It's apparent that if anyone were to enter this group under the guise
of a "Kevin L" that, before they managed word one, they'd invite
pretty harsh criticism from more than one quarter. That's
unfortunate, though perhaps understandable. However, each post should
stand on it's own.
I have little tolerance for abrasive and unnecessarily abusive
comments on the groups -- particularly those which are more directed
at personality than statement. But whether "Rock" is Kevin is
immaterial to me (although if he is Kevin he's put forward an
unfortunate deception in his denial that's not to his credit and it
would have been better to ignore the question.)
What's key is that my take on his posts is they are as well reasoned
and temperate as most. I certainly don't hold with his stands on the
"RNG" topic, but don't fault his expression of them -- controversial
as they may be.
I'm mildly amused that they've provoked modest outrage in some,
suggesting that he's violated a sacred catechism. And, if as some
suspect (though not myself), that he's acting the troll to get a rise
out of peope, the people who rise to the occasion and enable the
behavior are at greater fault. It's always a mystery to me that a
topic on which 90%+ (perhaps 99% if the silent majority is included)
are in agreement can produce the extended discussions that inevitably
surface.
I'll get off my high horse here. I'll fully own up that if I find
these discussions tiresome the best remedy is to skip over them. On
the other hand, anyone who gets stoked up about a position for which
no amount of discussion will produce anything constructive might do
the same.
- Harry