manhattan & Gaudere sitting on a tree. . .

[sailor]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

And this is new how?

[London_Calling]

Manny, please don't let Gaudere down. You know it's a tough enough job as it is.

[robertliguori]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Stop picking on Gaudere. Just stop it.

[sailor]

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]

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]

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.
There's a whole forum for name-calling and guess what? This one ain't it.
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.
That's quite enough namecalling, LonesomePolecat.
We are NOT in the Pit, and everyone will refrain from namecalling in this thread, understood? Sheesh. Y'all know better.
Wow, this is late. However, Arcana, direct personal insults are NOT allowed in GD.

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]

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]

J. Michael Divney - Tourism in Cuba - "It is an island large, beautiful and unfortunate…"

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 -

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]

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]

Oops... that belonged in the original GD thread. Could a mod please delete it from here?

[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.

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

[Early Out]

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]

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.

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]

Would it make y'all feel any better if I spank him real hard? Because I will. Really.

[Weird With Words]

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]

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]

Zette- Yes! But only if he doesn't want you to, and don't take his word on it.

[Weird With Words]

Originally posted by Miller
Been lurking here a long time, I gather?

You gather correctly.

[elucidator]

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]

manhattan blows goats.

I have proof.

[Q.E.D.]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Wh...wh...what???

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

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Whoa. What the hell was that all about, Lynn?

[Desmostylus]

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]

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]

"Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."

- Mark Twain

[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.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Thank you. You scared the piss out of me. Who was I gonna argue with if he was banned?

[Miller]

[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]

Incidentally, sailor, I think this is a graphic illustration of how fair the Mods really are. So go bark up another tree.

[fruitbat]

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]

I see manhattan has reappeared. Have you no shame, sir?

[Q.E.D.]

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]

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.