Ah, my apologies. I thought that with the pride that you're championing the cave-man as your mascot, you'd similarly take pride in the "old-school" label (one I've always seen as a term of great respect). I certainly meant no offense, and hope you won't take any.
So that's your "first of all." Does that mean there will be more response forthcoming? I'm pretty interested in your take on the patterns of aggression (and particularly cycles of escalating aggression) vs. consciously positive posting (the whole "beam of sunshine" thing). I sure hope that issue doesn't get lost amidst other threads of response. That would make me sad
I actually erased a second point I had. I tend to write these posts while I'm doing other stuff, and I forgot to go back and edit it. For the time being, I thought that was a decent response. There's a disconnect because.. look, right there. Disconnect.
However, I really don't think that responding with positive examples would change anything. I've learned this from repeated experience. No matter what, the canned response is always "oh, well just because you actually had a series of functional gaming groups over the last 6 years doesn't mean mainstream gaming groups aren't all dysfunctional. "
Or weird accusations: "Oh that's great. Of course, if you don't accept 'Conflict resolution' then you MUST be defaulting to GM fiat. Which equals Illusionism. Which equals Brain damage!"
Or "just because your campaign has an epic plotline, that doesn't mean that's how anyone else plays it...
Your game is just a boardgame. MY game is real roleplaying. "
Or sort of a "well, some people like Moldy Bread."
The reason people can get away with talking like that is becase they have an overinflated view of themselves or their own credibility.