What you should know, Johan Osterman, is that the hilarious meme that follows shift6 is that he's the kind of guy who likes to stagger into a thread past its sell-by date and just lay down his pearls of wisdom without reading it or knowing anything about what he's talking about. No, good old folksy chatter and an "in my opinion" and suddenly you have a radical new front in the discussion that no one in a million years could have offered, and certainly not just upthread and discussed at length. Who gives a shit? You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Gus' comparison was a specific one, and it was accurate for the purposes of his point. How about you take your presumed seniority and your chickenshit "just asking questions" approach to indicting the conduct of others defensively and stick it all the way in your ass? No more halfsies. The only thing you've earned as a result of your time in service is a reservoir of scorn, which means you're actually operating at a deficit relative to newer posters. Fuck you. If you don't have to preemptively take into account the Guslife when you critique his choices simply because he leaves when something's over the line to him, then no one has to factor your shit either. If you can't handle it and the best you can do to deflect it is being passive-aggressive, don't fucking post. Fuck you. I think that would be the wrong reaction, although I can understand the impulse. One lesson of the tapirgate is just how problematic it can be to enforce norms whose value the community does not find persuasive. In that case, of course, the problem was mainly with the who and the how and the why than the language per se, which is largely indefensible outside of comedy and small groups where intent is relatively clear. But I digress . Gus left because of his own decisions in responding to others in his own way as much as those of others in response. They aren't equal and opposite but the back and forth was real. I wasn't defending him per se upthread, just as I didn't become involved in the discussion back when it was happening and was simply a matter of offense/defense; the fact is it's tricky to re-shape community expectations around an outlier situation because you can't tell if it's the tip of the iceberg or just an individual situation, and it's also hard sometimes to sift out the ethical dimensions of things that arise from pretty minor clashes and simply build up over time. My point at the start of the thread was that right or wrong, it might be worth being clear on why this happened and considering it on a realistic scale of how people want to be treated vs exclusively within the sphere of the somewhat mixed precedents of our community. I think in general if someone walks away from this a little less prone to haze in that manner, or at least unlikely to do so without at least some sense of consequences, then over the long run it becomes less common or at least something reserved for excessively toxic personalities. Basically, it's long past where we all understand that couching something in "with all due respect" or "I like so and so" does not remove the substance of the post, so pleading ignorance is not an excuse past that initial point.