Survey Threads

[Emma Krokus]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Emma Krokus wrote:

I posted my opinion about the survey. And I am sorry the thread was pulled, especially as it seems the student was open to comments about the research design.

What bothered me was the wholly negative attitude the survey questions displayed towards users and use of Second Life. 

To me this demonstrated ignorance and a lack of understanding of Second Life and the survey's target audience.

I felt that the bias shown by the questions was likely to engender defensive responses by participants, thus skew survey results and affect whether useful conclusions could be drawn from the data. 

It bothers me that such surveys get posted with depressing regularity and I'd like students to think harder about how they approach their research.

 

---

The questions did appear to show a pre-conceived idea about SL users. It wasn't the way they were put though. It was that there were only such questions. However, every question had a range of answer options, from Never to Always, so there really wasn't a negative bias.

Suppose there was just one question, such as, 'Are you addicted to SL to the extent that your RL suffers?' On it's own it just sounds like an interesting question. The usual answer would be, ;'No, of course not'.

The questions in the survey covered a lot of possible RL areas that might affected by using SL, and, put together, they did seem to give an appearance of a pre-conceived idea about SL users. But all the answer options ranged from Never to Always, so, if there was such a pre-conceived idea, then plenty of people filling it in would soon straighten it out.

Maybe so, but it's not for anyone here to teach them how to approach their research, and especially not by jumping down their throats in the way that some people did yesterday. It's for their tutors to teach them.

---

I disagree.

If students simply looked to their tutor to teach them, I would seriously doubt they were university material. At this level, I would expect a lot of learning to be self-directed. Learning comes from consulting a whole gamut of sources - and a good student would consider feedback from potential and actual participants a very valuable tool.

I do not believe I "jumped down the student's throat" - I expressed my opinion about the survey and its bias.

When all questions are about the negative effect of using Second Life, never mind the scaling of the answers, then the bias is clear to my mind. Past research ( social desirability effects ) has shown that bias does affect the validity of data.

 

 

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Yesterday, a student from Warsaw posted a typical survey thread, and it got the typical negative treatment that almost all such threads get here. Later, the thread was removed for some unknown (and definitely unjust, unless the OP asked for it) reason. So I have a question about survey threads:-

Why do they get such negative treatment from some of this forum's users, when, if someone doesn't like them, it's so much easier to simply ignore them?

---

Every other survey you come across on the Internet gives some sort of incentive to complete the survey, even if its just a coupon for the item or product. Except on the forums. Here they want you to spend 15, 20 hell one was 45 minutes long, all out of the kindness of our hearts. The ones i have done gave something as a return, even if it was just 200L.

[Ren Toxx]

Well, Phil, if you're a simple psychology / sociology surveyer and go out to the street asking people “would you mind if I asked you a few questions for a research?”, you're going to get more than a few “nopes”; no big deal, just short & sweet.

But if you're, like, a Jehova's Witness* planning to go out and confront people telling them “You're a sinner! Want me to tell you why?”, you better develop a thicker skin... just sayin'.

 

(* Just a crude example, I don't know whether Jehova Witnesses actually do this).

[Phil Deakins]

Actually, your post in yesterday's thread was very good on whole, Maddy. I don't remember every detail of it (that's why i said "on the whole" ), but I do remember you offering a rewrite suggestion for each question. I assume the reason you did that was becuase the student had been shocked by the reactions, and actually asked what he could change to make it right.

I'm really only asking about those who feel the need to be just plain negative in survey threads, to the point of being shameful, when is absolutely unnecessary.

[Phil Deakins]

Deleted.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Yesterday, a student from Warsaw posted a typical survey thread, and it got the typical negative treatment that almost all such threads get here. Later, the thread was removed for some unknown (and definitely unjust, unless the OP asked for it) reason. So I have a question about survey threads:-

Why do they get such negative treatment from some of this forum's users, when, if someone doesn't like them, it's so much easier to simply ignore them?

---

Every other survey you come across on the Internet gives some sort of incentive to complete the survey, even if its just a coupon for the item or product. Except on the forums. Here they want you to spend 15, 20 hell one was 45 minutes long, all out of the kindness of our hearts. The ones i have done gave something as a return, even if it was just 200L.

---

That's perfectly fine, Drake. It's not the topic of this thread but it's perfectly fine

[Phil Deakins]

---

Ren Toxx wrote:

Well, Phil, if you're a simple psychology / sociology surveyer and go out to the street asking people 

“would you mind if I asked you a few questions for a research?

”

, you're going to get more than a few “nopes”; no big deal, just short & sweet.

But if you're, like, a Jehova's Witness* planning to go out and confront people telling them 

“You're a sinner! Want me to tell you why?”

, you better develop a thicker skin... just sayin'.

 

(* Just a crude example, I don't know whether Jehova Witnesses actually do this).

---

They knock on doors over here, Tex

Yes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with plenty of "nope"s. It's the plenty of bad things that some people herre write in survey threads that makes me both ashamed of this forum and, when it happens, a little angry too.

If the Jehovah's Witnesses put a sign outside their building that said something like, "Come in and learn what Jesus did for you", you wouldn't go in of you didn't want to listen. Those who are not interested really should stay outside instead of going in and creating merry hell. That's what posting any thread here is like. It has a title which may or may not interest you, and it has some content, which also may or may not interest you. If it doesn't interest you, stay outside. It isn't hard to do, and it's so much nicer than going in and creating merry hell.

[Emma Krokus]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Emma Krokus wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Emma Krokus wrote:

I posted my opinion about the survey. And I am sorry the thread was pulled, especially as it seems the student was open to comments about the research design.

What bothered me was the wholly negative attitude the survey questions displayed towards users and use of Second Life. 

To me this demonstrated ignorance and a lack of understanding of Second Life and the survey's target audience.

I felt that the bias shown by the questions was likely to engender defensive responses by participants, thus skew survey results and affect whether useful conclusions could be drawn from the data. 

It bothers me that such surveys get posted with depressing regularity and I'd like students to think harder about how they approach their research.

 

---

The questions did appear to show a pre-conceived idea about SL users. It wasn't the way they were put though. It was that there were only such questions. However, every question had a range of answer options, from Never to Always, so there really wasn't a negative bias.

Suppose there was just one question, such as, 'Are you addicted to SL to the extent that your RL suffers?' On it's own it just sounds like an interesting question. The usual answer would be, ;'No, of course not'.

The questions in the survey covered a lot of possible RL areas that might affected by using SL, and, put together, they did seem to give an appearance of a pre-conceived idea about SL users. But all the answer options ranged from Never to Always, so, if there was such a pre-conceived idea, then plenty of people filling it in would soon straighten it out.

Maybe so, but it's not for anyone here to teach them how to approach their research, and especially not by jumping down their throats in the way that some people did yesterday. It's for their tutors to teach them.

---

I disagree.

If students simply looked to their tutor to teach them, I would seriously doubt they were university material. At this level, I would expect a lot of learning to be self-directed. Learning comes from consulting a whole gamut of sources - and a good student would consider feedback from potential and actual participants a very valuable tool.

I do not believe I "jumped down the student's throat" - I expressed my opinion about the survey and its bias.

When

all

questions are about the negative effect of using Second Life, never mind the scaling of the answers, then the bias is clear to my mind. Past research ( social desirability effects ) has shown that bias does effect the validity of data. 

---

I don't remember what you wrote yesterday, Syo, so I have opinions about it. But you can'#t say that that thread was just fine. It was loaded with jumping down the student's throat, which is why I posted in it.

As for whether or not it's the business of anyone here to teach a student how to create a survey, it really isn't any of our business. It's fine to point out errors and/or improvements, but there are ways of wording it that don't jump down their throats. Maybe there were a number of people who posted in the thread who may have been trying to help, but worded the help badly, and it would have been much much better to just fill in the survey or move on. It was obvious from his/her that the student was rather shocked by the reactions s/he got here. Something was wrong, wasn't it?

---

I am not Syo. I didn't say the thread was just fine - I did not see it again after posting my response as it was pulled. I am unable to comment on the contents of other's posts since I did not see them. 

 

[Ren Toxx]

Really, Phil, you seem to be more interested in a generic discussion about why some forum members use supposedly aggresive wording to express their stances about any particular debate... yesterday's case being more just an example than the issue itself. I'm aware that surveys are usually regarded here with slightly above average contempt, but really, they're hardly the only issue causing flares, lol.

If this is the case, I admit I'm interested, but I'll content myself with hearing what others say.

[Coby Foden]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

I don't think it's hard to let it be, Coby.

---

I wouldn't state it with that certainty Phil. Sometimes it might not be hard, sometimes it might be hard.

 

Probably you too have occasionally the itching feeling "I need to reply to that post", don't you?

I do, sometimes I can resist the urge to reply :matte-motes-asleep:, sometimes not. :smileyfrustrated:

[Tex Monday]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Yes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with plenty of "nope"s. It's the plenty of bad things that some people herre write in survey threads that makes me both ashamed of this forum and, when it happens, a little angry too.

---

 Well, that's the answer then. Next time a survey comes through the forums, let's not give criticism (good or bad). We'll all just say NOPE and move on.

But really, is that any better?? Negative criticism, ignoring or say NO still makes the student scratch their head and ask WHY. Why won't you answer me? What did I do to upset you? At least, maybe, the criticism makes the student look at their work and see what can be corrected

(edited because the forum is not cooperating with the editing process...*gets out his sledgehammer*)

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Yesterday, a student from Warsaw posted a typical survey thread, and it got the typical negative treatment that almost all such threads get here. Later, the thread was removed for some unknown (and definitely unjust, unless the OP asked for it) reason. So I have a question about survey threads:-

Why do they get such negative treatment from some of this forum's users, when, if someone doesn't like them, it's so much easier to simply ignore them?

---

Every other survey you come across on the Internet gives some sort of incentive to complete the survey, even if its just a coupon for the item or product. Except on the forums. Here they want you to spend 15, 20 hell one was 45 minutes long, all out of the kindness of our hearts. The ones i have done gave something as a return, even if it was just 200L.

---

That's perfectly fine, Drake. It's not the topic of this thread but it's perfectly fine

---

you asked "why the negative treatment?" That is my opinion on why.

 

[Phil Deakins]

I've been thinking and I've altered my mind about somthing. I've said in this thread that the questions in yesterday's survey did appear to have a bias, or a pre-conceived idea about users and SL. I've also said that they weren't really biased because the answer options offered a range from 'Always' to 'Never' - the full spectrum. I've been thinking about the nature of the questions and I've come to the conclusion that someone could wonder IF SL has any negative impacts on users' RLs, and it's a very valid thing to wonder - and create a survey about.

So, imo, there was absolutely nothing wrong with the nature of the questions in yesterday's survey, and I now believe that those who think there was something wrong with them are very much mistaken. I don't know about the wording of each question because I don't remember them, but I am convinced about the nature of them. Researching if systems like SL have any detrimental effects on RLs is a very sensible thing to put some time into.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Tex Monday wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Yes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with plenty of "nope"s. It's the plenty of bad things that some people herre write in survey threads that makes me both ashamed of this forum and, when it happens, a little angry too.

---

 Well, that's the answer then. Next time a survey comes through the forums, let's not give criticism (good or bad). We'll all just say NOPE and move on.

But really, is that any better??

Negative criticism, ignoring or say NO still makes the student scratch their head and ask WHY. Why won't you answer me? What did I do to upset you? At least, maybe, the criticism makes the student look at their work and see what can be corrected

(edited because the forum is not cooperating with the editing process...*gets out his sledgehammer*)

---

Yes it is, and by a *very* long way. Survey posters can manage perfectly well without positive criticisms - that's not why they posted. And they can manage even better without negativity of any kind. If the student doesn't get takers on the survey, that's how it goes. Maybe s/he'll go away, think about it, and try again a different way. What *really* should never happen is a student feeling like s/he's done something really wrong by posting the survery, but that's exactly happened yesterday in this forum.

Post along the lines of, "You'd probably get more people doing the survey if ..." would be great, but definitely not those that jump down their throats like we say yesterday. That was shameful.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 

I don't think it's hard to let it be, Coby.

---

I wouldn't state it with that certainty Phil. Sometimes it might not be hard, sometimes it might be hard.

 

Probably you too have occasionally the itching feeling "

I

need

to reply to that post

", don't you?

I do, sometimes I can resist the urge to reply :matte-motes-asleep:, sometimes not. :smileyfrustrated:

---

I honestly do not think it's too hard to move on and ignore survey threads if they wind you up. Scratch the itch another way - make a cup of tea

[Phil Deakins]

---

Ren Toxx wrote:

Really, Phil, you seem to be more interested in a generic discussion about why some forum members use supposedly aggresive wording to express their stances about any particular debate... yesterday's case being more just an example than the issue itself. I'm aware that surveys are usually regarded here with slightly above average contempt, but really, they're hardly the only issue causing flares, lol.

If this is the case, I admit I'm interested, but I'll content myself with hearing what others say.

---

You're right, Ren. It angered me yesterday because it almost always happens with survey threads. And it es[ecially angered me because the posters of survey threads are almost always strangers. We crerate quite an impression on those strangers. The rest of the threads are by users. So I'm only addressing survey threads.

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Yesterday, a student from Warsaw posted a typical survey thread, and it got the typical negative treatment that almost all such threads get here. Later, the thread was removed for some unknown (and definitely unjust, unless the OP asked for it) reason. So I have a question about survey threads:-

Why do they get such negative treatment from some of this forum's users, when, if someone doesn't like them, it's so much easier to simply ignore them?

---

Every other survey you come across on the Internet gives some sort of incentive to complete the survey, even if its just a coupon for the item or product. Except on the forums. Here they want you to spend 15, 20 hell one was 45 minutes long, all out of the kindness of our hearts. The ones i have done gave something as a return, even if it was just 200L.

---

That's perfectly fine, Drake. It's not the topic of this thread but it's perfectly fine

---

you asked "why the negative treatment?" That is my opinion on why.

 

---

So you honestly think that it's perfectly ok to jump down a student's throat when s/he posts a survey without offering payment? If you really think that, there's nothing I can say.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Emma Krokus wrote:

I am not Syo. I didn't say the thread was just fine - I did not see it again after posting my response as it was pulled. 

I am unable to comment on the contents of other's posts since I did not see them. 

 

---

Oops. Sorry about that, Emma. I'll go and fix it.

ETA: I don't know what went wrong there and I couldn't delete it, so I've removed the post's contents.

[Freya Mokusei]

 

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I've been thinking and I've altered my mind about somthing. I've said in this thread that the questions in yesterday's survey did appear to have a bias, or a pre-conceived idea about users and SL. I've also said that they weren't really biased because the answer options offered a range from 'Always' to 'Never' - the full spectrum. I've been thinking about the nature of the questions and I've come to the conclusion that someone could wonder IF SL has any negative impacts on users' RLs, and it's a

very

valid thing to wonder - and create a survey about.

So, imo, there was absolutely nothing wrong with the nature of the questions in yesterday's survey, and I now believe that those who think there was something wrong with them are very much mistaken. I don't know about the wording of each question because I don't remember them, but I am convinced about the nature of them. Researching if systems like SL have any detrimental effects on RLs is a very sensible thing to put some time into.

---

I disagree with this entirely - and I have to say our experience regarding RL surveys differs dramatically. I still have access to the survey, but won't be posting the link here for obvious reasons. You may find it in your Browser History (it was hosted at docs.google.com), if this helps.

"Does not apply" is not "Never". To the question "How often do you neglect household chores..." - Does not apply makes it sound as though the respondent has no household chores, NOT that they never neglect them. The step above "Does not apply" is "rarely", which doesn't fit the bill either. "Does not apply" is typically used as an N/A response - in addition to the 'Never'to 'Always' range. I fully expect that the student in yesterday's thread did not realise the difference.

The survey was not suitable to determine if Second Life has any detrimental effects, regardless of the good intentions you ascribe. The survey was basically a copy-paste job (with some minor rewording) for a self-reporting addiction test. I recommend taking a look at a few examples of these to see the similarity. Tests such as these only work if the respondants are wanting to work on the result of the test, and respond truthfully (as it's phrased to be in their own interest). This test has no value when given to an untargeted and unknown audience.

Without targeting, it's too easy to realise that someone might "avoid household chores" not because they were addicted to Second Life, but because household chores are boring (perhaps the only household chore they do is cutting the lawn with a pair of scissors, the researcher has no idea and should not be making these assumptions). The answer tells you nothing - this was the same for all of the surveys questions when applied to an unknown audience.

Whoever was behind it did not understand survey procedure/ethics, and very little understanding of the topic they were supposed to be studying. When questioned, they clearly had no idea why the SLF community might react in the way it did, despite a MASSIVE past history of this exact thing. There's no reason to suggest that any data collected would've been treated safely or respectfully, and it was far too easy for any answers to the survey to be used dishonestly.

Anyone who criticised the survey and caused another user to think twice about filling it in was providing a public service.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote: 

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I've been thinking and I've altered my mind about somthing. I've said in this thread that the questions in yesterday's survey did appear to have a bias, or a pre-conceived idea about users and SL. I've also said that they weren't really biased because the answer options offered a range from 'Always' to 'Never' - the full spectrum. I've been thinking about the nature of the questions and I've come to the conclusion that someone could wonder IF SL has any negative impacts on users' RLs, and it's a

very

valid thing to wonder - and create a survey about.

So, imo, there was absolutely nothing wrong with the nature of the questions in yesterday's survey, and I now believe that those who think there was something wrong with them are very much mistaken. I don't know about the wording of each question because I don't remember them, but I am convinced about the nature of them. Researching if systems like SL have any detrimental effects on RLs is a very sensible thing to put some time into.

---

I disagree with this entirely - and I have to say our experience regarding RL surveys differs dramatically. I still have access to the survey, but won't be posting the link here for obvious reasons.

"Does not apply" is not "Never".

To the question "How often do you neglect household chores..." - Does not apply makes it sound as though the respondent has no household chores, NOT that they never neglect them

. The step above "Does not apply" is "rarely", which doesn't fit the bill either.

The survey was not suitable to determine if Second Life has any detrimental effects, regardless of the good intentions you ascribe. The survey was basically a copy-paste job (with some minor rewording) for a self-reporting addiction test. It only works if the respondents are known to want this diagnosis, and respond truthfully. This test has no value when given to an untargeted and unknown audience.

Whoever was behind it did not understand survey procedure/ethics, and very little understanding of the topic they were supposed to be studying. There's no reason to suggest that any data collected would've been treated safely or respectfully, and it was far too easy for any answers to the survey to be used dishonestly.

Anyone who criticised the survey and caused another user to think twice about filling it in was providing a public service.

---

Actually, 'does not apply' is intended to mean 'never' in that survey, Freya, and, in a way, it does mean never, even in our language; i.e. it does not apply to me because it never happens. Remember that the survey was written by a Polish person who doesn't have the command of our language that we do.

To you, with full command of the English language, it does make it sound as you said. But that's not what it means in the survey. In the survery 'does not apply' means that it doesn't apply because it never happen - you never neglect your household chores. He's Polish, remember.

You may be right and you may be wrong. None of us know what the survey is trying to achieve. But whatever it's trying to achieve, it's not our concern. Either fill it in or decline to do it. There is no need for anything more than that, and especially no need for jumping down the student's throat.

See the paragraph above. It's not our concern.

A public service? It's totally beyond me how on earth you could come up with that. I don't think I need to explain why.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Actually, your post in yesterday's thread was very good on whole, Maddy. I don't remember every detail of it (that's why i said "on the whole"

), but I do remember you offering a rewrite suggestion for each question. I assume the reason you did that was becuase the student had been shocked by the reactions, and actually asked what he could change to make it right.

I'm really only asking about those who feel the need to be just plain negative in survey threads, to the point of being shameful, when is absolutely unnecessary.

---

I did jump in because the student expressed shock, though my rewrites were not so much to show the right way as to illuminate the errors in the wrong way. I'm not there to write their surveys, but to get them to think differently. (Some would say I'm here to get people to think my way, but that's only because I haven't got them to think differently... yet ;-).

I also pointed out that the appearance of certainty ("It's a good survey") can throw up unwanted roadblocks. I suffer fewer rude awakenings if I'm not slumbering under a blanket of certitude and fewer still if I remain awake.

The survey made no allowance for SL having a positive effect on people. And so even you were reduced to stating that someone who was completely unaffected by SL would be seen as "a positive". To hold that perception, one must make the presumption that SL effects are not positive. What about those people who suffer anxiety or uncertainty in public situations, and use SL to build confidence? Or those with disabilities that limit their opportunities for socialization, who find access to acceptance here?

For as skeptical as I am about the overall value of virtual worlds like SL, I do see positives. We ignore them at our own risk. Because of this, I agree with Freya that criticizing the survey is a form of public service.

If you are taking issue more with the perceived intent of the criticism than with the criticism itself, I can't say your dismay is misplaced. How's that for wishy-washy?

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

...English language...

---

Step 1 of building a survey - tune it to your audience. The survey was conducted in English, presumably the student knew this forum spoke English. Failure to make the survey readable in English - while presenting it to an English audience - is a failure to produce a survey. There's a Polish forum where the student could've asked for Polish opinion in a language they could present clearly, but they didn't do this. (This actually helps indicate to me that the student wanted pageviews and box-checking, they weren't so interested in being understood, or having their survey discussed - making it inappropriate for this forum)

 

None of us know what the survey is trying to achieve...

No, but that is not the same as being able to tell what the survey can achieve. Anyone with proper statistics/research experience can determine this. Myself, Syo and Amethyst all provide insights here, if this experience is lacking in yourself.

 

It's not our concern...

How much of what's posted on this forum is my concern? What threads am I allowed to reply to? This is a public forum, all posters submit themselves to our collective judgement. I also find it surprising that you're suggesting people don't comment rather than post negatively while still constructively. You're welcome to define the border of your concern as you please, but I don't think you have any way of knowing what issues might concern me or anyone else.

 

A public service?

It helps protect, encourage and support the important majority (the Second Life community) while mildly inconveniencing someone who had no intention of joining our community. Spam and exploitation (the worst case scenarios for the students behaviour) are absolutely something this community needs protection against.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Sassy Romano wrote:

Same reason that when someone posts a spam link in a group chat, 20 messages follow discussing the spammer.

 

Opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one and the ability to control that desire to be heard varies, just like my response here, I was just going to ignore you but failed miserably.

---

Simple, succinct, to the point and sums it up perfectly.

And now I'm going to screw up by saying more.

I respond in one of three ways to Surveys: I participate, I ignore or I state what I see as it's shortcomings which may come across as criticism.

When it comes to the poorly done Surveys really it's the teachers who I'd like to jump on.  I have even suggested to OP's that they show their teachers the responses they got there.  So that the teachers can do a better job of preparing their students.

One thing I did mention to you in the deleted thread Phil was that many of us who participate in this Forum on a regular basis are older adults and the Survey Takers (and other younger adults who post in general) don't realise that when they post.  Conversely we forget they are younger adults and don't temper our words accordingly.  Though at this point in their lives sometimes some of them should know a whole lot better.

[Atma Constantine]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Yesterday, a student from Warsaw posted a typical survey thread, and it got the typical negative treatment that almost all such threads get here. Later, the thread was removed for some unknown (and definitely unjust, unless the OP asked for it) reason. So I have a question about survey threads:-

Why do they get such negative treatment from some of this forum's users, when, if someone doesn't like them, it's so much easier to simply ignore them?

---

The answer to your OP lies within many of the answers you received here. There is a large group of people that can't post to a thread with a non-biased response that is constructive yet still polite. It's human nature for everyone, just many don't know how to use a filter, nor do they care to.

It seems from reading the forums for years that when someone may hint at SL bringing out an unhealthy addiction people jump all over that in defense. Anything can become an unhealthy addiction if the person has that type of personality.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

A public service? It's totally beyond me how on earth you could come up with that. I don't think I need to explain why.

---

The founding fathers of my country (America! ;-) considered public discourse (as messy as it can be) fundamental to informing the public, and the proper operation of the nation. I'm not elevating my (nor Freya's) contribution above anyone else's, but participating in public discourse is a public service.

Few of us do all we can. Some of us do more than we should.

;-).