Since no one's posting yet, I guess I'll start us off.
I was exploring the forum's dinosaur age pages (actually, it was page 2, but it's been so long ago now that it might as well
be the dinosaur age), and on "Re: The n00b roleplay" (a thread I never actually intended to start, for the record) NM posted something about seconteen saying that it might have been Mattieshoe who wrote something on some journal or whatever that was slandering Histeria! (yes, it was, in my opinion, slander).
Why would I bring this up, you ask? For two reasons--one, NM, that was a good argument against the journal thing, and two, it was a good argument EXCEPT for the fact that it seemed to me like you were jumping to conclusions about Mattieshoe. I understand why you don't like Mattieshoe, having been a part of that little fandom war myself, but I think you should consider giving him/her the benefit of the doubt. Note that Mattieshoe normally doesn't take the time to utilize proper grammar (my grammar Nazi status is coming into play at this point). However, this author did. There are plenty of people out there who don't like Histeria! or the WB in general. Mattieshoe is not the only one.
So where am I going with this? Do I agree with what was written on the journal thing? NO! How could I, being the loyal Histerian that I am? Do I agree with
most of NM's argument against it? Yes. It's perfectly logical, although I think it could have been written a bit calmer. My point is that we shouldn't be so quick to accuse or to judge. We, as a whole, need to be willing to give the benefit of the doubt before preparing to wage war on whoever disagrees with us that we don't know their username.
Keep in mind, NM, I have no wish to insult you (or seconteen, who thought that it might be Mattieshoe). However, what I said needed to be said, and on a thread that people would actually consider reading (as I said, that page was from the dinosaur age.
)