“Over 15 accusations of stupidity is never warranted ”
You've said in the past that 1 is never justifiable. Now you're talking about how many it is. Which is it?
“Maybe you should debate the points rather than the person ”
I've tried that. You never concede even when your point is shredded. Why should I bother to address points that I have already disputed and you fail to acknowledge the counter-arguments? Attempting to debate with you is futile, as you have proven yourself incapable of it.
“you call people who dislike either of of you stupid ”
No, I call stupid people stupid. Or people who are acting stupid. I don't care whether people like me or not. If someone disagrees with me, and makes a reasoned post about it, then I'll reply to them, and continue to do so as long as they keep putting thought into their responses and replying to what I post. If they don't engage their brain before their fingers hit the keyboard, then I have problems with them.
“calling people idiots until they leave, agree with you, or do not contribute in the SWC forums ”
If they're being stupid, I'll tell them so until they stop being stupid. If that can only happen with them leaving the forums/SWC, then good riddance. More often than not, though, they wise up and start contributing constructively. That does not mean the same as agreeing with me/Wilhelm/you/whoever. It means thinking things through before they post, reading sticky threads, checking the rules, and so on. YOU, Ekoo, don't agree with me, but you are capable of contributing constructively. Sometimes you beat topics to death, and not infrequently you ignore valid arguments because you don't like them, but you do contribute.
“I disagree with people supporting each other's subjective INSULTS for no reason ”
Going back to your example, if you insult 8 people, you should expect to get at least 8 people flaming you in response.
There is some validity to the topic of this thread, that some people (and I am one of them) tend to react to some types of post with a negative attitude, and repeat one another doing so (of course, the same can be said of helpful advice). However, it's not like I send WvI an ICQ message with a message address and say "Here, help me flame this idiot!!"
“You believe you have a right to call people stupid because a few active posters agree with you. ”
I believe I have a right to call someone stupid because they're (being) stupid. It doesn't matter whether or not other people agree with me - I'll make the call on my own judgement. Having support/weight of numbers is simply a bonus based on how many people you have to argue with at once. But I've done it on forums where the majority was against me, simply because they were being dumb. They'd actually done what you accuse SWC of doing - formed a single opinion on any given topic and beaten down any resistance to it long ago. So when new people came in and started questioning something, they got the entire forum jumping down their necks about it.
While that does happen here on topics such as delayed real time, letting people start as freelancers, skill reassignments (well, actually not so much on this one), on most topics (including these) you can politely phrase a question and get a polite reply/explanation, and even discussion on the topic going.
Of course if you come into it with a bad attitude/insults, you get the same (or worse) in response.
“If you waited a few weeks, locked his thread, sent him a message or two, he would have realised. He doesn't seem to be very active any more, which is sad. ”
He DID realise. And he had one or two polite/interesting threads after he asked for a clean slate, and then disappeared. Which is sad, but hopefully he's just lurking somewhere playing the game, reading the rules, and not bothering with the forums. In fact... *checks his profile*... yep, his last login was today. So to get technical, the "tough love" approach of making him read the rules and think before posting worked, and he's still active in SWC and not making a nuisance or a fool of himself. The same thing worked on Aiden Cook, who is someone who does still post on the boards.
“this thread was talking about restricting membership to a "quality" core of a few players. That, my "dear" Hal, is an elitist notion ”
You are right, and I do not support any pre-joining tests for quality. But nor do I support rampant idiocy on the forums, and people spamming questions with obvious answers due to being lazy. If a few people can't learn to educate themselves, and/or think before they post, then I have no problem with them leaving the game. I have the same approach to actually giving help. I'd much rather tell someone where to find the link to the Rules than to post a link to the specific page. If you give them a link, they'll come back the next time they want help. If you tell them how to find and use the rules, they won't be reliant on the forums and others.
It's far better to give people what they need, than what they want. If they want to post dumb questions without looking at the rules or sticky threads, then they need a kick up the pants.
“I am not saying it is necessarily bad, I am saying I dont like it. Get your preconceived notions out of your head. ”
I will respond with a couple more quotes from your FIRST post in this thread, with certain portions or words in bold:
“especially vets should refrain from words like idiotic ”
“one vet said ”
And one from your second post, before I replied:
“bullied (or flamed, the term that is conveniently used by veterans) ”
There is no need to single out veterans in these statements, except for your anti-veteran agenda. Certainly "flamed" is a common Internet term, and the appropriate one for the situation. It was because of these specific references that I called you on it, not simply your posting in the thread.
“You are in no position to call anyone stupid, or even biased. ”
But you are? Certainly you made a big deal over bias in a previous thread, and were throwing it around wholesale as an accusation. Interesting standpoint.
"Hey pot, this is kettle. You're black!"