David B. Is A Patronizing Weasel

[Jodi]

I'm not sure who'll read this, but if anyone cares, it's a continuation of a fight set forth in the "You're Not A Chrisian ..." thread in Great Debates. I'm moving it here because that's where it should have been in the first place. DAVID, in his last post to me in that thread said:

In looking at some old messages (against my better judgment, instead of going to sleep), I found something interesting. In the "Is 'In God We Trust' Unconstitutional?" thread, I specifically pointed out to you on August 4:
quote "I don't like to be ignored -- and that is what seems to often happen in some of these threads when you respond. We go over the same thing, I explain it, you ignore it, I re-explain it, you ignore it, etc. By the time I've gone thru this a few times, I feel in a bit of a patronizing mood, I'm afraid. I'm not saying this always happens with you, but it's happened before and it's happened in this thread. I'm sure you'll blame me and say that I shouldn't fault you because you disagree, but if it were simply disagreement, it would be different -- and I don't think that's the case. So if you don't think this is happening, fine. There is certainly no way I can change your mind. But I'm not going to continue to play into it here."

Yes, you managed to cut and paste your statement, didn't you, but somehow missed my response which, to remind you, was:

I've said this before and I'll say it again: I never intentionally ignore any telling point that is made in a debate, here or elsewhere. I would suggest that if it appears to you that I am ignoring some point of yours, it might be because you are not adequately setting it out. Practically
speaking, if I ever "ignore" some point you consider important, immediately re-post it as a specific question and you will shortly receive an immediate answer. It seems to me to be disengenous to fail to point out what, precisely, you believe I am missing and then, several posts later, accuse me
of ignoring you. Moreover, if you recognize the tendency in yourself to be "in a patronizing mood," please restrain it nonetheless; you apparently recognize that it is aggravating and you must realize it does not advance your argument.

In my line of work, selective quoting is a sanctionable act, but in this medium it only highlights your basic dishonesty in posting only half of an exchange. And, just to remind you, I also said, in the same thread:

More than anything else, I absolutely despise being patronized. And I find statements to the effect "You just don't see the truth" or "If you really understood, you'd agree with me" to be supremely patronizing, as they imply the failure of the speaker to convince me of the rightness of their position is actually due to some failing on my part. This is the attitude you display.

NOW you say:

So, again, we see that I have said this to you before, so your complaint that I said it about you instead of to you is simply invalid.

My complaint, since you don't seem to get it, is that you decided to attack me in an entirely unrelated thread that had nothing whatsoever to do with your apparent problem with me, which arose in some other thread, since forgotten -- by me at least, though not, apparently by you. Your rationale appears to be that if you have a problem with me in one thread, it's perfectly okay to raise that problem in a different, unrelated thread some weeks later and when it is of no present relevance. Under your rationale, I can now wait weeks or months for an opportune time that you are discussing something completely unrelated and then post "Don't bother talking to David! He's a patronizing weasel without a shred of personal integrity!" That apparently would be okay, because I've brought my problem to your attention "before." Well, bullshit; it's not okay. If you have a problem with me, bring it to my attention when it arises and we'll hash it out. If you choose not to do so, then deal with it, instead of irrelevantly insulting me in a totally unrelated debate weeks after the fact.

I searched that thread because it was the one I thought I had reposted stuff for you at your request. However, in reading it, I see that I decided "it's not worth it to go over the others again." Even then, I was tired of repeating myself and being ignored (and I had repeated myself several times to you previous to that message).

Yeah, I've noticed that you "get tired" of "being ignored" by me, but I also now notice that you apparently don't "get tired" of dissing me in the middle of unrelated debates over points of style you were "too tired" to deal with when they actually were germaine.

I will concede that on the one I remembered, I did not repost when you specifically asked me to do so. I did post the same things several other times, mind you, but that's not what I said above and I recognize that.

Thank you ever so much. Would you like to try again, or shall I interpret that as a general admission that you are wrong to accuse me of ignoring you?

Just so we're clear, this is what has me as pissed off as it has ever been my misforture to be in this forum:

1. You post crap about me that has no relevance to the debate then in play, and that doesn't even address the substance of my posts -- specifically, you strongly imply that I willfully ignore arguments and do not proceed rationally "once my mind is made up" and you flat-out say that I am "without comprehension."

2. You do not have the personal integrity to address such comments to me, but address them to third parties, and you excuse that weaselly behavior by assuring me you knew I'd read it anyway.

3. You attempt to excuse it as "not really a flame," as if coming out of left-field to portray me as willfully blind and "without comprehension is not an insult.

4. It ends up, in the final analysis, that what you're really upset about is posts made in entirely different threads -- weeks earlier -- that raised a "problem" (in your eyes) that you were "too tired" to deal with then.

I repeat, you are a patronizing weasel and, as should be crystal-clear by now, I no longer have an iota of respect for you.

[andros]

Just being advocatus diaboli here, but Jodi when you said:

I never intentionally ignore any
telling point that is made in a debate, here or elsewhere. I would
suggest that if it appears to you that I am ignoring some point of
yours, it might be because you are not adequately setting it out.

Is is possible (again, not accusing you of anything) that you might be defining "telling point" differently than David (or Satan or whomever)?

That is, might it be possible that in some cases, you might be selectively ignoring points you don't wish to address?

-andros-

------------------
"Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!" Exceptions? None!
-Doc Bronner

[kellibelli]

And I find statements to the effect "You just don't see the truth" or "If you really understood, you'd agree with me" to be supremely patronizing,

Get used to it, that is exactly how he treats everyone.

Oh and Chiefscott...just because a woman vents does NOT mean she need an orgasm! And wasnt it talk like that that got you into hot water with the boss?

[tracer]

kellibelli wrote:

just because a woman vents does NOT mean she need[s] an orgasm!

No, but it couldn't hoit. (Unless she convulses really hard and hits her head on something.)

[zoony]

::::chewing thoughtfully::::

Just checking through the user agreement...doesn't seem to be anything in here about being invited to make comment...no, can't see a thing...Hmmph. I did find this, however:

I'm not sure who'll read this, but if anyone cares, it's a continuation of a fight...

I just wanted to let you know, jodih, that I care. Really, I do.

Z

------------------
"Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a rock."
- Will Rogers

[kellibelli]

Tracer...you smartass. ;)

[Mullinator]

Zoony - quite the humanitarian. Unfortunately, Jodih doesn't seem to appreciate your caring. I think you should now just post out of spite.

[AuraSeer]

jodih, just because you've never heard of a person, that doesn't mean they've never heard of you.

All discussions here are public. It's very easy for people to read them all without posting; they can easily form an opinion of the participants, without having to participate themselves. That's what lurking is all about.

------------------
Laugh hard; it's a long way to the bank.

[kellibelli]

Auraseer, I am afraid since I saw your picture I get all flustered when you post...


Post more.

I like it.

I agree with whatever you said.

Can I have your baby?

[David B]

Does anybody else familiar with the thread in which this started find it amazingly hypocritical that Jodi whined that I was talking about her, not to her, and that's why she was upset -- but now she posts a message in a completely different area of the MB, one I don't even normally read (I'm only here because I was told about this thread), at a time when I have said I may be so busy that I won't be able to reply? (I have about 15 minutes and, again, only even checked the MB now because I was told of this thread) But then, hypocrisy is what we expect from Jodi.

Oh, and on that quoting stuff -- more hypocrisy. She claims I didn't quote properly because I didn't quote what she had said. Big f*cking deal -- I wasn't talking about what she had said, I was pointing out that I had, to her "face," told her previously what I thought of her debating tactics. So why should I quote the whole f*cking thread? No reason, but Jodi wanted to take this < ahem > discussion to a different area where people hadn't seen her previous rantings, so she did so and changed the subject. In fact, she now changed her claim as to the reason she was upset. Earlier, she had said it was because I didn't direct my opinions TO her first. But when I showed that I HAD directed my opinions to her months ago, POOF! she changes the reason she's mad. What an amazing magician! Now if she could only make herself disappear...

[kellibelli]

Huh huh...DavidB said f*ck...

[David B]

Before Jodi shoots back and points out a flaw in my post above, allow me.

As I mentioned, I was short on time today. Thus, I had not yet even looked in on Great Debates since earlier this morning. During that time, Jodi posted a message in the original thread noting that she was coming over to the Pit. I had not seen it when I got here (as I mentioned, I was informed by somebody else about this thread, and came straight here). Therefore, the part of my post accusing her of taking this behind my back should be considered null and void.

The rest of it is still 100% in effect, though.

[VegForLife]

Not that Jodih can't take care of herself, here, but I thought I'd give a bystander's opinion based on her posts. David said:
Earlier, she had said it was because I didn't direct my opinions TO her first. But when I showed that I HAD directed my opinions to her months ago, POOF! she changes the reason she's mad.
I don't think this is accurate, David. Based on the posts I read in the GD thread, I got the distinct impression that Jodih was mad, or peeved, or that she lost respect for you, or whatever, because you didn't direct your opinions to her, as you mention above. When you showed her that you *had* directed your opinions to her previously, that didn't *change* why she was upset with you, it simply added to it. The statement that you made, and then your justification for it. . . I dunno, doesn't seem quite up to your standards. And that's coming from someone who's never before bought into any of the whining about your "selective enforcement" of the rules in your role of moderator, or your contributions as a poster. I thought you were a good moderator before, and I respected your point of view, and I still do despite Jodih's comments, but this time I think you dropped the ball.

(If that's too mild for the Pit, you can change it to, "this time you were an asshole.")

Rich

[Polycarp]

Now, you're apt to get this thread name changed to "I Disagree with Mr. Bloomberg's Position on How Posts Are Addressed"

Personally, I have little problem with David. He tends to argue from a very opinionated stance. Gee, and nobody else does? {Notice for the sarcasm-impaired: that was an example.}

I have a definite problem with what he considers "reasonable" because it appears to presuppose the conclusion. When I was studying logic, they called this circular reasoning. And nastier names.

However, in general, he seems to be quite moderate in his posts. And Jodi, I think you shot first in that little exchange.

Read back through the *entire* post. Brian posted an article that he found obnoxious. He has time and again noted that he has no problem with your and my Christian worldview but objects to people who attempt to impose theirs on him. He made one intemperate remark in the course of it, with a weasel-word (seem) included, and you jumped all over him for it. He tried to make it clear that he wasn't indicting you, and you jumped further on his shit. I tried to smooth the waters by showing him where the problem lay, he acknowledged that the phrasing was not the greatest and made clear that he was not slamming you or me, and you ignored both of us. David stepped in after having been away, and you took him on.

Hello, Jodi...you are not behaving like the "moderate Christian" you claim to be. I'm not saying that to slam you, but to hopefully wake you up. I've had people slam my comments too, and generally tried to deal with it pacifically. Occasionally I've shot a zinger back...did so today, and shocked Gaudere! Please take a chill pill, look the posts back over, do not let things in them anger you, and then see if we can repair all this. Thanks.

[VegForLife]

he acknowledged that the phrasing was not the greatest
Poly, can you point me to where I can find this? Serious question, I re-read the whole thread, and I didn't see anything like this, and I'd like to know if I missed it. I'm not sure I would have jumped into the fray had I seen something like this. I know you can't post links to actual posts, just threads, so if you can point me to the datetime of a post in that thread, that would be fine.

Whilst re-reading the thread in question, I came across the following. I was going to respond there, but this thread is going now, and even though this is intended as more of a nudge than an actual flame, I still think it's more appropriate in the Pit. Satan said:
I don't stereotype
Not unless you're a waiter and the people you're waiting on are black, right?

Rich

[Polycarp]

Rich:

The words Brian posted which I took as acknowledging that his phrasing was easily misunderstandable were these:
Poly: If you take the word "look" out of the snippet of the OP you quoted, you would have a very good point, IMHO.
When you take into consideration the last two paragraphs of my OP which you did not quote, I think it shows my tolerance level to be open-minded.

I left his second paragraph in because I think he was making clear that he was not tarring and feathering all Christians by his comments.

Further, since I seem to be quite literally Satan's advocate on this line, note his last post where he discusses his grandmother's racism and his own views. I think that there is a very clear line between stating that a given group of people tend to include those of a particular disposition and slamming all people of that particular group for that disposition. Brian said that when he was a waiter, more often than not, blacks failed to tip, or tipped inadequately (by the standard etiquette for tipping). He did not indict them as cheap, he did not say that all blacks fail to tip, he just reported his experiences. (He may, given what I know of him, have reasoned that they probably were not exposed to the sort of etiquette training we all got as kids that would lead them to tip "properly.") Was he generalizing and stereotyping? Yes. Don't most people? I think that I would probably get tarred and feathered for quoting half the arguments on this board approvingly to some of the people who sit out in front of the general store near where I live in rural North Carolina. I could be pleasantly surprised. But I suspect there are not a whole lot of liberal broad-minded folk among them. Am I stereotyping? Damn' right! I'm also saving my reputation and possibly avoiding a lot of trouble. I don't think Brian held a grudge against all blacks for those who failed to tip him, he just made the observation, and probably reasoned "I'm seating some black folks; they probably won't tip well." And then was pleasantly surprised when some did.

I could be wrong on what he was saying. And I don't hold that stereotyping is right. But people do it constantly. Being aware one does it, and why, and dealing with the difference between that and overt racism, is a good idea for everyone.

[Jodi]

ZOONY saysI just wanted to let you know, jodih, that I care. Really, I do.

And I care that you care -- to the exact same degree.

AURASEER says:

All discussions here are public. It's very easy for people to read them all without posting; they can easily form an opinion of the participants, without having to participate themselves. That's what lurking is all about.

Well, I actually was aware of this. What am I to make, however, of a "lurker" who's never bothered to exchange a single word with me but happily jumps all over me during my first appearance in the Pit? I don't think much of him, because it strikes me as a small thing to do, and because I wouldn't know him if I ran over him.

DAVID -- It's a big fucking deal, you patronizing weasel, because when you present only your side of it, it makes it sound like you took issue with me and I failed to respond. You conveniently left out that I called you on it then, as I called you on it now, but you were "too tired" to respond. When you present only one side of an exchange -- especially an old exchange -- you're being intellectually dishonest again. Yeah, the rest of your post is "100% in effect;" it's 100% bullshit, is what it is. Maybe you ought to read up on what you're talking about before you post.

POLYCARP -- I don't know what to tell you; you're absolutely right, of course, but I'm too mad about this to let it go yet (obviously). I honestly did not mean to "get in Satan's shit;" I posted late and poorly; reposted to try to clarify what I was saying, but the offense had already been taken.

That has nothing to do with my problem with David. If you re-read the posts, I think you will find that he posted an insulting post about me -- but not to me -- and I told him I found that pretty "junior-high" -- which it was. Then he jumped all over me. I'm actually glad I can't post over the weekend, because maybe by then I will have calmed down about this whole thing, but that doesn't mean I haven't meant every word I've said. I may well live to regret it (though I think so little of him at this point that I kind of doubt it), but I mean every word of it.

[pldennison]

To quote the great Gilbert Gottfried, "Oh, fucking shit my Christ!" I seriously doubt that had David addressed his comments to you rather than to Satan about you, you would have reacted any goddamned differently. In fact, I know it, from experience. You'd have leapt right down his throat. And what's more, you would have ignored the glaring hypocrisy resident in the fact that you did exactly the same thing to me.

Grow up, jodih.

------------------
"I love God! He's so deliciously evil!" - Stewie Griffin, Family Guy

[andros]

Jodi, SDMB is NOT worth getting so upset over. It's just an assload of electrons. Breathe, shut the computer down, and deal with reality instead of the Pit. Then maybe come back and treat this as the entertainment it is.

-andros-

------------------
"Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!" Exceptions? None!
-Doc Bronner

[VegForLife]

[I left his second paragraph in because I think he was making clear that he was not tarring and feathering all Christians by his comments.[/quote]
Thanks, Polycarp! I see your point, although I took it differently. Saying, "if you alter my statement by one word, you'd be right," seems quite a bit different than, "I didn't word my statement as well as I might have." (I don't mean to be putting words into anybody's mouth here, I'm just paraphrasing how I view the conversation to date.)

And I don't hold that stereotyping is right. But people do it constantly. Being aware one does it, and why, and dealing with the difference between that and overt racism, is a good idea for everyone.
I couldn't agree more with everything in that statement. I hope nobody, especially Satan, believed that I was slamming him for being a racist, that was certainly not my intent. As I said, my quote about the waiter wasn't intended as a flame, more like a nudge: I liked the juxtaposition between a claim about not stereotyping, coupled with an earlier, admitted generalization. Everyone I know generalizes to some extent, including myself; I just thought this particular pair of statements was funny.

In any case, getting back to the subject at hand, I view it as I view most of the more heated exchanges on these boards: a bit silly, a bit humorous, a bit serious. I think Satan made a misleading statement, which was only partially "fixed" by a subsequent statement in the OP. I think Jodih questioned it inarticulately. I think Satan defended it and attempted to explain it rather than amending it so that it *actually* said what I think he was trying to get at all along. I think Jodih continued to play semantics longer than she should have. I think David jumped in a bit inappropriately. I think Jodih over-reacted to David, and David returned the favor.

All in all, good fun!

Rich

[Jodi]

ANDROS -- You are the voice of reason, Polycarp is the voice of conscience, and Veg is a little of both. You're all right. I'm logging off and I hereby promise not to post again until Tuesday morning at the earliest, by which time I devoutly hope I will have regained a grip on myself. I need to have this popped blood vessel in my forehead looked at, anyway. ;)

[RTA]

David B. Is A Patronizing Weasel

Yes, he can be at times. He certainly knows how to throw his weight around on the "God-and-Aliens" board.
But he's a Rush fan, so I cut him a little slack.

[Contestant #3]

jodih,

You KNOW that I agree with you. You are quite correct in your labeling of DavidB as a patronizing weasel and I'd like to add that he's a bully and a hypocrite of a moderator.

He attacks me and insults me personally in virtually every thread that that I start in "his" forum.

In short, he's a first-class dickhead.

------------------
Contestant #3

[kellibelli]

Wheeeee!
The calvary is here!!


Took you long enough.
Missed ya buddy.
kelli

[Mullinator]

Everyone please reamin calm. Before this topic gets out of hand, I want to infrom everyone I have hidden explosives throughout the thread. We are changing course and going to Cuba. No funny business here. When we land in Cuba, my international team of spies will take all valuables and let you proceed on your way to either the 7th ring of hell or the pearly gates, whichever you so desire. The right of first passage with all flight attendants shall be mine and mine alone. Now back to your inflight movie.

------------------
Yes, the weather is the same up here. Yes, I play basketball. No, never heard a tall joke before. Aaaargh.

[pldennison]

I just can't help but revel in the wonderful, wonderful irony. I mean, it would be funny if it wasn't . . . hey, wait, it is funny.

------------------
"I love God! He's so deliciously evil!" - Stewie Griffin, Family Guy

[ChiefScott]

I think jodih needs some wild, unabashed, steaming-hot monkey sex. Ya know, j, if ya got yourself off every once in a while, it'd do wonders for your temperament!

[andros]

But Mr. Mullinator, sir, we were already HEADING to Cuba . . .

[Mullinator]

Uhhh, did I say Cuba. Quick I need another desolate, out of the way island.
OK, we are now going to Rhode Island!!

[zoony]

In my line of work, selective quoting is a sanctionable act, but in this medium it only highlights your basic dishonesty...

Heeheehee, Dontcha just fuckin' love lawyers?

In the dictionary, under Irony it says "See her."

Stewardess, can I get some more peanuts and an extra pillow?

Z

------------------
"Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a rock."
- Will Rogers

[Jodi]

ZOONY -- Another gratuitous post from someone who has never, so far as I'm aware, said one word to me in any forum whatsoever. Bite me, total stranger.

ANDROS asks "That is, might it be possible that in some cases, you might be selectively ignoring points you don't wish to address?"

No. At least, I'd hope not. I wouldn't intentionally do that because I personally think it's lame -- "I can't hear you -- lalalala!" I'd hope that I would acknowledge a relevant point made regardless of who made it, especially since I'm not usually adverse to changing my mind if someone can persuade me that their position is the better one. In any case, if I were to do that, the proper response (in my mind) would be for the other poster to post "Jodi, I asked you X. I didn't see an answer in your last post. Please address it." Not to say "you ignore my points," and then, when I say "do not -- repost them and I'll answer promptly" to say "No -- too tired" and THEN (and this is the part that bugs me) weeks later say "don't bother talking to her! she'll just ignore you!" See, even if I do do avoid particular points (which I honestly don't think I do), there's no reason anyone should let me (or anyone) get away with it. Re-post. Demand a response. But he didn't -- he was "too tired." But not too tired, as I pointed out, to jump on me without provocation in an unrelated debate. That's what ticked me off.

[ExTank]

Uh, Kelli? Not to be a nit-picking dickhead (which I'm going to be anyway :0), but:

Calvary is some kinda biblical thingy, I think it was the hill Christ was crucified on or somesuch.

Cavalry is those dudes in blue on horseback showing up just in time to save the day in those western movies.

Saying the calvalry has arrived (about C#3) is kinda saying a big middle-eastern hill has just showed up.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled dic-, er, posts, now in progress.

<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="BLUE">"(Former) Company D, 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment."</FONT>

[ExTank]

Now, to address the OP:

If there is a fault I find in David B., it's that he seems to get a little too involved in some of the debates.

I don't know what kind of guidelines or rules the moderators operate under, but I don't think being a moderator precludes a person from having an opinion, or from stating that opinion.

I've been "thwacked" by the moderators a couple of times, and took it like a man (or at least an adult), out of respect for the fact that they are doing a job I'm not capable of, or at least disinclined to do.

Most of the instances that I've seen David B. step forward and moderate seem to me to be called for, and good judgement calls.
If I were an argumentative trolling ass-wipe, I might see things a little differently, but I'm not.

I'm going to continue to be my caustic, slightly misanthropic self, and if any moderator sees the need to moderate me or to edit my posts (as Lynn did recently), I'll just suck it up and drive on.

Instead of whining about it.

<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="BLUE">"Shut the Fuck UP!" By Dr. Dennis Leary.</FONT>

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

FWIW, I think David B is quite fair as a moderator, and I think jodi has few grounds for complaints.
It's true, Ex Tank, that he expresses his opinions quite a bit, but I don't see why the role of moderator precludes this. In fact, one might say the moderator has a right to make thoughtful points, suggest new avenues for discussion or call down people making insults or advancing propositions not supported by fact.

jodih, you leave my David alone!! you skank! :o

[techchick68]

man......get me the Visine my eyes hurt from the heat in here....I have seen message boards where people rip one another asshole (repeatedly) but this posting takes the cake.

Sorry, but being new to these boards it's kinda funny.

I think these boards are to provoke thought and comment? I sent a buttload of my friends and family the link to the site because it seemed to me to be a place where intellectual people had something to say.

Not that I am saying this isn't warranted cuz I haven't been here long enough to figure out what is going on.

However, if one has a comment, one will make a comment. If one doesn't choose to respond, then so be it. But I wonder if flaming someone is the right way to handle the situation at hand.

Again, I am new here and looking at it from an outsider's perspective and it seems to me that there are better ways to handle this situation?

For the record, I will respond or create a thread to those things that strike me as something I want to commit time to. I refuse to banter on about the tea in China or the leg hairs on a goat. I prefer things that make sense to me.

Anyhow, as an outsider I hope that I have not made any enemies but bring about a thought pattern that others involved in this situation can break away and turn to more interesting subjects. (course I read each and every posting in this thread, kinda like hating soap operas but getting sucked in the plot of Gina and her need to be princess to steal a painting when you are home sick.<giggle>)

BTW....I apologize in advance if I end up doing the same thing <hehe>

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

If you haven't been here long enough to figure out what's going on, TechChick, why not maintain silence until you do?

[Kat]

ummm...Techchick, if you find the "heat" to be uncomfortable, perhaps you might find one of the other forums (General Questions, Great Debates, MPSIMS or either of the Comments forums) preferable to the BBQ Pit. Even if you didn't read the forum description (If you must flame, do it here) before entering, what sort of discussions did you expect to find in a forum titled "The BBQ Pit"? The purpose is to keep the flaming out of the other forums, in case you couldn't figure that out.

Peyote, that was a little harsh. Ever heard that a gentle answer turns away wrath?

Techchick, this thread is from the BBQ Pit. If you go to www.straightdope.com (http://www.straightdope.com) and click on the message boards, you'll see a list of the forums, one of which is the Pit.

The Pit is the place where posters spew venom and hash out angry irrational fights. If enemies get out of hand in, say, MPSIMS, the moderators will tell them to take it to the Pit.

The Pit is, and probably always will be, the place for infantile name calling and flaming. A lot of people have protested that, but if it doesn't happen here, it'll happen on the main boards. Some poor newbie will be flamed for asking about words ending in "gry" and transform into a troll. G-d knows we have enough already.

That's why Peyote was kind of mean, BTW. It's just a habit to be abusive in the Pit. But you're new, and get some leniency, and if the dirty little prick does it again I'll kick his ass. ;)

(winky face-- I was JOKING)

------------------
__________________
The Ai\ Yue- Ha\n FAQ:
1) Eye You-way Han
2) It's Chinese.
3) The symbols are tone marks.
4) No, I wasn't drunk when I registered.
5) Just call me John, OK?

Definition of jodih-FOOL


Please put me on your 'enemies list'; you skank.

Being showered with abuse by jabbering , twisted legalistic swine like you is a blessing from heaven!

I made painful & halting use of the search engine , & judging by: A-your posts ;& B- everybodies responses to those quotes; I can , as an individual who has not exchanged one byte of data with you directly & is utterly impartial; declare you to be A GIT, AND AN UTTER ASS, AS WELL AS A SWINE.

In other words, a lawyer. One of the people who made America into Hell.

------------------
YO-HO, ME HEARTIES! ALL HANDS ON DECK FOR THE MUSICAL BATTLE AT SEA!

[ExTank]

Damn, Dan!

You forgot to call her a complete and total SMEG HEAD as well. :D

<FONT COLOR="GREEN">ExTank</FONT>
<FONT COLOR="BLUE">"May a thousand AIDS-infested baboons with foot-long erections rape the sons and daughters of your enemies!"</FONT>

One of the more colorful curses I learned in the middle-east.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

Dear Daniel, not that I disagree with your opinion, but what exactly is a GIT?
The best guess I can make is goddam idiotic toad.
Inquiring minds want to know these things.

[Lynn Bodoni]

{{I'm going to continue to be my caustic, slightly misanthropic self, and if any moderator sees the need to moderate me or to edit my posts (as Lynn did recently), I'll just suck it up and drive on.

Instead of whining about it.

ExTank}}

I want you to know that it HURT to modify that post, too, it was a work of art.

And I hope I'm not near you next time you have a bad day.

Lynn

[techchick68]

1. I can have an opinion can't I?

2. Did you really read my posting?

3. GIMME a break.....good gawd, this is a free country, I can have a freaking opinion of my own.

4. I am thinking that my "newness" here is threatening to those that have been here a while.

5. Lighten up, I realize this is the area to flame.....good God, I was making my opinions known with the expression that I hadn't been privy to all the things that led up to this posting.

6. Get a freaking life and get off my ass, read my damned posting again and see my realization...

I wonder if there can be any humor in this thread? Like I said, I might make some enemies, but better enemies than enemas (sp)

BTW.....read my posting THOROUGHLY and you will see that I was viewing this as a freakin outsider (hahahahahaha) so there.

I wonder how many actually read the postings to to get a clear picture of the author's intent. And can make a clear assumption based on the original posting rather than pick the shit apart like a vulture on a carcass.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

TechChick68, yes, you certainly have the right to have an opinion. However, no one is obligated to respect that opinion, especially when it is expressed incoherently.

[kellibelli]

Lets all give a BIG WELCOME to thechchick...Kilroy's younger sister!

Welcome! I dont want you to think I am threatened by your 'newness'.


Spare me.

[Cornholio]

I am thinking that my "newness" here is threatening to those that have been here a while.
Are you threatening me?

[Mullinator]

Everyone, RUN AWAY!!! I am sensing some sparkling, brand spanking newness in the form of TechChick68. She has secretly stumbled upon the veteran SDMBer fear, that of newness. Much like krypton to Superman, newness to a regular is both debilitating and frightening, just without the neat greaan glow. So, TechChick, the pit is all yours now. We are all getting out of your pool of newness, please just leave us alone so we don't have to deal with and be intimidated by your newness. Yes, TechChick's newness, Scarier than an IRS audit, a ticking timebomb, or an Al Gore presidency.

------------------
Yes, the weather is the same up here. Yes, I play basketball. No, never heard a tall joke before. Aaaargh.

Techchick, what the hell?

Did someone flame you so horribly that the mods deleted the post?

Why are you angry?

You didn't seem to understand the point of the Pit. You wondered why we weren't talking about important topics and why we were flaming over worthless stuff. BUT THAT'S THE DAMN POINT OF THE PIT!

Your posts outside the Pit are intelligent contribution to the Board. Maybe it be best for all concerned if you just stay out of the Pit. I've only been here a month, but I've already seen 4 newbies pop up and be transformed into trolls because they overreacted to criticism. And posting a lot in the Pit is a good way to be criticised, because that's all anyone does in the Pit.

Just trying to help.

--John (thinking fondly of Shpaiers)

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

God bless you each and every one, and may your lives be long and wonderful.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

Take that, Ai\ Yue- Ha\n!

[tracer]

Oh yeah? Well ... well ... well, HAVE A NICE DAY!!! So there!

[DrFidelius]

I don't know how anyone could be stupid enough to like oxygen. Do you know what oxygen is doing to my car? Huh? Do any of you self-centered navel-gazers even give a damn about anyone else's car? Huh?

Lower than worm sweat, each and every mother's son of you...

[Polycarp]

Just a quick thought from Jesus (whose more benighted followers started the imbroglio that brought about this thread):

But I say unto you, return good for evil. If anyone castigates you, speak nothing but good to him, for thus you heap flaming coals upon his head.

From St. Luke, slightly paraphrased (because I don't remember the literal quote verbatim except the last line)

[Gaudere]

If anyone castigates you, speak nothing but good to him, for thus you heap flaming coals upon his head.

While I can endorse the reaction proposed here, I think it's a goofy way to encourage tolerance. "Be nice to people who are mean to you, 'cause it'll make them feel horrible (or get them punished in hell, I'm hoping the "heaping coals" is a metaphor)." Why not "If anyone castigates you, speak nothing but good to him, for thus he might see that he overreacted, and learn not to jump to conclusions so quickly, and become a better person for it." Are we such reprobates that we can be polite to someone who's mean to us only because it will hurt them?

Techchick, don't let the flames upset you here. This is the Pit--I could post "I like oxygen" and get flamed for it.

------------------
"Happiness is nonetheless true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting."
- Bertrand Russell

[andros]

Oh, so oxygen isn't good enough for the rest of us, Gaudere? Some of us are willing to defend our oxy-rights, you oppressor.

sorry . . . couldn't help it.

-andros-



------------------
"Listen Children Eternal Father Eternally One!" Exceptions? None!
-Doc Bronner

[tomndebb]

This is the Pit--I could post "I like oxygen" and get flamed for it.
Only if you, yourself, were flammable.
(Did you miss the thread a few weeks ago discussing the fact that oxygen does not burn?)