BS moderating.

[R. P. McMurphy]

This thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=14528985#post14528985

. . . was posted in GQ.

It was totally inappropriate for GQ, which Colibri, a moderator acknowledged.

Since it requires speculation, this thread wasn't really appropriate for General Questions in the first place. It would have been better for IMHO. But considering it's become such a train wreck, I'm just going to close it instead of inflicting it on the IMHO mods.


(It was really better intended for MPSIMS).

So, I've gotten a official warning because I "made a personal insult". This was my insult:

If you want to stick your fat nose into celebrity marriages go to the supermarket and buy a stack of tabloids.

Huh???? That's a personal insult?

Somebody explain to me WTF is going on here.

[the lone cashew]

Your entire participation in that thread was ridiculous.

[Colibri]

Yeah, that's clearly a personal insult, as well as a personal attack. You obviously intended it as such. Since you've been around awhile, and should know the rules (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7697044&postcount=10) (having been warned about personal insults before), I made it a warning instead of a note.

Are there any rules on insulting other posters?
Generally, you may not directly insult or personally attack other posters.

Some rules violations are more serious than others. Personal insults are a serious violation and will usually get a warning. Other rules violations, such as posting a thread in the wrong forum, are minor and will normally not even get a note unless the poster is persistent about it.

If you believe a thread is in the wrong forum, or you have some other problem with it, the appropriate thing to do is to is to report it and let the moderators handle it. Even your first post was inappropriate for GQ.

[R. P. McMurphy]

Your entire participation in that thread was ridiculous.

"ridiculous"

It was pertinent. I've been married (my only marriage) to the same person for multiple decades. I know something about the dynamic of marriage and how it is really only between the two partners. Marriage on day one isn't the same as marriage multiple years later. No one outside the marriage can judge.

Stay TFO of peoples marriages. The marriage contract is between the partners and is none of your business.

[R. P. McMurphy]

Yeah, that's clearly a personal insult, as well as a personal attack. You obviously intended it as such. Since you've been around awhile, and should know the rules (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7697044&postcount=10) (having been warned about personal insults before), I made it a warning instead of a note.



Some rules violations are more serious than others. Personal insults are a serious violation and will usually get a warning. Other rules violations, such as posting a thread in the wrong forum, are minor and will normally not even get a note unless the poster is persistent about it.

If you believe a thread is in the wrong forum, or you have some other problem with it, the appropriate thing to do is to is to report it and let the moderators handle it. Even your first post was inappropriate for GQ.

Cummon Colibri, you admitted that the post was in the wrong forum. My initial post was intended to be informative because there was never going to be a "factual answer" unless Bill and/or Hillary came on the board and submitted sworn testimony. Don't make me the fall guy for making a "call out". The mods were asleep on this one. Nevertheless, my initial response was pretty mild considering the acrimony that a "guest" of our Board sent my way.

I vehemently deny that If you want to stick your fat nose into celebrity marriages go to the supermarket and buy a stack of tabloids. is a personal insult or was intended to be one. Your presumption of my intention is totally wrong. That observation was more factual than the question in the OP.

[Chimera]

Dude, you used the word "fat". Are you completely unaware of the butthurt rage that word causes on this board?

[R. P. McMurphy]

Dude, you used the word "fat". Are you completely unaware of the butthurt rage that word causes on this board?

I wanted to use the word "pointy" but thought that might be worse. Sorry.

[the lone cashew]

I might be inclined to agree with what you're saying, but that thread was neither the time nor the place for those opinions, R. P. McMurphy.

[Oakminster]

The warning was well deserved---and would have been given in any forum on the board other than the Pit.

[MsWhatsit]

Huh???? That's a personal insult?


Yes. Happy to clear that up for you.

[Farmer Jane]

It was his humble opinion that it's not our business what the former President and the current Secretary of State are up to.

[Erdosain]

Cummon Colibri, you admitted that the post was in the wrong forum. My initial post was intended to be informative because there was never going to be a "factual answer" unless Bill and/or Hillary came on the board and submitted sworn testimony.

There are plenty of factual answers to the question, many of which were posted in the thread. Interviews with Bill or Hillary about their marriage, current living arrangements, whether Bill is still riding around in Ron Burkle's fuck-plane.

Just because you think people should not speculate or discuss other people's marriage doesn't mean it's wrong to do so. They are public figures of the highest order. It's natural to wonder.

[PlainJain]

Huh???? That's a personal insult?

Somebody explain to me WTF is going on here.
Not to pile on - just adding my 2¢ - I think the modding was spot on and, yes, that's clearly a personal insult.

[Darth Panda]

You conjecture on whether someone is ugly and demean the way they spend their time when you're not trying to be rude or insulting? Yikes. You may want to brush up on the social skills.

[AClockworkMelon]

Huh???? That's a personal insult?What do you think an insult is?

[Batfish]

...Even your first post was inappropriate for GQ.

You stated this in your warning post also, and I didn't understand why. Can you explain that for me?

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

You stated this in your warning post also, and I didn't understand why. Can you explain that for me?

It was finger-wagging at everyone who posted. Certainly not appropriate for a thread that was in GQ.

[Shodan]

I will mention also that saying Bill Clinton is not known for his commitment to the truth is not a political jab - it is a factual statement, and entirely appropriate to GQ.

Regards,
Shodan

[Zoe]

I would add a qualifier: Bill Clinton is not known for his commitment to the truth during his terms in office. (That doesn't let him off the hook. I just don't know if he continues the dishonesty or if he has changed his wicked ways.)

[Sparky812]

Your entire participation in that thread was ridiculous.

"ridiculous"

It was pertinent. I've been married (my only marriage) to the same person for multiple decades. I know something about the dynamic of marriage and how it is really only between the two partners. Marriage on day one isn't the same as marriage multiple years later. No one outside the marriage can judge.

Stay TFO of peoples marriages. The marriage contract is between the partners and is none of your business.


Nope, still ridiculous.
The OP had a valid question to which there are factual answers about the status of the Clintons' marriage. Your comments about prying or interfering were unwarranted and way over the top.



What is the state of Roth/Van Halen reunion?
Are they still recording together? Anybody seen them together since the reunion tour in 2007? etc...???

Thanks, sh



R.I.P. McMurphy writes:

Stay out of other people's bands.

Managing one's own is difficult enough. David and Eddy are both very ambitious people and that has worked out for both of them. It seems that the recording contract that they have between each other (whatever that is) has served to benefit both of them. They probably have a great deal of admiration for each other have worked it out between them. That's their business and none of ours.

Van Hagar looked like the ideal couple while the original line-up looked like a divorce in the waiting. Which marriage has survived? It seems to tell me that on some level they have a basic mutual respect for each other and want to stay together for whatever their reasons are. I would think that if they were going to break up it would have happened by now.

It's really none of our business.

[John Mace]

You stated this in your warning post also, and I didn't understand why. Can you explain that for me?

How did it contribute to finding a factual answer to the question posed in the OP?

We have plenty of forums in which to pontificate. GQ is not one of them.

As for the warning, perfectly appropriate. If the OP of this thread can't see why it's an insult, perhaps an anger management course is in order.

[chorpler]

Just to clarify, is it only an insult because he said "fat" nose? If he'd just said "If you want to stick your nose into..." would it no longer be an insult?

[John Mace]

Just to clarify, is it only an insult because he said "fat" nose? If he'd just said "If you want to stick your nose into..." would it no longer be an insult?

If not an insult, it would still be a personal attack, IMO.

[Farmer Jane]

How did it contribute to finding a factual answer to the question posed in the OP?

We have plenty of forums in which to pontificate. GQ is not one of them.

As for the warning, perfectly appropriate. If the OP of this thread can't see why it's an insult, perhaps an anger management course is in order.

The Mod said it was supposed to be in IMHO, so maybe the thread should've been treated as such.

Still, it was a little harsh if you read it wrong. I took it as "you" as in "you all". A judgment statement - one that belongs in IMHO.

[John Mace]

The Mod said it was supposed to be in IMHO, so maybe the thread should've been treated as such.
Not while it was still in GQ.

Still, it was a little harsh if you read it wrong. I took it as "you" as in "you all". A judgment statement - one that belongs in IMHO.
That's even worse. It's insulting everyone in the thread instead of just the OP.

[Vinyl Turnip]

I will mention also that saying Bill Clinton is not known for his commitment to the truth is not a political jab - it is a factual statement, and entirely appropriate to GQ.

You are correct: Bill Clinton would not appear on the list of politicians who are known for their commitment to the truth, which presently consists of the name "George Washington" with a line drawn through it.

[Czarcasm]

The Mod said it was supposed to be in IMHO, so maybe the thread should've been treated as such.I think we are supposed to treat the thread as if it is in the forum it currently resides in, otherwise it could get messy.

[John Mace]

I think we are supposed to treat the thread as if it is in the forum it currently resides in, otherwise it could get messy.

Officer, this road looks like a freeway, so why can't I go 65 mph even though the speed limit says 35?

[the lone cashew]

Coming into the thread to give everyone a busybody scolding is uncool in any forum. Don't see what difference it makes whether it was in Humble Opinion or not. The opinion McMurphy gave was out of place for the OP; not the forum. As far as the insulting comments, everyone knows what forum those are best saved for, but the whole condescending spiel was out of line. People are curious. If someone disagrees about whether they should be curious or not, this is not the way to go about it.

[Czarcasm]

Officer, this road looks like a freeway, so why can't I go 65 mph even though the speed limit says 35?Or...Officer, I saw the 35 mph speed limit sign, but the guy ahead of me was doing 65, so I figured I should get to do the same.

[srzss05]

When I first saw the title in GQ, I knew that thread would be a trainwreck and didn't even bother reading it until locked. I did think that the warning to RPM was a bit harsh compared to the handslap given to HH, but Colibri said it wasn't the first time so I guess that explains it.

[Smeghead]

There have been plenty of instances of moderators making questionable calls; calls about which reasonable people can disagree. Sometimes the rules aren't as clear-cut as we'd like, and circumstances have a way of being fuzzy, requiring the application of judgment.

This was not one of those times. You were being a jerk. You got called on it. The Earth continues to spin.

[Colibri]

I vehemently deny that
If you want to stick your fat nose into celebrity marriages go to the supermarket and buy a stack of tabloids.
is a personal insult or was intended to be one. Your presumption of my intention is totally wrong. That observation was more factual than the question in the OP.

That's a blatant, clear, unambiguous personal insult, directed at a poster that you quoted by name. If you are so completely unaware of what remarks might constitute an insult, to be on the safe side I would suggest that you restrict your future posting to the Pit.

You stated this in your warning post also, and I didn't understand why. Can you explain that for me?

R. P. McMurphy's initial post constituted both threadshitting and junior modding. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=320298) It might have drawn a mod note even in the absence of subsequent posts.

Threadshitting -- basically, shitting on a discussion, by belittling the topic or the people discussing it. It typically takes the form of a dismissive comment, like "Who cares?" or "This is stupid!" or similar. The implication of the threadshitter is that discussion of such a topic is beneath them, and should be beneath everybody else. If you really do think that a discussion is inane or pointless, the appropriate thing to do is to not participate in it. And, of course, if you see someone threadshitting, please do not respond with personal insults or accusations: instead, REPORT the post to a Moderator.

Junior Modding -- When someone who is not a moderator tries to dictate how another poster should act. Thus, usurping the role of moderator when not entitled to do so. (At one end of the practice, this is just seen as annoying and arrogant on the part of person playing "junior mod"; at the other end of the practice, this is a rules violation and warnable offense.)

Both these offenses are against the rules regardless of forum, so they would have been inappropriate even if the thread had been in IMHO.

There are plenty of factual answers to the question, many of which were posted in the thread. Interviews with Bill or Hillary about their marriage, current living arrangements, whether Bill is still riding around in Ron Burkle's fuck-plane.

True. Factual answers to the public aspects of the Clinton's relationship could have been posted in response to the OP, and some were. However, the private aspects require speculation, so the thread would have been more appropriate for IMHO.

Just to clarify, is it only an insult because he said "fat" nose? If he'd just said "If you want to stick your nose into..." would it no longer be an insult?

No, it still would have been a personal attack, as well as further threadshitting and junior modding.

The Mod said it was supposed to be in IMHO, so maybe the thread should've been treated as such.

I think we are supposed to treat the thread as if it is in the forum it currently resides in, otherwise it could get messy.

Exactly. GQ rules apply to a thread until it is moved to another forum. You should not respond to a thread according to the forum you think it should be in, but according to the forum it's in at the time.

Still, it was a little harsh if you read it wrong. I took it as "you" as in "you all". A judgment statement - one that belongs in IMHO.

The post quoted handsomeharry, and was clearly directed at him personally.

When I first saw the title in GQ, I knew that thread would be a trainwreck and didn't even bother reading it until locked. I did think that the warning to RPM was a bit harsh compared to the handslap given to HH, but Colibri said it wasn't the first time so I guess that explains it.

As a direct personal insult, R. P. McMurphy's offense was more severe than that of handsomeharry's. As I said, he should be well aware of forum rules in any case.

[Colibri]

I will mention also that saying Bill Clinton is not known for his commitment to the truth is not a political jab - it is a factual statement, and entirely appropriate to GQ.

A statement may be factual and still constitute an inappropriate political potshot. For example, it is a fact that Bush's daughters have had legal problems regarding alcohol, but it was entirely inappropriate to drag this into that thread, and this also drew a mod note from me. Your comment made no real contribution to the thread; you just took the opportunity to take a jab at Clinton without otherwise participating in the discussion. Your post was not appropriate for GQ, and future remarks of this kind could draw a warning.

[Shodan]

A statement may be factual and still constitute an inappropriate political potshot."Bill Clinton is an unreliable witness to anything" is no more a political potshot than "the sky is blue". Another poster used something Clinton said as evidence of the state of the Clinton marriage. Since Clinton lied about so many other things, including lying to Hilary about his affair(s), it is entirely appropriate to point out that Clinton's making a claim is worth nothing in an evidentiary sense.
Your comment made no real contribution to the thread; you just took the opportunity to take a jab at Clinton without otherwise participating in the discussion. False. I pointed the weakness in using "what Bill Clinton claims" as proof of anything.

Bill Clinton is a known and established liar. This is a fact, established by (among other things) the court that found him to have made false and misleading statements under oath. Facts are what we deal with in GQ, and if someone is going to present a claim made by Bill Clinton as if it were worth anything, it is appropriate to point out the weakness of the authority.

Or else I can just post something from Newsmax or whale.to as evidence of something, and y'all can just accept it.

Regards,
Shodan

[Colibri]

I'm not going to get into an argument with you about this. What you posted constituted a political potshot, and was against GQ rules. If you post something similar in the future, you may be subject to a warning.

[kidchameleon]

Totally not an insult...

I like fat noses and I can not lie
You other brothers can't deny
That when a guy walks in with an itty bitty neck
And a round thing in his face
You get sprung, wanna pull out your tough
'Cause you notice that schnoz was stuffed
Deep in the scarf he's wearing
I'm hooked and I can't stop staring
Oh baby, I wanna get with you
And take your picture
My homeboys tried to warn me
But that nose you got makes me so horny

[R. P. McMurphy]

Last thing and then I'm done with any comments.

The thread was in GQ for about 5 days, didn't belong there, and I finally responded. It was hard to believe that it hadn't been moved.

After the whole thing blows up the mod admits that the thread was in the wrong forum. I waited 5 days!

The only factual answer: They are still married. Lock it!

As to the insult. I guess it comes down to "fat nose". I used the word "fat" not as "ugly" or "disgusting" but as being too big. "Nose" was poking into other peoples personal lives (i.e., "keep your nose out of it). I have a particular abhorrence for tabloid journalism. I mentioned later that I considered using the word "pointy" but actually thought at the time that someone would take that as a slur. "Fat" seemed more generic. So, I got it wrong.

When some guest comes on the board and starts taking personal offense and talking trash to a response in a thread that is obviously in the wrong forum (as admitted by the mod), I would have hoped that the mod would give a little more backing to a charter member than a guest. I was wrong again. Lesson learned.

As to my situation, I am in a long term marriage. I was responding from many, many years of experience. I've been through "better or worse", I've been through "richer or poorer", now I'm deep into "sickness and in health" and hope to make it to "until death do us part". But you never know. Over sensitive and over reactive? Maybe. Stay out of speculating on my marriage and I promise not to analyze anyone else's marriage, celebrity or otherwise.

I rest my case and there will be no more comment. Think what you want. I think I've already been pillared but that's OK, I'm a big boy.

[John Mace]

I thought about reporting that thread, but decided there were enough people active in the thread and they would probably do it. But if you really think it's not being acted on, and you've already reported it, then open a thread in this forum asking why it isn't closed or moved or PM a mod and ask the same question. It's absurd to think that the rules are subject to how long a thread has been in the wrong forum. Especially since it's up to the mods to make that decision.

[Colibri]

The thread was in GQ for about 5 days, didn't belong there, and I finally responded. It was hard to believe that it hadn't been moved.

No one, including you, ever reported that thread for being in the wrong forum. The only reports I received about the thread at all were yesterday, and they were for the political jabs, not other issues. We don't necessarily read every thread in the forum.

After the whole thing blows up the mod admits that the thread was in the wrong forum. I waited 5 days!

This rather ironic, since you were the one who made the greatest contribution to causing it to blow up, and also because your overwhelming concern about it being in the wrong forum apparently caused you to violate forum rules in responding to it.

As to the insult. I guess it comes down to "fat nose". I used the word "fat" not as "ugly" or "disgusting" but as being too big. "Nose" was poking into other peoples personal lives (i.e., "keep your nose out of it). I have a particular abhorrence for tabloid journalism. I mentioned later that I considered using the word "pointy" but actually thought at the time that someone would take that as a slur. "Fat" seemed more generic. So, I got it wrong.

Like I said, you would have received a warning even without the "fat." It was a personal attack any way you look at it.

When some guest comes on the board and starts taking personal offense and talking trash to a response in a thread that is obviously in the wrong forum (as admitted by the mod), I would have hoped that the mod would give a little more backing to a charter member than a guest. I was wrong again. Lesson learned.

This is of course absolutely wrong. Your Charter Membership doesn't buy you the right to violate the rules. In fact, I would hope that you would be more concerned with following the rules. In enforcing them, I don't go by what title is under a poster's name.

[Red Barchetta]

In enforcing them, I don't go by what title is under a poster's name.

Unless it says "moderator," right?

[Sparky812]

When some guest comes on the board and starts taking personal offense and talking trash to a response in a thread that is obviously in the wrong forum (as admitted by the mod), I would have hoped that the mod would give a little more backing to a charter member than a guest. I was wrong again. Lesson learned.


Wow! This is one of the attitudes I find sickening, the entitlement of some posters based on their status or join date or the "noob" treatment of other posters.

Funny thing is, handsomeharry joined almost a year before R.P. Murphy, you don't see him appealing to the mods about preferential treatment.

[MsWhatsit]

When some guest comes on the board and starts taking personal offense and talking trash to a response in a thread that is obviously in the wrong forum (as admitted by the mod), I would have hoped that the mod would give a little more backing to a charter member than a guest. I was wrong again. Lesson learned.


Ugh. I wouldn't hope that and I'm glad to see the mods agree.

[Measure for Measure]

I will mention also that saying Bill Clinton is not known for his commitment to the truth is not a political jab - it is a factual statement, and entirely appropriate to GQ.

Regards,
Shodan Horsepucky. Your claim is widely disputed. While Clinton's testimony with regards to blowjobs was evasive, one example does not make a pattern, especially since he was dealing with a criminal prosecutorial team -- one who made a habit of breaking the law by leaking grand jury testimony. R. P. McMurphy's initial post constituted both threadshitting and junior modding. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=320298) It might have drawn a mod note even in the absence of subsequent posts. Emphasis added to for clarity. I agree it was borderline. However, I thought the gist of the initial comment was appropriate to GQ. Now I mostly don't care what rules they set here, provided they broadly serve the fight against ignorance. I'll adapt or go away - my choice. Still, I'd like to discuss threads------g in greater detail.

The concept emerged after Cafe Society was instituted. Here's a 2002 pit thread that discussed the idea, which had yet to be named (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-113608.html). I was one of the targets. As I see it the problem with threads------g is that it

can result in thread derailment and
rains on people's parades.
Thread derailment is a real issue, albeit one that I think can be managed. Parade raining is also a real issue in Cafe Society and MPSIMS. But I think substantive comments on the premise of a GQ OP are appropriate. Same for IMHO. To rule them off bounds risks compromising the fight against ignorance.

Ok, let's turn to the application. Stay out of other people's marriages.

Managing one's own is difficult enough. Bill and Hillary are both very ambitious people and that has worked out for both of them. It seems that the marriage contract that they have between each other (whatever that is) has served to benefit both of them. They probably have a great deal of admiration for each other have worked it out between them. That's their business and none of ours.

The Gore's looked like the ideal couple while the Clinton's looked like a divorce in the waiting. Which marriage has survived? It seems to tell me that on some level the Clinton's have a basic mutual respect for each other and want to stay together for whatever their reasons are. I would think that if they were going to divorce it would have happened by now.

It's really none of our business. That strikes me as something that needs to be said in such a thread. Now the OP demurred, and R. P. McMurphy escalated the situation, when he probably should have taken the opposite tack. And it would have been better if he didn't start with a 2nd person command (although frankly it doesn't look like Jr Modding to me -- he doesn't imply that any rules are being broken and the command seemed pretty rhetorical). To put this operationally, questioning the premise of a GQ, GD or IMHO OP seems acceptable and possibly helpful, although care should be taken not to derail the thread or create the impression that one is trying to shut it down. I am not a moderator: that is my proposal and perception, not a rule. It is of course debatable.


FInally:
Sorta odd having these 2 rules buried in "A Beginner's Guide to Glossary of Terms on Straight Dope Message Boards", ya?

[Colibri]

Ok, let's turn to the application. That strikes me as something that needs to be said in such a thread. Now the OP demurred, and R. P. McMurphy escalated the situation, when he probably should have taken the opposite tack. And it would have been better if he didn't start with a 2nd person command (although frankly it doesn't look like Jr Modding to me -- he doesn't imply that any rules are being broken and the command seemed pretty rhetorical). To put this operationally, questioning the premise of a GQ, GD or IMHO OP seems acceptable and possibly helpful, although care should be taken not to derail the thread or create the impression that one is trying to shut it down. I am not a moderator: that is my proposal and perception, not a rule. It is of course debatable.

I don't think it needed to be said, and I think the fact that it was said at all was due to R. P. McMurphy's personal opinions about marriage rather than anything problematic about the OP per se. Operationally, questioning the premise of a thread happens all the time in GQ and is par for the course. But in this case RPM was suggesting that the question shouldn't be asked at all for moral reasons, and has indicated that he thought it should have been locked.

Horsepucky. Your claim is widely disputed. While Clinton's testimony with regards to blowjobs was evasive, one example does not make a pattern, especially since he was dealing with a criminal prosecutorial team -- one who made a habit of breaking the law by leaking grand jury testimony.

This is ATMB. Let's not get into a debate about Clinton here. As I've pointed out above, the veracity of Shodan's post is not pertinent to whether it constituted a political jab.

[Stink Fish Pot]

Kudos to Colibri for handling the entire issue well. I once again marvel at the length that people will go, the time they will spend, on some message board slight. I also marvel at the patience of the mods, who aren't paid to be patient and wonder what motivates them to continue to do the job.



When some guest comes on the board and starts taking personal offense and talking trash to a response in a thread that is obviously in the wrong forum (as admitted by the mod), I would have hoped that the mod would give a little more backing to a charter member than a guest. I was wrong again. Lesson learned.

From my personal POV, I found the question a good one, even if you want to debate which forum it belonged in. I was just thinking about this subject last week, forgot about it, and saw the OP and popped in. They are public figures, and she is the current SoS. I think asking the question is legitimate, even if you don't.

With that said, you had a right to report the thread. But to post your personal views on why asking about the status of the Clinton's marriage (or any marriage, according to you) was wrong was just..... bizarre. :confused: For the life of me, I still can't figure out why something would have put you in such a state.


As to my situation, I am in a long term marriage. I was responding from many, many years of experience. I've been through "better or worse", I've been through "richer or poorer", now I'm deep into "sickness and in health" and hope to make it to "until death do us part". But you never know. Over sensitive and over reactive? Maybe. Stay out of speculating on my marriage and I promise not to analyze anyone else's marriage, celebrity or otherwise.


Just a question.... why on earth does your current marital status matter? No one was speculating on your marriage. In fact, until your reaction, I'll wager almost no one on this board knew of your marital status. Nor did they care. Most people don't come out to a public message board to probe into the lives of other posters. You've decided to volunteer information about your marriage to prove your point, but I simply don't get the point you are making. I didn't see anyone asking for your marital run down, and the fact that you are married or not, happy or not, was not being speculated on. Thanks for your pledge not to analyze anyone else's marriage. However, if this were true, you shouldn't have even entered the thread in the first place.




This is ATMB. Let's not get into a debate about Clinton here. As I've pointed out above, the veracity of Shodan's post is not pertinent to whether it constituted a political jab.

Bingo. A simple rule to follow. Taking jabs at Clinton (either one) is just a waste of time, and the discourse is predictable.


Maybe there is something else going on with some of you, but please... for your own sanity, blood pressure, and all around general health, try taking a day or two away from the boards. Spend some time with your kids. Or a pet. Or your favorite hobby. You may find that you can live without the boards all together. And as we've seen with the departure of a number of prolific posters, the board will go on.

[kidchameleon]

This is ATMB. Let's not get into a debate about Clinton here.

Did he get banned?

[Darth Panda]

Did he get banned?

I believe he was disbarred.

[Shodan]

I believe he was disbarred.

Reported.








:)

Regards,
Shodan

[Bryan Ekers]

I've been married (my only marriage) to the same person for multiple decades. I know something about the dynamic of marriage and how it is really only between the two partners.

Well, I've been insulting people for multiple decades, so I know something about the dynamic of insultage and how you created an obviously public incident.


I guess now I'll go read the thread in question, for the sake of thoroughness.

[C K Dexter Haven]

Moderator inserts:
Please note: we have no rules here about making insults directed at celebrities or political figures or other persons of note. Our rules are about not insulting OTHER POSTERS. Unless/until Mr Clinton becomes a poster here, discussion about him is pretty much irrelevant.