I removed the “Is that true?” which is a valid question in any case.
The conclusion was originally that it is probably true as the numbers publicly accessible are close enough to what Geoff said when you consider that he probably does not count deleted and deactivated accounts, and it is unclear which exact period he was talking about.
I reworded the last paragraph and added more data - none of which changed my conclusion.
AFTER Norman’s numbers my conclusion is different: I find the statement misleading. I find that particularly annoying as Geoff could have played it straight and gone for “on the forum we are seeing steady, continous growth year after year”, but I’m aware that hyperbole is second nature in business while we hate it in Science.
All editing was done and finished before I saw any replies.
But thanks for misrepresenting my “intentions”. Some things never change.
I don’t agree. I didn’t even do that to Brad, and he was a LOT more annoying than Gavin.
I might not agree with Gavin (and in my opinion he often jumps to conclusions), but I will respect his right to his opinion and his ability to voice it.
Social exclusion via “ignore member” is so Amish. Do we really want to behave like a small-minded village community around 1650?
Reading this thread and a few others, I made a few observations that could be useful to all who posted here:
1- People rarely object to facts and objective assertions and when they do and keep it to facts, the thread is very useful to all forum members
2- People often react harshly to perceived value judgments. The thread degenerates quickly.
3- Even the suggestion of a value judgment often causes harsh reactions. It does not need to be an explicit value judgment.
I understand that:
carefully worded posts can convey all the information and not cause a flame war;
avoidance of personal or inferred personal attacks is a good practice
Let’s all not pollute the forum and let it become a lowly virtual mud sligning place. Now, it is time to lock or ignore this thread.
