I have watched over the years as the quality of posting here has plunged
to new depths, but seldom scaled new heights. In general, the quality of
public posting and discourse seems to have progressively deteriorated in
recent years. There is considerable latitude here for various forms of
expression, from the sublime to the ridiculous, but at times it is
appropriate that boundaries be set. A couple of recent examples come to
mind.

Recently we, the reading public, were subjected to a grisly and graphic
account of atrocities perpetrated upon a consanguine, supposedly in the
name of science. Leaving aside the fact that the "experiment" in
question had no chance of causing anything but misery and destruction to
the unfortunate subject (as an aside: one could never hope to restore
the sacred essence of Life by destructive or violent means -- those who
are sincere about finding a "cure" would do well to investigate means
which may involve offering their -own- lives in the cause, rather than
taking the lives of others -- but this is a topic for another time and
another place), the second atrocity occurred when the rest of Sapience
was subjected to a detailed account of these macabre and misguided
proceedings.

And now, more recently still, we have been subjected to reams of
scatological outpourings which some apologists are attempting to
classify as "wit." With all due respect to the thinking beings of
Sapience, the rest should reach for a lexicon and look up "wit" while
they are looking up "scatological." The difference between wit and mere
humor is qualitative as well as quantitative, and -wit- requires a
certain degree of both intellectual and personal development to be
properly executed, let alone perceived and appreciated.

I am unacquainted with the author, but my guess is that he is a bright
and loveable chap who is in fact capable of wit. As for the various
comments following his post: It should go without saying that anyone who
finds numerous references to excrement, pudenda, etc. to be
scintillating, let alone "witty," is lacking in one or both of the
above-mentioned areas of development.

Leaving aside the possible amusement value of the author's imaginative
lampooning of various mortals in the realm, the distinction between
vulgar humor and wit is an important one which needs to be drawn. And
the appropriateness of applying either of these to the Divine was
apparently in need of elucidation.

The Divine have spoken, and it is not the place of any mortal to add
footnotes to Their words. Those who agree with Them too enthusiastically
risk appearing to be sycophants trying to curry Their favor, and those
who disagree cannot but appear to be fools. More to the point, They do
not need our agreement.

But it seems clear that the long scatological diatribe against
everything in Sapience, from mortal to Divine, was intended in spirit as
an attack, rather than as entertainment. Whether that attack appeared
humorous at times or not, in whole or even in the smallest part, misses
the real point.

Ironically, that attack seems to have been motivated by an excess of
caring, which had been frustrated beyond tolerance. The author appears
to have a highly-developed sense of fairness, which can be a source of
acute pain to any sentient -- especially if that sentient sees no way of
resolving the injustices which he perceives. It may well have been the
welling-up of a long-frustrated desire for fairness and rightness which
overwhelmed the author's better judgement in this case.

My prevailing emotion, as I read that post, was one of compassion for
the author. A great deal of anguish was visible through the long, uneven
stream of vitriol, coarseness and levity -- it was a raucous,
heart-rending cry of frustration and pain, and apparently the writer
expected it to be his last public outcry. I hope that his concerns will
be answered, and his distress allayed, should he -seek- for answers
rather than simply lashing out at everything around him. As a Sapient I
believe that if there are wrongs to be righted, there are also
appropriate means of addressing them.

It was heartening to see that the Divine were moved to compassion as
well, and exercised remarkable restraint in dealing with this egregious
outburst. Censorship? Not in the least. Censorship would have removed
the post from the public eye. Instead the post was allowed to stand, and
then with equanimity and patience, reasons were outlined as to why it
was inappropriate. This is entirely in keeping with freedom of speech,
in the best sense of the concept.

As to the appropriateness of mortals criticizing the Divine: all
questions of punishment aside, who are we to attempt to assess, let
alone criticize, That which must of necessity be not only quantitatively
but also -qualitatively- different from ourselves? And for those who
have difficulty with the concept of qualitative differences, here is an
example in quantitative terms: an ant peering at you from the ground is
visually incapable of taking in the sight of even your entire boot. If
this ant could talk, and if you could bend down and listen to its
chitterings, would it have anything meaningful to tell you about your
nature?

Penned by my hand on the 20th of Variach, in the year 133 MA.