to you than it does to me. Your words seem to imply that you consider the term an insult. None of the definitions I browsed quite match how I'm familiar with the word being used, but then none of them seem to imply that the term is derogatory either. Your reply makes it clear that you weren't trying to make excuses for the OP. Prior to that, it sounded to me like that was exactly what you were doing. Surely, due to the context of your words and you not clearly reframing your remarks... which actually talk very specifically about manoj_speed, Co-Rion, and "/msg gods". So "talking in general terms" still isn't evident to me upon re-reading. But, yes, I probably misused the word "apologist" and I apologize for insulting you¹ and attest that this was not my intent. And I now believe that you were not making excuses. Thank you for clarifying that. ¹ I presume, but admit that I am guessing as to what precisely it "being beneath me" was meant to imply, so I apologize again in case "insulting you" was not what I did. So it seems that we aren't actually in disagreement (other than my unfortunate misuse of "apologist" -- sorry, again). Or, to be clearer, I am not in disagreement with you. Thanks. - tye	[reply]
Re^10: No votes (not an apologist) by Argel (Prior) on May 01, 2009 at 22:40 UTC
You mentioned context, and my OP was certainly written within the context of this thread. Monks were mentioning things like "/mgs gods", "a reply to Co-rion would have sufficed", and basically saying that accessing one's inbox is easy to do. It's not hard to take the general case (the first part of the paragraph in my OP) and then use this thread as an example of how the general case might apply. Although with that said I will admit that combining the general case and the example into one paragraph had the unintended consequence of blurring the line between the two. Regarding "apologist", dictionaries cover definitions, not connotations. If you search for "apologist" on Google News it should quickly become apparent that it is almost always used in a negative way (i.e. with negative connotations). Update: And yes, it does seem that we are in agreement. Which makes a lot more sense to me as we tend to agree on issues like this more than disagree. It's threads like these that actually make me appreciate The Monastery. I mean, if discussions like this, patching up misunderstandings, etc. cannot happen then it's not really much of a community. Elda Taluta; Sarks Sark; Ark Arks	[reply]