DAE enjoy Internet Detective work?

[Theremin]

Singular, thank you.

[King Kool]

My complaint about Daily Drop is not related to it being or not being a gaming show, just that I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be entertained by. This is the sort of show literally anyone can do, and most of the outcomes can probably be guessed once you know what's being dropped.

Literally anyone could do a show like Daily Drop. They actually did it.

You will do well to learn there is an enormous difference between doing something and wishing to do something. The internet is full of people who wish to do something, but don't.

[Wolfenbarg]

A show like the Daily Drop (or anything with slow motion really) is actually kind of a trick to pull off. The cameras are way too expensive to purchase, so rentals are the way to go. Even then, it's not cheap. You have to make sure you have adequate protection for the camera, and you need extremely powerful lights. Using a single 500 watt work light that would damn near blind you if you looked into the front will give you a pretty murky looking image.

You can use the same argument for a lot of different concepts. The difference is that only a few people actually put in the money and time necessary to do it.

[Trymantha]

So when somebody on this website talks about lulzsec or that you guys are better because=more traffic, that's a joke, but terms like "moneyfag" don't seem like jokes to you?

The reason we dont view the term "moneyfag" as a joke is because it is blatantly homophobic(weather this is your intention or isnt), there are many openly Gay(for lack of a better term) fourmites here if you look at the gay discussion thread its over 100 pages long. Yes some of jokes we make arnt PC here but when it is used in an directly attacking way( like on your LRR articles) it ceases to be funny and becomes an insult to the target of the term and every person that identifies them selves as gay.

[rabidtictac]

So when somebody on this website talks about lulzsec or that you guys are better because=more traffic, that's a joke, but terms like "moneyfag" don't seem like jokes to you?

The reason we dont view the term "moneyfag" as a joke is because it is blatantly homophobic(weather this is your intention or isnt), there are many openly Gay(for lack of a better term) fourmites here if you look at the gay discussion thread its over 100 pages long. Yes some of jokes we make arnt PC here but when it is used in an directly attacking way( like on your LRR articles) it ceases to be funny and becomes an insult to the target of the term and every person that identifies them selves as gay.

We're reenacting a South Park episode... Hey, it's cool if you want to define the word your way, but Urban Dictionary and plenty of other sites define it differently these days (I'd wager 80% of people who use the word aren't even thinking of gay people when they say it). We certainly don't mean to offend any homosexuals, and maybe a PC word (while more clever than "sell out," which puts people looking for humor right to sleep) can be found for future articles. The term has been used on DHI since the old days of these crappy ED-knockoff pages, and since we're changing the pages, perhaps the word should change too.

Lulzsec has been posting on their Twitter for a while that they'll hit any target given to them. Considering how easy it is to submit requests (and how they'll hit anyone for any reason), the threat of hacking a site full of personal information seems (to me) more easily misinterpreted as an attack than a word which used to refer to gay people. But I digress.

I guess I just personally don't care for Daily Drop, but feel free to enjoy it if you do. I can imagine the effort and talent that goes into capturing a falling object. My main criticism would be "is it worth it" for the result, but if you feel it is, then it is for you (We'll have to find some way to cleverly mock DD when the Wiki article gets updated). But if we want to talk about amazing camera work, I'd rather discuss Rollerball with James Caan. They built a set in the middle of the Munich Coliseum!

[madrak_the_red]

Ok, so firstly: Theremin, you aren't helping.

Secondly: Kudos to you for venturing far into LRR's territory, as it were, to defend yourself. I hope this dialogue can create less hate. Less hate is always good.

Thirdly: used too? I don't think so. Genuine homophobes still slur that thing around the place.

[Metcarfre]

I removed my comment re: [those hackers]. It was a joke, but a disproportionate response. I apologize.

But I still think the site in question is, from my brief viewing, very, very stupid and hateful. You claim - if I may be so bold as to paraphrase - that you wish to establish a way to 'helpfully' criticize the works of others. By all means, do so. However, you will find it to your benefit to know that the Crew willingly accept and encourage constructive criticism both on their own forum, and the forums of the sites on which they publish. I myself have rendered my own criticisms of their works from time to time, here and there.

For example, recently they started their new series Checkpoint (which, as you know, can fairly be described as a re-skinned ENN on a different website). After their first episode there were a number of complaints on a technical issue that were expressed on the PA forums. Lo and behold, the crew responded in writing and in kind, and the issues were largely sorted out by the next episode.

There's many other examples, but I think you see my point. If your active goal is to improve the status of web comedy, then it behooves you to offer your criticism in a fair and polite manner, in a format that they will actually read.

Good day, sir.

[Psyclone]

We're reenacting a South Park episode... Hey, it's cool if you want to define the word your way, but Urban Dictionary and plenty of other sites define it differently these days (I'd wager 80% of people who use the word aren't even thinking of gay people when they say it). We certainly don't mean to offend any homosexuals, and maybe a PC word (while more clever than "sell out," which puts people looking for humor right to sleep) can be found for future articles. The term has been used on DHI since the old days of these crappy ED-knockoff pages, and since we're changing the pages, perhaps the word should change too.

Most of the people who say "that's gay" aren't thinking of gay people when they say it, but it's still hurtful. On the other hand, this is the internet. I'm probably just spoiled by being part of such an accepting forum where things like that aren't okay.

That said, your willingness to listen to our criticisms is great.

[theDreamer]

It's a simple logic.

Why is "moneyfag" an offensive, or funny, word? Because it's clearly more insulting than "Sell-out."

Why is it more insulting? Because it has the word "assclown"(f-a-g gets censored...I forgot) in it.

This literally implies that "fags" are worse than "normal" (read, straight) people.

If I were to change the wording of "moneyfag" (a term which I was introduced to by that wiki, because I don't find south park the least bit funny) to "moneystraight" does it have any of the same meaning?

Not at all. Because "moneystraight" has no meaning, but "moneyfag" has association with a derogatory term.

[Psyclone]

Dreamer, can I borrow you for our freshman anti bullying forums next year? That's probably the best worded explanation I've ever heard.

[theDreamer]

But I live in Toronto, that's so far awayyyyy.

[semysane]

We seem to be using the L word a lot, and I think it might be a good idea to stop. I don't want to censor anyone, but we should probably stick to saying Those Hackers or something because we really don't want the eye of Sauron to turn in our direction right now.

[Valliac]

Going back to the first page...

I propose an internet army to uphold Kathleen's honor. Who's with me?

OT: Eh, everyone has an opinion.

Of course, these people's opinions are just WRONG. So there.

[rabidtictac]

*edited for space, apology accepted*
But I still think the site in question is, from my brief viewing, very, very stupid and hateful. You claim - if I may be so bold as to paraphrase - that you wish to establish a way to 'helpfully' criticize the works of others. By all means, do so. However, you will find it to your benefit to know that the Crew willingly accept and encourage constructive criticism both on their own forum, and the forums of the sites on which they publish. I myself have rendered my own criticisms of their works from time to time, here and there.

For example, recently they started their new series Checkpoint (which, as you know, can fairly be described as a re-skinned ENN on a different website). After their first episode there were a number of complaints on a technical issue that were expressed on the PA forums. Lo and behold, the crew responded in writing and in kind, and the issues were largely sorted out by the next episode.

There's many other examples, but I think you see my point. If your active goal is to improve the status of web comedy, then it behooves you to offer your criticism in a fair and polite manner, in a format that they will actually read.

Good day, sir.

I can't stand the term "constructive" criticism. Criticism, to be effective, should be a mix of constructive and negative criticisms. Yahtzee doesn't criticize constructively, and neither does Moviebob. Even the Extra Credits team have plenty of "negative" criticism. Negative criticism is merely where you say, "this is wrong, and here is why" and give reasons. It's the setup to the fix. Many forums like to claim they accept "constructive" criticism, but often this ultimately leads to sycophantic behavior, because without negative criticism the impression is given the content is great and merely needs improvement. NOT saying this is how the LRR forums work, just giving a general example.

This, by the way, has no direct correlation with LRR, it's just a pet peeve of mine from The Escapist forums and with the argument in general.

The new articles will try to be more fair and polite, but in order to keep the wiki fun to read, there will probably be some subtle digs and attempts at humor (like you saw with the spoony article.)

Also that "f-a-g" explanation was excellent, theDreamer, thanks for that. I see your point (even if I may not fully agree with the severity of the problem). Sell-out is still useless as an alternative for us (with our attempts at humor) because it's impossibly dull and cliche, but we'll consider other possibilities. We only want to hurt folks who deserve it, like Chris-Chan, Tim B^Uckley and baby seals.

... Oh come on, we all know those baby seals are building a nuclear silo and planning to destroy the world. They know they'll be perfectly safe in their Arctic bunkers.

[Psyclone]

... Oh come on, we all know those baby seals are building a nuclear silo and planning to destroy the world. They know they'll be perfectly safe in their Arctic bunkers.

Shhhhh! You'll give it away!

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't negative criticism just criticism?

[gcninja]

having read everything, thats my opinion.

[Stinkychops]

Hello guys, hows it going. I wrote that article. So I guess I have a reason to weigh in on this discussion.

Firstly I would like to point out that our wiki and forums do have standards and that people behaving in the manner that Theremin chooses to conduct himself would not be allowed to participate.

Secondly, for people claiming the article/site lacks constructive feedback you're not doing a particularly good job of providing it. Besides the fact that the article uses the term 'moneyfag' which I did not invent, nor did I write the article for it, nor do I really support it (I just used to it because it was relevant). What precisely is unfair within the article. Sure I provide a bunch of subjective accounts of her performances and I won't pretend they're to be taken as gospel. Besides those, I provide a few references, I make a bunch of jokes (which are a little more obvious than suggesting DHI get hacked etc, maybe I just don't understand your 'genius') to try to keep the article light - and in the nature of the DHI wiki the jokes are at Kathleen's expense. I didn't swear and I didn't lie.

I'd very much like to hear her opinion of the article.

Thirdly I'd like to stress the fact that I am not employed by the DHI. I do not work with them. I just wrote an article on their wiki. Monty, Ebeeto and Schlaasher(sp) had nothing to do with it. I've never tried to get any work published on the Escapist, and I have no reason to dislike LRR besides their actions and content. Don't let my article colour your attitudes towards the site at large.

Finally it's my opinion that discussion over the term 'moneyfag' is well beyond the point. It is an issue beat up out of nothing. Perhaps we'll change the term and every link on the site that goes to that page (which will take a reasonable amount of time) once we have a term which encapsulates the colloquial meaning we wish to employ. (It is my opinion that the internet has its own colloquialisms, which I suppose doesn't fit perfectly with its literal definition)

Going back to the first page...

I propose an internet army to uphold Kathleen's honor. Who's with me?

OT: Eh, everyone has an opinion.

Of course, these people's opinions are just WRONG. So there.

I suppose this joke is in jest. However I'd like to point out that Kathleen (anyone) is welcome to come over to DHI and address us there, edit the wiki pages herself or talk to me here. There's no need for people to defend her honour.

The wiki is about internet contributors, particularly (but not exclusively) pertaining to video game critics, humorists and commentators. The LRR crew, to an extent, falls within this margin. It would be foolish to think that LRR would be exempted from the wiki, no matter what their quality of work was. There are several pages where we aren't 'mean' such as the Zero Punctuation page - where we actively look for issues (and make it clear we're nitpicking) because people improve under scrutiny.

What's that you say?
Video game critics deserve to criticise work without criticism? Or is that only when you like them and have invested time in their website forum? That makes more sense.
LRR are tough enough and smart enough to defend themselves if they so wish.
---------------
I'd like to just point out that I could hardly control my disbelief and contempt upon reading King Kool's posts.

I honestly don't know where to begin. I'll drop it and ignore you until you make another series of nonsensical, presumptuous and all around ridiculous rambling tangents.
---------------
Good idea, post responses from dull memes and MLP. That'll show us that you're more mature and we're 'trolling'.

[semysane]

You're right. We shouldn't have gone to your forum to insult its members and defend pointless attack articles. Sorry!

[gcninja]

I merely used it as a means to express my opinion of this.
fine, I'll you my words.
These guys are merely envious of others success and try to make their own by trolling and criticizing others work. AKA, haters gonna hate.

better?

[Stinkychops]

I guess I'll keep talking to this brick wall.

I merely used it as a means to express my opinion of this.
fine, I'll you my words.
These guys are merely envious of others success and try to make their own by trolling and criticizing others work. AKA, haters gonna hate.

better?

Criticising work is bad now? Well I see we live in fundamentally different realities.
Trolling? What? Where? Or is 'troll' the go to insult of the moment? As far as I can see me and Rabid have been more polite and articulate than many LRR Forum Members. If us calmly discussing our site is trolling I can see I wouldn't enjoy this board.

Sorry we had to come in and rain all over your demonisation/victimisation parade.

The sentiments you wished to 'express' were vacuous and far more pointless than our wiki.

Yes I am so envious of LRR's success. The same way that videogame reviewers are just jealous of Big Rigs Over The Road Racing. It couldn't possibly be that I have no interest in making sketch comedy for well over 5 years.

You're right. We shouldn't have gone to your forum to insult its members and defend pointless attack articles. Sorry!

Insult its members? Check out all the posts before we arrived. I don't care if you insult me. What I care about is insulting me and then complaining that I'm insulting your 'members'. A blatant lie. I criticised ONE of this forums members posts in a rather reserved way. I guess you're still looking for victimisation. (This isn't a battle it's a discussion, try conversing with us and addressing our points or posing valid criticism at us.)

I'm bound by the same rules as you on this board, and I haven't been banned. So obviously the staff haven't decided I have to leave yet, nuff said.

[NecroVale]

To me, the initial implication from the article was that it was written by a disgruntled cynic with a personal vendetta. On subsequent reads I tried to look past that.

It felt as if there was a certain familiarity to the style that the article was written in. While it didn't hit me at first, I still managed to put my finger on it. I'm sure others will have their own opinions and views, but it read like an episode of Zero Punctuation. Except instead of escalating the faults you find until they are not longer fit to be considered hyperbolic, and dressing it up with a(n) simile/metaphor/analogy. Instead you deliver it in a manner that feels so deadpan that it detracts from it's ability to appear informative. The smattering "jokes" that were thrown in are written in a way that I believe a casual observer would be hard-pressed to decipher them from a literal take on your beliefs.

That being said, your first point to bring up was to slander the LRR forums and those on them.

Firstly I would like to point out that our wiki and forums do have standards and that people behaving in the manner that Theremin chooses to conduct himself would not be allowed to participate.

Whether an attempt at trolling, humor, or simply you looking down your nose as you adjust your monocle whilst you drink your wine as you begin preparation to ostrich yourself within Uranus... well I'm holding off my verdict for now.

Besides the fact that the article uses the term 'moneyfag' which I did not invent, nor did I write the article for it, nor do I really support it (I just used to it because it was relevant).

You don't support the word, and yet chose to use it? To me this does not compute logically. To me, if you do not believe in a word then you should refrain from using it, especially in the same manner in which it is commonly used which you purport to disagree with. You have shown yourself to have a fairly robust vocabulary, and if that fails you, then do something creative: come up with a word that does describe exactly what it is you are going for.

What's that you say?
Video game critics deserve to criticise work without criticism? Or is that only when you like them and have invested time in their website forum? That makes more sense.
LRR are tough enough and smart enough to defend themselves if they so wish.
---------------
I'd like to just point out that I could hardly control my disbelief and contempt upon reading King Kool's posts.

I honestly don't know where to begin. I'll drop it and ignore you until you make another series of nonsensical, presumptuous and all around ridiculous rambling tangents.

Your contempt? That seems a bit excessive, don't you think?

Trolling? What? Where? Or is 'troll' the go to insult of the moment? As far as I can see me and Rabid have been more polite and articulate than many LRR Forum Members. If us calmly discussing our site is trolling I can see I wouldn't enjoy this board.

There are lots of trolls who like to retain the guise of respectability. It makes them feel good about themselves when they see anyone who does not have their level of 'composure.'

Yes I am so envious of LRR's success. The same way that videogame reviewers are just jealous of Big Rigs Over The Road Racing. It couldn't possibly be that I have no interest in making sketch comedy for well over 5 years.

Then why do you feel the right to criticize? I have no interest in professional sports. To me, I do not see the appeal of people getting paid so much money to run around and chase balls/pucks/what have you. However, because I have no interest in it, and am therefore unable to truly observe it objectively, I do not feel that I am in any way entitled to try and tell others that they are wrong to enjoy it. It will not be until I am able to push myself to train, endure, and experience the things those athletes do, and see how much they put into their work that I would be truly qualified to speak on it.

Insult its members? Check out all the posts before we arrived. I don't care if you insult me. What I care about is insulting me and then complaining that I'm insulting your 'members'. A blatant lie. I criticised ONE of this forums members posts in a rather reserved way. I guess you're still looking for victimisation. (This isn't a battle it's a discussion, try conversing with us and addressing our points or posing valid criticism at us.)

The article maybe be a 'reserved criticism' but it read as an insult. Maybe it wasn't meant that way, but seeing as it is an apparent problem then it ultimately falls to the writer to rectify.

Also, not to be excessively insulting, but what is it with you and the letter 'z'? CriticiZe? DemoniZe? VictimiZe? Sorry, it has just been bugging me.

[Stinkychops]

It's a simple logic.

Why is "moneyfag" an offensive, or funny, word? Because it's clearly more insulting than "Sell-out."

Why is it more insulting? Because it has the word "assclown"(f-a-g gets censored...I forgot) in it.

This literally implies that "fags" are worse than "normal" (read, straight) people.

If I were to change the wording of "moneyfag" (a term which I was introduced to by that wiki, because I don't find south park the least bit funny) to "moneystraight" does it have any of the same meaning?

Not at all. Because "moneystraight" has no meaning, but "moneyfag" has association with a derogatory term.

It is interesting to me that you have accepted that the word assclown has changed away from its original definition - a cigarette. or faggot - a pile of sticks; to mean a homosexual.

Yet you are completely unwilling to accept that then different colloquialisms supply different meanings. Why is the words present IRL meaning set in stone for you?

The word does carry negative connotations, but those connotations come from the context of the internet and what 'faggotry' is associated with here. The negative connotations have nothing to do with homosexuals, and the page/article associated with it obviously doesn't either. It's a simple logic.

[Theremin]

It is interesting to me that you have accepted that the word assclown has changed away from its original definition - a cigarette. or faggot - a pile of sticks; to mean a homosexual.

Yet you are completely unwilling to accept that then different colloquialisms supply different meanings. Why is the words present IRL meaning set in stone for you?

The word does carry negative connotations, but those connotations come from the context of the internet and what 'faggotry' is associated with here. The negative connotations have nothing to do with homosexuals, and the page/article associated with it obviously doesn't either. It's a simple logic.

@Everyone else

I told you, you can't have a conversation with these people. They're either so stupid that they genuinely don't know they're wrong, or they're just trolling.

[Tapir12]

NecroVale, I have to disagree with you on the criticism. Anyone can offer their opinion as criticism. I make comments all the time about my hockey team, even though I've never played a game in my life. I can criticise a movie even though I've never made a movie myself. Anyone can offer their opinion, what matters is the tone it's given in - rude or polite - and if they can back it up.

As has been mentioned many times already, criticism (or negative criticism if you want to be specific) is often given as feedback to videos and the crew is very open to that. Not everything will appeal to everyone and even the best hitters never bat 1.000. The difference as I see it is the tone.

Example 1 - the tone is this thread has generally been better than the original article, and we are having a real conversation (for the most part).

Example 2 - you can find threads around here from the past where LRR fans have questioned decisions and discussed their opinions openly with the crew and the discussion has remained civil and productive.

Being polite doesn't mean you have to be positive. Jokes, sarcasm, exaggeration can all work, but if you want it to be criticism, it shouldn't come across as hateful. Healthy criticism should be a balance of positive and negative points, not solely negative.

Theremin, you can just step out. I agree that the defense was weak. We are not living in the 50s. But I think that's a different discussion.

[Stinkychops]

To me, the initial implication from the article was that it was written by a disgruntled cynic with a personal vendetta. On subsequent reads I tried to look past that.

It felt as if there was a certain familiarity to the style that the article was written in. While it didn't hit me at first, I still managed to put my finger on it. I'm sure others will have their own opinions and views, but it read like an episode of Zero Punctuation. Except instead of escalating the faults you find until they are not longer fit to be considered hyperbolic, and dressing it up with a(n) simile/metaphor/analogy. Instead you deliver it in a manner that feels so deadpan that it detracts from it's ability to appear informative. The smattering "jokes" that were thrown in are written in a way that I believe a casual observer would be hard-pressed to decipher them from a literal take on your beliefs.

That being said, your first point to bring up was to slander the LRR forums and those on them.

verb /ˈslandər/ 
Make false and damaging statements about (someone)
False? Hardly.

Criticism is not slander.

Go and read the posts I am referring to before you make presumptuous accusations.

As for your suggestions that the article in some way mimics Zero Punctuation...
I'll scratch that up to you just generally not having much exposure to critics. The similarities between ZP and the article are this:
It's highly negative. It offers criticism. It isn't intended to be completely factual. If you're seriously attributing these things to ZP then I can see why you're having such a hard time grasping the concept of critical thought.

Firstly I would like to point out that our wiki and forums do have standards and that people behaving in the manner that Theremin chooses to conduct himself would not be allowed to participate.

Whether an attempt at trolling, humor, or simply you looking down your nose as you adjust your monocle whilst you drink your wine as you begin preparation to ostrich yourself within Uranus... well I'm holding off my verdict for now.

Oh sorry, I didn't realise that it was pretentious to expect not to be called a "c*nt". I'm obviously being an unreasonable troll.

Also, did you just make a homophobic joke? What was that supposed to be?

I'm telling you flat out. If he behaved that like, or wrote DHI wiki articles in such a manner they would not be accepted. The point of me saying that is to imply that perhaps you're not as perfect as you think.

Besides the fact that the article uses the term 'moneyfag' which I did not invent, nor did I write the article for it, nor do I really support it (I just used to it because it was relevant).

You don't support the word, and yet chose to use it? To me this does not compute logically. To me, if you do not believe in a word then you should refrain from using it, especially in the same manner in which it is commonly used which you purport to disagree with. You have shown yourself to have a fairly robust vocabulary, and if that fails you, then do something creative: come up with a word that does describe exactly what it is you are going for.

I support the article, not the term. I don't know whether you've read the article or understand the terms origins at all, but there's nothing homophobic there. If that singular word is the only thing you guys can make an issue out of then I have more reasons to hate my work than you guys.

What's that you say?
Video game critics deserve to criticise work without criticism? Or is that only when you like them and have invested time in their website forum? That makes more sense.
LRR are tough enough and smart enough to defend themselves if they so wish.
---------------
I'd like to just point out that I could hardly control my disbelief and contempt upon reading King Kool's posts.

I honestly don't know where to begin. I'll drop it and ignore you until you make another series of nonsensical, presumptuous and all around ridiculous rambling tangents.

Your contempt? That seems a bit excessive, don't you think?

Not at all. Allow me to help you again.
con·tempt
The feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn

As I already stated, I didn't consider his posts worth responding to in detail. That's contempt by definition.

Trolling? What? Where? Or is 'troll' the go to insult of the moment? As far as I can see me and Rabid have been more polite and articulate than many LRR Forum Members. If us calmly discussing our site is trolling I can see I wouldn't enjoy this board.

There are lots of trolls who like to retain the guise of respectability. It makes them feel good about themselves when they see anyone who does not have their level of 'composure.'

Ah, so you'll assume I'm a troll despite all evidence to the contrary. Brilliant thinking.

Yes I am so envious of LRR's success. The same way that videogame reviewers are just jealous of Big Rigs Over The Road Racing. It couldn't possibly be that I have no interest in making sketch comedy for well over 5 years.

Then why do you feel the right to criticize? I have no interest in professional sports. To me, I do not see the appeal of people getting paid so much money to run around and chase balls/pucks/what have you. However, because I have no interest in it, and am therefore unable to truly observe it objectively, I do not feel that I am in any way entitled to try and tell others that they are wrong to enjoy it. It will not be until I am able to push myself to train, endure, and experience the things those athletes do, and see how much they put into their work that I would be truly qualified to speak on it.

So what gives LRR the right to criticise in ENN, Unskippable and Checkpoint? What gives journalists the right to review? Sports commentators the right to speak? You the right to criticise my article without writing one yourself?

It's pretty obvious that you're not being logical here. Just because I have no interest in spending 5 years making sketch videos doesn't mean I have nothing of merit to say on the subject.

You've got a misunderstanding of the word objective. You do not gain objectivity on a subject by having a stake in it. Many would say to the contrary. You're implying that by being a fan of LRR that your opinion is more objective than mine, a laughable notion.

Insult its members? Check out all the posts before we arrived. I don't care if you insult me. What I care about is insulting me and then complaining that I'm insulting your 'members'. A blatant lie. I criticised ONE of this forums members posts in a rather reserved way. I guess you're still looking for victimisation. (This isn't a battle it's a discussion, try conversing with us and addressing our points or posing valid criticism at us.)

The article maybe be a 'reserved criticism' but it read as an insult. Maybe it wasn't meant that way, but seeing as it is an apparent problem then it ultimately falls to the writer to rectify.

Oh no, he said that I came here and started insulting members of the forum. When in fact I hadn't done that at all. I wasn't talking about the article, which is insulting to Kathleen and the one that is insulting to LRR. That's a completely different topic.

I'm more than willing to read criticism of my article, and if I, or any other wiki editor agrees with you they will (if they're not too lazy) fix it.

Also, not to be excessively insulting, but what is it with you and the letter 'z'? CriticiZe? DemoniZe? VictimiZe? Sorry, it has just been bugging me.

Actually I spell criticise and victimise without the letter z. Apparently you didn't look at my post too hard. So I don't know how something can bug you when it isn't there.

http://wordinfo.info/unit/1091/ip:5/il:I
These guys explain why you see the suffix often in my post.