Might as well try to nip this in the bud (Paterno thread references)

[Starving_Artist]

Somewhat before the Paterno thread ground to a halt I decided to stop posting in it. Paterno had died, my point had been made, and there seemed to be no reason to continue it further. I allowed the sniping at me and the insults and the lies to continue unabated and refused to allow myself to be drawn beck into the fray.

Subsequently various posters began to snipe at me in other threads, making allusions to the cardboard paper tube and insinuating that I’m a pedophile. I allowed that to go on without response for a while also, thinking that it would die down eventually, especially in light of the Sandusky trial which substantiated many of the points I was trying to make in the Paterno thread, and which acquitted Sandusky of rape in the shower room incident that gave rise to the Paterno thread in the first place and was the main point of contention between me and most of the other posters in that thread.

Finally I’ve gotten tired of seeing these postings and have decided the best course of action is to confront them wherever they appear with the results of the trial, and pointing out for the benefit of posters who may not be familiar with the Paterno thread that the insults and accusations they are reading are not only false but dishonest.

Predictably, the insults and insinuations about me have been allowed to continue unabated, but now that I’ve begun to fight back I’ve received at least one general mod note (i.e., not aimed at me alone) to knock off the Paterno thread discussion.

What I would like to ask is that either other posters not be allowed to mention me in regard to the Penn State/Paterno/Sandusky issue in any thread other than the Paterno thread, or that I be allowed to confront them with the results of the trial when they do so without my being subject to warnings for posting them.

I’m not saying that I’ve been treated unfairly by any of the mods so far, but I can see the handwriting on the wall and I want to avoid a situation where other posters are free to snipe at me at will while a response from me would be treated as off-topic argument and not allowed.

I imagine that a specific rule regarding a specific topic and a specific poster is probably not something the board’s administration will be particualarly interested in implementing, but if not I think I should at least be able to post a short rebuttal to the effect that the jury heard all the evidence and arrived at the same conclusion I did.

So what say you, board admins and mods? May I to be allowed to confront these randomly appearing insults and insinuations as they appear, or can they made off limits outside the Paterno thread?

[Marley23]

I’m not comfortable with either of those proposals. In one you’re asking for permission to hijack threads and in the other you’re asking for a blanket restriction on people expressing opinions based on things you’ve posted. My advice is that if someone starts taking off-topic potshots at you, report the post and let the mods handle it. As a general rule we try to keep hijacks and off-topic sniping to a minimum.

[Starving_Artist]

I submit that the person doing the hijacking is the person who brings it up in the first place.

Why is my attempt to set the record straight a hijack but their random off-topic insult which was made first is not?

[Marley23]

@Starving_Artist

I submit that the person doing the hijacking is the person who brings it up in the first place.

Fair enough. You’re being asking for permission to continue a hijack (one off-topic post does not always do the job of hijacking a thread), and the answer is no. Report the posts and in most cases I would expect a mod to step in.

Why is my attempt to set the record straight a hijack but their random off-topic insult which was made first is not?

In this case that post was moderated.

@Marley23

You can post like this in the Pit, but not here. Stick to the topic at hand and don’t insult other posters.

[Starving_Artist]

@Marley23

Fair enough. You’re being asking for permission to continue a hijack (one off-topic post does not always do the job of hijacking a thread), and the answer is no. Report the posts and in most cases I would expect a mod to step in.

Respectfully, what I’m asking for is permission to set the record straight. If posters are allowed to scatter allegations that I’m a paper tube fucker and/or a pedophile all over the board and the only other thing they see is mods telling them to take it to the Pit or the Paterno thread, they can get the impression that the accusations must be true but the poster just isn’t allowed to talk about it there. Taken in their aggregate, it creates the impression that I’m someone I most definitely am not. So my primary concern is that posters not be allowed to sprinkle the board with defamatory remarks about me which I’m not allowed to rebut.

@Marley23

In this case that post was moderated.

I know. I’m simply trying to head off a problem I’ve seen many times in the past, where people post off-topic comments to or about me but it only become a hijack when I respond, with the result that I get accused of hijacking the thread. In other words I’m trying to establish a base for the future and not complaining about your moderation in the linked thread.

[Marley23]

@Starving_Artist

Respectfully, what I’m asking for is permission to set the record straight.

I understand what you are asking and why you are asking it, but I’m not changing my answer. It’s just going to result in threads getting derailed. I don’t think it will create the impression you are concerned about; it just means the subject is off-limits. And frankly, you’re not going to get the result you want by disputing the topic over and over anyway. The smartest thing for you is to report the posts when necessary and not respond because arguing about it will only keep the subject alive - and that includes its effects on your reputation.

[GrandWino]

SA’s complaints remind me of this joke.

A Scottish old timer in Scotland, in a bar, talking to a young man.

The Old Man says, “Lad, look out there to the field. Do ya see that fence? Look how well it’s built. I built that fence stone by stone with me own two hands. I piled it for months.”

“But do they call me McGreggor-the-Fence-Builder? Nooo…”

Then the old man gestured at the bar. “Look here at the bar. Do ya see how smooth and just it is? I planed that surface down by me own achin’ back. I carved that wood with me own hard labour, for eight days.”

“But do they call me McGreggor-the-Bar-builder? Nooo…”

Then the old man points out the window. “Eh, Laddy, look out to sea…Do ya see that pier that stretches out as far as the eye can see? I built that pier with the sweat off me back. I nailed it board by board.”

“But do they call me McGreggor-the-Pier-Builder? Nooo…”

Then the old man looks around nervously, trying to make sure no one is paying attention.

“But ya fuck ONE goat…”

[JohnT]

We don’t claim you’re a pedophile, SA. We just claim that you went through bizarre distortions to construct an argument that Sandusky and/or Paterno are innocent of what they’ve been accused, one argument which essentially asked other posters to try to screw a paper tube in the manner which Sandusky is being accused of raping the child.

If you don’t want the paper tube analogy rubbed in your face… well, perhaps you should have thought “How does this read to anybody other than me?” prior to clicking “submit”.

Just sayin’.

[Czarcasm]

I’m confused. Are you asking for the right to respond to off-topic responses, which will almost certainly result in others responding to your response, further deepening the hijack? Or are you asking for the right to give some sort of last word on any such hijack, with the mods stopping the hijack immediately after your response?

[Shodan]

DNFTT, SA. Once they realize they can get on your nerves that way, they will tag-team you so that none of them get banned, but you might.

Regards,
Shodan

[StusBlues]

The entire Paterno pit thread was an exercise in how a poster can destroy his credibility. Sorry, SA, but you’ve earned everything you could possibly get going forward, IMHO.

[VinylTurnip]

I guess some things won’t go away just because you ignore them.

What I mean is, some things can’t be stuffed back into tubes.

What I mean is…

[Starving_Artist]

@Marley23

I understand what you are asking and why you are asking it, but I’m not changing my answer. It’s just going to result in threads getting derailed. I don’t think it will create the impression you are concerned about; it just means the subject is off-limits. And frankly, you’re not going to get the result you want by disputing the topic over and over anyway. The smartest thing for you is to report the posts when necessary and not respond because arguing about it will only keep the subject alive - and that includes its effects on your reputation.

I’m not worried about my reputation as long as the facts get out.

Besides, it’s not like I’ve been re-arguing the Paterno thread over and over with these other posts. They only happen occasionally and I’ve simply been posting short rebuttals to the effect that the Sandusky jury agreed with me and that’s usually enough to cause the offender to skulk away.

Still, if reportage is my only option - and that’s something I’ve always been loathe to do - then report them I will.

@Shodan

DNFTT, SA. Once they realize they can get on your nerves that way, they will tag-team you so that none of them get banned, but you might.

Regards,
Shodan

Thanks, Shodan. You’re right. I probably made a mistake by posting this thread. I just seem to be having one of those days.

I think I’m pretty well done here for now…with the following exceptions :D:

@Bob Ducca

“But ya fuck ONE goat…”

But you see, sir, that’s just the problem: I ain’t fucked no goats!!!

@John T

We don’t claim you’re a pedophile, SA.

Many did in the Paterno thread and some have insinuated more recently in other threads.

@John T

We just claim that you went through bizarre distortions to construct an argument that Sandusky and/or Paterno are innocent of what they’ve been accused, one argument which essentially asked other posters to try to screw a paper tube in the manner which Sandusky is being accused of raping the child.

Yes, I did, but only after repeated refusals on their part to consider the geometries involved. I brought it up only as a last ditch effort to make them face the facts. It was not done out of salacious intent. In fact I thought it was ridiculous when people responded to it that way. I thought they were being disingenuous and phony.

@John T

If you don’t want the paper tube analogy rubbed in your face… well, perhaps you should have thought “How does this read to anybody other than me?” prior to clicking “submit”.

I don’t really mind the paper tube thing all that much. I’ve been kind of amused that it’s become kind of a semi-meme. If they were only talking about the paper towel tube I’d probably continue letting it slide.

@John T

Just sayin’.

Thanks.

@StusBlues

The entire Paterno pit thread was an exercise in how a poster can destroy his credibility.

See, now this here is what I’m at a complete loss to understand. In the Paterno thread I used logic and common sense to determine that what McQueary thought he saw was most likely mistaken, and I contended that no evidence had come to light that Joe Paterno knew what Sandusky had been doing and no evidence that he covered it up to protect his football program. Subsequent events have proven me right in each case. So how on earth has my credibility been damaged? This does not compute and I’m nowhere close to accepting it.

And now I’m out, at least for now.

[JohnT]

See, now this here is what I’m at a complete loss to understand. In the Paterno thread I used logic and common sense to determine that what McQueary thought he saw was most likely mistaken, and I contended that no evidence had come to light that Joe Paterno knew what Sandusky had been doing and no evidence that he covered it up to protect his football program. Subsequent events have proven me right in each case. So how on earth has my credibility been damaged?

Because you did this to defend a pedophile and those who covered up for him!

Do you use “logic and common sense” to defend Vlad the Impaler? Pol Pot? Slavery?

“Slavery is a better condition for mankind because owners take better care of their things than people take care of themselves. For example, I still own my grandfather’s pocket watch and it still runs perfectly! And you don’t see many obese slaves, do you?”

Might be logical and appeal to some forms of ‘common sense’, but it’s still a monstrous argument, no matter how ‘logical’ it is.

[Beastly_Rotter]

@Starving_Artist

Yes, I did, but only after repeated refusals on their part to consider the geometries involved.

Ah, but the strawberries! That’s where I had them. They laughed and made jokes, but I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, and with geometric logic, that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox did exist."

[Starving_Artist]

@JohnT

Because you did this to defend a pedophile and those who covered up for him!

Do you use “logic and common sense” to defend Vlad the Impaler? Pol Pot? Slavery?

“Slavery is a better condition for mankind because owners take better care of their things than people take care of themselves. For example, I still own my grandfather’s pocket watch and it still runs perfectly! And you don’t see many obese slaves, do you?”

Might be logical and appeal to some forms of ‘common sense’, but it’s still a monstrous argument, no matter how ‘logical’ it is.

Ahem, it hasn’t remotely been proven that Paterno covered up for him and Paterno is who I was defending.

And what I was defending in that thread was truth and due process, not a rapist. Do we convict a murderer of all murders in his vicinity simply because we know he committed some of them? No, we convict him of the ones where evidence supports the conviction. The number of kids Sandusky raped wasn’t the point. The point was that McQueary’s description didn’t support rape in that particular case. It is far more monsterous to convict people because we just assume their guilt based on similar crimes than it is to demand evidence that would prove their guilt.

And now I really do have to go. I have stuff to do that I’ve been putting off all day.

[Colibri]

Since the OP’s question has been answered to his satisfaction, and because this very likely devolve into a debate on the original question and/or criticism of the OP, I think it’s best to close this. Those who wish to debate the issues (again) or to criticize the OP may do so in the appropriate forums.