Quote:
|
However, I think that going back to old discussions just to be able to rate a current favourite member
|
But I rather think aforesaid does not imply that old discussion which gets rated does so only for the sake of new favourite. It has its own merits, even if re-reading began as the way to give reputation to some other and newer post.
One minor point, however - everybody having two squares is not such a bad thing. For one thing, reputation, whatever number of squares, after all,
is just another thing. For another, with so many wise Gandalfs around, anyone prone to 'slipping' and 'behaving like sandyman' would think twice before each post, as being red-coloured on the background of load of Gandalfs would be more, (what was the word
?) - silly.
It only creates possibility of someone (and, no offense meant, possibly someone young) taking pride in being 'slipped' and, thence, 'sandymaning' on purpose. But possibility is one thing, and probability another, if you follow my meaning.
And even then it would be hard to do, as the greatest part of members does not give out bad reputation, unless very much provoked. Hence so many 'no fools' and people 'getting hang of' things.
We
are, after all, what C.S. Lewis called 'mutual admiration society', in a way. We admire each other, so what so surprising in having so many people praised?
And, finally, as an experienced intriguer, I may add up the question of older threads yet again - that is, if, to use your own expression, any 'budding corpse' is inspired to write in a way to win some good fame, why not pay tribute to older skeletons, which, probably, haven't showed their nose (do skulls have noses?) in in a while, but have been mightily creating mighty threads in the mighty days of, hehe, mighty ancestors?
Ancestor worship? Nay, merely fair play, I believe
But!
All of the above is written for the look of the thing, mainly. The real stress of the post falls here:
You explanation, is, of course, accepted. I think we have the gist of it seized firmly now
cheers