It's fine, I'm used to your bull [BLEEP] ism. I don't always think you're wrong, I just know that you're disingenuous.

You never agree with me unless I agree with you first.  You're not being honest with yourself and you're not being honest with the rest of us.  You do always think I'm wrong.
When a person has significantly more aptitude and education than most of his conversation partners, he must choose to pretend to have less, and get accused of being disingenuous, or be candid about the depth and breadth of his knowledge, and get accused of talking down to people. Both of us have graduate degrees. So both of us have this problem. I choose the first approach, you choose the second. Your approach of talking down to people works for you because you do it with so much spite and so much disregard for them as people that observers find it funny, though the targets of your ire rarely do.
Anyhow, sneakers actually accused me of pretending to know more than I actually know, not less.
So I don't think you've diagnosed the problem.

You really are full of yourself.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Sure. 
If you don't agree with someone about the best rock band or best athletic shoes, you can either disregard it and never do anything bad to them, or post a reply, "The Rolling Stones are better" or "Nike makes better shoes." 
Both are perfectly courteous.
What's not courteous is just tossing an egg at their house and walking away.

So you're problem with the down vote is you don't get an explanation of why?

The lack of an explanation sucks, but I wouldn't care if the unexplained downvote was just attached to the post.
But it's attached to the poster.  
It's attached to me forever because I said something one person didn't like, and I might not even know which part of what I said he didn't like.
We're running this site like it's eBay or Amazon. If I'm selling beanie babies, you'll want to know if some other user thought my beanie babies were musty.
But we're just having a bull session about politics.  Why does Americus 2.0 need to see all the times that mikesez ticked off Pirkster?
But if I go and say something out there, it might be interesting for you to see Pirkster didn't like it, and FSG didn't like it, etc.  Then the next post I make, they might agree with, and you could see that too.

---

You never agree with me unless I agree with you first.  You're not being honest with yourself and you're not being honest with the rest of us.  You do always think I'm wrong.
When a person has significantly more aptitude and education than most of his conversation partners, he must choose to pretend to have less, and get accused of being disingenuous, or be candid about the depth and breadth of his knowledge, and get accused of talking down to people. Both of us have graduate degrees. So both of us have this problem. I choose the first approach, you choose the second. Your approach of talking down to people works for you because you do it with so much spite and so much disregard for them as people that observers find it funny, though the targets of your ire rarely do.
Anyhow, sneakers actually accused me of pretending to know more than I actually know, not less.
So I don't think you've diagnosed the problem.

You really are full of yourself.

I'm not actually.  FSG is full of me.  He likes it, too.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The down vote is attached to the post. All you have to do is click on the “User Names” post link on the actual down vote and it will take you to the post they didn’t like.

---

What in the Wide Wide World of Sports is agoin' on here???

The down vote is attached to the post. All you have to do is click on the “User Names” post link on the actual down vote and it will take you to the post they didn’t like.

But the total goes under the screenname.  So it's attached to both.
To give an example, Fark lets people rate posts as "smart" or "funny". When a serious post gets funnies, that means other users disagree. And everyone can see it.  But there's no indication of how many other times that user posted something that got a lot of smarts or a lot of funnies.  The next time you see that user on a thread, they might get no reacts at all, or all smarts and no funnies.  And unless you have an unusual obsession, you'd see that and say, "oh, a lot of smarts, people agree".  You wouldn't say, "I guess this post is fine, but that user is the one guy no one likes."

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So you're problem with the down vote is you don't get an explanation of why?

The lack of an explanation sucks, but I wouldn't care if the unexplained downvote was just attached to the post.
But it's attached to the poster.  
It's attached to me forever because I said something one person didn't like, and I might not even know which part of what I said he didn't like.
We're running this site like it's eBay or Amazon. If I'm selling beanie babies, you'll want to know if some other user thought my beanie babies were musty.
But we're just having a bull session about politics.  Why does Americus 2.0 need to see all the times that mikesez ticked off Pirkster?
But if I go and say something out there, it might be interesting for you to see Pirkster didn't like it, and FSG didn't like it, etc.  Then the next post I make, they might agree with, and you could see that too.

---

You really are full of yourself.

I'm not actually.  FSG is full of me.  He likes it, too.

Nah, my last PET scan was clear, so there's no more of you in me.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The lack of an explanation sucks, but I wouldn't care if the unexplained downvote was just attached to the post.
But it's attached to the poster.  
It's attached to me forever because I said something one person didn't like, and I might not even know which part of what I said he didn't like.
We're running this site like it's eBay or Amazon. If I'm selling beanie babies, you'll want to know if some other user thought my beanie babies were musty.
But we're just having a bull session about politics.  Why does Americus 2.0 need to see all the times that mikesez ticked off Pirkster?
But if I go and say something out there, it might be interesting for you to see Pirkster didn't like it, and FSG didn't like it, etc.  Then the next post I make, they might agree with, and you could see that too.

---

I'm not actually.  FSG is full of me.  He likes it, too.

Nah, my last PET scan was clear, so there's no more of you in me.

Progress! Glad you got the clean bill of health. I assume all the problems down below are also all healed up by now. I know it's been a while for us, but StroudCrowd's mom does tell me some stuff.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.