PDA

View Full Version : manhattan & Gaudere sitting on a tree. . .


sailor
10-14-2003, 08:44 AM
Those of us who have been around here for a while know that once in a while manhattan blows a gasket, loses all trace of rationality and goes all bombastic and ballistic. Nothing new there and not much we can do about it but wait to see if and when he grows up to be a mature and rational adult who can control his fits of anger and frustration.

In this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=216804) about the lies about Cuba uttered by President Bush manhattan had no arguments to counter mine so the best he could do was to say to me You are a pro-child-prostitution liar. Well, no need to argue further because if that is not an admission of defeat I don't know what is. I do not think anyone reading that thread has any doubts about whose arguments are more compelling and manhattan's insults reflect on him, not on me. It is not a new tactic of those who irrationally believe what this administration is saying or doing, to smear those who question it. They label you a supporter of terrorists or, as in this case, of being pro child prostitution. To me it shows how desperate they are.

I do not wish to add to the animosity present in this board which is already too much so I am not going to roast manhattan over the coals for this. I think everybody, including manhattan himself, knows how despicable and shameful it is and we can leave it there.

Gaudere admonishes him: Take it to the Pit or take it down a notch, Manny. WTF? Accusing someone in GD of being pro child prostitution deserves no more than a passing comment to "Take it to the Pit or take it down a notch"? I thought there were limits even in the Pit and I think this kind of post in GD would have received a serious warning had it come from any other poster. Or have I missed a bunch of similar posts in GD which did not receive a warning?

Early Out
10-14-2003, 09:12 AM
When manhattan was a mod himself, anyone making a remark like that in GQ (which he mod'ed) would probably have been banned, or at least would have been told, in no uncertain terms, and publically, that he was in sudden-death overtime, one step away from being booted out.

When I reported that post, I was afraid that it would get only a wrist-slap. Looks like I was right.

Desmostylus
10-14-2003, 09:15 AM
Um, manhattan got his warning.

The next one might be a final warning.

Until then, what did you expect?

And BTW, I'm entirely on your side, sailor.

Aries28
10-14-2003, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by sailor
I do not wish to add to the animosity present in this board which is already too much so I am not going to roast manhattan over the coals for this.

Then why the pit thread?

I don't mean to be snarky...just wondering if you don't want to add to the animosity then why stir the shit?

pencilpusher
10-14-2003, 09:21 AM
And this is new how?

London_Calling
10-14-2003, 09:33 AM
Manny, please don't let Gaudere down. You know it's a tough enough job as it is.

robertliguori
10-14-2003, 09:37 AM
Money-making idea #5837: Mod porn!

Anyway, this is a message board, not a government. There are no rules but what the Mods enforce.

Also, note that the rules here are along the lines of least necessary effect. Some people refuse to heed warnings, so they get banned. I doubt that severe threats are necessary in this case.

Beagle
10-14-2003, 09:49 AM
Why did you bring up a debate with a banned poster anyway? That's how I remember this topic arising anyway. The administration seizes on the issue, and now there is less credibility to the allegations? Maybe. If the kids are supposedly kept in aluminum tubes...

I don't think one can look at the topic without wondering, "why?" If you are claiming personal knowledge about the prostitution situation in Cuba that's an indictment as much as bolstering.Again, I know Cuba. I have been there. I know how things work. Not only are nationals not allowed in the hotels but foreigners are not allowed in private homes. I have done some sneaking around and some hiding from the night patrols in the Cuban night shadows with my heart racing. I know what it takes to bribe the guards. I have friends there. I (tangentially) participated in helping someone escape from Cuba and he is now living in Spain. First response you called Manhattan a liar several times. "That's a lie." Etc...

Your GD manners need serious work also.

Why bring up a "debate" when your mind is made up, your plan is to personally insult the first person who disagrees with you, and then claim personal knowledge about everything?

Derleth
10-14-2003, 10:21 AM
manhattan, who is no longer the fucking hall monitor, does something questionable in GD.

Well, more than questionable. He accused someone else of being pro-child prostitution. Had someone done that in GQ on his watch, it would have been gravity bong all over again. The only question is why he thought he should be able to do it in GD.

Gaudere admonishes him. Lightly. No threats, no warnings, not even profanity. She is, apparently, not the fucking hall monitor, simply the maiden schoolmarm. At least around manhattan.

How can such things be? Well, maybe manhattan is being shown consideration for his years of service. Years of surly service where he would never have tolerated in anyone else the behavior he just displayed, but service nonetheless. Maybe G and m are friends, at least on the Boards. Such ties of friendship never stayed m's hand. Possibly G is simply friendly that way. "A kind answer turneth away wrath, and a gentle non-warning giveth m a chance to clean up his act." and all that. If so, G should know m's propensity towards strong language regardless of forum. She apparently does, and still didn't feel the personal insult warranted a true Official Warning. Maybe she accepts that part of m and likes him anyway.

Hell, maybe the G really stands for Gesus. But I don't think so.

sailor
10-14-2003, 10:39 AM
Beagle, I still say manhattan did not have any credible evidence to support his claims but if you want to discuss the merits of his and my arguments then the original thread is the place, not here. You are very welcome to go there and post. I am addressing your arguments there, not here.

The object of this thread is the fact that manhattan was given a slap on the wrist for something which would have merited a serious warning to any other poster and a banning to a poster who had been warned before, as manhattan has been.

OTOH, my calling an assertion a lie is perfectly acceptable. A lie is a lie whether repeated knowingly or unknowingly. I never called him a liar. He was the first one to use the word and my beef was not with being called a liar but with called pro-child-prostitution which is totally unacceptable in GD. If you are equating my behavior with manhattan's you are seriously missing something.

TheLoadedDog
10-14-2003, 11:02 AM
You're fighting a losing battle, sailor. You're right of course, but some folks seem to be untouchable - not just on the SDMB, but in all areas of life. And yes, they usually are the arseholes.

I never could abide bullies.

Liberal
10-14-2003, 11:12 AM
Stop picking on Gaudere. Just stop it.

sailor
10-14-2003, 11:30 AM
I know full well the difficult job it is to moderate around here and you couldn't pay me to do it nbut the Pit is the place to rant and much more so if it is about the administration of the board. It is not my intention to pick any battles here with anybody and I am not demanding any explanations from anybody nor trying to settle anything. I am just pointing out a fact. Each one can make of it what they will. That's all.

Beagle
10-14-2003, 11:33 AM
I have no dog in this fight, but I will stand by my last paragraph as to how that whole thread went. I would not call "That's a lie." a serious argument or response in GD when your whole argument relies on personal bolstering, insults, attacking a banned poster, and assertions.

It is highly relevant how a GD thread goes when you start hurling invective in the pit as a supposed consequence. Your OP had nothing to offer but opinions, then you insulted the first person that dared question them.

Why would I argue in the GD thread when I have no personal knowledge about prostitution in Cuba?

tomndebb
10-14-2003, 11:36 AM
Hmmmm, A sampling of Gaudere acting as Moderator over the last few weeks:

bri1600bv, you can critique a poster's arguments, logic or posts, but you cannot personally insult them in this forum. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=4049895#post4049895)
There's a whole forum for name-calling and guess what? This one ain't it. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=4046211#post4046211)
Blake, comments such as the above are NOT appropriate for this forum. If you absolutely must call people stupid, do it in the BBQ Pit. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=4044858#post4044858)
That's quite enough namecalling, LonesomePolecat. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3996002#post3996002)
We are NOT in the Pit, and everyone will refrain from namecalling in this thread, understood? Sheesh. Y'all know better. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3922690#post3922690)
Wow, this is late. However, Arcana, direct personal insults are NOT allowed in GD. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3892346#post3892346)

There were a couple of other threads wher Gaudere went into more detail regarding the infraction, however, there was only one post in the time I surveyed where she actually threatened to take any action, and in that case it was the most recent of multiple interventions. I do not see where her words to manhattan were any "less" than directions she has given to several others.

I fail to see where Gaudere cut manhattan any slack, here. (Back when I had to be a boss, I would typically "suggest" things to senior employees where I might actully get in the face of peope with less seniority--not because I favored the senior members, but because the fact that I had to speak to them, at all, was generally more of a rebuke than actually reading them the riot act.)

I really hope this thread was prompted by too much coffee or too little sleep.

Squink
10-14-2003, 12:02 PM
I fail to see where Gaudere cut manhattan any slack, here. Yes. Pitting her for a failure to wax apocalyptic, is like complaining that she's not more manny-like. That doesn't fit well when manhattan's also over the coals.

astro
10-14-2003, 12:28 PM
J. Michael Divney - Tourism in Cuba - "It is an island large, beautiful and unfortunate…" (http://www.trincoll.edu/~jdivney/final.htm)

The link above is an interesting and reasonably extensive historical overview of Cuban Tourism. It does seem to suggest that because the Tourism industry is one of the THE major cash cows for the Cuban government, that the tourism industry operates with a fairly high level of governmental oversight and approval.
The Special Period

With the loss of Soviet aid and subsidies, the Cuban economy looked increasingly to tourism as a solution to its economic problems, and to save the revolution. A sense of desperation in Cuba, as a result of its economic isolation, led to a "special period of peace" as designated by Fidel Castro. The Cuban economy was shrinking, and needed to cut back on its material consumption. International tourism became the focus of Cuba's economic plan, and promotions harked back to the pre-revolutionary heyday of Cuba in the 1950's to attract visitors. The idealistic hope to rid the island of the vice tourism and gambling brought was gone. The Cuban tourist agencies began promoting the image of sultry, scantily-clad Cuban women in its ads in Canada and Western European countries. Roberto De Armas of the Cuban Foreign Ministry commented in 1996 that "We have to put aside some of our 60's and 70's idealism," and this was a sentiment the government and tourist authorities seem resigned to as well. In 1991, for example, Playboy featured a spread of topless Cuban women with the blessing of Intour, a government tourist company. The agency even located the models for Playboys, which were described in the article as "dark, sensuous women who at one moment can be proudly aloof, the next giddy as schoolgirls." The Revolution of Castro sought to destroy this image of Cuba, but out of dire need, had to use it to attract tourists.


There is a tremendous "sex tour" business that patronizes Cuba and the default (and often correct) assumption by many Cubans is that single white, unattached males are part of one of these tours.

Cuba Guide misc - (http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Shores/5902/misc_us.htm)
Prostitution: Like everywhere else in Cuba, single foreign men will attract lots of Cuban girls. It’s rarely about friendship. Most Cubans simply assume that single male travelers are there as sex tourists, an idea confirmed by many European and Latin American tourists who do just that. Cubans can get in serious trouble if they are caught renting their rooms for prostitution. The police have recently cracked down on the practice, and often assume that any Cuban woman with a foreign man is a prostitute. Some foreigners have been fined $40 for walking down the street with a Cuban.

Whether this winking, tacit acknowledgement of what goes on in many hotels is morally and operationally tantamount to putting adolescent girls and boys in harms way, by setting up a system that greases the skids for them to wind up in the hotel rooms of sex tourists is a fair, but fairly complex question in a poor nation grasping for cash when, and where, it can find it.

sailor
10-14-2003, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by Beagle
[B]I have no dog in this fight, but I will stand by my last paragraph as to how that whole thread went. I would not call "That's a lie." a serious argument or response in GD when your whole argument relies on personal bolstering, insults, attacking a banned poster, and assertions. Nope. That's a lie. manhattan was the first one to insult with the word "liar". I said some of his assertions were lies and I proceeded to explain why. Or do I have to agree with him? Again, you seem to miss the fact that this thread is not about the arguments presented but about a particular insult hurled by manhattan. Oh well, you seem to be the only one who doesn't get it. nevr mind. Why would I argue in the GD thread when I have no personal knowledge about prostitution in Cuba? manhattan could apply that to himself just as well.

astro
10-14-2003, 12:32 PM
Oops... that belonged in the original GD thread. Could a mod please delete it from here?

wring
10-14-2003, 04:27 PM
Sailor question - why use the phrase 'that's a lie' when you seem to be really trying to say "you're wrong about that". I see the terms 'lie', 'liar' tossed out here all the damn time, when I think the more accurate phrase is 'you're wrong/mistaken'.

and then it wouldn't lead into the whole 'is that a legitimate parry or is it a poster-insult?' gig.

(on the actual topic of your OP, Iagree w/tomndeb)

Early Out
10-14-2003, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by wring
Sailor question - why use the phrase 'that's a lie' when you seem to be really trying to say "you're wrong about that". I see the terms 'lie', 'liar' tossed out here all the damn time, when I think the more accurate phrase is 'you're wrong/mistaken'.

and then it wouldn't lead into the whole 'is that a legitimate parry or is it a poster-insult?' gig. The phrase "that's a lie" is, alas, rather ambiguous. Let's say that a poster posts the following: "The Prime Minister of Freedonia says that his country doesn't use prison labor to produce cheap goods." Another poster responds, "That's a lie."

That response could mean that the replying poster is asserting that the Prime Minister is a liar (and that Freedonia does, indeed, exploit prison labor), or that the OP is a liar (and that the Prime Minister never made such a claim).

Safest course: make it plain, when tossing out a charge like that, who, precisely, you believe to be lying. Eschew pronouns!

Weird With Words
10-14-2003, 05:41 PM
Bah. Manny is an unrepetant fuckhead, and there's little question in my mind he would've been banned already if it were someone else's name at the top of those offending posts.

It's good to see that since he lost his modhood, he lost his invulnerability* as well, as evidenced by a few people chiming in with denouncements of his behavior (past and present). And if there's any justice, this thread will turn into a manhattan manwich, hopefully including a manny meltdown.

So I guess what this comes down to is not whether he's been a jerk before, but whether or not he was warned. For the record, I don't blame Gaudere, I find her to be generally fair and reasonable, and this puts her in a very difficult position. But overall, I'm with sailor on this one.

sailor would have been better off refraining from such language as "this is a lie", it's not exactly an insult, but it does push the bounds of politeness. Conversely, manny could have said a lot of different things in response, he could have called sailor on his conduct, or even performed an over-reaction-lite by posting a pit thread. Instead he accused sailor of being, not objectively, but directly pro-pedophelia. And that is completely wrong, no ifs, ands, or buts. Just... wrong.

manny is an intelligent man who does a lot of research for his position. He is also poisonous to almost any debate where someone dares to call something he says into question. If collounsbury gets banned for the mean things he said, but manny gets by with a feathery slap on the wrist for the completely indefensible things he said, there will be no doubt in my mind that an injustice has been allowed to stand as tall and strong as a statue, and in full sight of all.

In the end though, it's all just a matter of time, and manny's time will come. Worry not sailor, just try this: take a deep breath, let it out, and then scream "Fuckhead! Fuckhead! Fuckhead! Fuck that fuck in his fucking fucked head!" It may not make you feel better, but it will encourage your neighbors to keep a wide berth.



*I recall a time two years ago, when RTA made the mistake of poking a bit of fun at something manny said in support of drilling ANWAR. RTA's comments were, at worst, sarcastic and content-free, an offense that I'm sure manny has withstood from the direction of many others. But apparently RTA's comment simply would not stand. He calls him a cheapshot artist. Rather than get into a pissing contest, RTA says "hey, isn't that pit-talk?" Did manny reconsider his reaction? Did he think, even for a moment, that he might have been unnecessarily brash? Of course not. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=71739&perpage=50&highlight=manhattan&pagenumber=1)

Instead he brings the whole thing down to the pit, calls RTA a bunch of names, and waits for the accolades from the audience. He was not dissapointed. The people lined up to be the first to pucker up to his mod-pucker, and ream RTA for his offenses (like being "dumb", "content free", or "really, really dumb"). Then elucidator comes in and suggests (in a manner completely free of insult, mind you) that maybe, just maybe, manny's "assault is more befitting a humorless, self-righteous prig than the jolly openminded fellow we all know [him] to be." Big mistake. He became the next target, and found out the age-old truth: it doesn't matter what you're saying, you can never win against a mob. (The funny thing is, after the whole thing died down, flowbark came in and showed point-by-point that RTA did not, in fact, lie. So manny turns around and says that it wasn't actually the lie-that-wasn't-a-lie that bothered him, it was the condescension, and he encouraged others to pit anyone who appeared to use condescension. He was able to do this 180 without losing even a hint of his self-righteous attitude. Sadly, nobody pitted manhattan in response.)

BoBettie
10-14-2003, 05:45 PM
Would it make y'all feel any better if I spank him real hard? Because I will. Really.

Weird With Words
10-14-2003, 05:57 PM
Clarification of above post: manny called RTA a cheap-shot artist.

On further reflection, I notice manny hasn't posted to this, or the source thread since his offense. Could it be he's embarrassed? Could it be he has something vaguely resembling shame? Naaaaahhh...

Miller
10-14-2003, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by Weird with Words
*I recall a time two years ago, when RTA made the mistake of poking a bit of fun at something manny said in support of drilling ANWAR.

Weird With Words
Member

Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Out There, Nth
Posts: 81

Been lurking here a long time, I gather?

Weird With Words
10-14-2003, 06:13 PM
Zette- Yes! But only if he doesn't want you to, and don't take his word on it.

Weird With Words
10-14-2003, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Miller
Been lurking here a long time, I gather? You gather correctly.

elucidator
10-14-2003, 06:30 PM
He's been "lurking with intent to loom" since right about the time I first signed on. If that matters.

Sailor, m'man, if I may make so bold? Shine it on, let it be, shrug it off. No question, the insult was entirely out of bounds, and I said so. What you are owed is a simple, if abject, apology. I wouldn't bet on it, but sometimes there are pleasant surprises.

After all, TANJ (There Ain't No Justice)

andros
10-14-2003, 06:31 PM
manhattan blows goats.

I have proof.



:rolleyes:

Q.E.D.
10-14-2003, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by Weird With Words
It's good to see that since he lost his modhood, he lost his invulnerability* as well, as evidenced by a few people chiming in with denouncements of his behavior (past and present). He didn't "lose" his moderator status, he voluntarily gave it up.

Weird With Words
10-14-2003, 06:53 PM
If I say he lost his modhood, I'm not implying it was taken. If I say I lost my virginity, I'm not implying it was rape. For that matter, I wouldn't even be implying it was unintentional; that I somehow tripped over some woman's leg and accidentally... <ahem> well, you get the picture.

Actually, I never even knew the circumstances. But I did think it was a good thing that he wasn't modding anymore. It's just a bad idea for someone who's that wildly immoderate to attempt to moderate others. At best it smacks of hypocrisy, at worst...

Miller
10-14-2003, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Weird With Words
You gather correctly.

So, for at least two years, you read the boards often enough and closely enough to discern individual personalities and biases among other posters, but never felt compelled to post anything yourself. Then, since the beginning of this month, all of a sudden you've found eighty-plus instances where you were compelled to speak up. Two years of watching and not speaking, and then, out of the blue, you're posting at least six times a day?

Huh.

Weird With Words
10-14-2003, 07:57 PM
That's about the size of it. I've always been a fan of my dad's writing, and would often watch his debates with other posters, enjoying the stuff but not getting involved myself. The only real exception was this one thread in GD about Atkins, where I posted my own experiences with it under my dad's name.

Mainly I was just never able to work up the patience to deal with these long exchanges you guys are prone to. It's possible that my recent ritalin prescription is what changed that, maybe not.

In conclusion, I don't want to say you're implying an accusation here, but if not, what the hell is your point? Do you have one?

sailor
10-14-2003, 07:58 PM
Regarding the expression "that is a lie", it has been upheld countless times by the mods as within bounds of GD and even calling someone liar which I did not do and manhattan did.

I have been called a liar in GD more than once and have had to put up with it. Maybe I would prefer it if that was out of bounds but that is the way it is and has been.

Again, I am not playing the offended party demanding an apology. This is not an attack on manhattan. We all know it was wrong and there's no need to drag it on further. I think it was the most patent concession manhattan could give. It was his expression that he was out of arguments and by saying that he lost any right or reason he may have had. For me it's water under the bridge.

I am also not demanding anything from Gaudere; not even an explanation.

I do not wish to contribute to any hard feelings and I prefer to shrug it off as elucidator says. With this thread I just wanted to leave a record of behavior which I believe deserved a stronger rebuke and which I hope will not be tolerated in GD. Just my humble opinion.

manhattan
10-14-2003, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by sailor
Nope. That's a lie. manhattan was the first one to insult with the word "liar". You are factually incorrect. Specifically, But sailor is, at best, factually incorrect My first post was a measured one. You escalated it, sailor. You. Like you always do. I didn't dish out anything that you haven't done yourself dozens and dozens of times. Can't take what you dish out? Here, have a Hertz donut.

It does seem that I was factually incorrect as regards your citizenship. I apologize for the error.

Lynn Bodoni
10-14-2003, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by elucidator
He's been "lurking with intent to loom" since right about the time I first signed on. If that matters. <snip>

After all, TANJ (There Ain't No Justice)

Busted. Sometimes there IS justice.

Lynn
For the Straight Dope

Airman Doors, USAF
10-14-2003, 08:11 PM
Weird With Words, I think that Miller is as yet unaware that you are elucidator's son.

Now, I'm no big fan of your dad, but I'll tell you what: He's an excellent writer, he speaks his mind, and he has integrity. Rare things that you don't see often in liberals. ;)

If you're anything like him, keep what I said in mind and try to emulate it, especially the integrity part, because I can guarantee you and I will be going a few rounds sooner or later. :)

Anyway, welcome, and don't worry about Miller. If you're trolling you'll be smoked out soon enough, and if not then you have nothing to be concerned about.

Palo Verde
10-14-2003, 08:16 PM
Wh...wh...what???

Who is busted? For what? Why was elucidator banned???

Airman Doors, USAF
10-14-2003, 08:18 PM
Whoa. What the hell was that all about, Lynn?

Desmostylus
10-14-2003, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by Lynn Bodoni
Busted. Sometimes there IS justice. Sure doesn't look that way. Hopefully this can be sorted out with a couple of e-mails.

Lynn Bodoni
10-14-2003, 08:22 PM
I thought that elucidator and Weird With Words were the same person, as they were posting from the same computer. Turns out I was wrong, so I have restored both their privileges.

I blame it all on the slowmoving hamsters, it took me FOREVER to get the info, then ban, then unban, during which time new info came out.

Lynn

elucidator
10-14-2003, 08:25 PM
"Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."

- Mark Twain

fruitbat
10-14-2003, 08:26 PM
It certainly doesn't look like justice. I read the boards for years before I jumped in and posted. Hell I can recite the Satan/Heather imbroglio if you wish. Barring other evidence it is quite possible that Weird jumped in and started posting after lurking and discussing the board.

My wife has less than a hundred posts here and she knows some of you more than you would care to know. I would hope this isn't permanent. I am starting to feel like I have little chance of making a thousand posts without being banned.

Airman Doors, USAF
10-14-2003, 08:26 PM
Thank you. You scared the piss out of me. Who was I gonna argue with if he was banned?

Miller
10-14-2003, 08:26 PM
[qoute]Originally posted by Airman Doors
Weird With Words, I think that Miller is as yet unaware that you are elucidator's son.[/quote]

I was unaware of that. Sorry for for busting your balls, Weird.

Airman Doors, USAF
10-14-2003, 08:28 PM
Incidentally, sailor, I think this is a graphic illustration of how fair the Mods really are. So go bark up another tree.

fruitbat
10-14-2003, 08:28 PM
Whew disregard the above posted in a fit of pique. Welcome back elucidator (who I have a strange tendency to mentally think of as lucy).

Early Out
10-14-2003, 08:37 PM
I see manhattan has reappeared. Have you no shame, sir?

Q.E.D.
10-14-2003, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by Weird With Words
If I say he lost his modhood, I'm not implying it was taken. If I say I lost my job, most folks are going to assume I was either laid off or fired, not that I quit.

elucidator
10-14-2003, 08:43 PM
No sweat, Lynn. I mean, when you get your servers at Radio Shack, well,.....

Manhattan, you owe Sailor one serious goddam apology. You either have class, or you don't.

Your call.

Lynn Bodoni
10-14-2003, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by fruitbat
It certainly doesn't look like justice. I read the boards for years before I jumped in and posted. Hell I can recite the Satan/Heather imbroglio if you wish. Barring other evidence it is quite possible that Weird jumped in and started posting after lurking and discussing the board.

My wife has less than a hundred posts here and she knows some of you more than you would care to know. I would hope this isn't permanent. I am starting to feel like I have little chance of making a thousand posts without being banned.

I did, in fact, have other evidence, mainly that the two posted from the same computer/static IP address. Otherwise I would have done more research and probably consulted with the other mods.

I'm sorry that I acted so quickly, but when I see the kind of evidence that I did, WITHOUT an explanation (that's my child/spouse/roomie), then 99 times out of 100 it's someone's sock.

I'm going to go eat some dinner now, and probably won't be back on the boards for a while.

Lynn

Airman Doors, USAF
10-14-2003, 08:49 PM
You did the right thing, both times. No complaints here, Lynn.

Early Out
10-14-2003, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by Lynn Bodoni
I'm going to go eat some dinner now, and probably won't be back on the boards for a while.

Lynn Oh, no you don't! Didn't anyone explain to you that being an Adminstrator means that you have to eat cold take-out Chinese food in front of your PC? :D

Weird With Words
10-14-2003, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by Lynn Bodoni
Busted. Sometimes there IS justice.

Lynn
For the Straight Dope I just wrote out a long and angry post, then thought better and deleted it.

I will however say this: the above quote seems to suggest a certain amount of satisfaction with "catching" me, and I wonder at the reason for that satisfaction.

Enough said. I think I'm done here.

Weird With Words
10-14-2003, 09:10 PM
On further reflection, forget what I just said. It's over. Really, really over.

Lynn Bodoni
10-14-2003, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by Weird With Words
I just wrote out a long and angry post, then thought better and deleted it.

I will however say this: the above quote seems to suggest a certain amount of satisfaction with "catching" me, and I wonder at the reason for that satisfaction.

Enough said. I think I'm done here.

I DO take satisfaction in catching trolls, socks, and spammers, preferably just as they show their faces. One of my happiest moments was finding a spammer who had just registered and posted in two forums, and was apparently making his way down the rest of the forums. I banned him just after he'd made a post in Comments on Cecil's Columns. I was able to see that he stayed online (and logged in) for quite a while afterwards.

Hey, the pay is LOUSY. I have to take any satisfaction I can get.

Scylla
10-14-2003, 10:56 PM
Damn, this is a bizarre thread.

I guess a rule clarification is in order.

Am I to take it then that sock puppets are now allowed, as long as you actually breed the sock puppet?

I kind of think this is unfair. My daughter is only four years old and it will be many years before I can indoctrinate her into an extension of my will that can nevertheless post with autonomy.

Lynn Bodoni
10-14-2003, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by Early Out
Oh, no you don't! Didn't anyone explain to you that being an Adminstrator means that you have to eat cold take-out Chinese food in front of your PC? :D

That would mean that I would actually be ALLOWED to leave the house in order to get the Chinese takeout.

Hmmmm, it's been a while since I had Chinese food...I grilled a ham steak and had rice with peas and fried veggies (onion, celery, carrot, and mushroom). Chilled pineapple slices for dessert. I'd love some Chinese food, but generally I can't handle the sodium. My tough luck.

Am I to take it then that sock puppets are now allowed, as long as you actually breed the sock puppet?

No, no...socks are still forbidden. It's evident now that father and son are two distinct entities, and I was mistaken.

Berkut
10-14-2003, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by Scylla
Am I to take it then that sock puppets are now allowed, as long as you actually breed the sock puppet?Odd. I've never managed to impregnate one of my socks.

And it ain't from lack of trying, either.

SkipMagic
10-14-2003, 11:16 PM
Am I to take it then that sock puppets are now allowed, as long as you actually breed the sock puppet?Oh, I suppose auntie em and I could breed a sock puppet just for the hell of it, but I'm fairly sure that we don't have anything with which we really want people to agree. Unless it's statements in support of her obvious beauty, or declarations of agreement in my one man battle to prove that Dairy Queen is "high rent" when being compared to Baskin Robbins.

Other than that... nah.

milroyj
10-14-2003, 11:46 PM
I guess they think of it more like a discount on a family-pack of SOCKS, diapers, or enemas, as available at Sam's Club.

Weird With Words
10-15-2003, 12:10 AM
Lynn, while the whole thing does leave a bitter taste in my mouth, I realize now you were only doing your job. And I regret implying otherwise. My apologies.

And Scylla, if you think I'm an extension of my father's will, I can't wait to see the look on your font when your daughter hits her teens. There's a series of old Animaniacs episodes with a teenage character named Katie Kaboom. I suggest you research them, and dread your future.

I'd also like to apologize for this inadvertant hijack. Shouldn't we be pitting manny right now? Or at least sailor? C'mon! Look alive, people!

Smeghead
10-15-2003, 02:44 AM
Quick! We need a GPS system and professional cartographer in here STAT if there's any hope of steering this thread back to its original path!

sailor
10-15-2003, 02:51 AM
Originally posted by sailor
manhattan was the first one to insult with the word "liar". Originally posted by manhattan
You are factually incorrect. Anyone can go to the original thread and see you were the first one and the only one to use the word liar. I never called you a liar.

Since you do not believe you did anything wrong in that thread let me say I believe you are an asshole.

Beagle
10-15-2003, 03:14 AM
Well, whatever happened to this thread is fine with me.

Can we give Castro the good exploding cigar? It sucks having to detour around Cuba on every western Caribbean cruise. It seems ridiculous that such a goon could live a short boat ride from Key West.

Why don't brutal despots get rare genetic disorders? Just once.

Weird With Words
10-15-2003, 03:28 AM
Why don't brutal despots get rare genetic disorders? Just once.Because the U.S. knows better than to put a sick despot in power.

Zing!

(before I get piled-on, I should point out that I don't actually blame the U.S. for every brutal dictator in the world, just some of them.)

Beagle
10-15-2003, 03:44 AM
Wait! We can't be responsible for Batista (http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/batista.htm) and Castro, can we?
:eek:

If so, then we should go down there, overthrow Castro, and put Bremer in charge. We're already screwed no matter who we support.

Weird With Words
10-15-2003, 04:57 AM
I'm with you on this one. Perhaps Bremer the dictator would become a brutal dictator (don't they all?), but at least he'll be our brutal dictator.

Liberal
10-15-2003, 05:19 AM
Stop picking on Manhattan as well. Gaudere and Manhattan. Stop picking on both of them.

sailor
10-15-2003, 06:31 AM
Originally posted by manhattan
You escalated it, sailor. You. Like you always do. I didn't dish out anything that you haven't done yourself dozens and dozens of times. Can't take what you dish out? Here, have a Hertz donut. Go read the fucking thread. the *only* one to post any insults is you. The only one to call anyone any names is you. Again, saying "that is a lie" has always been within bounds of GD as it is considered an attack on the argument, not on the poster. You know that full well. The insult you used is well outside the bounds of GD and of basic decency.

>> I didn't dish out anything that you haven't done yourself dozens and dozens of times.

Now I *am* calling you a liar. Please show where I have dished out insults of the caliber of the one you used. I would have been banned long time ago.

Liberal
10-15-2003, 06:53 AM
Sailor

I said to stop bashing Manhattan. Are you cognitively handicapped (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=514508#post514508)?

kabbes
10-15-2003, 07:01 AM
Wow, Lib. You remembered a random insult from over two years ago??

Got any dirt on me?

pan

kabbes
10-15-2003, 07:02 AM
My mistake. Make that over three years ago. I forgot what year this was.

robertliguori
10-15-2003, 07:04 AM
Lib, he has a valid complaint, moreso because the accused is a mod and should know better. Why should he stop bashing Manhattan?

Liberal
10-15-2003, 07:13 AM
For the same reason that he shouldn't bash a bear for shitting in the woods.

elucidator
10-15-2003, 07:57 AM
Manhattan says sailor promotes and defends pedophilia. If there is a more reprehensible slur I am hard pressed to come up with it. Thus far, he has shown no intent to apologize and make amends for this repugnant display of contempt, and would rather bicker as to who first called who a "liar". Thus he reveals himself to be a thermonuclear asshole.

That said, I don't think friend Sailor should have dragged Gaudere into this pitting. While I agree that the rebuke was far too mild for the offense, that's pretty small potatoes.

Calling someone a proponent of baby-fucking? If that isn't plopping a turd in the punchbowl, I don't know what qualifies. Some of you are quite content to let him get away with it. Standards of conduct vary, I suppose.

Desmostylus
10-15-2003, 08:12 AM
Lib apparently has a problem with moderators in general.

Lib has also, apparently, stopped taking his medication. Again.

sailor
10-15-2003, 08:52 AM
My goodness, I wasn't even aware I had been here three years already! How time flies when you're having fun!

manhattan said I didn't dish out anything that you haven't done yourself dozens and dozens of times. He is saying I have called people insults of the caliber of being pro-child-prostitution "dozens and dozens of times" .

I am sorry but "cognitively handicapped" does not come to the same level. Not even close. And let us look at the circumstances. A post of mine was being misinterpreted and I was being accused of being a racist. The moderator agreed my post was being misrepresented but told me not to use those words. Not quite the same situation. And that's one, not dozens and dozens. Three years ago. Wow.

>> Lib has also, apparently, stopped taking his medication. Again.

There's definitely something weird about his posts here. ::backs away slowly::

elucidator, I agree with you and if you read my posts in this thread you will see I am not complaining about Gaudere at all. I am not asking for any explanation or anything. I know I could not do her job if you paid me. The main reason I put both names in the title was just because those are the persons involved. That's all.

Michael Ellis
10-15-2003, 09:38 AM
All of you, stop picking on each other.

Binarydrone
10-15-2003, 09:56 AM
Ok, but we can all agree that Thermonuclear Asshole would, indeed, make a fine band name correct?

Seriously though, Libertarian, you are acting a bit strange.

mazirian
10-15-2003, 10:00 AM
Michael Ellis, stop picking your nose! You'll make it bleed again!

SkipMagic
10-15-2003, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by Michael Ellis
All of you, stop picking on each other.

Now you're picking on the people picking on each other. Stop that.

vanilla
10-15-2003, 10:42 AM
Stop picking on Libertarian !



:)

Liberal
10-15-2003, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by Desmostylus
Lib apparently has a problem with moderators in general.

Lib has also, apparently, stopped taking his medication. Again. Thanks, Lynn.

astro
10-15-2003, 12:53 PM
This is like watching your grown siblings bitch slapping and wrestling each other down to the kitchen floor at Thanksgiving. It's ugly and pointless at this juncture. Would some mod do a mercy killing and cap this thread in the head so we can move on.

Weird With Words
10-15-2003, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Libertarian Originally posted by Desmostylus
Lib apparently has a problem with moderators in general.

Lib has also, apparently, stopped taking his medication. Again.Thanks, Lynn. Am I missing something here? Or is this as much of a non-sequitor as it seems?

Whatever the case, I think the "stopped taking his meds" accusations are completely insensitive and a bit over-the-top. Even if he has, it's none of our damn business, and we should be sensitive to that, especially if he requires meds. C'mon folks, aren't we supposed to be the compassionate wing?

Unless, of course, these comments are intended as genuine worry over another's well-being. If that's the case, I just think the worry could be better presented.

xenophon41
10-15-2003, 05:06 PM
WWW, Lib's comment was directed at Lynn for inaugurating the latest round of that particular rhetorical gambit. Although Lynn's original remark was (I believe) offered sincerely out of friendly concern, the comment has since been used as a barb and a put-down.


FWIW, Lib, I look back fondly on many of our past civil, sane and stimulating discussions, and look forward to having some more just like 'em at some point.

El Cid Viscoso
10-15-2003, 05:09 PM
originally posted by Mr. B in gobear's thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=217490)

I have the sad distinction of owning the mother of all (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=4087546#post4087546) med threads. by Lynn Bodoni
And on a personal note, go get your meds adjusted. This is not an insult. I've had to have MY meds adjusted from time to time, so I know what it's like.Humbly, I submit Lynn might wish to make some kind of proclamation about the use of meds ad hominem.

Liberal
10-15-2003, 05:15 PM
Xeno!

Great to see you back! :)

xenophon41
10-15-2003, 05:32 PM
Well now, that was a pleasant greeting! Nice to see you, too! (I've been around, just not posting much.)

elucidator
10-15-2003, 06:15 PM
Note to self: inquire of Minty or Dewey as to the expense and legal complications involved in the process of disowning children.

El Cid Viscoso
10-15-2003, 06:23 PM
Take it from me, it's quite easy. And revocable.

elucidator
10-15-2003, 06:34 PM
Are they still permitted to follow you around and pester you for food and money?

El Cid Viscoso
10-15-2003, 06:38 PM
Only after a 34 or better on the ACT.

Measure for Measure
10-15-2003, 08:09 PM
Ok. Let's see. Manhattan should apologize to sailor. I know that, you (dear reader) probably know that.

Still, I think it's worth pointing out that sailor appeared to accuse Manhattan of lying about 4-5 times in a single post. Soon after, Manhattan obviously blew a gasket.

Quotes, from a single sailor post, all directed out Manhattan: "That is a lie. Not true. ...Big lie. ... Lie. ... Blatant lie. Where did you get this information? Please provide evidence. "

While I in general applaud the, "Please provide evidence" bit (subject to constraints of practicality and in this case board restrictions) it sure looked like you were challenging Manhattan's honesty. Which rather distracts us from the topic of your thread, doesn't it?

Still, there are spiritual conclusions that can be drawn from this imbroglio: Just because sailor was being a dirty-rat-bastard, doesn't free Manhattan from the moral obligation of apologizing to him. Whatever sailor did, Manhattan's accusation (backed up with insinuations, IIRC BTW) was over the top.

The moral, boys and girls, is that you have to be extra careful with your words when you're around people who are acting like dirty-rats. Otherwise, you may be obliged to suffer the humility and agony of apologizing to them, dirty-rat-bastards though they may be.

Oh and FWIW, although I've heard assertions of sailor's misbehavior before, I've tended (in the past) to think they were overblown. Not so in this case.

Of course sailor could, at his option, retract the ad hominem component of his orignal response to Manhattan. Should that happened, flowbark requests an automatic retraction of the "rat-bastatd" label.

Desmostylus
10-15-2003, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by Libertarian
Thanks, Lynn. That's a bit unfair to Lynn. In that thread, it was me that first raised the subject:Now, my mind reading skills. Lib is thinking:

"Musn't take pills: Doctor is evil. SDMB: Liberal Communist Nazis. Oooh, colors! Must resist mind control. Aluminum foil. QANTAS."

Coldfire
10-15-2003, 08:54 PM
I'm an excellent driver. :D

elucidator
10-15-2003, 08:58 PM
It is of the utmost importance that the aluminum foil is folded longitudanally in relation to the magnetic axis. Otherwise, the ability to block telepathic waves is impaired, and unreliable.

Desmostylus
10-15-2003, 09:06 PM
I'm gonna let ya' in on a little secret, Ray. K-Mart sucks.

Desmostylus
10-15-2003, 09:08 PM
And well spotted, Coldie. :D

sailor
10-16-2003, 06:00 AM
flowbark, one more time: it has *always* been upheld in GD that saying "that is a lie" is considered an attack on the argument and not on the poster. That's not me talking, that's the mods, so your argument carries no weight whatsoever. None. Even saying "you are a liar", which I did not do and manhattan did, is acceptable. In other words, I did not cross the line at all and manhattan crossed in a big way. You cannot justify doing something illegal because you do not like what someone else is doing whether legal, or illegal, but much less if legal. If manhattan or anyone else believes I have crossed the line they can report me to the mods. There is NO justification whatsoever for claiming I condone child prostitution except that manhattan had no other arguments and, being the scum that he is, rather than concede or bow out gracefully, all he wanted to do was to smear me. As you can see he still does not concede that he did anything wrong. If that is not being an asshole I don't know what is.

The argument that we know manhattan is a loose cannon and we should be careful round him is not acceptable. manhattan should be subject to the rules like everyone else and if he cannot do that he should be banned like anyone else. Being an idiot or a loose cannon is not a valid excuse. By his demeanor in this thread it is quite evident that he *is* an idiot, to say the least.

Liberal
10-16-2003, 06:12 AM
Originally posted by Desmostylus
That's a bit unfair to Lynn. In that thread, it was me that first raised the subject: Actually, me didn't even see your post.

I regard you pretty much as I regard any ankle-nipping Chihuahua. You merit occasional attention, such as when you get a tooth caught in my sock.

Badtz Maru
10-16-2003, 06:25 AM
I have been sure manhattan was going to get banned or at least suspended several times, and he never gets more than a slap on the wrist. I don't think he's going to get more than that for his latest hostility. He appears to have some kind of immunity, and acts like he is sure of it.

sailor
10-16-2003, 08:24 AM
Badtz Maru, manhattan has given some years of service as a mod and i do not think he did a bad job. I am sure that counts *a lot* in the minds of the mods and they will look the other way a bit more than they would with anyone else. They have closer ties than the rest of us and it is only human and I wouldn't expect anything else. I really do not want to put the mods on the spot over this and that is why I am not demanding any explanations which I think are unnecesary. We all know that manhattan, when he was a mod, would have banned someone for similar behavior in a heartbeat.

But, for the same reason manhattan and the mods have personal and close relations, I am sure they have told him in private that he is putting them in the spot with these things. I am quite sure anyone who has any personal relation with manhattan has told him privately, as a friend, that he was an asshole and to not be an asshole in the future. If you are a close friend of the city cop he is more likely to look the other way when you do something for which he tickets others. As long as no one notices everything is fine but when people start to grumble then your friend the cop will tell you that you are putting him on the spot and you should stop breaking the law or he will have no other choice but to treat you like everyone else. So now, everybody knowing you are the cop's friend you have a duty to be on even better behavior than the rest.

This thread serves as testimony that manhattan's behaviour is not going unnoticed. The fact that he is adamant and non-apologetic about what he said just makes it worse. It just means he will have to be so much more careful in the future because the mods cannot keep looking the other way all the time. Not even for manhattan.

sailor
10-16-2003, 08:34 AM
I swear I only submitted once. May manhattan be struck by lightning if I am lying. ;)

Coldfire
10-16-2003, 08:37 AM
Well, I only see one post...


;)

Desmostylus
10-16-2003, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by Libertarian
Actually, me didn't even see your post.

I regard you pretty much as I regard any ankle-nipping Chihuahua. You merit occasional attention, such as when you get a tooth caught in my sock. That's odd, because I could have sworn that you that you did see it.

If fact I will swear that you not only saw it, but responded thusly:Originally posted by Libertarian
DesmoIt could well have been because of the story the journalist had recently written. It could well have been because they were owed money by the journalist. It could have been because they thought that the journalist regularly breakfasted on live babies. That part isn't known.The article said of the teens:The gang was apparently upset because of Natt&Dag’s “sex guide” that provided rather bold pictures of Muslim women.That sounds like religious zealotry to me.If you're trying to build a "me isn't fucking crazy" argument, you aren't doing a very good job of it.

xenophon41
10-16-2003, 10:23 AM
Golly, Desmo; you really got him that time. You're absolutely right; in that thread he did respond to your arguments with his own while not responding at all to your insults.

What a crazy fucker.


(BTW, "me... first raised the subject" is your poor phrasing that's being ridiculed by Lib. I don't know why he failed to deride your use of "that" in place of "who", but maybe it's just a fielder's choice type of deal...)

sailor
10-16-2003, 11:09 AM
This is getting too surreal for me. Maybe it is *my* medication which needs to be adjusted. I think I will increase my dosage of caffeine. Like right now.

g8rguy
10-16-2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by sailor
As you can see he still does not concede that he did anything wrong. If that is not being an asshole I don't know what is. Pot, meet kettle. Manny was far over the top an owes you an abject apology which will not be forthcoming, but the pretense that accusing someone of dishonesty isn't actually rude and obnoxious just because the mods allow it is beyond stupid, and if you're half as bright as you appear to be, you should know it. If you don't, it's high time you learn the distinction between accepted behavior and proper behavior; the difference is nontrivial at best, and this knowledge would serve you well.

Liberal
10-16-2003, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by Desmostylus
That's odd, because I could have sworn that you that you did see it.

If fact I will swear that you not only saw it, but responded thusly: If you're trying to build a "me isn't fucking crazy" argument, you aren't doing a very good job of it. Actually, I missed that part since I only skim your posts. But if you wish to grab responsibility for starting the whole "take your meds" debacle, knock yourself out.

sailor
10-16-2003, 04:41 PM
g8rguy, if someone is rude to you it is still illegal to shoot him or rape her and the fact that the person was rude to you first will not let you off. The fact is that what manhattan did was inexcusable.

I was following the forum rules and arguments in GD get heated. If you don't like it you should stay out. If manhattan cannot control his temper he should stay out of GD. He knows what the rules are and he knows what he might encounter.

The fact is that he made a very serious accusation against the Cuban government: that is forced and allowed and condoned sexual abuse of children. I have *no* patience for people who, blinded by their prejudice, spout false information whether it is against blacks or against Jews or against the Cuban government or against any other group of people. I said that was a lie and I maintain it. I challenged him to provide evidence that the Cuban government allowed and encouraged this child abuse and he could not provide any. I have *no* patience for people like that. They are spouting lies which originate out of their own ignorance.

Go to GD and post that "gays promote pedophilia" and see if you do not get very forceful posts against that assertion. If you want to assert things like that in GD you should be ready and prepared to defend them. manhattan was not. he could not back up with facts what he was saying so he resorted to acusing *me* of what he was acusing the Cuban government.

And, again, anyone who would done something similar under his watch would have been banned in a heartbeat. And I would have applauded him. I have said he did a fair job as a mod because he enforced the rules on me as on everybody else. he should know better.

This must hit a raw nerve with him because he also blew a gasket over the same topic of child molestation some time ago. I'm sorry but if you cannot remain rational you should just stay out of GD.

g8rguy
10-16-2003, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by sailor
g8rguy, if someone is rude to you it is still illegal to shoot him or rape her and the fact that the person was rude to you first will not let you off. Really?!? Wow! I never would have guessed!


Originally posted by sailor
The fact is that what manhattan did was inexcusable. Which has not, of course, been disputed. See?
Originally posted by me
Manny was far over the top an owes you an abject apology. In case you missed it.


The fact remains, however, that just as you being rude to me doesn't justify me castrating you with a rusty soup spoon, you not liking what I've said and thinking it to be incorrect doesn't justify you being rude to me; you were also in the wrong. Not as much as manny, by any stretch of the imagination, but if you're going to be needlessly and excessively belligerent, even if the mods allow it, you need to expect needless and excessive belligerence in return. If you are incapable of debating politely, you're part of the problem, deny it or not.

Measure for Measure
10-16-2003, 08:10 PM
Yeah, sailor, there are all sorts of softeners you could have used in your, "lie, lie, lie, blatant lie, lie, lie" post, but did not. Not one, IIRC. Certainly none that would be noticed.

OTOH, I've spent more time on you (sailor) because manny's offense is so over-the-top so as to be obvious. To everyone. Really.

So while Manny certainly owes somebody an apology (how about it, Manny, we're waiting) let's not forget that sailor acted inappropriately. Of course sailor was also wronged later by Manny - but let's face it, accusations that are so beyond the pale really carry little weight.

(BTW, I was not aware of the "lie" opinion that had been handed down by the mods. In that case, I stand behind gr8rguy's eloquent remark, "...it's high time you learn the distinction between accepted behavior and proper behavior; the difference is nontrivial at best, and this knowledge would serve you well.")

sailor
10-16-2003, 08:14 PM
if you're going to be needlessly and excessively belligerent, even if the mods allow it, you need to expect needless and excessive belligerence in return. I respect the rules and I expect the rest to do the same.

The rules are different for different sports and some allow for more violence than others but as long as you are within the rules you are 100% in the right and the minute you break the rules you are 100% in the wrong. There is no middle ground and everything within the rules is acceptable. If you do not like the rules you should not play the game. If you think football is too violent for you then you can take up golf but you cannot shoot the guy who tackles you because you don't like being tackled. If you go into GD you accept the rules. Everything within the rules is fair and if you don't like it then you can go somewhere else. If you can't stand the heat then it is not a good idea to go into the kitchen. GD is, by definition and by custom, the place for heated debates and as long as I repect the rules I am in the right. if you don't like it then you can take up golf.

I never called manhattan a liar. I did call President Bush a liar and when manhattan defended what Bush said I said it was a lie. If you came to me and say you have been told Apple computers are better than PCs I can say "that is a big lie" and I am not calling you a liar.

The other posters are within their rights to say what I said is a lie and they have, in fact, done it when they felt like it so I can't see why I do not enjoy the same right. Do a search for "liar" in GD and you will probably get a lot of hits. GD gets heated in any topic which is controversial. That's the way it is and it is not for you to say I should abide by your rules rather than by the rules set up by the board.

There are certain debates which I avoid because I know my opinions will be unpopular and I do not have the patience or the will to put a lot of effort into defending my position against major opposition. What I do not do is stroll into the thread with unsuported assertions and then throw a fit when they are forcefully challenged. I try to stick to topics which I feel I can reasonably present and support. Then, as long as we stay within the rules of the forum I will defend my position or change it. And if I lose my patience I will bring the poster to the pit. That's the rule and I try to respect it. manhattan could have done that but he didn't. He chose to break the rules in a major way. What he said would not be acceptable even in the pit, much less in GD.

sailor
10-16-2003, 08:38 PM
In this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=214999&perpage=50&highlight=liar&pagenumber=2) I said the Bush administration was lying. manhattan's response to me? You are the liar here, sailor and a few posts further down he posts I made no such claim, liar. It seems manhattan is the one who cannot take what he expects others to take. It seems he can use the rules to his advantage. Did anyone go ballistic on him in that thread? Nope. I defended my arguments as best I could.

sailor
10-16-2003, 08:46 PM
Just to clarify: the second quote (I made no such claim, liar) was not directed at me but at another poster (who also just addressed his argument).

I am quite sure that if you do a search you will find that manhattan has used that kind of language much more often than I have (and that most posters have).

I remember having been called a liar in GD by several posters quite a few times and I do not remember having done it (although I may have done it).

fruitbat
10-16-2003, 08:46 PM
Sailor my friend I'm with you as far as the general complaint goes . . . but . . . . It may be time to take a break when you are posting so fast you are almost answering your own posts. I know you are trying to strengthen your position, but the sheer volume of verbiage buries your message and begins to smell of desperation.

I know this is unsolicited advice, but take from it what you will. Whether you remember me or not, we have been on the same side of an argument before, and probably will be again. Time to cool down for a few minutes on this one.

g8rguy
10-16-2003, 09:11 PM
Apparently, you indeed don't understand the distinction between accepted behavior and proper behavior. This would explain an awful lot. You seem to think that there are no social conventions that should apply, and that accusing someone of being dishonest because they believe something you disagree with is perfectly acceptable as long as the mods say it's permitted. Of course, there really are social conventions which should not be set aside lightly merely because one can set them aside; these conventions exist for a reason, after all, and understanding them and abiding by them when appropriate is part of what it means to be a reasonable and decent person.

One of the reasons these conventions exist is so that a debate stands some chance of actually shedding light on something; because people like you set these conventions aside in favor of being needlessly bellicose, GD shed little light on anything, even though it could do so if people could just manage to avoid flying off the handle at the first sign of provocation. It's because people like you are unable to debate in a rational and polite way that GD is the snakepit that it is.

That you are unashamed of causing great heat but no light is one of the most depressing things I've seen in quite some time; apparently, simple decency is unimportant in the face of winning. For that matter, apparently winning is the goal and not learning, and that is the most depressing thing of all.

I really don't mean to pick on you alone, because I see this all over the place and it's pathetic and a truly sad statement about the human race. And let us not lose sight of who was wronged more. But really, this attack dog attitude of yours causes a lot more problems than it solves.

sailor
10-16-2003, 10:03 PM
g8rguy, manhattan's posts are more aggressive than mine any time. Just go back and read them. Whatever you say about mine you can say twice about his. Anyone who has been around long enough knows very well that manhattan's posts as a mod or not are as aggressive as they can possibly be.

Manhattan is the one who has contributed zero light to that thread. He has presented nothing supporting his allegations that the Cuban government supports child prostitution. When you accuse someone of such grave acts I would hope you would be ready to provide ample proof. Not manhattan though.

I also find it irritating that he is in the habit of doing drivebys where he plants some outrageous allegations and when challenged just disappears from the thread. That is not debating, that is just smearing and wasting people's time. In the same thread I linked to I challenged several of his assertions and he never returned to respond. He even made a mistake (Abbu Abbas - Abbu Nidal) which I interpreted in his favor. I was not trying to just discredit him. I was trying to engage in fruitful discussion. I hate it when people pick on silly mistakes and I did not do that with him because it serves no useful purpose.

When he asserted about Iraq "They had a fucking press conference congratulating the 9-11 terrorists." I said "I say this is a lie and I challenge you to prove it". Yes I was very forceful but I get very tired of people who just repeat lies they have heard. that one has been debunked here a few times and manhattan still comes in and repeats it. Did he return to provide supporting evidence? Nope. Did he return to admit he might be wrong? Nope, not his style.

Wether I agree or disagree with him I would not consider him one of the most polite posters nor one of the posters whose participation in a thread provides much insight into the matter being discussed. I am sure he is knowledgeable about his professional field and can give a lot of valuable information in that respect but when it comes to general topics like politics, he spouts whatever comes to his mind and then abandons the thread. If he does not intend to participate it would be better if he just abstained.

The fact remains: he broke the rules big time and there is just no excuse for that.

g8rguy
10-16-2003, 10:59 PM
Yes, of course manny fucked up big time, was more aggressive, and so on; your criticisms of him are spot on. Unfortunately, he, to all appearances, is paying no attention to this thread at this point, and beyond pitting him myself, how would you suggest I engage him?

You, on the other hand, are still an active participant, and I hold out high hopes that I can convince you that taking an approach that may be seen as initiating hostilities is not the most productive way to approach a debate. Maybe the "lie, lie, blatant lie, lie" post wasn't intended to be seen in this light, but I think most people would see it as an accusation of dishonesty. I certainly did.

Early Out
10-17-2003, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by g8rguy
Maybe the "lie, lie, blatant lie, lie" post wasn't intended to be seen in this light, but I think most people would see it as an accusation of dishonesty. I certainly did. Please stick to speaking for yourself.

I took sailor's words to mean that he was accusing manhattan of uncritically repeating the lies of the Bush administration. The administration is lying; manhattan isn't a liar, he's just a parrot.

It was abundantly clear that manhattan wasn't producing these charges about Cuban government policy based on his own research. If he were, then I would have read the "lies" epithet differently.

SPOOFE
10-17-2003, 02:59 AM
The administration is lying; manhattan isn't a liar, he's just a parrot.
So now we get down to the nitty-gritty... is it worse to call someone a liar, or a parrot?

Hmm.

Early Out
10-17-2003, 03:05 AM
Originally posted by SPOOFE
So now we get down to the nitty-gritty... is it worse to call someone a liar, or a parrot?

Hmm. Overly literal. He's "parroting" the administration's line, ergo, a "parrot." It's what's called a "figure of speech." You could look it up.

SPOOFE
10-17-2003, 03:20 AM
Overly literal.
And you got a stick up yer ass. Wanna compare notes?

Early Out
10-17-2003, 03:23 AM
Originally posted by SPOOFE
Wanna compare notes? Huh?

TheLoadedDog
10-17-2003, 03:24 AM
If you have a stick up your arse, you produce a higher note.

mazirian
10-17-2003, 04:08 AM
Originally posted by SPOOFE
And you got a stick up yer ass. Wanna compare notes?

I think we have heard enough about your masturbatory aids...

sailor
10-17-2003, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by SPOOFE
So now we get down to the nitty-gritty... is it worse to call someone a liar, or a parrot? Depends on what kind of liar and what kind of parrot. This is a complex subject which still keeps scientists busy. It doesn't matter though because although manhattan *did * call me a liar repeatedly, he naver called me a parrot. He did say I was pro-child-prostitution and we can all agree that is worse than being called a liar or a parrot.

Note that Manhattan has called me a liar *repeatedly* and has accused me of being pro child prostitution *repeatedly*. I've seen a lot of lies, dirty tricks and other bad stuff thrown out to justify people's blind hatred of President Bush. But sailor, I have to admit that defending child prostitution is a new one. and further down in the same post You are a pro-child-prostitution liar. It is ridiculous to think he was offended by my words which do not come close to being as caustic as he routinely uses. The fact is that he was frustrated by my questioning of his assertions. Sorry but that is what GD is for. You assert something in GD and it *will* be questioned. His frustration comes from cognitive dissonance: he believes one thing. He believes president Bush and the US government are not liars. He *really* wants to believe it. And yet here is sailor questioning those beliefs. That is frustrating. Rather than re-examine the facts and his beliefs he blasts sailor.

I have presented evidence that manhattan routinely uses stronger language than I do. There is just no excuse for what he did.

Badtz Maru
10-17-2003, 05:53 AM
Seems obsessed. Manny's probably a child molestor himself.

It's OK to say that, right?

Coldfire
10-17-2003, 08:10 AM
No, it's not, Badtz. Knock it off. You may think Manhattan was warned too lightly, but he was warned. I don't know where you get the idea that calling people child molestors is somehow OK.

Badtz Maru
10-17-2003, 08:32 AM
His warning told him to 'tone it down or take it to the Pit'. That implied that accusing someone of being a child molestor was OK in the Pit.

Glad to get that straightened out.

Badtz Maru
10-17-2003, 08:34 AM
That quote was not verbatim, should not have put it in quotes, sorry.

RTA
10-17-2003, 09:20 AM
Clarification of above post: manny called RTA a cheap-shot artist.

You forgot "lying sack of shit". Ah, memories.

I'm glad he's not a moderator any more. He's way too angry, and with a hair trigger to boot. No hard feelings though.

Early Out
10-17-2003, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by Badtz Maru
His warning told him to 'tone it down or take it to the Pit'. That implied that accusing someone of being a child molestor was OK in the Pit.

Glad to get that straightened out. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who had that reaction to the warning.

I have mixed feelings about it, however. While accusing someone of being a child molester seems out of line in any forum, it's tough to define the lines of propriety in the Pit, and it may be a good thing to have one forum where almost anything goes. I suppose the line's got to be drawn somewhere, but it's hard to say where that line is these days.

g8rguy
10-17-2003, 10:16 AM
Please stick to speaking for yourself. And precisely what part of the words "I think" do you not understand?

TheLoadedDog
10-17-2003, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by Coldfire
I don't know where you get the idea that calling people child molestors is somehow OK.
From Manhattan, perhaps?

thinksnow
10-17-2003, 10:47 AM
Jumping back a bit to the three year old "cognitively handicapped" linked byLib, I found this too funny to pass up:sailor
I am here for intelligent and enlightning exchanges. I am a pit virgin and intend to remain that way as I do not enjoy trading insults... But I'll be happy to go to the apology thread and apologize there for a whileHeh.

Early Out
10-17-2003, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by g8rguy
And precisely what part of the words "I think" do you not understand? I was referring to this:
Originally posted by g8rguy
...but I think most people would see it as an accusation of dishonesty....wherein you claim to know what "most people" would think. Technically, you're correct - you prefaced it by "I think." Still, you were trying to buttress your argument by asserting that many others would agree with you, without being able to demonstrate that fact.

Why not just stick to saying that you took sailor's statements to be an accusation of dishonesty (which you ultimately did)? Your opinion is just as valid as anyone else's.

vanilla
10-17-2003, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by mazirian
I think we have heard enough about your masturbatory aids...

This will definitely go in Page o' Funnies.

g8rguy
10-17-2003, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Early Out
I was referring to this: Originally posted by g8rguy
...but I think most people would see it as an accusation of dishonesty....
wherein you claim to know what "most people" would think. Yes, I got that. I can read, after all. But of course I didn't claim to know anything; I claimed to believe something. Why is it so difficult to take something to mean exactly what it claims to mean?

Coldfire
10-17-2003, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by TheLoadedDog
From Manhattan, perhaps? Why? Because he used to be a moderator? Because he didn't get slapped on the wrist for the specific term, but for his general attitude?

I don't get it.

Fatwater Fewl
10-17-2003, 11:56 AM
Coldfire, apparently Badtz Maru and TheLoadedDog believe that calling someone a pro-child-prostitution liar is the same as calling them a child molester and that, therefore, Gaudere telling MannyTake it to the Pit or take it down a notch, Manny. makes it okay to insinuate in The Pit that another poster might be a child molester.

Chalk it up to a combination of poor reading comprehension and pettiness on the part of Badtz Maru and TheLoadedDog.

Coldfire
10-17-2003, 12:03 PM
I think we've established by now that neither term deserves a courtesy prize. And I'd like to think most posters here have enough common sense to come to the conclusion that while Gaudere didn't name or quote Manhattan's words literally, they were obviously not appreciated.

Sure, you can debate whether G. should have been harder on Manny. But suggesting the terms used are acceptable in the Pit? Gimme a break.

Thanks FF, for your explanation.

Mtgman
10-17-2003, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by sailor
When he asserted about Iraq "They had a fucking press conference congratulating the 9-11 terrorists." I said "I say this is a lie and I challenge you to prove it". Yes I was very forceful but I get very tired of people who just repeat lies they have heard. that one has been debunked here a few times and manhattan still comes in and repeats it. Did he return to provide supporting evidence? Nope. Did he return to admit he might be wrong? Nope, not his style. I can't recall which thread this was in, but I remember seeing this exchange. In fact, he did come back and post a link in support of this assertion. The link was to an article about global reaction to 9/11. It indicated that most countries had issued press releases/statements decrying the attack, but Iraq had said something like "America is reaping the fruits of their hegemony." I didn't exactly get a "congratulations to Bin Laden! You go boy!" vibe out of it, but there wasn't much sympathy for the US either.

Enjoy,
Steven

Mtgman
10-17-2003, 01:11 PM
Oh, but the article did mention the Taleban had strongly denounced the 9/11 attacks. I found that very amusing.

Enjoy,
Steven

TheLoadedDog
10-17-2003, 04:21 PM
Fatwater Fewl and Coldfire, you may put it down to "poor reading comprehension" or "stunted logic" if you like, but you've both completely missed the point here. Of course there is a difference between accusing somebody of being pro child prostitution, and of being a child molester. A small difference perhaps in terms of offensiveness, but an obvious difference nonetheless, and I'm not arguing that. Yet, for the purposes of this thread, in a strange way they are the same: using either of them on these boards would have you out the door in a flash. Unless, of course, you are manhattan.

Coldfire
Why? Because he used to be a moderator?
Nope. Because he is untouchable. As a moderator or a member, he seems to be above the law, and there are lots of people here wondering why. There has never been a satisfactory explanation.


Because he didn't get slapped on the wrist for the specific term, but for his general attitude?
He should have been banned for the former, and the latter should have happened years ago.

TheLoadedDog
10-17-2003, 04:54 PM
Or just to explain it more simply to you guys (don't worry, I'll type slowly), Gaudere's warning shot doesn't tell us anything. Does it mean that it's ok to use the term manhattan did as long as it's in the Pit, as you two are saying? Or does it mean that it's ok to use it in the Pit only if you happen to be manhattan, as I suspect is the case. Now there's no proving it either way, and we could argue it until the cows come home, but I'm unconvinced any ol' Joe Poster would be able to confidently accuse somebody of being pro child prostitution anywhere on the SDMB and not expect some serious shit coming down on them from the mods and admins.

For the record, I've got no beef with Gaudere, as some in this thread have. The warning wasn't strong enough IMHO, but at least it was given. It's a start.

Sure, you can debate whether G. should have been harder on Manny. But suggesting the terms used are acceptable in the Pit? Gimme a break.
Coldfire, I'm not arguing quite the same thing as Badtz Maru here. Ok, everyone agrees that the direct child molester accusation is not on for anybody anywhere on the SDMB. I'm saying that the "pro child prostitution" bit was deemed OK if you "take it to the Pit". And I'm suggesting that that ruling might be only for manhattan. I drew comparisons between the two slurs to illustrate that most people couldn't get away with either, making them the same only for the purposes of this thread, which is SDMB disciplinary policy.

SkipMagic
10-17-2003, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by TheLoadedDog
Yet, for the purposes of this thread, in a strange way they are the same: using either of them on these boards would have you out the door in a flash. Unless, of course, you are manhattan.

Maybe for a first-time poster whose attitude and posts are nothing but trolling attempts, sure. But for a long-time poster (regardless of previous mod status)? I don't currently recall otherwise where a poster of good standing hadn't been warned before he/she was banned for that single infraction (bad as that infraction may be).

Can you provide a link to a case where it has happened?

TheLoadedDog
10-17-2003, 05:20 PM
No, I can't provide a link. You are probably right in what you say. But this isn't the first time manhattan has been a jerk, and the warnings should have been given for other stuff (please don't ask me to find links for these now. It's 7:30am and I'm hungover as all fuck :D Maybe later). This latest case should have had him shown the door.

sailor
10-17-2003, 06:06 PM
This is not the first time it happens and he *has* been warned. About a year and a half ago, in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=106646) Manhattan blew a gasket and said Sorry, Guin, but until the Pope himself specifically condemns, permanently excommunicates and turns over to the civil authorities the guilty and the collaborators, each and every one, the Catholic Church in the United States is a child sex cult, and you are a member.

Whether you choose to fight from within or without is of course your choice, but it is a child sex cult. Any member who doesn't admit it as part of the fight against it is, in fact, condoning it. As would be expected, all hell broke loose and there was a serious meltdown. There was talk of showing him the door but in the end his services as a moderator weighed more. He later sort of apologized in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=106985). He seems to have some serious issues with child molestation which make him go apeshit.

And he most definitely is getting a pass where others would get the boot.

sailor
10-17-2003, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by sailor
When he asserted about Iraq "They had a fucking press conference congratulating the 9-11 terrorists." I said "I say this is a lie and I challenge you to prove it". Yes I was very forceful but I get very tired of people who just repeat lies they have heard. that one has been debunked here a few times and manhattan still comes in and repeats it. Did he return to provide supporting evidence? Nope. Did he return to admit he might be wrong? Nope, not his style. Originally posted by Mtgman
[B]I can't recall which thread this was in, but I remember seeing this exchange. In fact, he did come back and post a link in support of this assertion. The link was to an article about global reaction to 9/11. It indicated that most countries had issued press releases/statements decrying the attack, but Iraq had said something like "America is reaping the fruits of their hegemony." I didn't exactly get a "congratulations to Bin Laden! You go boy!" vibe out of it, but there wasn't much sympathy for the US either. Near the top of page 3 of this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=214999&perpage=50&pagenumber=3) I posted: >> They had a fucking press conference congratulating the 9-11 terrorists.

I say this is a lie and I challenge you to prove it. In any case, even if it were true, war and aggression are never acceptable answers to words. The thought that you can invade a country for something their government said is just appalling. Again, the US government has never mentioned this as a justification.the thread is several pages long so I might be mistaken but I can only find one further post by him in that thread and it does not address any of the points I raised with him. He just ignored my questions so I kind of took it as a concession. In any case, it is really not important as it does not affect the substance of this thread. It is only a footnote.

You might be remembering a similar thread where IIRC december or someone else made the same assertion.

manhattan
10-17-2003, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by flowbark
Ok. Let's see. Manhattan should apologize to sailor. I know that, you (dear reader) probably know that.

Still, I think it's worth pointing out that sailor appeared to accuse Manhattan of lying about 4-5 times in a single post. Soon after, Manhattan obviously blew a gasket.

Quotes, from a single sailor post, all directed out Manhattan: "That is a lie. Not true. ...Big lie. ... Lie. ... Blatant lie. Where did you get this information? Please provide evidence. "

While I in general applaud the, "Please provide evidence" bit (subject to constraints of practicality and in this case board restrictions) it sure looked like you were challenging Manhattan's honesty. Which rather distracts us from the topic of your thread, doesn't it?

Still, there are spiritual conclusions that can be drawn from this imbroglio: Just because sailor was being a dirty-rat-bastard, doesn't free Manhattan from the moral obligation of apologizing to him. Whatever sailor did, Manhattan's accusation (backed up with insinuations, IIRC BTW) was over the top.

The moral, boys and girls, is that you have to be extra careful with your words when you're around people who are acting like dirty-rats. Otherwise, you may be obliged to suffer the humility and agony of apologizing to them, dirty-rat-bastards though they may be.

Oh and FWIW, although I've heard assertions of sailor's misbehavior before, I've tended (in the past) to think they were overblown. Not so in this case.

Of course sailor could, at his option, retract the ad hominem component of his orignal response to Manhattan. Should that happened, flowbark requests an automatic retraction of the "rat-bastatd" label. Thanks for your thoughts, flowbark. I agree with some, disagree with others, but in any event appreciate the tone and general content.

To the points:

I did not blow a gasket. In fact, I thought for some time before wording the post the way I did -- whether sailor's lies (prominently, that "women are still forced into sexual slavery in Burma and other Asian and African countries. But prseident (sic) Bush is not interested in that as there are no votes to be gained by talking about that.") rose to a level that justified my response. I decided that they did (but see below). Persons may of course disagree -- Gaudere did, and accordingly I shan't do it again.

I do not think that sailor is pro-child prostitution. I do think that in that thread he was being a pro-child prostitution liar. That's a distinction with a huge difference. At the time, I thought I was making it in my intro, when I characterized the lies as being motivated by "blind hatred of President Bush." On rereading and after seeing the comments in this thread, it is clear that I was in error -- that I did not sufficiently make the distinction. I apologize for that. Not just to the moderators and the membership, but to sailor. Despite my extremely low opinion of him, neither he nor anyone else deserves to be called pro-child prostitution unless they actually are (which, again, I believe he is not).

I also do not believe that sailor is pro-Ba'athist. But I do believe he is a pro-Ba'athist liar.

More specifically, I think that every time he encounters the term "President Bush" his brow furrows, his neck stiffens, his temples get tight and little beads of sweat appear on his forehead. When he gets in that state, I believe that there is no lie he won't tell, no fact he won't invent, and no evil he won't defend if he thinks it will make President Bush look bad.

manhattan
10-17-2003, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by sailor
Near the top of page 3 of this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=214999&perpage=50&pagenumber=3) I posted: the thread is several pages long so I might be mistaken but I can only find one further post by him in that thread and it does not address any of the points I raised with him. He just ignored my questions so I kind of took it as a concession. In any case, it is really not important as it does not affect the substance of this thread. It is only a footnote.

You might be remembering a similar thread where IIRC december or someone else made the same assertion. You are mistaken. It's lower on page three, right after I agreed with your restatement of the OP. Specifically, I said "I agree with this in its entirety. Since I suspect you'd agree that "uninvade Iraq" is not an option available to the U.S., I'm not going to refight the reasons for the war except to respond to your specific challenge (cite) (http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/13/world.response/index.html)."

The cite is to a CNN story which reported that "In Baghdad, Iraqi state television hailed the attacks as 'a natural reaction to American rulers hegemony, deception and foolishness.'

In a broadcast monitored by the BBC the television station said: 'The American cowboy is reaping the fruits of his crimes against humanity.'"

Coldfire
10-17-2003, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by TheLoadedDog
I'm saying that the "pro child prostitution" bit was deemed OK if you "take it to the Pit". And I'm suggesting that that ruling might be only for manhattan.I'm merely saying that that conclusion shouldn't be drawn from Gaudere's warning. FWIW, the "stunted logic" remark wasn't directed at you, as I generally hold you in good regard when it comes to logic skills. It's just that I feel you're reading too much into Gaudere's words here. You're free to argue that she should have been tougher on manhattan, but I don't feel the conclusion above is justified.

manhattan, thanks for offering a clarification.

Mtgman
10-17-2003, 08:26 PM
Ok, I didn't have a chance to say this in the other thread because it had progressed beyond that point. I've got a second chance and I guess I'm small enough to take it.

manhattan, please, please tell me that you don't really believe a country's reaction to 9/11 is some sort of justification for an invasion of that country! I know 9/11 hit you hard, like it did most New Yorkers, and that it is a subject both powerful and painful. Still, please, please tell me that the broadcast on Iraqi TV post 9/11 doesn't make the list of "reasons for war". They're words. Not kindly words, but what should one expect from a country we have been actively punishing for over a decade? Punishing for their own bad behavior, but still it will create resentment. Are we so shallow that we demand even those who we have clearly made enemies of respond to our pain sympathetically or we will beat them up some more?

Enjoy,
Steven

TheLoadedDog
10-17-2003, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by Coldfire
I'm merely saying that that conclusion shouldn't be drawn from Gaudere's warning. FWIW, the "stunted logic" remark wasn't directed at you, as I generally hold you in good regard when it comes to logic skills. It's just that I feel you're reading too much into Gaudere's words here. You're free to argue that she should have been tougher on manhattan, but I don't feel the conclusion above is justified.
For mine, the key word in Gaudere's warning is "or". If it was "and take it to the Pit", I'd tend to agree that your take on it is pretty much spot on. Anyway, no worries Clogboy mate. We'll have to agree to disagree. And thanks for clearing up the "stunted logic" bit. I'll have to step back from my Homeresque "Why, you little...." frame of mind. :D Cheers mate.

sailor
10-17-2003, 08:45 PM
manhattan continues to attack me personally but he provides no proof for his assertions and has not returned to the thread which originated this. he has no arguments except to attack me. I believe that there is no lie he won't tell, no fact he won't invent, and no evil he won't defend if he thinks it will make President Bush look bad. But he cannot provide evidence that what i am saying are lies. Instead of addressing what I said he insults me. sailor's lies (prominently, that "women are still forced into sexual slavery in Burma and other Asian and African countries. But prseident (sic) Bush is not interested in that as there are no votes to be gained by talking about that.") rose to a level that justified my response Does manhattan have cites of president Bush doing something about the plight of women forced into sexual servitude in Burma and in othe places? No he doesn't. What I said is a lie just because he said so. he does not counter with arguments and evidence supporting them. He just insults those who disagree with him. He has not returned to that thread to post any supporting evidence for anything he said and there is *plenty* of evidence by several people which contradicts him.

I think it is quite clear who is the liar here.

Badtz Maru
10-17-2003, 08:47 PM
So, the argument here is that manhattan was NOT accusing sailor of being pro-child prostitution, but of repeating lies that supported child prostitution, and THAT is what he meant when he said he was a 'pro-child prostitution liar'.

So, if someone had repeated on the board that more black people than white people received social assistance, it would be OK to call them a 'racist liar', because you aren't REALLY saying they are racist, just that they are repeating lies that serve a racist agenda.

Or if you repeat OJs accounts of what happened on June 12, 1994, you are a 'pro-murder liar'. Or if you believe Kobe and I do not, I can call you a 'pro-rape liar'.

It's obvious bullshit, because in the same damn thread manhattan rephrased his accusation that sailor is pro-child prostitution when he accused him of DEFENDING child prostitution.

Let's assume that manhattan is being up-front about what he really meant when he said that. It is OK to say someone is repeating lies that support an agenda in GD. But there is a big difference between saying someone is repeating lies about child prostitution and saying that they are actually defending child prostitution. Since manhattan said both, it seems logical that he actually does believe that sailor is pro-child prostitution - why else would he defend it? Manny is playing semantic games (being a pro-hypocrisy liar) to try to cover for his hateful and ban-worthy offenses.

I also don't think I'm reading more into Gaudere's 'warning' than what was clearly said.

[Moderator Hat ON]

Take it to the Pit or take it down a notch, Manny.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

Gaudere did not say that manhattan's behavior was unacceptable anywhere. Gaudere did not say 'Take it to the Pit AND take it down a notch'. The important word here is OR. If I had received this 'warning', I would take it to mean that what I was saying belonged in the Pit, not Great Debates. If someone had told me that and I DID take it to the Pit, and got in trouble for doing so, I would lay the blame on the moderator who told me to take it to the Pit.

It's barely a warning, more of an example of 'This post belongs in...' moderation.

I do know I'll be using the 'pro-BLANK liar' line a lot more now, it's a great way to sound like you are making a nasty accusation without being held accountable for it.

elucidator
10-17-2003, 09:20 PM
Character will out.

g8rguy
10-17-2003, 10:15 PM
Tell me, Badtz, because one of us has issues... Is accusing someone of being a pro-child prostitution liar the same thing as accusing someone of being a child molestor? Somehow, I see those two things as being, well, not the same. But perhaps I'm just nuts.

Gaudere
10-17-2003, 10:56 PM
I do know I'll be using the 'pro-BLANK liar' line a lot more now, it's a great way to sound like you are making a nasty accusation without being held accountable for it.
A mild tone in a warning does not negate one whit the officialness of a warning. If I say "Dear sweetums snugglebunny, please try not to call people 'mouth-breathing idiots' from now on, OK, babydoll?" it is *still* an official warning. Besides, as Tomndebb pointed out, manny's warning was quite comparable to other warnings I have given in the past. My warnings are intended to inform the poster of his transgression and prevent him from making such an error again, not to blast the transgressor to assuage the wounded feelings of the recipient or gratify blood-hungry onlookers.

I did say "take it down or take it to the Pit" because that's what I usually say. I did not consider at that moment whether manny's statements would be acceptable in the Pit or not. If Jasper, a Pit mod, says they are not, then they are not.

If I think for one second that you are going to try to run the ragged edge of insult in GD just to make my life harder or prove some asinine point, blithely ignoring the damage that it will do to debate and other posters, you will find yourself in deep, deep shit.

elucidator
10-18-2003, 01:01 AM
Suddenly, I have this overwhelming urge to volunteer to clean the erasers.

Measure for Measure
10-18-2003, 01:09 AM
Leaving much aside, I'm going to zoom in on one (of a few) core points.
Originally posted by manhattan
I do not think that sailor is pro-child prostitution. I do think that in that thread he was being a pro-child prostitution liar. That's a distinction with a huge difference. Ok, I believe you. And with Batz Maru's help, I'm guessing that I understand your point.

But please understand I find your intended interpretation of the phrase "Pro-blank liar" extremely confusing. Setting politeness aside for the moment, this English speaker has difficulty translating it into, "A deceiver whose words tend to support blank". But it's possible that I'm being thick.

Badtz Maru
10-18-2003, 03:05 AM
Originally posted by g8rguy
Tell me, Badtz, because one of us has issues... Is accusing someone of being a pro-child prostitution liar the same thing as accusing someone of being a child molestor? Somehow, I see those two things as being, well, not the same. But perhaps I'm just nuts.

I guess it would have been fairer to call him a pedophile instead of a child molestor, as that's more analagous to the accusation he made. Accusing someone of being in favor of child prostitution is going to be equated to an accusation of pedophilia by most people, which is why several people were shocked when manhattan did it - after all, why else would someone be 'pro-child prostitution'? About the only other semi-logical explanation would be if someone was an extremist about children's rights to make money however they can. I don't think that's what manhattan was trying to imply about sailor though.


If I think for one second that you are going to try to run the ragged edge of insult in GD just to make my life harder or prove some asinine point, blithely ignoring the damage that it will do to debate and other posters, you will find yourself in deep, deep shit.

Translation: Don't try to get away with the same stuff I let my friends get away with.

SkipMagic
10-18-2003, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by Badtz Maru
Translation: Don't try to get away with the same stuff I let my friends get away with.
I disagree. He wasn't allowed to get away with it; this is evidenced by Gaudere's official warning. You're taking issue with the severity of the warning, true, but to say that he "got away with it" (paraphrased, not an exact quote) is, depending on your intent, either misleading or disingenuous.

That said, I do agree that the accusation, "pro-child prostitution liar" is a poor word choice and horribly confusing. I wouldn't have put it that way (not intentionally, at any rate), but I also didn't write the post.

Regardless, manhattan has been warned and I don't think it has been shown that any bias whatsoever (other than, I assume, giving an intelligent, valuable, long-time poster in good standing the benefit of the doubt) exists. I see no reason to disbelieve either Gaudere or manhattan in this matter.

But, of course, that board adage about one's mileage still applies. :)

sailor
10-18-2003, 07:59 AM
Manhattan you have a very twisted and fanatical mind and the semantic games you are playing only make it more obvious.

Manhattan: "They had a fucking press conference congratulating the 9-11 terrorists."
Sailor: I say this is a lie and I challenge you to prove it.
Manhattan: "In Baghdad, Iraqi state television hailed the attacks as 'a natural reaction to American rulers hegemony, deception and foolishness.'
Manhattan: In a broadcast monitored by the BBC the television station said: 'The American cowboy is reaping the fruits of his crimes against humanity.'"

You are utterly stupid. You keep posting quotes which support the opposite of what you said. In those quotes there is no "fucking press conference congratulating the 9-11 terrorists". None. Nothing which can be construed as "congratulations". Nothing. They are saying the causes of the attacks can be found wholly or partly in the policies and actions of the US government. You may agree or disagree with this assessment but it does not say what you said it says. It does not congratulate the terrorists. It does not even say America deserved what it got. It says the attacks were wholly or partially a consequence of "American rulers hegemony, deception and foolishness". You know what? Many people in America and around the world have said the same thing. Many people on this board have said the same thing. The fanatical idiots like yourself jumped on them saying they were supporting and justifying terrorism. I guess the new style would be calling them "pro terrorist liars". You are a fucking asshole and deserve to go the way of december whose place you have taken.

Furthermore, you have to be a very sick person to believe that words uttered by Iraqi officials, however much you may disagree with them, would justify an invasion and the killing of their people.

The fact is that you have no valid arguments and all you can do is insult me. I also do not believe that sailor is pro-Ba'athist. But I do believe he is a pro-Ba'athist liar.

More specifically, I think that every time he encounters the term "President Bush" his brow furrows, his neck stiffens, his temples get tight and little beads of sweat appear on his forehead. When he gets in that state, I believe that there is no lie he won't tell, no fact he won't invent, and no evil he won't defend if he thinks it will make President Bush look bad. Wonderful. If that were true it would be very easy for you to provide ample evidence exposing my lies and inventions. Why don't you do that? Why do you resort to insulting me?

See, in my case it is extremely easy to expose you as a liar because there are plenty of posts of mine supporting the outcome of the presidential election which resulted in Bush's election and I supported the Electoral College system which produced that result. More recently I have agreed with President Bush when he said the money used for Iraqi reconstruction should be in the form of grants and not in the form of loans. See how easy it is for me to expose your lies?

You just said I lied when I said that "women are still forced into sexual slavery in Burma and other Asian and African countries but president Bush is not interested in that as there are no votes to be gained by talking about that. Fine. Let us se the evidence belying this. Where has President Bush been talking recently about Burma's record in this regard? What measures has he proposed? Same thing with the other countries where the situation is worse than Cuba. Show me he has talked and done as much about those as he has about Cuba. Just do it and stop insulting me.

You, OTOH, have made many assertions in the Cuban Prostitution thread which we are waiting for you to prove. Many questions have been asked and you have yet to respond. Mtgman and others have presented tons of evidence which contradict your assertions and you have nothing to say. You cited one page and when I read it (and then cited it) it turns out it supported my OP much more than it supported your opposing view. december used to do that regularly. Twist the few cites he could find beyond recognition. Ignore all the evidence and questions presented and pick on minor things here and there. Originally posted by Coldfire
manhattan, thanks for offering a clarification. :rolleyes:

Some "clarification". That's all you have to say?

I expressly said I was not demanding any explanation from the mods because I realize you have personal friendship with manhattan and I did not want to put you on the spot but this is just outrageous. As soon as you get the chance you slip in a word in favor of manhattan. You do not have a word to say about his outrageous behavior which prompted this thread and yet you thank him for his "clarification" which, essentially is just a way for him to justify what he did. I am disgusted.

sailor
10-18-2003, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by SkipMagic
I do agree that the accusation, "pro-child prostitution liar" is a poor word choice and horribly confusing. No, it is not confusing when you consider his own clarification: originally posted by manhattan
I've seen a lot of lies, dirty tricks and other bad stuff thrown out to justify people's blind hatred of President Bush. But sailor, I have to admit that defending child prostitution is a new one. He is accusing me directly and inequivocally of defending child prostitution.

Is there *any* rational person who can find evidence in that thread that I was defending child prostitution? It takes an extreme fanatic to do that.

Fatwater Fewl
10-18-2003, 12:38 PM
TheLoadedDog said:
Fatwater Fewl and Coldfire, you may put it down to "poor reading comprehension" or "stunted logic" if you like, but you've both completely missed the point here. Of course there is a difference between accusing somebody of being pro child prostitution, and of being a child molester. A small difference perhaps in terms of offensiveness, but an obvious difference nonetheless, and I'm not arguing that. Yet, for the purposes of this thread, in a strange way they are the same: using either of them on these boards would have you out the door in a flash. Unless, of course, you are manhattan.
I agree that the difference between accusing somebody of being pro child prostitution, and of being a child molester is small. And that both are offensive.

However, I don't believe that that is what happened.

I originally read, and still read the post in which the infamous phrase appears, in the way manhattan says he intended it. Which means I don't believe it was an insinuation about sailor's character, but an attempt to demonstrate what manny believed to be a serious consequence of sailor's position.

sailor
10-18-2003, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by Fatwater Fewl
I don't believe it was an insinuation about sailor's character, but an attempt to demonstrate what manny believed to be a serious consequence of sailor's position. Please explain to me how you interpret the following not to be an assertion about my character: I've seen a lot of lies, dirty tricks and other bad stuff thrown out to justify people's blind hatred of President Bush. But sailor, I have to admit that defending child prostitution is a new one. Please explain how that does not mean I am defending child prostitution. Please explain it because I do not understand it.

Fatwater Fewl
10-18-2003, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by sailor
No, it is not confusing when you consider his own clarification: He is accusing me directly and inequivocally of defending child prostitution.

Is there *any* rational person who can find evidence in that thread that I was defending child prostitution? It takes an extreme fanatic to do that.
Rationality seems to have fallen to the wayside long ago. But here goes.

Consider for a moment that you may not have complete knowledge of Cuba, its political/cultural/social intricacies, or whether or not child prostitution exists there. Consider that if it does exist and is allowed by the government of Cuba, whether by active involvement or by turning a blind eye, then your position would tend to support it. This approximates manny's perspective.

If, of course, both you and your sources are infallible disregard the above paragraph and continue on your merry way.

I have no idea who is right or wrong in the original thread, you or manny. I suspect both may be a bit of both.

elucidator
10-18-2003, 01:11 PM
So are you suggesting that this is kind of a Dom Irrerra sort of thing?

"You're a pro-child porn liar! But I don't mean that in a bad way"?

sailor
10-18-2003, 01:13 PM
Fatwater Fewl, ok, then. Let us turn the tables. Suppose that, in my blind hatred for President Bush, I accuse him of raping children in the White House. I assume manhattan and others would immediately point out that I have no evidence of such thing and that they don't believe it. Can he then be accused of being pro child rape? By that standard there is not one single person in this board who is not pro child rape and manhattan would be among the most pro child rape of all.

Or is there anyone here who believes President Bush rapes children in the White House?

>> Rationality seems to have fallen to the wayside long ago.

Nope. The original thread has continued pretty rationally with some very interesting posts by a number of posters. Manhattan has chosen to not return with the evidence which I was asking for. I suspect he does not have it. And there is plenty of evidence contradicting him. Plenty.

Fatwater Fewl
10-18-2003, 01:20 PM
Where did the child "porn" come from? I was talking about manny's and sailor's perspectives. Specifically I'm saying that some unfortunate phrasing happened while manny attacked sailor's position -- his posts -- from his own perspective.

Badtz Maru
10-18-2003, 01:55 PM
1. Child Prostitution Exists in the USA

2. The United States Government has so far failed to totally eradicate child prostitution

3. manhattan has told lies in support of the US Government

4. manhattan is a pro-child prostitution liar

Pit Vulture
10-18-2003, 04:05 PM
I think that just the fact that Manhattan only got a mild warning for his latest outburst shows that even though it doesn't say 'Moderator' under his name any more, he's still on a different tier than everyone else. Sure this is his first warning as a regular poster, but what about the hundreds of times when (as a moderator) he posted things that would have gotten anyone else banned? Do they mean nothing at all?

For example, some of you might recall when a couple of years ago Manhattan blatantly baited a poster named Sultan Kinkari into getting banned- they both said equally unacceptable things, but Manhattan didn't get banned (he might have gotten a private warning, I'm not sure) just because of his position. And that's not to mention the 'Catholic church = pedophiles' thing that has already been discussed. Get rid of him already. :rolleyes:

Weird With Words
10-18-2003, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by manhattan
I did not blow a gasket.Personally, I never thought you did. I think you've become so comfortable with your regular use of slanderous venom that you no longer even notice it.I do not think that sailor is pro-child prostitution. I do think that in that thread he was being a pro-child prostitution liar. That's a distinction with a huge difference.Hmm, yes, a tricky, almost metaphysical semantics riddle.

Do you know what the definition of "is" is?. How about the definition of "reaching"?I characterized the lies as being motivated by "blind hatred of President Bush."I'd characterize, and criticize, you as being the main source of any form of hatred in that thread.

On rereading and after seeing the comments in this thread, it is clear that I was in error -- that I did not sufficiently make the distinction. I apologize for that. Not just to the moderators and the membership, but to sailor. Despite my extremely low opinion of him, neither he nor anyone else deserves to be called pro-child prostitution unless they actually are (which, again, I believe he is not).

I also do not believe that sailor is pro-Ba'athist. But I do believe he is a pro-Ba'athist liar.

More specifically, I think that every time he encounters the term "President Bush" his brow furrows, his neck stiffens, his temples get tight and little beads of sweat appear on his forehead. When he gets in that state, I believe that there is no lie he won't tell, no fact he won't invent, and no evil he won't defend if he thinks it will make President Bush look bad. [Simpsons Comic Guy]
Wort, apology, ever.
[/SCG]

Manny, I used to think that you were a jerk. Now I see that you're actually a pro-jerk-liar. And a pro-fuckhead-liar. And a pro-asshat-liar. And just a generally pro-surly-son-of-a-bitch-liar.

Johnny Bravo
10-18-2003, 10:05 PM
Please pardon my intrustion, but I've been reading this thread with interest.

Could someone please explain the difference between an X and X-liar to me? I still don't see the distinction, or even the intended distinction.

Bonus points for not using words with large syllables in said explanation.

Measure for Measure
10-18-2003, 10:25 PM
Johnny Bravo:
X-Liar is a piss-poor expression and we're hoping that it will disappear. Ok, actually, I'm hoping that it will disappear.

At any rate, see Batz Maru for an explanation. (ie. "So, the argument here is that manhattan was NOT accusing sailor of being pro-child prostitution, but of repeating lies that supported child prostitution, and THAT is what he meant when he said he was a 'pro-child prostitution liar'. ")

Fatwater Fewl
10-18-2003, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by sailor
>> Rationality seems to have fallen to the wayside long ago.

Nope. The original thread has continued pretty rationally with some very interesting posts by a number of posters. Manhattan has chosen to not return with the evidence which I was asking for. I suspect he does not have it. And there is plenty of evidence contradicting him. Plenty.
You asked this: Is there *any* rational person who can find evidence in that thread that I was defending child prostitution? As far as I can tell, that's a request concerning the posts in that thread preceding the time you opened this pit thread.

My comment concerning rationality referred to the opening of this thread and the continued strident posturing about your perceived injury and manhattan's perceived special status.

Soul Brother Number Two
10-18-2003, 11:35 PM
Manhattan's specious wriggling re: "pro-child prostitution" and "pro- child prostitution liar" is absolutely mindboggling. I simply cannot believe he could say what he said and believe it to be true.

I suspect he is one of those people who is congenitally unable to admit he's been wrong about something. Such people's capacity to learn and change are radically diminished. My old man is the exact same way. So I guess I feel sorry for manny in the same way I feel sorry for my old man.

That being said, manhattan's shot at Guin re: the Catholic Crutch is probably the most disgusting thing I've ever read on these boards. The fact he wasn't tossed after that, or at the very least relieved of his moderator duties, speaks volumes.

He comes off as a pretty reprehensible human being, although I'm sure he loves puppies and children as much as the next frothing lunatic. IMHO, YMMV, etc.

Measure for Measure
10-19-2003, 02:39 AM
------- "I suspect he is one of those people who is congenitally unable to admit he's been wrong about something."

I've seen Manhattan admit he was wrong. FWIW. I've also seen him backpaddle.

The_Raven
10-19-2003, 02:46 AM
Originally posted by sailor
Or is there anyone here who believes President Bush rapes children in the White House?


I'll take "Reeder" for $500, Jack...


:D

-Rav

RedFury
10-19-2003, 08:13 AM
A four page long thread to determine that manhattan is a card-carrying member of the True Believers Foaming and Frothing Lemmings 4Dubya Brigade®

And that's news, how?

Fuck him.

hawthorne
10-19-2003, 11:26 AM
It's news to me RedFury. I wasn't surprised by the vehemence in the initial thread, inappropriate though it was. I was surprised at the heavy use of the specious "the Cuban government controls everything" line. And I was dismayed by the weasel "X-liar" tosh.

Manny's a right-winger, but over a very long period of time I've observed him putting the fight against ignorance first and making this place what it is (a place where the voice of reason does not have the stage to itself, but is always audible). In this instance I'm disappointed.

Those who say that manhattan is getting a soft ride have short memories. It takes a lot to get banned here if you're a well-established poster.

Weird With Words
10-19-2003, 06:38 PM
It takes a lot to get banned here if you're a well-established poster.You need only look to an earlier section of this thread to see that this is not always the case.

CnoteChris
10-19-2003, 07:43 PM
Zing!!

SkipMagic
10-19-2003, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by Weird With Words
You need only look to an earlier section of this thread to see that this is not always the case.

Being banned because of having a sock (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=2679597#post2679597) isn't equivalent to this particular case; hawthorne was talking about what you write, not as whom you write it.
Only one screen name is permitted per user. If you wish to change screen names please email an administrator. Use of multiple screen names is grounds for revocation of your right to post under ANY screen name.

At any rate, the unbanning for you and yer pop happened quickly and Lynn admitted her mistake. Other than being casuistical or offering that up as fun tongue-in-cheek, I'm not seeing the relevance.

Weird With Words
10-19-2003, 09:55 PM
As I've said before in this thread, I don't find it remotely hard to believe that Lynn was just doing her job. And I don't think there was any great miscarriage of justice. But I also don't think they make any bones about the fact that they treat some similar cases differently.

Mtgman
10-20-2003, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by hawthorne
I wasn't surprised by the vehemence in the initial thread, inappropriate though it was. I was surprised at the heavy use of the specious "the Cuban government controls everything" line. And I was dismayed by the weasel "X-liar" tosh. This is the most important issue in this thread, and if we're not careful it can really cause problems in GD. Here is my take on the issue.

I think the distinction between an assertion that a particular person is Pro-X and an assertion that someone is a Pro-X liar is a distinction without a difference. The theory behind the distinction is that, although the motive was not to support X, the actual effect of telling a lie about X is that it will support X. Therefore, person A is now promoting X through the use of their lies. Their intention was to denounce position Y, but their rhetoric served to weaken the denunciation of X, therefore they are promoting X.

Look, if you want to accuse someone of being pro-X, then just do it. This Pro-X liar thing is just an extension of the logically dubious "useful idiots" theory. If a Poster A believes Poster B is lying in order to discredit Talking Head Q, who is denouncing position Z, but Poster A supports Talking Head Q and their message, then attack the lies. Saying Poster B is a pro-Z liar is just nonsense. Poster A has no idea if Poster B is pro-Z or anti-Z. All they know is that Poster A has critized the statements of Talking Head Q. It is fully possible to think Talking Head Q is full of shit and their assertions about issue Z miss the mark and still not be pro-Z.

Enjoy,
Steven

sailor
10-21-2003, 05:32 PM
[b]Mtgman[/], taking into account that he accused me of the same thing twice with different words there is just no doubt that he was directly insulting me and smearing me and trying to discredit me because he could not discredit my arguments. He has a very short fuse, that's for sure

Now the whole X-liar thing is a pathetic attempt at weaseling and justifying what he did. It is so ridiculously convoluted and false that it is worthy of Johnny Cochran.

It is the same tactic of those who say that if you do not agree with presient Bush then you are pro-terrorist.

Or, as happened in some thread quite some time ago where someone claimed a *huge* percentage of women were raped during their lifetimes. Anyone who questioned the statistic was branded pretty much pro-rape or, at least, indiferent to rape. With people like that you can't win.

Weird With Words
10-21-2003, 06:04 PM
Sailor, m'man, it's time to drop it.

Your purposes have been well served, most everyone here sees that manny's a dick, and will be even more likely to react when he says something like that again. And we both know he will.

No purpose could be served by keeping this thread going any longer.

Pit Vulture
10-21-2003, 09:30 PM
Weird With Words-
most everyone here sees that manny's a dick, and will be even more likely to react when he says something like that again. And we both know he will.
So this means we can try?
::Brushes off electric antagonizer::

Captain Amazing
10-22-2003, 01:46 AM
Originally posted by Johnny Bravo
Could someone please explain the difference between an X and X-liar to me? I still don't see the distinction, or even the intended distinction.

Actually, I read Manny to be saying "You're so eager to attack Bush you support a government that encourages child prostitution (Cuba) (by lying and saying it doesn't)"

Mtgman
10-22-2003, 03:18 PM
I guess I'm a pro-child prostitution liar too then. I also say the Cuban government doesn't encourage child prostitution. Although I couldn't care less about Bush's position on the subject. I've extensively supported my position in the original thread in GD.

Enjoy,
Steven

fruitbat
10-22-2003, 04:00 PM
For example, some of you might recall when a couple of years ago Manhattan blatantly baited a poster named Sultan Kinkari into getting banned- they both said equally unacceptable things, but Manhattan didn't get banned (he might have gotten a private warning, I'm not sure) just because of his position. And that's not to mention the 'Catholic church = pedophiles' thing that has already been discussed. Get rid of him already.

You are talking about this thread http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=91564&perpage=50&pagenumber=1

Un-Fucking-believable. I don't know (ahem) who you are Pit Vulture, but you can't be serious. Manny was just joining in one of the most deserved pile ons in SDMB history. I'm sure you hoped no one would bother to look that one up and actually read it.

I'm done with the substance of this discussion as I stepped in earlier to make my feelings known. That little attempt to impugn Manny by citing the linked thread however, was patently absurd.

elf6c
10-22-2003, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by essvee
Manhattan's specious wriggling re: "pro-child prostitution" and "pro- child prostitution liar" is absolutely mindboggling. I simply cannot believe he could say what he said and believe it to be true.

. . . .

That being said, manhattan's shot at Guin re: the Catholic Crutch is probably the most disgusting thing I've ever read on these boards. The fact he wasn't tossed after that, or at the very least relieved of his moderator duties, speaks volumes.

He comes off as a pretty reprehensible human being, although I'm sure he loves puppies and children as much as the next frothing lunatic. IMHO, YMMV, etc.

Having suffered through the entire thread I have to agree. No poster has fallen so far so fast in my estimation. His Jerk-ish shot against Guin is beyond comprehension.

Thanks to Gaudere for explaining the warning distinctions. It must be hard punishing a member that has given alot of effort to the SDMB in the past, but this Board is bigger then any one poster- well other then the Perfect Master.

_______-liar?

:rolleyes: