Self indulgent Authors

All is in the eye of the beholder, and so far despite numerous efforts there’s no Law against that. The OP’s perfectly entitled to his opinion & the right to express it. As are all successive posters. But arguing about it is futile because we’re all old enough to discount any opinions that don’t match our own, and nobody’s likely to change our mind. And anyone who argues about that…well you know where you can put it :smirk:

Snark is a different animal – unnecessary, because if it’s a response to prove-able misinformation the facts should speak for themselves. Snark’s ego-driven by “I know better than you” and it’s so delicious when found to be wrong.

Seriously, some posts should be tagged “SOHF” – Sense of Humo*r Failure.


Humor has always been used as a rhetorical tool to help speakers and writers connect to audiences. We can probably all agree on that.

I have noticed a trend for presenters publishing on platforms like YouTube to intermix information with a very large number of humorous quips, to the point the quips consume more time than the information. My impression is that the original poster prefers more information and less quips, a sentiment with which I agree.

I have also noticed that presenters with high viewing numbers tend to utilize a lot of humor. It seems logical that hopeful presenters are copying successful presenters, and since successful presenters use a lot of humor, hopeful presenters try to do that, too. The result is a slow walk towards less information and more humor per unit time as measured across all presentations.

Another observation is that sarcasm comprises a higher percentage of humor than in the past. If there is a topic of disagreement, presenters often use sarcasm to attack members of the opposing side, the out group, instead of attempting to explain and convert. In other words, as points of disagreement become intractable, sides stop discussing and start insulting.

As I wrote earlier, I enjoy some humor but personally prefer presenters who are authoritative, concise, and pertinent. When General Jack Keane appears as a guest speaker, I pay very close attention to his remarks. I could not care less what Jimmy Kimmel thinks about anything.


I would still like to have examples to back this statement up:
"I have found many interesting topics/articles here. Personally when the writer is spending more time thinking of witty remarks then information you are losing the people who are really interested in what you are saying "

I haven’t noticed any noteworthy percentage of such posts/behaviours here in the Kitmaker forums so it makes me curious.
Am I extraordinarily thick skinned (could be), have I totally missed something (could be, in this case I would like to catch up, maybe give those posters a friendly reminder), am I too dense to notice it when I see it (could be but I certainly hope not …)?


Well said! Lazer Pig is a good example of that sort of YouTuber. Somewhat, entertaining until he gets started talking too much on something one likes and you know more about than he does.

1 Like

I am with Robin @Uncle-Heavy on this issue. These forums are intended to be largely “self-governing” through the use of community-wide influence, an influence that creates (generally without too much centralized control) a set of community norms for behavior by posters.

However, this decentralized influence requires the input and reactions of the members of the broader community to react and comment (both negatively and positively) to the posts of others. A discussion like this one that offers up no specific posts by the OP that provide the concrete examples of his perception of poor, bad, unacceptable, etc. behaviors is impossible to conclude with any sort of valid group consensus.

The “new” KM-Forums have a much stronger, more robust structure to moderate and mitigate behavior and to establish acceptable group norm standards for behavior. However, specific examples of behaviors in question have to be the starting point.

I’d encourage anyone who has a problem with anyone else’s posting behaviors here to use the “Flag” function located at the bottom of every thread rather than start vague threads of generalized “grousing” about nebulous and ill-defined issues and problems. The group of “leaders” and “moderators” here does a good job (IMO) of handling problems with individuals who are violating the group norms in quite tactful ways.

If the low-keyed “Flag” function is too subtitle, step up and make a rational and public statement on the post in question. Keep it civil and say “your piece.”

It’s up to the entire community of members here to create and enforce the standards of acceptable behavior on these forums, but this demands specific reactions to specific examples of what each member feels is unacceptable behavior.

Don’t just start a new thread by throwing a steaming pile of stink in the middle of the floor and then metaphorically walking away from it. Be responsible enough to contribute to cleaning the mess up once you’ve put it front of the rest of us.