Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-98.235.154.24-20130913002452/@comment-11687-20131101200533

Andrew Waltfeld wrote: ImposterParrotGrass wrote:  And about your response to my statement above, I'm not trying to reduce the volume of writing(and it is good that you break it into paragraphs), but the overly complicated way you write. TL;DR verison: Attempt to use those technical writing skills. Layman terms and word usage is key. Not everyone is going to graduate school.

Azlius, I agree with his statement. I love the fact that you use citations and references to psychology and socialogy much like I have in other topics. However I think imposter is wrong on one point about the volume per say which I get into later, down below.

Azlius, you are however a fine gentlemen and certainly a scholar of some sort. =)

Also Azlius, my point in bring up the point of the discussion of the sex ed/etc was that there's a snowball chance in hell of it coming up at all in the first few seasons, if not the entire series. Especially given the time restraints on the series itself (5-8 minute episodes).

So the discussion is rather fruitless or pointless in my opinion because unlike thinking of what directions the story can go, there is absolutely null chance of this topic ever being mentioned in the series. It's not that I don't have fun with the topic/discussion of it, but I also realize that people will probably slog through your posts more if it's something that they are interested in as well.

A general note of interest for everyone:

---

A problem we will encounter rapidly if this continues with this amount of text is that since the website does not support multiple pages of topics, it lists all the responses in one very long page. For instance, the Ruby x Jaune thread has gone long enough that some people have to wait a minute just for it to load everything in. They just started thread part 2 because of that.

To ensure that we don't hit that limit too rapidly, I would like to suggest we try to keep replies short and sweet as well the primarily gist/part of the post of whoever your quoting. It's not really a discussion issue in my opinion, rather more a technical limitation of the way wikipedia forums are designed. Personally, I would have coded the Wikipedia's to have a normal forum usage of pages.

Page loads even on my fast internet is becoming noticable on this website. If someone is loading on something less than a T1 internet connection, I can understand why it's fustrating for the long delay.

Andrew, while I disagree with your assertion that layman's terms are key (or that the topic's usefulness depends on if it's referenced in the course of the series itself), I do respect your opinion on the subject. Moreover, I'm very grateful for the compliments!

The most germane point you made, however, was in regards to the length of the thread. That's a technical issue that cannot, I feel, be denied. As such, I've taken that limitation as an opportunity to revise and expand on the points I raised earlier over on my blog, and I invite anyone wishing to discuss this particular issue over there. With any luck, that will satisfy everyone (my choice of language notwithstanding).