Shahani raised a point which I think was for the common good.
Quote:
|
"Geez shahnahi you sure do ask a lot of questions"
|
The issue he raised may or may not have significance to an individual member. However, he did the work and bought it to our atttention as he apparently felt it merited review and explaination.
Quote:
|
"Good night my little Roaseannadanna..I wonder if anybody else will get the joke."
|
Regretably, ridicule rather than review was the response of one member who exceeded the boundaries of common courtasy. The question was not whether we got the joke but the evident intent of the joke, notwithstanding whether everybody was aware of a newscaster.
Yes, there may be many reasons why zero -post membersmay be present, yet I see nothing in in shahani's post to prejudice the answer. The prejudicial remarks was applied after the fact with a humorless remark drawing an analogy about eye crust.
Perhaps some greater decorum in dealing with substantive issues is in order. Certainly, a member who does not want to deal with such has the option of not responding. Indeed, there was absolutly nothing in this reply that addressed in any manner the substantive issues raised by the question.
Another member did address the question by citing his own experience which was apropos to the question, yet achieved that without resort to ridicule.
Members who care enough about these Forums should not be penalized for their interest.
MegalosSkylaki
Linear Mode
