[MR] The Lurkers Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks (cesspits)

[Jen Thies]

Remember folks that the archives of the Merry Rose are available online for all to see. Some use the archives to skip the drama, but view any announcements. Some read the archives only so they are not tempted to respond and wade into the fray. Some check the archives to see what is the current controversy and who has taken it from a discussion to a food fight. Regardless it is easily possible for lurkers to view every asinine statement made in the history of this list. 

As someone who also mostly lurks, I too have been subject to the confused and pitying looks of friends when I mention the Merry Rose in person. I hunt for the good nuggets, like the fun parts of Pennsic, and breathe deeply and hit delete at the useless controversy. 

Genevieve

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 27, 2011, at 3:25 PM, "Terri Morgan" <online2much at cox.net> wrote:

>> All these people saying that they are being criticized
>> and embarrassed for reading the Merry Rose by people
>> who supposedly don't ought to step back and think
>> about this a moment. How do these non MR readers
>> know that the MR is, in fact, a cesspit? 
> 
> Every one of them that I have talked to has been someone who once enjoyed
> being on the Merry Rose, some of them from when it was first founded, and
> have left after years of reading messages as rude as the one you posted and
> I am replying to. Some, knowing that I had said that I was going to try to
> make this a better place, actually re-subscribed after Pennsic and then
> un-subscribed again after the thread about child abuse.
> 
>> Let's not call these people "People who don't read the MR
>> and mock others who do." Let's be honest, here, and call them
>> "rude lurking hypocrites." :-DDDD
> 
> Name calling? Really? I see your ":-DDDD" - it still reads as an insult. Are
> you feeling good with having posted that? Shall I take that comment to those
> of my friends who I mentioned and let them know that you called them that?
> Tell them that you jumped to a conclusion and then posted it to the Greater
> List? Tell me - would you say that to their faces?
> 
>> Anyone who wants to openly ridicule someone for their reading
>> material really ought to be taken to task for their lack of manners. 
> 
> Surely. Yet reading for context is a good skill. "I've been treated to many
> a confused and pitying look..." is what I wrote. There was no mention of
> mocking or ridicule. Yet there surely was a good dose of that in your
> response. Thank you for proving my point.
> 
>> And in this case, their dishonesty. ;-)
> 
> Or perhaps for jumping to rude conclusions to cover the guilt of being one
> of the parties driving people away.
> 
> 
> Hrothny
>