Originally Posted by
NickB
Sorry if I was not clear on this. I do not mean this in a personal manner, as in the real person that uses magiciansampras as a handle. Rather, what I was doing was drawing out the implications of the line of reasoning that you put forward, when you draw the argument, not without reason imo, onto a psychonanalytical plane.
Sorry if I was confused by such inflammatory and hyperbolic rhetoric as:
Originally Posted by you
Oh, but wait, is that not what you wanted? It is not the ability to display your post count that you are after, I hear you say?
Originally Posted by you
you have not lost your ability to boast and/or feel proud about the size of your post count including omni posts.
Originally Posted by you
So, it is not just about leaving you free to do what yo want then, is it? It is about forcing all of us to worship to the altar of omni post counts.
Sorry that it was me being confused here.
Originally Posted by
NickB
Well, you can't have your cake and eat it.
Please see:
Originally Posted by me
Well if we're going to be reasonable about this (imagine that!) I think it would be safe to say that there is probably jealousy, on behalf of some, on both sides.
Originally Posted by
NickB
Either there is a psychonalaytical dimension to this, and you need to work it out in all its ramifications or there is not.
Every behavior has a psych dimension by definition.
Originally Posted by
NickB
But if that is so, why is it so? what does it say about the significance of post-count? And if there is such a significance, what does it say about those who think that making sure that all their posts are counted really, really matters?
I encourage you to go through the history of FT. Who clamored for OMNI post counts not to count in the first place? Who started all of this?
Originally Posted by
NickB
You know, you can keep repeating the word "disenfranchisement" a hundred million time. That will still not amount to providing any explanation or reasoning of what exactly that alleged disenfranchisement consists of. Disenfranchisement, in its original meaning, means being deprived of the right to vote. I take it that this is not what you meant by disenfranchisement in this context, since I don't see any right to vote that would be lost by no longer having omni posts included in post counts.
So, you must be referring to the figurative sense of disenfranchisement, whci means the loss of power of opportunities. And I have to ask again: what exactly is the power or opportunity that you and "the community that has made omni great" have lost? what is it that you could do before and no longer can do?
(If I were to be facetious, I might be tempted to say that, if anything, it would seem that your power and opportunities have increased, since it would seem that you feel enabled to speak on behalf on the whole "community that made omni great"
.)
Sigh. I don't have time to educate you on the meaning of disenfranchisement, but in short I am using the term in the same way that both Nietzsche and Foucault use the term as it relates to non-political (i.e. non-warring) entities. @:-)
Originally Posted by
NickB
So, do let us know. Because if you are unable to pinpoint what that loss or power or opportunity is, then clearly the time has come to stop speaking of any mythical "disenfranchisement".
The loss is that of being told that your posts do not matter enough to count. That is a disenfranchisement of an entire community in OMNI. One that is based, I might add, on nothing more than having been in OMNI. I.e. the rationale is very weak for making substantive/non-substantive distinctions.