Midsize Jake wrote:Graf wrote:...human excrement... Hitcan clowns... soul sucking... corrupt fuck... atshit crazy... nest of guttersnipes... deadwood grifters... best paid internet troll of this world... they all fuck day and night!
See, this is the thing I worry about. Is it really better to use language like this, whether or not alcohol is involved, or is it just as effective to say that these people are "highly objectionable" and "of extremely dubious character"? I don't want to seem like some sort of pretentious language snob, but given that one might want to be quoted, not to mention respected, by people outside of wiki-land, it just seems like the latter approach might be better.
Am I wrong?
Midsize Jake wrote:Anroth wrote:Would you mind not quoting him? I have the half-baked loon on ignore for a reason
So I'm just going to take a wild guess here and say you're more in favor of the "colorful" language?
Anroth is a cowardly runt. A Wikipedian's Wikipedian. It's pretty damn obvious what he was trying to do here, and it was not to register an objection to Jake's proposition. They tried the same desperate tactics with me, Anroth and the other cowards.
Putting aside the real motive, and indeed as a way of exposing it, here's a tip for Anroth and all the other little cowards Jake likes to protect - if you were genuinely intent on ignoring him, then you wouldn't keep mentioning him. You know how the ignore function works, so if you're dumb enough to put someone on ignore who you know is not going anywhere, and so will be quoted by others in future, well that's just your own stupid fault for being a sensitive little snowlake and thinking you can use gadgets to protect you.
Normal people, a classification which of course excludes Wikipedians like you, are perfectly capable of ignoring posts/people they want to ignore, by simply not reading them. The human brain is remarkable like that.
You know what Jake, we got an entire thread here that let's the world know Anroth is a highly objectionable person of extremely dubious character. I'd still prefer to just call him a cowardly runt, if only for brevity. There are other sound reasons, which people will know if they read my work.
You many not remember, since it's been that long now, but when I was a member of your site, I was perfectly capable of sticking to your language codes. Never called anyone a half-baked loon that I recall. Even though it is hard not to go an hour in there without thinking it. It didn't seem to matter though.
People like Anroth, because of who they are, what they are, will always hate reading the truth, especially when they resemble it so. What words you use to tell it, really doesn't matter. What excuses you give for protecting them, also don't, matter. People have their own words for it. You just used them yourself.