Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-30-2005, 12:33 PM
TubaDiva's Avatar
TubaDiva is offline
Capo di tutti capi
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: In the land of OO-bla-dee
Posts: 10,979

Reeder has been banned


Actually, TVeblen said it better already, and so I am copying her post from what was the last straw . . .

What is with Duhbya and his middle finger?
>http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6418796&postcount=21

Warned:

A question about GWB and his policies.
>http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=239154

Reeder's Official Bush-Bashing Thread
>http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=4635467#post463

The true face of Duhbyas daughter.
>http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5088561#post5088561

God Damn it..I despise people who say that because you are the working poor..
>http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=300889

Do you fear your government?

On posting personal information of other users.
>http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=307693

Enough. Way too much.

your humble TubaDiva
  #2  
Old 07-30-2005, 12:45 PM
Baker is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Tottering-on-the-Brink
Posts: 19,899
Thank you. there is a God.
  #3  
Old 07-30-2005, 01:18 PM
Good Egg is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,184
Now the board will be all conservative!
  #4  
Old 07-30-2005, 01:24 PM
aldiboronti is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Troynovant
Posts: 8,145
But this is a worrisome development!

Who is there to constantly remind us that Bush suxx? Say we forget?
  #5  
Old 07-30-2005, 01:36 PM
Squink is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yes
Posts: 20,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by aldiboronti
Who is there to constantly remind us that Bush suxx? Say we forget?
I'm sure someone will step into the breach, and do a better job of it too.
  #6  
Old 07-30-2005, 01:45 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,550
I wish I could work up some sympathy. But....

Vaya con Dios, Reeder. Some ignorance is invincible.

Regards,
Shodan

Last edited by TubaDiva; 07-30-2005 at 02:07 PM. Reason: fix coding
  #7  
Old 07-30-2005, 03:53 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,466
I do remember the gnashing that “this board is leftist, “this banning is a disturbing development” etc, when a doper that was on the right got banned. Here is proof that this board does indeed has prejudice: against jerks that is. And this leftist agrees with this banning.

I only hope that Reeder will learn the lessons of his bannings (IIRC this is the second and last banning), and then modify his behavior and continue the fight in an honorable way elsewhere.
  #8  
Old 07-30-2005, 03:54 PM
Steve Wright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 3,283
A nation mourns.

(Dunno which nation. Or why it's mourning, come to that. But I'm sure there's a nation mourning somewhere.)
  #9  
Old 07-30-2005, 04:02 PM
Liberal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Gone
Posts: 39,401
It is unseemly to bash someone who cannot respond.
  #10  
Old 07-30-2005, 04:06 PM
silenus's Avatar
silenus is online now
Isaiah 1:15/Screw the NRA
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 50,757
I wrote to Veb in his defense, but I guess that wasn't nearly enough to save him. I'll miss the leftist fool.
  #11  
Old 07-30-2005, 04:09 PM
Mr. Blue Sky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Up there, waiting
Posts: 17,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberal
It is unseemly to bash someone who cannot respond.
And yet, this isn't the first time. Nor will it be the last.
  #12  
Old 07-30-2005, 04:38 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,550
Thanks, Veb.

Regards,
Shodan
  #13  
Old 07-30-2005, 06:28 PM
Frank is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 20,471
It is telling that there has been no Pit thread opened about this. Nobody seems too upset.
  #14  
Old 07-30-2005, 06:43 PM
Mr. Blue Sky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Up there, waiting
Posts: 17,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by This Year's Model
It is telling that there has been no Pit thread opened about this. Nobody seems too upset.

I was thinking the same thing. I guess those who are glad to see he's gone are holding their tongues or haven't read this thread yet.
  #15  
Old 07-30-2005, 08:19 PM
Charlie Tan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Scania
Posts: 4,947
Will this mean the board is more centrist? Has there been a ballance reached now that both reeder and december are gone?

Anyway, even though I found his style of writing OPs obnoxious, I'm sad to see him go. The SDMB needs spice, both from the left and the right and reeder was spice. This board wouldn't be a tenth as interesting if we all agreed and were nice to each other.
  #16  
Old 07-30-2005, 08:43 PM
Patty O'Furniture is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Bangkok/52/Male
Posts: 8,870
And yet, Keith Olberman gets six figures for doing the same thing on national TV.
  #17  
Old 07-30-2005, 08:49 PM
EddyTeddyFreddy's Avatar
EddyTeddyFreddy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Exurbia, No'thuh Bawst'n
Posts: 13,173
He was asking for it, and finally got it.

Thank you, Powers That Be.
  #18  
Old 07-30-2005, 08:52 PM
ivylass is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Orlando(ish)
Posts: 22,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gaspode
The SDMB needs spice, both from the left and the right and reeder was spice.
As any good cook knows, too much "spice" and you spoil the dish. Reeder should have expanded his repetoire. He could be quite interesting when he wasn't on another Bush is Evil and Here is the Latest Proof tear.

I think he was given plenty of warnings and the mods were more than patient.
  #19  
Old 07-30-2005, 08:59 PM
Mr. Blue Sky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Up there, waiting
Posts: 17,203
While I never paid much attention to his political rants and ravings, he did recommend Hayseed Dixie (a bluegrass band specializing in rock covers).
  #20  
Old 07-30-2005, 09:10 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 34,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gaspode
Will this mean the board is more centrist? Has there been a ballance reached now that both reeder and december are gone?
Don't forget Brutus, who decided not to pay for another year.
  #21  
Old 07-30-2005, 11:28 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,391
"You just banned him because he was a liberal!"

Hehehehe, sorry, couldn't resist. Good job, guys.
  #22  
Old 07-30-2005, 11:47 PM
Maus Magill is offline
Not a real doctor.
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Nolensville, TN
Posts: 7,254
I agree with ivylass. Reeder could be an asset when he wasn't on yet another "Bush is Eeevil" bender.

I am saddened, but not surprised.
  #23  
Old 07-31-2005, 01:22 AM
Lord Ashtar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Blackwater Park
Posts: 9,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by This Year's Model
It is telling that there has been no Pit thread opened about this. Nobody seems too upset.
You had to know this was coming.
  #24  
Old 07-31-2005, 01:28 AM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,096
Well, i've disagreed with quite a few bannings in the past, including december's, and i disagree with this one too. Reeder annoyed the fuck out of me at times, and i often felt that he did more harm than good to causes that i hold dear. But this banning is silly. The Mods have had a hard-on for Reeder for ages now, and the alleged last straw was a thread that, if opened by anyone else, wouldn't even have raised an eyebrow. At most, it would have been moved to MPSIMS.

Another piss-poor showing, IMO.
  #25  
Old 07-31-2005, 03:03 AM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberal
It is unseemly to bash someone who cannot respond.
Not only unseemly, but cowardly to boot.

I can't say that Reeder didn't get warned and didn't cross the line. But I can say that he did contibute here, and thus I donn't think he should have been banned. But then again, I disagree with the banning of any well established poster who has made contributions.

I think we should ban socks, trolls, and spamsters. Others should be suspended.
  #26  
Old 07-31-2005, 03:07 AM
Excalibre is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,585
So long, darling! You had so many chances to knock it off, and yet you didn't. Have a nice life!
  #27  
Old 07-31-2005, 08:46 AM
KGS is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Porn Capital USA
Posts: 4,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo
...and the alleged last straw was a thread that, if opened by anyone else, wouldn't even have raised an eyebrow.
Oh come now. You should know by now that a long-time poster with a good reputation can get away with A LOT more than a newbie or somebody with a long history of acting like a broken record. Heck, there are times when I'd be in a rotten mood and post something deliberately inflammatory, trying to start a flame war...only to be shot down by a chorus of, "Hmm, I understand where you're coming from but I must respectfully disagree with you..."

That's the problem with being a nice guy, you quickly learn that you can't become an asshole overnight.
  #28  
Old 07-31-2005, 09:42 AM
Frank is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kettering, Ohio
Posts: 20,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ashtar
Yeah, but consider the source.
  #29  
Old 07-31-2005, 09:50 AM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by KGS
Oh come now. You should know by now that a long-time poster with a good reputation can get away with A LOT more than a newbie or somebody with a long history of acting like a broken record. Heck, there are times when I'd be in a rotten mood and post something deliberately inflammatory, trying to start a flame war...only to be shot down by a chorus of, "Hmm, I understand where you're coming from but I must respectfully disagree with you..."

That's the problem with being a nice guy, you quickly learn that you can't become an asshole overnight.
You are certainly correct that a long and largely-unblemished posting history probably gives a person a little more leeway. But, in this particular case, it seemed to me that the final thread in question (the one with the video of Bush) was actually perfectly appropriate material for the Pit or MPSIMS. Not even a gray area that might get someone like Reeder a warning.

As some people said in that thread, i think that focusing on the little things that Bush does tends to distract attention from his enormities, but the fact is that the President of the United States (any president—Democrat or Republican) giving the middle finger will nearly always be a newsworthy and discussion-worthy event.

Hell, it doesn't even have to be the President. Can you imagine the outrage you'd see among some groups in America and on these message boards if Hillary Clinton did something similar?
  #30  
Old 07-31-2005, 09:53 AM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 34,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo
The Mods have had a hard-on for Reeder for ages now, and the alleged last straw was a thread that, if opened by anyone else, wouldn't even have raised an eyebrow.
Meh. Reeder had a standing warning to keep his anti-Bush threads political, much like how handy had a standing warning to keep out of medical threads. Reeder violated that warning by posting a personal attack and now he's gone. Should've known better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
I think we should ban socks, trolls, and spamsters. Others should be suspended.
They've tried that. There have been a few dopers reinstated after an initial banning. The majority, like Collunsbury, ended up banned again. Should the Collunsburys of this board be suspended for every infraction? How many suspensions would one need before it sinks in?
  #31  
Old 07-31-2005, 10:11 AM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lute Skywatcher
Meh. Reeder had a standing warning to keep his anti-Bush threads political, much like how handy had a standing warning to keep out of medical threads. Reeder violated that warning by posting a personal attack and now he's gone. Should've known better.
The funny thing is, i agree regarding most of the other threads for which he was warned. Many of them were based on incidents that weren't even worth examining, or on a silly, content-free "question" used by Reeder to push his own one-track agenda.

But i actually think a thread about the President apparently giving the finger to a group of reporters is one that is well worth opening. It raises important questions about Presidential actions and decorum. Even more interestingly, in this case, it tells us something about the press itself. I mean, it should be clear to anyone watching that video that the raised digit was the middle finger, and yet the reporters who were present covered up for the President by insisting that it was a "thumbs up" sign.

Sure, Reeder's OP didn't exactly delve into these issues or call for a serious response, but i seriously believe that if anyone else had opened this thread, it would have been allowed to stay open, perhaps after being moved to MPSIMS or IMHO.

In closing the thread, Veb said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TVeblen
This thread is closed, because I'd close any lame Pitting based on such flimsy, fluffy grounds. "Gee, Notable Person X might be doin' sumpin' nasty in this photo."
Personally, i think that's bullshit. We've had plenty of threads in the past that based on photos or video of famous people doing stupid or embarrassing things. If such threads truly are going to be locked every time from now on, then it's just another moronic moderating decision, IMO.
  #32  
Old 07-31-2005, 10:18 AM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 34,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo
Sure, Reeder's OP didn't exactly delve into these issues or call for a serious response, but i seriously believe that if anyone else had opened this thread, it would have been allowed to stay open, perhaps after being moved to MPSIMS or IMHO.
No doubt. Reeder got there first and in doing so violated his standing rule. Had he just waited for somone else to make the OP, he'd likely still be here. Sucks to be him.
  #33  
Old 07-31-2005, 10:56 AM
even sven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: DC
Posts: 19,401
Usually I'm with the mods, but I think it's kind of a bummer to ban someone for simply being annoying.
  #34  
Old 07-31-2005, 11:37 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 38,550
Why did I call TubaDiva by the wrong name?

I blame Bush.

Sorry, TD. Thanks for fixing my coding.

Regards,
Shodan
  #35  
Old 07-31-2005, 12:00 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lute Skywatcher
The majority, like Collunsbury, ended up banned again. Should the Collunsburys of this board be suspended for every infraction? How many suspensions would one need before it sinks in?
But not all. There has even been a rather prominent member of Staff that was suspended then came back, and hasn't been banned or anything since.

What I am saying is that instead of banning a "well established poster who has made contributions", they should simply suspend that person. Not re-instated. Given a 60 day "time out" which comes off automatically.

In other words- "warn, suspend, ban" instead of "warn, ban".
  #36  
Old 07-31-2005, 12:11 PM
C K Dexter Haven is offline
Right Hand of the Master
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Chicago north suburb
Posts: 16,078
Our past experience has been:
When a normally well-behaved, conscientious, contributing member has a sudden (or temporary) melt-down, a suspension or "time out" is often helpful. And we have had people come back, after the stress-reduction, without serious later consequences.

OTOH, when we suspend a member who has repeated, consistent misbehaviours, depsite repeated warnings... usually when they come back, they fall right back into the old pattern.

No, it's not always the case, but the overwhelming preponderance of the time...
  #37  
Old 07-31-2005, 12:14 PM
Rufus Xavier is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The tar pits
Posts: 3,110
Poor duffer.

Won't somebody think of the duffer?
  #38  
Old 07-31-2005, 12:47 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,719
Quote:
What I am saying is that instead of banning a "well established poster who has made contributions", they should simply suspend that person.
It should be noted that we now have a policy in which we (generally) suspend long-time posters before banning them. In the case of Reeder, he actually received a suspension before that policy was in place, for the very purpose of getting him to modify his behavior.
  #39  
Old 07-31-2005, 12:54 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb
It should be noted that we now have a policy in which we (generally) suspend long-time posters before banning them. In the case of Reeder, he actually received a suspension before that policy was in place, for the very purpose of getting him to modify his behavior.
Well, then, I can't ask for more. Too bad it didn't work.

Thanks.
  #40  
Old 07-31-2005, 01:07 PM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,456
You'd think that Bush would have had more imagination than to simply copy the Trudeau Salute, particularly given Trudeau's positiion on the political spectrum and his relations with the USA.
  #41  
Old 07-31-2005, 01:28 PM
Excalibre is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 7,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo
But i actually think a thread about the President apparently giving the finger to a group of reporters is one that is well worth opening. It raises important questions about Presidential actions and decorum. Even more interestingly, in this case, it tells us something about the press itself. I mean, it should be clear to anyone watching that video that the raised digit was the middle finger, and yet the reporters who were present covered up for the President by insisting that it was a "thumbs up" sign.
Gosh, then it's certainly too bad Reeder didn't even try to do so. Posting contentless links just to watch the fighting that results is not something to be rewarded. If his manner had become so irritating to the board populace that it prevented us from having productive threads about relevant issues, that's his own damn fault for refusing to change his behavior after the Mods warned him several times.

Every special Reeder rule - one pit thread at a time, a suspension around the time of the election, no content-free Bush posts - was an effort to make up for the fact that he refused to exercise any self-control. His behavior has been problematic for a very long time, and he refused to change it, and it's to the board's detriment if it prevents us from examining the very real problems created by the Bush administration.

If Reeder's obnoxiousness made it harder to have interesting discussions on the boards, he deserved to be banned. In my opinion, it did. This message board is not here for self-expression; it's here to give members a chance to discuss interesting things and if one person's style continually obstructs that goal, and if after multiple chances to conform to the board's expectations he refuses to do so, he deserves banning. There are some places where his style would be welcome. But this isn't one of them, and I don't think everyone else here should have to make special concessions to his obnoxiousness - if in no other way than by ignoring him - rather than him changing his own behavior. The rest of us are better off without him. I like the fact that this place doesn't have some overriding principle that self-expression is paramount; I get enough of that everywhere else. Here, there's standards. Reeder knew what they were and decided, with just about every post, not to adhere to them. The only problem with this banning is that it took way too long.
  #42  
Old 07-31-2005, 03:06 PM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,096
I agree with most of what you say. I still find it problematic, though, that the final thread that led to the banning was one that, if started by any other Doper, probably would have been allowed to stand, or maybe moved to MPSIMS.
  #43  
Old 07-31-2005, 03:22 PM
TubaDiva's Avatar
TubaDiva is offline
Capo di tutti capi
Administrator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: In the land of OO-bla-dee
Posts: 10,979
You're missing the point here.

It's not that he transgressed in some huge way THAT time, it was the overall pattern of behavior. He showed to us, very clearly, that he was not willing to listen to any direction from management; that he was going to post what he wanted when he wanted regardless of what anyone else thought about it; that he had an unhealthy obsession with one topic and he was going to beat that topic into the ground over and over again until we did something about it.

We warned him many times to modify his behavior.

We closed a multitude of these threads all singing the same song.

We gave him time off to think about why this was a bad idea.

We sent him email cautioning him about his behavior.

I talked to him personally on the subject on more than one occasion; I wouldn't be surprised to hear other staffers did the same thing.

He continued.

He always returned to sing his same aria.

It was all useless. What more could we have done?

There was an element of "the straw that broke the camel's back" here as well; we had just reached the "no more" place. He took us there.

It's too bad.

your humble TubaDiva
  #44  
Old 07-31-2005, 03:39 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 34,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo
I still find it problematic, though, that the final thread that led to the banning was one that, if started by any other Doper, probably would have been allowed to stand, or maybe moved to MPSIMS.
And handy's posting in a medical thread would have stood if it had been anyone else. What's your point?
  #45  
Old 07-31-2005, 04:00 PM
samclem is offline
Graphite is a great
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Akron, Ohio
Posts: 26,202
tuba didn't include a link to a warning we gave Reeder which led to his suspension last October.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...40#post5357240



Quote:
Originally Posted by Reeder
Sam would have made a great Nazi.

[Administrator Hat ON] note--by Gaudere

Reeder has been put on an enforced suspension of not less than one month, based on this comment, his previous Pit thread posting, and prior warnings. Please take any discussion of this to the Pit. Thanks.

[Administrator Hat OFF]
[/QUOTE]
  #46  
Old 07-31-2005, 04:00 PM
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 31,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gaspode
The SDMB needs spice, both from the left and the right and reeder was spice.
I do not rejoice at reeder's banishment.

But it should be pointed out that, while dung may have a role in cooking (used as a shell around a baked item in some cultures, for instance), it is not considered a spice.
  #47  
Old 07-31-2005, 04:06 PM
samclem is offline
Graphite is a great
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Akron, Ohio
Posts: 26,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem
tuba didn't include a link to a warning we gave Reeder which led to his suspension last October.
I should have said that this post led to his being suspended. Not banned, but suspended. We actually worked with the guy. He just couldn't help himself.
  #48  
Old 07-31-2005, 04:12 PM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lute Skywatcher
And handy's posting in a medical thread would have stood if it had been anyone else. What's your point?
i'm sure you're smart enough to work it out.
  #49  
Old 07-31-2005, 04:33 PM
hajario's Avatar
hajario is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 15,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo
I agree with most of what you say. I still find it problematic, though, that the final thread that led to the banning was one that, if started by any other Doper, probably would have been allowed to stand, or maybe moved to MPSIMS.
Not if any other doper did the same fucking thing over and over and over after being warned several times.

Haj
  #50  
Old 07-31-2005, 04:39 PM
tnetennba is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberal
It is unseemly to bash someone who cannot respond.
What I was going to say.

De extorris nil nisi bonum
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017