Hmm,

This one seems to spiraling off the intended flight path. Let's try some mid-course corrections.

@ Rob Wright, earlier..
Except some of us earned those titles over the years. Bit hard to be flippant about them for some of us.

Then later:

Just to clarify, when many of us speak of titles, we are not referring to the ones based on poast count but to those bestowed on individuals. ... Those titles were earned. They were not based upon post counts.
Thank you for the clarification, and perhaps you see how the original could have been mis-interpreted. But that idea fits in with my support of titles FOR members BY members. Could you clarify the "criteria" for how those titles were determined to be worthy and by whom? Only the list owner? The Totally Official Board of Chosen Moderators? The Rabble here assembled?

@Kilted Abuser of Rubber Chickens
I am hard-pressed to recall a single instance in the 3 years I've been on board that someone has waved their post count over someone else's head.
@ Ghostlight
I believe I stated that I've seen members with lower post counts dismissed over their own count. There's a difference. I'm not the only one who's been on the receiving end of the latter.
Twice recently someone with a low post count who could have been argued with from a different perspective was instead shot down simply over his post count. What does that say to others about the character of the general community?
Thank you Ghostlight, for the support. I call on other casual readers to chime in with opinions as well.

And that as stated, friends, is one of the main reasons I'm against the strictly-numeric based titles. Although I try not to use meself as an example, I have experienced just this on another forum.
After being invited to join by a friend, I answered a question from another member and pointed out a flaw in a prior response. The prior poster was on me like paint because I was "new to the forum" and he had over 2500 posts in three years. (His words...really!)
The simple fact that his answer created an electrical hazard that could have resulted in a fire was lost on him--he'd been there longer so he knew more. Again I cry: Nonsense.

While I have not seen such here in my short time, there is little doubt similar has probably happened. Why encourage it? There are other and polite ways to tell someone they may be a bit off base without throwing a statistical lack of posts at them.

@Tatoo Bradley
All arguments and misunderstandings aside, there is one fact that is clear from this post/poll as well as the other outcry posts about titles: Steve stepping in and removing honorary titles with no forwarning or consideration for the feelings of the forum at large was a stupendous mistake.
Again, I'm uncertain here as to the meaning of "honorary" title. If it refers to the extra, saltired bar just under your user name I still would like to know how those are determined, but if it's internally bestowed I'm OK with them. Perhaps their sudden removal was offensive to some. But if "honorary" refers to the numeric post-count titles, then I support their removal and applaud their demise.

You can go back and forth all day ... but the numbers (see poll results) do not lie.
Nor do they tell the truth you seek. At this writing, 68 members out of the many thousand forum members have voted in favor, and that's only 3/4 of those taking time to vote. Fewer than 100 have voted and yet over 1000 have viewed the topic. Right now, the tally stands at 0.068% of viewers in favor, and even less for all members (>2100 active, >11,000 total)

The results are statistically insignificant as a current indicator of the massed rabble's opinion.

To get a more accurate reading, perhaps someone could start a non-partisan thread way up at top of the forum list: "There is a poll being taken, and your opinion is important. Please read this thread, then vote." (Not sure the Forum Lairds would tolerate that, though.)

I'm also not sure that an overwhelming result either way would sway The Laird one bit from his intended course. And that's probably not a bad thing.

But it's still a great conversation. Thanks

Kind regards,
JT