Before aught else is aaid, Wisp, by the way, you did convince me in some regard. I will amend what I said before to only apply to how things currently stand, and not how they were in grander days. But now...
Hmmm... I would like to know: what was moronic about my statements? If those at CS can give conclusive evidence that I was wrong in saying that our discussions have ten times the depth and thought process, go ahead, I challenge you - prove it and I shall admit error. I have done so in the past. But so long as you have threads about 'Moron of the day', it acts in your dis-favour, proving the veracity of what I have said, and I would appreciate not being labelled as such simply for voicing something that is truth - harsh though it may be, it is still truth. If such a comment angers you so, then give an analytical reply, and counter with logic - as Wisp did so lately. Otherwise you are speaking to the wind, and displaying a certain measure of insecurity. If you are so adamantly right, tell me why, and prove it! Don't name someone a moron just because you do not like their stance. It does not befit scientific method, which is essentially what I was maintining the CS forums lacked.
Now, I have based my comment on date, on the number of threads and the length of discussion. My inference of depth of analysis was based on the volume of existing threads about series events. Moreover, it might also be noted that of all the sub-forums contained within CS, few pertain to looking at the series in a manner that seeks to understand scientifically.
Moreover, I would appreciate if I am not misconstrued: I never threw around a name claiming it to be one of the staff - it was simply the person that was maintaining these things, and by post count seemed to be a more regular poster. And I was speaking in direct reply to a certain error I found regarding Hellenic and Latin languages, and the pronounciation thereof, which is a matter most dear to me. That stood as a seperate issue, however, from the other comments, and as somewhat of an excuse for my more vehement toungue - although my style of speech is even as guilty.
Essentially, though, I maintained a stance that the Compendium looks at things in far more logical and analyitical a fashion. If I am wrong, by all means correct me with proof, and not name-calling. That's fool's work, and more often than not is simply the weapon of those that cannot defend themselves through proof - and I should think you do not wish to follow that sort. So... prove it. I was at odds with the Compendium at first - some may remember that here - but they convinced me otherwise, and I was wrong. I maintained they thought about these things too deeply, actually, but I conceded my error in time, and now ardently defend their work. So defend yourselves if you please, and prove me wrong. But don't go ad hominem on me; that's a logical fallacy.
Also remember: this comment to ZeaLitY was meant as support and kindling for his zeal to work on this site, and to quell any insecurity he may have had about competition. I actually did not mean it as something against CS, as some might see it as, but rather as support for the Compendium. Just because one is seen better than the other does not make the lesser bad.
Oh, and for those who wonder what in this wide earth I am speaking in reply to:
http://www.chronoshock.com/community/showthread.php?t=1319&page=2&pp=16
I wasn't going to take that without a rebuttle; I'm too hot-headed for that. But I don't wish to bother registering over there.