What about your third thread in the forum (about a year ago) in which you were questioning whether this here cat was human or bot?  Crazy things that peeps do, sometimes?  And, I frequently question why guys (or even gals for that matter) feel so many needs to start threads.. even though many newbies may well be starting threads for an increased likelihood of generating merits (but there is also a "wanna-be-seen" component that likely contributes to thread-starting motivations).


Hahahahahaha

Yeah it is a built-in trait, and surely I recall how pissed off guys would get at or near the times that I was still new to the forum, and you can probably see some of those reactionary posts in the WO thread. .and frequently, when guys complained about the length of my posts, and "advise" me to cut down the length of my posts, frequently I would reply by proclaiming that my post lengths were exactly no more and no less than how much I decide (within my own complete discretion) they will be.  .. so I cannot recall ever giving any ground in regards to my chosen post length or even fairly rarely giving much thought in regards to whether a post of mine might be too lengthy or not.. even though for sure, I will sometimes comment upon the length of my own posts .. and even admit that there may well be times in which a bit of editing and reading through might be helpful in regards to readability.. if a guy (such as this here cat) were to feel that he has enough time to actually engage in such a winnowing pursuit..


Sometimes I find myself annoying, especially if I go back and read through some of my posts.. .. so there is that angle, too.


For sure members are going to have some disagreements, and there have been sometimes that I have refused to give an inch on some kind of topic, and it was not even for the reason of believing myself to be correct, but instead because I considered that giving in might not be a good thing to do based on those particular circumstances.  Surely, after the fact, there might be some reconsiderations, yet we need to consider whether we are going to post or not (engage or not with the other member) and then consider the extent to which we are going to give in or if we are going to battle it out, and it is not always an easy choice, including that members are going to differ in their ways of going about these kinds of matters.

I specifically remember a time in which I was berated for being too mean to a newbie in one of my posts, and I understand that my post could have had gone either way in terms of its level of mean-ness, including that the difference between mean and not mean might merely be the choice to change a few of the words to be less harsh, and at the time, I largely disagreed with my having had been too mean to that particular newbie - even though there were several times later that I did consider similar kinds of interactions with other newbies, and I reflected upon my earlier interaction about whether I had been "too mean" in my post, and based on those kinds of reflections, I would sometimes moderate my tone just because sometimes the extra level of mean-ness is not really necessary (or helpful), even if the newbie might seem to be engaging in a kind of trolling behavior. yet it still might be ambiguous in regards to whether the newbie is trolling or not..


True, yet sometimes it can be helpful to interact and to ask questions with other forum members in order to attempt to figure out why they post the way that they do, and sometimes when we interact with other members, we can figure out if they are being genuine or not.... because I tend to NOT be as much worried about whether I agree with someone or not, but I am concerned with some members who might make certain strong stances on a topic but without providing explanations for how they reached their strong stances. 

I have experienced some forum members becoming very angry when I had asked them to explain some parts of the assertions to their posts, which sometimes demonstrate that they are not necessarily trying to be a genuine poster, and they might not even be a real person (maybe a troll or a paid shill?), so sometimes the interaction can be helpful in terms of figuring out if another member really stands behind his various assertions and is able to provide either facts and/or logic to back up their assertions.


Part of the reason that I had mentioned editing earlier on is that I find it problematic when it is discovered that members will go back in their forum history and delete and/or edit their posts.  Sure, there might be times in which it is acceptable to edit posts, especially within the first hours or even up to a day of posting, especially if some clarification might be needed.. but if the post has been outstanding for a while and/or if the post had been cited by other members, then it may no longer be reasonable to edit the post - absent some kind of notation at the bottom of the post to clarify that the post had been edited.