I understand where you're coming from, CashewGuy! I responded with open hostility to someone who I felt was displaying veiled hostility, and the veiled hostility is arguable. I'll explain myself a bit, more to show you where I'm coming from than to try to change your mind. My anger is not because the site isn't immediately bowing to my wishes, but rather due to the nature and wording of the response.

So there are three quotes I feel are important, in not-quite chronological order.

The mute feature isn't going anywhere.

This is a minor insult - It shows he's aware of the problem, and states his unwillingness to consider one possible solution. If this were the only issue with his message, I wouldn't have even bothered replying.

Our hope is that we can go back to using the site to share and discuss interesting and provocative content, as that has always been the intent of hubski's continued existence.

This sentence is a slightly more pointed insult - It shows he's aware of the issues that the community considers important, and considers them unimportant. Same level of insult as when someone asks you to stop talking to them so they can watch their TV - What you value is unimportant to them; they value something else more.

FYI, I will not be responding to any comments on this post, as my headache grows worse with every comment about muting, ...

Oooh, now THERE's an insult. Whereas in the last quote was "shut up so I can watch my soaps", this quote is "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU". He's chosen to engage with the community, to tell them he noticed their problem... And then telling them he won't discuss it. At all.

If I'm honest, this insult was the one I was most strongly replying to. If you're going to engage the community, engage the community - Don't just sit up there in your ivory tower, handing down pronouncements.

and I officially consider the matter closed.

This is either a sign of insanity, a threat, or, more likely, a poorly thought out insult.

On a public forum, an issue is closed when everyone agrees it is - Otherwise someone will just start the conversation right back up again. Believing that won't happen is a belief contrary to reality.

Alternatively, he could be saying he'd take action to silence anyone bringing up the issue again - From what I've seen of hubski, pretty unlikely, but a common enough solution on other sites.

So he's probably just throwing a baseless insult, like the last few - "Shut up about this, guys, I don't value your input."

There have been some decent suggestions that we will discuss internally...

Hey. Now wait a moment. This sentence is completely unlike the others. This is the one you focused on, CashewGuy. And you were supposed to - It's thrown out as a bone directly towards the anti-mute side.

But why does it clash so badly with everything else he's saying? He's suggested, time and time again, that he doesn't value this discussion, would like it to stop, and won't listen to anyone talking about it. But he's going to consider the issue?

There's a couple different ways to read that. Maybe he's playing it straight, and bad at PR - He wants us to shut up, but will consider a couple of the better suggestions to fix the problem. That's your reading, I think, Cashew : )

I read it more cynically, though. I've heard this kind of patter before - "We're conducting an internal investigation". "We will discuss the events at a future date." Almost invariably, nothing happens from sentences like these. They're just a way to give the illusion of potential change, when none exists.

I'd love to be wrong about that. Here's hoping I am!

Basically, I feel like Ben there is insulting the community as a whole - Those in favor of large changes, small changes, and those who want things to stay the same. Everyone involved in the discussion. And if there's one thing that gets my dander up, it's someone being hostile towards other people.

Cheers!