jessicafischerqueen: OK and one more thing there is something bothering me and I really don't want to pour more fuel on a fire that's almost out but my forum is "semi private" I suppose and here goes-Ok if CG.com uses "name calling" as a benchmark for distinguishing between a critical post and a personal attack-
I'm all for that- handy, convenient, clear.
But how clear is it really?
Let's do an experiment.
Which of these would be deleted if someone blew the whistle?
1. <JessicaSmellyFishQueen>
OK that's crystal clear- if blown, deleted
2. <Jessica Fischer Queen> is lying when she posts publicly, all over the internet, that she is a GM, when in fact she is not. She is a WGM. Judit Polgar is a GM.
??
3. I wish <Jessica Fischer Queen> would stop lying all over the internet about being a <GM> when she isn't.
???
4. <Jessica Fischer Queen> is a liar because she keeps posting she is a GM all over the internet, when she demonstrably is not a GM.
???
4. <Jessica Fischer Queen> is a liar.
Ok this one would be deleted, but only if no <true> evidence were supported to serve as an example?
<Jessica Fischer Queen> is a dirty liar.
Deletable because of the pejorative intensifier adjective?
<Jessica Fischer Queen> is a poopy pants.
Deletable because clear name calling- being a "poopy pants" is not verifiable, so it's just name calling.
Any ideas you guys?
###################
And finally- as <acirce> posted vis a vis <WGM> v. <GM>:
"No. They are different titles."
I agree with <acirce> that it's important- not trivial- to maintain this distinction- not just because it happens to be a fact- but also because what is the point of <Judit Polgar> and other women actually getting their GM norms, and getting that title, if it's not going to be distinguished from the WGM title, which is not as difficult to get?
Kibitzing
