Quote
Saguaro
where I said posters aren't supposed to post what they think?
.
And I didnt
say you said that.
I said you justified calling people on their vocabulary because you personally take offense.
My response is, don't take offense, or at least just channel it into constructive disagreement.
You said this:
Quote
Because my reaction to that word was negative.
If you use strong words, you will get some reactions to that.
The problem is, it;s completely subjective in cases like this what are "strong words" that others will take as "negative."
The result is semantics debates, which I submit to you are not productive.
And even on the extremes, it's completely within someone's rights to actually pan Goff's performance and see it in ways I don't, as poor play. Not matter what words they use for it. My only real response to that is "disagree, I see it differently, here let me make a case."
For example if I didn't like the word someone used for Goff's play---maybe they said "superlative"---if I followed my own principles here, I would say something like well according to how I use the word superlative that's just not how I saw his play, though I thought he came through in a tough situation.
I wouldn't say if you use excessive praise like that, which I find to be dishonest, expect a reaction from me to that. That would just be me using my own subjective view of what's "appropriate."
None of this has anything to do with "censorship," which isn't a real option anyway. Neither of us can censor a post even if we DO insist that's what we mean to say.
It's just much more of a matter of where the lines are in fair disagreement. Believe me, years ago the old zn had a habit of ignoring what the new zn is saying here, but, I just think that pointing to our own negative reactions to something is less usefully productive than just saying we see it differently and making a case.
That' s my 22 cents.
Fwiw.
Fair enough?