At 19:16:33 on Sun, 1 Nov 2009, Cherry Chapstick 
<azure@invalid.really.really> wrote in 
:

>I am now also suspecting that this suspicion is common amongst people 
>who have responded to me in these discussions, which might explain some 
>of the extremely unproductive rudeness I've encountered from the likes 
>of Molly Mockford.

Oh no - you earned that all on your very own.

When somebody new arrives, and asks questions in the hope of learning 
things that they don't know, that's absolutely fine.

When they are given the answers, many times over, and still fail to 
understand what they are being told - that is irritating.

When they appear to believe that they are not being told the truth by 
all these people, but in fact are being fed a load of lies, for no 
reason whatsoever, and that the true reality is something else entirely 
which only they can see - that is paranoia.

When they then appear to believe that, despite not having the basic guts 
to post under their own name and thereby accept full responsibility for 
what they write, they are nevertheless so incredibly important that the 
entire hustings should focus on them - that's gone very much too far.

You, my anonymous friend, are rapidly approaching the line which 
distinguishes between a cluebie and a troll.

If you really thought that discussions here bore any resemblance to a 
popularity contest for newbies, I guess somebody must have bribed you to 
throw it as comprehensively as possible.
-- 
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee.  If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.