I'm going to avoid commenting on your writing style and vocabulary and instead focus on this one word: > we. Whatever group you are magnanimously attempting t

I'm going to avoid commenting on your writing style and vocabulary and instead focus on this one word: > we. Whatever group you are magnanimously attempting to represent, utterly fucking failed. You point the finger at the The Eternal September, but how many of those 'Septembers' did you (`we`) preside over before that? Failing one time after another until you give up and realise that, actually, the internet is for everyone. > we've always dealt with a higher class of people, and these distinctly weren't it. I'm not going to make the obvious reference to a Trilby hat--often tipped-- here, yet through my clever style of writing I actually just did. > we saw that "average" (aka: racist, sexist, homophobic, different-phobic) people join for the first time Different-phobic conveniently excluding your (as in, the group behind your `we`) disappointment at the unwashed masses finding the internet. -- I appreciate you trying to do this detached 'yet curiously' thing but the fact is that nothing has changed. I dare say it's worse.