Right.
I was away for a day, in which time things seem to have cooled a bit. I was also the victim of a very well-planned, professional level April Fool prank which took a bit of sorting.

The reason the Scots fight among themselves so much is that they are always guaranteed a worthy opponent.

To reply:

>> Zardoz has clarified a previous post, saying, "I liked, and am in favor of returning, the auto-generated post count titles like 'Kilted Warrior', 'Kilted Elder', etc. I also like, and am in favor of the honorific or 'vanity' titles, either as descriptive or humorous references to certain members and their contribution."

Obviously, this no longer sums my position. With respect, I disagree with the first part, but support the second part.

>> Referring to how honorary titles were assigned, i.e, by the Mods, TattooBradley noted: "And if you completely read it it should also be clear thta this was ALWAYS the case, even before the removal."

I did note that and ask that it continue, being based solely on merit or contribution to the group.

>> Additionally, TB also said: "Just for clarification, I personally see removing the canned (post count based titles) as a good thing. I, however, see removing of the honorary titles (those given by the moderators and owner at the time) as a very bad thing.

Words from a moderator, which should carry some weight. I have no view on the "good or badness" of removing the honorary titles but hope only that the method of assignment does not change when they return.

-> I believe we have all made our points and are now clear on where everyone stands. At this point I officially withdraw from this thread and will not reply further to title and rank matters. Non-thread matters follow.

******************************
>> Many noted apparent flaws in the "member counter" or whatever does that. That probably needs to be sorted at a level above our pay-grades; I just used the numbers as I found them. But clicking around I did find that I had once been credited with being on-line here at 2:30 a.m. Never happened--is the board running on GMT or universal time?

>> @Canuck: "I'm not sure how serious I should take you. For one, you haven't bothered to fill out your profile. and two, your join date is the 10th of this month. Which implies you don't know how this forum was run previously, or if you were lurking you decided at that time not to participate.
I am pleased that you are exploring other threads. A lot has happened on this forum over the past 6 years...

Take me as you will, but please do it with care. You infer way too much where there is only one fact in hand, an incomplete profile which implies nothing by its presence (or absence).

Perhaps I didn't know the profile was there, or chose not to complete it, or felt the profile questions brought nothing to the kilt and heritage discussions, or am concerned about Internet security, or any of a number of other reasons. Since you appear to be clocking my posts, I direct you to my first in the Newbie section and various others from which you may draw more accurate inferences.

However, you also won't find me on "SpaceFace" , "MyBook," or Twitter (aptly named for its users.) From that, you may correctly infer that I am, like others here, a bit of a curmudgeon.

At the risk of accusing you of newbie-bashing (which I'm not), please rest assured that this is not my first haggis-hunt. I lurked here for at least two years and learned a lot. I also learned who the main players are and who to trust.

I have moderated a similar forum on an unrelated professional topic and am very aware of how this and other forums operate, both physically and politically. As well, I am a member of other Scots and heritage groups, both on-line and on-ground.

As you say, a lot went on here for six years. Too true, and recently when I saw that some of it had stopped happening, I decided to join. However, it was not until after I joined that I found the list was under new management, which accounted most of the changes. Did I join strictly because titles were gone? No, but I noticed it along with some other things.

My participation in this thread was prompted by a poster saying he had seen no opposition to proposals on which the poll was based. Kind'a seemed like bait in the water since I held a firm opinion.

Since this thread is probably winding down, I respectfully ask Canuck to continue via PMs if so desired.

Otherwise, thanks for the craic!


Peace
JT