Forum Sanity Check

  • Thread starter Thread starter spruce
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
spruce said:
I’ll keep them in mind for future threads that are not asking fellow members what they think about something.
Click to expand...
On this thread you appeared, initially, to be asking fellow members what they think about something, but when you’re asked to clarify what that “something” is, you don’t tell us.
 
spruce said:
If I remember correctly, I have not quoted any instances of the behavior. I have provided fictitious examples of the kind of thing I have seen
Click to expand...
As several posters have pointed out, your examples aren’t very “fictitious” to those of us who saw the previous thread that we all remember and that presumably was closed or removed by the moderators. I seem to recall that previous thread was one you started, featuring a blog post with almost the same situation you stated in your “fictitious” example, and I was the poster who used the word “whistleblower” in responding to your thread in a manner you didn’t agree with.

I don’t know what game you’re playing here, but it doesn’t seem very nice or forthright.
 
Last edited:
spruce said:
I have provided fictitious examples of the kind of thing I have seen.
Click to expand...
You are confirming what I said. You are willing enough to provide fictitious examples, but fictitious examples are not evidence.

You did, however, provide one nonfictitious example, namely “whistleblower,” which appeared in a thread that both @DeniseNY and I remember seeing. I repeat that “whistleblower,” in my view – a view, by the way, that I share, as I showed you, with the editors of Merriam Webster – is not an offensive word.

Do you have any other nonfictitious evidence to produce?
 
spruce said:
What is your point with this statement?
Click to expand...
My point is why would you want to make an issue out of something that is over? What’s the benefit of rehashing it on the open forum rather than with a moderator?
 
People seem to be going off on unrelated tangents. So, back to the original question in post #1: “Am I the only one that finds them [formal (capitalized) third party name-calling labels] offensive?”

I have my answer - no. Thank you to everyone who participated in this thread.
 
Last edited:
@BartholomewB, @Tis_Bearself, et al., the behavior that @spruce finds offensive is the use of common nouns as names. It’s the difference between referring to someone as “the whistleblower” vs. calling them “Whistleblower” as it were their name.

In my opinion, this it seems like a convenient shorthand, but on the other hand it is a caricature of the person and therefore could be disrespectful.

Edited to add: If you call someone Whistleblower, you could just as well call her Concerned Catholic. Which sounds better? (Since the thread is closed, consider that a rhetorical question. 😁)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top