View Single Post
Old 11/09/2009   #266
Makoeyes987
Default

Ⓐaron wrote: Well it's a poor summation and I find it insulting.
You find me stating the obvious that we disagree...insulting?

I'm not disputing that at all. I'm just saying you could have avoided the whole shit storm by appointing someone the members already knew, and it wouldn't have come across as such a slap in the face to people who've been model members for the majority of this forum's existence.
And we would've sacrificed our appointment of who we felt was more qualified and capable of doing the job.

And it's only a slap in the face to those who feel unwarranted entitlement to a position they were never promised in the first place.

Considering that all the other candidates mentioned in this thread presumably excluding myself should fit those criteria as well, no it doesn't distinguish him.
Well that's your opinion, and I and the rest of us staff have to respectfully disagree.



I never said you didn't have differing viewpoints on staff. I said you didn't want to add more differing viewpoints to staff. Apparently the nuance in this argument escapes you.
That's an assessment of yours that isn't true, but okay. Thanks for the clarification.
Makoeyes987 is offline